3. Preliminary Scoping Memo

As required by Rule 7.1(d)4 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, this Order Instituting Rulemaking (OIR) includes a Preliminary Scoping Memo. In this Preliminary Scoping Memo, we describe the issues to be considered in this proceeding and the timetable for resolving the proceeding.

3.1. Issues

Public Utilities (P.U.) Code § 451 requires that telecommunications carriers provide a level of service "...as necessary to promote the safety, health, comfort, and convenience of its patrons...and the public." The Commission has a statutory duty to ensure that telephone corporations provide customer service that includes reasonable statewide service quality standards including, but not limited to, standards regarding network technical quality, customer service, installation, repair and billing. (D.09-07-019 at 12, P.U. Code § 2896.)

This OIR is opened to review the performance of telecommunications corporations in meeting GO 133-C service quality performance standards in 2010-2011, and to assess whether service quality measures adopted
in D. 09-07-019/GO 133-C:

· Meet the goals of the service quality measures (i.e., ensure that telecommunications carriers provide the level of service required by P.U. Code § 451);

· Provide consumers with relevant information to make informed communications service purchase decisions;

· Are relevant to today's regulatory environment and market;

· Need additional measures and/or penalty mechanisms added; and

· Should be revised to cover wholesale interconnection services as well as retail. If so, what revisions should be made?

Below are the questions to help guide filings regarding the issues identified above:

1. Are the adopted GO 133-C service quality standards appropriate and reasonable? If not, should new service quality standards be adopted or should existing standards be modified or eliminated?

2. Should additional Out-of-Service standards be established for Out-of-Service events in excess of 24 hours?

3. Why are many of the URF carriers consistently missing the service quality measurement standards for (a) Out-of-Service Repairs, and (b) Answer Times?

4. The current service quality standards and measures focus on retail customers. Should standards be adopted for wholesale service? If so, what should these standards and measures be?

5. Is it appropriate to implement a penalty mechanism when standards are not met? If so, what should it be?

6. Should exemptions be allowed for calculating reported service quality results for State of Emergency, Catastrophic Events and events beyond the control of the utility management? If so, should there be limitations on the geographic area(s) covered and/or the duration of the exemption?

7. Should carriers provide the Commission with additional service quality data in the aftermath of a catastrophic event? If so, what additional data is appropriate?

8. What other reporting requirements or measures are appropriate to evaluate quality of service?

9. Should the Commission hire a network consultant to: a) review and evaluate the service quality results; b) to evaluate and monitor telecommunications carrier's infrastructure, investments and manpower to improve service quality; and c) to help the Commission determine "best practices"? If so how should they be funded and who should administer the contract(s)?

10. Are competitive market forces sufficient to ensure service quality? What, if any, are the barriers to switching to other services and service providers if a customer is dissatisfied with the quality of wireline telephone service offered by their current provider?

11. How do carriers prioritize repairs between classes of customers, (e.g., retail vs. wholesale and business vs. residential) types of technologies, and types of services? Should residential service be given top priority for repair due to public safety and universal service obligations associated with residential service?

12. Is the service quality information posted at the Commission's website sufficient to provide consumers with the relevant information to make informed communications service purchasing decisions?

13. Should the Commission adopt service quality reporting standards for Wireless carriers?

14. Are there cost-effective engineering and design standards available that would prevent or better mitigate the effects of outages due to storms and other disruptions? If so, what are they?

15. Is the wireline network designed and maintained so as to minimize the duration of outages due to catastrophic events? If not, what should be done to rectify that?

16. Is the wireline network being properly maintained to serve Californians and the California economy? Is wireline service in California comparable to service in other states that have penalties for failure to maintain service or incentive regulation for service quality?

17. Are there any economic, regulatory, physical, or other barriers or disincentives that stifle or discourage wireline maintenance? What are the consequences of poor wireline maintenance? What can and should be done to foster proper and timely wireline maintenance?

We intend for the scope of this rulemaking to be broad, and accordingly grant the assigned Commissioner and assigned Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) discretion to revise the scope to include other relevant issues that may arise in answering these questions. This order invites parties to provide relevant information regarding the questions listed above.

3.2. Preliminary Schedule

The preliminary schedule is set forth below. We delegate to the assigned Commissioner and the ALJ the authority to set other dates in the proceeding or modify those below as necessary.

The determination on the need for further procedural measures, including the scheduling of a pre-hearing conference, discovery, technical workshops, and/or evidentiary hearings will be made in one or more rulings issued by the Assigned Commissioner. Any party who believes that an evidentiary hearing is required shall file a motion requesting such a hearing no later than ten business days after the filing of reply comments. Any such motion must identify and describe (i) the material issues of fact, (ii) the evidence the party proposes to introduce at the requested hearing, and (iii) the schedule for conducting the hearing. Any right that a party may otherwise have to an evidentiary hearing will be waived if the party does not submit a timely motion requesting an evidentiary hearing.

Following receipt of any such motions, the assigned Commissioner and ALJ shall determine the need for and extent of further procedural steps that are necessary to develop an adequate record to resolve this rulemaking, and shall issue rulings providing guidance to parties, as warranted.

This proceeding will conform to the statutory case management deadline for quasi-legislative matters set forth in Pub. Util. Code § 1701.5.

4 "Rulemakings. An order instituting rulemaking shall preliminarily determine the category and need for hearing and shall attach a preliminary scoping memo. The preliminary determination is not appealable, but shall be confirmed or changed by assigned Commissioner's ruling pursuant to Rule 7.3, and such ruling as to the category is subject to appeal under Rule 7.6."

Previous PageTop Of PageNext PageGo To First Page