Comments on Proposed Decision
The proposed decision (PD) of the Commissioner in this matter was mailed to the parties in accordance with Pub. Util. Code § 311 and comments were allowed under Rule 14.3 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure. Comments were filed on the PD on March 30, 2009, and reply comments on April 6, 2009. The following parties filed comments on the PD: Citizens Telecommunications Company of California, Inc., d/b/a Frontier Communications Company of California, and SureWest Telephone ("Frontier/SureWest"); SprintNextel and tw telecom of California, lp ("SprintNextel and TimeWarner"); Verizon California Inc. ("Verizon"). Pacific Bell Telephone Company d/b/a AT&T California ("AT&T"), California Association of Competitive Telecommunications Companies ("CALTEL"), Frontier/SureWest, SprintNextel and TimeWarner, and Verizon filed reply comments. We address the comments below.
SprintNextel and TimeWarner assert that the PD fails to address explicitly whether CLECs and IXCs that are affiliated with ILECs may offer special access services on a detariffed basis.26 They argue that ILEC-affiliated CLECs and IXCs should not be able to detariff their special access services so as to prevent discrimination or pricing abuses by the affiliates. However, as the PD notes above, the Commission did address in D.08-09-015 the issue of whether CLECs and IXCs may detariff their special access services, as they have always had pricing flexibility for these services. The Commission did not exempt ILEC-affiliated CLECs and IXCs from this finding and these arguments have already been addressed. If the Commission finds evidence in the future that ILEC-affiliated CLECs and IXCs are discriminating or engaging in pricing abuses, we may reconsider this issue.27
Verizon seeks clarification as to whether services that are not "special access," as defined in the PD, are eligible for detariffing. Verizon specifically mentions that a service such as its "Transparent LAN" service is not "special access" as defined by the PD and should therefore be eligible for detariffing.28 SprintNextel and TimeWarner oppose Verizon's request and assert that Verizon's request lacks record support and is untimely.29 SprintNextel and TimeWarner further request that the Commission modify the definition of "special access" to reflect that it is the "Offering of non-switched lines dedicated to a customer's use between two or more points."30 We will not address the specific classification of Verizon's Transparent LAN service in this decision as such a clarification is outside of the scope of this decision. Furthermore, our previous decision made clear that retail services that were granted full pricing flexibility are eligible for detariffing.31 We decline to modify our definition of "special access" as defined above; however, we note that the definition of "special access" turns on whether there are dedicated connections between points, and not the amount of points at issue.
Frontier and SureWest seek Category III treatment for some special access services that they contend are currently being treated as Category II. Given that we did not revisit the pricing framework for special access services here, we decline to grant Frontier and SureWest's request. Instead, Frontier and SureWest may file an application to reclassify those Category II services that they believe should be Category III.
CALTEL asserts that we should not eliminate the requirement that the URF ILECs produce cost support for price decreases to Category II special access services, as requested by Verizon.32 As stated previously, we are not revising at this time our pricing regulation for the URF Carriers with regard to special access services.33 Therefore, there is no basis for eliminating the pre-existing requirements that URF ILECs must file cost support for price decreases to Category II special access services.
Based on the foregoing, we see no need to modify the PD as requested in the comments.
26 SprintNextel and TimeWarner Comments on PD, at 1.
27 As we noted above, any detariffed service must have its generally available rates, terms, and conditions posted on its website.
28 Verizon Comments on PD at 2.
29 SprintNextel and TimeWarner Reply Comments on PD, at 2.
30 SprintNextel and TimeWarner Reply Comments on PD at 3.
31 See D.08-09-015, at Conclusion of Law Para. 4.
32 CALTEL Comments on PD at 2; see Verizon Comments on PD at 2-3.
33 See D.06-08-030; D.009-08-015.
