TD recommends that its proposals related to rate structure remain unchanged.
Comments
Comments
DDTP comments that calls originating from PBXs could potentially charge for set up portions of calls to CRS resulting in additional charges for CRS users through 711. To this end DDTP comments that PBX calls to 711 should be free of charge until the call begins. Additionally DDTP comments that 711 calls from payphones should be free of charge except for any toll or long distance charges.
Verizon comments that clarification of the workshop language is required to indicate that calls to 711 are free but that applicable charges after the call is connected to the called party still apply.
ATTW comments that the CPUC does not have authority to set rates for wireless providers because the language for section 225 of the ADA was codified prior to the OBRA amendment of the Communications Act. ATTW maintains that 225 only prevents ATTW from charging a higher rate for TTY calls than voice-to-voice calls.
Signage Requirements for Payphones
In order to ensure public awareness of the availability of 711, TD proposed that the payphone operator be responsible for installing in a well-lighted location adjacent to each payphone a clearly legible, permanently printed sign indicating that 711 is a toll free call to the CRS for TTY/TDD and voice to voice calls. This language may be added to existing signage requirements as long as no required writing is obscured. This signage requirement is consistent with other signage requirements that currently apply to payphones.
Workshop Responses
Some payphone providers noted changing tariffs may take longer than the allotted time for implementation. Verizon plans on changing their tariffs to indicate 711 is a free call.
TD proposed that tariff revisions for 711 be filed by July 23 with an effective date October 1, 2001.
Pacific Bell indicated that it would prefer to postpone signage updates until all N11 codes have been assigned to minimize its costs for signage update. Pacific indicated that it projects costs of five dollars per phone if a separate truck rollout is required for signage updates for each of its more than 100,000 payphones.
TD inquired if anyone was opposed to a signage requirement waiver until January 1, 2002. No one objected.
DDTP suggested that signage was very important but that the October 1 rollout should not be delayed to ensure signage requirements would be met.
PSPE indicated that stickers were ineffective for signage requirements because they were frequently removed by the public or applied over existing required signage. PSPE also indicated that payphone owners would be cited for stickers removed by the public.
Discussion
The concern over timely implementation of 711 with regard to payphones should not interfere with the implementation of the entire program. To this end, TD believes tariff revisions can be made consistent with the schedule outlined above. TD does not believe that signage requirements can be accomplished within this time frame, but does not believe that the cost of signage requirements merits delay of their changes beyond the suggested date of January 1, 2002.
Recommendation
In addition to the signage requirements proposed above, TD recommends implementation of signage requirements and their subsequent enforcement be postponed until January 1, 2002.
Comments
Verizon comments that the costs for signage changes on payphones far outweighs the benefits of that signage.
Pacific comments that there is no current requirement for payphone signage related to Telephone Relay Service (TRS) and nothing refers to nor requires payphone signage in the FCC Order. Pacific believes if signage is necessary, it should be permissible to implement the changes during the course of regular service of the payphones as opposed to by January 1, 2002. Pacific comments that under the FCC Order costs for signage would be recoverable from the DDTP fund.
CPA comments that lighting and location requirements from the workshop are not consistent with other lighting requirements and would require unnecessarily expensive modification. CPA comments that additional abbreviated dialing codes will shortly be issued and costs of multiple modifications are unreasonable. CPA comments that signage requirements should be postponed until there are certain dates for additional abbreviated dialing codes.
Expansion of Basic Service Definition
Language referring to 711 does not currently exist in definitions of basic service because an abbreviated dialing number for access to CRS did not exist at the time of the most recent revisions of the definition of basic service. TD proposed the augmentation of the definition of Basic Service (as detailed in Decision 96-10-066) to include:
Free access to the California Relay Service (CRS) via the abbreviated dialing code 711.
Workshop Responses
Several Carriers questioned the appropriateness of changing the definition of Basic Service outside of a workshop directly related to Basic Service.
Cingular believes it does not provide Basic Service and therefore should not comment on definitions thereof.
Some Carriers indicated that Basic Service is a wireline definition. Numerous members of the wireless industry withheld comment until a later date.
TD suggested that Carriers of Last Resort (CoLR) were providers of Basic Service regardless of their status as wireless or wireline providers.
Discussion
For the purposes of the successful implementation of abbreviated dialing access to CRS, potential changes to the definition of Basic Service resulting from any other workshops are considered separate from this process. Omission of amendments to the current definition of Basic Service potentially interferes with the provision of 711 service consistent with applicable FCC rulings and orders.
Recommendation
TD recommends changing the definition of Basic Service as detailed in its original proposal.
Comments
Roseville comments that the precedent of modifying the definition of Basic Service outside of the context of formal preceding in accordance with D.96-10-066.
ATTW comments that the 711 workshop is an inappropriate venue for changes to definitions of Basic Service.
Miscellaneous Workshop Comments
Service List:
It was proposed that the service list from the Senate Bill 669 OIR R00-05-001 and the compensation for agencies serving the deaf and hard of hearing OII I-8711031 be used as a source for the service list.
It was proposed that a notice of availability be communicated to TD's entire carrier list.
Bill Stobbe suggested that an expansive service list would discourage smaller companies and organizations from making comments due to excessive costs.
Parties agreed to notify TD to whom they serve their comments.
Discussion
The cost of an extensive service list is of great concern to all parties including TD. Minimizing the size of the service list while maximizing the dissemination of information to concerned organizations and individuals can best be achieved by borrowing a service list related to DDTP and/or CRS.
Recommendation
TD recommends that the service list include the participating organizations (or where organizations are not applicable, participating individuals) of the April 11, 2001 workshop as well as individuals or organizations unable to attend the workshop but requesting inclusion on the service list. In addition to the workshop attendees the service list from OIR R00-05-001 and OII I-8711031 should be included, excluding duplicates.
Participants:
Jim Baker/PSP Enforcement
Cheryl Bella/Sprint Relay
Pat Chow/Worldcom
Kathy Jo Farey/Cingular
Richard Felix/Evans Companies
Margo Friedrich/Verizon
Brad Hubbard/Roseville Telephone Company
Richard Jankins/Pacific Bell
Barbara Bianchi Kai/DDTP
Abby Kelly/PSP Enforcement
Donald Kountz/Kerman Telephone
Katy M. Lindsay/ATT
Carol McFarland/Sierra Telephone
Marcus Y. Milam/ATT Wireless
Ron Miller/Roseville Telephone Company
Angel Martin/Pacific Bell
Linda Roller/Ponderosa Telephone
Barry Ross/CTA
Randy Sergeant/MCI Worldcom
William Stobbe/HSA/DDTP
Terry Tibble/DDTP
Betsy Wright/MCI Worldcom
George Zein/
Hale Zukas/DDTPAC
Aram Shumavon/TD
Carlos Figueroa/TD
Robert Weissman/TD
David Shantz/TD
Public notices
The workshop notice originally appeared in the CPUC's daily calendar Wednesday, March 28, 2001. It was revised April 5, 2001.
Workshop Notice
April 11, 2001 (Wednesday) 9:30 am - 4:00 pm |
San Francisco Civic Center Conference Center 455 Golden Gate Avenue, Training Room #4 (State Building across from the federal building, Golden Gate between Polk and Larkin) San Francisco California 94102 |
The Telecommunications Division is holding a workshop to address issues related to 711 implementation such as timelines for implementation, signage requirements, call routing, call duration, and additional issues.
People requiring special assistance should contact public advisors office at (415) 703-2074 by April 6th, 2001.
Agenda:
9:30-9:45 - Sign In
9:45-10:00 - Introduction of Participants/Schedule
10:00-10:20 - Review of Process Deadlines
10:20-10:45 - Implementation Time Table and Deadlines
10:45-11:00 - Break
11:00-11:30 - Technical Specifications for 711 Service
11:30-12:00 - Education/Public Information
12:00-1:15 - Break
1:15-2:15 - Rate Jurisdiction
- Revisions to the definition of basic service
- Requirements for payphones
- Requirements for wireless providers
2:15-2:45 - Price Structuring
2:45-3:00 - Break
3:00-3:30 - Miscellaneous Items
Please contact Aram Shumavon of the Telecommunications Division at (415) 703-2117 for further information.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA Gray Davis, Governor
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
505 VAN NESS AVENUE
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-3298
July 24, 2001
To: All California Public Utilities Commission Certificated Telecommunications Carriers
The following draft Resolutions will be on the agenda of the Commission's August 23, 2001 meeting:
A) Draft Resolution T-16550 proposes the approval of the following:
· The California High Cost Fund-A program budget for July 1, 2002 to June 30, 2003 in the amount of $ 43. 250 million.
· The increase in the surcharge rate to 0.210% effective July 1, 2002 from the current surcharge rate of 0.20%.
