*Pages 1--26 from Microsoft Word - 41481* Federal Communications Commission DA 04- 2667 Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D. C. 20554 In the Matter of Federal- State Joint Board on Universal Service NPCR, Inc. d/ b/ a Nextel Partners Petition for Designation as an Eligible Telecommunications Carrier in the state of Alabama Petition for Designation as an Eligible Telecommunications Carrier in the state of Florida Petition for Designation as an Eligible Telecommunications Carrier in the state of Georgia Petition for Designation as an Eligible Telecommunications Carrier in the state of New York Petition for Designation as an Eligible Telecommunications Carrier in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Petition for Designation as an Eligible Telecommunications Carrier in the state of Tennessee Petition for Designation as an Eligible Telecommunications Carrier in the Commonwealth of Virginia ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CC Docket No. 96- 45 ORDER Adopted: August 25, 2004 Released: August 25, 2004 By the Acting Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Order, we grant the petitions of NPCR, Inc. d/ b/ a Nextel Partners (Nextel) to be designated as an eligible telecommunications carrier (ETC) for the requested service areas in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, New York, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Virginia, pursuant to section 214( e)( 6) of the 1 Federal Communications Commission DA 04- 2667 2 Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act). 1 In so doing, we conclude that Nextel, a commercial mobile radio service (CMRS) carrier, has satisfied the statutory eligibility requirements of section 214( e)( 1) to be designated as an ETC. 2 II. BACKGROUND A. The Act 2. Section 254( e) of the Act provides that “only an eligible telecommunications carrier designated under section 214( e) shall be eligible to receive specific Federal universal service support.” 3 Pursuant to section 214( e)( 1), a common carrier designated as an ETC must offer and advertise the services supported by the federal universal service mechanisms throughout the designated service area. 4 1 See NPCR, Inc. d/ b/ a Nextel Partners Petition for Designation as an Eligible Telecommunications Carrier in the State of Alabama, filed Apr. 4, 2003 (AL Petition); Amendment to Petition for Designation as an Eligible Telecommunications Carrier in the State of Alabama, filed July 16, 2003 (AL Amendment); Letter from Catalano & Plache, PLLC, Counsel for Nextel to Marlene H. Dortch, FCC, filed Mar. 24, 2004 (AL March 24 Supplement); NPCR, Inc. d/ b/ a Nextel Petition for Designation as an Eligible Telecommunications Carrier in the State of Florida, filed Sept. 16, 2003 (FL Petition); Supplement to Petition for Designation as an Eligible Telecommunications Carrier in the State of Florida, filed Sept. 23, 2003 (FL Sept. 23 Supplement); Letter from Catalano & Plache, PLLC, Counsel for Nextel to Marlene H. Dortch, FCC, filed March 24, 2004 (FL March 24 Supplement); NPCR, Inc. d/ b/ a Nextel Petition for Designation as an Eligible Telecommunications Carrier in the State of Georgia, filed July 10, 2003 (GA Petition); Amendment to Petition for Designation as an Eligible Telecommunications Carrier in the State of Georgia, filed Oct. 28, 2003 (GA Amendment I); Letter from Catalano & Plache, PLLC, Counsel for Nextel to Marlene H. Dortch, FCC, filed March 24, 2004 (GA March 24 Supplement); NPCR, Inc. d/ b/ a Nextel Partners for Designation as an Eligible Telecommunications Carrier in the State of New York, filed Apr. 3, 2003 (NY Petition); Erratum to Petition for Designation as an Eligible Telecommunications Carrier in the State of New York, filed Apr. 9, 2003 (NY Erratum); Amendment to Petition for Designation as an Eligible Telecommunications Carrier in the State of New York, filed May 28, 2003 (NY Amendment I); Amendment to Petition for Designation as an Eligible Telecommunications Carrier in the State of New York, filed July 16, 2003 (NY Amendment II); Letter from Catalano & Plache, PLLC, Counsel for Nextel to Marlene H. Dortch, FCC, filed March 24, 2004 (NY March 24 Supplement); NPCR, Inc. d/ b/ a Nextel Petition for Designation as an Eligible Telecommunications Carrier in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, filed Apr. 3, 2003 (PA Petition); Letter from Catalano & Plache, PLLC, Counsel for Nextel to Marlene H. Dortch, FCC, filed March 24, 2004 (PA Supplement); NPCR, Inc. d/ b/ a Nextel Petition for Designation as an Eligible Telecommunications Carrier in the State of Tennessee, filed June 12, 2003 (TN Petition); Erratum to Petition for Designation as an Eligible Telecommunications Carrier in the State of Tennessee, filed July 1, 2003 (TN Erratum I); Amendment to Petition for Designation as an Eligible Telecommunications Carrier in the State of Tennessee, filed July 16, 2003 (TN Amendment); Affidavit of NPCR, Inc. from Donald Manning, NPCR, Inc., filed Oct. 1, 2003 (TN Affidavit I); Affidavit of NPCR, Inc. from Donald Manning, NPCR, Inc., filed Oct. 1, 2003 (TN Affidavit II); Letter from Catalano & Plache, PLLC, Counsel for Nextel to Marlene H. Dortch, FCC, filed March 24, 2004 (TN March 24 Supplement); Erratum to Petition for Designation as an Eligible Telecommunications Carrier in the State of Tennessee, filed Apr. 19, 2004 (TN Erratum II); Second Erratum to Petition for Designation as an Eligible Telecommunications Carrier in the State of Tennessee, filed June 29, 2004 (TN June 29 Erratum); NPCR, Inc. d/ b/ a Nextel Petition for Designation as an Eligible Telecommunications Carrier in the Commonwealth of Virginia, filed Apr. 23, 2003 (VA Petition); Amendment to Petition for Designation as an Eligible Telecommunications Carrier in the Commonwealth of Virginia, filed June 10, 2003 (VA Amendment I); Amendment to Petition for Designation as an Eligible Telecommunications Carrier in the Commonwealth of Virginia, filed Nov. 24, 2003 (VA November 24 Amendment); Letter from Catalano & Plache, PLLC, Counsel for Nextel to Marlene H. Dortch, FCC, filed March 24, 2004 (VA March 24 Supplement). See also 47 U. S. C. § 214( e)( 6). 2 47 U. S. C. § 214( e)( 1). 3 47 U. S. C. § 254( e). 4 47 U. S. C. § 214( e)( 1). 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 04- 2667 3 3. Section 214( e)( 2) of the Act provides state commissions with the primary responsibility for performing ETC designations. 5 Section 214( e)( 6), however, directs the Commission, upon request, to designate as an ETC “a common carrier providing telephone exchange service and exchange access that is not subject to the jurisdiction of a State commission.” 6 Under section 214( e)( 6), the Commission may, with respect to an area served by a rural telephone company, and shall, in all other cases, designate more than one common carrier as an ETC for a designated service area, consistent with the public interest, convenience, and necessity, so long as the requesting carrier meets the requirements of section 214( e)( 1). 7 Before designating an additional ETC for an area served by a rural telephone company, the Commission must determine that the designation is in the public interest. 8 The Wireline Competition Bureau (Bureau) has delegated authority to perform ETC designations. 9 B. Commission Requirements for ETC Designation 4. An ETC petition must contain the following: (1) a certification and brief statement of supporting facts demonstrating that the petitioner is not subject to the jurisdiction of a state commission; (2) a certification that the petitioner offers or intends to offer all services designated for support by the Commission pursuant to section 254( c); (3) a certification that the petitioner offers or intends to offer the supported services “either using its own facilities or a combination of its own facilities and resale of another carrier’s services;” (4) a description of how the petitioner “advertise[ s] the availability of [supported] services and the charges therefor using media of general distribution;” and (5) if the petitioner meets the definition of a "rural telephone company" pursuant to section 3( 37) of the Act, the petitioner must identify its study area, or, if the petitioner is not a rural telephone company, it must include a detailed description of the geographic service area for which it requests an ETC designation from the Commission. 10 5. On June 30, 2000, the Commission released the Twelfth Report and Order which, among other things, set forth how a carrier seeking ETC designation from the Commission must demonstrate that the state commission lacks jurisdiction to perform the ETC designation. 11 Carriers seeking designation as an ETC for service provided on non- tribal lands must provide the Commission with an “affirmative statement” from the state commission or a court of competent jurisdiction that the carrier is not subject to 5 47 U. S. C. § 214( e)( 2). See also Federal- State Joint Board on Universal Service; Promoting Deployment and Subscribership in Unserved Areas, Including Tribal and Insular Areas, Twelfth Report and Order, Memorandum Opinion and Order, and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, CC Docket No. 96- 45, 15 FCC Rcd 12208, 12255, para. 93 (2000) (Twelfth Report and Order). 6 47 U. S. C. § 214( e)( 6). See, e. g., Federal- State Joint Board on Universal Service, Virginia Cellular, LLC Petition for Designation as an Eligible Telecommunications Carrier for the Commonwealth of Virginia, Memorandum Opinion and Order, CC Docket No. 96- 45, 19 FCC Rcd 1563 (2004) (Virginia Cellular Order); Federal- State Joint Board on Universal Service, Highland Cellular, Inc. Petition for Designation as an Eligible Telecommunications Carrier for the Commonwealth of Virginia, Memorandum Opinion and Order, CC Docket No. 96- 45, 19 FCC Rcd 6422 (2004) (Highland Cellular Order). 7 47 U. S. C. § 214( e)( 6). 8 Id. 9 See Procedures for FCC Designation of Eligible Telecommunications Carriers Pursuant to Section 214( e)( 6) of the Communications Act, Public Notice, 12 FCC Rcd 22947, 22948 (1997) (ETC Procedures PN). The Wireline Competition Bureau was previously named the Common Carrier Bureau. 10 See ETC Procedures PN, 12 FCC Rcd at 22948- 49; 47 U. S. C. § 3( 37). See also Federal- State Joint Board on Universal Service, Western Wireless Corporation Petition for Preemption of an Order of the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission, Declaratory Ruling, CC Docket No. 96- 45, 15 FCC Rcd 15168 (2000) (Declaratory Ruling), recon. pending. 11 See Twelfth Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 12255- 65, paras. 93- 114. 3 Federal Communications Commission DA 04- 2667 4 the state commission’s jurisdiction. 12 The requirement to provide an “affirmative statement” ensures that the state commission has had “a specific opportunity to address and resolve issues involving a state commission’s authority under state law to regulate certain carriers or classes of carriers.” 13 6. On January 22, 2004, the Commission released the Virginia Cellular Order, which granted in part and denied in part the petition of Virginia Cellular, LLC (Virginia Cellular) to be designated as an ETC throughout its licensed service area in the Commonwealth of Virginia. 14 In that Order, the Commission utilized a new public interest analysis for ETC designations and imposed ongoing conditions and reporting requirements on Virginia Cellular. 15 The Commission further stated that the framework enunciated in the Virginia Cellular Order would apply to all ETC designations for rural areas pending further action by the Commission. 16 Following the framework established in the Virginia Cellular Order, on April 12, 2004, the Commission released the Highland Cellular Order, which granted in part and denied in part the petition of Highland Cellular, Inc., to be designated as an ETC in portions of its licensed service area in the Commonwealth of Virginia. 17 In the Highland Cellular Order, the Commission concluded, among other things, that a telephone company in a rural study area may not be designated as a competitive ETC below the wire center level. 18 C. Nextel Petitions 7. Pursuant to section 214( e)( 6), Nextel filed with this Commission seven petitions and amendments thereto, seeking designation as an ETC in study areas served by both rural and non- rural incumbent local exchange carriers (LECs) in the states of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, New York, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Virginia. 19 The Bureau released public notices seeking comment on these petitions. 20 Several commenters filed pleadings opposing the petitions. 21 In light of the new ETC 12 Twelfth Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 12255, para. 93. 13 Id. 14 See Virginia Cellular Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 1564, para. 1. 15 See id., 19 FCC Rcd at 1565, 1575, 1575- 76, 1584- 85, paras. 4, 27, 28, 46. 16 See id., 19 FCC Rcd at 1565, para. 4. 17 See Highland Cellular Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 6422, para. 1. 18 See id., 19 FCC Rcd at 6438, para. 33. 19 See supra note 1. Nextel’s initial petitions for ETC designation in the states of Tennessee and Virginia requested redefinition of certain study areas. See TN Petition at 9- 10 and VA Petition at 10- 11; see also 47 U. S. C § 214( e)( 5) and 47 C. F. R. § 54. 207( c)( 1). Nextel subsequently requested that the Commission disregard its redefinition requests. See TN Erratum and VA Amendment. 20 See Wireline Competition Bureau Seeks Comment on NPCR, Inc. d/ b/ a Nextel’s Petition for Designation as an Eligible Telecommunications Carrier in the State of Alabama, Public Notice, CC Docket No. 96- 45, 18 FCC Rcd 14593 (2003); Wireline Competition Bureau Seeks Comment on NPCR, Inc. d/ b/ a Nextel’s Petition for Designation as an Eligible Telecommunications Carrier in the State of Florida, Public Notice, CC Docket No. 96- 45, DA 03-4113 (rel. Dec. 30, 2003); Wireline Competition Bureau Seeks Comment on NPCR, Inc. d/ b/ a Nextel’s Petition for Designation as an Eligible Telecommunications Carrier in the State of Georgia, Public Notice, CC Docket No. 96- 45, 18 FCC Rcd 16370 (2003); Wireline Competition Bureau Seeks Comment on NPCR, Inc. d/ b/ a Nextel’s Petition for Designation as an Eligible Telecommunications Carrier in the State of New York, Public Notice, CC Docket No. 96- 45, 18 FCC Rcd 14590 (2003); Wireline Competition Bureau Seeks Comment on NPCR, Inc. d/ b/ a Nextel’s Petition for Designation as an Eligible Telecommunications Carrier in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Public Notice, CC Docket No. 96- 45, 18 FCC Rcd 11530 (2003); Wireline Competition Bureau Seeks Comment on NPCR, Inc. d/ b/ a Nextel’s Petition for Designation as an Eligible Telecommunications Carrier in the State of Tennessee, Public Notice, CC Docket No. 96- 45, 18 FCC Rcd 20244 (2003); Wireline Competition Bureau Seeks Comment on NPCR, Inc. d/ b/ a Nextel’s Petition for Designation as an Eligible Telecommunications Carrier in the Commonwealth of Virginia, Public Notice, CC Docket No. 96- 45, 18 FCC Rcd 11792 (2003). 4 Federal Communications Commission DA 04- 2667 5 designation framework established in the Virginia Cellular Order, on March 9, 2004, Nextel filed supplements to its ETC petitions. 22 On April 2, 2004, the Bureau released a public notice seeking comment concerning all supplemented ETC petitions, including the petitions filed by Nextel. 23 III. DISCUSSION 8. After careful review of the record before us, we find that Nextel has met all the requirements set forth in sections 214( e)( 1) and (e)( 6) to be designated as an ETC by this Commission for its licensed service areas described herein. A. Commission Authority to Perform the ETC Designation 9. We find that Nextel has demonstrated that the Commission has authority to consider its seven petitions under section 214( e)( 6) of the Act. 24 Nextel’s petitions each include an affirmative statement from the relevant state commissions stating that requests for designation as eligible telecommunications carriers should be sought from the Commission. 10. We note that the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (Pennsylvania Commission) filed reply comments stating that although it submitted a letter stating its intent to refrain from exercising jurisdiction over Nextel for ETC designation purposes, it has not relinquished its jurisdiction altogether for all CMRS carriers. 25 Specifically, the Pennsylvania Commission expresses concern that it did not intend its letter to operate as a pronouncement of its position on jurisdiction for future ETC designations for all wireless carriers. 26 We further note that subsequently, the Pennsylvania Commission filed a letter stating that it does not object to the Commission’s consideration of Nextel’s petition as long as the effect of its letter is limited solely to Nextel’s ETC designation request. 27 We therefore find it is appropriate to consider Nextel’s request for ETC designation in Pennsylvania. Moreover, as requested by the Pennsylvania Commission, the effect of the Pennsylvania Commission’s letter indicating that it lacks jurisdiction in this proceeding is limited solely to Nextel’s ETC petition. (... continued from previous page) 21 See Appendix A for a list of entities filing comments and reply comments associated with the seven petitions for ETC designation. 22 See AL March 24 Supplement; FL March 24 Supplement; GA March 24 Supplement; NY March 24 Supplement; PA March 24 Supplement; TN March 24 Supplement; VA March 24 Supplement. 23 See Parties are Invited to Comment on Supplemented Petitions for Eligible Telecommunications Carrier Designations, Public Notice, CC Docket No. 96- 45, 19 FCC Rcd 6405 (2004). 24 AL Petition at Attachment 2; FL Petition at Attachment 2; GA Petition at Attachment 2; NY Petition at Attachment 2; PA Petition at Attachment 2; TN Petition at Attachment 2; VA Petition at Attachment 2. 25 Pennsylvania Commission Reply Comments at 3. 26 Pennsylvania Commission Supplement Comments at 2- 3. The Pennsylvania Commission further urges the Commission to delay action on Nextel’s ETC petition until the conclusion of two proceedings concerning this matter. See Petition of Cellco Partnership d/ b/ a Verizon Wireless to Terminate Section 251( f)( 1)( B) Rural Exemptions of Bentleyville Communication Corporation, et al., Docket Nos. P- 00021995 through P- 00022015 (Verizon Wireless seeking termination of rural exemption for 21 rural incumbent ILECs) and In Re: Petition for Declaratory Order of AT& T Wireless Services Inc., Docket No. P- 00042087 (AT& T requesting Pennsylvania Commission declaratory order that it does not regulate wireless carriers for purposes of ETC designation). 27 Letter from Elizabeth Lion Januzzi, Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, to Marlene H. Dortch, FCC, filed June 29, 2004. 5 Federal Communications Commission DA 04- 2667 6 B. Offering and Advertising the Supported Services 11. Offering the Services Designated for Support. Nextel has demonstrated through the required certifications and related filings that it now offers, or will offer upon designation as an ETC, the services supported by the federal universal service mechanism. As noted in its petition, Nextel is authorized to provide cellular radiotelephone service in the 800 MHz band. 28 Nextel certifies that it now provides or will provide throughout its designated service area the services and functionalities enumerated in section 54.101( a) of the Commission’s rules. 29 Nextel has also certified that, in compliance with rule section 54.405, it will make available and advertise Lifeline service to qualifying low- income consumers. 30 Furthermore, Nextel has committed to commitments that closely track those set forth in the Virginia Cellular Order and Highland Cellular Order, including: (1) annual reporting of progress towards build- out plans, unfulfilled service requests, and complaints per 1,000 handsets; (2) specific commitments to provide service to requesting customers in the area for which it is designated, including those areas outside existing network coverage; and (3) specific commitments to construct new cell sites in areas outside its network coverage. 31 12. We reject the claims of certain commenters that Nextel does not provide the required services and functionalities supported by the universal service mechanism. First, commenters argue that Nextel fails to offer supported services, such as the Lifeline and Link- Up programs, and suggest that the participation rate in Lifeline/ Link- Up will not increase even if Nextel was to offer the associated discounts. 32 We note, however, that Nextel states that it will participate in the Lifeline and Link- Up programs and will otherwise comply with all Commission rules governing universal service programs. 33 Second, notwithstanding commenters’ allegations, 34 Nextel makes clear that it does and will continue to implement E911 requirements consistent with Commission rules and orders and local Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) requests. 35 In addition, other commenters assert that Nextel should be required 28 AL Amendment; FL Petition at 1; NY Amendment II; PA Petition at 1; TN Amendment; VA Petition at 1. 29 AL Petition at 2- 4; FL Petition at 2- 4; GA Petition at 2- 4; NY Petition at 2- 4; PA Petition at 2- 4; TN Petition at 2- 4; VA Petition at 2- 4. 30 AL Petition at 7; FL Petition at 8; GA Petition at 7- 8; NY Petition at 7- 8; PA Petition at 7; TN Petition at 8; VA Petition at 8. 47 C. F. R. § 54. 405. We note that ETCs must comply with state requirements in states that have Lifeline programs. See Lifeline and Link- Up, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, WC Docket No. 03- 109, 19 FCC Rcd 8302, 8320 at para. 29 (2003). 31 Nextel has provided detailed information on how it will use universal service support to construct cell sites throughout the states in which it is designated as an ETC. AL March 24 Supplement at Exhibit 2; FL March 24 Supplement at Exhibit 2; GA March 24 Supplement at Exhibit 2; NY March 24 Supplement at Exhibit 2; PA March 24 Supplement at Exhibit 2; TN March 24 Supplement at Exhibit 2; VA March 24 Supplement at Exhibit 2; see also Letter from Catalano & Plache, PLLC, Counsel for NCPR, Inc. d/ b/ a Nextel, to Marlene H. Dortch, FCC (filed June 2, 2004). Specifically, Nextel provides the location by study area of new cell sites, timeframe for commencement and completion of build- out plans, populations served by new cell sites, and cost of build- out plans. See id. In 2004, Nextel will use universal service support to construct 13 cell sites in Alabama, 12 cell sites in Florida, 13 cell sites in Georgia, 19 cell sites in New York, 10 cell sites in Pennsylvania, 3 cell sites in Tennessee, and 16 cell sites in Virginia. Id. We recognize that these plans may change over time depending on consumer demand, fluctuation in universal service support, and related factors. See, e. g., Virginia Cellular Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 1571, para. 16. 32 See, e. g., NY State Telecom Comments at 8. 33 AL Petition at 7; FL Petition at 8; GA Petition at 7- 8; NY Petition at 7- 8; PA Petition at 7; TN Petition at 8; VA Petition at 8. 34 See, e. g., FW& A Comments at 9; TDS Supplement Comments at 8. 35 AL Petition at 3, FL Petition at 3- 4, GA Petition at 3, NY Petition at 3- 4, PA Petition at 3- 4, TN Petition at 3, VA Petition at 3- 4. A valid PSAP request triggers a wireless carrier’s obligation to provide enhanced 911 (E911) service to that PSAP. See City of Richardson, Order, CC Docket No. 94- 102, 16 FCC Rcd 18982 (2001). In addition, (continued....) 6 Federal Communications Commission DA 04- 2667 7 to offer unlimited local calling to mirror the services offered by wireline carriers or to limit the number of minutes a customer may use to coincide with the number of minutes allocated to the plan selected so that customers do not incur higher charges. 36 Such requirements are unnecessary because the Commission has not established a minimum local usage requirement and Nextel has pledged compliance with any and all minimum usage requirements required by applicable law. 37 Nextel also states that local usage is included in all of its calling plans. 38 Lastly, some commenters argue that Nextel does not provide equal access to interexchange service. 39 Section 54.101( a)( 7) of the Commission’s rules states that one of the supported services is access to interexchange services, not equal access to those services. 40 Accordingly, we find sufficient Nextel’s showing that it will offer access to interexchange services. 13. Offering the Supported Services Using a Carrier’s Own Facilities. Nextel has demonstrated that it satisfies the requirement of section 214( e)( 1)( A) that it offer the supported services using either its own facilities or a combination of its own facilities and resale of another carrier’s services. 41 Nextel states that it intends to provide the supported services using its existing network infrastructure.” 42 14. Advertising Supported Services. Nextel has demonstrated that it satisfies the requirement of section 214( e)( 1)( B) to advertise the availability of the supported services and the charges therefor using media of general distribution. 43 One commenter, however, contends that Nextel does not identify media to be used to advertise the supported services. 44 We disagree. In its petitions, Nextel states that it currently advertises the availability of its services, and will do so for each of the supported services on a regular basis, in newspapers, magazines, television, and radio in accordance with section 54.201( d)( 2) of the Commission’s rules. 45 Moreover, Nextel has committed to specific methods to publicize the (... continued from previous page) Nextel must meet certain company- specific handset deployment benchmarks. See Revision of the Commission's Rules To Ensure Compatibility with Enhanced E911 Emergency Calling Systems, Wireless E911 Phase II Implementation Plan of Nextel Communications, Inc., Order, CC Docket No. 94- 102, 16 FCC Rcd 18277 (2001). 36 See, e. g., CenturyTel Supplement Comments at 4; FW& A Comments at 9, 13; NASUCA Comments at 2. 37 See AL Petition at 3; FL Petition at 3; GA Petition at 3; NY Petition at 3; PA Petition at 3; TN Petition at 3; VA Petition at 3. 38 See AL Petition at 3; FL Petition at 3; GA Petition at 3; NY Petition at 3; PA Petition at 3; TN Petition at 3; VA Petition at 3. 39 See, e. g., NASUCA Comments at 2; NY State Telecom Comments at 9; PA Telephone Assn. Comments at 8. 40 47 C. F. R. §54.101( a)( 7). We note that in July 2002, four members of the Joint Board recommended adding equal access to interexchange service as a supported service. See Federal- State Joint Board on Universal Service, Recommended Decision, CC Docket No. 96- 45, 17 FCC Rcd 14095, 14124- 27, paras. 75- 86 (2002). In July 2003, the Commission decided to defer consideration of this issue pending resolution of the Commission’s proceeding examining the rules relating to high- cost universal service support in competitive areas. See Federal- State Joint Board on Universal Service, Order and Order on Reconsideration, CC Docket No. 96- 45, 18 FCC Rcd 15090, 15104, para. 33 (2003). See also infra para. 21 and n. 66. 41 47 C. F. R. § 214( e)( 1)( A). 42 See AL Petition at 2; FL Petition at 2; GA Petition at 2; NY Petition at 2; PA Petition at 2; TN Petition at 2; VA Petition at 2. 43 47 C. F. R. § 214( e)( 1)( B). 44 TDS Supplement Comments at 8- 9. 45 See AL Petition at 5; FL Petition at 5- 6; GA Petition at 5; NY Petition at 5; PA Petition at 5; TN Petition at 5; and VA Petition at 5. 47 C. F. R § 54. 201( d)( 2). 7 Federal Communications Commission DA 04- 2667 8 availability of Lifeline and Link- Up services and improved service in unserved or underserved areas. 46 C. Public Interest Analysis 15. We conclude that it is “consistent with the public interest, convenience, and necessity,” as required by section 214( e)( 6) of the Act, to designate Nextel as an ETC in the study areas served by certain rural telephone companies and non- rural telephone companies in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, New York, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Virginia. 47 In determining whether the public interest is served, the Commission places the burden of proof upon the ETC applicant. 48 Nextel has satisfied the burden of proof in establishing that its universal service offering in this area will provide benefits to rural consumers. 16. Non- Rural Study Areas. We conclude, as required by section 214( e)( 6) of the Act, that it is “consistent with the public interest, convenience, and necessity” to designate Nextel as an ETC for its requested service area that is served by non- rural telephone companies, as provided in Appendix B. 49 We note that the Bureau previously has found designation of additional ETCs in areas served by non- rural telephone companies to be per se in the public interest based upon a demonstration that the requesting carrier complies with the statutory eligibility obligations of section 214( e)( 1) of the Act. 50 In the Virginia Cellular Order and the Highland Cellular Order, however, the Commission determined that designation of an additional ETC in a non- rural telephone company’s study area based merely upon a showing that the requesting carrier complies with section 214( e)( 1) of the Act does not necessarily satisfy the public interest in every instance. 51 Nextel’s public interest showing here is sufficient, based on the detailed commitments Nextel has made to ensure that it provides high quality service throughout the proposed rural and non- rural service areas; indeed, given our finding that Nextel has satisfied the more rigorous public interest analysis for the rural study areas, it follows that its commitments satisfy the public interest requirements for non- rural areas. 52 17. Rural Study Areas. We also conclude, as required by section 214( e)( 6) of the Act, that it is “consistent with the public interest, convenience, and necessity” to designate Nextel as an ETC for its requested service area that is served by rural telephone companies, as provided in Appendix C. 53 In considering whether designation of Nextel as an ETC in areas served by rural telephone companies will serve the public interest, we have considered whether the benefits of an additional ETC in such study areas outweigh any potential harms. In determining whether designation of a competitive ETC in a rural 46 See AL March 24 Supplement at 6- 7; FL March 24 Supplement at 6- 7; GA March 24 Supplement at 6- 7; NY March 24 Supplement at 6- 7; PA March 24 Supplement at 6- 7; TN March 24 Supplement at 6- 7; VA March 24 Supplement at 6- 7. 47 47 U. S. C. § 214( e)( 6). See Appendices B and C. 48 See Highland Cellular Order19 FCC Rcd at 6431, para. 20; Virginia Cellular Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 1574- 75, para. 26. 49 See 47 U. S. C. § 214( e)( 6). See also Appendix B. 50 See, e. g., Cellco Partnership d/ b/ a Bell Atlantic Mobile Petition for Designation as an Eligible Telecommunications Carrier, Memorandum Opinion and Order, CC Docket No. 96- 45, 16 FCC Rcd 39 (2000). 51 See Virginia Cellular Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 1575, para. 27; Highland Cellular Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 6431- 32, para. 21. 52 See Virginia Cellular Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 1572- 73, para. 21; Highland Cellular Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 6431- 32, para. 21. See also AL March 24 Supplement; FL March 24 Supplement; GA March 24 Supplement; NY March 24 Supplement; PA March 24 Supplement; TN March 24 Supplement; VA March 24 Supplement; see also infra paras. 24- 25. 53 See 47 U. S. C.§ 214( e)( 6). See also Appendix C. 8 Federal Communications Commission DA 04- 2667 9 telephone company’s service area is in the public interest, we weigh the benefits of increased competitive choice, the impact of the designation on the universal service fund, the unique advantages and disadvantages of the competitor’s service offering, any commitments made regarding quality of telephone service, and the competitive ETC’s ability to satisfy its obligation to serve the designated service areas within a reasonable time frame. 54 18. Nextel’s universal service offering will provide a variety of benefits to customers. For instance, Nextel has committed to provide customers access to telecommunications and data services where they do not have access to a wireline telephone. 55 In addition, the mobility of Nextel’s wireless service will provide benefits such as access to emergency services that can mitigate the unique risks of geographic isolation associated with living in rural communities. 56 Moreover, Nextel states that it offers larger local calling areas than those of the incumbent LECs it competes against, which could result in fewer toll charges for Nextel’s customers. 57 Further, Nextel has made service quality commitments comparable to those made by petitioners in the Virginia Cellular Order and Highland Cellular Order, including compliance with the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association (CTIA) Consumer Code for Wireless Service. 58 19. We reject the arguments of certain commenters that Nextel does not offer service throughout the study areas where it seeks designation and therefore should not be designated in these areas. 59 Specifically, these commenters allege that service is not offered in many of the zip codes within the study areas where Nextel seeks ETC designation. 60 The Commission has already determined that a telecommunications carrier’s inability to demonstrate that it can provide ubiquitous service at the time of its request for designation as an ETC should not preclude its designation as an ETC. 61 Moreover, Nextel has committed to improve its network and reach out to areas that it does not currently serve. 62 Another 54 See, e. g., Highland Cellular Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 6435, para. 28; Virginia Cellular Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 1573, para. 22. 55 See AL March 24 Supplement at 3- 4; FL March 24 Supplement at 3- 4; GA March 24 Supplement at 3- 4; NY March 24 Supplement at 3- 4; PA March 24 Supplement at 3- 4; TN March 24 Supplement at 3- 4; VA March 24 Supplement at 3- 4. 56 See Virginia Cellular Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 1576, para. 29. See also Twelfth Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 12212, para. 3. 57 See AL Petition at 7; FL Petition at 7- 8; GA Petition at 7; NY Petition at 7; PN Petition at 7; TN Petition at 7; VA Petition at 7. 58 See AL March 24 Supplement at 2 and Exhibit 1; FL March 24 Supplement at 2 and Exhibit 1; GA March 24 Supplement at 2 and Exhibit 1; NY March 24 Supplement at 2 and Exhibit 1; PA March 24 Supplement at 2 and Exhibit 1; TN March 24 Supplement at 2 and Exhibit 1; VA March 24 Supplement at 2 and Exhibit 1. CTIA, Consumer Code for Wireless Service, available at http:// www. wow- com. com/ pdf/ The_ Code. pdf. Under the CTIA Consumer Code, wireless carriers agree to: (1) disclose rates and terms of service to customers; (2) make available maps showing where service is generally available; (3) provide contract terms to customers and confirm changes in service; (4) allow a trial period for new service; (5) provide specific disclosures in advertising; (6) separately identify carrier charges from taxes on billing statements; (7) provide customers the right to terminate service for changes to contract terms; (8) provide ready access to customer service; (9) promptly respond to consumer inquiries and complaints received from government agencies; and (10) abide by policies for protection of consumer privacy. 59 See, e. g., GA Telephone Assn. Comments at 5; NY State Telecom Supplement Comments at 3, 7- 8; TDS Supplement Comments at 7- 8; PA Telephone Assn. at 4- 8; Commonwealth Telephone at 2- 3; NY State Telecom Comments 5- 7; FW& A Comments at 10. 60 See, e. g., PA Telephone Assn. at 6; NY State Telecom Comments at 5- 6. 61 See Declaratory Ruling, 15 FCC Rcd at 15175, para. 17. 9 Federal Communications Commission DA 04- 2667 10 commenter asserts that Nextel excludes residences from its commitment and intends to serve only business customers. 63 We disagree. Nextel’s filing does not distinguish between the types of customers with regard to the commitments to improve its network in the study areas for which it seeks ETC designation. 64 20. Other commenters argue that the Commission should not designate Nextel as an ETC because such designation will not increase competition. They argue that Nextel is not a new entrant in the various markets and other CMRS operators are currently offering service in the designated service areas. 65 We disagree. Quality service available at just, reasonable, and affordable rates is a fundamental principle of the Commission’s universal service policies. 66 Although Nextel and other CMRS operators may already offer service in the subject markets, designating Nextel as an ETC will further the Commission’s universal service goals by enabling Nextel to better expand and improve its network to serve a greater population and increase competitive choice for customers within the study areas of its ETC designation. 21. The Commission is seeking comment on the Recommended Decision of the Federal Joint-Board on Universal Service (Joint Board) concerning the process for designation of ETCs and the Commission’s rules regarding high- cost universal service support. 67 Commenters argue that, in light of the impact that ETC designations have on the universal service fund, the Commission should not rule on any pending ETC petitions until the completion of the rulemaking proceeding. 68 We believe that grant of these ETC designations will not dramatically burden the universal service fund. For example, even assuming that Nextel captures each and every customer located in the affected study areas, the overall (... continued from previous page) 62 See AL March 24 Supplement; FL March 24 Supplement; GA March 24 Supplement; NY March 24 Supplement; PA March 24 Supplement; TN March 24 Supplement; VA March 24 Supplement; see also Virginia Cellular Petition at 2, 17 and Virginia Cellular October 3 Supplement at 2, Virginia Cellular November 12 Supplement at 4- 5 and Attachment. 63 TDS Supplement Comments at 7. 64 See AL March 24 Supplement 4- 9; FL March 24 Supplement 4- 9; GA March 24 Supplement 4- 9; NY March 24 Supplement 4- 9; PA March 24 Supplement 4- 9; TN March 24 Supplement 4- 9; VA March 24 Supplement 4- 9. 65 See, e. g., CenturyTel Comments at 2; CenturyTel Supplement Comments at 3- 4; Commonwealth Telephone Comments at 5; Frontier Comments at 5; NY State Telecom at 6. 66 See Federal- State Joint Board on Universal Service, Report and Order, CC Docket No. 96- 45, 12 FCC Rcd 8776, 8839, para. 112 (1997) (First Report and Order) (“ We recognize affordable rates are essential to inducing consumers to subscribe to telephone service, and also that increasing the number of people connected to the network increases the value of the telecommunications network.”); 47 U. S. C.§ 254( b). 67 Federal- State Joint Board on Universal Service, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, CC Docket No. 96- 45, FCC 04- 127 (rel. June 8, 2004) (ETC High- Cost NPRM); Federal- State Joint Board on Universal Service, Recommended Decision, CC Docket No. 96- 45, 19 FCC Rcd 4257 (2004) (Joint Board Recommended Decision). Among other things, the Joint Board recommended that the Commission adopt permissive federal guidelines for states to consider when designating ETCs under section 214 of the Act. Joint Board Recommended Decision, 19 FCC Rcd at 4258, para. 2. 68 See, e. g., NY State Telecom Comments at 11- 14; OPASTCO Comments at 2. Verizon filed an opposition to all pending ETC petitions, including Nextel Partners’, arguing that, among other things, pending ETC petitions should not be acted upon until completion of the Commission’s proceeding concerning the ETC designation process and the related rules regarding high- cost universal service support. See Verizon Supplement Comments at 1- 5. If the Commission does not stay the pending petitions, NASUCA asks that the Commission explicitly state that the continuing eligibility of the petitioners for ETC designation is contingent upon any future changes to the rules and the rules would be binding on all existing ETCs and those requesting designation. See NASUCA Comments at 2. 10 Federal Communications Commission DA 04- 2667 11 size of the high- cost support mechanisms would not significantly increase. 69 Other commenters suggest that the framework articulated in the Virginia Cellular Order should be expanded to require competitive ETCs to demonstrate their need for universal service support, to require a cost- benefit analysis based on the overall impact of the USF, and to contain wireless calling plan requirements. 70 Although these are important issues, we decline to delay ruling on pending ETC petitions and to impose additional requirements at this time. Nevertheless, we continue to be mindful of the impact on the universal service fund due to the rapid growth in the number of competitive ETCs. The outcome of the rulemaking proceeding could potentially impact, among other things, continued ETC designations, the amount of support that Nextel and other competitive ETCs receive in the future, and local calling plan benchmarks. 22. We further disagree with Verizon’s argument that we should not designate any additional competitive ETCs because it could have a significant impact on the access charge plan established by the Commission’s CALLS Order. 71 In the voluntarily negotiated CALLS plan, price cap carriers, inter alia, agreed to establish a $650 million target for interstate access support. Similar to other types of universal service support, interstate access support is portable to competitive ETCs. 72 Consequently, because interstate access support is targeted to $650 million, when a competitive ETC receives interstate access support, there is a corresponding reduction in support available to incumbent carriers. As the CALLS plan was being considered, portability of support to competitive ETCs and its relation to the $650 million target was contemplated. 73 Accordingly, the CALLS plan is functioning as contemplated by the agreement. We further note that the CALLS plan was designed for a five- year period, which ends in 2005. 74 As part of its consideration of the appropriate regulatory mechanism to replace the CALLS plan, the Commission can examine whether the interstate access support mechanism remains sufficient. 75 D. Designated Service Areas 23. We designate Nextel as an ETC in the requested service areas in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, and Virginia served by non- rural telephone companies, as listed in Appendix B. 76 In addition, we designate Nextel as an ETC in the requested service areas in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, 69 For example, out of the seven states in which Nextel seeks ETC designation, the incumbent carriers in Alabama receive the most high- cost support. The total amount of high- cost support received by such carriers is approximately 1. 88% of the total high- cost support available to all ETCs. 70 See, e. g., CenturyTel Supplement Comments at 3- 4; Frontier Comments at 6- 9; GA Telephone Assn. Comments at 4- 5; FW& A Comments at 9, 11, 14; NASUCA Comments at 2- 3; NTELOS Comments at 2; NY State Telecom Comments at 11- 14; OPASTCO Comments at 2; PA Telephone Assn. Comments at 8- 9; TDS Supplement Comments at 8- 10. 71 See Verizon Opposition at 2- 3; Access Charge Reform, Sixth Report and Order, CC Docket Nos. 96- 262 and 94- 1, Report and Order, CC Docket No. 99- 249, Eleventh Report and Order, CC Docket No 96- 45, 15 FCC Rcd 12962 (2000) (subsequent history omitted) (CALLS Order). 72 See 47 C. F. R. § 54. 307( a). 73 See CTIA Supplement Reply Comments at 4- 5 (quoting Comments of Coalition for Affordable Local and Long Distance Services (CALLS), CC Docket Nos. 94- 1, 96- 45,. 96- 262, 99- 249, filed Nov. 12, 1999. 74 See CALLS Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 12977, 13046, paras. 35- 36, 201. 75 See id. at 12977, para. 36 (“[ A] s the term of the CALLS Proposal nears its end, we envision that the Commission will conduct a proceeding to determine whether and to what degree it can deregulate price cap LECs to reflect the existence of competition. At that time, the Commission can also examine whether the interstate access universal service support mechanism remains sufficient.”). 76 The designated “service area” for an ETC in an area served by a rural telephone company must be the rural telephone company’s study area unless a different definition of the rural telephone company’s service area is established by the Commission and the states as provided under the Act. See 47 U. S. C. § 214( e)( 5). 11 Federal Communications Commission DA 04- 2667 12 New York, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Virginia served by rural telephone companies, as listed in Appendix C. 77 As explained above, Nextel’s service area for each rural telephone company encompasses the entire study area of each rural telephone company. 78 E. Regulatory Oversight 24. Nextel is obligated under section 254( e) of the Act to use high- cost support “only for the provision, maintenance, and upgrading of facilities and services for which support is intended” and is required under sections 54.313 and 54.314 of the Commission’s rules to certify annually that it is in compliance with this requirement. 79 Nextel has certified that, consistent with sections 54.313 and 54.314 of the Commission’s rules, all federal high- cost support will be “used only for the provision, maintenance and upgrading of facilities and services for which support is intended pursuant to Section 254( e)” of the Act in the areas for which Nextel is designated as an ETC. 80 In addition, Nextel has certified pursuant to sections 54.809 and 54.904 of the Commission’s rules that all interstate access universal service support and all interstate common line support provided will be used only for the provision, maintenance, and upgrading of facilities and services for which the support is intended. 81 Nextel has further requested that the Commission find that Nextel has met the appropriate certification filing deadline in order for it to begin receiving support as of its ETC designation date. 82 Accordingly, we treat Nextel’s certifications as timely so that it can begin receiving universal service support as of the date of its ETC designation. 83 25. Separate and in addition to its annual certification filing under rule sections 54.513 and 54.314, Nextel has committed to submit records and documentation on an annual basis detailing: (1) its progress towards meeting its build- out plans; (2) the number of complaints per 1,000 handsets; and (3) information detailing how many requests for service from potential customers were unfulfilled for the past year. 84 We require Nextel to submit these additional data to the Commission and USAC on October 77 See Appendix C. 78 See supra para. 19. 79 47 C. F. R. §§ 54. 313, 54. 314. 80 See AL Petition at 8- 9; FL Petition at 9- 10; GA Petition at 9; NY Petition at 8- 9; PA Petition at 8- 9; TN Petition at 11; VA Petition at 11- 12; see also TN Affidavit I and TN Affidavit II. 81 47 C. F. R.§§ 54.809, 54. 904; see also AL Petition at 8- 9; FL Petition at 9- 10; GA Petition at 9; NY Petition at 8- 9; PA Petition at 8- 9; TN Petition at 11; VA Petition at 11- 12. 82 See AL Petition at 8- 9; FL Petition at 9- 10; GA Petition at 9; NY Petition at 8- 9; PA Petition at 8- 9; TN June 29 Erratum; VA Petition at 11- 12. 83 Sections 54.313 and 54.314 provide that the certification must be filed by October 1 of the preceding calendar year to receive support beginning in the first quarter of a subsequent calendar year. 47 C. F. R. §§ 54.313( d)( 3), 54. 314( d)( 3). If the October 1 deadline for first quarter support is missed, the certification must be filed by January 1 for support to begin in the second quarter, by April 1 for support to begin in the third quarter, and by July 1 for support to begin in the fourth quarter. See id. In instances where carriers are not subject to the jurisdiction of a state, the Commission allows an ETC to certify directly to the Commission and USAC that federal high- cost support will be used in a manner consistent with section 254( e). See 47 C. F. R. §§ 54. 313( b); 54. 314( b). Moreover, although we accept Nextel’s certifications as timely so that it can receive support as of its ETC designation date, consistent with the Commission’s rules, the relevant state commissions are not precluded from filing future certifications on behalf of Nextel stating that universal service support is being used for its intended purposes. See 47 C. F. R. §§ 54. 313, 54. 314. 84 See AL March 24 Supplement at 3- 7; FL March 24 Supplement at 3- 7; GA March 24 Supplement at 3- 7; NY March 24 Supplement at 3- 7; PA March 24 Supplement at 3- 7; TN March 24 Supplement at 3- 7; VA March 24 Supplement at 3- 7. Certain commenters argue that Nextel will not use high- cost support for its intended purpose. See, e. g., CenturyTel Supplement Comments at 5. We find that the above commitments alleviate such concerns. 12 Federal Communications Commission DA 04- 2667 13 1 of each year beginning October 1, 2005. 85 We find that reliance on Nextel’s commitments is reasonable and consistent with the public interest and the Act and the Fifth Circuit decision in Texas Office of Public Utility Counsel v. FCC. 86 We conclude that fulfillment of these additional reporting requirements will further the Commission’s goal of ensuring that Nextel satisfies its obligation under section 214( e) of the Act to provide supported services throughout its designated service area. We note that the Commission may institute an inquiry on its own motion to examine any ETC’s records and documentation to ensure that the high- cost support it receives is being used “only for the provision, maintenance, and upgrading of facilities and services” in the areas where it is designated as an ETC. 87 Nextel will be required to provide such records and documentation to the Commission and USAC upon request. We further emphasize that if Nextel fails to fulfill the requirements of the statute, the Commission’s rules, or the terms of this Order after it begins receiving universal service support, the Commission has authority to revoke its ETC designation. 88 The Commission also may assess forfeitures for violations of Commission rules and orders. 89 IV. ANTI- DRUG ABUSE ACT CERTIFICATION 26. Pursuant to section 5301 of the Anti- Drug Abuse Act of 1988, no applicant is eligible for any new, modified, or renewed instrument of authorization from the Commission, including authorizations issued pursuant to section 214 of the Act, unless the applicant certifies that neither it, nor any party to its application, is subject to a denial of federal benefits, including Commission benefits. 90 This certification must also include the names of individuals specified by section 1.2002( b) of the Commission’s rules. 91 Nextel has provided a certification consistent with the requirements of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988. 92 We find that Nextel has satisfied the requirements of the Anti- Drug Abuse Act of 1988, as codified in sections 1.2001- 1.2003 of the Commission’s rules. V. ORDERING CLAUSES 27. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority contained in section 85 Nextel’s initial submission concerning consumer complaints per 1, 000 handsets and unfulfilled service requests will include data from the date ETC designation is granted through June 30, 2005. Future submissions concerning consumer complaints and unfulfilled service requests will include data from July 1 of the previous calendar year through June 30 of the reporting calendar year. 86 Texas Office of Public Utility Counsel v. FCC, 183 F. 3d 393, 417- 18 (5 th Cir. 1999) In TOPUC v. FCC, the Fifth Circuit held that that nothing in section 214( e)( 2) of the Act prohibits states from imposing additional eligibility conditions on ETCs as part of their designation process. See id. Consistent with this holding, we find that nothing in section 214( e)( 6) prohibits the Commission from imposing additional conditions on ETCs when such designations fall under our jurisdiction. 87 47 U. S. C. §§ 220, 403; 47 C. F. R. §§ 54. 313, 54. 314. 88 See Declaratory Ruling, 15 FCC Rcd at 15174, para. 15. See also 47 U. S. C. § 254( e). 89 See 47 U. S. C. § 503( b). 90 47 U. S. C. § 1.2002( a); 21 U. S. C. § 862. 91 See ETC Procedures PN, 12 FCC Rcd at 22949. Section 1.2002( b) provides that a “party to the application” shall include: “( 1) If the applicant is an individual, that individual; (2) If the applicant is a corporation or unincorporated association, all officers, directors, or persons holding 5% or more of the outstanding stock or shares (voting/ and or non- voting) of the petitioner; and (3) If the applicant is a partnership, all non- limited partners and any limited partners holding a 5% or more interest in the partnership.” 47 C. F. R. § 1.2002( b). 92 See AL Petition at 8 and Attachment 5; FL Petition at and Attachment 4; GA Petition at 8 and Attachment 4; NY Petition at 8 and Attachment 5; PA Petition at 8 and Attachment 5; TN Petition at 11 and Attachment 4; VA Petition at 11 and Attachment 5. 13 Federal Communications Commission DA 04- 2667 14 214( e)( 6) of the Communications Act, 47 U. S. C. § 214( e)( 6), and the authority delegated in sections 0.91 and 0.291 of the Commission’s rules, 47 C. F. R. §§ 0.91, 0. 291, NCPR, Inc. d/ b/ a Nextel Partners IS DESIGNATED AN ELIGIBLE TELECOMMUNICATIONS CARRIER in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, New York, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Virginia to the extent described herein. 28. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order SHALL BE transmitted by the Wireline Competition Bureau to the Alabama Public Service Commission, Florida Public Service Commission, Georgia Public Service Commission, New York Department of Public Service, Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, Tennessee Regulatory Authority, Virginia State Corporation Commission, and the Universal Service Administrative Company. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Jeffrey J. Carlisle Acting Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau 14 Federal Communications Commission DA 04- 2667 15 Appendix A Parties Filing Comments, Reply Comments, Oppositions, Supplemental Comments Petition for Designation as an Eligible Telecommunications Carrier in the state of Alabama Comments CenturyTel, Inc. (CenturyTel) Organization for the Promotion and Advancement of Small Telecommunications Companies (OPASTCO) Reply Comments NPCR, Inc. d/ b/ a/ Nextel Partners (Nextel Partners) Opposition Verizon Communications, Inc. (Verizon) Supplemental Comments Verizon TDS Telecommunications Corp. (TDS) Petition for Designation as an Eligible Telecommunications Carrier in the state of Florida Comments OPASTCO National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates (NASUCA) Fred Williams & Associates, Inc. (FW& A) TDS Reply Comments Nextel Partners Petition for Designation as an Eligible Telecommunications Carrier in the state of Georgia Comments Frontier Communications (Frontier) Georgia Telephone Association (GA Telephone) OPASTCO Reply Comments Nextel Partners Opposition Verizon 15 Federal Communications Commission DA 04- 2667 16 Supplemental Comments Frontier TDS Verizon Petition for Designation as an Eligible Telecommunications Carrier in the state of New York Comments Frontier New York State Telecommunications Association, Inc. (NY Telecom) OPASTCO Reply Comments Nextel Partners Opposition Verizon Supplemental Comments NY Telcom TDS Verizon Petition for Designation as an Eligible Telecommunications Carrier in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Comments Commonwealth Telephone Company (Commonwealth Telephone) Pennsylvania Telephone Association (PA Telephone) Reply Comments Nextel Partners OPASTCO Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (Pennsylvania Commission) Supplemental Comments TDS Pennsylvania Commission Verizon Petition for Designation as an Eligible Telecommunications Carrier in the state of Tennessee Comments NASUCA OPASTCO 16 Federal Communications Commission DA 04- 2667 17 Reply Comments Nextel Partners Opposition Verizon Supplemental Comments Verizon Petition for Designation as an Eligible Telecommunications Carrier in the Commonwealth of Virginia Comments NTELOS, Inc. (NTELOS) Virginia Rural Southside Telephone Companies Reply Comments Nextel Partners OPASTCO Supplemental Comments NTELOS TDS Verizon 17 Federal Communications Commission DA 04- 2667 18 Appendix B Non- Rural Wire Centers for Inclusion in Nextel’s ETC Service Areas ALABAMA VERIZON SACs 250281 and 250293 ABVLALXA FYTTALXA RCFRALXA ACVLALXA GDBAALXA RDLVALXA ANDSALXA GENVALXA SCBOALXA ARITALXA HDLDALXZ SLCMALXA BLBTALXA HRFRALXA SMSNALXA BRNDALXA IRSEALXA THRSALXA CLIOALXA JMSNALXA TLLSALXA CLMAALXA LNCLALXA TSVLALXA DTHNALXA MLCYALXA WCBGALXA ELBAALXA NTSLALXA WDLYALXA ENTRALXA NWBCALXA WEDWALXA FRFNALXA NWTNALXA FRHMALXA OPPALXA FWRVALXA OZRKALXA 18 Federal Communications Commission DA 04- 2667 19 ALABAMA BELL SOUTH SAC 255181 ALBSALMA DDVLALMA MOBLALBF ALCYALMT DORAALMA MOBLALOS ALVLALMA EUFLALMA MOBLALPR ANTNALLE EUTWALMA MOBLALSA ANTNALMT EVRGALMA MOBLALSE BLFNALMA FLRNALMA MOBLALSF BOAZALMA FMTNALMT MOBLALSH BRHMALCH FRHPALMA MOBLALSK BRHMALCP FTDPALMA MOBLALTH BRHMALEL GDSDALHS MPVLALMA BRHMALEN GDSDALMT MTGMALDA BRHMALEW GDSDALRD MTGMALMB BRHMALFO GRDLALNM MTGMALMT BRHMALFS GTVLALNM MTGMALNO BRHMALHW GYVLALNM MTVRALMA BRAHMALMT HLVIALMA OPLKALMT BRHMALOM HNVIALLW PDMTALMA BRHMALOX HNVIALMT PHCYALFM BRHMALRC HNVIALPW PHCYALMA BRHMALTA HNVIALRA PNSNALMA BRHMALVA HNVIALRW PRVLALMA BRHMALWE HNVIALUN SELMALMT BRHMALWL HNVLALNM SYLCALMT BRTOALMA HRBOALOM THVLALMA BSMRALBU HZGRALMA TLDGALMA BSMRALHT JCSNALNM TROYALMA BSMRALMA JCVLALMA TSCLALDH BYMNALMA JSPRALMT TSCLALMT CALRALMA LFYTALRS TSKGALMA CHLSALMA LGRNGAMA VNCNALMA CLANALMA LNDNALMA WBTNALNM CLMBALMA MCINALMA WRRRALNM CLMNALMA MDSNALNM WTMPALMA CNTMFLLE MNTVALNM YORKALMA CTRNALNM MOBLALAP DCTRALMT MOBLALAZ 19 Federal Communications Commission DA 04- 2667 20 FLORIDA BELL SOUTH SAC 215191 CHPLFLJA LKCYFLMA PNSCFLBL CNTMFLLE LYHNFLOH PNSCFLFP FMTNALMT MLTNFLRA PNSCFLHC GCVLFLMA MNSNFLMA PNSCFLPB GLBRFLMC PACEFLPV PNSCFLWA HAVNFLMA PCBHFLNT SYHSFLCC HLNVFLMA PNCYFLCA VERNFLMA JAYFLMA PNCYFLMA FNFNFLMA GEORGIA BELL SOUTH SAC 225192 ADAIRSVL DUBLIN NEWNAN ALBANY EASTMAN NEWTON ATHENS EATONTON PELHAM ATLANTA FLOWEYBRCH PINE MT ATLANTA NE FORSYTH RICHLAND ATLANTA NW FORTVALLEY ROCKMART ATLANTA SO FRANKLIN ROME AUGUSTA GAINESVL ROYSTON BAINBRIDGE GRANTVILLE SANDERSVL BARNESVL GREENSBORO SAVANNAH BLACKSHEAR GREENVILE SENOIA BOWDON GRIFFIN SMITHVILLE BRUNSWICK HAMILTON SOCIALCRCL BUFORD HAZLEHURST SPARKS CALHOUN HOGANSVL SPARTA CAMILLA JACKSON SWAINSBORO CARROLLTON JESUP SYLVESTER CATERSVL LAGRANGE THOMASVL COCHRAN LAKE PARK TIFTON COLUMBUS LEESBURG VALDOSTA CONCORD LUMPKIN VIDALIA CORDELE LUTHERSVL VILLA RICA COVINGTON MACON WARNERRBNS CUMMING MADISON WRENS CUSSETA MONTICELLO WRIGHTSVL 20 Federal Communications Commission DA 04- 2667 21 TENNESSEE BELL SOUTH SAC 295185 BLGPTNMA KNVLTNWH NSVLTNDO CHTGTNBR KNVLTNYH NSVLTNHH CHTGTNDT LBNNTNMA NSVLTNIN CHTGTNHT LFLTTNMA NSVLTNMC CHTGTNNS LNCYTNMA NSVLTNMT CHTGTNRB LODNTNMA NSVLTNST CHTGTNSM LYLSTNMA NSVLTNUN CLEVTNMA MAVLTNMA OKGVKYES CLTNTNMA MCKNTNMA OKRGTNMT CLVLTNMA MMPHTNBA PSVWTNMT CRVLTNMA MMPHTNCK PTLDTNMA DNRGTNMA MMPHTNCT RRVLTNMA FKLNTNCC MMPHTNEL SANGTNMT FKLNTNMA MMPHTNGT SHCPTNXA FRDNTNMA MMPHTNMA SMYRTNMA FYVLTNMA MMPHTNMT SNVLTNMA GRVLTNXZ MMPHTNOA SRVLTNMA HCRDTNXA MMPHTNSL SVVLTNMT HDVLTNMA MMPHTNWW SWTWTNMY HHNWTNMA MNCHTNMA TLLHTNMA JCSNTNMA MRBOTNMA UNCYTNMA JFCYTNMA MRTWTNMA WHBLTNMT JLLCTNMA MSCTTNMT WHHSTNMA KNVLTNBE NSVLTNAP WHPITNMA KNVLTNFC NSVLTNBW KNVLTNMA NSVLTNCH 21 Federal Communications Commission DA 04- 2667 22 VIRGINIA VERIZON S VA (Contel) SAC 190233 AMHRVAXA GLDSVAXA NKVLVAXA APMTVAXA GRBRVAXA OCQNVAXA BRWRVAXA GRBRVAXB PMPLVAXA CALLVAXA GRTSVAXA QNTCVAXA CHNCVAXA HRBRVAXA RPHNVAXA DLCYVAXA HYMRVAXA SMFDVAXA DLLSVAXA KZTWVAXA STCKVAXA DYTNVAXA LRTNVAXA STFRVAXZ EDOMVAXA MGVLVAXA WNDSVAXA EKTNVAXA MNSSVAXA WYCVVAXA VIRGINIA VERIZON VA, INC. (SAC 195040) ALSNVAAD CNCRVACN LOUSVALU ALSNVAAX CNVIVACT LRTNVAGU ALSNVABA CRBGVACB LSBGVALB ALSNVABR CRVIVACV LVTNVALN ALSNVACN CRVLVACV LVVLVALV ALSNVAFR DAVLVADA LYBGVACH ALSNVAMV DAVLVAFP LYBGVACV ARTNVAAR DBLNVADU LYBGVAMH ARTNVACK DCVLVADV LYBGVANL ARTNVACY FIFEVAFI LYBGVAOF ARTNVAFC FLCHVAMF LYBGVATM ASBNVAAS FRBGVAFB LYBGVAYB ASKDVAAS FRBGVALH MCLNVAVL BCHNVABH FRFXVABF MDBGVAMI BDRFRVABD FRFXAFF MNKNVAMN BELVLVABV GNBOVAGA MNRLVAML BGISVABI GNWDVAGW MRSHVAMA BLMTVABM GOVLVAGV NLFRVANF BOYCVABY GVTNVAGR NRFLVABL BTHIVABT HLBOVAHB NRFLVABS CCVLVACH HMPNVAAB NRFLVAGS CGVLVACL HMPNVADC NRFLVASP CHESVACR HMPNVAQN NRFLVAWC CHHMVACH HPWLVAHW NRTNVANO CHSKVACD HRNDVADU NRWSVANA CHSKFAGU HRNDVAHE NWNWVAHV CLPPVACU HRNDVAST NWNWVAJF CLPPVAGR JNVLVAJV NWNWVAYK CLVRVACL LBNNVALB ORNGVAOR CMLDVACU LBNNVARD PCVLVAPV 22 Federal Communications Commission DA 04- 2667 23 VIRGINIA VERIZON VA, INC. (SAC 195040) continued PLSKVAPU RNGLVARG STTNVAST PNGPVAPG RONKVABK STTNVAVE PNRVVAPR RONKVABS SWVLVASV PRBGVAPB RONKVACS THPLVATP PTBGVAPB RONKVACV UNVLVAUV PTMOVAHS RONKVAGC UPVLVAUP RCMDVACG RONKVALK VINNVAVN RCMDVAGK RSTNVAFM VRBHVACC RCMDVAGR RSTNVALF VRBHVAGN RCMDVAGY SALMVAFL VRBHVAIL RCMDVAHL SALMVAMC VRBHVAIR RCMDVAHR SALMVASA VRBHVAPT RCMDVAHS SFFLVASK VRBHVARC RCMDVAIT SHVLVASW VRBHVAVB RCMDVALS SNMTVASM WISEVAWI RCMDVAPE SNTNVASS WLBGVAWM RCMDVAPS SPFDVASP WNCHVANM RCMDVARA SPTSVASP WNCHVAWC RCMDVASN SRVLVASP WNTRVAWG RCMDVASR STCYVASC WRTNVAWR RDFRVARA STRDVASD WTFRVAWT 23 Federal Communications Commission DA 04- 2667 24 Appendix C Rural Telephone Study Areas for Inclusion in Nextel’s ETC Service Area ALABAMA Butler Telephone Co., Inc. (now TDS) Castleberry Telephone Co., Inc. Frontier Communications of Alabama Frontier Communications of the South Graceba Total Communications, GTC Inc. – AL, Gulf Telephone Company Hayneville Telephone Co., Inc. Millry Telephone Company Mon- Cre Telephone Cooperative Pine Belt Telephone Company Union Springs Telephone Co., Inc. FLORIDA GTC, Inc. – FL Frontier Communications – South AllTel Florida, Inc. Quincey Telephone Co. GEORGIA Quincy Tel Co- GA Div Bulloch County Rural Citizens Tel Co.- GA Glenwood Tel Co Comsouth Telecomm Interstate Tel. Co. Pembroke Tel Co Pineland Tel Coop Planters Rural Coop Plant Tel Co Progressive Rural Public Service Tel Frontier of GA Waverly Hall LLC Accucom Telecom NEW YORK Armstrong Tel Co- NY Frontier- Ausable Val Berkshire Tel Corp Cassadage Tel Corp Champlain Tel Co Chautauqua & Erie Chazy & Westport Citizens Hammond NY Taconic Tel Corp Crown Point Tel Corp Delhi Tel Co 24 Federal Communications Commission DA 04- 2667 25 (New York – continued) Deposit Tel Co Dunkirk & Fredonia Edwards Tel Co Germantown Tel Co Hancock Tel Co Margaretville Tel Co Middleburgh Tel Co Alltel NY- Fulton Newport Tel Co Ogden Tel Co Oneida County Rural Ontario Tel Co, Inc. AllTel NY- Red Jacket Oriskany Falls Tel Pattersonville Tel Port Byron Tel Co Frontier – Rochester Frontier – Seneca Gorh State Tel Co Frontier – Sylvan Lake Township Tel Co Trumansburg Tel Co Vernon Tel Co Warwick Valley- NY Citizens Telecom- NY Citizens- Red Hook Citizens- West. Cnty Verizon New York PENNSYLVANIA Bentleyville Communications Company Frontier Communications of Breezewood Buffalo Valley Telephone Company Frontier Communications of Canton Commonwealth Telephone Company Conestoga Telephone & Telegraph Company Denver and Ephrata Telephone & Telegraph Company Ironton Telephone Company Lackawaxen Telecommunications Services, Inc. Laurel Highland Telephone Company Mahanoy and Mahantongo Telephone Company Marianna- Scenery Telephone Company North Eastern PN Telephone Company North Penn Telephone Company Armstrong Telephone Company – North Palmerton Telephone Company Pennsylvania Telephone Company Pymatuning Independent Telephone Company South Canaan Telephone Company Sugar Valley Telephone Company Venus Telephone Company West Side Telecommunications 25 Federal Communications Commission DA 04- 2667 26 TENNESSEE United Inter- MT- TN VIRGINIA Amelia Tel Corp Citizens Tel Coop Ntelos, Inc. North River Tel Coop Pembroke Tel Coop Peoples Mutual Tel Roanoke & Botetourt Shenandoah Tel Co Virginia Tel Co Verizon South VA New Castle Tel Co. 26