|
|
|
|
Filer Requested Category:
Ratesetting
Preliminary Category:
Commission Designated Category:
|
Filed By:
COVAD COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY
|
|
|
DOCUMENTS
Number of Documents: 44
|
Type:
COMMENTS
|
Filing Date:
September 30, 2003
|
Filed By:
ROSEVILLE TELEPHONE COMPANY
|
|
Description:
on draft decision of ALJ Duda.
|
Type:
DRAFT DECISION
|
Filing Date:
September 10, 2003
|
Filed By:
ALJ/DUDA/PUC
|
|
Description:
Comments are due by September 30, 2003; reply comments - 5 days after comments are filed.
|
Type:
COMMENTS
|
Filing Date:
July 3, 2003
|
Filed By:
ROSEVILLE TELEPHONE COMPANY
|
|
Description:
reply; on ALJ's June 11, 2003 ruling requesting comments on closure of proceeding.
|
Type:
COMMENTS
|
Filing Date:
June 25, 2003
|
Filed By:
COVAD COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY
|
|
Description:
on ALJ's ruling requesting comments on closure of the proceeding.
|
Type:
COMMENTS
|
Filing Date:
June 25, 2003
|
Filed By:
ROSEVILLE TELEPHONE COMPANY
|
|
Description:
on ALJ ruling dated June 11, 2003 requesting comments on closure of proceeding.
|
Type:
RULING
|
Filing Date:
June 11, 2003
|
Filed By:
ALJ/DUDA/PUC
|
|
Description:
Requests comments on closure of proceeding; comments are due by June 25, 2003.
|
Type:
MISCELLANEOUS FILING
|
Filing Date:
May 25, 2001
|
Filed By:
ROSEVILLE TELEPHONE COMPANY
|
|
Description:
Proposed cost study methodology and schedule
|
Type:
RESPONSE
|
Filing Date:
April 6, 2001
|
Filed By:
COVAD COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY
|
|
Description:
to application of Roseville for rehearing of D01-02-042
|
Type:
REHEARING REQUEST
|
Filing Date:
March 22, 2001
|
Filed By:
ROSEVILLE TELEPHONE COMPANY
|
|
Description:
of D01-02-042
|
Type:
STATEMENT
|
Filing Date:
March 20, 2001
|
Filed By:
ROSEVILLE TELEPHONE COMPANY
|
|
Description:
initial arbitration meeting statement [pursuant to the February 27, 2001 ruling]
|
Type:
STATEMENT
|
Filing Date:
March 20, 2001
|
Filed By:
COVAD COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY
|
|
Description:
initial arbitration meeting statement [pursuant to the February 27, 2001 ruling]
|
Type:
COMPLIANCE FILING
|
Filing Date:
March 13, 2001
|
Filed By:
COVAD COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY
ROSEVILLE TELEPHONE COMPANY
|
|
Description:
in compliance with D.01-02-042, ordering paragraph 4: interconnection agreement
|
Type:
EXPARTE
|
Filing Date:
March 8, 2001
|
Filed By:
ROSEVILLE TELEPHONE COMPANY
|
|
Description:
Summary: On March 5, 2001, Greg Gierczak, Executive Director-Regulatory, Roseville Telephone Company (Roseville), met with Lester Wong, advisor to Cmmr. Bilas, in San Francisco. Gierczak explained that the order granting rehearing of D00-06-080 was flawed because it ordered the adoption of interim rates based on Pacific Bell?s statewide average cost, not Roseville?s company-specific costs, and that this was impermissible even if subject to a true-up following further proceedings. Gierczak explained that the rates adopted in D00-06-080 were based on Roseville?s cost and are TELRIC based and do not include Roseville?s retail, embedded or historical cost.
|
Type:
RULING
|
Filing Date:
February 27, 2001
|
Filed By:
ALJ/DUDA/PUC
|
|
Description:
sets an Initial Arbitration Meeting for Phase II of this proceeding on 3/29/2001; directs all parties to file and serve IAM statements by 3/20/2001.
|
Type:
EXPARTE
|
Filing Date:
September 6, 2000
|
Filed By:
ROSEVILLE TELEPHONE COMPANY
|
|
Description:
On September 5, 2000, Greg R. Gierczak, Executive Director-Regulatory of Roseville Telephone Company (Roseville), met with Cmmr. Wood, in San Francisco. Also present at the meeting were Jonathan Lakritz, advisor to Cmmr. Wood, Richard Scholl and Sean Beatty of Roseville. Gierczak explained that the Commission should not grant the application for rehearing filed by Covad Communications Company. Scholl explained his methodology for calculating Roseville's prices for unbundled network elements and how that process complied with total element long run incremental cost requirements.
|
Type:
EXPARTE
|
Filing Date:
September 6, 2000
|
Filed By:
ROSEVILLE TELEPHONE COMPANY
|
|
Description:
On August 31, 2000, Greg R. Gierczak, Executive Director-Regulatory of Roseville Telephone Company (Roseville), met with Cmmr. Neeper, in San Francisco. Also present at the meeting were Fassil Fenikile, advisor to Cmmr. Neeper, Richard Scholl of Roseville, and Mark Schreiber, counsel for Roseville. Referring to the application for rehearing filed by Covad Communications Company, Gierczak observed that the pleadings already filed in this matter by Roseville have explained why the application for rehearing should be denied.
|
Type:
RESPONSE
|
Filing Date:
August 8, 2000
|
Filed By:
ROSEVILLE TELEPHONE COMPANY
|
|
Description:
to application for rehearing of D00-06-080
|
Type:
EXPARTE
|
Filing Date:
August 7, 2000
|
Filed By:
ROSEVILLE TELEPHONE COMPANY
|
|
Description:
On August 2, 2000, Greg Gierczak, Executive Director ? Regulatory of Roseville Telephone Company (Roseville), met with Cmmr. Bilas in San Francisco. Also present were: Lester Wong, advisor to Cmmr. Bilas; and Richard Scholl and Sean Beatty of Roseville. Gierczak explained that the Commission should not grant the application for rehearing recently filed by Covad Communications Company.
|
Type:
EXPARTE
|
Filing Date:
August 4, 2000
|
Filed By:
COVAD COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY
|
|
Description:
On August 2, 2000, Dhruv Khanna, General Counsel to Covad Communications Company (Covad), met with Cmmr. Wood in San Francisco. Also present were: Jonathan Lakritz, advisor to Cmmr. Wood; and Sarah Bradley and Laura Izon, counsels to Covad. Khanna described how competition in the provisioning of DSL has brought high-speed Internet access to consumers, not just businesses. Izon raised the issue of pricing for smaller ILECs such as Roseville Telecommunications Company (Roseville) and the difficulties faced by competitors trying to enter those markets. Izon said that if Covad cannot enter a market profitably, it is unlikely that any other digital competitive local exchange carriers ("DLEC") would be able to do so. Bradley noted that this was a national problem and emphasized the precedential impact of the Commission's decisions in this area. Bradley also stated that Covad earlier had collocated its equipment in Roseville's offices on the assumption that pricing would be cost-based. Bradley explained that Rosevi
|
Type:
EXPARTE
|
Filing Date:
August 4, 2000
|
Filed By:
COVAD COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY
|
|
Description:
On August 1, 2000, Dhruv Khanna, General Counsel to Covad Communications Company (Covad), met with Cmmr. Bilas in San Francisco. Also present were: Lester Wong, advisor to Cmmr. Bilas; and Sarah Bradley and Laura Izon, counsels to Covad. Khanna described the dramatic increase in the company's revenues. Bradley noted that Covad earlier had collocated its equipment in Roseville Telephone Company's (Roseville) offices on the assumption that pricing would be cost-based. Bradley explained that Roseville's current loop prices do not allow to operate in competition with Roseville's retail DSL offering and that Covad must now remove its equipment. Izon raised the issue of pricing for smaller independent local exchange carriers (ILECs) and the difficulties faced by competitors. Izon stated that if Covad cannot enter a market profitably, it is unlikely that any other digital competitive local exchange carriers would be able to. Bradley emphasized the precedential impact of decisions in this area. Bradley raised the is
|
Type:
EXPARTE
|
Filing Date:
August 1, 2000
|
Filed By:
COVAD COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY
|
|
Description:
On July 27, 2000, Charles Haas, Vice President of Operations, Western Region, of Covad Communications Company (Covad), met with Cmmr. Neeper in San Francisco. Also present were: Fassil Fenikile, advisor to Cmmr. Neeper; Sarah Bradley, Counsel, and Laura Izon, Counsel, of Covad.Haas stated that Covad was already collocated in Roseville Telecommunications Company's (Roseville) offices, but that service had not yet been turned up. Haas stated that Roseville's loop prices are prohibitively high and do not allow Covad to operate profitably in competition with Roseville's retail DSL offering. Izon noted that the price differential between Roseville and Pacific Bell's loop costs created a digital divide between residents of Roseville and those of the rest of California. Bradley and Haas noted that Covad is often the first entrant in a market, breaking ground for other competitors by arbitrating or litigating where others may not. Bradley and Haas pointed out that if Covad cannot enter the Roseville market, it is un
|
Type:
REHEARING REQUEST
|
Filing Date:
July 24, 2000
|
Filed By:
COVAD COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY
|
|
Description:
of D00-06-080 and request for oral argument
|
Type:
COMPLIANCE FILING
|
Filing Date:
June 26, 2000
|
Filed By:
COVAD COMMUNICATION COMPANY
ROSEVILLE TELEPHONE COMPANY
|
|
Description:
in compliance with Ordering Paragraph 1 of D00-06-080 - Interconnection Agreement.
|
Type:
COMPLIANCE FILING
|
Filing Date:
May 23, 2000
|
Filed By:
ROSEVILLE TELEPHONE COMPANY
|
|
Description:
Statement Concerning the Final Arbitrator's Report.
|
Type:
COMPLIANCE FILING
|
Filing Date:
May 23, 2000
|
Filed By:
COVAD COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY
ROSEVILLE TELEPHONE COMPANY
|
|
Description:
Compliance Filing Interconnection Agreement.
|
Type:
STATEMENT
|
Filing Date:
May 23, 2000
|
Filed By:
COVAD COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY
|
|
Description:
Statement on the Proposed Arbitrated Agreement.
|
Type:
ARBITRATOR REPORT
|
Filing Date:
May 16, 2000
|
Filed By:
ALJ/GALVIN/PUC
|
|
Description:
Final Arbitrator's Report. Mailed 05/16/2000.
|
Type:
COMMENTS
|
Filing Date:
May 8, 2000
|
Filed By:
COVAD COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY
|
|
Description:
on draft Arbitrator's Report
|
Type:
COMMENTS
|
Filing Date:
May 8, 2000
|
Filed By:
ROSEVILLE TELEPHONE COMPANY
|
|
Description:
on Draft Arbitrator's Report
|
Type:
COMMENTS
|
Filing Date:
May 8, 2000
|
Filed By:
ELECTRIC LIGHTWAVE, INC.
NEW EDGE NETWORK, INC.
NEXTLINK CALIFORNIA, INC.
|
|
Description:
on Draft Arbitrator's Report
|
Type:
ARBITRATOR REPORT
|
Filing Date:
April 26, 2000
|
Filed By:
ALJ/GALVIN/PUC
|
|
Description:
Draft Arbitrator's Report. [Comments are due no later than 05/08/2000 and shall not exceed 20 pages.MMN.]
|
Type:
BRIEF
|
Filing Date:
April 17, 2000
|
Filed By:
ROSEVILLE TELEPHONE COMPANY
|
|
Description:
Post-Hearing Brief.
|
Type:
BRIEF
|
Filing Date:
April 17, 2000
|
Filed By:
COVAD COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY
|
|
Description:
Post Arbitration Brief.
|
Type:
STATEMENT
|
Filing Date:
March 13, 2000
|
Filed By:
COVAD COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY
ROSEVILLE TELEPHONE COMPANY
|
|
Description:
Revised Joint Statement of Unresolved Issues
|
Type:
STATEMENT
|
Filing Date:
February 15, 2000
|
Filed By:
COVAD COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY
ROSEVILLE TELEPHONE COMPNAY
|
|
Description:
Joint Statement of Unresolved Issues; pursuant to ALJ McKenzie's Ruling of 1/27/00
|
Type:
RESPONSE
|
Filing Date:
February 8, 2000
|
Filed By:
ROSEVILLE TELEPHONE COMPANY NAY
|
|
Description:
to Petition for Arbitration; pursuant to the 1/27/00 ALJ McKenzie Ruling
|
Type:
RULING
|
Filing Date:
February 1, 2000
|
Filed By:
ALJ/GALVIN/PUC
|
|
Description:
grants Covad's motion for leave to file a confidential version of its Petition for Arbitration under seal, as set forth
|
Type:
RULING
|
Filing Date:
January 27, 2000
|
Filed By:
ALJ/MCKENZIE/PUC
|
|
Description:
approves stipulation entered into between Roseville and Covad on 1/19/00; responses are due on 2/8/00; revised joint statements are due 2/15/00; as set forth
|
Type:
STIPULATION
|
Filing Date:
January 20, 2000
|
Filed By:
COVAD COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY
ROSEVILLE TELEPHONE COMPANY
|
|
Description:
n/a
|
Type:
RESPONSE
|
Filing Date:
January 18, 2000
|
Filed By:
COVAD COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY
|
|
Description:
to Roseville Telephone Company's Motion for Extension Without Considering Responses
|
Type:
MOTION
|
Filing Date:
January 14, 2000
|
Filed By:
ROSEVILLE TELEPHONE COMPANY
|
|
Description:
for extension of time to submit response
|
Type:
MOTION
|
Filing Date:
January 14, 2000
|
Filed By:
ROSEVILLE TELEPHONE COMPANY
|
|
Description:
for ruling on Motion for Extension Without Considering Responses
|
Type:
APPLICATION
|
Filing Date:
January 7, 2000
|
Filed By:
COVAD COMMMUNICATIONS COMPANY
|
|
Description:
for arbitration with Roseville Telephone Company
|
Type:
LAW & MOTION
|
Filing Date:
January 7, 2000
|
Filed By:
COVAD COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY
|
|
Description:
Motion for leave to file under seal the confidential version of its petition for Arbitration with Roseville's Telephone Company; confidential materials attached and filed under seal
|
DECISIONS
Number of Decisions: 4
|
Decision Number:
D0310039
|
Rendered Date:
October 16, 2003
Effective Date:
October 16, 2003
|
|
Description:
Closes proceeding and directs Roseville to file any cost study with proposed wholesale or UNE prices through a new application. This proceeding is closed.
|
Decision Number:
D0106089
|
Rendered Date:
June 28, 2001
Effective Date:
June 28, 2001
|
|
Description:
Modifies decision 01-02-042 as set forth. Denies Roseville Telephone Company?s application for rehearing of D01-02-042, as modified. Cmmr. Duque dissented. Cmmr. Bilas dissented.
|
Decision Number:
D0102042
|
Rendered Date:
February 8, 2001
Effective Date:
February 8, 2001
|
|
Description:
Grants rehearing of D00-06-080, and vacates the UNE prices set for Roseville as set forth. (Coms Duque and Bilas dissented).
|
Decision Number:
D0006080
|
Rendered Date:
June 22, 2000
Effective Date:
June 22, 2000
|
|
Description:
Approves the resulting arbitrated Interconnection Agreement (agreement) between Roseville and Covad. Commission adoption of the agreement does not constitute approval of, or precedent regarding, any principle or issue in this proceeding or in any future proceeding. This proceeding is closed.
|