Idaho Public Utilities
Commission
Case No.
TFW-T-09-01, Order No. 32550
May 25,
2012
Contact:
Gene Fadness (208) 334-0339, 890-2712
Settlement between
TracFone, commission approved
A company
that provides wireless service through pre-paid calling cards has said it will
start paying into a fund that helps low-income customers in exchange for state
regulators declaring it eligible to receive funds from federal and state
low-income assistance programs.
As part of
the settlement, TracFone Wireless Inc. also said it will drop its current
appeal before the Idaho Supreme Court and will let a district court decide if
it has to pay into the state E-911 fund.
The settlement
is intended to resolve a longstanding dispute between TracFone, the Idaho Public
Utilities Commission and other Idaho telecommunications providers.
In March
2010, TracFone filed an application seeking commission designation as an
Eligible Telecommunications Carrier in Idaho.
ETC status would qualify TracFone to receive money from federal and
state low-income assistance programs.
The commission denied the company’s request due primarily to TracFone’s
belief that its customers are not required to pay an assessment to the ldaho
Telephone Service Assistance Fund (ITSAP) or its federal counterpart,
Lifeline.
ITSAP and
Lifeline allow telephone customers who meet state Health and Welfare Department
guidelines to receive discounts that help to ensure they have access to local
dial-tone service for medical and other emergencies. The program is funded by a monthly charge of 6
cents per line for each Idaho residential, business and wireless customer. The
revenue from that charge and the federal Lifeline funds provide for a discount that
is currently $13.50 per month for qualifying participants.
TracFone
claimed it could not assess its customers the surcharge because it offers its
service through pre-paid airtime cards available at third-party outlets (e.g.
Wal-Mart, Target, Best Buy, etc.) rather than billing its customers, which would
be the mechanism for collecting the surcharge. TracFone also said it would not
contribute to Idaho’s Emergency-911 fund for primarily the same reasons. Not
doing so is a violation of the Idaho Emergency Communications Act, the
commission ruled.
TracFone already
offers pre-paid wireless service in Idaho, but sought ETC designation so it could
provide service to low-income customers under the name SafeLink Wireless. Under
the program, qualifying customers would receive a free handset and up to 250 minutes
of free time. For use beyond 250 minutes, customers would purchase a pre-paid
card at 10 cents per minute. In other
states, SafeLink offers service to low-income, low-volume users and transient
users who either choose not to enter into long-term service commitments or are
unable to meet the credit requirements necessary to obtain service from other
carriers.
After the
commission denied TracFone’s petition for reconsideration, TracFone appealed to
the state Supreme Court. Since the
appeal, TracFone, commission staff, The Idaho Telecom Alliance (a 14-member
association of commercial telephone companies and cooperatives) and CTC Telecom
(Snake River PCS) engaged in settlement discussions.
Under the settlement,
TracFone agrees to contribute to the Lifeline fund retroactive to January 1,
2011. TracFone also agrees to file a
Declaratory Judgment Action in state district court requesting a determination
as to whether it must pay into the E-911 fund.
If the court determines TracFone is subject of E-911 fees, it will
reimburse the Idaho Emergency Communications Commission past due funds dating
from Jan. 1, 2011. If TracFone appeals
an adverse district court decision, the PUC may revoke TracFone’s ETC
status.
The Idaho
Telecom Alliance and CTC Telecom opposed the settlement. Granting the settlement allows TracFone a
“waiver” of 11 of the 12 years TracFone has conducted in business in Idaho, shortchanging
counties more than $4 million in E-911 fees and giving TracFone a competitive
pricing edge, they argued.
The
commission disagreed with the telephone companies’ assertion that past fees are
being waived, noting that TracFone has not conceded it owes the fees. The
commission “is in no way ceding its authority or waiving any past due amounts.
Rather, the commission is approving a reasonable settlement of a disputed issue
pending before the Idaho Supreme Court.”
Further, the companies’ argument that TracFone has needlessly deprived
ITSAP of needed funds ignores the fact that TracFone is not currently drawing
from the ITSAP fund, the commission said.
In earlier
orders, the commission said the just because TracFone does not bill its
customers does not justify violating Idaho statutes requiring all
telecommunications providers to contribute to E-911 and Lifeline. “TracFone has
elected to pursue a business model that makes the collection of the fees more
challenging than a more typical telecommunications provider .... However, TracFone’s
selection of a business model does not render the relevant statutes
inapplicable.” The commission said TracFone’s
testimony indicated it has the ability to track the usage rate of its customers
and calculate the amount that would be due in low-income and E-911
surcharges.
TracFone
argued denial of its application would be a disservice to low-income households
in Idaho.