14. Further Review of In-Language Issues
Greenlining and LIF present anecdotal evidence that individuals with limited English proficiency face two disadvantages in the telecommunications market.363 On the one hand, while carriers may provide accurate and useful information about their services in English, minority language customers typically cannot understand it due to the language barrier.364 On the other hand, minority customers are also targeted for fraudulent and deceptive communications in their own languages by unscrupulous businesses that prey on minority language communities.365
Greenlining and LIF call for prompt Commission action on these in-language issues. While supporting enactment of limited in-language rules in this proceeding,366 both consumer groups strongly endorse timely further investigation and analysis of in-language issues.367 Greenlining asserts that "[p]roper research and documentation of the problems faced disproportionately by limited English speakers is the most important step in protecting the most vulnerable consumers."368
In response we direct Commission staff to analyze and create a report on in-language practices and any special disadvantages faced by telecommunications customers with limited English proficiency. Building upon the anecdotal evidence, this Staff Report will help us assess whether in-language needs are sufficiently met by our education and enforcement efforts, and whether any related rules should be adopted by the Commission. At this point we do not have sufficient evidence in the record on which to decide whether we need any in-language rules, and if so, what they would be.369
T-Mobile supports this approach. It states that "to first attempt to understand current carrier practices and customers experiences, then identify whether there are any issues that need to be addressed and finally to determine how best to address those issues, if any, seems consistent with a sound regulatory approach." In particular T-Mobile notes that it is particularly important that in-language issues are addressed in "an appropriate and thoughtful manner,"370 because of the "incredible cultural and language diversity in California."371
The state's diversity and large number of individuals with limited English proficiency are structural features that are unlikely to change in the near future.372 Thus the Staff Report should serve both as a short-term action document with respect to potential new rules and education and enforcement programs, but also as a longer-term reference document.
We intend for Commission staff to develop a report that verifies the languages identified for education elsewhere in this decision, reviews the challenges faced by those with limited English proficiency relating to communications services, and enumerates recommendations for effective programs and strategies for communicating relevant information in multiple languages. The probable cost of each recommendation should also be included. We commit to provide the personnel resources necessary to prepare such a report. On an organizational basis, we note that preparation of the report will require inter-divisional cooperation, as our education and enforcement functions are carried out by multiple divisions.
Greenlining provides a number of useful suggestions regarding issues we should try to address in our in-language report. In particular it recommends that we seek out data on the following topics:
(a) the number of consumers who speak English as a second language, read/write in English, and read/write in their first language; (b) the percentage of limited English speakers that were advised they could negotiate a payment plan with the service provider and tried to do so (limited English speaker vs. English speaker); (c) consumer satisfaction of any complaint resolution obtained by CAB or a CBO (limited English speaker vs. English speaker); (d) the percentage of limited English speakers that initially tried to complain to the service provider but could not due to language difficulties; (e) percentage of limited English speakers that re-contracted for lifeline service (i.e., that understood that each year a new contract must be signed to continue lifeline service) as opposed to English speakers; and (f) data already obtained by CAB or CBOs.373
Other relevant issues Greenlining identifies include the translation quality of carriers' documents and consumer literacy of technological terms.374 Greenlining adds that identifying what telecommunications "providers are doing well would serve to clarify which procedures or services are successful in limited English speaking communities."375 We direct Commission staff to consider Greenlining's suggestions when seeking out data for the in-language report.
In creating this report we may draw upon our experience with other Commission outreach efforts, such as the Electric Education Trust, that have featured an in-language component. staff should compile a list of these past Commission activities and summarize the lessons and findings from them. Also this review of education efforts may extend outside our state. Other state utility commissioners or federal agency officials, such as those at the FCC or FTC, may be able to provide relevant information regarding how they provide information and other services in foreign languages to multicultural populations.
Further information regarding programs made and problems encountered relating to multilingual service may be filed in reports submitted to the Commission. The CPUC requires incumbent and midsized LECs to provide various reports, including some that review in-language matters.376
Moreover we intend to draw upon the knowledge and experience of CBOs, carriers, and others who serve and advocate on behalf of communities with significant language needs. We, therefore, direct staff to hold at least two workshops at two different phases of the study. This first workshop will occur after staff circulates a study plan that identifies past Commission efforts, state and federal agencies to be surveyed, and other information sources encompassed within the study. This workshop's agenda will include discussion of those data sources, particularly the strengths and limitations of each. Workshop participants will be afforded an opportunity to identify other sources, offer any research, experience, and/or in-house data applicable to the tasks identified in the study plan. The second workshop will occur after staff releases a draft report. This workshop will allow participants an opportunity to discuss and comment upon the report before a final version is issued.
The sooner the staff Report is available, the sooner we will have a sufficient record to decide whether to make any necessary modifications to our rules or our education and enforcement programs. Thus we direct staff to submit its final in-language report no later than 180 days of issuance of this decision.
Finally, in preparation for any regulatory action that may be directed by the study, we will open a proceeding specifically designed to address in-language issues. If called for by the Staff Report, this proceeding may be used to require telecommunications carriers to abide by new in-language rules. Greenlining supports opening of this additional proceeding to address the potential adoption of in-language requirements.377
363 Greenlining Opening Comments, p. 9; LIF Opening Comments, pp. 1-2.
364 Greenlining Opening Comments, p. 9; Opening Brief of Latino Issues Forum, p. 2 (Oct. 24, 2005) ("LIF Opening Brief").
365 Greenlining Opening Comments, p. 9; LIF Opening Brief, p.2, 4-6.
366 Greenlining Opening Comments, p. 9; LIF Reply Comments, p. 8.
367 Greenlining Opening Comments, p. 9 (supporting an in-language report that will seek to determine and analyze problems faced by non-English or limited-English speakers); LIF Opening Comments, p. 6. (calling for development of a full evidentiary record on in-language issues).
368 Greenlining Grueneich Alternate Comments, p. 4
369 See Part 3.1 for further discussion of evidence presented.
370 Reply Comments of Omnipoint Communications, Inc., dba T-Mobile, on the Proposed Decision of Commissioners Peevey and Kennedy, p. 3 (Jan. 23, 2006).
371 Id.
372 A significant number of California residents speak a language other than English. Approximately two out of every five California residents speaks a language other than English at home. Californians' Use of English and Other Languages: Census 2000 Summary (June 2003), http://www.stanford.edu/dept/csre/reports/report_14.pdf, p. 1. Thirty-one percent of the households that speak Asian/Pacific Island language are linguistically isolated, as compared to twenty-six percent of Spanish-speaking and seventeen percent of Indo-European speaking. Id. at 3. A household is linguistically isolated if all members fourteen years old and over have at least some difficulty with English. Id. at 1.
373 Greenlining Grueneich Alternate Comments, pp. 7-8.
374 Id. at 8.
375 Id.
376 The CPUC established a monitoring program for Pacific Bell and GTE (now AT&T California and Verizon California, Inc.) and refined it in D.91-07-056. Subsequently this program was extended to Citizens Telecommunications Company of California (dba Frontier Telecommunications Company of California) in D.95-11-024 and to Roseville Telephone Company (now SureWest Telephone) in D.96-12-074.
377 Greenlining Grueneich Alternate Comments, p. 4.
