ALJ/AES/MOD-POD/tcg DRAFT Agenda ID #4040
BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Telscape Communications, Inc., Complainant, vs. Pacific Bell Telephone Company, Defendant. |
Case 02-11-011 (Filed November 5, 2002) |
John L. Clark, Goodin, MacBride, Squeri, Ritchie & Day, LLP, for Telscape Communications, Inc., complainant.
Randolph W. Deutsch, Sidley Austin Brown & Wood LLP, for AT&T Communications of California, Inc., intervenor.
William C. Harrelson, WorldCom, Inc., for WorldCom, Inc., intervenor.
Michael J. Kass, Pillsbury Winthrop LLP, for Pacific Bell Telephone Company, defendant.
Title Page
OPINION RESOLVING COMPLAINT 1
1. Summary 2
2. Regulatory Background 3
3. Statement of Facts 5
3.1 Complainants 5
3.2 Defendant 6
3.3 DSL and Local Voice Service 6
3.4 Winback Practices 9
3.5 OSS Issues 10
3.5.1. Non-recurring Charges 11
3.5.1.1. Exceptions to Flow-through 12
3.5.1.2. Exclusions from Flow-through 13
3.5.1.3 EISCC Cabling Charges 14
3.5.2. Billing 15
3.5.3. Waiver of Performance Measure Remedies 16
4. Discussion 17
4.1. DSL and Local Voice Service 17
4.2 Winback Practices 27
4.3 OSS Issues 29
4.3.1 Non-recurring Charges 29
4.3.1.1. Exceptions to Flow-through 29
4.3.1.2. Exclusions from Flow-through 32
4.3.1.3. EISCC Cable Charges 33
4.3.2. Billing 33
4.3.3. Waiver of Performance Measure Remedies 34
5. Appeals 35
6. Assignment of Proceeding 37
Findings of Fact 37
Conclusions of Law 42
ORDER 45
Appendix B
1. Summary
This complaint, filed by Telscape Communications, Inc. (Telscape), in which AT&T Communications of California, Inc. (AT&T) and WorldCom, Inc. (MCI)1 have intervened,2 alleges that several policies and practices of defendant Pacific Bell Telephone Company (SBC-CA)3 with respect to the provision of local exchange telephone service (local voice service) are anticompetitive and discriminatory. We find that SBC-CA's refusal to process orders for changing a customer's local voice service to that of a competitive local exchange carrier (CLEC) if the customer also subscribes to SBC Yahoo! DSL (SBC-CA's retail digital subscriber line (DSL)4 service) and, in some circumstances, other retail DSL service, violates Pub. Util. Code §§ 451 and 453(a).5
We further find that the partial settlement entered into by AT&T, MCI, and SBC-CA to resolve allegations that SBC-CA has abused the winback process and encouraged incorrect accusations of slamming is reasonable in light of the whole record, consistent with law, and in the public interest. We therefore approve it. We further require SBC-CA to extend its third-party verification process to include slamming allegations for residential local voice service.
We conclude that Telscape has not demonstrated that its broad objections to the functioning of SBC-CA's operational support systems (OSS) are well-founded, but we order SBC-CA to remedy deficiencies in its treatment of certain non-recurring service order charges, in its handling of billing disputes with CLECs, and in its implementation of its Performance Incentives Plan.
1 During the course of this proceeding, WorldCom changed its name to MCI, Inc. 2 We sometimes refer to complainant Telscape and the two intervenors collectively as "complainants." 3 During the course of this proceeding, defendant began using the name SBC California, and we will use it as well. 4 DSL is a broadband service that relies on the traditional copper telephone wire to transmit broadband data to and from the service customer's location. The signals for DSL travel through the high frequency portion of the loop (HFPL), while the signals for ordinary telephone service travel through the low frequency portion of the loop (LFPL). There are several types of DSL; asymmetric DSL is used in the circumstances addressed in this proceeding. Although the existence of different types of DSL is sometimes noted by using the acronym "xDSL," we refer simply to "DSL." A table of acronyms is provided in Appendix A. 5 Unless otherwise indicated, all subsequent citations to sections refer to the Public Utilities Code, and citations to rules refer to the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, which are codified at Chapter 1, Division 1 of Title 20 of the California Code of Regulations.
