Comments on Proposed Decision

The proposed decision of the ALJ in this matter was mailed to the parties in accordance with Section 311 of the Public Utilities Code and comments were allowed under Rule 14.3 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure. Comments were filed on October 6, 2008, and reply comments were filed on October 14, 2008.

Comments supporting the overlay were filed by the Joint Telecommunication Carriers,¹ Cox California Telecom L.L.C. dba Cox Communications, and the petitioners. Thousands of letters and electronic mail messages were also received. The Joint Telecommunication Carriers also provided an implementation schedule which has been included in today's decision.

Letters opposing the overlay were submitted by the Imperial County Board of Supervisors, State Senator Denise Moreno Ducheny, Assemblywoman Bonnie Garcia, the Coachella Valley Association of Governments, and the cities of Rancho Mirage, Desert Hot Springs, Hesperia, and Cathedral City, among other local government officials. The Commission received hundreds of letters and electronic mail messages opposing the overlay in the proposed decision and supporting the two-way geographic split in D.08-04-058.

Reply comments were filed by the petitioners and Cox Communications. The petitioners noted that the Commission had received approximately 850 informal letters, both postal and electronic, opposing the overlay and about 7,500 in favor.

¹ Bell Telephone Company dba AT&T California, New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC dba AT&T Mobility, Sprint Nextel Corporation, Telscape Communications, Inc., Verizon California Inc. and Verizon Wireless.