HomeMy WebLinkAbouttelecom.PDF2001
ANNUAL REPORTPage 33 IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
Idaho Telephone
Exchanges and
Company Areas
Citizens
CenturyTel
of the Gem State
Pine
Rural
Midvale
Oregon-Idaho
Silver Star
TDS
Cambridge
CenturyTelof Idaho
Direct
Fremont
GTE
Inland
Companies
Regulated
ATC
Mud Lake
Project Mutual
Blackfoot
Custer
Farmers Mutual
Qwest South
Filer Mutual
Qwest North
Unclaimed
Teton
Co-ops
IPUC11/19/01
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION Page 342001
ANNUAL REPORT
Idaho Telecommunications
Competitive Local
Exchange Carrier
Certificates
Approved in FY01
13
Total Approved
(as of 7/1/01)
57
A list of companies
issued certificates to
provide basic local
exchange service is
available at
www.puc.state.id.us/
FILEROOM/
UTILITIES.pdf
Interconnection
Agreements
Agreements or
Amendments
Approved in FY01
85
Waiting for competition
More than five years have passed since the passage of the federal
Telecommunications Act of 1996 made it legal for competition to develop for
local exchange services, but making competition legal has not made it happen.
Although regulatory barriers to competition in Idaho have been eliminated, most
Idaho consumers still do not have a choice, and the few who do have choices
are not enjoying the full advantages of competition envisioned by Congress.
Market forces, and not legal or regulatory barriers, are the primary
factors leading to the slow progress of competition in Idaho. The Idaho Public
Utilities Commission reviewed 13 applications for Certificates of Public Conve-
nience and Necessity to provide competitive local exchange service during the
year covered by this report, and had granted a total of 57 companies with
certificates by June 30, 2001. However, only a handful of these competitive
local exchange companies (CLECs) have made the market decision to actually
provide service to Idaho customers.
In the year covered by this report, the commission also approved 85
interconnection agreements and amendments to previous agreements between
incumbent telephone companies and competitors, including those providing
wireless or paging services. These agreements specify the terms and conditions
for connecting one company’s system to the others, in order that calls may
transfer seamlessly from one company to the next. They also include the terms
and conditions under which an incumbent will sell its services, or the individual
network elements that CLEC’s may use to provide competitive services without
duplicating the existing facilities.
The Idaho Telecommunications Act of 1988 allowed telephone compa-
nies to elect modified regulation for all but basic local exchange service. U S
WEST chose partial deregulation under Title 62 for its territory in southern
Idaho, beginning April 1, 1989. All telecommunications companies that only
provide long distance services also come under the provisions of Title 62.
These companies set their own prices and file price lists with the commission for
informational purposes.
Approximately 400 long distance companies have price lists on file with
the commission (although the number actually providing service to Idaho
customers is estimated to be only a fraction of that). After years of increasing
growth in the number of price lists on file, this number remained relatively stable
this past year. The general economic downturn, and the acute downturn in the
technical sector was visible here with the number of new filings equal to the
number of price lists withdrawn due to mergers, bankruptcies and decisions to
cease operations in Idaho.
2001
ANNUAL REPORTPage 35 IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
Idaho Telecommunications, continued
Approximately 400
companies had Title
62 price lists on file
with the Commission
at the end of July,
2001.
Services provided by the CLECs are not rate-regulated, but, in accor-
dance with the provisions of Title 62, are subject to the commission’s rules.
Telecommunications companies not providing basic local service, such as a long
distance company, are also not subject to rate-setting authority of Title 61, but
must comply with Title 62 rules. Upon complaint, the Commission may hold
hearings and order changes if the public interest is adversely affected, and may
resolve disputes between companies. Title 62 regulations require that price lists
be filed with the commission.
Commission staff reviewed more than 500 price lists or revisions to
price lists during the year. While the commission does not approve the actual
prices in the price lists, staff checks the terms and conditions of the price list for
compliance with applicable commission rules. The commission retains the
authority to review the quality, availability, terms and conditions of service
offered by economically deregulated Title 62 companies.
Until the Commission determines that incumbent local exchange compa-
nies (ILEC) face effective competition throughout an exchange, basic local
exchange service provided by an ILEC to residential and small business custom-
ers remains under the commission’s Title 61 rate-setting authority.
Only one major rate review was conducted during the year, for Inland
Telephone. As Inland is a recipient of state universal service support, customer
rates were increased to the statewide average. A net result was a reduction in
the amount of high cost support Inland would receive going forward.
More than 30 tariff revisions for price regulated services were reviewed
and approved by the commission during this year. Most of these involved the
introduction of new vertical or advanced services or adjustments to prices or
fees made necessary by other Federal Communications Commission or IPUC
orders.
Ensuring markets are irreversibly open
Prior to the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, Qwest and GTE
were restricted from carrying long distance calls outside their own market areas
or LATAs (Local Access Transport Area). This restriction was a result of the
breakup of AT&T. Such interLATA calls were carried by other long distance
companies. However, as GTE (now part of Verizon) was not part of the original
AT&T, the act lifted the restrictions on GTE, so Verizon Northwest may now
carry both interLATA and intraLATA calls. The Bell Operating Companies,
including Qwest, remain restricted from carrying interLATA calls until they can
demonstrate that they have irreversibly opened their markets to competition for
local exchange customers by complying with the items specified in the federal
Teleconmmunications Act, Section 271(c)(2)(b). The commission is participat-
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION Page 362001
ANNUAL REPORT
ing in multi-state collaborative proceedings as well as holding its own hearings
to determine whether Qwest is in compliance with the checklist.
OSS test
One of those proceeding is a 13-state effort to conduct a third-party
test to determine whether Qwest’s operational support systems (OSS) are
open to competitors in a non-discriminatory manner. This multi-million dollar
test is being conducted by KPMG Consulting, with Hewlett-Packard Consult-
ing acting as a pseudo-competitive company trying to place orders using
Qwest’s OSS. Liberty Consulting is conducting an audit of Qwest’s perfor-
mance reporting procedures.
The test is being conducted in what is known as “military style, or “test
until pass” basis. As the testing reveals problems with Qwest’s processes,
procedures or systems, Qwest is provided an opportunity to fix the problem,
and then the fix is tested. In theory, at the conclusion of the test, Qwest’s
overall OSS systems should be providing nondiscriminatory service.
Liberty’s audit had been nearly completed by June 30, 2001, and led to
improvements in the procedures used by Qwest in gathering and reporting data
that indicates how well Qwest’s systems provide service to its wholesale
customers.
Hewlett Packard Consulting’s (HPC) role as a pseudo-CLEC is to
“live the life” that a typical CLEC would experience in trying to establish a
wholesale relationship with Qwest. HPC had completed the work to establish
a pseudo CLEC, including attending the training Qwest provides CLECs and
developing and testing the software interface that provided it with access to
Qwest’s operational support system. Submission of test transactions was well
underway, with a number of issues already being addressed.
KPMG, as the overall test administrator, was analyzing all of the OSS
procedures and processes, including interviewing Qwest and CLEC personnel
and reviewing documentation and training materials. In addition, KPMG was
designing the test case orders that the pseudo-CLEC (HPC) would submit, and
gathering the data on how Qwest responded to those orders.
271 Checklist
A second effort involving seven states is examining Qwest’s compliance
with the non-OSS related issues. The Telecommunications Act identified a 14-
point checklist that Qwest needed to demonstrate it met before it would be
allowed to provide interlata service in its region. This multi-state collaborative
process examined these checklist items in detail.
Troy Telephone
Company
Ave. Residential Rate
= $12.67
Ave. Business Rate
= $19.00
Potlatch Telephone
Company
Ave. Residential Rate
= $11.75
Ave. Business Rate
= $17.65
Ave. Residential Rate
= $15.77
Ave. Business Rate
= $27.86
Midvale Telephone
Exchange
Ave. Residential Rate
= $22.44
Ave. Business Rate
= $40.98
Idaho Telecommunications, continued
2001
ANNUAL REPORTPage 37 IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
This process involved the use of a facilitator, Liberty Consulting, who
acted as an arbitrator for the proceedings. All proceedings were conducted on
the record, so as to develop a thorough record upon which the individual
commissions would base their final decisions. This process was primarily a
collaborative effort, and where possible, a consensus approach was used to
resolve issues.
Although the majority of issues were resolved without requiring a
decision of the arbitrator, the scope of the issues involved was broad enough
that several issues remained unresolved. The overall proceedings were exten-
sive and very time consuming. This process entailed many steps for each of the
checklist items, including:
*pre-filed testimony by the parties
*responses to the prefiled testimony
*oral arguments, including cross examination by the other parties.
These occurred in four- to five-day sessions, held at least once
a month, and twice a month a few times.
*post argument briefs, (and sometimes reply briefs),
*a decision by the arbitrator
*comments, exceptions and briefs on arbitrator’s decision.
The arbitrator had issued reports on checklist items 1 through 14 during
the period of this report, with proceedings scheduled through the remainder of
the calendar year to address overall public interest issues, including a Perfor-
mance Assurance Plan.
Performance assurance plan
The third effort, which had concluded and been rolled into the seven-
state process described above, included 11 states, and it investigated the
methods for ensuring Qwest’s market opening efforts are maintained after it has
obtained permission to cross LATA boundaries. This collaborative effort
attempted to create a Performance Assurance Plan (PAP) that would measure
the service Qwest provides to its wholesale customers and includes financial
consequences for deterioration of that service. This effort reached agreement
on a majority of the issues, but Qwest terminated the proceedings prior to
resolution of some of the key issues. The resolution of the remaining issues for
nine of the 11 states was then rolled into the multi-state 271 checklist collabora-
tive process, where the filing and hearing process described above was used to
develop recommended solutions to the remaining issues.
Direct
Communications
Ave. Residential Rate
= $24.10
Ave. Business Rate
= $42.00
Inland Telephone
Company
Ave. Residential Rate
= $21.63
Ave. Business Rate
= $40.68
Fremont Telcom
Company
Ave. Residential Rate
= $24.10
Ave. Business Rate
= $42.00
ATC
(Albion Telephone
Company)
Residential = $24.10
Business = $42.00
Cambridge
Telephone Company
Ave. Residential Rate
= $24.10
Ave. Business Rate
= $42.00
Idaho Telecommunications, continued
Local calling area extensions
Addressing customer petitions for expanding the calling areas that could
be accessed with a local call continued to require considerable commission
resources. Investigations are under way to address the calling areas of Potlatch,
and to consider including Ontario and other communities in Eastern Oregon in
the calling areas of most Southwestern Idaho customers. New cases involving
the Shoup and Three Creek exchanges were opened during the year.
Examination of high-cost support for non-rural carriers
Non-rural companies also serve some rural or other high-cost custom-
ers, and the cost of serving these customers is averaged with other, low-cost
customers when retail rates were established. This averaging of rates among
high-and low-cost customers is considered an implicit or hidden subsidy. In
response to enactment of Idaho Code 62-610 (A-F), the commission investi-
gated means to replace this implicit subsidy with an explicit, or visible means of
support. Such support is typically funded through a surcharge on all customers.
The commission initiated a docket to adopt a forward-looking cost
model for the purpose of evaluating the cost of providing intrastate telecommu-
nications services within the state. The parties provided comments and testi-
mony on various cost models and support mechanisms. After careful consider-
ation of the testimony and comments, the Commission approved the basic
structure of a new non-rural high cost fund, and the use of the FCC model to
identify and rank high cost areas. At this time, no companies were awarded
support, and no surcharge imposed. In the future, a carrier may petition the
Commission for support, and the Commission will determine the reasonable-
ness of that request at that time.
Local exchange companies
In addition to the north Idaho service area of Qwest which
remains fully regulated and subject to the provisions of Title 61, there are 16
other local exchange companies whose services are still fully regulated by the
Commission. Qwest’s Southern Idaho operating company is by far the largest
local exchange company, with more than 67 percent of the customer lines
(approximately 500,000) in the state. Verizon is a distant second, with about
130,000 access lines (about 18 percent). The Qwest north service area is the
third largest, with approximately 36,000, or 5 percent.
Citizens is Idaho’s fourth largest local exchange carrier, as it currently
has more than 20,000 access lines (3 percent). Fourteen other regulated
telecommunications companies also serve Idaho residents, as well as six mutual
or cooperative companies. These 20 companies serve the remaining 7 percent.
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION Page 382000
ANNUAL REPORT
Ave. Residential Rate
= $24.10
Ave. Business Rate
= $42.00
Ave. Residential Rate
= $17.50
Ave. Business Rate
= $35.10
CenturyTel of Idaho
Ave. Residential Rate
= $21.75
+ $3.50 rural adder
Ave. Business Rate
=$39.77
+ $3.50 rural adder
CenturyTel of the
Gem State
Ave. Residential Rate
= $24.10
+ $3.50 rural adder
Average Business
Rate
= $39.77
+ $3.50 rural adder
Idaho Telecommunications, continued
2000
ANNUAL REPORTPage 39 IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
Telecommunication Utilities Under
IPUC Rate Jurisdiction
ATC
P.O.Box 98
Albion, Idaho 83311-0098
208/675-5335
Cambridge Telephone Company
P.O.Box 86
Cambridge, Idaho 83610-0086
208/257-3314
CenturyTel of Idaho, Inc.
P.O.Box 1007
Salmon, Idaho 83467
208/756-3300
CenturyTel of the Gem State, Inc.
P.O.Box 9901
805 Broadway
Vancouver, Washington 98668
360/905-5800
111 A Street
Cheney, Washington 99114
509/235-3170
Citizens Telecommunications
Company of Idaho
4 Triad Center, Suite 220
Salt Lake City, Utah 84180
801/321-6602
P.O.Box 926
201 Lenora Street
McCall, Idaho 83638
208/634-6150
Inland Telephone Company
103 South Second Street
P.O.Box 171
Roslyn, Washington 98941
509/649-2211
Fremont Telecom, Inc.
110 E. Main Street
St. Anthony, Idaho 83445
208/624-7300
Midvale Telephone Exchange, Inc.
P.O.Box 7
Midvale, Idaho 83645-0007
208/355-2211
Verizon Northwest, Inc.
17933 N.W. Evergreen Parkway
P.O.Box 1100
Beaverton, Oregon 97075
503/629-2281
208/765-4351 (Coeur d’Alene)
800/483-4100 (Moscow)
208/263-0557, Ext. 204 (Sandpoint)
Oregon-Idaho Utilities, Inc.
P.O.Box 190310
Rincon Station
San Francisco, California 94119-0310
415/597-7811
714 Main Street
P.O.Box 1406
Caldwell, Idaho 83605
208/454-7800
Pine Telephone System, Inc.
P.O.Box 706
Halfway, Oregon 97834
541/742-2201
Potlatch Telephone Company
P.O.Box 138
702 E. Main Street
Kendrick, Idaho 83537-0138
208/835-2211
Rockland Telephone Company, Inc.
P.O.Box 269
147 W. 4th Avenue
Rockland, Idaho 83271
208/548-2345
Rural Telephone Company
704 W. Madison Avenue
Glenns Ferry, Idaho 83623
208/366-2614
Silver Star Telephone Company,
Inc.
P.O.Box 226
Freedom, Wyoming 83120
307/883-2411
Troy Telephone Company
P.O.Box 138
702 E. Main Street
Kendrick, Idaho 83837-0138
208/835-2211
Teton Telecom Communications
P.O.Box 900
Driggs, Idaho 83422
208/354-3300
Qwest Communications
North and South Idaho
P.O.Box 7888 (83723)
999 Main Street
Boise, Idaho 83702
800/244-1111
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION Page 402001
ANNUAL REPORT
Idaho Telephone Service Assistance Program
The Idaho Telephone Service Assistance Program (ITSAP), commonly
referred to as a “lifeline” program, provides credits to low income households
to assist them in obtaining and maintaining telephone service. Because the value
of telephone service increases as more households have a telephone, a small
contribution from all non-participating households is used to fund this program.
In response to federal changes to the program, the Idaho Legislature opened the
program to all low income households.
The credits include $3.50 per month per household in State funds, plus
$3.50 in matching funds from the federal government. In addition, the federally
imposed subscriber line charge is waived for ITSAP participants. This fee is
$5.00 for Qwest and Verizon customers, and $3.50 for customers of all other
companies. The combined value of federal and state credits is $12.00 per
month per household for Qwest and Verizon customers, and $10.50 for cus-
tomers of all other companies.
The Department of Health and Welfare established and administers
application procedures and eligibility determinations. Utilities are provided a list
of the telephone numbers for qualifying households and automatically provide
qualifying households with the credits.
The Commission is responsible for maintaining the fund and reimbursing
the telephone companies for the cost of providing these credits. Based upon the
estimates of the number of households eligible for the credits, the Commission
established the monthly surcharge paid by all telephone users, including wireless
customers, at 5 cents per line effective July 1, 1999. The Commission chose
not to change this rate during its annual review this fiscal year.
The ITSAP surcharge is assessed on all residential, business, and
wireless end users. The gross surcharge revenue is netted against the assistance
credits paid to eligible customers and the company’s administrative costs. Gross
surcharge revenues collected by telecommunications companies during the year
totaled $646,729,of which $426,841(66 percent)was assessed on local ex-
change services and $219,888 (34 percent) was assessed on wireless/cellular
services. At the start of the fiscal year, 20,706 households were participating in
the program. 26,628 households received the credit in September 2001. The
total value of the credits received by Idaho households, including the federal
match, was nearly three and a half million dollars.
ITSAP
Summary
Sept, 00 - Sept, 01
Credits Provided
Idaho Share
= $976,639
Federal Match
= $ 2,517,181
Total Value
of Credits
= $3,493,820
Fund Balance
As of 9/30/01
= $113,658
Idaho Telecommunications, continued
2001
ANNUAL REPORTPage 41 IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
Idaho’s Universal Service Fund
Telephone companies operating in Idaho have been required since July
1988 to contribute to a Universal Service Fund (USF) to ensure that the high
costs of small telephone companies do not result in rates that exceed the
statewide average by more than 25 percent. These local and long distance
companies are permitted to recover their contributions from local and long-
distance customers. Local exchange companies may apply for assistance from
this fund. They must submit proof to the Commission that when they set their
local rates at 125% of the statewide average, they still do not fully recover their
cost of providing local service. The Commission evaluates the circumstances
and determines whether and for what amount the Company may receive
Universal Service Funds.
Long distance companies connecting in-state long distance calls in
Idaho are required to remit a 0.35 cent ($0.0035) surcharge for each in-state
long distance minute. Those companies are also required to submit periodic
reports detailing their minutes of in-state toll usage. Local exchange companies
are required to remit on a monthly basis 10 cents (residential) and 15 cents
(business) for each line served. This is a decrease from previous levels.
Universal Service Fund Facts
July 1, 1999 ~ June 30 2000 Residential Business Toll Access
Statewide Average $17.46 $32.82 $0.0527
125% of Avg.$21.83 $41.03
Monthly Surcharge Rate $0.10/line $0.15/line
LD/WATS Surcharge Rate $0.0035/min
Fund Activity
Balance 6/30/00 $ 128,683
Collections Disbursements
Local Surcharge $1,401,216 ATC $514,238
Toll Surcharge $1,179583 Cambridge $167,381
Total $2,580,800 Direct Comm $221,847
Fremont $110,081
Disbursements $2,178,303 Inland $ 43,161
Admin/Amort/$ 29,096 Midvale $362,364
Bank/Brkr Rural $247,854
Interest Earned $ 9,222 Silver Star $163,101
$1,830,027
Balance 6/30/01 $ 511,305
Ave. Residential Rate
= $18.74
Ave. Business Rate
= $36.19
U S WEST South
Ave. Residential Rate
= $17.12
Ave. Business Rate
= $32.07
U S WEST North
Ave. Residential Rate
= $15.52
Ave. Business Rate
= $29.45
Teton
Communications
Ave. Residential Rate
= $24.10
Ave. Business Rate
= $42.00
Idaho Telecommunications, continued
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION Page 422001
ANNUAL REPORT
TRS service is
available statewide
and may be reached by
voice by dialing
1-800-377-1363.
Contact with a
text-telephone
operator may be
made by dialing
1-800-377-3529.
As of October 1, 2001,
TRS can be accessed
from any phone simply
by dialing 711.
Questions or
comments regarding
the use of TRS
may be directed
from either a
text or voice
telephone to
1-800-368-6185.
Idaho’s Telephone Relay Service
Idaho inaugurated telephone relay service (TRS) on Dec. 1, 1992 for
the hearing- and speech-impaired. TRS requirements were created by the
Federal Communications Commission under Title IV of the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990. The 1992 Idaho Legislature established the manner in
which TRS has been implemented.
Under Idaho rules, the Idaho Public Utilities Commission established a
seven-member telephone industry committee to help select and advise a TRS
administrator. In 1992, the Commission appointed Robert Dunbar as its first
TRS administrator.
This year, Mr. Dunbar consulted with representatives of the State
Councils for the Deaf, Hard-of-Hearing and Developmentally Disabled and with
the Industry Advisory Committee to formulate the invitation to bid for provision
of the relay service. The bid request was then approved by the IPUC. Hamilton
Telephone Co. of Aurora, Neb. was again selected to provide Idaho’s TRS.
In accordance with an Federal Communications Commission require-
ment, Idaho’s local exchange companies implemented 711 access to TRS
service on October 1, 2001.
A TRS call may be initiated by a text telephone user or a standard
phone user. The caller dials 711 or a toll free number to access the TRS center
and reaches a Communications Assistant (CA) who will process the call. The
caller gives the CA the number of the person to be called and the CA places the
call to that person. The CA will type to the person with the text telephone and
speak to the person with the standard phone, relaying exactly what is spoken/
typed by each party.
“The idea is to allow as close to normal telephone service as possible
for hearing- and speech-impaired persons,” according to Dunbar.
Callers only pay the cost of the telephone call, as if the call was placed
directly between the telephones. Long distance calls are billed based upon the
points of origination and termination and many long distance companies bill them
on a reduced rate basis. No charge is assessed local calls.
TRS service is available statewide and may be reached by voice by
dialing 711 or 1-800-377-1363. Contact with a text-telephone operator may be
made by dialing 1-800-377-3529. Questions or comments regarding the use of
TRS may be directed from either a text or voice telephone to 1-800-368-6185.
Information on Idaho’s TRS program is also available via the Internet at:
www.hamilton.net/relay/id/itrs.htm
All Idaho local exchange companies were required to pay four cents
($0.04) per access line per month, and in-state long distance companies were
required to pay $0.0007 per bill minute, to support the TRS. The commission
did not change this rate in 2001.
Idaho Telecommunications, continued
2001
ANNUAL REPORTPage 43 IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
Telecommunication Cases
Sept. 6, 2001
COMMISSION ORDERS DECREASE IN PHONE SURCHARGE
Case No. GNR-T-01-16, Order No. 28492
BOISE - Telephone customers statewide will contribute less to a fund
that helps phone companies provide service in high-cost, rural areas, under a
recent order issued by the Idaho Public Utilities Commission.
Residential and business customers will pay less to maintain the state
Universal Service Fund because of a healthier than usual balance in the fund.
Since July of 1988, telephone companies in Idaho have been required to
contribute to the fund to ensure that the high costs of small telephone companies
do not result in rates that exceed the statewide average by more than 25 per-
cent. The reason for the creation of the Universal Service Fund, according to
Idaho Code 62-610A, is that “all consumers in this state, without regard to their
location, should have comparable accessibility to basic telecommunications
services at just and reasonable rates.”
In its order, the commission directed that residential customers pay a
monthly surcharge of 10 cents per line beginning Oct. 1, 2001. That’s down
from the current charge of 14 cents per month per residential line. The surcharge
for businesses also decreases, from 26 cents per line per month to 15 cents. The
surcharge on in-state long distance and on wide area telecommunications service
(WATS) drops from .45 of a cent for each long-distance minute to .35 of a cent.
The decrease is warranted, the commission said, because payments to
the eight rural telephone companies that qualify for the Universal Service Fund
have decreased by about $600,000.
On June 30 of this year, the fund had a balance of $510,300. If current
surcharge levels were maintained, the fund balance would increase by $1 million
by June 30, 2002. The commission said the surcharges should be reduced so
that the USF does not build an unreasonably large reserve.
Companies that qualify for the Universal Service Fund and their head-
quarters include:
•ATC, Albion;
• Cambridge Telephone Company, Cambridge;
• Direct Comm, Rockland;
• Inland Telephone Company, Roslyn, Wash. (serving Idaho
customers in Lenore and Leon);
• Fremont Telecom, Inc., St. Anthony;
• Midvale Telephone Exchange, Inc., Midvale;
• Rural Telephone Company, Glenns Ferry;
• and Silver Star Telephone Company, Inc., Freedom, Wyo. (serving
Idaho customers in the eastern portions of Bonneville and Caribou
counties).
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION Page 442001
ANNUAL REPORT
Telecommunications Cases, continued
Ave. Residential Rate
= $23.48
Ave. Business Rate
= $41.42
Pine Telephone
System
Ave. Residential Rate
= $7.89
Ave. Business Rate
= $11.50
April 3, 2001
SHOUP RESIDENTS PETITION FOR TOLL-FREE SERVICE
Case No. GNR-T-01-3, Order No. 28694
Residents of the small Idaho community of Shoup are petitioning the
Idaho Public Utilities Commission for toll-free extended local telephone service
into the Salmon area.
Currently, calls from Shoup residents, who are served by Rural Tele-
phone Company, into Salmon, North Fork and Leadore, are long-distance
calls. Residents in Salmon, North Fork and Leadore are served by CenturyTel
of Idaho.
Residents of Shoup, about 22 miles north of Salmon, are requesting the
toll-free service because they say it is too expensive to make calls outside their
exchange area to contact local physicians and medical clinics, schools, social
services, Internet providers law enforcement and emergency services.
While extended-area service would create toll-free calling between the
two telephone exchanges, the costs associated with converting a former long-
distance route to a toll-free route are passed on to customers within both
exchanges by increasing rates for local service.
Sept. 27, 2001
COMMISSION CONSIDERING AREA CODE RELIEF
Case No. GNR-T-00-36, Order. No. 28859
Last May, an administrator appointed by the Federal Communications
Commission notified the commission that Idaho’s only area code would run out
of telephone numbers during the third quarter of 2003. The commission must
now determine the best way of implementing another area code(s) and contin-
ues to seek comments from the telecommunications industry and the public.
Typically, area codes are introduced in one of two ways - a geographic
split or an all services overlay. With a geographic split, the state would be
divided into two or more regions, each with its own area code. An all services
overlay would mean existing customers keep their area code while new cus-
tomers would be assigned the new area code.
Qwest, AT&T, AT&T Wireless, Verizon, Verizon Wireless,
Voicestream Wireless and Potlatch and Troy Telephone submitted comments
contending an all-services overlay is the least costly and most convenient option
because it would not require residents and businesses to change their current
area code. Residential customers who have submitted comments object to that
option because it would require 10-digit dialing for all local calls.
The geographic split options would retain 7-digit dialing for local calls
within each area code for the present time.
2001
ANNUAL REPORTPage 45 IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
Telecommunications Cases, continued
To allow for more input, the commission scheduled four public
hearings in Twin Falls, Coeur d’Alene, Boise and Pocatello. It also extended
the written comment deadline.
The commission has considered several methods for implementing a
new area code. Residential users who have submitted written comments
almost unanimously favor a geographic split. However, the telecommunica-
tions industry unanimously favors an “all-services” overlay which would leave
all current numbers unchanged and assign new numbers the new area code.
But that option would require 10-digit dialing for all local calls.
It might seem logical, as some have suggested in written comments, to
have area code designations that geographically match Idaho’s two time
zones. However, federal rules require that the projected expiration dates for
the area codes not be decades apart. Unfortunately, that would occur in
Idaho, if the time zone line was used for the area codes.
Industry argues that the geographic split would not last as long as an
all-services overlay and customers would have to adjust to a third area code
in about eight years. A geographic split would be more costly for all custom-
ers and more inconvenient, industry argues, because all customers in the new
area code territory would have to change stationery, business cards, Web
sites, fax machines, signs and other personal or advertising materials.
“Verizon and the rest of the industry acknowledge that some custom-
ers find 10-digit dialing to be an irritant,” said written testimony submitted by
Verizon. “This reaction has occurred to some degree in areas of the country
that have already implemented overlays. After a public information campaign
and a transition period, however, the new dialing pattern becomes second
nature and customer complaints virtually disappear.”
Opinion for a geographic split and against the overlay has been just as
strong, with the vast majority of written comments stating that dialing 10
numbers is too confusing, especially for the elderly and children and that one
home’s area code should not be different than a neighbor’s area code.
Many written comments and some testimony at public hearings
requested that the commission consider implementing three area codes. That
would considerably lengthen the expiration date of all three area codes, thus
preventing the state from having to go through this process in the near future.
However, no three-way split proposals have been submitted that
keep local areas together and meet the federal requirement that the area
codes’ projected expiration dates be within 10 years of each other.
The commission hopes to have a decision by early 2002.