BEFORE THE
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF
CC DOCKET NO. 96-45
THE FEDERAL-STATE
JOINT BOARD ON
UNIVERSAL SERVICE
COMMENTS OF
THE COLORADO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION STAFF
April 11, 1996 I. INTRODUCTION 1 The Staff of the Colorado Public Utilities Commission ("Colorado PUC") respectfully submits these comments before the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") regarding Universal Service. Because of the extensive nature of the notice of proposed rulemaking ("NOPR") in this docket, the Colorado PUC will not address each portion of the NOPR separately. Instead, the Colorado PUC submits its adopted, but not yet effective, rules concerning to universal service and the associated support mechanisms. These rules are being promulgated by the Colorado PUC in response to the opening of the market for basic local exchange service in Colorado to competition. II. TREATMENT OF UNIVERSAL SERVICE AND ITS ASSOCIATED SUPPORT MECHANISMS IN COLORADO 2. In 1995, the Colorado legislature passed House Bill No. 95-1335 ("HB 95-1335 HB 95-1335 opened the market for basic local exchange service to competition. This bill specifically addressed the issues of universal service and the associated support mechanisms. Pursuant to HB 95-1335, the Colorado PUC has written rules prescribing (1) the procedures for administering the Colorado High Cost Fund and (2) the procedures for designating telecommunications service providers as providers of last resort or eligible telecommunications carriers. These rules were adopted by the Colorado PUC on April 1, 1996 and should take effect on or before July 1, 1996.1 The decision adopting these rules (Decision No. C96-352 in Docket No. 95R-558T), and the rules themselves, are attached to these comments as Exhibit 1. ------------------------------------------------------ 1 It is possible that the rules will be amended between now and July 1, 1996 because they are still subject to rehearing, reargument of reconsideration. ------------------------------------------------------ 3. The Colorado PUC believes that its rules should be used by the FCC as a model in those areas at issue in both the Colorado and this rulemaking docket.. The Colorado PUC urges the FCC to adopt the Colorado PUC’s standards because of the similarity between the pertinent provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and HB 95-1335. The Colorado rules address the following issues identified in section 254(b) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996: quality and rates, access to advanced services, access in rural and high cost areas, equitable and nondiscriminatory contributions, and specific and predictable support mechanisms. The Colorado PUC has not yet addressed issues relating to access to advanced telecommunications services for schools, health care facilities, and libraries. 4. Specifically, the Colorado PUC suggests that the FCC adopt rules whereby basic service, access to 911 service, and access to operator services are the services and features supported by universal service. The Colorado PUC has adopted by rule the following standards as defining basic service: 17.1 Basic Service Standard.
As part of its obligation to provide adequate basic telephone service, each LEC shall construct and maintain its telecommunications network so that the instrumentalities, equipment and facilities within the network shall be adequate, efficient, just and reasonable in all respects in order to provide each customer within its jurisdictional service area with the following services or capabilities: 17.1.1 Individual line service on the local access line; 17.1.2 Dual tone multifrequency signaling capability on the local access line; 17.1.3 Facsimile and data transmission capability of at least 2400 bits per second on analog access lines served from the public switched network when the customer uses modulation/demodulation devices rated for such capability; 17.1.4 A local calling area that reflects the community of interest of the area in which the customer is located; 17.1.5 Access to toll services, i.e., any telecommunications service provider granted authority to serve in an area in which the incumbent telecommunications service provider has provided the capability for a customer to presubscribe to different MTS providers for the use of 1 + dialing capability shall also provide that capability to all customers served in such area; 17.1.6 Customer billing, public information assistance, directory listing, directory assistance and intercept to the extent described in Rules 10, 11, 12 of these Rules Regulating Telecommunications Service Providers and Telephone Utilities, (4 CAR 723-2); 17.1.7 In the event of a commercial power failure, the telecommunications service provider shall continue to provide, through the local access line, power from the telecommunications service provider's power source to the network interface in landline (coaxial, fiber, copper, etc.) applications in order to support existing basic service to lines that utilize a traditional ringer; and 17.1.8 At a minimum, all telecommunications service providers shall offer basic telephone service (as defined in this Rule) by itself as a separate tariff offering. This provision doe not preclude the telecommunications service provider from also offering basic telephone service packaged with other services.
17.2 Universal Service Availability Standard.
In order to maintain a reasonable uniformity between all localities in the state for adequate basic telephone service in the ordinary course of its business pursuant to its certificate of public convenience and necessity, each LEC shall construct and maintain its telecommunications network so as to provide for universal (i.e. ubiquitous) availability of the following services or capabilities when requested by a customer within its jurisdictional serving area: 17.2.1 The basic service standard defined in Rule 17.1 (17.1. 1 through 17.1.8); and 17.2.2 E911 service, either by providing the necessary facilities and identification (name/number, etc.) information to a basic emergency service provider or as provided by the LEC under Rules Prescribing the Provisions of Emergency Reporting Services for Emergency Telecommunications Service Providers and Telephone Utilities, 4 CCR 723-29 shall be available to any governing body upon request; and 17.2.3 Services to which the customer may voluntarily subscribe that deny access to MTS or other information service providers.
17.3 Local Calling Area Standards.
Local Calling areas as established by the Commission shall be considered to meet the community of interest standard. Any telecommunications service provider that is granted authority to offer basic local exchange service in an area included within an exchange for which the Commission has previously established a Local Calling Area shall provide that same calling area to its customers, unless modified by order of the Commission.
Rule 17 of the Colorado PUC's Rules Regulating Telecommunications Service Providers and Telephone Utilities, 4 Colo. Code Regs [[section]] 723-2. 5. The Colorado PUC urges the FCC to adopt rules which enable a telecommunications service provider to receive support if the telecommunications service provider provides the above listed elements of basic service. It should also be noted, however, that the Colorado PUC recognizes that the above elements and services should be considered as a starting point and that this list is an evolving definition. See Rule 5 of the Colorado PUC's Rules Prescribing the Procedures for Administering the Colorado High Cost Fund, 4 Colo. Code Regs [[section]] 723-41, on Page 5 of Attachment A to Exhibit 1. 6. The Colorado PUC believes that the FCC should take into account the concept of local calling areas and their impact on the need of certain telecommunications service providers to draw from a support fund. The Colorado PUC has faced this issue and has made the provision of service within a local calling area, as defined by the relevant community of interest, a requirement for providing adequate basic local exchange service. The FCC should do likewise as the size, population density and geography of a certain local calling area bears directly on a provider's ability to provide universal service. 7 . The Colorado PUC also wishes to point out that it believes that funding should be applied to all access lines (business and residential) in rural and high cost areas. The Colorado PUC came to this conclusion when faced with the same legislative directive as is present in Section 254(b) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Namely, that its rules must further universal basic service at rates that are just, reasonable, and affordable and that are reasonably comparable between urban and rural areas. See [[section]] 40-15-502, C.R.S. (Supp. 1995). 8. The Colorado PUC suggests that access in rural and high cost areas be supported by equitable and nondiscriminatory contributions from all providers of telecommunications services, without exception. The Colorado PUC further suggests that the geographic support area be set by the state regulatory agency and not the FCC. This is because of the varied topography and population distribution among the various states. The Colorado PUC believes that an agency such as itself is in a much better position to determine the extent of a given geographic support area. Moreover, the Colorado PUC did not adopt the census block group methodology carte blanche but has used it as a starting point from which it intends to make necessary modifications. 9. With respect to specific and predictable support mechanisms, the Colorado PUC has decided that the most appropriate way to preserve and advance universal service is to require an explicit surcharge on all telecommunications revenues. As such, each provider's intrastate revenues would be used to support the Colorado High Cost Fund, and the Colorado PUC would urge that the FCC utilize the interstate revenues to support a federal universal service fund. This method is both predictable and specific and should be adopted by the FCC. 10. The funds generated from these support mechanism should only be made available to eligible telecommunications carriers. The Colorado PUC has decided that an eligible provider must provide basic local exchange service to all residential and business customers in a geographic support area in order to be eligible to receive Colorado High Cost funding. As such, the Colorado PUC does not require an eligible provider to also be designated as a provider of last resort. The Colorado PUC believes that Its methodology best advances the goal of promoting competition in the provision of basic service. 11. With respect to fund administration, the Colorado PUC wishes to stress its strong belief that local regulatory agencies are in the best position to fairly and economically administer universal service type funds. The Colorado PUC continues to be the administrator for the Colorado High Cost Fund. Therefore, it will be easy for us to take on the additional responsibility of administering a federal universal service fund. It is important for a government agency not interested in its own profits to be the administrator of such funds. This is especially true as it prevents any opportunity for a telecommunications service provider to enter into some sort of special and symbiotic relationship which could easily happen if the administrator was a private entity. This type of relationship cannot exist in Colorado because the Colorado PUC currently requires that it review for reasonableness costs submitted by telecommunications service providers before permitting the provider to receive a reimbursement from the Colorado High Cost Fund. See Rules Prescribing the Procedures for Designating Telecommunications Service Providers as Providers of Last Resort or as an Eligible Telecommunications Carrier, 4 Colo. Code Regs [[section]] 72342 (Attachment B to Exhibit 1). The Colorado PUC would recommend that the FCC adopt the same procedure with respect to the administration of a federal universal service fund, including the designation of the local regulatory agency as the administrator. 12. Finally, the Colorado PUC urges the FCC to adopt rules akin to Rules 17 and 18 of the Colorado PUC's Rules Prescribing the Procedures for Administering the Colorado High Cost Fund, 4 Colo. Code Regs [[section]] 723-41, on Page 12-20 of Attachment A to Exhibit 1. These rules provide for a transition from the old mechanism to the new mechanism which will exist after promulgation of these rules. This transition assists small basic local exchange service providers because it enables them to delay participation in the new mechanism until July 1, 2003. 13. In all other respects, the Colorado PUC suggests that the FCC fully consider the rules and the discussion in the attached decision (Exhibit 1) which have been adopted by the Colorado PUC. III. CONCLUSION 14. The Colorado PUC urges the FCC to adopt rules in accordance with those set forth in Exhibit 1 to these opening comments. Notably, this includes tying support to the provision of Basic Service, as defined in these comments, and providing support to all access lines. Dated at Denver, Colorado this 11th day of April, 1996
Respectfully submitted,
David A. Beckett, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General
Colorado Public Utilities Commission
1580 Logan Street
Office Level 2
Denver, CO 80203
(303) 894-2000
[The following attachment--(file 52a.html)--is not presently part of the online document. Ed.]
(Decision No. C96-352) BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF COLORADO
IN THE MATTER OF PROPOSED
RULES REGARDING
IMPLEMENTATION OF [[section]][[section]] 40-15-101
ET. SEQ. --REQUIREMENTS RELATING
TO THE COLORADO HIGH COST
FUND.
DOCKET NO. 95R-558T DECISION ADOPTING RULES ------------------- Mailed Date: April 1, 1996
Adopted Date: March 29, 1996
-------------------
   
BY THE COMMISSION.................................................1   
       Background and Procedural Matters..........................1   
   
DISCUSSION........................................................6   
       Structure of Rules.........................................6   
       Colorado High Cost Fund Task Force.........................7   
       Consensus and "substantial deference.......................10   
       Comments of the Universities...............................11   
       Funding for Access Lines...................................14   
       "Basic Service.............................................17   
       Payments into the Colorado High Cost Fund..................18   
       Provider of Last Resort....................................23   
       Eligibility to Receive CHCF Support........................24   
       Disclosure-of Colorado High Cost Assessments and Funding on   
             Customers Bills......................................27   
   
ADOPTION OF RULES.................................................30   
   
ORDER.............................................................30   
       The Commission Orders That:................................30