3. Phase II-A Issues - In-Language Market Trials
3.1. Introduction
In its comments on the Phase I Proposed Decision (Phase I PD), Verizon California recommended allowing carriers to conduct market trials in order to test the responsiveness of non-English speaking communities to marketing in non-English languages in which carriers do not currently advertise. Because the issue of market trials was raised for the first time in comments on the Phase I PD, the Commission lacked a record upon which to decide this issue. The Phase I Decision directed that further comments be taken on whether in-language market trials should be permitted, and if so, what rules, if any, should apply to in-language market trials. The Phase II Scoping Memo/ACR established a schedule and sought comment on the questions addressed below concerning in-language market trials.
3.2. Should In-Language Market Trials Be Permitted?
Before addressing issues concerning in-language market trials, we briefly review the Commission's treatment of traditional market trials, technology tests and promotional offerings.
The Commission has allowed carriers to make temporary offerings since 1986, initially through technology tests, and later through market trials and promotional offerings. Technology tests are the testing of hardware, software, systems and other facilities conducted in a small controlled environment with a limited group of customers in order to determine if a new unproven service or technology works.13
Market trials are defined as the trialing of services, features, applications or service options that provides potential customer benefit in a limited marketplace to determine end user willingness to pay, end user demand, and various service provisioning processes.14 Market trials allow carriers to try out a service that provides potential customer benefit to determine the marketability or profitability of new services using a small group of customers to ensure better service for customers and to reduce the risk of introducing unsuccessful services to the marketplace.
Promotional offerings waive or discount the non-recurring charges for new or existing optional services that are, consistent with Pub. Util. Code § 453(c),15 offered to all customers statewide, or for services made available as the result of new or upgraded facilities.16
The Commission's oversight of technology tests, market trials and promotional offerings has evolved as telecommunications competition developed. In the more closely regulated telecommunications industry of the late 1980s and early 1990s, technology tests, market trials and promotional offerings allowed carriers to temporarily deviate from their tariffs, which otherwise require carriers to offer services to everyone on the same terms and conditions. As competition has developed and matured, the restrictions on deviating from tariffs have lessened and current requirements are minimal.
The Commission's rules previously required carriers to provide notification and obtain authorization before offering service at rates or under conditions other than those contained in their tariffs.17 This was often a lengthy process. However, with increasing competition, the Commission recognized the need to allow carriers to more quickly evaluate the marketability of new services.
The Commission also recognized that its then-existing notification and approval process allowed competitors to review a carrier's new services long before the service was introduced. As a result, the Commission established rules for, and authorized, technology tests in 1986, promotional offerings in 1990 and market trials in 1991.18 Because competition was still nascent, the Commission established stricter guidelines (primarily concerning pricing) for incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs) than for other carriers.19
Resolution (Res.) T-14556 authorized AT&T, and Res.T-14944 authorized Pacific Bell, to conduct market trials.20 These resolutions defined market trials and technology tests, and established guidelines for conducting market trials, including requirements for Commission pre-approval, product pricing limitations, customer notification, limits on the geographic scope, duration, repetition and extension of trials, cost tracking, post-trial reporting and other rules. These requirements were established to protect competitors from anticompetitive conduct, and to protect customers from unreasonable discrimination and the burden of bearing the costs of an incumbent's unsuccessful competitive ventures.
More recently, D.07-09-019 adopted Telecommunications Industry Rules for GO 96-B, reflecting the changes made to rules governing telecommunications carriers in our Uniform Regulatory Framework (URF) rulemaking (R.05-04-005). As a result, the Commission significantly streamlined the rules governing the filing, review, and disposition of advice letters and information-only filings for URF carriers, including the rules governing market trials, technology tests and promotional offerings.21
In particular, D.07-09-019 determined that carriers should submit an information-only filing with the Commission describing a planned market trial or technology test, instead of the previously-required advice letter filing. This effectively eliminated pre-approval requirements for market trials.
D.07-09-019 also adopted revised definitions for market trials, technology tests and promotional offerings, and defined a market trial or technology test as "a new service offered only for a specified limited duration for the purpose of testing or evaluating the service."22 A promotional offering is an existing service offered under terms temporarily deviating from the otherwise applicable tariff in order to promote the service.
The term "market trial" used by parties to R.07-01-021 in reference to the temporary marketing of non-exempt telecommunications services, features or rate plans in a non-English language differs from traditional (i.e., English language) market trials because GO 96-B limits traditional market trials to new services. However, in-language market trials are expected to offer existing services, and to market those services in a non-English language in which a carrier has not previously marketed. Thus, in this proceeding, our use of the term "market trial" in the context of a limited duration non-English language marketing effort does not strictly comport with the Commission's established definition of market trial.
Traditional market trials are a way to permit carriers to temporarily offer services that they are not presently authorized to offer so they may test the marketability of new services. Because in-language market trials, as discussed in this proceeding, would include the marketing of existing services, they are more like promotional offerings in this respect. However, unlike promotions, in-language market trials will not necessarily offer services that deviate from tariffed rates or terms.
In-language market trials, as proposed by carriers, would temporarily relieve carriers from complying with the In-Language Marketing Rules so they may test the marketability of existing services in a non-English language. Thus, while similar in many ways to traditional market trials and promotions, in-language market trials, as proposed by parties in this proceeding, do not fit squarely within the traditional definition of either market trials or promotions.
The difference between traditional market trials and in-language market trials is important. Traditional market trials provide an opportunity to do something a carrier is not authorized to do, while in-language market trials would provide an opportunity to avoid doing something that carriers are normally required to do. Thus, rules for in-language market trials should necessarily and appropriately differ from traditional market trials because they are intended to serve different purposes. Nevertheless, awareness of the Commission's rules for promotions and traditional market trials will help our consideration of issues concerning in-language market trials.
Parties' Positions
Most parties recommend that in-language market trials be permitted. Carriers uniformly recommend that in-language market trials be allowed, and that rules for market trials be flexible and not more burdensome than complying with the In-Language Marketing Rules adopted in the Phase I Decision.23 Most carriers seek the freedom to undertake market trials with few, if any, rules in order to assess the feasibility of providing services in certain languages without triggering the In-Language Marketing Rules.
CTIA and AT&T contend that carriers will be discouraged from offering telecommunications services to non-English speaking telecommunication customers unless the Commission allows flexibility in undertaking in-language market trials.24 AT&T states that prescriptive rules are unnecessary, however, because in-language market trials will be limited in duration.
SureWest states that in-language market trials are a streamlined way of testing carriers' marketing efforts without triggering all of the In-Language Marketing Rules, and contends that, without in-language market trials, carriers may be unwilling to reach out to LEP communities.25
Verizon California states that any in-language market trial rules should be minimal and only those necessary to ensure that rogue carriers do not use market trials to evade the In-Language Marketing Rules.26
Although most consumer groups recommend that in-language market trials be permitted with conditions, the Consumer Federation opposes permitting in-language market trials altogether. Consumer Federation contends that our consideration at this time of in-language market trial issues is an effort to rescind the In-Language Marketing Rules adopted in D.07-07-043.27 That is, Consumer Federation argues that consideration in Phase II of the issues related to in-language market trials is a change in course from the In-Language Marketing Rules adopted in Phase I, and that any grant of authority to conduct in-language market trials constitutes the granting of a waiver or exemption request of the Phase I In-Language Marketing Rules.28
Consumer Federation contends that once adopted, the Commission is bound to abide by the In-Language Marketing Rules and may not change them without a reasoned basis for doing so. Consumer Federation contends that no carrier has offered any evidence of the cost of providing the in-language support required by the Phase I Decision, and that in-language market trials should not be considered until carriers have demonstrated the investment required to comply with the In-Language Marketing Rules is substantial and will prevent them from entering LEP markets.
Other consumer groups do not oppose permitting in-language market trials, but recommend imposing some or all of the In-Language Marketing Rules on in-language market trials, and some recommend requirements in addition to the In-Language Marketing Rules.29 For example, DRA recommends that market trials be permitted in languages in which a carrier does not currently market. DRA recommends that all of the In-Language Marketing Rules apply to market trials, but, at a minimum, carriers should be required to provide during and after in-language market trials live in-language telephone support during regular customer service hours through a toll-free number.30 DRA contends that during a market trial more information may be needed for trial services because the term for trial services is likely to be temporary and because the trial services have not been previously advertised in-language. However, DRA recommends that the Commission first hold a workshop on in-language market trials and issue a workshop report before taking comments.
Greenlining states that, while in-language market trials can be a valuable tool for assessing the potential viability of a market, the Commission must closely regulate in-language market trials in LEP communities to minimize the potential for fraudulent or misleading practices, and to prevent carriers from evading existing consumer protection regulations.31 Greenlining contends that temporary offers are more likely to result in misunderstandings and fraud than do standard marketing and service agreements, and recommends that all of the In-Language Marketing Rules apply to in-language market trials.32
LIF does not oppose in-language market trials, but recommends that in-language market trials be permitted only for languages in which a carrier does not currently market. Like DRA, LIF contends that all of the In-Language Marketing Rules should apply to in-language market trials regardless of duration.33 LIF contends that the In-Language Marketing Rules provide crucial consumer protections, and carriers have not shown that compliance with those protections will restrict carriers' flexibility.
TURN states that it supports a limited exemption from some of the In-Language Marketing Rules for market trials in languages in which a carrier does not currently market.34 However, TURN contends, the Commission must balance the needs of carriers with the protection of consumers. TURN states that the In-Language Marketing Rules are necessary, and therefore, exceptions to those rules should be justified and limited. TURN recommends that in-language market trials be permitted with limitations on their duration, and where carriers provide in-language notice and in-language customer service, and perform complaint tracking and reporting.
Discussion
The Phase I Decision acknowledged that one of the purposes of this proceeding is to consider ways to improve services to California telecommunications consumers who do not read or speak English fluently. Late in Phase I of the proceeding, Verizon California proposed that in-language market trials be permitted, and the issue was deferred to Phase II in order to establish a record upon which to decide the issue.
The Phase I Decision stated the Commission's desire to avoid discouraging carriers from offering telecommunications services to non-English speaking consumers and to encourage carriers to provide in-language support to these consumers in ways that help to inform and educate them. The Phase I Decision recognized that Verizon California's proposal for in-language market trials might be a way to improve services to California telecommunications consumers who do not read or speak English fluently, but deferred consideration of the issue to Phase II to build a record upon which a decision could be made. Thus, the Commission has not changed course from the Phase I Decision. Rather, the Commission is pursuing the course that was initiated in Phase I.
Moreover, the Commission is considering the issue of in-language market trials in the context of the Phase I In-Language Marketing Rules. That is, the Commission has sought comments on which, if any, of the In-Language Marketing Rules should apply to in-language market trials, and if so, why. The current effort is supplemental to the In-Language Marketing Rules to determine if and how they should be applied to short-term market trials. As SureWest puts it, the issue of in-language market trials is an undecided issue on which the Commission is seeking further input, not an established rule that the Commission is seeking to overturn.35 Consumer Federation's contention that consideration of in-language market trials is a rescission of the In-Language Marketing Rules is without merit.
All other parties recommend that in-language market trials be permitted, albeit with widely differing recommendations as to what conditions and requirements should apply to them. Allowing carriers to test the responsiveness of consumers to marketing in a language in which the carrier does not already market services may improve services to California telecommunications consumers who do not read or speak English fluently. Therefore, in-language market trials will be permitted under certain conditions.
However, in-language market trials in a particular target language will not be permitted if a carrier already markets non-exempt telecommunications services in the target language. Otherwise, carriers may seek to evade compliance with the In-Language Marketing Rules by characterizing their ongoing in-language marketing efforts as "market trials." The In-Language Market Trial Rules adopted by this Decision are separate from, and do not modify, the In-Language Marketing Rules adopted by D.07-07-043.
3.3. How Should In-Language Market Trial Be Defined?
The Phase II Scoping Memo/ACR asked if an in-language market trial should be defined as "the marketing of one or more non-exempt services on a limited basis in a specific non-English language to determine the responsiveness to the marketed services of potential LEP consumers which communicate in that language."
Parties' Positions
Most parties do not oppose the proposed definition of an in-language market trial. AT&T recommends adoption of the definition proposed in the Phase II Scoping Memo/ACR.36 SureWest and Verizon California state that, while they do not object to the definition proposed in the Phase II Scoping Memo/ACR, they could support another better definition that may be proposed by others.37 CTIA and Verizon Wireless recommend that the definition include a duration limitation to make clear that carriers cannot conduct long term in-language marketing without triggering the In-Language Marketing Rules. CTIA and Verizon Wireless propose that an in-language market trial be defined as "The marketing of one or more non-exempt services for a limited duration in a foreign language."38
Greenlining supports, and LIF does not object to, the Phase II Scoping Memo/ACR's proposed definition of in-language marketing trial.39 However, LIF recommends that either the definition of in-language marketing trial or another rule make clear that in-language market trials are permitted only for languages in which a carrier does not currently market.
Discussion
The definition of in-language market trial proposed by CTIA and Verizon Wireless is similar to that proposed in the Phase II Scoping Memo/ACR. The primary difference between the two proposed definitions is that the CTIA/Verizon Wireless definition does not identify the purpose of in-language market trials (i.e., "to determine the responsiveness to the marketed services of potential LEP consumers...").
However, the CTIA/Verizon Wireless proposed definition concisely captures the essential elements needed to define "in-language market trial." That is, the CTIA/Verizon Wireless proposed definition identifies the services to which it applies and under which circumstances (i.e., marketing of one or more non-exempt services in a foreign language), and the temporary nature of the activity (i.e., for a limited duration).
Omitting a description of the purpose of an in-language market trial from the definition simplifies identification of an in-language market trial. That is, under the CTIA/Verizon Wireless proposed definition, one need only know that a carrier has undertaken the marketing of one or more non-exempt services in a foreign language, and does not need to consider why the effort was undertaken. This more concise definition eliminates opportunities to evade the In-Language Marketing Rules by claiming that the marketing of one or more non-exempt services in a non-English language is for reasons other than to determine the responsiveness of potential LEP consumers which communicate in that language to the marketed services.
However, the phrase "foreign language" in the proposed definition should be replaced with "non-English language" to reduce potential ambiguity. Therefore, an in-language market trial will be defined as, "The marketing of one or more non-exempt services for a limited duration in a non-English language." However, as we determined above, if a carrier already markets non-exempt telecommunications services in a particular non-English language, that carrier will not be permitted to conduct in-language market trials in that language.
3.4. If In-Language Market Trials are Authorized, What Conditions or Other Requirements, If Any, Should Be Imposed on Carriers Conducting In-Language Market Trials?
The Phase II Scoping Memo/ACR asked what conditions or other requirements, if any, should be imposed on carriers conducting in-language market trials. For example, should carriers be required to seek Commission approval before undertaking an in-language market trial, and, if so, how should that request be made?
Parties' Positions
Carriers, for the most part, oppose any conditions or requirements on in-language market trials.40 AT&T states that any rules established for in-language market trials should be less burdensome than the In-Language Marketing Rules or carriers will have no incentive to conduct trials to reach new LEP communities.41
CTIA states that the only requirement that should be imposed is a limitation on the duration of in-language market trials.42 CTIA contends that a limitation on the duration of in-language market trials is appropriate to ensure that full scale in-language marketing is not conducted in the guise of a market trial. CTIA asserts that any other rules for in-language market trials are unnecessary and potentially self defeating because carriers need flexibility to make changes during and following market trials. CTIA contends that imposition of rules will discourage carriers from conducting in-language market trials, and compromise the Commission's objective of encouraging the provision of increased services to LEP consumers.
CTIA contends that carriers' marketing plans are competitively sensitive and should be treated as confidential. According to CTIA, requiring carriers to publicly disclose competitively sensitive information will discourage in-language market trials. CTIA also contends that the time and expense of filing for approval and responding to the comments of other parties and/or Commission staff will also deter carriers from conducting market trials, and act as a straightjacket, preventing carriers from making ongoing adjustments to their approved plans.
Small LECs state that, except for a one-year limit on the duration of in-language market trials and a requirement to provide in-language customer service for the duration of the trial, carriers should have discretion to determine all other aspects of in-language market trials.43 Verizon Wireless states that prescriptive rules will impede the flexibility carriers need to determine the most effective outreach methods in different LEP communities.44
AT&T, CTIA, SureWest, Verizon California and Verizon Wireless state that Commission approval should not be required for in-language market trials.45 The carriers contend that pre-approval is not required to market services in-language, and none should be required to conduct temporary in-language market trials. SureWest asserts that pre-approval of in-language market trials will create an unnecessary obstacle to the detriment of LEP consumers. Verizon Wireless states that prior Commission approval will interfere with carriers' ability to timely implement and modify market trials, and carriers need flexibility to make adjustments throughout the course of a market trial. CTIA contends that any pre-approval requirement for wireless carriers' in-language market trials is unlawful because this constitutes Commission approval of a carrier's entry into a particular in-language market, and state regulation of entry into wireless markets is pre-empted by § 332(c)(3)(A) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.46
Verizon Wireless asserts that it will not conduct an in-language market trial under the proposed rules because carriers must have systems or processes to provide (1) target language customer service; (2) an English confirmation summary and target language instructions to market trial participants; (3) target language disclosures about CAB at the start of their participation; (4) the option for participants to discontinue services if a carrier discontinues target language customer service support; (5) waivers of early termination fees (ETFs); and (6) target language notices before discontinuing customer service support in the target language.47
DRA, Greenlining and LIF state that all of the In-Language Marketing Rules should apply to in-language market trials.48 Greenlining states that failure to apply all of the In-Language Marketing Rules to in-language market trials provides a loophole for carriers to temporarily market in-language in the guise of a market trial to entice LEP consumers while leaving those consumers unprotected and undermining the Commission's efforts to protect LEP consumers.49
LIF contends that, in addition to market trials, carriers have other ways which are exempt from Commission rules for testing language markets. LIF states, for example, that carriers may conduct marketing surveys free from any Commission regulation, and may work with community-based organizations (CBOs) participating in the Commission's CBO program described in Resolution CSID-002. LIF asserts that, because there are other ways to analyze different language markets, there is no compelling reason to exempt carriers from the In-Language Marketing Rules for even a limited time.
LIF contends that consumers may not be able to make informed purchases without the in-language summary required by Rule V of the In-Language Marketing Rules, and may not be able to ask questions about their service without access to in-language customer service required by Rule IV of the In-Language Marketing Rules.50 LIF states that the Commission has determined that requiring a carrier to provide in-language support in the languages in which the carrier markets its service is not unduly burdensome, and carriers have not shown this burden to be unreasonable. LIF contends that, without a showing that compliance with the in-language rules is unduly burdensome, there is no reason to exempt carriers from any of the In-Language Marketing Rules during marketing trials.
DRA, Greenlining and LIF recommend that in-language market trials require pre-approval.51 DRA and LIF recommend a streamlined notification process requiring carriers to provide notice to the Commission 30 days prior to initiating an in-language market trial, including information about the duration, geographic area, language, type of marketing, and type of LEP support to be provided. LIF recommends that, as part of the recommended approval process, carriers be required to notify CBOs located in the in-language market trial area of the existence of the market trial. To facilitate the CBO notification process, LIF recommends that the Commission establish a process for quickly identifying CBOs by location and languages they serve.
In addition to the pre-approval information recommended by DRA and LIF, Greenlining recommends that a carrier also be required to provide: (1) information on comparable services offered on an ongoing basis; (2) the prices offered during the market trial; (3) the prices for comparable services when the market trial is not in effect; (4) customer services and protections provided during the market trial and how these services and protections differ from the carrier's standard practices; and (5) how the carrier plans to inform trial participants of these differences between market trial and ongoing services and protections.
Greenlining also recommends that a carrier be required to continue providing indefinitely after the termination of a market trial any in-language customer service provided during a market trial, if a carrier refers to the availability of that in-language customer service as part of its market trial. Greenlining contends that, without such a requirement, LEP consumers may be enticed by a carrier's promise of superior in-language customer service, only to have the temporarily provided in-language customer service discontinued before LEP customers' service agreements terminate.52
TURN states that a limited exemption from the in-language information requirements under Rule V of the In-Language Marketing Rules is appropriate, including exemption from requirements to provide in-language confirmation summaries and access to Commission notices.53 TURN states that, if its recommendations are adopted, carriers need not seek approval of in-language market trials, submit detailed reports to the Commission, provide mass notices to all potential customers, or rules governing the terms and conditions of the services being offered or the geographic scope of market trials.
TURN recommends that carriers be required to provide notice to the Commission and interested parties of all market trials via an advice letter or other communication, and recommends that carriers be required to state in their in-language market trial notifications: (1) when and where a market trial will be performed; (2) the start and end dates for the trial; (3) the geographic market included in the trial; (4) the estimated number of customers targeted by the trial; (5) a detailed description of the services involved in the trial; and (6) the terms and conditions of those services. TURN recommends that this notice be provided to interested parties on the service list for advice letters, the service list for this proceeding, and to CBOs in the geographic area of the trial.
TURN also recommends that carriers be required to: (1) provide in-language customer service and generic, in-language service descriptions; (2) provide in-language disclosure to market trial participants that the terms of their service may change at the conclusion of the trial; and (3) track and report complaints received during the trial.
Discussion
The Commission previously required carriers to seek prior approval of traditional market trials by submitting a market trial description package to CD and DRA at least 30 days prior to the market trial start date. However, reflecting changes to rules governing telecommunications carriers made in R.05-04-005 (the URF rulemaking), D.07-09-019 eliminated the pre-approval requirement by adopting an information-only filing procedure.54
As with traditional market trials, we conclude that pre-approval of in-language market trials is unnecessary. The Commission does not require carriers to obtain approval to conduct in-language marketing on a permanent basis. It is unreasonable to require pre-approval of temporary marketing efforts undertaken through in-language market trials when no pre-approval is required to conduct in-language marketing on a permanent basis or to conduct traditional market trials.
Pre-approval will likely result in delays in implementing in-language market trials, but would accomplish little. The showing that DRA, LIF and Greenlining recommend carriers be required to make for approval of in-language market trials will not improve the likelihood of a successful market trial or enhance protection of consumers.
CTIA asserts that a limit on the duration of in-language market trials is appropriate, but contends no other requirements are necessary. As discussed below, we agree that a limit on the duration of in-language market trials is necessary and appropriate. However, if a limit on trial duration is to be a requirement for in-language market trials, we must have an objective way to determine the duration of an in-language market trial. Notice to the Commission of the market trial start date and target language serves this purpose.
Carriers will be required to notify the Commission's CD, Public Advisor and CAB Chief of planned in-language market trials via an information-only advice letter filing prior to the start of an in-language market trial, including the carrier's identity (name and utility identification number), the start date, a description or map of the geographic target area and the target language of the market trial. Carriers' information-only advice letters may be filed pursuant to GO 66-C. This notice will be used to determine the permitted duration of an in-language market trial, if disputes, complaints or questions arise concerning compliance with the In-Language Marketing Rules.
As discussed below, carriers will also be required to inform in-language market trial participants in the target language that they may contact CAB to file an informal complaint, and provide CAB's telephone number and web address. As a result, CAB needs to be prepared for the possibility of calls from market trial participants and have resources available to assist callers in the target language. Therefore, carriers will be required to informally alert the Public Advisor and the CAB Chief in writing of a pending in-language market trial at least seven days prior to the market trial start date, and carriers will be permitted to treat that informal notice to CAB as confidential and proprietary.
The "start date" of an in-language market trial period will be the date that a carrier begins marketing in the target language, and not, for example, the date on which a carrier provisions service to trial participants. In-language marketing that occurs prior to the start date specified in the notice to the Commission or after the permitted duration must comply with all of the In-Language Marketing Rules even if a carrier subsequently notifies the Commission that the in-language marketing is a "trial." Prior notification to the Commission is required to prevent carriers which are conducting in-language marketing efforts that do not comply with the In-Language Marketing Rules from notifying the Commission after-the-fact as a way to avoid compliance with the In-Language Marketing Rules.
Prior notification far in advance of the start date of an in-language market trial is unnecessary, provided that the notification is received by the Commission no later than the start date of the in-language market trial. CTIA contends that advance notice of a market trial will compromise carriers' confidential marketing strategies and thus deter carriers from conducting in-language market trials.55 However, because we find that carriers may notify the Commission as late as the start date of an in-language market trial, there is no risk of compromising a marketing campaign which is unveiled to the public on the same day or close to the date that notice is provided to the Commission. If a carrier initiates an in-language market trial or other in-language marketing effort without first notifying the Commission, that marketing effort must comply with the In-Language Marketing Rules.
The information-only filing is permitted to be filed as late as the start date of the in-language market trial to protect carrier plans. However, the Commission needs sufficient advance notice to ensure adequate staff is available in a target language, and seven days notice to the Public Advisor and the CAB Chief will permit the Commission to adjust vacations and work schedules to ensure adequate staffing in a target language.
If a carrier files its information-only advice letter at least seven days prior to the start date of the in-language market trial, carriers need not separately notify the Public Advisor and the CAB Chief because those positions are required to be served the information-only advice letter. However, if carrier chooses to file an information-only advice letter less than seven days prior to start of an in-language market trial, separate notice to the Public Advisor and the CAB Chief is required with a minimum seven days notice. Email notice to the Public Advisor and the CAB Chief will be permitted, so the requirement to notify the Public Advisor and the CAB Chief is not burdensome.
Carriers will not be required to notify CBOs or other parties of their intention to conduct in-language market trials. Although the Commission's effort to integrate CBOs is currently in the early stages of implementation, we anticipate that the Commission will coordinate carrier market trial notifications with CBOs through that effort.
3.4.1. Should Carriers Conducting In-Language Market Trials be Required to Submit Reports or Other Information to the Commission at The Conclusion of an In-Language Market Trial? If So, What Kind of Information Should be Provided and Why? If Not, Why Not?
The Phase II Scoping Memo/ACR asked if carriers conducting in-language market trials should be required to submit reports or other information to the Commission at the conclusion of an in-language market trial, and, if so, what kind of information should be provided and why. The Phase II Scoping Memo/ACR also asked parties recommending that carriers not be required to submit reports or other information to the Commission to explain why not.
Parties' Positions
Carriers oppose any requirements for submitting reports or other information to the Commission concerning in-language market trials. AT&T states that no useful purpose is served by requiring carriers to file reports or other information after completing an in-language market trial.56 AT&T contends that imposing a reporting obligation on carriers creates a barrier to carriers seeking to provide in-language services. SureWest and Small LECs contend that reporting and other requirements will discourage carriers from conducting market trials.57
Verizon California states that there is no need for reports to the Commission and opposes any reporting requirements.58 Verizon California states, however, that, as a courtesy, it would inform the Commission if as the result of a successful trial it decides to provide on-going in-language marketing.
Verizon Wireless contends that the time and expense associated with preparing applications for approval of an in-language market trial, responding to public comment, and producing reports will ensure that no market trials take place, particularly in smaller LEP communities.59
DRA, Greenlining and LIF state that carriers should be required to submit reports at the end of in-language market trials.60 DRA recommends that carrier reports include the geographic area, languages marketed to, and the scope of the trial. DRA and Greenlining contend that these reports will not be unduly burdensome or complex, and will allow the Commission and the public to determine the effectiveness of the In-Language Marketing Rules and whether carriers are providing market trial participants adequate protections. Greenlining recommends that post-market trial reports be made available to the public.
In addition to the information that DRA recommends be reported, Greenlining recommends that carriers be required to: (1) submit copies of any radio or television ads and other marketing materials used in the market trial; (2) report the number of market trial participants or those who signed service agreements as a result of the market trial; (3) breakdown market trial participants' language preferences; (4) provide the terms of the agreements signed during the market trial; and (5) provide the summary of key terms and conditions of agreements provided to market trial participants. Greenlining recommends that the Commission base its approval of future market trials on whether it is satisfied with the customer service and information provided during an in-language market trial.
LIF recommends that, in order to ensure consumer protections were implemented and that the carrier complied with in-language market trial rules, carriers be required to submit to the Commission, within 30 days after their conclusion, reports confirming the geographic scope and the dates of in-language market trials. LIF recommends, for example, that carriers be required to include in post-market trial reports a confirmation that: (1) in-language customer service was provided; (2) complaint tracking was in place; (3) the number of complaints received; and (4) that no ETFs or other long-term commitments were imposed on customers.
TURN states that reports to the Commission are not necessary. However, TURN recommends that, for enforcement purposes, carriers be required to notify the Commission that an in-language market trial has ended and whether the carrier will continue marketing in the language targeted by the market trial.61 TURN contends that, unless in-language market trials can be identified, tracked, and enforced, no purpose is served by exempting them from the In-Language Marketing Rules. TURN states that a notice requirement will help ensure carriers comply with Commission rules and help the Commission track compliance and complaints, and answer consumer questions.
Discussion
The Commission currently requires carriers to submit at the conclusion of a traditional market trial an executive summary highlighting the results of the market trial and indicating the carrier's future plans, if any, regarding tariffing of the trialed service(s). Because in-language market trials involve existing services, there is no need for information at the conclusion of the market trial concerning a carrier's future plans for tariffing trialed services.
The Commission previously required carriers conducting promotional offerings to also submit a post-implementation analysis, including customer response, profitability, revenues, expenses, and customer complaints.62 However, these requirements were established prior to R.05-04-005. Pursuant to D.06-08-030, promotions now require only an advice letter filing, effective on one-day notice, at the beginning of a promotion.63 Promotions no longer require a post-implementation analysis.
Post-trial reports will not allow the Commission or the public to determine the effectiveness of the In-Language Marketing Rules. Greenlining, for example, recommends detailed reports as a way to audit a carrier's compliance with the In-Language Marketing Rules, and depending on a carrier's performance, to serve as a basis for approval or denial of subsequent in-language market trials.
Selectively examining reports from carriers that conduct in-language market trials will not help the Commission determine the effectiveness of the In-Language Marketing Rules as applied to all carriers. Far more information than even that recommended by Greenlining would be needed to undertake the kind of analysis contemplated by Greenlining, and would be required from all carriers, not just those proposing in-language market trials. As discussed below, we have determined that there are better ways for the Commission to obtain the information it needs to assess the effectiveness of the In-Language Marketing Rules.
Because we have determined that pre-approval will not be required, post-trial reports are not needed as a basis for approving or denying authority to conduct subsequent in-language market trials.
A requirement to submit post-market trial reports may discourage carriers from conducting in-language market trials in less commonly spoken languages for which market responsiveness is uncertain. This could undermine our goal of improving services to telecommunications consumers who do not read or speak English fluently, and will not enhance consumer protections. Because in-language market trials involve existing services there is no need for information at the conclusion of the market trial concerning a carrier's future plans for tariffing trialed services as is the case with traditional market trials, and post-trial reports for in-language market trials are unnecessary. Therefore, carriers will not be required to submit reports or other information to the Commission at the conclusion of an in-language market trial.
3.4.2. Limitations on The Geographic Scope of In-Language Market Trials
The Phase II Scoping Memo/ACR asked if the geographic scope of in-language market trials should be limited by the size of a carrier's service territory or confined to a specific geographic area, and, if so, how should that area be determined.
Parties' Positions
Carriers state that there should be no limits on the geographic scope of in-language market trials. AT&T contends that the geographic scope of a carrier's in-language market trial will vary depending on the services sold, the geographic markets served and other factors.64 AT&T asserts that carriers should have the flexibility to define the geographic scope of their market trials to meet their business needs, including the ability to conduct market trials throughout their service territories based on the demographics of a specific LEP community and the characteristics of the particular type of media used in the trial. AT&T states that media channels like the Internet cannot be limited in geographic scope, and other media channels vary in their geographic reach.
CTIA, too, states that limiting the geographic scope would be impractical because different media channels cover different geographic areas.65 CTIA contends that carriers will likely confine their market trials to a limited geographic area based on the location of LEP populations, but should have the flexibility to adjust the geographic scope of market trials.
Cox and Small LECs state that carriers should have the discretion to determine the geographic scope of in-language market trials.66
SureWest states that limits on the geographic scope of a market trial would be difficult to define, administratively burdensome, and could defeat the usefulness of the market trial.67
Verizon California states that carriers will likely confine their in-language market trials to restricted geographic areas due to limited budgets, and, therefore, the Commission should not limit the geographic area in which in-language market trials may be conducted.68
Verizon Wireless states that limits on geographic scope are impractical because of the different types of media used for marketing, differences in the size of carriers' service areas, and the uneven distribution of LEP populations speaking various languages.69
Greenlining and TURN state that there is no need to geographically limit in-language market trials, provided that the consumer protections they recommend are in place.70
LIF states that in-language market trials should be limited geographically to the counties where a carrier is analyzing a particular language market.71 LIF contends that counties are geographic areas where demographic analysis is easily performed, but does not object to carriers using comparable geographic areas such as service territories. LIF states that a carrier should not be able to treat an in-language market trial as a statewide undertaking if the carrier intends to gather its market trial information from only certain counties. LIF recommends that, as part of its recommended pre-approval process, carriers be required to provide demographic information related to the market trial to demonstrate that the geographic areas included in an in-language market trial will be analyzed by the carrier.
Discussion
Commission rules currently limit the geographic scope of traditional market trials by prohibiting company-wide market trials.72 This limitation is to prevent carriers from offering untariffed services to a significant portion of their customer base, and is consistent with the intended purpose of traditional market trials (i.e., to determine the marketability of new services on a small, controlled group of customers).
However, Commission-imposed geographic limitations are inappropriate for in-language market trials. Rather than testing the "marketability of a new service," the purpose of an in-language market trial is to test "in-language marketing of non-exempt services." That is, it is the "marketing in a non-English language," and not a "new untariffed service," that is being tested. Thus, there is little risk that carriers will be offering untariffed services to a significant portion of their customer base in an in-language market trial, so geographically limiting an in-language market trial for this purpose is unnecessary.
Imposing limits on the geographic scope of in-language market trials is also unworkable. We agree that Commission-imposed geographic limitations on in-language market trials are impractical because different media channels cover different geographic areas, and media channels like the Internet cannot be limited to a particular geographic area. However, consistent with Rule II.C of the In-Language Marketing Rules, carriers should have the flexibility to define the geographic scope of an in-language market trial.
LIF recommends limiting the geographic scope of in-language market trials to prevent carriers from extending to the entire state any special conditions applicable to in-language market trials targeted to certain areas. However, imposing limits on the geographic scope of in-language market trials to counties or similar geographic units, as recommended by LIF, is administratively complex and would not provide any apparent benefits.
Also, given the pricing flexibility granted to carriers by D.06-08-030, limiting in-language market trials geographically will not achieve the objective sought by LIF to prevent carriers from extending to the entire state any special offer applicable to in-language market trials. This is because carriers may, but are not required to, geographically target promotional offerings. Therefore, carriers may already geographically target or extend to the entire state, through the use of promotional offerings, any special terms or conditions applicable to in-language market trials which LIF seeks to constrain. Thus, a Commission-imposed geographic limitation on in-language market trials would not achieve LIF's intended objective, even if the Commission agreed that such an objective was desirable.
Moreover, any attempt by the Commission to impose geographic limits on in-language market trials can be easily frustrated. Carriers could get around any geographic limitations by conducting separate market trials in distinct but contiguous geographic areas where there is an overlap in the media coverage area. Thus, what in the absence of geographic limits would otherwise be considered serial market trials could be characterized as separate, unique, geographic-based market trials that just happen to occur sequentially in contiguous or proximate geographic areas.
The absence of any Commission-imposed geographic limitations on in-language market trials provides carriers greater flexibility in conducting in-language market trials. It also simplifies carriers' ability to comply with, and the Commission's enforcement of, the In-Language Marketing Rules. A carrier marketing non-exempt services in a non-English language in a particular geographic area may market those services in the same language on either a permanent or market trial basis in a different geographic area.73 Carriers shall include a detailed description or map of the in-language market trial geographic target area as part of the information-only advice letter filing sufficient to allow the Commission to determine carrier compliance with this requirement.
3.4.3. Limitations On The Duration Of In-Language Market Trials
The Phase II Scoping Memo/ACR asked if there should be a maximum period of time that an in-language market trial may last, and, if so, what should that be and why. The Phase II Scoping Memo/ACR also asked if carriers should be permitted to extend the time during which an in-language market trial may last or conduct serial or successive in-language market trials, and, if not, why not. Finally, the Phase II Scoping Memo/ACR asked at what point should an in-language market trial be no longer considered a "trial," but instead deemed to be "in-language marketing" that is subject to the In-Language Market Rules.
Parties' Positions
The carriers recommend that they be allowed to conduct each in-language market trial for up to one year.74 AT&T recommends that carriers be permitted to conduct serial or successive in-language market trials, with no single trial lasting longer than one year. After one year, a carrier must comply with the In-Language Marketing Rules if it continues to market in the language used in the trial.
SureWest states that there should be no restrictions on serial market trials, but recommends that a market trial that lasts longer than one year be required to comply with all of the In-Language Marketing Rules.75
Verizon California states that its prior marketing trials have lasted from three to six months.76 Verizon California states that it would not design a trial to last more than 12 months, and recommends that in-language market trials not exceed 12 months. Verizon California states that, if there is evidence that an in-language market trial continues beyond its recommended time limit, the Commission can evaluate whether the carrier's marketing is "in-language marketing" subject to the In-Language Marketing Rules.
Verizon California also recommends that carriers be allowed to repeat a market trial if the first trial was unsuccessful and a considerable amount of time has passed.77 Verizon California does not specify what it considers to be an appropriate interval of time between market trials. However, Verizon California states that it conducted an unsuccessful Tagalog language market trial nearly seven years ago, and that it may want to conduct another Tagalog language market trial in the future if conditions warrant.
DRA, LIF and TURN recommend that in-language market trials be limited to a maximum duration of six months.78 DRA and LIF state that the carriers are not seeking complex information from marketing trials, and, therefore, lengthy market trials are unnecessary. DRA contends that carriers would be able to test within a six-month period the responsiveness of non-English speaking communities to which carriers do not currently advertise.
LIF states that telecommunications market trials are generally six months or less in duration, and, therefore, six months is a sufficient amount of time for carriers to learn about a particular market. LIF points to a three-month voice over Internet protocol market trial conducted by Covad and Earthlink in 2005 and a four-month market trial of music downloads by Universal Music Group in the United Kingdom in 2000, as examples of typical durations of market trials.79
LIF states that extensions should not be permitted because six months is enough time to conduct a market trial. LIF contends that in-language market trials should not simply be opportunities for carriers to market in-language without any consumer protections in place, and recommends that the Commission prohibit carriers from repeating an in-language market trial for a period of ten years.
TURN states that the Phase I Decision found that the In-Language Marketing Rules were needed, and, therefore, one year is too long to exempt carriers from the rules because too many consumers could be harmed during that time. TURN recommends that, with notice to the Commission and interested parties, the Commission allow an in-language market trial to be extended once for up to three months, and require a period of two years to elapse before an in-language market trial can be repeated.
Greenlining contends that allowing lengthy market trials permits carriers to evade the In-Language Marketing Rules, and recommends that the length of in-language market trials be limited to six to eight weeks.80 Greenlining contends that the longer a market trial runs, the greater the risk of misinformation, miscommunication, and fraud. Greenlining, therefore, recommends that the In-Language Marketing Rules apply to any in-language market trials that run longer than four months, and that carriers not be permitted to extend or conduct serial or successive in-language market trials.
Discussion
The Commission currently limits the duration of traditional market trials to 12 months.81 A traditional market trial may be extended for up to 20 working days when a carrier indicates its intention to request authority to offer the trialed service on a permanent basis. The extension of time is permitted in order to avoid the interruption of customers' market trial service while a carrier's request for permanent authority to offer the service is pending.
By comparison, ILEC (incumbent local exchange carrier) promotions were previously limited to a maximum duration of 240 days (a 120-day initial period and a 120-day extension), with a 60 day cooling off period after a promotion has run for 240 consecutive days before it can offer the same promotion. CLEC promotions were limited to a maximum of one year. However, D.06-08-030 eliminated limits on the duration of promotions, relying instead on federal rules that require promotions lasting longer than ninety days to be made available for resale.82
All parties agree that there should be a maximum period of time during which an in-language market trial may be conducted, but disagree on what that period should be. The carriers uniformly contend that one year is necessary to gather sufficient information to test the responsiveness to in-language marketing. However, only Verizon California provides specific information about the duration of actual market trials it has conducted, and, according to Verizon California, its prior market trials have lasted from three to six months.
The consumer groups argue that a one-year market trial period is too long to leave LEP consumers unprotected. While LIF's example of the Covad/Earthlink market trial is not an in-language market trial of non-exempt telecommunications services, its duration is approximately the same as the in-language market trials described by Verizon California.
The non-exempt telecommunications services that will be marketed during in-language market trials are not new services to be test marketed prior to their tariffing as permanent offerings, so the one-year duration we allow for traditional market trials is not appropriate or necessary for in-language market trials. We agree that the carriers are not seeking complex information from in-language market trials, and, therefore, lengthy trials are unnecessary.
We have already determined that LEP customers that enter into annual or multi-year contracts are entitled to reasonable, just and adequate service just like other customers83, and we will therefore not relax the In-Language Marketing Rules any longer than is absolutely necessary for carriers to trial market services in a new target language. The in-language market trials that Verizon California has conducted have lasted from three to six months. Based on this evidence, we conclude that six months is an adequate and reasonable amount of time for carriers to test a particular non-English language market before being required to comply with all of the In-Language Marketing Rules.
For sake of clarity, we authorize carriers to conduct in-language market trials for a period not to exceed 180 days. A carrier that continues to market in a non-English language after the conclusion of a 180-day in-language market trial period will be required to comply with all of the In-Language Marketing Rules adopted in D.07-07-043.
It is not necessary or appropriate to grant extensions of time for conducting in-language market trials. Extensions of time of up to 20 working days are permitted for traditional market trials so that service to market trial participants is not discontinued or interrupted while a carrier's request is awaiting authorization to offer the service on a permanent basis. However, because the services marketed during in-language market trials are not new untariffed services there is no need to tariff those services at the conclusion of a successful market trial, and, therefore, extensions of time for this purpose are not necessary.
We agree that carriers should be allowed to repeat a market trial if the first trial was unsuccessful. Although an in-language market trial may not be successful today due to inadequate response from the target language community, changing demographics or other conditions may justify trial marketing in the target language at a later date. However, there should be sufficient time between the initial and subsequent in-language market trials to ensure that carriers do not conduct serial in-language market trials as a way to evade compliance with the In-Language Marketing Rules.
Ten years, as recommended by LIF, is too long of a cooling off period between repeat in-language market trials. Significant demographic changes which could justify repeating an unsuccessful in-language market trial will likely occur more quickly than that. It is unreasonable to prohibit carriers from repeating, after a sufficient cooling off period, an in-language market trial that might demonstrate the viability of marketing on a permanent basis in a particular target language. To do so could undermine our objective of improving services to California telecommunications consumers who do not speak English fluently.
We will require that a two-year period elapse from the conclusion of an in-language market trial before another in-language market trial in that language may be repeated. Two years is a sufficient cooling off period to ensure that carriers do not evade compliance with the In-Language Marketing Rules by conducting serial market trials. Carriers will not find it a viable strategy to repeat a 180-day market trial in a particular target language every two years as a way to market in-language while avoiding compliance with the In-Language Marketing Rules.
3.4.4. Limitations on Pricing of Services to In-Language Market Trial Participants, and Reduction or Waiver of Early Termination Fees or Other Rates/Charges During In-Language Market Trials
The Phase II Scoping Memo/ACR asked if any limitations should be placed on pricing of services to in-language market trial participants, either regarding prices charged to in-language market trial participants and other customers or regarding in-language market trial participants. For example, should carriers be allowed to charge different prices to in-language market trial participants to measure participants' price sensitivity? If not, why not? The Phase II Scoping Memo/ACR also asked if ETFs or other rates/charges should be reduced or waived during in-language market trials.
Parties' Positions
Carriers oppose any limitations on pricing of services to in-language market trial participants, including the waiver or reduction of ETFs.
AT&T states there should be no limitations or other regulations on the prices offered during in-language market trials, including ETFs.84 AT&T contends that existing laws prohibit unreasonable discrimination of similarly situated customers and that in-language market trials will be subject to these requirements, citing § 451 and 47 United States Code §§ 201-202. AT&T recommends that, to the extent carriers have flexibility to reduce or waive activation fees or other charges, carriers be allowed to exercise that same flexibility in their pricing of services offered during an in-language market trial.
CTIA states that a requirement to waive ETFs for contracts obtained through market trials would discourage carriers from conducting market trials by limiting their ability to recoup up-front costs incurred when activating new customers. CTIA also contends that the Commission is preempted by § 332 (c)(3)(A) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, from imposing such a requirement.85
SureWest states that in language market trials should not be subject to any price regulation.86 SureWest contends that price controls on market trials are inconsistent with D.06-08-030, and that price regulations cannot be imposed on URF carriers. SureWest cites §§ 451 and 453 as existing laws which prevent unreasonable price discrimination and ensure customers receive just and reasonable rates. Small LECs state that there should be no additional requirements or limitations on in-language market trials.87
Verizon California states that any effort to regulate prices would be inconsistent with the URF and opposes any rules that limit carriers' flexibility to design or evaluate a market trial.88
Verizon California states that wireless carriers provide customers up to 30 days to test equipment and service, and the customer can cancel service within this period without incurring an ETF whether the customer is English proficient or not. According to Verizon California, because a carrier must provide customer service during the market trial, customers can receive whatever information they need in the target language within the 30 day grace period, and, if dissatisfied, they can cancel the contract or service without paying an ETF.89
Verizon Wireless opposes rules on the price or price-related terms of sale offered during in-language market trials.90 Verizon Wireless contends that rules governing pricing will interfere with the value of the trials, discourage the use of trials, and violate § 332(c) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.
Greenlining states that carriers should not be permitted to charge higher prices to LEP consumers than to English speaking consumers, or to raise prices only for consumers that speak certain languages.91 Greenlining therefore recommends that the Commission prohibit the prices of in-language market trial services from exceeding the prices for similar or comparable services charged to English proficient customers. If prices vary across a carrier's service area, Greenlining recommends that the Commission require carriers to charge the same prices as those charged for comparable service in areas with similar language and income demographics to those in the market trial area. If a carrier conducts multiple market trials in English and in one or more non-English languages in a particular geographic area, Greenlining also recommends that the Commission require equal pricing in those trials.
LIF states that it is unfair to remove consumer protections during an in-language market trial while at the same time binding consumers to long-term contracts entered into without the benefit of the protections provided by the In-Language Marketing Rules.92 LIF contends that in-language market trials should be considered "experiments" where carriers will seek to minimize their permanent expenditures. Therefore, according to LIF, allowing carriers to retain long-term benefits from marketing trials gives carriers an inappropriate windfall. LIF recommends that ETFs be waived for contracts obtained through marketing trials, as should fees designed to defray permanent or long-term service costs.
Discussion
Prior to the URF, the Commission required ILECs conducting traditional market trials or promotions to comply with unbundling and imputation requirements established for dominant ILECs under the New Regulatory Framework (NRF) in order to prevent anticompetitive pricing.93 This meant that NRF ILECs were prohibited from offering services during promotions or market trials that were priced below cost, and was intended to prevent predatory pricing by ILECs or a price squeeze on carriers who purchased services for resale from the ILECs on a wholesale basis. However, the Commission did not impose similar price restrictions on other carriers. With adoption of the URF, the Commission eliminated pricing restrictions for all URF carriers, including those on traditional market trials or promotional offerings.94
Consistent with the Commission's policy to bring pricing practices in line with the operation of competitive markets, we find that there should be no restrictions imposed on the pricing of services to in-language market trial participants, either regarding prices charged to in-language market trial participants and other customers or regarding in-language market trial participants. Limitations on pricing flexibility are inconsistent with the URF adopted by D.06-08-030.
In particular, we will not require that rates/charges be reduced or waived during in-language market trials. It is unreasonable to limit flexibility in the pricing of services offered to in-language market trial participants while permitting unfettered pricing flexibility for all other services.
It is also unreasonable, and contrary to the URF, to limit pricing flexibility for some carriers but not to others. Moreover, even if we were inclined to do so, which we are not, we are prohibited by federal law from regulating the prices of services provided by wireless carriers. As a result, any attempt to place limits on the pricing of market trial services would result in a patchwork of restrictions on some carriers but not others, and the resulting confusing, inconsistent set of rules would serve no clear purpose.
We do not agree with Greenlining that carriers will selectively charge higher prices or raise prices for consumers that speak certain languages. This is because existing law requires that prices be just and reasonable, and prohibits unreasonable discrimination.95 It is unreasonable discrimination in violation of § 453 for a carrier to charge in-language market trial participants higher prices than other consumers solely because they speak certain languages.96
3.4.5. Notice and Other Information Carriers Should Be Required to Make Available to In-Language Market Trial Participants
The Phase II Scoping Memo/ACR asked if carriers conducting in-language market trials should be required to provide notice to customers or to potential in-language market trial participants. For example, should carriers be required to inform potential in-language market trial participants that the in-language market trial will be discontinued at any time or on a specified date?
The Phase II Scoping Memo/ACR also asked what information carriers should be required to make available during an in-language market trial. For example, should carriers be required provide in-language market trial participants a confirmation summary of the customer's transaction in the market trial language(s) or instructions on how to access the translation or interpretation of the confirmation summary or Commission-mandated notices and disclosures in the market trial language(s)? If not, why not?
Finally, the Phase II Scoping Memo/ACR asked what steps the Commission should take to ensure that potential in-language market trial participants have access to in-language confirmation information and Commission-mandated notices/disclosures, if carriers were not required to provide market trial participants a confirmation summary/access the translation or interpretation of the confirmation summary, Commission-mandated notices and disclosures, or instructions on how to obtain this information in the market trial language(s).
Parties' Positions
AT&T states that carriers should not be required to notify potential or existing customers about an in-language market trial because there is no justification for this requirement and it would create customer confusion.97 AT&T contends that consumers will be notified of any relevant information about the services offered during an in-language market trial. AT&T states that in-language market trial advertising will describe any discounts offered as part of a promotion, and consumers would be informed that a particular offering must be accepted by a certain date.
SureWest states that carriers should not be required to provide notice at the beginning of an in-language market trial because the notice could distort the results of the market trial.98 SureWest states, however, it is reasonable to provide 30 days' notice before the end of a market trial to inform customers that in-language services may be discontinued.
CTIA opposes providing in-language market trial participants a 30-day notice that customer service support in the target language will be discontinued because, according to CTIA, it requires carriers to track in-language market trial participants.99
SureWest states that carriers should not be required to provide in-language confirmation summaries in connection with market trials because the provision of in-language customer service, as SureWest recommends, is adequate for resolving customer billing or service questions.100 SureWest contends that carriers should have the flexibility to provide a range of in-language services in connection with a market trial in order to gauge the customer response to those services. SureWest asserts that carriers will not likely conduct in-language market trials if all of the In-Language Marketing Rules apply to those trials.
Verizon California recommends that carriers not be required to inform customers that an in-language market trial is a limited time offer, and opposes requiring confirmation summaries or instructions because it contends this will dissuade carriers from conducting in-language market trials.101 Verizon California contends, however, that an effective in-language market trial would necessarily include a URL (i.e., a web page address) to an in-language web page or a telephone number to in-language customer service representatives.
Verizon Wireless opposes any requirement to provide notice to customers or to potential in-language market trial participants because, according to Verizon Wireless, these requirements would constrain carriers, undermine the value of market trials and harm consumers who would benefit from market trials.102 Verizon Wireless contends that carriers will have incentives to provide appropriate in-language information and disclosures because market trials are likely to be unsuccessful without them.
CTIA, Small LECs and SureWest assert that carriers should not have to provide an in-language notice to customers that they may call CAB to file a complaint because carriers already provide the Commission's contact information on customer bills, and this notice will require carriers to track in-language market trial customers.103
Greenlining states that, regardless of the type of marketing used that leads to an agreement, consumers have a right to fully understand what they have agreed to.104 Greenlining recommends that carriers be required to provide participants in the market trial target language with a confirmation summary, and information concerning the terms, conditions, features, pricing, and other information about a carrier's standard service. Greenlining recommends that information concerning ETFs be provided to participants entering into service agreements.
Greenlining recommends that the summary of key terms and conditions be required so that in-language market trial participants are informed that a reduction or waiver of ETFs or other charges may be temporary, when any temporarily reduced or waived charges expire, and what terms, conditions and charges will apply after the reduction or waiver expires. Greenlining also recommends that carriers be required to inform in-language market trial participants that in-language telephone customer service may only be available on a temporary basis.
Greenlining contends that consumers who participate in in-language market trials, like other customers, are entitled to the information contained in Commission-mandated notices and disclosures, and recommends that carriers be required to provide Commission-mandated notices and disclosures in the market trial target language to participants who sign service agreements.
LIF states that consumers who participate in an in-language market trial should be notified about CBOs which may be available to assist them.105 LIF recommends that this notification be provided with marketing material or by coordinating CBO consumer outreach activities with the market trial. As noted above, LIF recommends that carriers also be required to notify CBOs located in the market trial area of the existence of the market trial as part of LIF's recommended pre-approval process.
TURN states that, apart from the companies' own outreach and advertising, it is not necessary to provide notice to all potential customers of an in-language market trial.106 However, TURN recommends that carriers be required to inform participants who signs up for service during a market trial that: (1) the customer may have to change services at the end of the trial; (2) the carrier may discontinue the service; (3) the customer may not be able to renew the service at the end of the contract term; or (4) rates or terms may change at the end of the trial.
TURN and DRA support SureWest's recommendation that in-language market trial participants be notified 30 days before end of the market trial so that participants may look for a different service or service provider.107 TURN states, however, 30 days may not be enough time for participants with contracts subject to ETFs, so carriers should be required to disclose how the market trial works to those participants at the time of sale.
Discussion
The Commission currently requires carriers that conduct traditional market trials to provide written notice to participants that the trial can be withdrawn at any time during the duration of the market trial, and that participation is entirely voluntary and revocable.108 This is required in order to reduce the number of customer complaints. Carrier notices must also describe the market trial, including the start and end dates of the trial, and all prices applicable to the market trial services.
In the case of in-language market trials of existing services and unlike traditional market trials, trialed services will not be withdrawn during or at the end of the trial. Therefore, it is not necessary to inform participants at the start of an in-language market trial that this is a possibility. However, it is possible that target language customer support may be withdrawn during or at the end of the trial. Therefore, providing certain information to in-language market trial participants at the beginning of an in-language market trial and before discontinuing target language customer support is appropriate and reasonable.
As discussed below, we will rely on, among other things, CIMS complaint data as a way to obtain the information we need to assess the effectiveness of the In-Language Marketing Rules. Because we will rely in part on CIMS complaint data for information on LEP consumers, carriers will be required to inform participants in the target language at the start of their participation in an in-language market trial that participants may contact the CAB to file an informal complaint, and to provide CAB's telephone number and web address to participants. This will help ensure that in-language market trial participants' are aware that the Commission is available to assist consumers in addressing their complaints, and will assist the Commission in obtaining information on the needs of LEP consumers at minimal cost to carriers. Carriers will be permitted to use any of the methods specified in Rule V of the In-Language Marketing Rules for this purpose.
The Phase I Decision found that LEP consumers do not speak, read, write, or understand the English language sufficiently to access services to which they may be entitled, and that LEP customers who receive notices and other important information only in English are not receiving adequate service.109 The Phase I Decision also concluded that carriers marketing non-exempt services in a particular language to consumers should make available enough information in the language the carrier is marketing to allow consumers to make informed purchasing decisions and resolve service or billing problems.110
Small LECs and SureWest do not explain why the English-language notice of the Commission's contact information on customer bills is sufficient for consumers who are not proficient in English. CTIA does not explain why the CAB notice may not be provided with target language marketing materials or why carriers must establish systems to track target language customers in order to provide this notice.
Providing certain other information to in-language market trial participants is appropriate. In particular, it is possible that customer service support in the target language may be discontinued during or at the end of an in-language market trial, and it is reasonable to inform LEP participants of this possibility before it occurs but not necessarily at the beginning of the trial.
Pacific Bell, stated that written notice to participants of traditional market trials would reduce confusion and complaints, and the Commission adopted the requirement to provide participants written notice of the possibility of the discontinuance of service at any time.111 With respect to in-language market trials, providing advance notice to in-language market trial participants of the possibility that support in the target language may be discontinued will reduce confusion and complaints.
We agree that it is reasonable to provide notice to in-language market trial participants 30 days before discontinuing in-language services. We also agree that an effective in-language market trial will necessarily include access to an in-language web page or to in-language customer service representatives. Carriers that conduct in-language market trials will have to establish some target language resources so they may market and communicate with potential participants in the target language. Thus, providing participants with 30 days advance notice in the market trial target language informing participants that customer service support in the target language will be discontinued does not require carriers to invest in additional infrastructure beyond what is already needed to conduct an in-language market trial.
A requirement to provide participants 30 days' written notice in the target language before discontinuing in-language services will not unreasonably constrain carriers and will help LEP consumers make informed decisions. Providing notice that customer service support in the target language will be discontinued after participation begins will minimize any impact on the results of the trial, because it will not influence a participant's decision to initially participate in the trial. At the same time, LEP consumers will be notified in the target language that they have the option to discontinue participating, without penalty, in a trial that does not provide the target language support they need.
Therefore, we will require carriers to provide notice in the target language to in-language market trial participants at least 30 days before terminating target language support that customer service support in the target language will be discontinued. Carriers will be permitted to use any of the methods specified in Rule V of the In-Language Marketing Rules to notify in-language market trial participants for this purpose. Because we will require that in-language market trial participation be entirely voluntary and revocable if a carrier discontinues support in the market trial target language, we will also require carriers to inform in-language market trial participants of this condition in the 30-day notice.
As stated above, the Phase I Decision found that LEP consumers do not speak, read, write, or understand the English language sufficiently to access services to which they may be entitled. The Phase I Decision also concluded that carriers marketing non-exempt services in a non-English language should provide access to customer service in the languages in which the carrier markets its non-exempt services.
The carriers objecting to the 30-day notice do not explain why not providing target language customer support to LEP customers who were sold services in a target language constitutes adequate service, or why a carrier should not be required to notify in-language market trial participants that the carrier will no longer communicate with them in the target language. Carriers that do not wish to provide the 30-day notice may use a third-party interpreter service, such as Language Line, to continue providing customer service in the market trial target language.
We encourage, but will not require, carriers that conduct in-language market trials to provide in the target language a confirmation summary, or the terms, conditions, features, pricing, or other information about a carrier's standard service. We will not require carriers that conduct in-language market trials to provide Commission-mandated notices and disclosures in the target language, except as discussed herein.
As is already required for services provided in English, carriers will be required to, at a minimum, provide in-language market trial participants an English language confirmation summary of the customer's transaction. However, for this information to be of any use to LEP participants, carriers will be required to provide instructions in the target language on how to access target language customer service support for assistance with the translation or interpretation of the confirmation summaries, billing questions, and Commission-mandated notices and disclosures. Carriers will be permitted to use any of the methods specified in Rule V of the In-Language Marketing Rules for this purpose.
Small LECs and SureWest do not explain why they believe that it is sufficient to include a telephone number for target language customer support without accompanying information in the target language on why the telephone number is being provided.
It is premature to require carriers to provide to CBOs notice about the initiation of an in-language market trial, or to notify market trial participants about the availability of assistance from CBOs. As discussed below, the CBO program initiated by Resolution CSID-002 is in its early stages of implementation, and operational details of the program are still being developed.
We note that D.07-07-043 requires carriers to permit CBOs to represent any customer who has authorized a CBO to assist it in dealings with carriers.112 Once the Commission's effort to integrate CBOs in its outreach, education and complaint resolution process is implemented, we anticipate that the Commission will be able to provide carriers with the names of CBOs available to assist LEP consumers in particular non-English languages. We urge, but will not require, carriers to inform in-language market trial participants about CBOs which may be available to assist LEP participants because we see this as another potentially cost-effective way for carriers to enhance in-language support to LEP market trial participants.
As discussed below, we will not require carriers to establish complaint or language preference tracking systems and instead will rely on, among other things, CIMS complaint data as a way to obtain the information we need to assess the effectiveness of the In-Language Marketing Rules. Therefore, carriers will also be required to inform participants in the target language at the start of their participation in an in-language market trial that participants may contact the CAB to file an informal complaint, and to provide CAB's telephone number and web address to participants. This will help ensure that in-language market trial participants' are aware that the Commission is available to assist consumers with their complaints, and will assist the Commission in obtaining information on the needs of LEP consumers at minimal cost to carriers. Carriers will be permitted to use any of the methods specified in Rule V of the In-Language Marketing Rules for this purpose.
3.4.6. What Services, If Any, Should Carriers be Required to Make Available During an In-Language Market Trial
The Phase II Scoping Memo/ACR asked what services, if any, should carriers be required to make available during an in-language market trial. For example, should carriers be required provide potential in-language market trial participants access to live, person-to-person customer service over the telephone during its normal business hours in the market trial language(s)? If not, why not? The Phase II Scoping Memo/ACR also asked that, if carriers were not required to provide live, person-to-person customer service over the telephone during normal business hours in the market trial language(s), then how should carriers be required to support potential in-language market trial participants that have questions about their bills or services?
Parties' Positions
AT&T and CTIA oppose applying any of the In-Language Marketing Rules to in-language market trials, contending that this defeats the purpose of having a market trial.113 AT&T contends that the purpose of an in-language market trial is to give carriers an opportunity to assess the responsiveness of a particular LEP community before undertaking a marketing campaign that triggers the In-Language Marketing Rules. AT&T states that, while all customers should have access to support, carriers should have the flexibility to determine how best to support the different needs and preferences of each community. AT&T suggests that CBOs could assist consumers who purchase services during in-language market trials.
Small LECs and SureWest recommend that carriers be required to provide in-language customer service during in-language market trials, but that none of the other In-Language Marketing Rules should apply during in-language market trials.114
Verizon California states that, while it makes little sense for carriers to attempt an in-language market trial without an in-language web page or in-language customer service, the Commission should not require carriers to provide in-language support during the trial.115
Verizon Wireless opposes any requirement to provide in-language support for customers.116 Verizon Wireless contends that carriers will have incentives to provide appropriate in-language support because market trials are likely to be unsuccessful without it.
DRA states that carriers have not provided any cost information or other evidence to demonstrate why it would be burdensome to apply the In-Language Marketing Rules to market trials, and recommends that all of the In-Language Marketing Rules apply to in-language market trials.117 However, if the Commission does not adopt DRA's recommendation, DRA recommends that, at a minimum, carriers be required to provide live in-language telephone support through a toll-free number during a carrier's normal customer service hours. DRA also recommends that carriers provide in-language telephone support for a period of time after the market trial ends to allow for LEP customers to transition out of the service, if necessary.
Greenlining recommends that carriers be required to comply with all of the In-Language Marketing Rules during in-language market trials.118 If, however, the Commission does not apply all of the In-Language Marketing Rules to in-language market trials, Greenlining recommends that, at a minimum, carriers should be required to provide live, person-to-person in-language customer service. Greenlining contends that carriers can easily provide in-language customer service, even on a temporary basis, through Language Line or other professional translation services.
Greenlining asserts that access to live customer assistance is essential because LEP consumers who participate in an in-language market trial must be able to ask questions about the market trial and a carrier's services. Greenlining states that in-person or telephonically provided in-language customer service are the best ways to support in-language market trial participants. Greenlining contends that the Internet is an efficient way to provide in-language market trial information, but that it is not available to most LEP customers who do not have regular Internet access.
Greenlining recommends that the Commission require that carriers' in-language customer service be able to explain the differences between a carrier's standard service offerings and the services offered during a market trial, including differences in service plans, prices and applicable contract provisions.
LIF states that the Commission determined in Phase I of this proceeding that carriers marketing in-language must provide consumers who speak that language a way to ask questions about their service and resolve service or billing questions, and recommends that carriers be required to provide in-language customer service during in-language market trials.119 LIF contends that providing in-language customer service through third-party interpreters during in-language market trials is efficient, and doesn't require large expenditures if a carrier decides not to permanently market in a language. Therefore, according to LIF, it is not burdensome for carriers to provide in-language customer service during marketing trials.
LIF also recommends that carriers be required to provide a summary of the key terms and conditions of their contract in the market trial target language, because the Commission has found a summary of the key terms and conditions necessary in order for LEP consumer to be able to make informed purchasing decisions. Finally, LIF recommends that, as part of a purchase during an in-language market trial, carriers be required to provide contact information so that consumers may make complaints about marketing or their service.
TURN supports the recommendation that carriers be required to provide customer service in the target language during market trials through, at least, a third party translation service.120 TURN contends that carriers have acknowledged they must have a way to communicate with LEP customers and potential customers during a market trial, so, according to TURN, the requirement should not be controversial.
TURN recommends that generic written materials about the services being marketed be made available in the market trial target language on a publicly available website and by telephone, at a minimum. As with in-language customer service, TURN states that carriers acknowledge they will need to provide written materials to in-language customers during the trial, so, TURN contends, making available generic written materials in the market trial target language about the services being marketed should not be controversial.
Discussion
Most carriers agree that customers should have access to support, but nevertheless object to imposing of any of the In-Language Marketing Rules on in-language market trials. We conclude that it is unreasonable to permit in-language market trials without any target language support to LEP participants.
Carriers which conduct in-language market trials must provide in the target language of the market trial during normal business hours access to live, person-to-person customer service over the telephone so that participants may obtain assistance in resolving customer billing or service questions. A carrier may provide in-person customer service in the target language, in addition to telephonic customer service, if a carrier chooses to do so. Customer service may be provided using either a customer service representative fluent in the market trial target language, or through a third-party interpreter service, such as Language Line.
This requirement effectively adopts Rule IV of the In-Language Marketing Rules for in-language market trials, and will ensure that LEP consumers have a way to receive an in-language explanation of the information contained in confirmation summaries, contracts, notices and other English language written materials.
We adopt this requirement for in-language market trials because access to customer service in the target language of the market trial will reasonably permit LEP participants to obtain assistance resolving customer billing or service questions during the limited duration of an in-language market trial. However, because carriers may provide target language customer service through a third-party interpreter service such as Language Line, providing access to customer service in the target language of the market trial is not burdensome and will not require carriers to make substantial investments in infrastructure to support a non-English language before carriers have determined the viability of marketing to LEP customers in the target language. Combined with the limit on the duration of in-language market trials and the minimal notice requirements we will adopt, this requirement will provide sufficient protections for LEP consumers during an in-language market trial.
The Phase II Scoping Memo/ACR asked what other requirements, if any, the Commission should establish with respect to in-language market trials, and why?
Parties' Positions
The carriers state that no other requirements should be imposed on in-language market trials.121
Greenlining recommends that, in addition to requiring carriers to provide information regarding the terms and conditions of the market trial offer, carriers should also be required to provide information on the terms, conditions, features, pricing, etc., of a carrier's standard service. Greenlining contends that disclosure of this information is particularly necessary when the initial offer is temporary and service will revert to a standard plan or price at the end of the market trial.
LIF recommends that the Commission use the CBO program initiated by Resolution CSID-002 to assist market trial participants.122 As discussed above, LIF recommends notice to CBOs as part of its recommended in-language market trial pre-approval process, and notice to market trial participants that CBOs are available to assist them.
TURN recommends that carriers be required to track and report all complaints made during an in-language market trial.123
Discussion
As discussed above, we will require carriers to provide in the target language of the market trial during normal business hours access to live, person-to-person customer service over the telephone, and, in essence, impose Rule IV of the In-Language Marketing Rules on in-language market trials. Requiring in-language market trials to comply with Rule IV will ensure that LEP consumers have a way to communicate with carriers in the target language about billing and service issues, or for an explanation of the information contained in confirmation summaries, contracts, notices and other English language written materials.
TURN's recommendation that carriers be required to report all complaints made during an in-language market trial will not be adopted because, as discussed below, we conclude that carriers should not be required to track or report LEP consumer complaints.
The requirement to comply with Rule IV of the In-Language Marketing Rules, combined with the 180-day limit on the duration of in-language market trials and the notice requirements that we adopt, will provide sufficient protections during an in-language market trial. In addition, the consumer protections established in R.00-02-004 (the Consumer Protection Initiative) will apply to in-language market trials. Therefore, no additional requirements will be imposed on in-language market trials.
13 Res. T-11083 (December 3, 1986).
14 Res. T-14556 (September 6, 1991).
15 All statutory references are to the Public Utilities Code, unless otherwise noted.
16 See, for example, Res. T-14174 re: Pacific Bell (October 12, 1990) and Res. T-14689 re: GTE California (December 18, 1991).
17 At the time, these rules were contained in General Order (GO) 96-A, now GO 96-B.
18 See Res. T-11083 re: Pacific Bell technology tests (dated 12/3/1986), Res. T-14174 re: Pacific Bell promotional offerings (dated 10/12/1990), and Res. T-14556 re: AT&T market trials (dated 9/6/1991).
19 For example, see Res. T-14944 (June 17, 1992) re: market trial guidelines for Pacific Bell.
20 Res.T-16099 authorized GTE California to conduct market trials under the same terms as those applicable to Pacific Bell pursuant to Res. T-14944.
21 URF carriers are wireline carriers that have full pricing flexibility over all or most of its rates and charges. URF carriers include ILECs, competitive local exchange carriers (CLECs), and interexchange carriers regulated through the Commission's URF established in D.06-08-030.
22 D.07-09-019, Appendix A, Rules 1.7 and 1.9. Rule 1.8 defines "New Service" as a service that (i) is distinguished from any existing service offered by the Utility by virtue of the technology employed; or (ii) includes features or functions not previously offered in any service configuration by the Utility.
23 AT&T Phase II-A Opening Comments, p. 1. AT&T Phase II-A Reply Comments, pp. 1, 4. CTIA Phase II-A Opening Comments, p. 2. CTIA Phase II-A Reply Comments, p. 3. Small LECs Phase II-A Reply Comments, pp. 1-4, 6. SureWest Phase II-A Opening Comments, pp. 2-3. Verizon California Phase II-A Opening Comments, pp. 1-2. Verizon Wireless Phase II-A Opening Comments, pp. 1-4. Verizon Wireless Phase II-A Reply Comments, pp. 1-2.
24 CTIA Phase II-A Opening Comments, p. 2. AT&T Phase II-A Opening Comments, p. 2.
25 SureWest Phase II-A Opening Comments, pp. 1-2.
26 AT&T Phase II-A Opening Comments, p. 1. Verizon California Phase II-A Opening Comments, p. 1.
27 Consumer Federation Phase II-A Opening Comments, pp. 3-4.
28 Consumer Federation Phase II-A Opening Comments, pp. 4-7.
29 DRA Phase II-A Opening Comments, pp. 2-4. Greenlining Phase II-A Opening Comments, pp. 1-2. Greenlining Phase II-A Reply Comments, 1-4. LIF Phase II-A Reply Comments, p. 1. TURN Phase II-A Reply Comments, p. 1.
30 DRA Phase II-A Opening Comments, pp. 1-3. DRA Phase II-A Reply Comments, pp. 2-3.
31 Greenlining Phase II-A Opening Comments, p. 3.
32 Greenlining Phase II-A Opening Comments, pp. 3, 5. Greenlining Phase II-A Reply Comments, pp. 1-3.
33 LIF Phase II-A Opening Comments, pp. 1-3. LIF Phase II-A Reply Comments, pp. 1-2.
34 TURN Phase II-A Reply Comments, pp. 1-3.
35 SureWest Phase II-A Reply Comments, pp. 6-7.
36 AT&T Phase II-A Opening Comments, p. 2.
37 SureWest Phase II-A Opening Comments, p. 3. Verizon California Phase II-A Opening Comments, p. 3.
38 Verizon Wireless Phase II-A Opening Comments, p. 4. CTIA Phase II-A Opening Comments, pp. 3-4.
39 Greenlining Phase II-A Reply Comments, p. 4. LIF Phase II-A Opening Comments, p. 1. LIF Phase II-A Reply Comments, p. 2.
40 Comments of AT&T on Phase II Proposed Decision of Commissioner Peevey, pp. 5-8. Comments of CTIA on Proposed Decision of Commissioner Peevey, pp. 10-12. Verizon California's Opening Comments on the Proposed Decision of Commissioner Peevey, pp. 2-8. Comments of Verizon Wireless on the Proposed Decision of Commissioner Peevey, pp. 9-13.
41 AT&T Phase II-A Opening Comments, p. 2.
42 CTIA Phase II-A Opening Comments, pp. 2-5. CTIA Phase II-A Reply Comments, pp. 2-5.
43 Small LECs Phase II-A Reply Comments, pp. 2-3.
44 Verizon Wireless Phase II-A Opening Comments, pp. 2, 6.
45 CTIA Phase II-A Reply Comments, p. 5. SureWest Phase II-A Opening Comments, pp. 3-4. Verizon California Phase II-A Opening Comments, p. 3.
46 CTIA Phase II-A Opening Comments, p. 5. CTIA Phase II-A Reply Comments, p. 6.
47 Comments of Verizon Wireless on the Proposed Decision of Commissioner Peevey, pp. 10- 11.
48 DRA Phase II-A Reply Comments, pp. 2-4. Greenlining Phase II-A Reply Comments, p. 5. LIF Phase II-A Opening Comments, pp. 1-3.
49 Greenlining Phase II-A Opening Comments, p. 5.
50 LIF Phase II-A Opening Comments, pp. 2-3.
51 DRA Phase II-A Reply Comments, pp. 3-4. Greenlining Phase II-A Opening Comments, pp. 5-6. Greenlining Phase II-A Reply Comments, p. 4. LIF Phase II-A Opening Comments, pp. 2-3, 6-7.
52 Greenlining Phase II-A Opening Comments, p. 6.
53 TURN Phase II-A Reply Comments, passim.
54 GO 96-B, Section 5.4.
55 CTIA Phase II-A Reply Comments, pp. 5-6.
56 AT&T Phase II-A Opening Comments, p. 3.
57 SureWest Phase II-A Opening Comments, p. 4. Small LECs Phase II-A Reply Comments, p. 2.
58 Verizon California Phase II-A Opening Comments, p. 3.
59 Verizon Wireless Phase II-A Reply Comments, pp. 3-4.
60 DRA Phase II-A Reply Comments, p. 3. Greenlining Phase II-A Opening Comments, pp. 6-7. Greenlining Phase II-A Reply Comments, p. 4. LIF Phase II-A Opening Comments, pp. 7-8.
61 TURN Phase II-A Reply Comments, pp. 5-7.
62 Res. T-14174.
63 D.06-08-030, COLs 44, 48.
64 AT&T Phase II-A Opening Comments, pp. 3-4.
65 CTIA Phase II-A Opening Comments, Footnote #4, pp. 4-5.
66 Opening Comments of Cox on Commissioner Peevey's Proposed Phase II Decision, pp. 6-7. Small LECs Phase II-A Reply Comments, p. 2.
67 SureWest Phase II-A Opening Comments, pp. 2, 5.
68 Verizon California Phase II-A Opening Comments, p. 2.
69 Verizon Wireless Phase II-A Opening Comments, p. 5.
70 Greenlining Phase II-A Opening Comments, p. 7. Greenlining Phase II-A Reply Comments, p. 5. TURN Phase II-A Reply Comments, pp. 1-2.
71 LIF Phase II-A Opening Comments, pp. 5-6.
72 Res. T-14944, Attachment 1, Section B.2.
73 Rule II.C of the In-Language Marketing Rules defines the geographic area as the in-language advertising area.
74 AT&T Phase II-A Opening Comments, p. 4. CTIA Phase II-A Opening Comments, p. 4. Small LECs Phase II-A Reply Comments, pp. 2, 3. SureWest Phase II-A Opening Comments, pp. 2, 5. Verizon California Phase II-A Opening Comments, p. 2. Verizon Wireless Phase II-A Opening Comments, p. 4.
75 SureWest Phase II-A Opening Comments, p. 5.
76 Verizon California Phase II-A Opening Comments, p. 2.
77 Verizon California Phase II-A Opening Comments, p. 4.
78 DRA Phase II-A Reply Comments, p. 4. LIF Phase II-A Opening Comments, pp. 4-5. LIF Phase II-A Reply Comments, p. 2. TURN Phase II-A Reply Comments, pp. 2, 4-5.
79 LIF Phase II-A Opening Comments, p. 4.
80 Greenlining Phase II-A Opening Comments, pp. 8-9. Greenlining Phase II-A Reply Comments, p. 5.
81 Res. T-14556, p. 5. Res. T-14944, Attachment 1, Section B.2, p. 2.
82 D.06-08-030, p. 196 and COL 43.
83 D.07-07-043, COL 9.
84 AT&T Phase II-A Opening Comments, p. 5.
85 CTIA Phase II-A Reply Comments, p. 6.
86 SureWest Phase II-A Opening Comments, p. 6.
87 Small LECs Phase II-A Reply Comments, pp. 2-3.
88 Verizon California Phase II-A Opening Comments, pp. 4-5.
89 Verizon California's Opening Comments on the Proposed Decision of Commissioner Peevey, pp. 4-5.
90 Verizon Wireless Phase II-A Opening Comments, pp. 3-4, 8.
91 Greenlining Phase II-A Opening Comments, pp. 9-10. Greenlining Phase II-A Reply Comments, p. 5.
92 LIF Phase II-A Opening Comments, pp. 9-10.
93 See Res. T-14174 and Res. T-14944.
94 D.06-08-030, OP 5.
95 § 451 states: All charges demanded or received by any public utility, or by any two or more public utilities, for any product or commodity furnished or to be furnished or any service rendered or to be rendered shall be just and reasonable. Every unjust or unreasonable charge demanded or received for such product or commodity or service is unlawful.
96 § 453 states:
(a) No public utility shall, as to rates, charges, service, facilities, or in any other respect, make or grant any preference or advantage to any corporation or person or subject any corporation or person to any prejudice or disadvantage.
(b) No public utility shall prejudice, disadvantage, or require different rates or deposit amounts from a person because of ancestry, medical condition, marital status or change in marital status, occupation, or any characteristic listed or defined in § 11135 of the Government Code. A person who has exhausted all administrative remedies with the commission may institute a suit for injunctive relief and reasonable attorney's fees in cases of an alleged violation of this subdivision. If successful in litigation, the prevailing party shall be awarded attorney's fees.
(c) No public utility shall establish or maintain any unreasonable difference as to rates, charges, service, facilities, or in any other respect, either as between localities or as between classes of service.
97 AT&T Phase II-A Opening Comments, pp. 6-8.
98 SureWest Phase II-A Opening Comments, p. 6.
99 Comments of CTIA on Proposed Decision of Commissioner Peevey, p. 11.
100 SureWest Phase II-A Opening Comments, p. 7.
101 Verizon California Phase II-A Opening Comments, p. 6.
102 Verizon Wireless Phase II-A Opening Comments, pp. 3, 6-8.
103 Comments of CTIA on Proposed Decision of Commissioner Peevey, p. 11. Opening Comments of Small LECs on Phase II Proposed Decision, p. 4. Opening Comments of SureWest on Phase II Proposed Decision, p. 4.
104 Greenlining Phase II-A Opening Comments, pp. 9-11, 13-14. Greenlining Phase II-A Reply Comments, pp. 5-6.
105 LIF Phase II-A Opening Comments, pp. 6-7.
106 TURN Phase II-A Reply Comments, pp. 1, 10.
107 TURN Phase II-A Reply Comments, p. 10. DRA Phase II-A Reply Comments, p. 2.
108 Res. T-14944, p. 4, and Attachment 1, Section B.4.
109 D.07-07-043, p. 40, FOFs 37 and 46.
110 D.07-07-043, COL 35.
111 Res. T-14944, pp. 4, 10.
112 OP 14.
113 AT&T Phase II-A Opening Comments, pp. 6-8. CTIA Phase II-A Opening Comments, pp. 4-5. CTIA Phase II-A Reply Comments, p. 2.
114 Small LECs Phase II-A Reply Comments, p. 2. SureWest Phase II-A Opening Comments, pp. 4, 7. SureWest Phase II-A Reply Comments, p. 2.
115 Verizon California Phase II-A Opening Comments, p. 2.
116 Verizon Wireless Phase II-A Opening Comments, pp. 3, 6-8.
117 DRA Phase II-A Reply Comments, pp. 1-3.
118 Greenlining Phase II-A Opening Comments, pp. 11-13. Greenlining Phase II-A Reply Comments, p. 6.
119 LIF Phase II-A Opening Comments, pp. 8-9.
120 TURN Phase II-A Reply Comments, pp. 7-9.
121 AT&T Phase II-A Opening Comments, p. 8. CTIA Phase II-A Opening Comments, p. 4. SureWest Phase II-A Opening Comments, p. 8. Small LECs Phase II-A Reply Comments, p. 3. Verizon California Phase II-A Opening Comments, p. 7. Verizon Wireless Phase II-A Opening Comments, p. 8.
122 LIF Phase II-A Opening Comments, pp. 6-7.
123 TURN Phase II-A Reply Comments, pp. 2, 7.
