Comments on Proposed Decision
The proposed decision of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) in this matter was mailed to the parties in accordance with Section 311 of the Public Utilities Code and comments were allowed under Rule 14.3 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure. Comments were filed on September 10, 2007, by Verizon Wireless and Verizon California Inc. (Verizon), and the Joint Telecommunications Carriers19 filed comments.
Verizon supported the all-services overlay but asked that the public education program budget be set as a target, rather than a prescribed amount. Verizon also objected to the multiple levels of oversight by the Commission, preferring the collaborative, consensus-based approach used in the previous overlay education programs.
We have modified the proposed decision to clarify that the budget is a target, as requested by Verizon. We have also added specific language authorizing the Director to require any additional PEP Task Force funds necessary to achieve the required 70% customer and telephone user awareness levels. The Director is also responsible for reviewing and approving all educational materials.
The Joint Telecommunications carriers also supported the overlay but requested that 30 days be added to the schedule between the beginning of mandatory dialing and the first assignment of numbers in the new area code.
No reply comments were filed.
19 Pacific Bell Telephone Company d/b/a AT&T California, Verizon Wireless, Sprint Nextell Corporation, New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC, Omnipoint Communications, d/b/a T-Mobile and Verizon California, Inc.
