None.
Brief summary of rule
The objective of this rulemaking is to revise the existing ch.
PSC 160, Universal Service Support Funding and Programs. These rules were originally created in 1996, and then revised in 2000. Minor changes are also made to chs.
PSC 161 and
171. In the proposed rule, the commission revises existing Universal Service programs that provide access to telecommunications service to all Wisconsin customers regardless of geographic location, income or disability. In this same chapter are revisions to the mechanism for funding those programs and for administering the Universal Service Fund (USF).
Any changes made as a result of this rulemaking are intended to continue and enhance support for these general purposes stated in the statutes.
A prior USF rulemaking was withdrawn by act of law on December 31, 2010. That draft of the rules included several issues that were contentious, and time for promulgation ran out. This rulemaking is primarily intended to promulgate those portions of the previously proposed rule that are less contentious, such as program-specific updates. While these proposed rules were being drafted, changes occurred on both the state and federal levels that required additional revisions to these rules. For example,
2011 Wisconsin Act 22 changed the statutory definition of “essential telecommunications services." Additionally, the federal Lifeline and Link-up programs were changed dramatically. As a result, these proposed rules were also crafted to make changes necessitated by state and federal law changes.
PSC 160.02 (2), (3) and (4)
These are definitions of call blocking, call control and call limitation. The changes provide consistency with applicable federal language and usage.
PSC 160.02 (9), (12), (14) and (22)
The commission now recognizes three different types of eligible telecommunications carrier (ETC). A definition of each type has been added.
PSC 160.03
This section on essential telecommunications services has been extensively rewritten to reflect changes made by
2011 Wisconsin Act 22. The prior requirements for and definition of essential services have been replaced with those that federal law had in place as of January 2010, as required by
2011 Wisconsin Act 22.
PSC 160.031
PSC 160.035
PSC 160.04
The section on call limitation (formerly toll blocking) has been rewritten to bring it more into line with current federal rules and definitions.
PSC 160.05
This section lists programs that can be funded through the Universal Service Fund (USF). The programs themselves are described elsewhere in the rules. Likewise, a description and explanation of changes appear in the program-specific parts of this analysis.
PSC 160.06
This section addresses eligibility requirements for low-income USF programs. Language is added throughout s.
PSC 160.06 to address the different types of Eligible Telecommunications Carriers (ETCs) now recognized by the commission. Subsection (1) requires all subject providers to use the state verification databases, as required under federal rules. Subsection (1) (c) addresses situations in which the state databases cannot be used for verification. Subsection PSC 160.06 (2) requires providers to re-verify the eligibility of all lifeline recipients annually. This requirement has existed in state rules for years and has now been adopted by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) as well.
PSC 160.061
The FCC has eliminated the federal link-up program (that waives certain service connection charges for low-income customers) for all but tribal lands. This rule change eliminates the existing statewide link-up program. More limited programs targeted at specific customer groups, including those on tribal lands, who show a clear need for support may be authorized under s.
PSC 160.125
PSC 160.062 (1)
Customers are eligible for only one lifeline credit at a time under federal law. The commission and FCC have both needed to take action to prevent lifeline fraud in this area. The draft rule specifically states that a customer may not request more than one lifeline credit, and requires the providers to take steps to prevent customers from receiving multiple lifeline credits.
PSC 160.062 (1r)
ETCs apply the lifeline adjustment to an eligible customer's bill, regardless of whether that customer is purchasing service on a standalone basis or as part of a bundle. The adjustment is made to whatever service or bundle the customer purchases.
PSC 160.062 (2), (2g) and (2r)
The lifeline base rate is defined as the rate for essential services, when offered on a standalone basis, or a fixed $25, when essential service is only offered as part of a service bundle. The lifeline discount is tied to these rates, and is either $10 or an amount necessary to reduce the lifeline base rate to $15 (subject to a maximum contribution from the state of $9.25). Another provision allows for automatic adjustment of lifeline benefits, provided they do not put the state universal service fund at risk. Where federal changes could require additional state payments, the commission would have to consider the impact of those changes before authorizing the resultant state USF expenditures. The draft rules also include a section addressing prepaid wireless service, which offers free minutes of use in lieu of a discount to monthly rates, since prepaid service has no monthly rates. Subsection (2r) contains language for lifeline on tribal lands to keep that portion consistent with the federal program.
PSC 160.062 (4m)
This lifeline provision clarifies the process for a provider to follow if it determines that an existing customer is no longer eligible for lifeline discounts.
PSC 160.062 (5m)
This section requires providers to file requests for compensation for lifeline credits in a timely manner. The provision strikes a balance: allowing providers sufficient time to file requests for compensation while not requiring the USF to budget for potential reimbursement claims filed years after occurrence.
PSC 160.063
The changes to this section clarify application procedures and provide flexibility for low-income outreach programs.
PSC 160.07
The provisions on special needs certification are moved into s.
PSC 160.071.
PSC 160.071
This section addresses service and equipment for individuals with special needs and includes the Telecommunications Equipment Purchase Program (TEPP). Changes in the amount of reimbursement reflect changes to the costs and technologies used to provide the equipment necessary to allow customers with disabilities to use telecommunications services. Subsection (1m) (c) clarifies coverage of TEPP co-payments for low-income customers. Subsection (1m) (j) allows the commission to suspend vendors for cause and stops payments to suspended vendors. Subsection (1m) (L) 2. allows the program to cover the cost of computing equipment, if that is both required and the most cost-effective means of providing the assistance necessary for the customer to utilize telecommunications services. Sections (4), (5) and (6) continue to require providers to waive fees for operator service, directory assistance and custom calling services, when required by an individual with special needs. Providers may receive payment for such waivers. The section which provided for discounted long distance service is obsolete and has been removed. The draft also creates a filing deadline in sub. (7) to prevent providers from claiming reimbursement years after the fact.
PSC 160.073
The commission has ceased funding this public interest payphone program, so the language is being removed.
PSC 160.09
This section addresses high rate assistance credits, a program that reduces what customers are charged for essential services, when those charges exceed a threshold tied to median household income. The majority of the changes to this section clarify the sources of data used to calculate the credits, the various changes to what is considered part of essential service, and program procedures. Subsection 160.09 (1r) states when providers must recalculate those credits, and allows providers to avoid the expenses involved in such changes when those changes would be insignificant. The changes also set forth the procedure for providers to show what portion of a bundled rate covers essential service. The draft also creates a filing deadline in sub. (5) to prevent providers from claiming reimbursement years after the fact.
PSC 160.091
This section on qualifications for high rate assistance credits is eliminated and those requirements have been incorporated into ss.
PSC 160.09 and
PSC 160.13.
PSC 160.092
This section allows the commission to create alternative universal service protection plans on an experimental, temporary basis. The changes clarify the procedure to create such plans and specify what such plans could address. Subsection (4) is eliminated, as the program to which it refers is also being eliminated.
PSC 160.10
Rate Shock Mitigation applied only in cases where commission-ordered retail rate increases would negatively impact customers. Since the commission no longer has authority to order rate changes, the rate shock mitigation program is being eliminated.
PSC 160.11
The TEACH Program made this program for institutional assistance obsolete, so the language is being deleted.
PSC 160.125
The changes in this section promoting access to telecommunications services provide clarity, codify the procedures the commission is currently following and remove advanced services from the list of supportable services as required by 2011 Wisconsin Act 22.
PSC 160.13
This section on ETCs has been extensively revised to codify current practice and to incorporate changes in both federal rules and state statutes. Changes in this section also reflect the fact that the commission authorizes three different types of ETCs. Full ETCs are eligible for all state and federal funds, including high cost funding. Low-income-only ETCs are only eligible for lifeline support. Federal-only ETCs are wireless ETCs authorized under s.
196.218(4) (b), Stats. A provider may be both low-income and federal only, in which case the provider would only be eligible for federal lifeline support.
PSC 160.13(3)
This subsection lists the information and certifications providers must file as part of their initial applications for ETC status. The section incorporates federal filing requirements. The section requires a list of wire centers in which the provider seeks designation, a showing that the provider is certified to do business in Wisconsin, and the provision of contact information and so forth.
PSC 160.13(5)
This subsection covers periodic reporting requirements for ETCs. The state requirements generally mirror federal requirements and allow ETCs to meet most state requirements by filing copies of their federal filings with the commission.
PSC 160.13(9)
Both federal rules and statutes define the smallest area for which a provider can request ETC designation, but the FCC has granted waivers and forbearance of theses requirement in certain situations. The general rule states that the smallest allowable area for areas served by rural incumbent local exchange companies (ILECs) is, with certain exceptions, the entire ILEC service territory. The smallest allowable area for non-rural areas is the wire center.
PSC 160.13(10)
This subsection has been modified to conform with FCC directives that call for states to make a public interest finding in designating ETCs in both rural and non-rural areas, although the finding for non-rural areas requires a less detailed analysis.
PSC 160.13 (12)
This provision covers the procedures for ETCs to relinquish ETC status. The changes to this section are primarily grammatical, and to address the existence of low-income ETCs. Paragraph (c) incorporates the processes that were referred to in another section which is being eliminated in this rewrite, so that those references appear here. Paragraph (e) addresses the situation of a federal-only ETC which wishes to remain an ETC, but, because of technological change or for other reasons, no longer meets the requirements for federal-only status.
PSC 160.14
This section, which ensured customers had access to at least one long distance provider, is being repealed. With the market moving to all-distance pricing, specific protections targeted exclusively at long distance service are no longer necessary.
PSC 160.18 (9) (b)
This section clarifies timelines and procedures for providers that wish to object to universal service fund assessments.
PSC 160.18 (10)
This section prevents providers from making adjustments to current rates for over or under USF collections from periods long past.
PSC 160.19 (2)
The modifications to the composition of the universal service fund council reflect the changes to the industry which have occurred since this provision was last drafted. Long distance is no longer a separate nor an affected market segment, while wireless has clearly become significant.
Comparison with existing or proposed federal legislation
There is both a state USF and a federal USF. The state and federal funds and programs are complementary rather than duplicative.
“Eligible Telecommunications Carriers" (ETCs) are designated by the commission and are, thereafter, eligible for funding from the federal USF and for certain funding from the state USF. ETC status was created by the FCC, and codified in 47 U.S.C. § 214(e)(2). Under FCC rules, state commissions are responsible for designating eligible providers as ETCs.
47 U.S.C. §. 214(e)(2), 47 C.F.R. § 54.201(b).
Designation as an ETC is required if a provider is to receive federal USF funding. ETC designation is also required to receive funding from some, but not all, state universal service programs. The FCC established a set of minimum criteria that all ETCs must meet. These are codified in the federal rules. (
47 U.S.C. § 214(e)(1), 47 C.F.R. § 54.101(a).) The 1996 Telecommunications Act states that, “A State may adopt regulations not inconsistent with the commission's rules to preserve and advance universal service." 47 U.S.C. § 254(f). A court upheld the states' right to impose additional conditions on ETCs in
Texas Office of Public Utility Counsel v. FCC,
183 F.3d 393, 418 (5
th Cir. 1999). Therefore, while states must examine the federal requirements, they are allowed to create additional requirements. Wisconsin has done so.
The federal USF provides funding to ETCs that are found to serve high-cost areas. That funding is to be used to help cover the costs of expanding infrastructure into those areas. Doing so should help ensure that rates in those areas stay lower since rates need not provide the funds for that expansion. The Wisconsin USF provides reimbursement to providers that offer credits to customers when rates are higher than as designated in s.
PSC 160.09.
The federal USF also includes lifeline and link-up programs (on tribal lands only) to assist low-income customers. The Wisconsin lifeline program is structured to complement the federal program and to take advantage of the available federal lifeline funds.
The FCC is currently conducting trials around the country where the lifeline credit may apply to Internet access service. In these rules the Wisconsin lifeline program is adapted to address the needs of disabled individuals whose principal means of communication is not adequately supported by traditional voice telephony. It allows the lifeline credit to apply to Internet access where a certified disabled customer requires it as a substitute for regular essential telecommunications service.
The federal USF assessment applies to all carriers, including wireless carriers, and is assessed based on interstate revenues. The state USF assessment applies to all providers, including wireless providers, and is assessed based on intrastate revenues. Wisconsin exempts certain providers from assessment, such as those with under $200,000 in intrastate revenues.
There are parts of the federal USF (e.g., the E-Rate program for schools) that do not have a counterpart in the state USF rules. Likewise, some of the state USF rules (e.g., the program to assist persons with disabilities — s.
PSC 160.071) address matters not included in the federal USF law or rules.
Comparison with similar rules in surrounding states
The following discussion focuses on areas where significant changes are being made to the USF rules.
Many state USF programs, both in Wisconsin and in other states, are intertwined with federal universal service programs. As a result, there is a certain amount of similarity among state programs. For example, each of the surrounding states has lifeline type programs. (Lifeline helps pay the monthly cost of telephone service. Link-up helps pay the cost of service installation.) As required under federal law, each has income-based eligibility criteria although the specifics vary somewhat. The level of credits to customers and the resulting reimbursements to providers are similar, due in part to the federal matching dollars attached to credit/reimbursement levels. A difference in lifeline programs is that the four other states only have a set figure for the lifeline credit/reimbursement amount (although in Michigan that amount may vary depending on which company is involved). Wisconsin has a standard lifeline credit if the base rate is $25 or below, although, it has a variable component. (The “base rate" is the monthly residential rate including applicable in-state fees, touch-tone service, 911 charges on the telephone bill, the federal subscriber line charge, access recovery charge and 120 local calls.) If the base rate is $25 or above, the reimbursement/credit is the lesser of:
1. Whatever is necessary to bring that rate down to $15.
2. The amount available under the federal USF plus $9.25.
In this way, low-income customers in higher cost (generally rural) areas receive a credit sufficient to bring the base rate to a reasonably affordable level and providers are on a fairly “level playing field."
The provision in these rules that allows the lifeline credit to apply to Internet access where a certified disabled customer requires it as a substitute for regular essential telecommunications service is unique within the region.
