COM/DGX/tcg Date of Issuance 7/30/2010
Decision 10-07-028 July 29, 2010
BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Petition to Adopt, Amend, or Repeal a Regulation Pursuant to Cal. Pub. Util. Code § 1708.5, specifically to Review the Assessment of Surcharges for the Commission's Public Policy Programs with Respect to Prepaid Wireless Services. |
Petition 09-12-018 (Filed December 11, 2009) |
DECISION DENYING PETITION BY VERIZON WIRELESS TO REVIEW THE ASSESSMENT OF SURCHARGES FOR THE COMMISSION'S PUBLIC PURPOSE PROGRAMS WITH RESPECT TO WIRELESS SERVICES
On December 12, 2009, Verizon Wireless1 filed a petition pursuant to § 1708.5 of the Pub. Util. Code requesting that, in conjunction with any declaration, ruling or decision that prepaid wireless intrastate telecommunications services are subject to the Commission's jurisdiction, the Commission also determine if the Public Purpose Program surcharges apply to prepaid wireless services and, if so, determine what methods for collecting such surcharges will meet the Commission's requirements for these programs. The Commission intends to issue a rulemaking on its own motion in the near future on topics related to, but broader than, those set forth in the petition of Verizon Wireless. For this reason, the Commission denies without prejudice the petition of Verizon Wireless. This proceeding is closed.
Section 1708.5 Petition by Verizon Wireless
Section 1708.5 of the Pub. Util. Code provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
(a) The commission shall permit interested persons to petition the commission to adopt, amend, or repeal a regulation.
(b)(1) The commission shall consider a petition and, within six months from the date of receipt of the petition, either deny the petition or institute a proceeding to adopt, amend, or repeal the regulation.
As permitted by Pub. Util. Code § 1708.5, Verizon Wireless filed a petition requesting the Commission open a rulemaking to adopt, amend or repeal a regulation. Verizon Wireless filed the petition on December 11, 2009. Specifically, Verizon Wireless requested the Commission initiate a rulemaking to amend General Order 153, Decision (D.) 94-09-065, D.96-10-066 and other relevant decisions to explain how, if at all, Public Purpose Program surcharges (also referred to as the PPP surcharges) should be applied to end-users of prepaid wireless services. (Petition at 10.)
Verizon Wireless noted that, at a minimum, the Commission should review and clarify the application of the PPP surcharges referred to as the California Universal Service Fund surcharge (ULTS) (Pub. Util. Code §§ 871-884.5), Deaf and Disabled Telecommunications Equipment and Service Program (DDPT) (Pub. Util. Code § 2881.4), California High Cost Fund-A (HCFA), California High Cost Fund-B (HCFB), California Teleconnect Fund (CTF), and California Advanced Services Fund (CASF). (Petition at 2-3.)
According to Verizon Wireless, the review of these PPP surcharges, as applied to prepaid wireless services, is needed because prepaid wireless services represent a growing and significant segment of the mobile services market and the "characteristics of prepaid wireless inherently conflict with the Commission's existing guidelines for imposing the PPP surcharges on intrastate telecommunications service end users, which are based on the presence of an end-user bill and identifiable intrastate service." (Petition at 2 and 4.)
Responses or comments to the petition were filed by the following parties: Calaveras Telephone Company, Cal-Ore Telephone Co., Ducor Telephone Company, Foresthill Telephone Co., Happy Valley Telephone Company, Hornitos Telephone Company, Kerman Telephone Company, Pinnacles Telephone Co., The Ponderosa Telephone Co., Sierra Telephone Company, Inc., The Siskiyou Telephone Company, Volcano Telephone Company, and Winterhaven Telephone Company (collectively "Small LECs"), AT&T Mobility LLC2 and Pacific Bell Telephone Company d/b/a AT&T California (collectively "AT&T"), SureWest Telephone (SureWest), TracFone Wireless, Inc. (TracFone), Disability Rights Advocates (DisabRA), The Utility Reform Network (TURN), and the Division of Ratepayer Advocates (DRA). The position of each of these parties is described below. A prehearing conference was held on March 4, 2010. During the prehearing conference the petitioner and the parties held a detailed discussion of the issues presented to the Commission for consideration. For the reasons discussed herein, the Commission denies the petition without prejudice. This proceeding is closed.
1 The following entities are doing business as Verizon Wireless in California: Cellco Partnership, California RSA No. 4 Limited Partnership, Fresno MSA Limited Partnership, GTE Mobilnet of California Limited Partnership, GTE Mobilnet of Santa Barbara Limited Partnership, Los Angeles SMSA Limited Partnership, Modoc RSA Limited Partnership, Sacramento Valley Limited Partnership, and Verizon Wireless (VAW) LLC.
2 AT&T Mobility refers to, collectively, New Cingular Wireless PSC, LLC (U 3060 C), Cagal Cellular Communications Corporation (U 3021 C), Santa Barbara Cellular Systems, Ltd. (U 3015 C), and Visalia Cellular Telephone Company (U 3014 C).
