BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Transcription

1 BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Order Instituting Rulemaking Regarding Revisions to the California Universal Telephone Service (LifeLine) Program. Rulemaking (Filed March 24, 2011) COMMENTS OF CTIA-THE WIRELESS ASSOCIATION ON STAFF PROPOSAL REGARDING THE PARTICIPATION OF VOICE OVER INTERNET PROTOCOL SERVICE PROVIDERS IN THE CALIFORNIA LIFELINE PROGRAM GOODIN, MACBRIDE, SQUERI & DAY, LLP Jeanne B. Armstrong 505 Sansome Street, Suite 900 San Francisco, California Telephone: (415) Facsimile: (415) Attorneys for CTIA-The Wireless Association Dated: April 2, 2015

2 BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Order Instituting Rulemaking Regarding Revisions to the California Universal Telephone Service (LifeLine) Program. Rulemaking (Filed March 24, 2011) COMMENTS OF CTIA-THE WIRELESS ASSOCIATION ON STAFF PROPOSAL REGARDING THE PARTICIPATION OF VOICE OVER INTERNET PROTOCOL SERVICE PROVIDERS IN THE CALIFORNIA LIFELINE PROGRAM Pursuant to the Administrative Law Judge s Ruling (1) Incorporating Staff Proposal into the Record, (2) Requesting Comments from Parties, and (3) Setting Comment Dates, issued in the above captioned proceeding on March 9, 2015, as subsequently amended by ruling dated March 18, 2015, CTIA-The Wireless Association ( CTIA ) submits the following comments. I. INTRODUCTION Consistent with the stated intent of Decision and the Assigned Commissioner s Ruling and Scoping Memo issued on February 3, 2015, 1 the Commission should focus this phase of the proceeding solely on rules governing the participation of Voice Over Internet Protocol ( VoIP ) service providers in the California LifeLine Program, and not seek to modify the rules governing the provision of LifeLine service by service providers using other technologies. Specifically, the Commission should not create a uniform set of enforcement rules for the California LifeLine Program, and should not adopt a uniform set of withdrawal, transfer, and exit rules for all California LifeLine providers, because such rules are outside the scope of this phase of the proceeding and no showing has been made in this proceeding to 1 Assigned Commissioner s Ruling and Amended Scoping Memo Regarding Phase II, Rulemaking (February 3, 2015) ( Phase II Scoping Memo ).

3 necessitate such rules. Given the Commission s recent amendments to the LifeLine rules that permitted wireless to participate, CTIA s limited responses to the questions raised in the ruling are for the purpose of ensuring the Commission s rules offer the necessary regulatory certainty that will encourage wireless providers to offer California LifeLine services to low-income consumers. II. RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS A. The Commission Should Refrain From Creating a Uniform Set of Enforcement Rules to Apply to All California LifeLine Service Providers While positing what enforcement rules the Commission should adopt for VoIP providers participating in the California LifeLine Program and whether it should adopt a uniform set of enforcement rules applicable to all participants in the program, the ruling fails to clarify what is meant by enforcement rules. The Commission has existing means to enforce rules governing the entities it regulates, including those applicable to participants in the California LifeLine Program. The matter at issue in this phase of the proceeding, as framed by Decision , is exploration of whether entities without CPCNs, WIRs, or franchises should be allowed to participate in the California LifeLine Program, 2 and, if so, the consider[ation of] rules for VoIP participation in the California LifeLine Program consistent with applicable laws. 3 In accordance with this defined scope, the Staff Proposal appended to the March 9, 2015 Ruling was developed to provide a framework for the discussion of whether VoIP providers should be allowed to participate in the California LifeLine Program, not to elicit potential changes to the 2 3 Decision , p. 129 (emphasis added). Id. (emphasis added); see also Phase II Scoping Memo, p. 3 ( This scoping ruling proposes that Phase II examine rules to apply to those who provide service as defined by Pub. Util. Code 239 (a) and (b) ) [i.e., VoIP providers.] - 2 -

4 manner in which other technologies, such as wireless, participate. Indeed, in Decision the Commission ruled that wireless providers which have neither CPCNs nor Franchises, but rather wireless identification registrations ( WIRs ), could participate in the California LifeLine Program. 4 Rules governing such participation were established in Decision , and no showing has been made in this proceeding which would necessitate a change in those rules. If, however, the Commission proceeds with the development of a uniform set of enforcement rules, it should not do so in this Phase II. This phase of the current proceeding, as previously discussed, is scoped solely to address VoIP providers participation in the California LifeLine program, and such enforcement rules would be beyond that scope. B. The Commission Has Already Ruled on the Appropriate Means for Wireless Providers to Withdraw from the LifeLine Program and Should Not Adopt a Uniform Set of Withdrawal/Transfer/Exit Rules The Commission should not adopt a uniform set of withdrawal of service/transfer of service/exit rules that apply to all California LifeLine service providers regardless of regulatory classification and/or technology. Such rules are inconsistent with General Order 153, have no basis in the record of this proceeding, and are beyond the scope of the current phase of this proceeding, which should be focused solely on rules governing the participation of VoIP providers in the California LifeLine Program. In Decision (as confirmed in Decision ), the Commission ruled that because wireless participation in the LifeLine Program is voluntary, wireless providers may withdraw from the program at any time. 5 Wireless providers are required to provide a 30-day notice to customers and fulfill any contractual obligations that they have entered into with their 4 5 Decision , p. 138, Ordering Paragraph 2. See Decision , p. 133; also Decision p

5 customers before ceasing their participation in the LifeLine Program. 6 These requirements are documented in General Order 153, which sets forth the procedures for the administration of the California LifeLine Program. 7 Establishing a uniform set of withdrawal/transfer of service/exit rules applicable to wireless LifeLine providers would conflict with the established rules documented in General Order 153 and supported by multiple Commission decisions. Further, there is no basis in this proceeding for changing the requirements for withdrawal from the California LifeLine Program by wireless providers by mandating that wireless providers submit an application for withdrawal from the program (as is suggested in the staff proposal regarding VoIP participation in LifeLine). 8 Wireless providers are not required to go through an application process to commence providing service in California in general, or to provide LifeLine service. Requiring an application for withdrawal from a voluntary service would be burdensome and unnecessary. Further, there is no evidence that existing requirements are insufficient or that imposing new obligations on wireless carriers would provide any incremental benefit to consumers. Accordingly, there is no basis for the Commission to adopt a uniform set of withdrawal of service/transfer of service/exit rules that apply to all California LifeLine service providers, and the Commission should limit the scope of any such rules in this proceeding to VoIP providers only Id. See General Order 153, Section 4.7. Staff Proposal for Enabling Fixed-VoIP Service Providers Without CPCNs to Participate in the California LifeLine Program (February 2015), p

6 III. CONCLUSION The Commission should ensure that the current proceeding does not affect its previous determinations regarding wireless providers participation in the California LifeLine Program, and limit the scope of this phase of the proceeding to that contemplated by Decision : to determine rules governing VoIP participation in the California LifeLine Program. As such, the Commission should not create a uniform set of enforcement rules for the California LifeLine Program, and should not adopt a uniform set of withdrawal, transfer, and exit rules for all California LifeLine providers. By maintaining the recently adopted rules for wireless participation in Lifeline, the Commission s rules will offer the necessary regulatory certainty that can encourage wireless providers to offer Lifeline services to low-income consumers. Respectfully submitted April 2, 2015, at San Francisco, California. GOODIN, MACBRIDE, SQUERI & DAY, LLP Jeanne B. Armstrong 505 Sansome Street, Suite 900 San Francisco, California Telephone: (415) jarmstrong@goodinmacbride.com By: /s/ Jeanne B. Armstrong Jeanne B. Armstrong Attorneys for CTIA-The Wireless Association 3100/009/X v1-5 -