IV. Technical Qualifications
To be granted a CPCN for authority to provide local exchange service, an applicant must make a reasonable showing of technical expertise in telecommunications or a related business. Applicant supplied biographical information on its management that demonstrates that it has sufficient expertise and training to operate as a telecommunications provider.
Applicant represents that no one associated with or employed by Applicant as an affiliate, officer, director, partner, or owner of more than 10% of Applicant was previously associated with a telecommunications carrier that filed for bankruptcy, or was sanctioned by the Federal Communications Commission or any state regulatory agency for failure to comply with any regulatory statute, rule, or order.
However, Applicant (or its corporate predecessor) has a history of regulatory problems, including revocations of its operating authority, in other states.5 Applicant states that during its early years as a small start-up company, it relied on a consultant to handle regulatory compliance matters. According to Applicant, confusion arose regarding the responsibility of the agent to maintain the company's certification status after obtaining operating authority from various states. In 2001, Applicant hired in-house counsel to handle regulatory compliance and shortly thereafter contracted with another outside consultant to assume these responsibilities. Applicant claims that it later learned that its consultant was not effectively handling regulatory compliance issues after several states threatened enforcement proceedings against Applicant.
In order to address these problems, in 2002, Applicant designated a senior officer of the company as Regulatory Compliance Manager, developed a regulatory compliance plan, and retained an outside law firm for the purpose of identifying, tracking, preparing and filing all required regulatory documents for Applicant nationwide. Applicant also states that it has settled its enforcement proceedings, paid fines, and regained its operating authority in those states which had previously revoked its operating authority.6
Applicant claims to currently hold CPCNs or equivalent authority to provide resold interexchange services in all states except Alaska. Applicant also claims to hold CPCNs or equivalent authority to provide resold and limited facilities-based services in a number of other states. According to Applicant, its CPCN or equivalent in each state is now in good standing.
We are troubled by Applicant's history of regulatory problems in other states. However, based on the evidence presented, it appears that Applicant is now operating in compliance with regulatory requirements. Applicant's current CPCN in this state, which authorizes the provision of resold services, is in good standing. As result, we will not deny this application based on Applicant's past regulatory problems.
Applicant must comply with all regulatory requirements in order to retain its CPCN in this state.
5 Applicant first began providing resold long distance services in several states in 1997 and 1998 under its previous corporate name, Buyers United International, Inc. (BUII). Many of the regulatory actions were taken against Applicant under its previous corporate name, BUII. 6 This Commission is aware that Applicant has had the following regulatory compliance issues in other states:- · Arkansas: Revocation of Applicant's operating authority in 2000 based on Applicant's failure to file an annual report and to pay charges and a civil sanction. (See 2003 Ark. PUC LEXIS 240.) Applicant admits that it continued to provide service in Arkansas for over 2 years after revocation of its operating authority. (Id.) In 2003, Applicant reapplied for a CPCN and entered into a stipulation with the Arkansas Public Service Commission. Under the stipulation, Applicant credited or refunded $2,547 plus interest to its customers; paid $992 plus interest to the Commission for revenues and interest that could not be refunded or credited to customers; paid a $2,000 civil sanction to the Commission; paid $223.97 to the Arkansas Universal Service Fund, and submitted its regulatory compliance plan to the Commission. The Arkansas Public Service Commission subsequently allowed Applicant to obtain a CPCN.
· Nebraska: Revocation of intrastate operating authority by the Nebraska Public Service Commission in 2000 based on applicant's failure to file required reports. (See 2000 Neb. PUC LEXIS 78.) Applicant states that it entered into a settlement with the Nebraska Public Service Commission in February 2003. As part of this settlement, Applicant paid a $10,200 civil forfeiture fine and submitted a regulatory compliance plan, in return for the reinstatement of its operating authority.
· North Carolina: Cancellation of Applicant's CPCN by the North Carolina Utility Commission based on Applicant's failure to file required reports and to pay applicable fees. (See N. C. PUC LEXIS 457.) Applicant claims that it did not receive notice of the cancellation of its CPCN and therefore continued to operate in North Carolina after the cancellation of its CPCN. In 2003, Applicant entered into a consent agreement with the North Carolina Utility Commission, paid a penalty of $14,327.95, and submitted a regulatory compliance plan to the Commission. In May 2003, the North Carolina Utility Commission again granted Applicant a CPCN.
· Tennessee: Revocation of Applicant's operating authority by the Tennessee Regulatory Commission in 2002 based on Applicant's failure to post a surety bond or letter of credit in the amount of $20,000 with the Commission as required by Tennessee law. Applicant subsequently entered into a settlement agreement with the Commission, paid a penalty of $9,450, and submitted its regulatory compliance plan to the Commission. In 2003, the Tennessee Regulatory Commission reissued a CPCN to Applicant which authorized the provision of resold services.
