BEFORE THE CORPORATION COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

Transcription

1 ~yr ~y~.~ ~ BEFORE THE CORPORATION COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA APPLICATION OF CROSS WIRELESS, LLC D/B/A ) CAUSE NO. PUD SPROCKET WIRELESS, LLC AND MOBILZ FOR ) DESIGNATION AS AN ELIGIBLE ) TELECOMMUNICATIONS CARRIER PURSUANT ) ORDER NO. 5316Q1, TO THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1996 ) HEARING: October 12, 2006 Before Maribeth D. Snapp, Administrative Law Judg e APPEARANCES: Bennett Abbott, Assistant General Counsel, representing Public Utility Division, Oklahoma Corporation Commissio n Mary Kathryn Kunc and Ron Comingdeer, Attorneys, representing Cross Wireless LLC d/b/a Sprocket Wireless, LLC and Mobil z FINAL ORDER DESIGNATING CROSS WIRELESS, LLC DB/A SPROCKET WIRELESS AND MOBILZ AS AN ELIGI BLE TELECOMMUNICATIONS CARRIER BY THE COMMISSION : The Corporation Commission ("Cammission") of the State of Oklahoma being regularly in session and the undersigned Commissioners being present and participating, there comes on for consideration and action the Application of Cross Wireless, LLC d/b/a Sprocket Wireless, LLC and Mobilz ("Applicant" or "Cross Wireless") for an order of the Commission designating it as an Eligible Telecommunications Carrier ("ETC") in order to receive all available support from the Federal Universal Service Fund ("USF") for the purposes of providing Lifeline service in the Braggs, Fort Gibson, McAlester, Westville and Wilburton exchanges of Southwestern Bell Telephone LP d/b/a AT&T Oklahoma ("AT&T Oklahoma") which are located in the licensed service area of Cross Wireless. PROCE DURAL HISTORY On August 23, 2006, Cross Wireless filed an Application with the Commission requesting the Commission issue an order designating it as an ETC pursuant to the Telecommunications Act of 1996 in the exchanges of AT&T Oklahoma encompassed by the cellular licenses of Cross Wireless. On September 7, 2006, the Commission issued Protective Order No and Order No establishing the Procedural Schedule. The Prefiled Testimony of V. David Miller li was filed on behalf of the Applicant on September 8, On October 6, 2006 the Prefiled Testimony of Barbara L. Mallett was filed on behalf of the Commission Staff. SUMMARY OF TESTIMONY Mr. V. David Miller II, President of Cross Telephone Company testified on behalf of the Applicant. Mr. Miller stated that his Prefiled Testimony was accurate and the pleadings with their attachments filed in this case are true and correct to the best of his knowledge. He further testified that the purpose of the above-entitled Application was to request Commission designation as an ETC in AT&T Oklahoma's exchanges of Braggs, Fort Gibson, McAlester, Westville and Wilburton.

2 Cause No. PUD Final Order D esignating an ETC Page 2 of S Mr. Miller testified that Cross Wireless had previously been designated as an ETC for Cross Telephone Company's study area by Commission Order No and for the AT&T Oklahoma and Windstream exchanges of Checotah, Eufaula, Muskogee, Stigler, Stillwater and Tahlequah per Commission Order No. Order No He explained that the instant application was filed because through error, the Company failed to include these additional AT&T Oklahoma exchanges in their previous request for ETC designation ; and since the Company served customers within these exchanges, the Company would be able to provide wireless Lifeline services to these customers if designated as an ETC. Mr. Miller stated for the Court that Cross Wireless was not seeking ETC status for the purposes of receiving any funding from the Oklahoma Universal Service Fund, only the Federal USF. Mr. Miller explained that Cross Wireless is authorized, pursuant to its FCC licenses, to provide commercial mobile radio service ("CMRS") in the Basic Trading Areas 267 and BTA 311 which include the counties of Adair, Cherokee, Haskell, Latimer, Muskogee, McIntosh, Payne and Pittsburg. He further stated that the Company had also recently acquired additional spectrum in the Federal Communications Commission's AWS Auction which would enhance their service area. Mr. Miller confirmed that Cross Wireless would provide the nine federally designated services set forth in 47 C.F.R (a). He further stated that the Company had provided the Commission Staff with its Lifeline and Linkup service offerings, and that Cross Wireless' offerings mirrored the incumbents' Lifeline and Linkup plans. Mr. Miller stated he had also provided the Commission Staff with the Lifeline advertising of Cross Wireless and that their Lifeline plans were posted on their website at Mr. Miller testified that Cross Wireless' local calling area for its Lifeline universal service product would allow local calling which encompasses Cross Wireless' entire wireless network. He explained that their customers' local calling area included all of Cross Telephone Company's exchanges, and the surrounding communities such as Checotah, Muskogee, McAlester, Stigler and Tahlequah which would be a great benefit to Cross Wireless' customers. He stated that the local calling area was much larger than that of the incumbent LEC. Mr. Miller testified that Cross Wireless had provided the Commission Staff a copy of its 5 Year Build Out Plan. He explained that the Plan includes the proposed wireless network upgrades for the AT&T Oklahoma exchanges that Cross Wireless is planning to construct including additional cell sites. Mr. Miller stated that any Federal USF monies it may receive by virtue of being designated an ETC would be used to help fund the upgrades. He further explained that due to the terrain in Cross Wireless' service territory, additional cell sites were needed to provide seamless coverage because it was quite hilly and there were many lakes and rivers. Mr. Miller then confirmed that Cross Wireless would accept Carrier of Last Resort obligations in AT&T Oklahoma's exchanges, if designated an ETC. Mr. Miller reiterated that Cross Wireless was committed to customer service. He explained that Cross Wireless has two local offices in the Cross Telephone exchanges and has offices in Muskogee, Tahlequah and McAlester and is planning on opening additional sites in Checotah and Stigler. He explained the offices are open Monday through Friday from 8 a.zn. to 5 p.m. where customer service representatives are available to meet with customers, which benefits customers living in the rural areas. He stated that Cross

3 Cause No. PUD Final Order Designating an ETC Page 3 of 5 Wireless also maintains a twenty-four hour help desk for customers and if the customer is experiencing a network problem, technicians are on call that can repair the network promptly. Mr. Miller testified that he had reviewed the prefiled testimony of Commission Staff witness, Barbara Mallett, and agreed with her recommendations. He stated that Cross Wireless would comply with the provisions of the Commission's Wireless Rules set forth in OAC 165 :55. Mr. Miller further testified that the Company understood it could only receive Federal USF support for the universal service offerings provided utilizing Cross Wireless's own facilities and that any Federal USF must be used only for the provision, maintenance, and upgrading of facilities and services for which the support is intended pursuant to the Telecommunications Act. Mr. Miller stated that he believed granting Cross Wireless ETC status was in the public interest, because it would allow the Company to provide Lifeline service with a large local calling scope which would bring additional services to customers and promote the health and safety of consumers. Counsel for the Commission Staff stated for the Court that he waived cross-examination for Mr. Miller. The Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") then asked Mr. Miller if Cross Wireless would be requesting additional ETC status of the exchanges encompassed by the new wireless spectrum acquired in the AWS auction. Mr. Miller stated that since the spectrum covered additional exchanges all the way from Fort Smith, Arkansas to Seminole, Oklahoma, they probably would in the future. Ms. Barbara L. Mallet, Public Utility Regulatory Analyst, testified on behalf of the Commission Staff. Ms. Mallet testified that she had reviewed the filing of Cross Wireless and based upon her review, the Company met all the requirements for designation as an ETC pursuant to the provisions of the Commission's Rules and the Telecommunications Act of Ms. Mallet explained that Cross Wireless has met the six requirements set forth in 47 U.S.C. 214(e) to be designated as an ETC for federal universal service support. She testified that Cross Wireless had already been designated an ETC for Cross Telephone Company's study area, as well as for the AT&T Oklahoma and Windstream exchanges of Checotah, Eufaula, Muskogee, Stigler, Stillwater and Tahlequah per Commission Order No. Order No She stated that the Commission was acting within its authority to expand Cross Wireless' ETC status in this proceeding. Ms. Mallett stated that the Company had provided Staff with copies of its advertising of Lifeline and Universal Service Plans, and she had reviewed the Lifeline information located on the Company's website. Ms. Mallett further testified that the Company was not requesting ETC status in any rural telephone company's study area so there is no requirement to make a public interest determination. She further explained that notwithstanding this, Cross Wireless' local calling scope was much larger than that of the incumbent LEC, and this would benefit customers living in rural Oklahoma. Ms. Mallett testified that the Company was not requesting ETC status in this proceeding in order to receive any federal High Cost Support since AT&T Oklahoma does not receive any. Rather, she explained that Cross Wireless was requesting ETC status in order to receive funding from the federal USF for providing Lifeline Service. Ms. Mallet stated the Company had provided a 5 Year Build-Out Plan which she had reviewed. The 5 Year Build-Out Plan sets forth how any federal USF

4 Cause Na. PUD Final Order Designating an ETC Page 4 of 5 monies received would be used for the purposes intended under the Act. She further testified it was Staff's opinion that granting Cross Wireless ETC status was in the public interest as more people could receive Lifeline service and that Staffrecommended that Cross Wireless b e designated an ETC for receipt of Federal universal service funds in the AT&T Oklahoma exchanges of Braggs, Fort Gibson, McAlester, Westvil2e and Wilburton. Counsel for Cross Wireless stated for the Court that she waived cross-examination for Ms, Mallett. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW After hearing all the evidence and statements of counsel, the ALJ finds, based upon Cross Wireless's representations, that Cross Wireless d/b/a Sprocket and Mobilz is seeking ETC designation in AT&T Oklahoma's exchanges of Braggs, Fort Gibson, McAlester, Westville and Wilburton for the purposes of receiving Federal USF ; and is not at this time seeking designation as an ETC for receipt of funding from the Oklahoma Universal Service Fund. The ALJ finds that Cross Wireless represented that it would abide by the requirements of OAC 165 : et seq. ; has submitted its Lifeline and Universal Service Products and advertising into the record; and agrees to accept carrier of last resort responsibility within AT&T Oklahoma's exchanges of Braggs, Fort Gibson, McAlester, Westville and Wilburton. The ALJ finds that Cross Wireless should be designated as an ETC in the respective AT&T Oklahoma exchanges for the purposes of receiving Federal Universal Service Support. The Commission finds that it has jurisdiction over the above-entitled cause pursuant to the provisions of 47 U.S.C. 214(e)(2) ; 47 C.F.R ; Art. IX, 18 of the Oklahoma Constitution; 17 O.S. 131, et seq ; and OAC 165 :55-1-1, et seq. ORDER IT IS THEREFORE THE ORDER OF THE OKLAHOMA CORPORATION COMMISSION that the Recommendations of the Administrative Law Judge are hereby approved. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the above findings are hereby the Order of the Commission. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Cross Wireless is hereby designated an ETC within AT&T Oklahoma's exchanges of Braggs, Fort Gibson, McAlester, Westville and Wilburton for the purpose of receiving federal universal service support. O H A RPORAT N COMMISSION JE CL D, Chairman D IS A. ODE, ' e C7iair~nan a BOB ANTHONY, Comrriissio er

5 Caus e No. PUD Filirrl Order D esignating an ETC Page 5 qf 5 DONE AND PERFORMET? THIS 31 DA OCTOBER, 2006 BY ORDER OF THE COMMTSSiON. _ ~. PEGGY JI(CIIELL, Secretary REPORT OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE The foregoing Findings, Conclusions and Order are the Report and Recommendations of the Administrative Law Judge. ~, 10 ~ ,~4 4yt-~ MARIBETH D. SNAPP Date Administrative Law Judge