4. Response to Motion to Dismiss

By ruling dated May 3, 2000, the ALJ noted that the parties had reported no progress in resolving this case. Accordingly, the ALJ directed Tioga Pass Resort to respond to GTEC's motion to dismiss within 20 days, and permitted GTEC to reply to complainant's response.

In its response, Tioga Pass Resort states that, with GTEC's help, it filed an application with the Public Policy Payphone Committee. After lengthy discussions, the committee concluded that the public payphone program does not cover line extension charges, nor does it permit public policy payphones to be installed on private property. The committee held out the possibility of installing a solar-powered roadside call box with a satellite link to 911 services only, but even this installation appears to be years away because of budgetary constraints.

Apparently neither Tioga Pass Resort nor GTEC has investigated whether relief might be available through a government program like that envisioned in Assembly Bill 1825 (Strom-Martin), which would establish grants to assist California communities lacking basic telecommunications services. We encourage complainant to communicate with the office of Assemblywoman Strom-Martin.

Tioga Pass Resort urges us to require GTEC to conduct a joint inspection of the general Tioga Pass area to determine whether other means of providing telephone service are feasible. While GTEC states that it is willing to participate in an on-site meeting, it notes that any alternative service by GTEC or other carrier will involve line extension charges that the resort, understandably, is unwilling to pay.