Background

Raw Bandwidth Communications, Inc. (Raw Bandwidth) alleges that SBC California and SBC ASI discriminate in the provision of Digital Subscriber Lines (DSL) Transport, fail to furnish sufficient information for informed consumer choice, fail to furnish just and reasonable telephone service and DSL Transport, and unreasonably disconnect DSL Transport when the end user makes changes to their voice service in violation of Pub. Util. Code §§ 451, 453, 532, and 2896. Raw Bandwidth requests that the Commission order Defendants to revise certain business practices, audit telemarketing firms' scripts, not disconnect the DSL Transport service when changes are made to the underlying voice service, refund service charges to Raw Bandwidth, and impose penalties on Defendants.

Defendants separately answer and deny Raw Bandwidth's allegations, deny that Complainant is entitled to relief requested or any relief and contend that the Commission has no jurisdiction over non-telecommunications services at issue in the Complaint and over DSL Transport, which is jurisdictionally interstate. Defendants further contend that Federal Communications Commission (FCC) orders permit certain activities complained of and that certain relief requested is prohibited by law.

Prior to the PHC, the parties settled some issues and on July 8, 2003 Raw Bandwidth filed a request for withdrawal of two issues concerning listing Internet Service Providers (ISP) on the SBC.com web page. The request was unopposed and Raw Bandwidth's request to withdraw First Cause of Action, Count 1, and Second Cause of Action, Count 1, will be granted.

On June 30, 2003, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the verified complaint of Raw Bandwidth, because DSL Transport is an interstate service subject to the jurisdiction of the FCC. On August 19, Complainant filed a PHC statement and requested that action on two issues, concerning delay in moving DSL service from one address to another in the same central office and unreasonably disconnecting DSL Transport when the end user makes changes to voice service, be delayed. Complainant also reported that parties might settle other issues and that inaccuracies in the CD ROM versions of telephone bills have been resolved.