Alternative Forms of RegulationA Rural ILEC’s Views and Experiences

October 9, 2007

NARUC Staff Subcommittee on Accounting and Finance Conference

Timothy W. Ulrich

TDS Telecom

608-664-4114

Disclaimer: The viewpoints expressed within this presentation are those solely of the presenter, which may not represent the position and/or viewpoints of TDS Telecom

2

Agenda

Regulation and Competition Competitive Nature of the Rural

Market Alternative Forms of Regulation Experiences with Alternative Forms of

Regulation

3

Regulation and Competition Goal of Regulation: Simulate the operations of a

competitive market to protect the public interest Task: Strike a reasonable balance between the

extent of regulation and the level of competition in a market, i.e. adapt regulation to market conditions

Rate of Return Regulation—market exhibits monopolistic characteristics• ILECs allowed to recover reasonable expenses and return

on investment—links cost and price

• Protect consumer and public interest

• Limited incentives for innovation and cost reduction

• High regulatory costs

4

Regulation and Competition (con’t) Alternative Forms of Regulation (AFOR)

• Appropriate when market exhibits competitive characteristics or to achieve other social goals, e.g. transition to competition, investment commitments

• Emphasis on regulating price, not earnings

• Competitive pressures will aid in regulating prices

• Introduction of innovative and advanced services

• Provide pricing flexibility and attractive packages (bundling) for regulatory parity

Alt reg is not dereg; it is just another way to regulate

Again, adapt regulation to market conditions

5

Competitive Nature of the Rural Market Over the last 5 years, increased competition from

wireless, cable, VoIP—i.e., services that provide the same functional capabilities as POTS• Access lines declining

• Cutting the cord, dropping second line, and/or not selecting ILEC for new service (only 50% have been selecting)

• Switched access MOUs and revenues declining

Barriers to competition—regulatory parity• Pricing flexibility--bundling

• Streamlined tariffing

• Symmetry

• Cross-subsidization allowed for cable—affiliate safeguards

• Similar Quality of Service and customer protection standards

6

Measuring Competition Determining the level of competition—continuum between

natural monopoly and effective competition• Telecom market reflects the trend towards full technological and

functional convergence, with wireless, cable and Internet service options now being direct substitutes for traditional landline services provided by both ILECs and CLECs

Structural and behavioral measures: Measures to determine a firms ability to raise prices above a competitive level without losing sales for a sustained period of time • Structural: Quantifiable--market shares and concentration factors (e.g.,

Hirschman-Herfindahl Index, 4-Firm Ratios); elasticity of demand/supply; relationships between price and cost

• Behavioral: Dynamics of a competitive market to assess whether there is sufficient pressure on a company to set prices at competitive levels, i.e., determining the actions of the firms within and outside of the market

7

Retail rate regulation of ILECs (December 2006)

NRRI 07-04, State Retail Rate Regulation of Local Exchange Providers as of December 2006; April 2007

Qwest AFOR Pending

8

Retail rate regulation of CLECs (December 2006)

NRRI 07-04, State Retail Rate Regulation of Local Exchange Providers as of December 2006; April 2007

9

TDS Telecom AFOR States

For those states still under ROR, options do exist (except for AZ’s constitutional limits) and we have determined to either continue to monitor the regulatory environment and/or pursue an AFOR

Form of Regulation States

Alternative Forms of Regulation

AL, AR, CO, GA, FL, IN, MI, MN, MS, NC, OH, OK, OR, PA, SC, VT, WI

Rate of Return AZ, CA, ID, KY, ME, MO, NH1, NY1, TN, VA, WA

1Recently filed for alternative regulation

10

Types of AFORs Various Types of Plans—developed over time

• Rate Case Moratoria—agree to no earnings review/rate case for a set period

• Earnings/Revenue Sharing—earnings above a certain level shared with customers

• Incentive Regulation• Price Cap—mainly RBOCs (may include productivity offset)• Pricing flexibility• Full or Partial Deregulation (service-by-service deregulation)

Statutorily Defined vs. Negotiated Plans• Administrative Rules: Help or Hindrance?• Generic (off the shelf) AFOR plans• Ability to pull plan, i.e., if file stipulated plan it cannot be changed

without the ability for the company to withdraw it

11

Potential Benefits of AFOR Benefits to Customers

• Limit on rate changes

• New services

• Increased choices

Benefits to Industry• Regulatory Stability

• Pricing Flexibility

• Lower regulatory costs

Benefits to Government• Lower regulatory costs

• Allow for more focus on consumer protection

12

General Elements of Rural AFORs Price flexibility for basic services

• $X per year—customer petition process

• Rate freeze for a period than flexibility

• GDP-PI less productivity factor (generally 1-2% offset)

• Capped by RBOC rates or state-wide average Limited price constraints on non-basic Bundling—discounts allowed (reg and dereg) Rate rebalancing—lower intrastate access on a revenue neutral basis Infrastructure and quality of service measures Streamlined tariff—one day effective subject to suspension Competitive Commitments—removal exclusive franchise, rural exemption Suspension of statutes--e.g., depreciation Exogenous adjustments

13

Experience under AFOR Success of an AFOR depends on its goals—

industry, government and consumer goals• Promote competition

• Lowering of access rates

• Regulatory parity

• Infrastructure investment and modernization

• Regulatory stability

• Lower regulatory costs

• Rate stability for customers

• Consumer protection

14

Observed Effects of AFOR More likely to deploy new services in companies under AFOR Small companies that have incentives/penalties built into their

pricing mechanism for service quality/infrastructure investment appear to maintain better service and invest more, but it is not conclusive

Small companies that offer wholesale tariffs and waive their state franchise protection have seen more entry into their territory by resellers and CLECs

TDS Telecom companies under AFOR have not raised basic rates except for mandated revenue-neutral adjustments

TDS Telecom non-basic (optional services) rates have been raised in several companies under AFOR but the generation of revenue from such increases has been minimal

Stated state commission public policy goals of lowering access rates and lowering the barriers to entry for competitors have been achieved under most AFORs

15

Favorite Components of an AFOR

Favorite Elements of an AFOR (besides dereg) that TDS Telecom has elected/negotiated• No earnings review prior to and during plan

• Basic service: $X amount or percentage per year

• Non-basic Service: No pricing limitations

• Access rates: Ability to rebalance on revenue neutral basis

• Tariff: 1-30 day notice for basic; 1 day for non-basic

• QoS Standards—parity with competitors

• Misc: Ability to opt back into ROR or modify plan

16

Least Favorite Components of an AFOR

Least Favorite Elements of AFORs that TDS Telecom has elected/negotiated• Initial earnings review

• GDP-PI minus productivity offset for basic

• Limitations on non-basic rates

• Incentives/Penalties for achieving set investment amounts per access lines and/or QoS measures tied to pricing mechanism

• Waiving of rural exemption

17

Pertinent Resources from NRRI NRRI 07-06; Assessing Wireless and Broadband Substitution

in Local Telephone Markets; (June 2007) NRRI 07-04; State Retail Rate Regulation of Local exchange

Providers as of December 2006; (April 2007) NRRI 96-19; Determining When Competition is “Workable”: A

Handbook for State Commissions Making Assessments Required by the Telecommunications Act of 1996; (July 1996)

NRRI 94-30; Measuring the Impact of Alternative Regulatory Pricing Reforms in Telecommunications; (December 1994)

NRRI 88-1; Evaluating Competitiveness of Telecommunications Markets: A Guide for Regulators; (January 1988)