10. Deaf and Disabled Telecommunications
Program Fund
Similar to the statutory framework for §§ 871 et seq., discussed above, the statutory language for the Deaf and Disabled Telecommunications Program Fund delegates to the Commission the responsibility to develop a funding mechanism for this program. In § 2881(d), the Legislature directs the Commission to "establish a rate recovery mechanism through a surcharge not to exceed one-half of 1 percent uniformly applied to a subscriber's intrastate telephone service." As a result, the Legislature left the funding mechanism for the Commission to develop.
The Commission, in turn, developed this funding mechanism in D.94-09-065, where the Commission stated that the surcharge applied to "All end-users of every LEC, IEC, cellular, and paging company in the state, including basic exchange customers...."114 The Commission explicitly included cellular service, such as TracFone's, as one of the services subject to this surcharge. The Commission confirmed this determination in D.96-10-066.115 The Commission has also memorialized its determination in GO 153.116
TracFone argues that it is not responsible for the payment of the Deaf and Disabled Telecommunications Program surcharge for the same reasons that it is not responsible for the universal lifeline surcharge. TracFone's central argument is that the debit card exemption, discussed above, serves to exempt its prepaid wireless services from the Deaf and Disabled Telecommunications Program surcharge. TracFone makes other more minor arguments as well. These arguments are all addressed above. We disagree with TracFone's reasoning.
We find that TracFone is ultimately responsible for payment of the surcharge to fund the Deaf and Disabled Telecommunications Program set forth in §§ 2881 et seq. The relevant statutory framework for the Deaf and Disabled Telecommunications Program surcharge and the universal lifeline surcharge, above, are the same. As a result, our decision finding TracFone's service subject to the universal lifeline surcharge and finding TracFone responsible for payment of the Deaf and Disabled Telecommunications Program surcharge is based on the same reasoning set forth above regarding the universal lifeline surcharge. We further find TracFone acted unlawfully by failing to pay the Deaf and Disabled Telecommunications Program surcharge.
114 D.94-09-065, 1994 Cal. PUC LEXIS 681 *130.
115 D.96-10-066, 1996 Cal. PUC LEXIS 1046, App. B.
116 GO 153 at 10.1 and 10.5.
