4. Positions of the Parties

4.1. Comments in Response to 2007
Scoping Memo

Pacific Bell Telephone Company dba AT&T California (AT&T) urged the Commission to sever the LifeLine rate from AT&T's rate for basic service.³⁹ AT&T recommended that the Commission adopt a 12-month transition period to allow sufficient time for customer education on changes to the program, and give carriers enough time to implement billing system changes and educate their staff.⁴⁰ AT&T supported an initial fixed benefit of $15, but noted that federal support of $3.50 will reduce the actual amount needed from state funds to $11.50.⁴¹ AT&T supported an interim Lifeline rate in 2009 as part of a process to phase-in the fixed benefit system in 2010⁴² and that the Commission has a complete record upon which to base the changes.⁴³ AT&T advocated retaining the existing 50% subsidy for installation charges, up to $30, reviewing and updating the fixed amount as needed, and continuing to reimburse carriers for administrative costs.

Verizon⁴⁴ supported a "small but affordable increased LifeLine rate" by setting each carrier's rate separately, rather than at 50% of AT&T's rate, to update the LifeLine rate to reflect increased median wages.⁴⁵ Calculating the LifeLine rate from each carrier's basic local service flat rate, Verizon concluded, would better reflect increased costs for the carriers without a corresponding increase in program funding and surcharge requirements. Verizon opposed adopting a fixed benefit of $12 to $18, with a $1 floor, because the benefit will not be "fixed" but rather will fluctuate with each carrier's rate changes and will vary among customers served by different carriers, and the program fund would "balloon" by up to 42.6%.⁴⁶ The concept of affordability must be reflected in any new program elements, particularly for wireless service where the cost of handsets, and service overuse could be substantial.⁴⁷ Verizon raised a number of legal challenges to the Commission expanding the LifeLine program to include wireless service. First, Verizon pointed out that the plain words of the Moore Act, at § 871.5(b), define the program as applying only to residential telephone service, and the Commission has twice concluded that wireless service is not residential service.⁴⁸ Verizon next contended that wireless carriers do not offer basic flat rate or measured service, as defined in § 874, and do not offer other components of the definition of basic service adopted in D.96-10-066.⁴⁹ Finally, Verizon urged the Commission to proceed slowly and carefully in making any changes to the LifeLine program to avoid what Verizon described as the "problem-plagued experience with the verification and certification process changes."

SureWest Telephone and SureWest Televideo (SureWest) jointly opposed adopting a portable "set support amount" and instead recommended that the LifeLine program continue to provide "basic, primary-line residential service at a set discounted price."⁵⁰ SureWest stated that LifeLine subsidies should only be extended to services that will achieve universal service goals to the same extent as basic, wireline service, and that reliability, safety, consumer protection, and coverage concerns make wireless and internet-based alternatives inappropriate for these subsidies at this time.⁵¹ SureWest advocates for a LifeLine price set at $5.34 (the 2007 AT&T price), adjusted annually for inflation, with each carrier being reimbursed for the difference between $5.34 and its regular tariffed rate for each LifeLine customer.⁵² SureWest further requested that the Commission change its policy of allowing prospective LifeLine customers to start receiving discounted service prior to completing the certification process. SureWest explained that this policy confuses customers who incorrectly conclude that no further action is required for certification once they begin receiving the discount, and can lead to back-billings of $100 or more where the customer fails to successfully complete the certification process.⁵³ SureWest recommended that the Commission adopt a process whereby a prospective LifeLine customer would be charged full tariffed rates at initiation of service, but then credited for LifeLine discount if the customer is deemed eligible.

Frontier⁵⁴ supported a fixed benefit approach to LifeLine service to enable customers to choose the telecommunications service that best meets their needs. Frontier calculated the initial amount based on the High Cost Decision (D.08-09-042) that established a High Cost Fund B benchmark of $36, less the 50% discount in the GO 153, and arrived at $18 as the monthly amount each LifeLine customer would have available as a credit.⁵⁵ Frontier supported recalculating the LifeLine amount each time the High Cost Fund B benchmark is recalculated, and continuing to reimburse carrier administrative costs.⁵⁶

The Small Local Exchange Carriers⁵⁷ supported the recommendations of SureWest.⁵⁸

The Division of Ratepayer Advocates (DRA) first observed that the current LifeLine program is both effective and sustainable.⁵⁹ DRA urged caution and prudence in considering changes to the LifeLine program, and recommended further Commission analysis particularly an affordability study. DRA supported ending the reimbursement of carrier administrative costs because the costs of obtaining a new customer, even a LifeLine customer, are a normal cost of doing business that should be borne by the carrier.⁶⁰

The Utility Reform Network and the National Consumer Law Center (TURN) also found that the LifeLine program has been a success and cautioned against changes that could imperil that success.⁶¹ TURN recommended that the Commission freeze LifeLine rates at the 2007 level, $5.34 for flat service and $2.85 for measured service, until 2009, and review the rates every two years. TURN supported a policy of "gradualism" for any increase in LifeLine prices, constrained to a maximum annual increase of no more than 50% of the inflation rate.⁶² TURN opposed tying LifeLine prices to either a fixed benefit or the basic rate of any carrier because the price of basic service was expected to be unrestricted in 2009, resulting in a varying LifeLine price under either scenario.⁶³ TURN also opposed expanding the LifeLine program to include wireless service at this time, and contended that the Moore Act is limited to basic residential service, not personal communications services like wireless.⁶⁴ TURN concluded that creating a wireless LifeLine option would degrade the quality of life for household members and result in a "giant step backward" in bringing voice communications to all Californians.⁶⁵

Disability Rights Advocates observed that the current LifeLine program has been "incredibly" successful, and recommended that the Commission should thoroughly analyze any proposed changes to ensure the changes would create a more effective program.⁶⁶ Disability Rights Advocates argued that the only statutory means for the Commission to add new services to the LifeLine program was through the process adopted by the Legislature in §871.7(c), which requires that the Commission study the social benefits to be achieved from the new service and determine that the these benefits justify the costs.⁶⁷ Like TURN, Disability Rights Advocates raised the issue of telephone service for household members that remain at home when the individual in possession of the handset travels away from the home. Disability Rights Advocates contended that the concept of a flat benefit is too preliminary to consider implementation questions as the parties at the August 15, 2007 workshop stated, a "well-considered, well-drafted plan" is necessary for the parties to assess the viability and impact of the plan.⁶⁸

The California Community Technology Policy Group and the Latino Issues Forum (LIF) argued that discovery and evidentiary hearings were necessary to allow the parties to properly evaluate the "radical changes in the LifeLine" program proposed in the Scoping memo.⁶⁹ LIF stated that the fundamental purpose of the LifeLine program is to offer basic telephone service at affordable rates, but that the soon-to-be unregulated basic service prices could result in unaffordable LifeLine prices, even with a LifeLine fixed support amount.⁷⁰

The Greenlining Institute urged the Commission to move the California LifeLine program into the 21^st century by unshackling LifeLine subscribers from obsolete landline technology and allowing them to move to the overwhelmingly preferred cell phone technology.⁷¹ Greenlining explained that cell phone access is essential for many low-income consumers for access to the internet and emergency services. Greenlining also stated that cell phones will have important future roles in bringing banking and health care to low-income customers.⁷² Greenlining noted that two carriers are now offering cell phone based LifeLine in various states, using funding from both federal and state LifeLine programs. Greenlining recommended that the Commission adopt a support level that would allow wireless carriers to offer at least 300 anytime minutes, with 1,000 night and weekend minutes, for $16.74.⁷³

Cox⁷⁴ stated that the Commission should adopt a fixed support amount for the LifeLine program, effective January 1, 2009, so that customers receive a uniform benefit, bringing greater certainty and clarity to the program, and allow a minimum six-month consumer education period.⁷⁵ Cox also supported continuing to reimburse carriers for their administrative costs incurred in providing LifeLine Service.⁷⁶ Cox opposed requiring all carriers to obtain the federal Eligible Telecommunications Carrier (ETC) status prior to obtaining reimbursements from the California LifeLine program, and also opposed adopting the federal definition of basic service, which includes wireless.⁷⁷

Sprint Nextel urged the Commission to take all necessary steps to allow wireless carriers to be considered eligible providers of California LifeLine service.⁷⁸ Sprint Nextel explained that wireless customers outnumber wireline customers by about 5 million in California,⁷⁹ and that the current LifeLine program deprives persons with limited financial means of the opportunity to obtain these services. Sprint Nextel supported the "fixed benefit" approach (so long as wireless carriers are also eligible to provide LifeLine service) due to its simplicity and clarity, and as being carrier and technology neutral.⁸⁰ Sprint Nextel, however, questioned whether the $1 floor rate for LifeLine service represented sound social and economic policy and recognized that program cost ramifications would need to be studied and considered.⁸¹ Sprint Nextel suggested that the Commission provide carriers an incentive for efficient program administration by limiting the administrative cost reimbursements now paid to LifeLine service providers to a reasonable fixed amount per customer.⁸²

In reply, AT&T reiterated its request to delink the LifeLine price from its basic service rate, and agreed with other comments that administrative costs should be reimbursed.⁸³ AT&T supported SureWest's proposal for pre-qualifying LifeLine customers prior to initiating the discounted service.⁸⁴

Verizon agreed with AT&T that delinking the LifeLine price from AT&T's basic service rate is essential and that administrative costs should continue to be reimbursed, but disagreed that a fixed benefit is a sound replacement; Verizon supported calculating the LifeLine price as 50% of each carrier's basic rate.⁸⁵ Verizon opposed extending the LifeLine program to wireless because the Affordability Study⁸⁶ showed that the customers who find telephone service the most difficult to afford "are not successful in self-regulating their use to keep phone service affordable" and are resistant to call control services.⁸⁷ Verizon concluded that these facts, combined with the potential for higher wireless usage fees, will result in greater numbers of customers losing service entirely.⁸⁸ Verizon agreed with DRA, and Disability Rights Advocates that the Moore Act must be amended to allow the California LifeLine Program to move to a fixed benefit and to include wireless service.⁸⁹ Verizon agreed with other parties that support eliminating the use of California LifeLine funds to make up lost federal funds for carriers that are not designated Eligible Telecommunications Carriers by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC); carriers that decline to become so designated should bear the costs, not the California LifeLine fund.⁹⁰

SureWest agreed with Verizon that the Commission should be cautious and methodical in updating the LifeLine program, although it is clear that the rate must be de-linked from AT&T's rates.⁹¹ SureWest opposed DRA's recommendation to end administrative cost reimbursement.⁹² SureWest joined Verizon in concluding that the Commission should not pursue the fixed benefit approach due to the uncertainties with the proposal and the resultant surcharge increases; SureWest concluded that increased surcharges in ranges calculated by Verizon (30% to 40%) are "unreasonable."⁹³ SureWest recommended that the Commission de-link the LifeLine price from AT&T's basic residential rate and update it for inflation, and that legal and jurisdictional issues prevent the Commission from expanding the LifeLine program to other services such as wireless.⁹⁴

The comments of the small local exchange carriers echoed those of SureWest but added that discontinuing reimbursement of administrative costs will result in an unfunded mandate for cost of service regulated carriers.⁹⁵

DRA took issue with the parties that support a fixed benefit, contending that each has a "radically different version of how the benefit would be implemented" leading DRA to conclude that more research is needed before the Commission can adopt a fixed benefit approach.⁹⁶ DRA proposed capping the amount a service provider can draw from the fund regardless of that provider's otherwise applicable rate for basic service as a solution to the issue of modifying the LifeLine program to accommodate basic service pricing flexibility beginning on January 1, 2009.⁹⁷ DRA stated that no party had submitted any data or analysis supporting any specific initial support amount, and that no carrier had presented any data or analysis demonstrating that the LifeLine customer administrative costs exceed the costs of other customers.⁹⁸

TURN agreed with SureWest and the Small Local Exchange Carriers that LifeLine prices should be frozen at the 2007 levels, and that all other proposals have in common a nearly complete lack of analytical support in the record.⁹⁹ TURN noted, but did not endorse, Verizon's cost estimates for the fixed benefit approach as the only available cost analysis. TURN opposed Verizon's proposal to base the LifeLine rate on each carrier's basic service rate, with pricing flexibility commencing on January 1, 2009, and Verizon's proposal to increase the LifeLine rate.¹⁰⁰ TURN opposed SureWest's and the Small Local Exchange Carriers' proposal to require pre-qualification for LifeLine customers; TURN contended that the current policy of enrollment on first contact facilitates low-income consumer access to the LifeLine program and that the question of prequalification is before the Commission in R.04-12-001.¹⁰¹

LIF opposed extending the LifeLine discount to bundles of services without additional consumer protections, primarily focused on marketing techniques and disconnection policies.¹⁰²

Greenlining primarily reiterated its opening comments in reply, but opposed the parties that wanted to limit the LifeLine program to wireline.¹⁰³

Disability Rights Advocates replied in agreement with the Small Local Exchange Carriers, and SureWest that fixing the LifeLine rates at their 2007 levels is the "most fiscally viable solution" to achieve the necessary de-linking from AT&T's rates.¹⁰⁴ Disability Rights Advocates concluded that before expanding the currently successful and financially sustainable LifeLine program to wireless or internet-based service, the Commission must thoroughly assess the financial repercussions through evidentiary hearings.¹⁰⁵

In reply, Sprint Nextel disputed Verizon, Disability Rights Advocates, and DRA's objections to the fixed benefit approach and expanding the LifeLine program to include wireless.¹⁰⁶ Sprint Nextel also explained that one of its purposes for advocating that wireless carriers be included in the LifeLine program is to ensure that such carriers be eligible to "receive funds from the California Advanced Services Fund envisioned" in D.07-09-020, recently issued in the High Cost Fund B program.¹⁰⁷

4.2. Opportunity to Update Information and Provide Supplemental Comments

In response to a September 19, 2008 Assigned Commissioner's Ruling Reopening The Record And Setting Filing Date For Comments On LifeLine Program In Light Of Transition Plan For Basic Local Service Rates Commission Rule of Practice and Procedure (the "ACR"), parties were afforded the opportunity to refresh the record and provide any new information, proposals, or other input. Parties submitted supplemental comments on October 3, 2008, and reply comments on October 8, 2008. The comments are useful in that we can determine that the parties' positions and arguments did not substantially change over the course of a year. With the exception of AT&T's proposal to expand income qualification above its current 150% of federal poverty guidelines level, parties largely restated previous positions and offered no new ideas to assist the Commission in addressing necessary changes to the LifeLine program. Thus, parties' supplemental comments did not substantially contribute to this decision.

AT&T called for the Commission to adopt an interim LifeLine rate for 2009 and move to a fixed benefit system in 2010.¹⁰⁸ AT&T stated that the $0.81 rate cap burdens all consumers and that the rates for non-URF companies were not addressed in D.08-09-042.¹⁰⁹ AT&T again called for a technology neutral LifeLine program that includes wireless carriers.¹¹⁰ AT&T noted that the Commission has considerable leeway with the Universal Service Funds, and that $270 million less is being collected than in 2007 from all the Commission programs (mostly due to reduction in CHCF-B), and that the total surcharge reduction of 1.10% gives leeway to avoid rate shock.¹¹¹ AT&T also called for enhanced outreach and the expansion of the income qualification above its current 150% level.¹¹²

Verizon called for the 2009 LifeLine rate to be 50% of the AT&T rate, not just an increase of $0.81.¹¹³ They noted that LifeLine customers purchase more than just basic services, and can afford more.¹¹⁴ Verizon also explained how other states have high penetration rates with even higher LifeLine rates than California.¹¹⁵ Verizon reiterated its opposition to a Specific Support Amount as not practical at this time.¹¹⁶ Verizon also said it would cost too much since a $12 support level would cost $143 million per year and require a 2.05% surcharge rate.¹¹⁷ Verizon did call for further review for possible implementation in 2011 to allow time for a transition plan to address fixed benefit plan, statutory changes, and to implement the change.¹¹⁸ Verizon again called for the Commission to require ETC status for all carriers participating in California LifeLine.¹¹⁹ Verizon also said that California does not need increased wireless penetration (already 5th highest), and that expanding LifeLine to wireless would be too expensive.¹²⁰ Verizon asked for a minimum of nine months to implement system changes for any changes to California LifeLine.¹²¹ Verizon also believed that public participation hearings would be resource-intensive events that would add little to the results of the Affordability Study.¹²²

SureWest reiterated that the LifeLine rate must be independent of AT&T's rates.¹²³ SureWest renewed its call to fix the California LifeLine rate at $8.00 or 50% of carrier's basic rate, whichever is lower.¹²⁴ SureWest explained that such a rate could be established annually by Resolution and adjusted by changes to the Consumer Price Index, or other reliable method.¹²⁵ They explained again their objection to a Specific Support Amount as being too difficult to determine a fair amount.¹²⁶ They also called again for expansion of the funding base to include VoIP providers.¹²⁷ SureWest explained that it would need 60 days to implement any changes to the California LifeLine program.¹²⁸

The Small Local Exchange Carriers provided comments similar to those of SureWest.¹²⁹

DRA restated its position that market forces cannot be relied on to protect low-income consumers and called again for a freeze of the LifeLine rate, until a due diligence review (affordability study) is done.¹³⁰ DRA called for the LifeLine budget to fund such an affordability study.¹³¹ DRA also called for more public hearings, and additional customer notification.¹³² DRA did not provide any analysis of fiscal impact on the Fund.¹³³

The Utility Reform Network ("TURN"), the National Consumer Law Center ("NCLC"), and Disability Rights Advocates ("DisabRA") also wanted LifeLine rates frozen at current rates until 2011,¹³⁴ and provided an updated study by Dr. Trevor R. Roycroft.¹³⁵ TURN reiterated that any vouchers should be geographically specific,¹³⁶ and that after 2011, a review of rates should occur every two years.¹³⁷ TURN again objected to expanding LifeLine to include wireless at this time,¹³⁸ and proffered that additional interactive outreach should be conducted by the Commission.¹³⁹ TURN also complained that some cable/VoIP carriers state they do not have to offer LifeLine.¹⁴⁰

Cox supported a single fixed benefit amount as easy to administer, pro-competitive and technology neutral. They reiterated their support for adopting the technology-neutral Federal universal service rules that more readily allow participation of wireless and other services. Cox supported a consumer education program and said that they would need six months to implement new rules. Cox advocated that California LifeLine should continue to make up the EUCL for those that do not participate in the Federal program and that bundles should continue to be allowed. Cox noted that prequalification will continue to reduce participation in California LifeLine. Cox opined that funding for an affordability study should be requested from the Legislature.

Sprint Nextel reiterated support for decoupling the California LifeLine rate from that of AT&T and their support for a voucher system. Sprint Nextel again called for expanding "basic service" to include wireless in line with the pro-competition and technology neutrality requirements of the Public Utilities Code. Sprint agreed that it will cost approximately an additional $140 million in 2010 based on the $0.81 customer rate increase.

T-Mobile supported a Specific Support Amount as it would promote stability in the California LifeLine program and would be consistent with consumer choice. They also called on the Commission to expand the definition of "basic service" to include wireless and consolidate the CHCF-B and ULTS proceedings on this matter. T-Mobile supported retaining the LifeLine rate, as modified in D.08-09-042 for 2009 while transitioning to a Specific Support Amount in 2010. T-Mobile explained how such a Specific Support Amount was consistent with the Moore Act and that the ability to take a wireless phone out of the house is no reason to deny that residential customer its choice of provider. T-Mobile called for further study of moving to an eligibility level of 200% of the Federal Poverty Guideline as such a change is not necessary to achieve a 95% penetration rate and would result in higher surcharges and a larger LifeLine program.

³⁹ Opening Comments of Pacific Bell Telephone Company dba AT&T California in Response to Scoping Memo, at 2 (August 24, 2007).

⁴⁰ Id. at 3.

⁴¹ Id. at 4.

⁴² AT&T Supplemental Opening Comments at 5-6 (October 3, 2008).

⁴³ AT&T Supplemental Reply Comments at 9-10 (October 8, 2008).

⁴⁴ Verizon California Inc., Bell Atlantic Communications, Inc., dba Verizon Long Distance, NYNEX Long Distance Company dba Verizon Enterprise Solutions, MCI Communications Services, Inc. dba Verizon Access Transmission Services, TTI National, Inc., dba Verizon Business Services, Teleconnect Long Distance Services & Systems Company, dba Telecom*USA, Verizon California, Inc., Verizon Select Services Inc. and Verizon West Coast, Inc.

⁴⁵ Verizon Initial Comments on Scoping Memo and Ruling of Assigned Commissioner and Administrative Law Judge Determining the Scope, Schedule, and Need for Hearing in this Proceeding, at 7 (August 24, 2007).

⁴⁶ Id. at 3-5.

⁴⁷ Id. at 9-10.

⁴⁸ Id. at 11-12.

⁴⁹ Id.

⁵⁰ Opening Comments of SureWest Telephone and SureWest Televideo on Scoping Memo and Ruling of Assigned Commissioner and Administrative Law Judge on the Scope, Schedule, and Need for Hearing in this Proceeding at 2 (August 24, 2007).

⁵¹ Id.

⁵² Id. at 3.

⁵³ Id. at 5.

⁵⁴ Comments on the July 13, 2007, Scoping Memo and Ruling of the Assigned Commissioner and Administrative Law Judge by Citizens Telecommunications Company of California, Inc., dba Frontier Communications of California, Citizens Telecommunications Company of the Golden State dba Frontier Communications of the Golden State, Citizens Telecommunications Company of Tuolumne dba Frontier Communications of Tuolumne, (August 24, 2007).

⁵⁵ Id. at 3.

⁵⁶ Id.

⁵⁷ Calaveras Telephone Company, Cal-Ore Telephone Co., Ducor Telephone Company, Foresthill Telephone Co., Global Valley Networks, Inc., 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 Winderhaven Telephone Company.

⁵⁸ Small Local Exchange Carriers Opening Comments on Scoping Memo and Ruling of the Assigned Commissioner and Administrative Law Judge Determining the Scope, Schedule, and the Need for Hearing in this Proceeding (August 24, 2007).

⁵⁹ Comments of the Division of Ratepayer Advocates on Scoping Memo and Ruling of the Assigned Commissioner and Administrative Law Judge Determining the Scope, Schedule, and the Need for Hearing in this Proceeding at 2 (August 24, 2007). DRA pointed out that the current penetration rate for all California households has exceeded the 95% benchmark previously adopted by the Commission.

⁶⁰ Id. at 7.

⁶¹ Comments of the Utility Reform Network and the National Consumer Law Center on the Issued Identified in the Scoping Memo and Ruling of the Assigned Commissioner and Administrative Law Judge at 3 (August 24, 2007).

⁶² Id. at 4 (recommending that the Bureau of Labor Statistics' Consumer Price Index for Urban areas be used as the measure of inflation).

⁶³ Id. at 4-5.

⁶⁴ Id. at 8-10.

⁶⁵ Id. at 10-11.

⁶⁶ Comments of Disability Rights Advocates on Scoping Memo and Ruling of the Assigned Commissioner and Administrative Law Judge at 2 (August 24, 2007).

⁶⁷ Id. at 2-3.

⁶⁸ Id. at 5-6.

⁶⁹ Comments of the California Community Technology Policy Group and the Latino Issues Forum on the Commission's Proposals for the Public Policy Programs at 2 (August 24, 2007).

⁷⁰ Id. at 3-4.

⁷¹ Comments of The Greenling Institute on the Scoping Memo of the Commission's Rulemaking to Conduct a Comprehensive Review of its Telecommunications Public Policy Programs at 2 (August 24, 2007).

⁷² Id. at 8.

⁷³ Id. at 9.

⁷⁴ Cox California Telcom, LLC, dba Cox Communications and Time Warner Cable Information Services (California), LLC submitted comments bearing both names but Time Warner joined in on only the CTF issues.

⁷⁵ Opening Comments of Cox California Telcom, LLC, dba Cox Communications and Time Warner Cable Information Services (California), on Scoping Memo and Ruling of the Assigned Commissioner and Administrative Law Judge Determining the Scope, Schedule, and the Need for Hearing in this Proceeding at 1-2 (August 24, 2007).

⁷⁶ Id. at 2-3.

⁷⁷ Id. at 3-4.

⁷⁸ Amended Comments of Sprint Nextel on Scoping Memo and Ruling of the Assigned Commissioner and Administrative Law Judge Determining the Scope, Schedule, and the Need for Hearing in this Proceeding at 1 (August 27, 2007).

⁷⁹ Id. at 2 citing Federal Communications Commission, Trends in Telephone Service at Tables 11.2 and 8.5 (February 2007), available at www.fcc.gov/wcb/iatd/trends.html.

⁸⁰ Sprint Nextel Scoping Memo Comments at 5 (August 27, 2007).

⁸¹ Id. at 6.

⁸² Id. at 6, note 17 and 8.

⁸³ Reply Comments of Pacific Bell Telephone Company dba AT&T California in Response to Scoping Memo at 2-4.

⁸⁴ Id. at 4.

⁸⁵ Verizon Reply Comments on Scoping Memo and Rulings of Assigned Commissioner and Administrative Law Judge Determining the Scope, Schedule, and Need for Hearing in this Proceeding at 2-3 (September 14, 2007).

⁸⁶ Id. at 6, note 14. (Verizon stated that the study surveyed over 5000 customers and non-customers by the Field Research Corporation in 2003 and 2004, and has been documented in four volumes.).

⁸⁷ Id. at 7-8.

⁸⁸ Id. at 8-9.

⁸⁹ Id. at 11-12.

⁹⁰ Id. at 14-15.

⁹¹ Reply Comments of SureWest Telephone and SureWest Televideo on Scoping Memo and Ruling of the Assigned Commissioner and Administrative Law Judge Determining the Scope, Schedule, and Need for Hearing in this Proceeding at 1-2 (September 14, 2007).

⁹² Id. at 2-5.

⁹³ Id. at 5-7.

⁹⁴ Id. at 7.

⁹⁵ Reply Comments of the Small LECs on Scoping Memo and Ruling of the Assigned Commissioner and Administrative Law Judge Determining the Scope, Schedule, and Need for Hearing in this Proceeding at 4 (September 14, 2007).

⁹⁶ Reply Comments of the Division of Ratepayer Advocates on Scoping Memo and Ruling of the Assigned Commissioner and Administrative Law Judge Determining the Scope, Schedule, and Need for Hearing in this Proceeding at 3 (September 14, 2007).

⁹⁷ Id. at 4.

⁹⁸ Id. at 6-7.

⁹⁹ Reply Comments of The Utility Reform Network on Scoping Memo and Ruling of the Assigned Commissioner and Administrative Law Judge Determining the Scope, Schedule, and Need for Hearing in this Proceeding at 4 (September 14, 2007).

¹⁰⁰ Id.

¹⁰¹ Id. at 6-7.

¹⁰² Reply Comments of the California Technology Group and Latino Issues Forum on the Commission's Proposals for the Public Policy Programs at 1-2.

¹⁰³ Reply Comments of The Greenlining Institute on Scoping Memo of The Commissions' Rulemaking to conduct a Comprehensive Review of its Telecommunications Public Policy Programs. (September 14, 2007).

¹⁰⁴ Reply Comments of Disability Rights Advocates on Scoping Memo and Ruling of the Assigned Commissioner and Administrative Law Judge, at 2 (September 14, 2007).

¹⁰⁵ Id. at 2-3.

¹⁰⁶ Reply Comments of Sprint Nextel on Scoping Memo and Ruling of Assigned Commissioner and Administrative Law Judge Determining the Scope, Schedule, and Need for Hearing in this Proceeding at 14-17 (September 14, 2007).

¹⁰⁷ Id. at 2, 4-6, 12-13.

¹⁰⁸ AT&T Opening ACR Comments at 1 (October 3, 2008).

¹⁰⁹ Id. at 3.

¹¹⁰ Id. at 2. AT&T ACR Reply Comments at 8-9 (October 8, 2008).

¹¹¹ AT&T Opening ACR Comments at 9 (October 3, 2008).

¹¹² Id. at 10.

¹¹³ Verizon Opening ACR Comments at 16-17 (October 3, 2008).

¹¹⁴ Id. at 20-22.

¹¹⁵ Id. at 7-11, Exhibit F.

¹¹⁶ Id. at 11-14.

¹¹⁷ Id.

¹¹⁸ Id. at 14, 16.

¹¹⁹ Id. at 24-26.

¹²⁰ Id. at 19-23.

¹²¹ Id. at 31-32.

¹²² Verizon ACR Reply Comments at 13-14 (October 8, 2008).

¹²³ SureWest Opening ACR Comments at 3 (October 3, 2008).

¹²⁴ Id. at 3-5.

¹²⁵ Id.

¹²⁶ Id. at 5-7.

¹²⁷ Id. at 7-8.

¹²⁸ Id. at 2.

¹²⁹ Small Local Exchange Carriers Opening ACR Comments (October 3, 2008), Small Local Exchange Carriers ACR Reply Comments (October 8, 2008).

¹³⁰ DRA Opening ACR Comments at 5-7 (October 3, 2008).

¹³¹ Id. at 7-8.

¹³² Id. at 9, 11-12.

¹³³ DRA ACR Reply Comments at 4 (October 8, 2008).

¹³⁴ TURN/NCLC/DisabRA Opening ACR Comments at 5 (October 3, 2008).

¹³⁵ Id. at 6-9, 13, Affidavit of Trevor R. Roycroft, Ph.D.

¹³⁶ TURN/NCLC/DisabRA Opening ACR Comments at 14 (October 3, 2008).

¹³⁷ Id. at 5.

¹³⁸ Id. at 15.

¹³⁹ Id. at 16-18.

¹⁴⁰ Id. at 3-4.