VI. Assignment of Proceeding
Geoffrey F. Brown is the Assigned Commissioner and Janice Grau is the assigned Administrative Law Judge in this proceeding.
1. SBC ASI's General Terms & Conditions for DSL Transport require that DSL Transport be offered via a line sharing arrangement. DSL Transport no longer is offered once the voice line is disconnected. Defendants' practice is that five days after dial tone has been suspended for nonpayment of basic service charges, Defendants notify the ISP, either its affiliated ISP or an unaffiliated ISP, that DSL Transport is being disconnected and disconnect the line.
2. SBC Communications, Inc. committed to negotiate alternative rates, terms, and conditions with unaffiliated ISPs for broadband access arrangements.
3. SBC California transfers over 10,000 calls per month from its 611 IVR to its affiliated ISP, SBCIS.
4. SBC California does not transfer calls from its 611 IVR to unaffiliated ISPs.
5. If an SBCIS subscriber with a DSL repair problem dials 611 from an SBC California telephone line, the caller receives an IVR prompt that will permit the customer to be connected to SBCIS without having to hang up and dial a new number. A non-SBCIS subscriber with a DSL problem who dials 611 from an SBC California telephone line receives an IVR prompt to hang up and call the subscriber's ISP.
6. SBC California does not have a CEI offering or tariff for access to or transfer from 611.
7. Raw Bandwidth mentions Pub. Util. Code § 453 and 47 U.S.C. § 202 in opening and reply briefs in support of its argument that SBC California's 611 connection procedure violates the statutes' anti-discrimination requirements.
8. The December 22, 2003 ruling addressed Raw Bandwidth's contention that SBC ASI's disconnection procedure is not just and reasonable under Pub. Util. Code §§ 451 and 2896(c).
9. The scoping memo set three issues for hearing. Raw Bandwidth requested other issues be put on hold, because Raw Bandwidth had not decided how to pursue them. Raw Bandwidth requested two issues set for hearing be removed from the calendar because they had been settled.
10. The September 11, 2003 ACR partially granted Defendants' motion to dismiss and granted Raw Bandwidth leave to amend the complaint to request relief that would obviate privacy concerns.
11. Raw Bandwidth's First Amended Complaint added new counts to its Third Cause of Action.
1. Defendants are required to negotiate certain terms and conditions with ISPs; these terms may include advance notice to Raw Bandwidth of DSL Transport disconnection incidental to termination for nonpayment of basic service to an SBC California subscriber.
2. The FCC's Computer III rules govern SBC California's obligations regarding enhanced services.
3. The FCC's Computer III rules do not prohibit the differential treatment of subscribers described in Findings of Fact 3 and 4.
4. Pub. Util. Code § 453 does not prohibit the differential treatment described in Findings of Fact 3 and 4.
5. DSL Transport is not a basic service under Commission rules and can be disconnected if a subscriber fails to pay basic service charges. DSL Transport is a basic service under the FCC's Computer III rules.
6. The inadvertent transfer of unaffiliated ISPs' subscribers with DSL repair concerns to SBCIS does not raise competitive concerns. Defendants must address subscribers' inquiries before marketing SBCIS DSL service.
7. Mere mention of statutes without supporting legal argument based on specific facts does not prove those statutes are violated.
8. All counts not within the scope of the proceeding as set forth in the scoping memo are dismissed. All counts set forth hearing and then settled also are dismissed.
9. It is reasonable to make this order effective today in order to provide conduct guidance.
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. The complaint of Raw Bandwidth Communications, Inc. is denied.
2. Defendants shall negotiate terms and conditions of service to Raw Bandwidth, as required by order of the Federal Communications Commission and discussed in the foregoing opinion.
3. The hearing determination is changed. Hearings are not necessary.
4. Case 03-05-023 is closed.
This order is effective today.
Dated _____________________, at San Francisco, California.
