Today the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission met to decide on two questions.
- Should the Commission lift the January 18, 2023, stay of this proceeding issued by the ALJ?
- Should the Commission grant the MREA and MTA’s (Petitioners’) motion to suspend LTD’s Rural Digital Opportunity Fund ETC designation previously granted by the Commission? (PUC: Fournier, McShane)
They were given a series of potential responses – akin to a multiple-choice exam or survey. They decided to move forward with the following:
- 2 = Lift the stay imposed pursuant to the Administrative Law Judge’s January 18, 2023, Third Prehearing Order (Petitioners, Department, and OAG).
- 2a = Refer the matter back to the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) with the request that the matter be restarted following the procedure outlined in the Commission’s August 16, 2022, Notice and Order for Hearing (Department).
- 4 = Grant the Petitioner’s motion to suspend LTD’s RDOF ETC designation previously granted by the Commission (Petitioners, Department, and OAG).
Below are extensive notes from the meeting. I am leaving them ASIS. The questions are fast-paced and detailed referring to solutions by their multiple choice numbers. I tried to supplement that with some additional descriptions for folks to follow along.
* P558,6995/M-22-221; LTD Broadband;
P6995/M-21-133 Minnesota Rural Electric Association; Minnesota Telecom Alliance
In the Matter of a Petition to Initiate a Proceeding to Revoke the Expanded Eligible Telecommunications Carrier (“ETC”) Designation of LTD Broadband, LLC (“LTD”) and Deny LTD’s Funding Certification for 2023.
1. Should the Commission lift the January 18, 2023, stay of this proceeding issued by the ALJ?
2. Should the Commission grant the MREA and MTA’s (Petitioners’) motion to suspend LTD’s Rural Digital Opportunity Fund ETC designation previously granted by the Commission? (PUC: Fournier, McShane)
Get materials
Question for LTD: Minnesota is trying to get Internet to All. Is there a date for date set up for potential FCC action?
No
Question: Two issues: the stay and the suspension. Can you outline the decision options?
Are 2a and 5 essentially the same? If you lift the stay it goes back to the ALJ. We would recommend decision option 4. That would lift suspension. And 2a and move forward with case to remove revocation.
Seems like I can revoke a designation when someone applies, but we didn’t. You’re saying that we know more now. So what does suspension means? Do we have to ask the ALJ to deal with that?
You don’t have to do anything. You ask them to consider revocation. The status of the ETC designation would change because it would be suspended until a long term decision was made.
So much relies on what happens (with District Court and/or FCC) next and what decisions are made.
The ALJ might recommend not to suspend (not revoke) and LTD would have their ETC designation.
I want to hand this to ALJ – and get it back at one time.
If FCC accepts LTD’s long term; ALJ will still have to look into the topic. You could ask the ALJ to go through to conclusion. Public interest would be protected in the meantime.
Petitioner was us to suspend. Would you prefer to have this issue addressed by ALJ or FCC. (To LTD.)
The FCC is not going to rule in our favor. No chance. The ALJ at least gives us a chance to present evidence. We have not yet had that opportunity. In front of the ALJ is a good place to do that.
It seems like the petitioners are right. Things have changed. We know more about LTD than when we approved the ETC designation. If we knew back then, we would have handled that differently. Is OAG thinking the same way? Should we send this to the ALJ?
Department (of Commerce) is happy to prove the case that LTD should not have ETC designation. We don’t care who brings broadband to everyone. If we thought LTD was able, we’d support that but we’re heard the contrary. The difference between suspension and revocation is that now the burden is on Department, not LTD.
Is the concern that LTD’s contracts/position is blocking that area from getting another solution?
Yes (from State). Grants will look to see if a location already has a claim on locations. We have concerns that LTD can meet their obligations and we don’t’ want that area blocked.
OAG agrees with the Department. We have heard from the public that LTD is not able to meet the needs of the areas.
Do we need to ask customers what they think or do we think we’ve heard from enough?
We usually find it’s a good exercise. We have heard from many. We’d like to hear from more but we’re OK not hearing from others. (From Department.)
We would like to hear from customers. (From OAG.) We think MTA and MREA doesn’t like us. We think Le Sueur doesn’t like us.
Do you still want ETC status in MN?
Yes. (From LTD) The agenda here is to influence the FCC. The petitioners have gone a long way to besmirching our reputation. We’d welcome an opportunity to refute that we just think it’s a waste of judiciary resources.
Motion?
2, 2a and 4. Not 6.
- 2 = Lift the stay imposed pursuant to the Administrative Law Judge’s January 18, 2023, Third Prehearing Order (Petitioners, Department, and OAG).
- 2a = Refer the matter back to the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) with the request that the matter be restarted following the procedure outlined in the Commission’s August 16, 2022, Notice and Order for Hearing (Department).
- 4 = Grant the Petitioner’s motion to suspend LTD’s RDOF ETC designation previously granted by the Commission (Petitioners, Department, and OAG).
- 6 = Require LTD to provide notification to its Minnesota customers that they may contact the Consumer Affairs Office (CAO) with questions or concerns, or to provide public comment. Require LTD to file a proposed customer notice in this docket within 30 days of the Commission’s order, and delegate authority to the Executive Secretary to approve the content, format, and timing of the customer notice (Department)
Motion prevails.