XIII. Service Quality Requirements
Service quality standards are subject to General Order 133-B. A number of other carrier-specific service standards also have developed over time. These issues are under active consideration in R. 02-12-004.
A. Position of Parties
AT&T contends that service quality regulations and marketing rules, such as customer disclosure rules, should apply uniformly to all carriers.747 It proposes that the Commission affirm that service quality regulation is uniform for all carriers, and any existing service quality requirements not uniformly applied to all carriers should be eliminated.748
Similarly, AT&T urges the Commission to adopt a policy in this phase that any customer disclosure information requirements should be applied uniformly across all market participants to the extent reasonably feasible.749 It contends that any existing customer disclosure information requirements not uniformly required of all carriers should be eliminated.750 At the workshop, AT&T concurred with DRA's proposal to discuss the specifics about monitoring reports in a follow-up workshop and address service quality issues in Phase 2 of this proceeding.751
Verizon discusses service quality as it is reviewed within the monitoring reports. In general, Verizon maintains that URF-specific monitoring reports should avoid duplication, and be limited to those that are consistent with the OIR's goals and vital to studying the effectiveness of the adopted framework.752 According to Verizon, its proposed framework is self-effectuating and, therefore, can be implemented expeditiously without the need to address specific details in Phase 2.753 Verizon's proposal for Phase 2 is for the Commission to have the parties, through workshops, quickly identify any URF-specific monitoring reports that are needed to replace the existing NRF monitoring regime.754
Frontier and SureWest observe that customer service is an important concern of the Commission: one in which it has achieved excellent results by constantly prioritizing the issue.755 The mid-size ILECs add that no party disputes this contention, and no matter what framework the Commission ultimately adopts, this priority should not change.756
Frontier and SureWest caution, however, that this proceeding should not be diverted or delayed in order to investigate or devise new rules regarding ILEC or industry service quality.757 Instead, they recommend that the issue be referred to R.02-12-004, the existing rulemaking addressing service quality issues. Frontier and SureWest add that the Commission should make any future service quality rules applicable industry-wide.758
DRA comments that the record on URF monitoring requirements was poorly developed.759 Consequently, it recommends that related details be developed in a follow-up workshop in which the experts compare notes, ask each other questions, and discuss the issue.760 The monitoring requirements then need to be tailored to whatever pricing scheme is adopted. DRA contends that until the Commission selects an overall regulatory framework, it is very difficult to talk concretely about what to monitor.761 It also proposes that parties address service quality issues in Phase 2.762
DisabRA points out that many Californians with disabilities are inadequately informed about what accessible and disability-related services and products are offered by providers. Even where providers do offer accessible products or services, or there is adaptive equipment that makes such products or services functionally accessible, "[a] lot of people with disabilities do not know that there's anything available to them."763
Consequently, DisabRA recommends that the Commission require all providers to inform customers and potential customers with disabilities about the accessibility of their products and services, including the availability of adaptive equipment, and about all disability-related products and services that they offer.764 This information could be disseminated in the same ways that other required information is disseminated to consumers - on the providers' websites and through bills and other mailings.
DRA further urges the Commission to monitor the quality of services provided to Californians with disabilities.765 In this phase of the proceeding, DisabRA asks the Commission to acknowledge that specific monitoring and auditing requirements are necessary in order to ensure that Californians with disabilities receive reasonably high quality service.766 It suggests that details of such requirements can be established in Phase 2.767
Finally, DisabRA asks the Commission to extend the Deaf and Disabled Trust Program (DDTP) to have it cover additional technologies.768 It maintains that such an extension would encourage investment in adaptive technology, greatly improve access to the network the disabled, and expand the telecommunications options for the disabled community.769 DisabRA urges the Commission to recognize in this phase that both the maintenance and expansion/extension of the DDTP program are necessary in order to ensure that Californians with disabilities have access to affordable and accessible telecommunications services.770
B. Discussion: Service Quality Issues are Best Addressed in R.02-12-00
In the OIR, the Commission specifically excluded issues related to the quality of service provided by AT&T and Verizon to other carriers.771 The Commission also deferred a long set of service quality issues to Phase 3 of the NRF (R.01-09-001/I.01-09-002) proceeding.772
Subsequently, on May 25, 2006, the Commission issued D.06-05-024, which resolved all of the outstanding issues of the fourth triennial review.773 This decision noted that the regulatory framework adopted in this proceeding likely would replace NRF. After receiving comments from the parties, the Commission closed R.01-09-001 and I.01-09-002. We held that most of the issues were superseded by issues in this proceeding.
On a separate track, the Commission opened Service Quality OIR 02-12-004 at the end of year 2002. There the Commission noted that it first developed industry-wide telecommunications service quality rules in 1970, and formulated standard telephone service indices for all telephone carriers774 by establishing General Order 133.775 Incremental changes were made to General Order 133 in 1983, resulting in General Order 133-A,776 777 and additional incremental changes to General Order 133-A in 1992, resulting in General Order 133-B. 778
In order to reflect current technological and business conditions, the service quality OIR now seeks to adopt revisions to existing service quality measures and standards779 applicable to telecommunications carriers.780 The Service Quality OIR set out the following goals for the proceeding: to determine the types of services for which measures and standards should apply; the kind of measures and standards that should apply to those services; the methods for calculating measures; the minimum levels that measured parameters of service should meet (i.e., "standards"); when and how the measures should be reported to this Commission; and the mechanisms that will be used to ensure compliance with established requirements.781 As evidenced by our discussion of the position of the parties, the parties in this proceeding did not present anything in detail regarding service quality issues like these described in the Service Quality OIR.
Rather than attempt to take up these issues today, we believe that the Service Quality OIR offers the most appropriate venue for determining how the Commission should act to promote service quality in this new competitive telecommunications setting. We, therefore, defer all service quality issues to that proceeding. Further issues relating to the Deaf and Disabled Telecommunications Program are to be addressed in R.06-05-028, our Universal Service rulemaking on public policy programs.
747 Pacific Bell Opening Brief at 71-72.
748 Comparison of URF Proposals; Pacific Bell Opening Brief at 4, 72-73.
749 Pacific Bell Opening Brief at 71-72.
750 Id.
751 WS-2 Tr. at 172.
752 Verizon Opening Brief at 4,5.
753 Id. at 4.
754 Verizon Opening Brief at 4-5.
755 SureWest Opening Brief at 32; Citizens Opening Brief at 28.
756 SureWest Opening Brief at 32; Citizens Opening Brief at 28.
757 SureWest Opening Brief at 32; Citizens Opening Brief at 28.
758 SureWest Opening Brief at 32; Citizens Opening Brief at 28.
759 WS-2 Tr. at 63.
760 Id.
761 Id.
762 Comparison of URF Proposals.
763 DRA Opening Brief at 23-27.
764 DisabRA Opening Brief at 24.
765 Id. at 23.
766 Id.
767 Id.
768 Id. at 26.
769 Id.
770 Id.
771 OIR, App. A.
772 OIR, App. A.
773 Decision Closing the Proceeding and Canceling the Rehearing of Decision (D.) 03-10-088 ordered by D.04-07-036 and D.04-12-024, D.06-05-024, 2006 Cal. PUC LEXIS.
774 One-half of service penalty of 0.2 percent in rate of return imposed by D 75873 removed upon finding that Gen. Tel. Co. of Cal . has improved its services; Gen. Tel. Co. of Cal . ordered to submit new survey of adequacy of service in pending Application No. 51904, D.77947 (1970), 71 CPUC 550.
775 Order Instituting Rulemaking on the Commission's Own Motion into the Service Quality Standards for All Telecommunications Carriers and Revisions to General Order 133-B, R.02-12-004 (2002), 2002 Cal. PUC LEXIS 868 (hereinafter R.02-12-004) (citing General Order No. 133, governing standards of telephone service, adopted, D.80082, 73 CPUC 426).
776 R.02-12-004 (citing Investigation on the Commission's own motion into the rates, tolls, rules, charges, operations, practices, contracts, service and facilities of General Telephone Company of California, a California coporation; and of the Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Company, a California coporation; and of all telephone corporations listed in Appendix A, attached hereto, D.83-11-062 (1983), 13 CPUC2d 220 (hereinafter D.83-11-062)).
777 R.02-12-004 (citing D.83-11-062).
778 R.02-12-004 (citing In the Matter of Amending Certain Clauses in General Order 133-A, Governing Service Standards for Telephone Companies, D.92-05-056 (1992), 44 CPUC2d 437).
779 "Measures" are the aspects or features of service subject to evaluation and reporting. "Standards" are the minimum acceptable values that measures must meet to be in compliance with the Commission's requirements.
780 Consistent with our Consumer Protection Rules, we define "carrier" under our service quality rules to include all entities, whether certificated or registered, that provide telecommunications-related products or services and are subject to the Commission's jurisdiction pursuant to the Public Utilities Code.
781 R.02-12-004, mimeo at.4.
