5. Comments on Proposed Decision

The proposed decision of assigned Commissioner Rachelle B. Chong in this matter was mailed to the parties in accordance with Pub. Util. Code § 311 and comments were allowed under Rule 14.3 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure. Comments were filed on June 2 and reply comments on June 9, 2008.

AT&T generally supported the Proposed Decision's expansion of the CTF, but suggested several implementation and administration improvements. AT&T sought a workshop to better define how the funding cap Community Colleges will be implemented. To encourage providers of Internet access services to voluntarily participate in the CTF, AT&T recommended that the Commission disavow jurisdiction over broadband Internet access service and interstate broadband service, and exempt all such service from public policy surcharges, e.g., the CTF surcharge. AT&T emphasized that unregulated entities offering CTF-eligible services is voluntary, and that this Commission lacks the jurisdiction to compel such participation.

AT&T stated that CBOs that provide 2-1-1 referral services do not meet the CTF eligibility requirements because providing referral services is not "directly offer[ing] health care, job training, job placement . . ." as required by the CTF rules. AT&T supported expanding the rules to include 2-1-1 referral services.

AT&T opposed requiring CTF participants that offer services on a non-tariffed basis to include price documentation with claims. AT&T contended that this requirement would be "over burdensome" and that non-tariffed providers should be allowed to present claims based on "summarized" customer numbers and asserted service prices, all subject to later audit by the Commission staff.

AT&T raised several implementation issues with regard to bringing the CTN in the CTF. AT&T first questioned whether any additional support was needed as the funds available from the Federal Communications Commission and the California Emerging Technology Fund appeared to cover anticipated costs. AT&T then questioned whether large, urban, for-profit hospitals that are participating in the Telehealth Network should be included in the CTF; AT&T recommended limiting the participants to rural clinics and medical centers. AT&T suggested CD conduct a working session to provide carriers appropriate guidance in applying CTF discounts to CTN participants.

AT&T also reiterated its request for reimbursement of CTF administration costs. AT&T recommended that regular reports on the Deaf and Disabled Telecommunications Program projects be distributed to the service list for this proceeding to enable the parties to assist the Commission in developing successful programs for this customer group.

Verizon, while supporting including Community Colleges in the CTF, pointed out practical difficulties of implementing a funding cap. For example, should the cap be reached, how will outstanding claims be treated? Claims may be submitted by a CTF provider up to 410 days after providing the CTF-eligible service.

DRA expressed concern for the including Community Colleges in the CTF because the Proposed Decision's maximum funding level for these schools of $7.2 million would move the current total CTF budget of $47 million, very close to its funding cap of $55 million. DRA stated it would be a legal error if the Commission simply relies upon the assertions of the CCC Chancellor's Office for the estimated cost and it would be legal error not to afford parties an opportunity to review any data the Commission relies upon in establishing this funding level. DRA is also concerned that the estimated costs may include expenses that would not be CTF eligible. DRA is also concerned that the infrastructure components of the CTN are not eligible for funding through the CTF. DRA pointed out that enforcement for moving companies and passenger carriers is not funded by the same PUC fee that funds utility enforcement, as stated in the Proposed Decision, but rather through a different PUC fee. DRA also raised questions about winding down the existing Public Policy Payphone Program.

The California Payphone Association found the Proposed Decision's general direction to be "well justified and correct" but offered two suggested modifications. The first is to correct the reference to the payphone providers reporting monthly on payphone location and provider. This information is reported, but by the local exchange carrier, not the payphone provider. Second, the Association recommended against adopting a requirement for the new Public Policy Payphone Program that there be little or no wireless service available. The Association pointed out that economically disadvantaged persons may not have access to available wireless service.

TURN, the National Consumer Law Center, and Disability Rights Advocates jointly supported the new Public Policy Payphone Program but suggested keeping open the possibility of increasing the number of phones from 50, should actual need be demonstrated. These parties also opposed the requirement of little or no wireless service, and suggested areas with a high concentration of senior citizens and disabled persons be preferred for payphone locations. These parties also opposed using CTF funds for Public Policy Payphones because the Commission is limited to using CTF funds for purposes enumerated when the CTF was created, and which do not include payphones. The parties also opposed limiting any Deaf and Disabled programs to low-income participants.

Cox Telecom generally supported the Proposed Decision and stated that the CTF list of eligible services should be expanded to include all forms of Internet access services, not just DSL. Cox also requests the Proposed Decision be modified to make it clear that carriers that offer regulated services included in the CTF continue to do. Cox also recommends that the CTF Outreach and Assistance Unit should offer assistance to all entities that may or do qualify for CTF.

Comcast Phone of California, LLC, suggested requiring an empirical analysis of the CTF budget and program goals should the CTF reach its funding cap, prior to raising the cap. Comcast also requested that the Communications Division hold an informational workshop regarding requirements for new participants in the CTF.

Latino Issues Forum (LIF) and CCTPG suggest that the Outreach Unit be expanded to provide outreach to help CBOs with their CTF applications. LIF/CCTPG also question the authority of the CPUC to fund the Public Policy Payphone Program through the CTF fund.

Butte County Office of Education states the Proposed Decision's Outreach Assistance Unit proposal does not recognize the current outreach efforts to schools and libraries being conducted jointly by the California Department of Education and the Butte County Office of Education. Butte County notes that this effort is seriously undermanned but the DOE has been unable to get funding for new staff position. It suggests that instead of hiring new CPUC personnel to staff a new Unit in the CPUC, the CPUC should outsource this function to the Department of Education.

Reply comments were filed by AT&T, Verizon, DRA, Cox, and T-Mobile. AT&T and Verizon opposed the requirement that CTF providers include price information in their claim forms. T-Mobile supported other comments to remove the "spotty wireless" criterion for the new Public Policy Payphone Program. DRA and Verizon opposed using CTF funds for the Payphone Program. Cox and Verizon emphasized the voluntary and unregulated nature of CTF offerings by non-regulated providers. The Corporation for Education Initiative in California raised a new issue regarding sharing of circuits which we ask staff to review and bring forward at an appropriate time, if warranted.