2. Background

This Order Instituting Rulemaking (OIR) was initiated to consider ways to improve services to California telecommunications consumers who do not read or speak English fluently, and to focus on ways of promoting consumer protection for telecommunications customers who have limited English proficiency. It represents the most recent effort in the Commission's Consumer Protection Initiative (CPI), and is undertaken pursuant to Decision (D.) 06-03-013, which examined the rights of and protections available to California telecommunications consumers, and raised questions as to whether consumers with limited proficiency in English faced disadvantages in the telecommunications market.

D.06-03-013, issued in Rulemaking (R.) 00-02-004, adopted revised General Order (GO) 168, Market Rules to Empower Consumers and to Prevent Fraud, and directed Commission staff to undertake a series of internal initiatives to transform the Commission's organizational culture to heighten its ability to respond to consumers. Initiative No. 23 directed Staff to analyze and report on special problems faced by LEP consumers.²

The Staff report, "Challenges Facing Consumers With Limited English Skills In The Rapidly Changing Telecommunications Marketplace," (Report) issued October 2006, sought to build upon the anecdotal evidence submitted in R.00-02-004.³ The Report was prepared to help us assess whether in-language needs are adequately met by our education and enforcement efforts, and whether the Commission should adopt any rules.⁴ The Report recommended a formal proceeding be initiated immediately to determine the need for rules and to develop specific rules, as appropriate.⁵

Staff prepared the Report by working with a language access consultant to conduct a study, assembling information on the language demographics of California and the services currently available to LEP Californians through the Commission and telecommunications carriers,⁶ and identifying the challenges faced by LEP telecommunications consumers. The study relied on census and other demographic information, Commission records, and other information on the language accessibility practices of state and federal government agencies, information received from telecommunications carriers, and comments provided by carriers, CBOs and other consumer groups, in writing and orally at a series of workshops and public meetings.

The Commission held two workshops and, at the request of various CBOs, four public meetings around California to receive input from local CBOs.⁷ A draft Report was issued in August 2006 and, after receiving comments, the final Report was issued on October 5, 2006 and included as Attachment B to the OIR.⁸

The Report recommends the Commission:

· Take immediate action to facilitate improved communications between carriers and CBOs to ensure problems facing the LEP communities are heard and resolved;

· Make Staff more available to consumers throughout the state to assist in filing informal and, when necessary, formal complaints with the Commission;

· Commit more attention and resources to its bilingual services office to augment its own ability to serve California consumers;

· Broaden the efforts of the Public Advisor's Office undertaken in the CPI to add telecommunications education in languages with increasing populations in the state, such as Russian and Armenian;

· Develop and propose a set of targeted rules for telecommunications carriers for consideration in a formal Commission proceeding.

After comments were received on the Report, Staff prepared a proposal (Proposal) containing options for the Commission to consider in a formal rulemaking. We then opened this OIR to consider ways to improve services to LEP telecommunications consumers. In particular, we sought to assess telecommunications carriers' current in-language efforts and capabilities, the availability of and need for improved in-language disclosures, and access to in-language customer service. The OIR named as respondents all California telecommunications carriers, including entities registered as providers of prepaid phone debit cards pursuant to Pub. Util. Code § 885.⁹ We asked for comments on carrier accountability for the actions of third party agents, and whether prepaid phone card terms of use, disclosures and access to customer service were adequate.¹⁰

We presented Staff's Proposal for comment, and asked which, if any, parts should be adopted or modified, and why.¹¹ We asked if LEP consumers needed information or disclosures to assist and protect them, whether existing laws are adequate, what rules might be necessary, to which carriers should the rules apply, and what were the costs and benefits of the rules. We asked what other state agencies require in-language marketing, what languages should be supported, how in-language obligations should be determined, and whether language preference and/or LEP complaint tracking were appropriate.¹²

We set out criteria for evaluating in-language recommendations, and sought comment on the appropriateness of the evaluation criteria, whether the recommendations in the Proposal satisfied those criteria, and if other criteria were appropriate.

The OIR also identified the California Utilities Diversity Council's (CUDC) adopted principles to guide California utilities in their efforts to serve LEP customers as potentially instructive suggestions for developing and improving services to LEP customers.¹³

The Assigned Commissioner's Ruling (ACR) of January 17, 2007, clarified the OIR's scope and schedule, incorporating by reference the limited English proficiency aspects of the record of the CPI proceeding, R.00-02-004, and the meetings, workshops, comments and Report described in the OIR and summarized above.¹⁴

The following discussion summarizes the Report's assessment of telecommunications carriers' current in-language efforts and capabilities, and the comments on the Report, the Proposal and issues identified in the OIR.¹⁵

² D.06-03-013, OP 25.

³ Parties to R.00-02-004 commented that, even when carriers provide accurate and useful information, many minority language customers typically cannot understand it due to language barriers, and minority language customers are targeted for fraudulent and deceptive communications in their own languages by unscrupulous businesses. Greenling Opening Comments, p. 9; Opening Brief of Latino Issues Forum, pp. 2, 4-6 (Oct. 24, 2005) ("LIF Opening Brief").

⁴ D.06-03-013, pp. 133-138.

⁵ Report, p. 89.

⁶ The terms "carrier" and "service provider" are used interchangeably in this decision.

⁷ Workshops were held on June 26 and August 24, 2006. Public meetings were held in Los Angeles on June 26 (Asian Pacific America Legal Center), in Fresno on August 3, 2006 (Central California Legal Services), in San Diego on August 8, 2006 (Scottish Rite Center), and in Stockton on August 10, 2006 (El Concilio).

⁸ A copy of the Report is available at: http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/PUBLISHED/REPORT/60608.htm.

⁹ All statutory references are to the Public Utilities Code, unless otherwise noted.

¹⁰ R.07-01-021, pp. 10-11.

¹¹ The Proposal is included as Attachment A to the OIR.

¹² The Proposal also includes several specific questions for comment.

¹³ OIR, pp. 8-9. The CUDC was established in March 2003 as a resource and to work collaboratively with the Commission and regulated utility companies to promote and increase diversity within utilities' governance, customer service and marketing, employment, procurement, and philanthropy programs.

¹⁴ January 17, 2007 ACR, p. 2.

¹⁵ Comments and/or Reply Comments were filed by Pacific Bell Telephone Company dba AT&T California, AT&T Communications of California, Inc., New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC (collectively referred to as "AT&T"); CA-CLEC LLC dba Crown Castle Solutions (Crown); California Association of Competitive Telephone Companies (CALTEL); Cal-Ore Telephone Co., Calaveras Telephone Co., Ducor Telephone Co., Foresthill Telephone Co., Global Valley Networks, Inc., Happy Valley Telephone Co., Hornitos Telephone Co., Kerman Telephone Co., Pinnacles Telephone Co., Ponderosa Telephone Co., Sierra Telephone Co., Inc., Siskiyou Telephone Co., Volcano Telephone Co., Winterhaven Telephone Co., (collectively referred to as "Small LECs"); Cbeyond Communications, LLC (Cbeyond); Comcast Phone of California, LLC (Comcast), Cox California Telcom, L.L.C., dba Cox Communications (Cox), Time Warner Cable Information Services California, LLC (Time Warner), (collectively referred to as "Joint Commenters"); Consumer Federation of California (Consumer Federation); Cricket Communications, Inc. and MetroPCS Wireless, Inc., (Cricket and MetroPCS); CTIA - The Wireless Association (CTIA); Division of Ratepayer Advocates (DRA); Greenlining Institute (Greenlining); Integra Telecom of California, Inc. (Integra); Time Warner Telecom of California, LP (TW Telecom), and XO Communications Services, Inc.(XO), (collectively referred to as "Joint CLECs"); Latino Issues Forum (LIF); SureWest Telephone Company (SureWest); The Utility Reform Network (TURN); MCI Communications Services, Inc. (MCI), MCImetro Access Transmission Services LLC (MCImetro), Verizon California Inc. (VC), Verizon Long Distance (VLD), Verizon West Coast, Inc. (VWC) (collectively referred to as "Verizon California"); and Cellco Partnership, Los Angeles SMSA Limited Partnership, Verizon Wireless (VAW) LLC, Fresno MSA Limited Partnership, Sacramento Valley Limited Partnership, GTE Mobilnet of California Limited Partnership, GTE Mobilnet of Santa Barbara Limited Partnership, Modoc RSA Limited Partnership, California RSA No. 4 Limited Partnership and Cal-One Cellular Limited Partnership (collectively referred to as "Verizon Wireless").