Welcome to the California Public Utilities Commission

 

The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) would like to hear from you!

 

On January 24, 2013, the CPUC initiated Rulemaking (R.) 13-01-010 to conduct a comprehensive examination of the California Teleconnect Fund (CTF).  During Phases 1 and 2 of the Rulemaking, the Commission adopted restated program goals and revised the CTF program design in several key areas, including eligibility criteria and discount levels.  Click here to view the Phase 1 and 2 decision, Decision 15-07-007.  In the current phase, Phase 3, the Commission is addressing implementation and administration elements of the CTF program. 

This online form was designed to take comments from those who would like the Commission to consider their views but are not actively participating as Parties in the Rulemaking.  On December 18, 2015, the assigned Commissioner issued a scoping memo setting forth 11 issues that the Commission will be considering during Phase 3.  Click here to view the Scoping Memo.  This online form permits non-parties to provide comments on Issues 1 and 2 of the scoping memo.  The Commission will provide another online form in the future for those who would like to provide their views regarding Issues 3-11 of the scoping memo.   

 

 

 
First Name:       

Last Name:  

     
Please specify the name of the organization if any:    
     
 Email Address:     Phone Number:  
     
Street Address:   
     

City:  State:     

  Zip Code:  
     

Questions regarding Issue 1:  The process for schools, libraries, government-owned and operated health care facilities, and  Critical Access Hospitals in unserved or underserved areas to seek exemption from reduced voice services support 

 

Q1.1

What information should schools, libraries, government-owned and operated health care facilities, and Critical Access Hospitals in unserved or underserved areas as defined in D.15-07-007 submit to the Commission to seek exemption from reduced voice services support?
   

 
 Q1.2

What documentation should schools, libraries, government-owned and operated health care facilities, and Critical Access Hospitals submit to the Commission to demonstrate that they are in unserved or underserved areas as defined in D.15-07-007?  Is an address check or a zip code check against a map of unserved and underserved areas adequate to determine whether an otherwise eligible entity is in an unserved or underserved area? 

 

 

Q1.3

 What should the frequency for submission of exemption requests be?  Should entities seeking the exemption from reduced voice support be required to renew the voice exemption every two years? 

 
 

 

Q1.4

 

Should the unserved/underserved voice support exemption be extended to CBOs located in unserved or underserved areas? 

 
 

 

 

Q1.5

 

If applicable, what information, documentation, and submission frequency should CBOs be subject to for exemption requests for the unserved/underserved voice support exemption? 

  

 

Q1.6

 

Should the Commission require entities seeking the exemption from reduced voice support to certify, in writing within 90 days of an exemption request, that they receive only voice services from any telecommunications service provider?  Should that certification need to be supported by billing documentation? 

 

Q1.7

 

What criteria and data should the Commission use to assess whether the reduced voice discount exemption should continue or expire? 

 

Q1.8

 

Are there any additional issues the Commission would need to resolve before the exemption can go into effect? 

 

Q1.9

 

Are there are any safety implications raised by Issue 1? 

 

Questions regarding Issue 2:  Methods to determine whether wireless data plans for non-E-Rate participants are the most cost effective form of internet access. 

 

Q2.1

 

What methodology should the Commission adopt to determine if data plans are the most cost effective form of internet access? 

 

Q2.2

 

What are the issues that the Commission must identify to address cost-effectiveness for internet access?  

 

 

Q2.3

 

Are there elements of the E-Rate approval process that the Commission can use for CTF analysis of data plan cost effectiveness? 

 

 

Q2.4

 

Should the Commission hold a workshop to discuss the relevant items needed to resolve Issue 2? 

 

Q2.5

 

Are there any safety implications raised by Issue 2?