Marketing and Promotional Practices for The Commission would request Industry Participants.” comment on this recommendation. What parties make in this context? up “industry participants” What marketing and/or promotional practices do these parties engage in when providing services supported by the OUSF? What issues or problems have been observed in these areas with regard to the OUSF? What conduct or practices would be effective in addressing such “benchmarks” issues? How would a Code of Ethics best be established? How would industry participants indicate their election to voluntarily comply with such a Code of Ethics? Alternatively, how would an entity indicate their rejection of such a Code of Ethics? How would industry participants be made aware of a Code of Ethics? How would it be updated and industry participants made aware of changes? Would adoption of changes require a re-election process? What would/should be the implications for an entity that does not elect to voluntarily comply with the Code of Ethics? G. Consideration of Changes to the Oklahoma Lifeline Program 17 O.S. § 139.105(J) currently caps the amount of reimbursement from the OUSF for the provision of Lifeline service at $0.02 per month per Lifeline subscriber. The amount of federal Lifeline support is currently set at $9.25 per month per Lifeline subscriber and, since 2000, the federal Lifeline program has provided an additional $25 per month (i.e., for “enhanced” support) Lifeline service provided to qualified residents of Tribal lands. The FCC has made many changes to the Lifeline program since 2012 and several of those changes have reduced the amount of federal Lifeline support available to some eligible subscribers in Oklahoma. The first such change took place in June of 2016 when the FCC re-defined the geographic areas in Oklahoma that were to be considered Tribal lands for purposes of determining whether or not a qualified subscriber is eligible for the enhanced Lifeline support. This re-definition eliminated the availability of the enhanced support for a considerable portion of subscribers located in the middle of the state, namely the Oklahoma City metropolitan area.
Marketing and Promotional Practices for Industry Participants.” The Commission would request comment on this recommendation. What parties make up “industry participants” in this context? What marketing and/or promotional practices do these parties engage in when providing services supported by the OUSF? What issues or problems have been observed in these areas with regard to the OUSF? What conduct “benchmarks” or practices would be effective in addressing such issues? How would a Code of Ethics best be established? How would industry participants indicate their election to voluntarily comply with such a Code of Ethics? Alternatively, how would an entity indicate their rejection of such a Code of Ethics? How would industry participants be made aware of a Code of Ethics? How would it be updated and industry participants made aware of changes? Would adoption of changes require a re-election process? What would/should be the implications for an entity that does not elect to voluntarily comply with the Code of Ethics? G. Consideration of Changes to the Oklahoma Lifeline Program 17 O.S. § 139.105(J) currently caps the amount of reimbursement from the OUSF for the provision of Lifeline service at $0.02 per month per Lifeline subscriber. The amount of federal Lifeline support is currently set at $9.25 per month per Lifeline subscriber and, since 2000, the federal Lifeline program has provided an additional $25 per month (i.e., “enhanced” support) for Lifeline service provided to qualified residents of Tribal lands. The FCC has made many changes to the Lifeline program since 2012 and several of those changes have reduced the amount of federal Lifeline support available to some eligible subscribers in Oklahoma. The first such change took place in June of 2016 when the FCC re-defined the geographic areas in Oklahoma that were to be considered Tribal lands for purposes of determining whether or not a qualified subscriber is eligible for the enhanced Lifeline support. This re-definition eliminated the availability of the enhanced support for a considerable portion of subscribers located in the middle of the state, namely the Oklahoma City metropolitan area.
PUD18-066Final2018TelecomNOI.DOCX