BEFORE THE WASHINGTON UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

In the Matter of Determining the      ) DOCKET NO. UT-971515
Proper Classification of:   )
      )
UNITED & INFORMED CITIZEN        ) FOURTH SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER
ADVOCATES NETWORK   ) 
      ) COMMISSION DECISION AND
      ) FINAL CEASE AND DESIST ORDER
 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  )

SUMMARY

  PROCEEDINGS:   On October 28, 1997, the Washington Utilities and 
Transportation Commission (Commission) instituted this proceeding to determine 
whether United & Informed Citizens Advocates Network (U & I CAN) conducts 
business as a telecommunications company subject to Commission regulation, or 
performs any act requiring registration or approval by the Commission without 
securing authorization. A prehearing conference was held on November 18, 1997.  
A motion by U & I CAN to disqualify Marjorie R. Schaer as Administrative Law 
Judge was heard and denied. Requests by U S WEST Communications, Inc. (U S 
WEST) and GTE Northwest (GTE) to intervene were granted.  A prehearing 
conference order by Judge Schaer was entered on December 5, 1997.  That order 
reflected the decisions made orally at the prehearing conference, and set out a 
schedule for the proceeding.  A protective order was entered by the Commission 
on December 5, 1997.

  On December 11, 1997,  U & I CAN filed objections to the Prehearing 
Conference Order.  
U & I CAN requested that the Commission overturn that Order in part, and 
disqualify Judge Schaer.  The Commission denied the request in an order entered 
January 23, 1998.  The parties pre-filed testimony and exhibits in accordance 
with the schedule in the prehearing conference order.

  On May 19, 1998, a hearing was conducted.  Judge Schaer declined to 
reconsider U & I CAN’s motions previously ruled upon, including the request for 
disqualification.  U & I CAN’s motions to stay proceedings and dismiss for lack 
of jurisdiction were denied.  U & I CAN was granted a continuing objection to 
the admission of any evidence or testimony in this case, did not present 
testimony or other evidence, and did not conduct any cross-examination of 
witnesses.  Testimony and exhibits on behalf of the other parties were 
admitted, and form the factual basis for this order.  At the conclusion of the 
hearing the parties waived entry of an initial order.  

  COMMISSION:  The Commission has jurisdiction to determine whether 
U & I CAN is engaged in any activity without complying with the statutory 
requirements of RCW Title 80.  Furthermore, the Commission has a public 
interest in regulating extended-area-service (EAS) bridging.  
U & I CAN is a company owning, operating, or managing facilities used to 
provide telecommunications for sale to the general public.   U & I CAN is a 
telecommunications company as defined by RCW 80.04.010, and it must register 
with the Commission prior to providing service as required by RCW 80.36.350.  U 
& I CAN, and its principals, must cease and desist from offering 
telecommunications services in the state of Washington unless and until they 
are properly registered with the Commission.  It is appropriate for the 
Commission to enter a final order in this matter.
  
  PARTIES:  U & I CAN appeared represented by J. Byron Holcomb, attorney, 
Bainbridge Island.  Shannon E. Smith, Assistant Attorney General, Olympia, 
appeared for the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission and its 
staff (Commission Staff).   U S WEST, represented by Peter Butler, attorney, 
Seattle, and GTE, represented by Timothy J. O’Connell, attorney, Everett, 
appeared and sought intervention by motions, which were granted.

MEMORANDUM

I. BACKGROUND

 A.  Proceedings  

  On October 28, 1997, the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission 
(Commission) instituted this proceeding to determine whether U & I CAN conducts 
business as a telecommunications company subject to Commission regulation, or 
performs any act requiring registration or approval by the Commission, without 
securing authorization.  The Commission scheduled a prehearing conference in 
accordance with WAC 480-09-460 for November 18, 1997.  At the prehearing 
conference, Administrative Law Judge Marjorie R. Schaer heard U & I CAN’s oral 
motion to disqualify her as presiding officer.  The motion was denied orally at 
the prehearing conference.  U & I CAN’s motion to stay proceedings to enable it 
to obtain administrative review of the decision was also denied.  Petitions  
by  
U S WEST and GTE to intervene filed pursuant to WAC 480-09-430 were granted, 
over U & I CAN’s objection.  These decisions were subsequently confirmed by 
written order.[1]  

  A protective order was issued by the Commission on the same day.[2]  The 
order was specially crafted to protect member lists, membership information, 
membership usage, call detail, and similar information.  TR 27.

  On December 11, 1997,  U & I CAN filed objections to the Prehearing 
Conference Order.  
U & I CAN requested that the Commission overturn that Order, in part, and 
disqualify Judge Schaer.   Commission Staff, GTE, and U S WEST filed responses 
on January 6, 1998.  The Commission affirmed the prehearing order.[3] 

  On May 19, 1998, the hearing was conducted.  Mr. Holcomb, counsel for 
U & I CAN, stated that he was making a “special appearance” to challenge the 
Commission’s jurisdiction and to object to any evidence offered or admitted in 
this proceeding.[4]  Judge Schaer declined to reconsider U & I CAN’s motions 
previously ruled upon, including the request for disqualification.  U & I CAN’s 
motions to stay proceedings, and dismiss for lack of jurisdiction were denied.  
U & I CAN was granted a continuing objection to the admission of any evidence 
or testimony in this case, did not present testimony or other evidence, and did 
not conduct any cross-examination of witnesses. 

  At the conclusion of the hearing the parties waived entry of an initial 
order. Commission Staff, U S WEST, and GTE filed post-hearing briefs on or 
about August 7, 1998.

 B. Facts

  U & I CAN did not present any witnesses in this proceeding.  U & I CAN 
presented a motion to dismiss this proceeding for lack of jurisdiction.  
Attached to the motion were two incomplete documents, which were admitted as 
Exhibit 1.  On the basis of these documents, U&I CAN claims it is a non-profit 
corporation.  It has never provided a complete copy of its articles of 
incorporation, or of the corporate minutes reflecting the adoption of its 
bylaws.  U&I CAN was asked by the Administrative Law Judge to provide this 
information.  It agreed on the record to do so, but did not.  The record is not 
sufficient to determine whether U & I CAN is a non-profit corporation, or an 
unincorporated entity.  No proof of non-profit corporate status was sustained.

  U&I CAN’s operations constitute what typically is known as “EAS bridging.”  
An extended-area-service (EAS) area is a region in which all calls placed from 
a location in that region to another in that region are non-toll, i.e.,the call 
does not incur access and/or toll charges.  Phone calls placed in an EAS to a 
location, outside an EAS, however, incur access and or toll charges.  EAS 
bridging provides the ability to call from one exchange to another exchange 
without incurring a toll charge.  
RCW 80.36.850.  See also, Ex. T-7 at 3.  As explained by US West witness Joseph 
T. Thayer:

An EAS bridger is one who illegally uses a combination of customized call 
management services and his or her own equipment to complete calls between two 
overlapping EAS regions without incurring access and/or toll charges.  Thus he 
or she has effectively built a “bridge” between EAS regions to avoid toll 
charges.

Id. at 3-4, ll. 19-10, 1-2.  

  The Commission has determined that U&I CAN unlawfully bridges EAS. United & 
Informed Citizen Advocates Network, a non-profit Washington Corporation v. 
Pacific Northwest Bell Telephone Co. d/b/a US West Communications, Inc., Third 
Supp. Order, Commission Decision and Order Granting Interlocutory Review of 
Order; Affirming Second Order, Docket No. UT-960659, at 8, 11-13 (Feb. 5, 
1998).  EAS bridgers deprive local exchange companies, such as U S WEST and 
GTE, of a legitimate and substantial source of revenue.  U S WEST and GTE offer 
local toll calling in their service territories, including the portions of 
those territories where U & I CAN also provides telecommunications service.

  U & I CAN operates its telecommunications system by using call-forwarding 
features it (or its members on its behalf) purchases from the local exchange 
company.  U & I CAN uses a personal computer containing a voice mail card.  
When the computer receives a call, the voice mail card will “flash hook” and 
redial.  Ex. T-2 at 3. The software in the computer answers calls and requests 
the calling party to identify the party being called.  Id.  To complete the EAS 
bridge, the voice mail card in 
U&I CAN’s computer transmits a series of three tones to the calling party.  In 
response, the calling party enters his or her personal identification number.  
The computer gives another audible tone, at which signal, the calling party 
then enters the telephone number of the party being called.  The computer 
transmits a final series of tones to the calling party, who is then connected 
with the party being called.  
Ex. T-2 at 4; see also Ex. 8 at 2-3.

  U S WEST tested the call volume on the access lines used by U & I CAN and 
determined that the usage on these numbers indicates bridging. 4,024 calls 
during a twenty-six day period were recorded for one of the numbers. This would 
equal approximately 154 calls per day if the calls originated at a residence, 
or 251 calls per day if a business.  Ex. T-2 at 6. 

  U&I CAN claims it has no customers, only members.  U&I CAN members currently 
pay a one-time initiation fee of $8.00, and then pay monthly membership dues of 
$8.00.  Exs. T-2 at 5; T-7 at 5.  The members pay this flat, monthly fee to 
access the system up to 30 times per month.  If a member exceeds the 30 calls, 
U&I CAN assesses a second flat fee of $8.00.  Id, at 7.

II. RELEVANT STATUTES AND REGULATIONS

 A. RCW 80.04.010.  Key terms are defined:

  "Private telecommunications system" means a telecommunications system 
controlled by a person or entity for the sole and exclusive use of such person, 
entity, or affiliate thereof.  "Private telecommunications system" does not 
include a system offered for hire, sale, or resale to the general public.
         
  "Telecommunications company" includes every corporation, company, 
association, joint stock association, partnership and person, their lessees, 
trustees or receivers appointed by any court whatsoever, and every city or town 
owning, operating or managing any facilities used to provide telecommunications 
for hire, sale, or resale to the general public within this state.

  "Facilities" means lines, conduits, ducts, poles, wires, cables, cross-arms, 
receivers, transmitters, instruments, machines, appliances, instrumentalities 
and all devices, real estate, easements, apparatus, property and routes used, 
operated, owned or controlled by any telecommunications company to facilitate 
the provision of telecommunications service.

  "Telecommunications"  is the transmission of information by wire, radio, 
optical cable, electromagnetic, or other similar means.  As used in this 
definition, "information" means knowledge or intelligence represented by any 
form of writing, signs, signals, pictures, sounds, or any other symbols.

 B. RCW 80.04.015:  

  Whether or not any person or corporation is conducting business subject to 
regulation under this title, or has performed or is performing any act 
requiring registration or approval of the commission without securing such 
registration or approval, shall be a question of fact to be determined by the 
commission.  Whenever the commission believes that any person or corporation is 
engaged in any activity without first complying with the requirements of this 
title, it may institute a special proceeding requiring such person or 
corporation to appear before the commission at a location convenient for 
witnesses and the production of evidence and produce information, books, 
records, accounts, and other memoranda, and give testimony under oath as to the 
activities being conducted.  The commission may consider any and all facts that 
may indicate the true nature and extent of the operations or acts and may 
subpoena such witnesses and documents as it deems necessary.

  After investigation, the commission is authorized and directed to issue the 
necessary order or orders declaring the activities to be subject to, or not 
subject to, the provisions of this title.  In the event the activities are 
found to be subject to the provisions of this title, the commission shall issue 
such orders as may be necessary to require all parties involved in the 
activities to comply with this title, and with respect to services found to be 
reasonably available from alternative sources, to issue orders to cease and 
desist from providing jurisdictional services pending full compliance.

 C. RCW 80.36.350:  

  Each telecommunications company not operating under tariff in Washington on 
January 1, 1985, shall register with the commission before beginning operations 
in this state. 

 D.       RCW 80.36.850:  

  "Extended area service" means the ability to call from one exchange to 
another exchange without incurring a toll charge.

III. ISSUES PRESENTED

 A. Does the Commission Have Jurisdiction to Determine Whether U & I CAN Is 
Engaged in Any Regulated Activity Without Complying with Statutory Requirements?

 B. Does The Commission Have A Public Interest in Regulating EAS Bridging?

 C. Is U & I CAN a Telecommunications Company?

IV. COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND DECISION

 A. Does the Commission Have Jurisdiction to Determine Whether 
U & I CAN Is Engaged in Any Regulated Activity Without Complying with Statutory 
Requirements?

  At the hearing on May 19, 1998, the Administrative Law Judge denied U & I CAN’
s motion to dismiss this proceeding.  This decision deserves review and 
discussion by the Commission.  U & I CAN argues that the Commission lacks 
jurisdiction on five grounds: 1) U & I CAN is a non-profit corporation; 2) U & 
I CAN does not conduct business; 3) U & I CAN’s Articles of Incorporation and 
By-laws do not authorize it to provide services to the general public; 4) the 
Commission determined in Docket No. UT-960659 that U & I CAN has no lines or 
access lines of its own; and 5) U & I CAN is a membership organization.

  RCW 80.04.015 provides that whenever the Commission believes that any person 
or corporation is engaged in any activity without complying with statutory 
requirements, it may institute a special proceeding.  The statute applies 
equally to U & I CAN whether it is a corporation (which it has not proven) or 
is only a company run by individuals.  The inquiry to be made in that 
proceeding is a question of fact: is the activity of the entity the provision 
of telecommunications service.  The definition of “telecommunications company” 
in RCW 80.04.010 also applies to every corporation or company.  The fact that U 
& I CAN may be a non-profit corporation is not determinative of whether its 
activities include provision of telecommunications services and, thus, make it 
subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission.  U & I CAN’s organizational 
status does not justify any failure to comply with statutory requirements, and 
cannot be invoked to defeat review of its activities by the Commission.  

  U & I CAN’s argument that it is not organized to conduct business as a 
telecommunications company, ergo it does not provide telecommunications, is 
flawed. The Commission’s jurisdiction is based upon the conduct of U & I CAN, 
not its organizational purpose. 

  RCW 80.04.015 is consistent with the Washington State Constitution, Article 
XII, Section 19.  Article XII, Section 19, establishes the right of legal 
entities to organize for the purpose of conducting business as 
telecommunications companies, subject to legislative control.  U & I CAN 
misinterprets the State Constitution by claiming that the legislature’s 
authority to regulate legal entities is determined by self-serving statements 
of an organization’s purpose.  RCW 80.04.015 authorizes the Commission to 
regulate entities based upon their conduct.  This authority is consistent with 
the legislature’s constitutional authority to control entities expressly 
organized for the purpose of providing telecommunications.

  U & I CAN’s argument that the Commission lacks jurisdiction because the U & I 
CAN Articles of Incorporation and bylaws do not authorize U & I CAN to provide 
telecommunications services to the general public is tantamount to a claim that 
U & I CAN is incapable of performing an unauthorized activity.  Even when 
specifically asked by the administrative law judge to provide enough 
information for a determination to be made of whether U & I CAN is actually a 
non-profit corporation, such information was promised, but not provided.  The 
Commission cannot determine on this record whether U & I CAN is, in fact, a 
non-profit corporation.  Because the Commission inquiry is the same for either 
a corporation or a company, and is a factual inquiry based upon the conduct on 
that entity, the Commission can act in this matter without knowing which kind 
of business is before it.

  U & I CAN also argues that the Commission is not empowered to order a company 
to register as a telephone company, when such an order would violate its 
articles and bylaws.  This argument mischaracterizes the scope of this 
proceeding. There is a critical distinction between compelling an entity to 
commit an unauthorized act, and requiring an entity to comply with state law.  
Whether or not U & I CAN has committed an ultra vires act is not the focus of 
this proceeding.  If providing telecommunications services would be an ultra 
vires activity then it may mean that U & I CAN should stop providing those 
services, but it is not factual evidence that U & I CAN is not providing those 
services.  This case has been initiated to determine whether U & I CAN conducts 
activities that require prior registration or approval of the Commission.  The 
jurisdiction of the Commission is established by law, not by private consent.

  U & I CAN’s argument that the Commission lacks jurisdiction because of a 
prior determination that it did not have standing to bring a complaint against 
U S WEST Communications, Inc. (U S WEST) is without merit.  In Docket No. 
UT-960659 the Commission found that U & I CAN did not have standing to bring 
claims against U S WEST because it did not have a direct customer relationship 
which would impose duties upon U S WEST.[5]  The telephone lines which were the 
subject of that case were held in U & I CAN  individual subscriber’s names.  
The issue in this case is whether U & I CAN owns, operates, or manages any 
facilities to provide telecommunications.  RCW 80.04.010 broadly defines 
“facilities” to include instruments, machines, appliances, and all devices or 
apparatus.  The Commission’s prior determination that U & I CAN is not a 
customer of U S WEST has no bearing on this case.

  Finally, U & I CAN argues that it provides only restricted access to 
telecommunications services to its members, and does not provide 
telecommunications to the general public for hire, sale, or resale.  This claim 
addresses a question of fact to be determined by the Commission.  U & I CAN’s 
argument is not germane to its challenge to the Commission’s jurisdiction in 
this matter.  Whether U & I CAN membership is available to the general public 
is an issue of material fact; U & I CAN is not entitled to summary disposition 
as a matter of law.

  COMMISSION DECISION:  The Commission has jurisdiction to determine whether U 
& I CAN is engaged in any regulated activity without complying with the 
statutory requirements of RCW Title 80.

 B. Does The Commission Have A Public Interest in Regulating EAS      Bridging?

  The Commission Staff argues that U & I CAN’s service is affected with the 
public interest because it has, or could have, a significant effect on the 
public switched telephone network in a manner that harms the public interest.  
U & I CAN’s system is designed to allow users to bypass toll charges through 
EAS bridging.  The Commission agrees with the Commission Staff that EAS 
bridging affects the public interest.  

  The Commission previously has held that EAS bridging is contrary to the 
public interest:

 We understand that many of MetroLink’s customers have achieved substantial 
savings in toll charges.  However, those savings represent reduced revenues to 
the the carriers providing access.  By approving the US West tariff revision, 
we will continue to uphold our policy that all network users should pay their 
fair share of costs associated with their use. Approving this tariff means that 
costs caused by users who avoid toll charges will not be passed along to all 
customers in the form of higher local rates.

 The Commission believes that approving this settlement is consistent with the 
public interest.  It is consistent with our policies that the integrity of the 
telecommunications network be maintained for all customers and that costs be 
borne by those who cause them.

GTE Northwest, Inc. v. Pacific Northwest Bell Telephone Co., Docket No. 
U-881719-F, 113 PUR4th, 431, 433 (May 1, 1990).

  The Commission also agrees with the Public Utilities Commission of Utah in a 
case where it evaluated the legality of EAS bridging and set forth strong 
policy reasons against EAS bridging:

This is not a case of small, virtuous Davids being set upon by a powerful, evil 
Goliath out to crush legitimate competition.  These respondents are offering no 
innovation in service or technology.  This is a case of these respondents 
setting out to exploit a legal anomaly which was created by this Commission in 
an effort to promote equity between telephone service providers and customers.  
These respondents are turning the Commission’s effort to promote equity on its 
head.  For their own profit, they are enabling some USWC customers to realize 
savings to which they are not entitled.  In the process, these respondents are 
depriving USWC of revenues which it would collect otherwise, and they are 
competing unfairly with authorized resellers of MTS [message toll service or 
long distance] service who abide by the applicable USWC tariffs.  They also do 
not contribute revenues which would otherwise go to the Universal Service Fund, 
thus potentially saddling telephone service subscribers in outlying areas of 
the state with higher costs than they would incur otherwise.  Respondents’ 
service is, in short, contrary to the public interest.

US West Communications, Inc. v. Bridge Communications, Inc., Docket No. 
93-049-20, Utah Public Utilities Commission (August 19, 1994).   

  In fact, the Commission has determined in a separate proceeding involving U & 
I CAN that it is illegal in Washington to provide Extended Area Service (EAS) 
without payment of access charges.  United & Informed Citizen Advocates 
Network, a non-profit Washington Corporation v. Pacific Northwest Bell 
Telephone Co. d/b/a US West Communications, Inc., Third Supp. Order, Commission 
Decision and Order Granting Interlocutory Review of Order; Affirming Second 
Order, Docket No. UT-960659, at 8, 11-13 (February 5, 1998). 

  COMMISSION DECISION:  Because the public has an interest in whether EAS 
bridgers should be allowed to operate, U&I CAN should be subject to regulation 
by the Commission.

 C. Is U & I CAN a Telecommunications Company?

  The definition of a telecommunications company in RCW 80.04.010 serves as a 
checklist to determine whether U & I CAN engages in any activity requiring 
registration or approval by the Commission.

  A telecommunications company includes:

 • every corporation, company, association, joint stock association, 
partnership and person, 

 • owning, operating or managing any facilities used to provide 
telecommunications 

 • for hire, sale, or resale 

 • to the general public.

  1. Is U & I CAN a corporation or company?

  U & I CAN’s Certificate of Incorporation and undated By-laws demonstrate U & 
I CAN’s putative corporate status.  Ex. 1.  U & I CAN’s claim that it is a 
non-profit entity is not supported by the evidence in this case.  Despite its 
agreement to produce relevant documents after a bench request for the 
information, U & I CAN failed to submit additional corporate records and has 
not established its formal corporate status in this proceeding.  U & I CAN did 
not present any testimony regarding its compliance with the statutory 
requirements for a non-profit corporation, nor did it present a witness who 
could respond to questions on its corporate status. The documents in Exhibit 1, 
without more, are not sufficient to establish non-profit status.  The documents 
are incomplete; no corporate minutes, federal tax returns, charitable trust 
registration with the Secretary of State, evidence that profits of the firm are 
not distributed to individuals, or other indicia of an ongoing non-profit 
corporate entity were presented.

  U & I CAN claims in its motion that it has no customers, only members. Again, 
no testimony from U & I CAN is available on this point.  Not only did U & I CAN 
present no testimony or exhibits, U & I CAN also refused to respond to data 
requests from U S WEST and GTE.  If further proceedings are held in this 
matter, U & I CAN has been ordered to respond to those data requests. U & I CAN 
“members” currently pay a one-time initiation fee of $8.00 and then pay monthly 
membership dues of $8.00.  Ex. T-7 at 5.  The members pay this flat, monthly 
fee to access the system 30 times per month.  If a member exceeds the 30 calls, 
U & I CAN assesses additional fees of $8.00 per each group of calls. Id., at 
7.  The only limitation on membership is sponsorship by an existing U & I CAN 
member.   U & I CAN pays its members $6.00 for each new member sponsored.  Ex. 
9.  The U & I CAN newsletter contains advertising for other businesses.  Ex. 9.

  COMMISSION DECISION:  U & I CAN is a “company” within the meaning of RCW 
80.04.010.  U & I CAN sells memberships.  Its members are customers in the same 
sense that any service sector business has customers.  U & I CAN incurs 
expenses, utilizes a pricing structure for its services, generates revenues, 
markets its services, and publishes advertising for other businesses in its 
newsletter publication.  

  U & I CAN’s nomenclature does not control the Commission’s factual 
investigation.  The finding that U&I CAN is a company is based upon the true 
nature and extent of U & I CAN’s operations.

  2. Does U & I CAN provide telecommunications?

  U & I CAN’s operations constitute what typically is known as “EAS bridging.”  
EAS, or extended area service, provides the ability to call from one exchange 
to another exchange without incurring a toll charge.  RCW 80.36.850.  See also, 
Ex. T-7 at 3.  An EAS bridger uses a combination of customized call management 
services and his or her own equipment to complete calls between two overlapping 
EAS regions without incurring access and/or toll charges.  Thus, he or she has 
effectively built a “bridge” between EAS regions to avoid legitimately owed 
toll charges.  Id. at 3-4.

  U & I CAN operates its telecommunications system by using call-forwarding 
features it or members strategically placed in an EAS region purchase from the 
local exchange company.  U & I CAN then places a facility, a personal computer 
containing a voice mail card, at the location .  When the computer receives a 
call, the voice mail card will “flash hook” and redial.  Ex. T-2 at 3. The 
software in the computer answers calls and requests the calling party to 
identify the party being called.  Id.  To complete the EAS bridge, the voice 
mail card in U & I CAN’s computer transmits a series of three tones to the 
calling party, the calling party then enters his or her personal identification 
number, the calling party is given another audible tone, and then enters the 
telephone number of the party being called.  The calling party hears a final 
series of tones, and is connected with the party being called.  Ex. T-2 at 4; 
See also Ex. 8 at 2-3.

  COMMISSION DECISION:  RCW 80.04.010 defines "telecommunications" as the 
transmission of information by wire, optical cable, or other similar means.  As 
used in that definition, "information" means knowledge or intelligence 
represented by any form of signals, or sounds.  EAS bridging requires 
transmission and a series of audible signals in order to function; thus, U & I 
CAN performs telecommunications.

 3. Does U & I CAN Own, Operate or Manage Facilities Used to Provide   
Telecommunications?

  U & I CAN owns computers equipped with voice cards that transfer calls.  Ex. 
3.  The Commission Staff argues that the personal computers and the voice cards 
are “facilities,” as they are broadly defined in RCW 80.04.010, supra, p. 4. In 
addition to owning the personal computers, U & I CAN also manages the use of 
call transfer features that U & I CAN or its members purchase from the local 
exchange company.  Ex. T-2 at 3.  

  U S WEST argues that U & I CAN’s computers equipped with flash hook and 
redial capabilities satisfy the definition of facilities.  The computers are a 
“machine” which facilitates the provision of telecommunications service.  U S 
WEST states that the Commission previously found that a similar device 
(“Telexpand”) constituted a telecommunications facility:

The Telexpand is a facility as defined by statute.  MetroLink operates the 
Telexpand.  When a MetroLink customer places a call via the Telexpand, the 
machine forwards the requested number to the U S WEST central office.  That 
signal is a “transmission of information by wire” which meets the statutory 
definition of “telecommunications.”  MetroLink provides the service “for hire, 
sale and resale.”  MetroLink’s Telexpand  service thus fits squarely within the 
definition of a telecommunications company set forth in RCW 80.04.010. The 
statute requires that the “facilities” be owned, operated or managed by the 
telecommunications company but does not require ownership of the wire or other 
means of transmission.[6] 

   The Commission agrees with U S WEST that there is no discernible difference 
between the facilities used by MetroLink and the facilities used by U & I CAN. 
The Commission found that MetroLink operated a telecommunications service. 

  COMMISSION DECISION:  The call forwarding or transfer services provided by U 
& I CAN are “telecommunications” as broadly defined in RCW 80.04.010, supra, p. 
4.  U & I CAN owns, operates or manages facilities used to provide 
telecommunications.  U & I CAN operates a telecommunications service.

 4. Does U & I CAN Provide Telecommunications for Hire, Sale, or Resale?

  U & I CA