Colorado PUC Deregulation Order Permanently Caps High-Cost Fund, Abstains from IP
Colorado capped its high-cost USF fund, plans to deregulate competitive parts of the state and wants to keep its hands off Internet Protocol services. The Colorado Public Utilities Commission adopted a rulemaking order (http://bit.ly/UMLLdB) Monday, and it’s effective Dec. 24. The deadline for any appeals for rehearing, reargument or reconsideration is Jan. 14. The order follows a series of hearings and comments throughout the fall (CD Sept 10 p5). The proceeding began in August.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Communications Daily is required reading for senior executives at top telecom corporations, law firms, lobbying organizations, associations and government agencies (including the FCC). Join them today!
The order’s “key principles” say the PUC will behave in a technology-neutral way and treat geographic areas with “multiple competitors” as effectively competitive. “Where multiple carriers do not compete, we will maintain high cost support,” the order said. It will phase out high-cost support from certain regions deemed effectively competitive. The fund will be permanently capped at $54 million, which has been a temporary cap for the last six months. The PUC declined to impose quarterly caps on the fund to allow flexibility. The commission will also continue to regulate emergency communications to make sure 911 functions properly, including in areas where it’s reducing regulation. The PUC will retain provider-of-last-resort regulation “for the foreseeable future” in areas of reclassified basic service, it said.
The Colorado PUC is “affirming the status quo in which we do not place any regulatory barriers on IP enabled services,” it said, “and continue to exercise authority to ensure high quality basic emergency services and require contributions to vital state support funds from carriers on a technologically-neutral basis.” Regulations would be “potentially restrictive,” it said, affirming the wish of many major telcos (CD Sept 21 p10).
Some Colorado residents feared the rulemaking would hurt rural parts of the state, concerns they voiced earlier this fall and submitted again by email after the comment deadline. They focused on the potential reduction of the state’s high-cost fund. “Rural Colorado is currently struggling economically, and cannot afford to lose access to wired telephone service,” said Wildwood Casino General Manager Kevin Werner (http://bit.ly/Yd7FMr). “Individuals and businesses in my area rely on wired telephone and cannot always count on spotty wireless coverage, or telephone services provided by sometimes inconsistent broadband internet.” Assistant Director of Kremmling Public Library Ryan Foster warned against “cancelling” the high-cost fund and worried about higher landline bills (http://bit.ly/ZF2MvQ). Carol and Tony Wernsmen of W.W. Enterprises worried about loss of service and more dependency on wireless phones if the high-cost fund was lost (http://bit.ly/UYPylY).
The first six months or so of 2013 will be devoted to determining areas of effective competition and subsequent deregulation, the PUC said. Broadband deployment concerns will stay outside the scope of the order, it said. It acknowledged the many comments addressing that concern but wanted to keep the order focused, it said. “The proposed rules did not address or relate to repurposing the fund in any way beyond what is statutorily directed.”