BEFORE THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON

General Order No. 187.40 In the matter of inviting applications for a certificate of convenience and necessity to provide telecommunication relay service in West Virginia

BRIEF ON BEHALF OF HAMILTON TELEPHONE COMPANY d/b/a HAMILTON TELECOMMUNICATIONS

Hamilton Telephone Company, d/b/a Hamilton Telecommunications (“Hamilton”) believes that the record in this case supports granting Hamilton a certificate of convenience and necessity to provide telecommunication relay service in West Virginia.

I. HAMILTON HAS THE PROVEN SKILL AND EXPERTENCE TO SERVE WEST VIRGINIA

Hamilton Telecommunications is a well-qualified, highly experienced provider of Relay

Service in nineteen states and U.S. territories. In each jurisdiction where it provides services,

Hamilton has gained a reputation for performance, responsiveness, and community outreach.

Hamilton has won consecutive bid awards from the Idaho PUC (fifth consecutive award of contract), the Louisiana Relay Administration Board (third consecutive award of contract), the

Georgia PSC (second consecutive award of contract), the Iowa Utilities Board (second consecutive award of contract) and the Rhode Island PUC (third consecutive award of contract) to continue to provide relay service for each of their states. !I:% Pi4 FEP, 21 2”,: pp,; tI1

Additionally, the states that Hamilton has contracted continue to exercise their options to renew the contracts, including; Arizona (2 one-year renewals), Virgin Island (3 one-year renewals), Maine (5 one-year renewals), Saipan (3 one-year renewals), New Mexico (the first of

3 one-year renewals has been exercised), Montana (4 one-year renewals).

Hamilton is a family owned and operated telecommunications company based in Aurora,

Nebraska. Hamilton has developed Relay Service as a core competency over the past twenty- one years. Currently, Relay Services make up over 50% of Hamilton’s revenues. Hamilton does not have motives to secure long distance minutes or enhance wireless service. Hamilton is focused on the satisfaction of individual users, and Hamilton’s proposal offers a package of programs and services using state of the art technology at a price that is extremely competitive - all while offering the user the ability to customize the Relay Service to meet the user’s desires and needs. What distinguishes Hamilton from the other companies in this proceeding is its commitment and dedication to its customers and to their needs which are, to the greatest extent possible, placed ahead of those of the Company,

11. HAMILTON CUSTOMERS SUPPORT HAMILTON RELAY

In each state that Hamilton provides Relay and/or CapTel services, Hamilton customers

(State entities and consumers) rave about our services and continually provide letters of recommendations. To that end, Hamilton would like to point out that it submitted over 70 letters of recommendation as part of its Application. Hamilton would like the Commission to compare that to Sprint’s total of 14 letters of recommendation (of which only eight come from West

Virginia consumers) and 0 letters of recommendation for AT&T,

2 Additionally, no consumers provided public comments in support of keeping the incumbent (Sprint) as the TRS and CapTel provider. Based upon this evidence, Hamilton is

clearly the most preferred provider of these services.

111. HAMILTON PROVIDES THE HIGHEST QUALITY OUTREACH

Hamilton’s extensive and personal Outreach and Education is well known throughout the relay industry. Hamilton understands the importance of individualized outreach. With corporate

offices located in rural central Nebraska, Hamilton especially understands the needs of people

who live in rural communities. That’s why Hamilton included Outreach as part of both pricing

options; a direct contrast to both Sprint and AT&T. As noted by Staff during its testimony, the

financial impact of Hamilton’s Outreach under Pricing Option 2 (erroneously labeled, “No

Outreach”) was not included as part of the Staffs consideration, and was underreported as part

of Hamilton’s Pricing Option 1.

Hamilton also believes that the impact Hamilton’s Outreach package will have on the

relay and Captioned Telephone users of West Virginia, versus Sprint’s and AT&T’s lack of

Outreach in Pricing Option 2, was not fully considered in the Staffs recommendation. Based

upon Staffs own testimony, the $4,000 price difference between Sprint and Hamilton’s pricing

was not a significant difference. (Tr. 68) Staff looked at the amount of Outreach to make its

decision. (Tr. 69) However, Staff did not take into account all of the Hamilton Outreach

activities performed under either price scenario (Hamilton Exhibit No. 1, p. 9); these activities

more than make up for the price difference between Sprint and Hamilton. Hamilton actually

provides more Outreach service for the price. Staffs reliance upon its own Outreach analysis

3 was incomplete (Tr. 69-70), and as a result, erroneously selected Sprint based upon that incomplete analysis.

On page 4 of its Rebuttal Testimony, Sprint falsely states of Hamilton’s Outreach that

“Hamilton intends to assign their National Contracts Manager to the effort, the same individual that manages all such Hamilton contracts nationally (currently 19).” In fact, as stated in

Hamilton’s Proposal to WV (page 8-13) “Hamilton’s National TRS Contract Manager directs the

Account Management Team.” This was confirmed by the testimony of Hamilton witness Dixie

Ziegler. The Account Manager that Hamilton will assign to West Virginia (and who will report to National TRS Contract Manager) will directly manage the contract between Hamilton and the

Commission and will work closely with the Outreach Team in developing an Outreach Plan tailored to the needs of West Virginia. Hamilton’s National TRS Contract Manager does not perform outreach and will oversee the West Virginia Account Manager and also ensures that the

Outreach Team assigned to perform Outreach and Education in West Virginia is fulfilling contractual obligations.

Hamilton’s Outreach in West Virginia will be driven by the needs and wants of the community. Hamilton will meet with local representatives and develop an outreach plan solely in response to their needs, (Tr. 40) and will provide local or national outreach personnel based upon consumers’ input. This individual will work closely with the Commission and Hamilton’s

West Virginia Account Manager to develop outreach programs geared to consumers and businesses throughout the state. As stated in Hamilton’s Rebuttal Testimony (page 4, paragraph

2) the West Virginia Relay Outreach Coordinator will have Hamilton’s Relay Outreach team, including the National Outreach Coordinator, available to them at all times for support.

4 This team also includes; Hamilton’s Customer Service Staff, West Virginia Account

Manager, Director of Marketing, Marketing Communications Manager, Hamilton’s Vice

President of Relay Services, Corporate Outreach Staff, Operational Management Staff, and

Hamilton’s Communication Department.

On page 6 of its Rebuttal Testimony, Sprint challenges Hamilton’s statement that it provides customized websites for the states served by Hamilton. While Hamilton agrees that it provides a page for each of our contracted states on our corporate relay site, Sprint neglects to point out the customized “independent” websites Hamilton has developed Hamilton witness

Dixie Zeigler testified that Hamilton provides the states it serves with the option to have an individual state website. It is just another way in which Hamilton provides individualized services to the states it serves.

IV. HAMILTON MOBILE CAPTEL CONTINUES TO BE SUPERIOR

On page 7 of Sprint’s Rebuttal Testimony, Sprint ardently disagrees with Hamilton’s contention that “no other company can deliver as many network and phones (sic) choices as can

Hamilton Mobile CapTel.” Sprint then goes on at some length in describing how Sprint CapTel is available on (only) Android 2.2 or higher while at the same time trying to explain why

Hamilton CapTel does not work on Sprint phones due to “the requirement of simultaneous voice and data which is not available on (Sprint) phones.” Hamilton once again contends that no other company can deliver as many network and phones (sic) choices as can Hamilton Mobile

CapTel and has included as Attachment A the list of networks and phones on which Hamilton

CapTel is available.

5 Depending only on the technological limitations of the individual provider, Hamilton

Mobile CapTel is available through 3G, 4G, and/or Wi-Fi connections. Hamilton would like to reiterate that Mobile CapTel is not part of the services to be contracted to the State as part of this

RFP process. Since Hamilton does not have a separate agenda in sales of cellular phones and wireless plans, the Commission can be assured that Hamilton will focus instead on promoting the traditional TRS and CapTel services that are relevant to this contract and under the jurisdiction of the Commission,

V. AT&T’S SERVICES ARE LACKING

Less than five years ago, in 2007, AT&T asked the Commission to terminate its TRS contract in West Virginia. At that time, AT&T made the decision to exit the TRS industry.

Recently, AT&T changed courses and elected to once again re-enter the Relay business. What is to say that AT&T might once again reverse course and exit this business based upon new management direction, merger or acquisition? AT&T’s failed attempt to merge with T-Mobile in 201 1 is but the latest in AT&T’s history of mergers, acquisitions and attempted mergers; any of which could once again change the focus of their company. As a stable, family owned corporation, whose main business is Relay, Hamilton can assure the Commission that this will not be the case should they award the contract to Hamilton Relay.

As part of AT&T’s newly re-entered relay business, AT&T utilizes upfront automation on all relay calls. This is very much akin to the Integrated Voice Recognition (IVR) or phone tree customers’ experience when contacting many companies’ customer support. AT&T itself admitted that it has received complaints from customers who don’t like this ‘upfront automation’

6 (Tr. 61). With Hamilton, the Commission can be assured that relay users will always be connected directly to a Communication Assistant.

Hamilton would also like to point out that, unlike the other applicants in this case,

AT&T’s submission lacks independent quality assurance testing (Tr. 59-60), a staple in

Hamilton’s quality assurance program. Only AT&T knows the true quality of its performance and, in proffering its application, it is asking this Commission to take its word that its service is the equal of the other applicants. Hamilton does not believe that the Commission can base an award of a certificate on such an unsubstantiated claim.

VI. HAMILTON IS THE RIGHT CHOICE

Hamilton understands that selecting the Relay and Captioned Telephone provider for

West Virginia is a balance of quality, cost and efficiency. When it comes to quality, independent, third party testing affirms Hamilton as a “top provider” of relay services. Close analysis of the pricing options show Hamilton’s pricing to be not only the most beneficial to

West Virginia, but to also provide the most services for that price. Hamilton’s Percent Answered in 10 seconds and Average Speed of Answer clearly provide relay users the most efficient services.

When all three of these factors are balanced, Hamilton is clearly the best choice to provide Relay and Captioned Telephone Services in the state of West Virginia.

7 CONCLUSION

WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above, Hamilton respectfully requests that the

Commission base its decision on the true value of the service it will receive from Hamilton; that its Application be granted, and that Sprint and AT&T’s Applications be denied.

HAMILTON TELEPHONE COMPANY d/b/a HAMILTON TELECOMMUNICATIONS By Counsel

WV State Bar ID # 1965 Kauffelt & Kauffelt P.O. Box 3082 Charleston, WV 25331-3082 (304) 345-1272 [email protected]

8 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Mark E. Kauffelt, counsel for Hamilton Telephone Company, d/b/a Hamilton

Telecommunications do hereby certify that I have served the foregoing “Initial Brief of Hamilton

Telephone Company d/b/a Hamilton Telecommunications’’ by depositing a true copy thereof in the United States Mail, First Class postage prepaid, addressed as follows:

Lisa L. Wansley Layne, Esquire Public Service Commission of WV 201 Brooks Street P.O. Box 812 Charleston, WV 25323

Thomas N. Hanna, Esquire 1206 Virginia Street, East Suite 20 1 Charleston, WV 25301

Robert R. Rodecker, Esquire P.O. Box 3713 Charleston, WV 25337 this the 20th day of February, 2012.

9 ATTACHMENT A

Hamilton Mobile CapTel Compatible Networks & Devices AT&T: Android o HTC Aria o Backflip o Sony Ericsson Xperia x 10 o Captivate 0 BlackBerry o Bold9700 o Torch9800 o iPhone o iPhone3G o iPhone3GS o iPhone4 o iPodTouch o iPad

Sprint: 0 Android o HTCEVO o Samsung Epic 0 BlackBerry o Curve8350i o Curve8530 o Bold9650

T-Mobile: 0 Android o LGOptimusT o 2 o Motorola CLIQ XT o o Samsung Behold I1 o Tab o Samsung Vibrant o T-Mobile Comet o T-Mobile G2 o T-Mobile myTouch 3G o T-Mobile myTouch 4G BlackBerry o Bold9700

10 U.S. Cellular: Android o Droid o HTC Desire o LG OptimusU o LGApex o Samsung Mesmerize o Samsung Acclaim BlackBerry o Bold9650

Verizon: Android o Droid

* o Droid2 o DroidX o BlackBerry o Bold9650 o Curve8530 o Storm29550 o iPhone o iPhone4 o iPodTouch ’ o iPad

11