BILL ANALYSIS Ó 1
SENATE ENERGY, UTILITIES AND COMMUNICATIONS COMMITTEE
ALEX PADILLA, CHAIR
AB 1407 - Bradford Hearing Date:
July 8, 2013 A
As Amended: June 10, 2013 FISCAL B
1
4
0
7
DESCRIPTION
Current law authorizes the California Public Utilities
Commission (CPUC) to regulate telephone corporations and
requires local exchange carriers to provide residential
customers "basic service," as defined by CPUC decisions (Public
Utilities Code Section 495.7; Decision 12-12-038).
Current law establishes state universal service programs funded
by surcharges on landline, wireless and Voice over Internet
Protocol (VoIP) service, and provides that only telephone
corporations may receive subsidies from these programs (Public
Utilities Code Section 270).
Current law the Moore Universal Telephone Service Act
establishes the California lifeline program and requires
telephone corporation providers of residential service to offer
eligible low-income customers a lifeline class of basic service
(currently landline only) at a fixed monthly rate, with
subsidies to providers to offset the cost of the discount.
(Public Utilities code Section 871)
Current federal law and rules of the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) establish a federal lifeline program that
allows eligible low-income customers to apply a fixed discount
to reduce the price of any voice communications service,
including wireless, (47 U.S Code Section 254; 47 C.F.R.54.101)
Current law prohibits CPUC regulation of VoIP service or
Internet Protocol (IP)-enabled service except as required or
expressly delegated by federal law or expressly directed by
state statute (Public Utilities Code Section 710)
This bill authorizes providers of wireless and VoIP service to
voluntarily offer state lifeline service if they offer voice
communications as defined by the FCC through any technology and
prohibits the CPUC from requiring state lifeline providers to
offer more than is required under the federal lifeline program.
This bill repeals the requirement that state lifeline be a
special class of service at a fixed rate and instead establishes
a discount at a fixed amount that an eligible customer can apply
toward any voice communications service, including a bundle of
services that includes voice.
This bill requires the CPUC to designate a telephone corporation
or alternative provider as a state lifeline provider eligible to
receive subsidies if the provider collects and remit surcharges
for the lifeline program and agrees to comply with CPUC rules
for the lifeline program.
Current federal law provides for the CPUC to designate a
lifeline provider serving California as eligible for federal
lifeline subsidies, known as an Eligible Telecommunications
Carrier (ETC), if the requesting provider meets ETC requirements
in federal law. (47 U.S Code Section 214(e))
This bill states that the CPUC shall, upon a request of a
provider, designate that lifeline provider as an ETC.
Current law requires the CPUC and telephone corporations to
ensure that every household qualified to receive lifeline
service is informed of the service and given the opportunity to
subscribe. (Public Utilities Code Sections 871.5 and 876)
This bill removes this obligation for telephone corporations and
prohibits the CPUC from imposing any advertising obligation
other than those required by federal law for federal lifeline
providers.
Current law exempts state lifeline customers from paying state
and federal surcharges on top of the cost of service. (Public
Utilities Code Section 879)
This bill requires state lifeline customers to pay those
surcharges.
BACKGROUND
Universal Service for Low-Income Customers - Federal and state
lifeline programs enable qualified low-income households to
receive a reduced rate for telephone service in order to further
the universal service goal of making affordable service
available to all. Customer eligibility is based on household
income or participation in specified public assistance programs.
One rate discount per household is provided to qualified
customers from designated service providers, which are
compensated for providing that discount from state and federal
lifeline funds generated by surcharges on service to all
landline, wireless and VoIP customers. The state and federal
programs share the same goal but have different features.
Federal Lifeline - The federal lifeline program, administered by
the FCC, was implemented in 1985 in the wake of the 1984
divestiture of AT&T to ensure that rate increases from this
major marketplace shift would not put local landline service out
of reach for low-income households. Since 1997, the FCC has
made the federal lifeline discount available for wireless
service, and since 2005 for prepaid service, in recognition that
wireless services have taken on particular importance to
low-income consumers, who are more likely to reside in
wireless-only households than consumers at higher income levels.
In early 2012, the FCC adopted a technology-neutral approach to
enable lifeline service provided over any platform, including IP
networks. It authorized an eligible customer to apply the $9.25
per month discount to any residential service that includes
"voice telephony service," defined to include:
voice grade access to the public switched network or its
functional equivalent;
minutes of use for local service at no additional charge
to end users;
access to 911 emergency telephone service and enhanced
911; and
toll limitation services to control long distance
charges.
The discount can apply to a bundle or package of voice and data
services, plans with optional calling features such as caller ID
and voicemail, and any family shared calling plan.
The FCC reports that lifeline enrollment has greatly increased
since wireless was included, consistent with the same trend
toward wireless use in the general population. Wireless
providers receive well over half of the total program support,
with prepaid providers taking about 40 percent as of early 2012.
At the same time, in response to program costs ballooning, the
FCC has undertaken reforms to fight waste, fraud, and abuse,
especially problems with verifying eligibility of households and
wireless service being transferred to non-eligible users.
The CPUC, upon request, and pursuant to federal requirements,
designates as an ETC any provider that seeks to provide federal
lifeline service in California. To date, four wireless carriers
(Cricket, Telescape, Virgin Mobile, and Nexus) provide service
in California with a variety of plans that include, at no
charge, a handset, 250 voice minutes and 250 texts, with no
contract or connection charge, and options for extra voice
minutes and texts in price increments.
California Lifeline - California's Moore Universal Telephone
Service Act, enacted in 1983, requires all providers of landline
residential service to provide lifeline service as part of the
obligation to provide "basic service" as defined by the CPUC.
The Act requires these providers to inform eligible subscribers
of the availability of lifeline service and how to qualify, to
offer the service at a fixed rate, and to not charge lifeline
customers state and federal universal service and 911 program
fees and surcharges applicable to non-lifeline customers. The
program sets a fixed rate for customers, currently no more than
$6.84 per month, depending on the carrier. The support amount
for the provider is $11.50 per month, which is applied to offset
costs after the federal subsidy is applied. The CPUC's General
Order 153 specifies program requirements for providers, eligible
customers, and the third-party administrator. The program budget
is about $280 million for 2012-13.
For at least ten years, the Legislature, customers, providers,
and other stakeholders have urged the CPUC to expand California
lifeline to include wireless service and new technologies. AB
2213 (Fuentes, 2010) removed a statutory barrier to wireless
lifeline by making each household eligible rather than a
physical residence. Today, the program still offers a price
discount only for landline basic service. In December 2012, the
CPUC redefined basic service to be technology neutral, but in
effect only landline currently can comply with the many basic
service elements and requirements listed in Attachment A. Based
on that decision, the CPUC in April 2013 commenced a new phase
of a multi-year proceeding to consider whether wireless and
other alternative providers can provide California lifeline
service, consistent with the new basic service definition. The
scoping memo indicated that an initial phase, to be completed
within 18 months, would consider wireless service, with a
possible second phase to consider VoIP. The Assigned
Commissioner, who is holding statewide public participation
hearings to get customer input on what features wireless
lifeline service should include, has recently expressed intent
to issue a proposed decision by October 2013.
Meanwhile, participation in California's basic service lifeline
program has declined from nearly 3.1 million participants in
2006 to about 1.5 million in April 2012, a decline of about 50
percent. The decline mirrors a migration away from landline
service by all customers, but also may reflect the change from
self-certification to verification of eligibility. Industry
estimates that up to 3.7 million Californians may be eligible
for lifeline.
COMMENTS
1. Author's Purpose . According to the author: "The
LifeLine program limits low-income customers to wireline
telephone service only. Changes in technology and consumer
behavior have created a shift in lifeline subscriptions.
This bill reforms and modernizes the program by
establishing an approved financial support amount that
consumers can use on the voice service that meets their
needs. The bill also ensures that existing wireline
lifeline customers are not impacted by program reforms and
maintains all existing state and federal consumer
safeguards for wireline, wireless and VoIP service."
2. A Discount Coupon for any Voice Service . This bill
makes no significant change to who qualifies as an eligible
lifeline customer, but makes a significant change to what
that customer gets. It changes the lifeline program from
offering an eligible low-income customer a special class of
service (which so far has been only landline voice service)
at a fixed low rate to instead offering a fixed support
amount that the customer can use like a discount coupon to
reduce the price of any voice communications service
(landline, wireless, prepaid wireless, or VoIP). It
enables a lifeline customer to receive that service under
the same terms and conditions and under the same
regulations as any non-lifeline customer. Today, an
eligible customer has only one choice for California
lifeline service - landline - but with the certainty of a
fixed low rate. Under this bill, the customer would have a
discount of $11.85 that can be applied to any bundle or
package of service that includes voice service.
3. Low-Income Customers Want Wireless Service, Especially
Prepaid Wireless . Low-income customers are no different
than anyone else in wanting to enjoy the convenience and
mobility of wireless service. No stakeholder disputes
this. The CPUC Assigned Commissioner reports that this has
been a theme of recent public participation hearings on
lifeline service. Industry proponents of the bill point
out the growing number of low-income customers who are
opting for wireless service even without a state subsidy.
Prepaid wireless, like the service options offered by
federal providers now in California, are especially
attractive to low-income customers because of no long-term
contract, no connection charge, free handsets, and options
to buy increased voice and data usage on a month-to-month
basis.
4. Do Low-Income Customers Need a Special Kind of Wireless
Service ? The CPUC and consumer groups state that lifeline
customers should get their own special class of wireless
service with attributes prescribed by the CPUC that may
exceed what the federal rules require, including, among
others, a minimum number of minutes and texts per month,
guaranteed coverage in the home, and service quality
standards not already applicable to wireless. Service
providers supporting the bill claim that the CPUC, in its
proceeding, is likely to prescribe wireless service
elements for lifeline customers so different from how they
offer wireless service to non-lifeline customers that they
will not be willing to participate in the state lifeline
program (and the CPUC does not have authority to require
them to do so). Providers argue that lifeline customers,
like other customers, should be able to choose among the
many wireless service offerings a plan that most suits
their individual needs (just as many are doing now even
without a state lifeline subsidy).
5. Maintaining Basic Service and COLR Obligations . The
CPUC and consumer groups state that this bill will reduce
consumer protections for lifeline customers because
wireless service and VoIP service are regulated differently
than landline service, especially regarding the CPUC's
authority to handle customer complaints. However, nothing
in this bill requires a lifeline customer to choose
wireless or VoIP service. Moreover, the author states that
this bill maintains all consumer protections on existing
services and ensures that existing wireline lifeline
customers are not impacted by reforms in the program.
According to the author, there is no intent to eliminate or
diminish the Carrier of Last Resort (COLR) obligation to
provide basic service (which is subject to the greatest
level of regulation) to any customer upon request. Thus, if
this bill is enacted, any lifeline customer who prefers
basic service will retain the option to get that service
upon request from their COLR provider of basic service.
However, some language in this bill creates ambiguity as to
the author's intent. On page 7, lines 36 to 37 of the
bill, it is unclear why the mandate to offer basic service
references "as of January 1, 2013."
On page 8, lines 1-3, the bill states that any lifeline
provider, including a local exchange carrier, may use any
technology, or multiple technologies, within the provider's
service territory." This could potentially be interpreted
to allow a COLR local exchange carrier to meet its basic
service obligation with a technology that does not meet the
CPUC's definition of basic service.
On page 11, lines 24-28, the bill states that the CPUC,
shall not, as a condition for designating ETCs or lifeline
providers, impose any obligation that exceeds the
obligations in federal rules for designated ETCs. This
presumably does not affect any obligation a COLR otherwise
has to provide basic service.
On page 11, lines 29-33, the bill provides that the CPUC
shall require a lifeline provider to offer only the minimum
service elements to eligible lifeline customers as required
by the FCC for federal lifeline. To be consistent with the
author's intent, that provision would apply to the lifeline
service except to the extent that a COLR is still required
to provide basic service to any customer upon request,
including any lifeline customer. Thus, to ensure
consistency with the author's intent that this bill has no
impact on the COLR obligation to provide basic service, and
that any lifeline eligible customer will still have access
to basic service upon request, the author and committee may
wish to consider amending the bill to strike the reference
to "as of January 1, 2013," and to explicitly state that
the other identified provisions, or any provision in this
bill, shall not be construed to eliminate or diminish the
COLR obligation to provide basic service to any customer
upon request, including any lifeline-eligible customer.
6. Is Affordability Threatened with No Fixed Rate and
Surcharges ? This bill replaces the current fixed rate of no
more than $6.84 per month for lifeline basic service with a
fixed support amount for the provider. It is possible that
the $11.85 state support, plus the $9.25 federal subsidy,
could equal more than a provider's charge for service,
leaving the customer with no charge. On the other hand, as
TURN and other consumer groups point out, the elimination
of a fixed rate, and with no cap on basic service rates,
could make service unaffordable for low-income customers as
basic rates increase. This bill also repeals current law
that exempts lifeline customers from paying surcharges for
public purpose programs and the state 911 program, although
it is unclear if surcharge rates would be calculated on the
service charge before or after the discount is applied.
The bill on page 10, line 35 provides that an eligible
customer shall not be entitled to any combined monthly
federal and state support in excess of the customer's
"monthly rate," which is unclear if that includes
surcharges or just the service rate. All of these issues
need clarification to enable a more precise determination
of affordability.
While the bill is intended to afford low-income customers
many new low-cost or no-cost wireless service options, the
author also intends to minimize impact on customers who
still want to retain basic service lifeline with a fixed
rate. Thus, the author and committee may wish to consider
amending the bill with language proposed by the author to
guarantee a fixed rate for the landline basic service
option for a temporary transition period as follows:
Until December 31, 2014, all providers participating
in the California lifeline program shall be required
to offer lifeline service at the same rates that were
in effect on July 1, 2013.
7. Is Subsidy for Service Connection Charge Necessary ?
This bill limits to $10 the charge a lifeline customer may
pay for commencing service and authorizes a provider to be
reimbursed the difference paid by non-lifeline customers up
to $40 per service connection, with no cap on how often it
is paid. The current state lifeline program authorizes
carrier recovery of up to $39 per connection. The FCC
eliminated the federal "LinkUp" service connection subsidy,
concluding that it offers potential for waste, fraud and
abuse and that the availability of a subsidy invites
carriers to impose a service connection charge they might
not otherwise impose. The lack of any limit on service
connection subsidies also invites churn whereby customers
could frequently change providers, increasing program
costs. The author and committee may wish to consider
amending the bill to eliminate the service connection
subsidy except for a COLR providing lifeline service.
8. Removing Delay for Customers to Become Eligible for
Lifeline Service . This bill prohibits the CPUC's current
requirement that a customer seeking to get lifeline service
must first establish service before being certified as
eligible. This practice requires carriers to then provide
a refund for the period of time an eligible customer paid
for service at the regular rate, which is burdensome and
adds to program costs. Stakeholders appear to universally
agree with this change. At least one carrier which already
provides prepaid wireless service in California under the
federal program states that this is the single biggest
barrier to allowing customers to subscribe to their
service. Changing this requirement immediately would enable
many California customers to obtain a free telephone and
free calling plans from existing federal lifeline
providers. To make this change effective as quickly as
possible, perhaps this bill should have an urgency clause.
9. Removing Delay in Designating Lifeline Providers .
According to the author, this bill seeks to address current
CPUC delay in designating providers as ETCs and to prevent
potential CPUC delay in its new duty required by this bill
to designate state lifeline providers. This designation is
required for providers to obtain lifeline subsidies to
cover their cost of giving lifeline customers a price
discount. Unnecessary regulatory delay in designating
providers slows market entry by new competitors and delays
lifeline customers' access to low-cost service options.
Delay in ETC designation also impedes flow of federal
lifeline dollars to California, creating more demand on the
state lifeline fund.
For example, the request of Cox Communications for ETC
designation has been stalled for nearly a year because of
claims that designation may be unauthorized by the
prohibition on CPUC regulation of VoIP service in section
710 of the Public Utilities Code, enacted by SB 1161
(Padilla, 2012). Cox provides basic service to residential
customers, in part with VoIP service, and serves about
50,000 low-income customers under the state lifeline
program. If granted ETC status, it could draw federal
lifeline subsidies. An Assigned Commissioner's ruling in
late February expanded the Cox ETC application to include
many questions on CPUC authority over VoIP. Cox and others
responded that such a broad inquiry was not necessary
because section 710 restricts regulation of a service, not
a provider, and SB 1161 was specifically amended to be
clear on that distinction. Cox also cited to a prior CPUC
decision which concluded that requiring wireless and VoIP
service providers that voluntarily participate in the
California lifeline program to comply with lifeline program
rules does not constitute regulation of those carriers.
In seeking to address this problem the bill, on page 11,
lines 22-24, states that the CPUC "shall, upon a request of
a provider, designate the lifeline provider" as an ETC.
The CPUC and others correctly point out that this language
could require the CPUC to violate federal law that
specifies ETC designation requirements. But the Legislature
could direct the CPUC on how to exercise its discretion not
inconsistent with federal law. Thus, to prevent the CPUC
from misconstruing section 710 in connection with lifeline,
the author and committee may wish to consider amending the
bill to provide that the CPUC shall not, in exercising its
discretion under federal law in designating ETCs, or in
exercising its authority to designate state lifeline
providers, deny a request to be designated based on the
requesting entity providing any VoIP or IP-enabled service.
10. Removing a Barrier to Entry for Providers Offering VoIP
Service . As in the Cox application, wide-ranging questions
about CPUC authority over VoIP providers have been raised
in applications to the CPUC for certificates of public
convenience and necessity (CPCNs) by entities seeking
authority to provide service. This also could impede a
competitive marketplace for lifeline service (and other
services) unless the Legislature expressly clarifies that
the CPUC may not deny a new CPCN or revoke an existing CPCN
based on the underlying technology used to provide service.
CALTEL, a trade association for competitive local exchange
carrier (CLECs) that use both circuit-switched and
VoIP/IP-enabled technologies to provide services to
hundreds of thousands of business and residential
customers, fear that its members' CPCNs are in jeopardy,
which would eliminate their ability to get interconnection
and wholesale inputs to provide service. CalTel objects to
this "piecemeal approach" in application proceedings, which
it claims is "unfair and inefficient, and violates notice
and due process rights." Moreover, it delays new entry by
CLECs that could be lifeline providers.
In order to remove the current business uncertainty for
existing CLECs and new entrants and to remove this barrier
to CLECs' participation in the Lifeline program, the author
and committee may wish to consider amending the bill by
adding the following new section to the Public Utilities
Code:
The commission shall neither deny nor revoke
certificates of public convenience and necessity to
carriers that provide retail or wholesale
telecommunications services on the grounds that such
carriers also provide Voice over Internet Protocol
service or any other unregulated service. Nothing in
this section expands the commission's existing
jurisdiction over any service or affects any provision
of section 710. Nothing in this section gives any
carrier any new rights or powers.
11. Lifeline Providers Should Pay All Surcharges . This bill
makes it a condition of being a lifeline provider that the
provider collect and remit surcharges for the lifeline
program. Current law requires all landline, wireless and
VoIP service customers, including prepaid service, to
contribute to all the CPUC public purpose programs and the
state 911 program. Thus, the author and committee may wish
to consider amending the bill to require a lifeline
provider to collect and remit surcharges for all the CPUC
public purpose programs listed in Section 270 of the Public
Utilities Code, as well as the state 911 fee pursuant to
Section 41030 of the Revenue and Taxation Code.
12. Providers Have a Role in Customer Notification . Current
law provides that every means should be employed by the
CPUC and telephone corporations to ensure that every
household qualified to receive lifeline telephone service
is informed of and is afforded the opportunity to subscribe
to lifeline service.
General Order 153 requires California lifeline providers to
send all residential customers an annual notice of
availability, terms, and conditions of California lifeline,
inform new potential customers about lifeline and how to
apply, and provide 30 days notice to lifeline customers of
any increase in rates, service restrictions, or withdrawal
from offering service, with notices in the same language as
sales information.
This bill removes this obligation from telephone
corporations and prohibits the CPUC from imposing any
advertising obligations other than those required by
federal law, which include advertising the availability of
lifeline service and rates using media of general
distribution, and publicizing the availability of service
in a manner reasonably designed to reach those likely to
qualify for service.
The author states his intent to amend the bill by adding
the following:
Every lifeline provider, on first contact by a
prospective eligible customer, shall inform the
customer of the availability of the lifeline discount
and how they may qualify for and obtain the discount.
Such customers shall be presented with information
orally, electronically, or in print form.
This amendment adds to what is otherwise required of
wireless providers under the federal rules. However, it is
less than what is currently required for COLRs' provision
of basic service.
To be consistent with the author's intent that this bill
has no impact on the COLR obligation to provide basic
service, and that any lifeline eligible customer will still
have access to basic service upon request, the author and
committee may wish to consider amending the bill with the
author's language and to state that a COLR that is a
lifeline provider remains subject to any customer
notification obligations applicable to basic service.
13. CPUC Authority Limited to Implementation . This bill
requires a lifeline provider to agree to comply with and be
held liable for any violations of the requirements of the
bill and any CPUC rules implementing this bill. Section 21
of the bill, which is uncodified, requires the CPUC to
revise General Order 153 by May 1, 2014, to confirm with
the bill and provides that the CPUC "shall not adopt any
obligations, rules, or standards that exceed, or otherwise
add to, those that are expressly required by this act."
The CPUC and other stakeholders point out that this
language is overly restrictive and in practical effect
cripples the CPUC from administering the program. In
response, the author has proposed to clarify the intent:
(1) authorize the CPUC to implement the express
requirements of the bill so that a lifeline customer can
apply the discount to any service that is otherwise
available to any non-lifeline customer; and (2) prohibit
the CPUC from imposing any new requirement on the provision
of that service different from how it is provided to
non-lifeline customers. The author and committee may wish
to consider amending the bill by striking Section 21 at
page 16, lines 25-33, and replacing it with the following:
(a) This act does not create or expand commission
jurisdiction over any provider, service or technology.
In implementing this act, the commission shall not
impose any new obligation, standard, or requirement
upon any provider, service, or technology that is not
expressly required by the act. (b) By May 1, 2014, the
commission shall revise General Order 153 to bring it
into compliance with the changes made by this act.
The commission shall eliminate or modify any rule that
imposes substantive requirements upon lifeline
providers beyond the express terms of this act, but
may retain, modify or enact rules governing the
administration of the lifeline program that are not
inconsistent with this act, including rules governing
enrollment processes, eligibility forms, the
third-party administrator, the calculation of the fund
and establishment of the surcharge, reporting and
remittances of surcharges, use of electronic
communications, and audits and records. The
commission shall allow a lifeline provider a
reasonable period of time to implement the
requirements or obligations of this act.
14. Cap on Program Surcharge . The lifeline program is
funded by a ratepayer surcharge imposed on intrastate
services of all landline, wireless and VoIP customers. The
rate is currently set at about 1.5 percent. This bill sets
a cap of 3.3 percent, which potentially could have the
effect of precluding eligible customers from participating
in the program. Other measures may be available to contain
program costs that do not risk excluding eligible
customers, such as eliminating the service connection
subsidy. Moreover, the bill requires an annual report to
the Legislature on the fiscal status of the lifeline fund,
along with options for controlling costs.
15. Ratepayer Impact . This bill is likely to significantly
increase costs of the state lifeline program funded by a
ratepayer surcharge.
ASSEMBLY VOTES*
Assembly Floor (74-0)
Assembly Appropriations Committee (17-0)
Assembly Utilities and Commerce Committee
(15-0)
*Prior votes not relevant
POSITIONS
Sponsor:
Author
Support:
Alliance Against Family Violence and Sexual Assault
American GI Forum of California
Amethod Public Schools
Asian Pacific islander American Public Affairs Association
AT&T
BPSOS-California
Bakersfield Homeless Center
Brotherhood Crusade
California Black Chamber of Commerce
California Cable & Telecommunications Association
California Chamber of Commerce
California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce
California Partnership to End Domestic Violence
California State Conference of the NAACP
Center for Fathers and Families
COFEM
Community Youth Center of San Francisco
Congress of California Seniors
Support: (Continued)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|CTIA-The Wireless Association |Mexican American Legal Defense |
|Eskaton Foundation |and Educational Fund |
|Florence Douglas Senior Center |Mobile Future |
|Fresno Barrios Unidos |Monument Crisis Center |
|Frontier Communications |OneChild |
|Greater Los Angeles African |Proyecto Pastoral at Dolores |
|American Chamber of Commerce |Mission |
|I-5 Social Services Corporation |PUENTE Learning Center |
|Jenesse Center, Inc. |Self-Help for the Elderly |
|La Maestra Community Health |TechAmerica |
|Centers |The Arc San Francisco |
|Latin Business Association |United Cambodian Community |
|Los Angeles Urban League Works |Verizon California, Inc. |
| |Watts/Century Latino |
| |Organization |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Oppose:
---------------------------------------------------------------
|AARP, California |Inland Congregations United |
|Access Humboldt |for Change |
|African American Lutheran |Inland Empire Concerned |
|Association |African American Churches |
|Allen Chapel African Methodist |Inland Empire Latino Coalition |
|Episcopal Church |Knotts Family Agency |
|Alliance for African |Media Alliance |
|Assistance |Messiah Lutheran |
|BLU Educational Services |Milestone Consulting |
|California Labor Federation |Parents and Communities |
|California Public Utilities |Engaged for Education |
|Commission |Predestined in Christ |
|California's One Million NIU |San Diego Area Congregations |
|Coalition |for Change |
|Cathedral of Praise |San Diego Black Health |
|Central City SRO Collaborative |Associates |
|Centro La Familia Advocacy |San Diego Consumers' Action |
|Service, Inc. |Network |
|Chicana Latina Foundation |St. Paul A.M.E. |
|Coalition for Economic |Talented and gifted in the |
|Survival |Inland Empire |
|Communications Workers of |Tenderloin Neighborhood |
|America, # 9 |Development Corporation |
|Congregations Organized for |The Center of High Church |
|Prophetic Engagement |The Earth Center |
|Consumer Federation of |The Greenlining Institute |
|California |The Kemet Coalition, Inc. |
|Davis Media Access |The Lord's Gym |
|Division of Ratepayer |The Utility Reform Network |
|Advocates |West Fresno Family Resources |
|Eagles Wing Christian Church |Center |
|El Concilio of San Mateo |Word in Action |
|County |Young Visionaries |
|Ephesians New Testament Church |11 individuals |
|Faith Temple Apostolic Church | |
|Greater Light Community Church | |
|Imani Temple Church | |
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jacqueline Kinney
AB 1407 Analysis
Hearing Date: July 8, 2013
ATTACHMENT
New Basic Service Definition from Decision 12-12-038
At a minimum, the following service elements must be offered on
a nondiscriminatory basis by any carrier providing Residential
Basic Telephone Service (basic service) within California.
These revised basic service elements do not impose an obligation
to provide basic service upon any carrier where no such
obligation exists today. Nor do they prohibit a carrier from
electing to provide additional elements as part of its basic
service offering. Any carrier may use any technology to satisfy
any obligation to provide basic service as detailed below:
I. Basic Service Elements:
1. The provider must offer customers the ability to place
and receive voicegrade calls over all distances utilizing
the public switched telephone network or successor network.
a. Carriers offering basic service must at a minimum
enable calls to be sent and received within a local
exchange or over an equivalent or larger-sized local
calling area.
b. A basic service provider must allow equal access
to all interexchange carriers within the local calling
area in accordance with state and federal law and
regulation.
c. Carriers offering basic service must provide a
voice-grade connection from the customer residence to
the public switched telephone network or successor
network.
d. Carriers offering basic service must disclose to
each customer before subscription that they are entitled
to a voicegrade connection and the conditions under
which the customer may terminate service without penalty
if one cannot be provided.
e. If at any time, a basic service customer fails to
receive a voicegrade connection to the residence and
notifies the provider, the basic service provider is
required to (1) promptly restore the voice-grade
connection, or if not possible (2) provide basic service
to that customer using a different technology if offered
by the provider and if the customer agrees; or (3) allow
the customer to discontinue service without incurring
early termination fees, if applicable. Nothing in these
rules should be inferred as modifying the service
obligation of a Carrier of Last Resort (COLR) to ensure
continuity of customers' basic service.
1. Free access to 911/Enhanced 911 (E911) service.
a. A basic service provider must provide free access
to 911/E911 emergency services, in compliance with
current state and federal laws and regulations.
b. Any carrier that is not a traditional wireline
provider of basic service will be required to make a
showing by filing a Tier 3 Advice Letter that
demonstrates its ability to provide 911/E911 location
accuracy and reliability that is at a minimum at least
reasonably comparable, but not necessarily identical to,
that traditional wireline service offered by the
existing COLR.
c. The basic service provider will further be
required to certify in a Tier 3 Advice Letter filing
that it is compliant with 911/E911 standards established
by state and federal laws and regulations, and will not
be deemed to provide basic service if it has obtained a
waiver from such state and federal laws and regulations.
d. Each basic service provider must provide its
potential and existing customers information regarding
its 911/E911 emergency services location accuracy and
reliability standards.
1. Access to directory services.
a. Each basic service provider must offer access to
directory assistance within the customer's local
community that covers an area at least equivalent to the
size of the geographic area the existing COLR's
directory assistance service provides.
b. For basic service provided by other than a
traditional wireline carrier, a customer's listing may
be excluded from the local directory and directory
assistance as a default unless the subscriber
affirmatively requests to have the number listed.
c. For basic service provided by a traditional
wireline carrier, a customer's listing shall be included
for free in the local directory and directory assistance
as a default unless the customer affirmatively requests
to have the number unlisted.
d. A basic service provider must provide customers
the option to receive a free white pages directory
covering the local community in which the customer
resides. For purposes of this definition, the local
community shall include a geographic region at least
equivalent to the area covered by the white pages
directory that the existing COLR currently provides.
e. Because Verizon California, Inc. (Verizon) and
other providers of basic service to customers residing
in Verizon's service territory have been authorized to
provide electronic delivery pursuant to Resolution
T17302, that authorization is compliant with the white
pages directory requirement for basic service in
Verizons territory.
f. The requirement to provide a free published
directory can be satisfied using the procedures
authorized in Resolution T17302 in other territories
upon the filing of a Tier 2 Advice Letter. Under this
authorization, the affected customers will receive
delivery of the directory electronically by CD-ROM or by
online access, unless a customer affirmatively elects to
receive a traditiong.al printed paper copy by contacting
the basic service provider under the procedures
authorized in Resolution T17302.
1. Billing Provisions
a. Providers of basic service must offer customers
the option to receive unlimited incoming calls without
incurring a perminute or per-call charge.
b. Carriers offering basic service must offer a flat
rate option for unlimited outgoing calls that at a
minimum mirrors the local exchange or an equivalent or
larger sized local calling area in which the basic
service customer resides.
c. Basic service must be offered on a
non-discriminatory basis to all residential households
within the provider's service territory. A carrier may
satisfy this obligation using different technologies
throughout its service territory.
d. Basic service providers must offer Lifeline rates
on a non-discriminatory basis to any customers meeting
Lifeline eligibility requirements residing within the
service territory where the provider offers basic
service.
e. Carriers providing basic service must offer an
option with monthly rates and without contract or early
termination penalties.
f. Carriers may offer added features and/or enhanced
serve elements without additional charge(s) as part of a
basic service offering. For example, carriers must not
obligate customers to also subscribe to service bundles
that require subscription to data and/or video services
as a condition of receiving basic service.
g. As of January 1, 2011, the California Public
Utilities Commission (CPUC) no longer imposes caps on
basic rates. A COLR serving in a high-cost area,
however, will continue to be required to certify that
its basic rate in a designated high-cost area does not
exceed 150% of the highest basic rate charged by a COLR
in California outside of the high-cost area.
1. Access to 800 and 8YY Toll-Free Services.
a. Each provider of basic service must offer at least
one basic service option that allows unlimited calls to
800 and 8YY toll-free numbers with no additional usage
charges for such calls. A provider may offer alternative
billing plans for basic service that may include usage
charges for calls to 800 and 8YY toll-free numbers.
b. In any event, the carrier must provide full
disclosure to the customer concerning how charges for 800
numbers would apply if the customer does not subscribe to
an unlimited calling flat rate option.
1. Access to Telephone Relay Service as Provided for in
Public Utilities Code Section 2881.
Basic service providers must offer free access to
California Relay Service pursuant to Section 2881 for deaf
or hearing-impaired persons or individuals with speech
disabilities.
2. Free Access to Customer Service for Information about
Universal Lifeline Telephone Service (ULTS) Service
Activation, Service Termination, Service Repair and Bill
Inquiries.
The basic service provider shall provide free access to
customer service for information about the above-referenced
services.
3. One-Time Free Blocking for Information Services, and
One-Time Billing Adjustments for Charges Incurred
Inadvertently, Mistakenly, or Without Authorization.
Basic service must include the provision of one-time free
blocking for 900/976 information services and one-time free
billing adjustments for changes inadvertently or mistakenly
incurred, or without authorization.
4. Access to operator services
Basic service shall include free access to operator
services.
II. General Requirements
In addition to the basic service elements and related
requirements listed above, basic service shall be provided
consistent with the following requirements.
a. A basic service provider must file and maintain
tariffs or schedules with the CPUC by a Tier 2 Advice
Letter for its basic service offerings which must include
its basic service rates, charges, terms, and conditions;
and must make them publicly available. Requirements for
customer notice and/or CPUC filings for revisions in
basic service rates, charges, terms, and/or conditions
must be made in accordance with the applicable
requirements for tariff filings set forth in General
Order 96-B.
b. If a carrier chooses to offer basic service in all
or part of its service territory using multiple,
different technologies, each type of offering must be
tariffed or scheduled with the CPUC. This requirement
does not extend beyond basic service.
c. Each basic service provider must clearly inform all
potential residential subscribers who contact the
provider prior to initiating service of their option to
purchase basic service and to subscribe to basic service
on a month-to-month basis with no termed contracts.
d. A provider must not represent to customers, or in
advertising or by any other means, that any services,
service elements, or service conditions, except those
authorized by the CPUC, constitute basic service in
California.
e. Until the CPUC determines the extent to which new
service quality standards should be adopted for carriers,
a provider that wishes to offer basic service utilizing
anything other than traditional exchange-based wireline
technology that cannot comply with all the requirements
of General Order 133-C must file a Tier 3 advice letter.
f. This filing must indicate what General Order 133-C
service quality measurements and reporting procedures it
can comply with, those it can provide functionally
equivalent reporting information for and lastly what
measurement and reporting requirements are not applicable
to the technology it is using to provide basic service.
This filing must further indicate how the new service or
new technology maintains essential basic services or
standards.