41052 Etc 82 Telecom Communications, Llc to Expand ) Its Eligible Telecommunications Carrier ) Approved: Designated Service Area )

STATE OF INDIANA

INDIANA UTILITY REGULATORY COMMISSION

IN THE MATTER OF PETITION OF SAGE ) CAUSE NO. 41052 ETC 82 TELECOM COMMUNICATIONS, LLC TO EXPAND ) ITS ELIGIBLE TELECOMMUNICATIONS CARRIER ) APPROVED: DESIGNATED SERVICE AREA )

ORDER OF THE COMMISSION

Presiding Officers: Sarah E. Freeman, Commissioner Lora L. Manion, Administrative Law Judge

On June 11, 2020, Sage Telecom Communications, LLC d/b/a TruConnect (“Petitioner” or “TruConnect”) filed its Petition to Expand Its Eligible Telecommunications Carrier (“ETC”) Designated Service Area (“Petition”) with the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission (“Commission”). Petitioner seeks to provide ETC service to the Expansion Area pursuant to Section 214(e)(2) of the Federal Communications Act of 1934, as amended (“Act”), to provide wireless services supported by the Federal Universal Service Fund (“USF”) Lifeline Program throughout additional areas in Indiana.

On August 7, 2020, Petitioner filed the testimony and exhibits of Nathan Johnson, Co-Chief Executive Officer of Petitioner.

On August 20, 2020, the Indiana Office of Utility Consumer Counselor (“OUCC”) filed Its Intent Not to File Testimony.

On September 11, 2020, the Presiding Officers in a Docket Entry requested that Petitioner provide additional information, and Petitioner responded in a filing on September 16, 2020 (“Response”). On September 16, 2020, Petitioner also filed a Motion for Confidential Treatment, which was granted by the Presiding Officers on September 17, 2020.

On September 22, 2020, Petitioner filed a Notice of Filing of Exchange List.

The Commission set this matter for an Evidentiary Hearing to be held on September 24, 2020, at 9:30 a.m. in Room 224 of the PNC Center, 101 West Washington Street, Indianapolis, Indiana. A Docket Entry was issued on September 17, 2020, advising that, in accordance with Indiana Governor Holcomb’s Executive Orders related to the COVID-19 pandemic, the hearing would be conducted via teleconference and providing related participation information. Petitioner and the OUCC, by counsel, participated in the hearing via teleconference, and the testimony and exhibits of Petitioner were admitted into the record without objection.

Based upon the applicable law and the evidence presented, the Commission finds:

1. Notice and Jurisdiction. Notice of the hearing in this Cause was given and published by the Commission as required by law. Pursuant to the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (the “Act”), 47 U.S.C. § 151 et seq., and 47 C.F.R. §§ 54.201 and 54.203, the Commission is authorized to designate ETCs, thereby enabling those so designated to apply for USF under 47 U.S.C. § 254 and in accordance with the Commission’s Orders in Cause Nos. 40785, 41052, and 42067. The Commission also has jurisdiction over communication service providers (“CSPs”) pursuant to Indiana Code § 8- 1-2.6-13. Therefore, the Commission has jurisdiction over Petitioner and the subject matter of this Cause.

2. Petitioner’s Characteristics. Sage Telecom Communications, LLC d/b/a TruConnect is a Texas limited liability company with its principal office at 1149 S. Hill Street, Suite 400, Los Angeles, California. Petitioner operates and is designated as a wireless ETC under the name of: (1) “Sage d/b/a TruConnect” in Indiana, 27 other states, and Puerto Rico; and (2) “TruConnect, Inc.” in two states and the U.S. Virgin Islands. TruConnect currently provides Lifeline service in Indiana to more than 5,500 customers. Petitioner is also a “common carrier” and a “telecommunications carrier” as defined by 47 U.S.C. § 153.

In 2002, Sage Telecom, Inc. received a Certificate of Territorial Authority (“CTA”) to provide switched and special access local exchange telecommunications services including caller identification in the Commission’s March 13, 2002 Order in Cause No. 42155. On September 20, 2012, the Commission acknowledged Sage Telecom Inc. as a commercial mobile radio service provider (“CMRS”) pursuant to Notice of Change No. CSP 1208-6.

On April 25, 2013, the Commission acknowledged the transfer of Sage Telecom Inc.’s CTA to Sage Telecom Communications, LLC pursuant to Notice of Change CSP 1303-2. The Commission designated Sage Telecom Communications, LLC as an ETC in its February 11, 2015 Order in Cause No. 41052 ETC 73 (“ETC Designation Order”). On June 15, 2018, Petitioner added “d/b/a TruConnect” to its corporate name pursuant to Notice of Change No. CSP 1806-8.

3. Petitioner Evidence. Nathan Johnson testified that the ETC Designation Order designated Petitioner as an ETC for service areas within the coverage of Verizon Wireless. Additionally, Mr. Johnson testified Petitioner has an agreement with a certified facilities-based carrier, specifically T-Mobile USA, Inc. (“T-Mobile”), who is authorized to provide supported services in Indiana. Petitioner seeks to serve the Expansion Area, which includes all areas covered by T-Mobile. Petitioner submitted a geospatial map indicating the wireless coverage area of T-Mobile, which is the proposed Expansion Area.

Petitioner filed under this Cause its executed Agreement with T-Mobile and Plintron Americas (“Agreement”) wherein Telscape, an affiliate company of Petitioner, will purchase and distribute wireless communications to end users through Plintron Americas and use T-Mobile’s wireless system within the Expansion Area according to the Agreement’s terms. The Agreement extends to Telscape’s “Affiliates and related entities”, and, thus, encompasses TruConnect.

Mr. Johnson testified Petitioner’s ETC Designation Order, which was incorporated by reference in the Petition, provided all the information required by Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) rules in effect at the time. Mr. Johnson testified that Petitioner continues to meet all the statutory and regulatory requirements for designation as an ETC in Indiana, including the FCC’s Lifeline Modernization Order issued after the ETC Designation Order.1 Petitioner’s ETC

1 Lifeline & Link Up Reform & Modernization, 31 F.C.C. Rcd. 3962 (2016) (“Lifeline Modernization Order”). 2

Designation Order shows that Petitioner received FCC approval of its FCC-required Compliance Plan on December 26, 2012.

Mr. Johnson testified Petitioner offers eligible customers 1,000 voice minutes, unlimited text messages, and 3 gigabytes (“GB”) of data per month. Lifeline customers will have the ability to purchase additional airtime as needed. Mr. Johnson testified Petitioner has the ability to remain functional in emergency situations through its wireless provider network capabilities, including: (1) access to a reasonable amount of back-up power; (2) rerouting of traffic around damaged facilities; and (3) the capability to manage traffic spikes resulting from emergency situations.

Mr. Johnson testified the public interest benefits of serving the Expansion Area include: (1) Petitioner’s prepaid Lifeline rate plans are highly competitive with other Lifeline rate plans on the market; (2) Petitioner’s Lifeline Program provides low-income Indiana residents with the convenience and security offered by wireless services, even if their financial position deteriorates; and (3) service area expansion will increase the number of low-income individuals that can benefit from the advantages offered by Petitioner’s Lifeline service, ensuring they have access to wholly supported or discounted wireless voice and broadband service.

Mr. Johnson testified during the current state of emergency due to the novel coronavirus (“COVID-19”), millions of Americans are having to work and school from home, and telehealth services have become essential for the safety of patients and providers alike. He testified millions of low-income Americans do not have access to affordable telecommunications services to contact healthcare providers and access safe telemedicine services, obtain essential services, or survive in online-only work and school environments. He testified many of these Americans are eligible for telecommunications through the Lifeline Program, and he shared his opinion that it is vital that the Commission grant Petitioner the ability to offer Lifeline service in additional areas of Indiana so Petitioner can provide telemedicine solutions, enroll more eligible subscribers, and meet the life- threatening needs of more Americans.

4. Response to Docket Entry Requesting Additional Information. In its September 16, 2020 Response filing, Petitioner confirmed its commitment to comply with the Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association’s Consumer Code for Wireless Service and thus satisfy applicable consumer protection and service quality standards.2 Petitioner advised that it complies with the FCC’s regulations governing the access to 911 and E911 (where available) services. Petitioner also advised that its inclusion of domestic long distance as part of its flat-rate wireless offerings allows consumers to avoid the risks of becoming burdened with significant and unexpected per-minute charges for domestic telephone toll and overage charges. Petitioner reaffirmed its commitment to advertise the availability and rates for the supported services using media of general distribution as required by 47 C.F.R. § 54.201(d)(2).

5. Discussion and Findings. Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 214(e)(1)(A), a common carrier designated as an eligible telecommunications carrier shall be eligible to receive universal service support in accordance with 47 U.S.C. § 254 and shall, throughout the service area for which the designation is received, offer the services that are supported by USF support mechanisms under 47

2 See Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association’s Consumer Code for Wireless Service at https://www.ctia.org/the-wireless-industry/industry-commitments/consumer-code-for-wireless-service (Last visited Dec. 30, 2020). 3

U.S.C. § 254(c). Under 47 C.F.R § 54.101, the FCC’s rules identify ETC services that are eligible for universal service support, including voice telephony and broadband internet services. Pursuant to 47 C.F.R §§ 54.101(d) and 54.405, to receive universal service support, ETCs must offer Lifeline service.

The FCC established four programs within the USF to implement the statute: (a) the High- Cost Fund for rural, insular, and high-cost areas; (b) Schools and Libraries (the E-rate program), providing discounted telecommunications services to eligible schools and libraries; (c) Lifeline, providing low-income consumers with discounted voice telephony and broadband service; and (d) Rural Health Care, providing discounted telecommunications services to rural health care providers.3 Petitioner seeks to serve the Expansion Area for the limited purpose of offering Lifeline service to low-income customers. Based on the evidence in the record and the discussion below, we find that Petitioner satisfies the requirements of General Administrative Order (“GAO”) 2019-5 and the FCC’s eligibility criteria.

A. Common Carrier Status. The first requirement for ETC designation is status as a common carrier under federal law. A “common carrier” under 47 U.S.C. § 153(11), in pertinent part, means any person engaged as a common carrier on a for-hire basis in interstate telecommunications utilizing either wire or radio technology. The Commission found that Petitioner as a provider of wireless telecommunications services is a “common carrier” in its ETC Designation Order for purposes of obtaining ETC designation under 47 U.S.C. § 214(e)(1), and Petitioner advised of no material changes to its status. Therefore, we also find that Petitioner is a “common carrier.”

B. Required ETC Services. Petitioner must provide voice telephony with specific characteristics and broadband services to the designated Expansion Area and offer the Lifeline discount on the supported services. The evidence below discusses Petitioner’s compliance with those requirements.

i. Voice Telephony Services. Pursuant to 47 C.F.R. § 54.101(a)(1), eligible voice telephony services must provide: (1) voice-grade access to the public switched network or its functional equivalent; (2) minutes of use for local service provided at no additional charge to end users; (3) access to the emergency services provided by local government or other public safety organizations to the extent implemented; and (4) toll limitation services to qualifying low-income consumers. Petitioner meets the four voice telephony service requirements as follows:

1. Voice-Grade Access to the Public Switched Telephone Network. The Commission found that Petitioner satisfied the voice-grade access requirements of 47 C.F.R. § 54.101(a)(1) in its ETC Designation Order. No evidence was offered that Petitioner would be unable to continue meeting voice-grade access requirements. Therefore, we find that Petitioner satisfies the voice-grade access requirements set forth in 47 C.F.R. § 54.101(a)(1).

2. Local Usage. Petitioner will offer users the ability to send and receive phone calls wherever it offers service. Lifeline customers will have a choice of Lifeline plans that include a set number of minutes, which may be used for local or nationwide domestic long- distance phone calls. Therefore, we find that Petitioner satisfies the local usage requirements set forth in 47 C.F.R. § 54.101(a)(1).

3 Comprehensive Review of the Universal Serv. Fund Mgmt. et al., 22 F.C.C. Rcd. 16372, 16373 (2007).

3. Access to Emergency Services. Petitioner advised that it complies with the FCC’s regulations governing the access to 911 and E911 (where available) services. Therefore, we find that Petitioner satisfies the access to emergency service requirements set forth in 47 C.F.R. § 54.101(a)(1).

4. Toll limitation for Qualifying Low-Income Consumers. A “toll limitation service” defined in 47 C.F.R. § 54.400(b)-(d) allows customers to either block the completion of outgoing long-distance calls or specify a certain amount of toll usage to prevent them from incurring significant long-distance charges and risking disconnection. Petitioner’s offerings allow Lifeline subscribers to control their usage, as its wireless service is offered on a prepaid basis. Moreover, Petitioner’s service is not offered on a distance-sensitive basis, and local and domestic long-distance minutes are treated the same. Accordingly, we find that Petitioner satisfies this requirement.

ii. Broadband Internet Access Service. Pursuant to 47 C.F.R. § 54.101(a), an ETC is required to offer supported voice telephony and broadband internet access services. These broadband services must provide the capability to transmit data to and receive data by wire or radio from all or substantially all internet endpoints, including any capabilities that are incidental to and enable the operation of the service, but excluding dial-up service. The FCC determines the minimum standards for voice and broadband service in 47 C.F.R. § 54.408. As explained in the Petition, Petitioner offers its current Lifeline customers the minimum broadband service standards and 3 GB4 of data within the same rate plan. Accordingly, we find that Petitioner has satisfied this requirement.

iii. Carrier Obligation to Offer Lifeline. Under 47 C.F.R. §§ 54.101(d) and 54.405(a), ETCs, whether seeking the designation for universal service support for high-cost areas or solely to provide universal service support for low-income consumers, must make Lifeline service available to qualifying low-income consumers. Additionally, 47 C.F.R. § 54.401 defines “Lifeline” in part as a non-transferrable retail service offering provided directly to qualifying low- income consumers for which they pay reduced charges. Petitioner provides Lifeline service currently to more than 5,500 customers in Indiana. Mr. Johnson testified Petitioner offers eligible customers 1,000 voice minutes, unlimited text messages, and 3 GB of data per month and Lifeline customers will have the ability to purchase additional airtime as needed. Thus, the evidence shows that Petitioner satisfies the requirement to offer Lifeline.

C. Functionality in Emergency Situations. Under 47 C.F.R. § 54.202(a)(2), ETC applicants must demonstrate their ability to remain functional in emergency situations. Mr. Johnson testified Petitioner has the ability to remain functional in emergency situations through its wireless providers network capabilities, including: (1) access to a reasonable amount of back-up power; (2) rerouting of traffic around damaged facilities; and (3) the capability to manage traffic spikes resulting from emergency situations. Based on the foregoing, we find that Petitioner demonstrated its ability to remain functional in emergency situations.

4 The FCC subsequently increased the minimum mobile broadband service standard to 4.5 GB per month. See Lifeline & Link Up Reform & Modernization Telecommunications Carriers Eligible for Universal Serv. Support Connect Am. Fund, No. 09-197, 2020 WL 6779114 (Nov. 16, 2020).

D. Advertising Requirements. Pursuant to 47 C.F.R. 54.201(d)(2), a common carrier designated as an ETC carrier eligible to receive universal support shall advertise the availability of such services and the charges using a media of general distribution. Additionally, 47 C.F.R. § 54.405(b) requires a carrier to publicize the availability of Lifeline service in a manner reasonably designed to reach those likely to qualify for the service. Petitioner reaffirmed its commitment to advertise the availability and rates for the supported services using media of general distribution as required by 47 C.F.R. § 54.201(d)(2). Thus, we find that Petitioner satisfies the advertising requirement. The Commission finds that Petitioner shall include the following information in its consumer marketing materials in language that is clear and comprehensible to consumers: (1) pricing information for individual services and bundles; (2) terms and conditions of service; (3) the dollar amount of a Lifeline discount; (4) the identity of the services to which a Lifeline discount can be applied; and (5) an explanation of the terms and conditions of the Lifeline discount. Further, consistent with the Commission’s prior ETC Orders, Petitioner will be required to submit informational tariffs regarding its Lifeline offering.

E. Designated ETC Service Area. Under 47 C.F.R. § 54.207(a), “service area” means a geographic area established by a state commission for the purpose of determining universal service obligations and support mechanisms. The Commission’s GAO 2019-5, Appendix A, Section 6 requires petitioners to specify the designated service area for which ETC designation is sought by providing legible maps in PDF (or other view capable format), a detailed service area map in a zipped shapefile or geodatabase format, and a list of Incumbent Local Exchange Carrier (“ILEC”) exchanges, indicating if the exchange is served in entirety or partially. Petitioner submitted with its Petition a map in PDF format indicating the wireless coverage area of T-Mobile, and Petitioner subsequently provided a list of corresponding ILEC exchanges on September 22, 2020, in its Notice of Filing of Exchange List. However, Petitioner did not provide its service area in shapefile or geodatabase format as required. Therefore, Petitioner shall comply with the detailed service area map requirements in Paragraph 7(I) herein.

On April 15, 2013, the FCC released an Order granting forbearance for Lifeline-only ETCs from the requirement in 47 U.S.C. §214(e)(5) and 47 C.F.R. § 54.207(b) that the service area of a competitive ETC conform to the service area of rural LECs serving the same area.5 Thus, competitive Lifeline-only ETCs need not be able to serve an entire rural LEC’s study area to provide Lifeline discounted service anywhere in the rural LEC’s study area. In consideration of the foregoing, we approve Petitioner’s Expansion Area for Lifeline ETC purposes.

F. Facilities Ownership. Federal rules prohibit pure resellers from being designated as ETCs; however, the FCC has granted wireless resellers who seek ETC designation for the limited purpose of providing Lifeline services forbearance from the facilities requirement of 47 U.S.C. § 214(e)(1)(A) if the reseller files a compliance plan that is approved by the FCC and complies with certain 911 requirements. Petitioner is not a facilities-based CMRS provider and will be reselling the services of underlying facilities-based wireless carriers. According to the ETC Designation Order, which was incorporated by reference in this Cause, Petitioner received FCC approval of its Compliance Plan on December 26, 2012. Based on the foregoing, we find that it is unnecessary to require facilities ownership by Petitioner.

5 Telecommunications Carriers Eligible for Support, 28 FCC Red 4859 (2013). 6

In addition, the Commission’s GAO 2019-5, in Appendix A, Section 8b requires wireless resellers seeking ETC designation to provide the name of the facilities-based wireless carrier(s) whose services they are reselling. Since wireless resellers do not have their own facilities enabling them to provide supported services, they are required to demonstrate they have an agreement with a carrier or carriers in Indiana that will cover the proposed designated service area. Petitioner filed under this Cause its executed Agreement wherein Telscape, an affiliate company of Petitioner, will purchase and distribute wireless communications to end users through Plintron Americas and use T-Mobile’s wireless system within the Expansion Area according to the Agreement’s terms. Thus, Petitioner demonstrated it has an agreement in place to provide supported services in T-Mobile’s network coverage area. Based upon the evidence presented, Petitioner satisfies forbearance from the facilities ownership requirements. Petitioner may, therefore, provide supported services in T-Mobile’s network coverage area.

G. Financial and Technical Capability. 47 C.F.R. § 54.202(a)(4) requires an ETC to demonstrate that it is financially and technically capable of providing the Lifeline service in compliance with subpart E, and 47 C.F.R. 54.201(h) further requires that a state commission shall not designate a common carrier as an ETC for purposes of receiving support only for Lifeline unless the carrier seeking such designation has demonstrated that it is financially and technically capable of providing the supported Lifeline service in compliance with subpart E. In its ETC Designation Order, this Commission found Petitioner to be financially and technically capable of providing Lifeline service. Petitioner is already operating and designated as a wireless ETC: (1) as “Sage d/b/a TruConnect” in Indiana, 27 other states, and Puerto Rico; and (2) as “TruConnect, Inc.” in two states and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Therefore, based on the evidence in the record, the Commission is satisfied that Petitioner possesses the financial and technical ability to provide Lifeline services to the Expansion Area.

H. Public Interest Consideration. The designation of Petitioner as an ETC requires a public interest analysis pursuant to 47 C.F.R. § 54.202(b), and we apply the analysis to Petitioner’s Expansion Area request. In the absence of statutory requirements for evaluating public interest, the FCC recommends the following analysis:

The public interest benefits of a particular ETC designation must be analyzed in a manner that is consistent with the purposes of the Act itself, including the fundamental goals of preserving and advancing universal service; ensuring the availability of quality telecommunications services at just, reasonable, and affordable rates; and promoting the deployment of advanced telecommunications and information services to all regions of the nation, including rural and high-cost areas.

Fed.-State Joint Bd. on Universal Serv., 20 F.C.C. Rcd. 6371, 6388 (2005) (“2005 FCC ETC Order”).

One of the principal goals of the Act is to secure lower prices and higher quality services for American telecommunications consumers and encourage the rapid deployment of new telecommunications technologies to all citizens, regardless of geographic location or income.6 Because expansion of Petitioner’s service area will help close the digital divide in selected portions of Indiana and also specifically help meet the increased need for digital services during the current

6 Telecom. Act of 1996, PL No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56 (1996). 7

COVID-19 emergency, we find that designation of Petitioner as an ETC in the Expansion Area will promote the public interest.

i. Advantages of Petitioner’s Service Offerings. Mr. Johnson testified Petitioner’s service offerings deliver the following advantages: (1) Petitioner’s prepaid Lifeline rate plans are highly competitive with other Lifeline rate plans on the market; (2) Petitioner’s Lifeline Program provides low-income Indiana residents with the convenience and security offered by wireless services, even if their financial position deteriorates; and (3) service area expansion will increase the number of low-income individuals that can benefit from the advantages offered by Petitioner’s Lifeline service, ensuring they have access to wholly supported or discounted wireless voice and broadband service. Therefore, the evidence of record demonstrates that expansion of Petitioner’s ETC service area will directly benefit consumers. It will promote increased competitive choice, resulting in greater access to wholly supported or discounted wireless voice and broadband service, in the Expansion Area. Petitioner will also advance the Act’s principal goals of securing lower prices and higher quality services for consumers and encouraging the rapid deployment of new technology to all citizens.

ii. Impact on Federal Universal Service Fund. While it is in the public interest that Lifeline eligible customers get connected to affordable telecommunications service, preventing misuse of the Lifeline Program is necessary to control unproductive growth of the fund and increased USF surcharges for all Indiana telecommunications customers. Provided the requirements of Petitioner’s ETC Designation Order are satisfied, along with other conditions and safeguards promulgated in FCC rules to deter waste, fraud, and abuse, we find that expanding Petitioner’s Lifeline-only designation to the Expansion Area should not have an unduly negative impact on the USF.

iii. Consumer Protection. One of the requirements established by the 2005 FCC ETC Order was that, regardless of certification date, all ETCs must submit to the FCC, on an annual basis, certification that the ETC is compliant with 47 C.F.R. § 54.202(a)(3) by demonstrating that they meet applicable service quality standards and consumer protection rules. In its September 16, 2020 Docket Entry Response filing, Petitioner confirmed its commitment to comply with the Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association’s Consumer Code for Wireless Service and thus satisfy applicable consumer protection and service quality standards. We note that Indiana has consumer protection statutes for voice telecommunications services, such as Indiana Code ch. 8-1-29, and 8-1-29.5 which apply to Petitioner’s voice telephony service. We find that this demonstrates that Petitioner will meet applicable service quality standards and consumer protection rules.

iv. Affordable Rates. We must also consider whether expanding Petitioner’s designated ETC service area will ensure the availability of quality telecommunications services at just, reasonable, and affordable rates. 2005 FCC ETC Order at 6388. Petitioner’s current Lifeline service offering proposes to give eligible customers 1,000 voice minutes, unlimited text messages, and 3 GB of data per month. Lifeline customers will have the ability to purchase additional airtime as needed. Further, the benefits of Petitioner’s Lifeline plans will increase when necessary to comply with the FCC’s minimum service standards. No party disputed the affordability of Petitioner’s rates. Accordingly, we find that expansion of Petitioner’s ETC service area would serve the public interest by providing additional competition in the Expansion Area and thereby support the availability of just, reasonable, and affordable rates. 8

v. Commitment to Provide Service Applicable to Support Received. The ETC Designation Order designated Petitioner as an ETC for service areas within the coverage of Verizon Wireless. Petitioner filed under this Cause its Agreement with T-Mobile, a certified facilities- based carrier authorized to provide supported services in Indiana, and Petitioner seeks to serve the Expansion Area, which includes all areas covered by T-Mobile. Petitioner’s commitment to provide service satisfies the requirements of 47 C.F.R. §§ 54.202(a)(1)(i) and 54.405(a). Accordingly, we find that Petitioner has demonstrated its willingness and ability to provide service to the Expansion Area.

vi. Provision of Universal Service. As an ETC serving areas known to be unserved or underserved, Petitioner must respond to Commission inquiries regarding its ability to serve customers in the event no common carrier will serve a community pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 214(e)(3) or if an ETC serving the same designated service area or portions thereof seeks relinquishment of its obligations as an ETC under 47 U.S.C. § 214(e)(4).

6. Regulatory Oversight and Prospective Reporting Requirements. The Commission recognized in its March 17, 2004 Order in Cause No. 41052 ETC 43 certain specific regulatory requirements that competitive wireless ETC applicants must satisfy to secure and maintain their ETC status in Indiana. Such regulatory requirements stem from the FCC’s mandate that state commissions certify that USF support is being used only for the provision, maintenance, and upgrading of facilities and services for which the support is intended as set forth in 47 U.S.C. § 254(e). Absent such a certification, carriers will not receive such support. For the Commission to satisfy its ETC certification requirements to the FCC, it requires ETC applicants to track separately USF expenditures.

No party questioned Petitioner’s intention to comply with the Commission’s reasonable Lifeline informational tariff filing requirement for its Lifeline offerings. Petitioner must also comply with USF tracking requirements previously established by the Commission to ensure that funds received from Universal Service Administrative Company (“USAC”) for Indiana are devoted to furthering universal service goals within Petitioner’s designated service area. Petitioner’s Lifeline terms and conditions of service shall be incorporated into its Lifeline informational tariff for Indiana and filed with the Commission’s Communications Division for review prior to Petitioner making its universal service offerings available to eligible customers in its ETC service area and filed with USAC pursuant to 47 C.F.R. § 54.401(d).

7. Conditions on Petitioner’s Designation as an ETC. In accordance with the Commission’s findings above, Petitioner shall be subject to the following conditions:

A. If another ETC serving Petitioner’s service area relinquishes its ETC designation pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 214(e)(4), or if no common carrier will provide the services that are supported by USF mechanisms pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 214(e)(3), the Commission is required to ensure that all customers will continue to be served. Petitioner shall respond to Commission inquiries in a case involving its service area, or portions thereof, if such a situation occurs.

B. Pursuant to 47 C.F.R. § 54.401(d), prior to providing service in its designated service area or within 60 days of the effective date of this Order, whichever occurs earlier, Petitioner shall file an informational tariff of its proposed Lifeline offerings with the Commission and USAC

9 and notify the Commission in the form of a new tariff if any terms, conditions, or an allocation of minutes change.

C. Petitioner shall file with the Commission a copy of its annual reports and certifications that are required by the FCC pursuant to 47 C.F.R. § 54.313.

D. Petitioner shall establish safeguards to prevent its customers from receiving multiple Lifeline subsidies at the same address as required by 47 C.F.R. § 54.405.

E. Petitioner shall certify the eligibility of Lifeline customers pursuant to 47 C.F.R. § 54.410, requiring prospective Lifeline customers to demonstrate that they are eligible for Lifeline based upon participation in one of the qualifying low-income programs or based upon income.

F. Pursuant to 47 C.F.R. § 54.410, Petitioner shall contact each Lifeline customer on an annual basis and request confirmation of continued eligibility by requiring that the customer re-certify continued eligibility for the discount based upon income or participation in a qualifying low-income program. Petitioner shall provide the Commission with a copy of its Lifeline re- certification results that it files annually with USAC and the FCC.

G. Petitioner shall pay all fees applicable to telecommunications carriers, such as the public utility fee, pursuant to Indiana Code ch. 8-1-6; the InTRAC fee pursuant to Indiana Code ch. 8-1-2.8; the Indiana USF fee pursuant to the Commission’s Order in Cause No. 42144; the statewide E911 fee pursuant to Indiana Code ch. 36-8-16.6 and 36-8-16.7; the Underground Plant Protection (811) fee pursuant to Indiana Code ch. 8-1-26; and any other applicable fees.

H. Petitioner shall meet the minimum service standards for Lifeline voice telephony and broadband internet access service pursuant to 47 C.F.R. 54.408.

I. Petitioner shall file under this Cause within 30 days of this final Order a detailed service area map in shapefile or geodatabase format to indicate Petitioner’s proposed ETC service area; or (2) if Petitioner is unable to provide the map in shapefile or geodatabase format, Petitioner shall file under this Cause within 30 days of the final Order, a request for waiver and an explanation of why Petitioner cannot provide such map. Petitioner’s request for waiver shall be subject to the grant or denial of the Presiding Officers in this Cause.

Based on the evidence presented and discussed above and subject to the compliance requirements set forth in this Order, we find that Petitioner has met all of the ETC eligibility requirements and the public interest is served by Petitioner serving the Expansion Area, which expands Petitioner’s ETC service area established in the ETC Designation Order. As an ETC in Indiana, Petitioner must comply with the prospective reporting requirements and conditions set forth herein. The Commission has the statutory authority to investigate, as it deems necessary, Petitioner’s compliance with this Order.

8. Confidentiality. On September 16, 2020, Petitioner also filed a Motion for Confidential Treatment, which was supported by affidavit from Nathan Johnson, showing documents to be to the Commission were trade secret information within the scope of Indiana Code §§ 5-14-3- 4(a)(4) and (9) and Indiana Code § 24-2-3-2. The Presiding Officers issued a Docket Entry on September 17, 2020, finding such information to be preliminarily confidential, after which the 10

Agreement described herein was submitted under seal. We find all such information is confidential pursuant to Indiana Code § 5-14-3-4 and Indiana Code § 24-2-3-2, is exempt from public access and disclosure by Indiana law, and shall be held confidential and protected from public access and disclosure by the Commission.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE INDIANA UTILITY REGULATORY COMMISSION that:

1. Petitioner Sage Telecom Communications, LLC d/b/a TruConnect’s request for approval to provide ETC service to the Expansion Area is granted.

2. Petitioner shall comply with the Conditions on Petitioner’s Designation as an ETC pursuant to Paragraph 7 herein.

3. The information filed in this Cause pursuant to the Motion for Confidential Treatment under Ind. Code § 5-14-3-4 is exempt from public access and disclosure by Indiana law and shall be held confidential and protected from public access and disclosure by the Commission.

4. This Order shall be effective on and after the date of its approval.

HUSTON, FREEMAN, KREVDA, OBER, AND ZIEGNER CONCUR:

APPROVED:

I hereby certify that the above is a true and correct copy of the Order as approved.

______acting on behalf of______Dana Kosco Secretary of the Commission