March 23, 1998 NOTICE OF OPPORTUNITY TO FILE COMMENTS (April 17, 1998) Re: Petition for Investigation into the Cost of Universal Service and to Reform Intrastate Access Charges, and Obligation to Serve Requirement Docket No. UT-970325 TO ALL INTERESTED PERSONS: On October 8, 1997, the Commission initiated a rule making in the above captioned and docketed matter. A Preproposal Statement of Inquiry (CR-101) was filed with the Code Reviser on October 22, 1997. On March 18, 1998, a supplemental CR-101 was filed in this rule making proceeding to add the issue of a local exchange company’s obligation to provide service. The Commission gives notice to interested persons of the opportunity to comment on issues related to an obligation to serve requirement. The Commission expresses its appreciation to those who have commented so throughly on intrastate access reform. We now request your comments on the obligation to serve issues outlined below. In addition to comments on the outlined issues, please feel free to comment on any additional aspect of an obligation to serve requirement. Currently, RCW 80.36.090 imposes an obligation on telecommunications carriers to provide service on demand. In the case of incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs), the Commission stated in the Fourth Supplemental Order in Docket No. UT-961638: “The Commission is cognizant and mindful that continuing to impose an obligation to serve upon incumbent local exchange companies is a short run proposition given technological innovation and federal and state regulatory policy.” Order, p. 21. Hence, the primary focus of this inquiry is to address the following question: How can the Commission continue to ensure that service, including both additional service in existing served areas and new service in unserved areas, is available when customers request service, given the technological and market changes that may occur in Washington? NOTICE: Opportunity to Comment Docket No. UT-970325 Page 1 We believe that there are a number of aspects to that question which should be explored, including: 1. How should the obligation to serve differ, if at all, between: a. The obligations of an incumbent to serve its retail customers, and to provide unbundled network elements and resale services to its wholesale customers? b. The obligations of an entrant to its retail customers, and the obligation of an incumbent to its retail customers? c. The obligations of incumbents and new entrants with respect to customers outside any incumbent’s current exchange boundaries? d. The obligations of incumbents and new entrants to customers who switch to a competitor and then wish to return to their preceding service provider? e. The obligation of an incumbent to serve the additional demands of existing customers, for example, second lines, and its obligation to serve new customers within existing exchange map boundaries? 2. What conditions must exist before the Commission can permit an ILEC to be relieved of its obligation to provide service on demand within its serving area? Should the conditions include: a. Generally available (tariffed) terms and conditions for unbundled network elements and resale of services? b. The presence of effective competition in the service area at issue? If so, measured by what standard? c. The existence of more than one eligible telecommunications carrier (ETC) in the service area at issue? 3. What difference, if any, is there between the obligation to serve requirement imposed by RCW 80.36.090, and the requirement that an ETC offer basic service in its designated service area? Are obligation to serve and universal service concepts necessarily related to each other? 4. For purposes of fulfilling the obligation to serve requirement, are ILECs’ designated (tariffed) service areas appropriate, or could some other geographic area be considered? 5. Section 214(e)(3) requires state commissions to designate an ETC for unserved areas of the state. What process should the Commission use to designate provider(s) that will have an obligation to serve currently unserved areas of the state? If a case-by-case approach is recommended, what specific criteria should the Commission consider? 6. What service(s) should be provided pursuant to the statutory obligation to provide service requirement? Should the service(s) provided differ depending upon whether the customer is located in an existing exchange area or in an unserved area? 7. Do the FCC infrastructure sharing rules, implementing Sec. 259 necessitate consideration by the Commission of state specific infrastructure sharing rules? 8. Are the availability of tariffed terms and conditions for unbundled network elements, resale, and infrastructure sharing sufficient to ensure that non-ILEC carriers could provide service under an obligation to serve requirement in designated service areas? 9. Are there any legal, institutional, or market factors that the Commission should consider in altering the existing ILECs’ obligation to serve? 10. Can the limits of an obligation to serve requirement be defined by technology?; by business plan?; by any other attribute or attributes other than a tariff? 11. What other issues, not addressed here, should be addressed by a Commission rule concerning the obligation to serve requirement? 12. Do wireless providers have an obligation to provide service within their designated serving areas? Can the Commission designate wireless providers as ETCs? Any person wanting to receive copies of material previously provided by the Commission in this rule making proceeding, or copies of materials/comments filed by interested persons, may contact the Commission’s Records Center at 360-664-1234, or contact them via e-mail at . Also, some materials/comments may be found on the Commission’s Internet site at . NOTICE is given of the opportunity to file additional written comments in this rule making proceeding. To be timely filed, the Commission must receive your written comments not later than 5:00 p.m., Friday, April 17, 1998. If you are filing on behalf of a telecommunications company or formal organization, we ask that your cover letter identify a single point of contact for this rule making at your company or organization and provide voice and facsimile telephone numbers and an e-mail address. All other interested persons are likewise invited to supply this information at your discretion. In light of the critical importance and widespread interest in this proceeding, we ask that commenters file an original and ten written copies, and an electronic copy on 31/2-inch IBM formatted high-density disk, preferably in WordPerfect version 5.1, 6.0 or 6.1, labeled with the commentor’s name, company or organization as appropriate, type of software used, and the docket number of this proceeding. The electronic files will be posted to the Commission’s Internet site. We again thank you for your participation in this process. If you have any questions or comments on the obligation to serve requirement aspect of this proceeding, please contact Tom Spinks, Regulatory Consultant, at 360-664-1289, or by e-mail at . The Commission Staff contact for the broader access reform issues is Tim Zawislak, who may be contacted at 360-664-1294 or by e-mail at . Sincerely, PAUL CURL ACTING SECRETARY