II. Legislative Background and Procedural History
To promote competition for broadband and video services, the Legislature created a new state video franchising process in DIVCA.10 This process was effected by additions to the Public Utilities Code (Division 2.5, commencing with § 5800, and Article 4, commencing with § 440, to Chapter 2.5 of Part 1, Division 1), as well as by amendments to Public Utilities Code § 401 and Revenue and Taxation Code § 107.7.
In DIVCA, the Legislature found and declared that "increasing competition for video and broadband services is a matter of statewide concern."11 The Legislature noted that video providers offer "numerous benefits to all Californians including access to a variety of news, public information, education, and entertainment programming."12 According to the Legislature, "competition for video service should increase opportunities for programming that appeals to California's diverse population and many cultural communities."13 The Legislature added that increased video service competition "lowers prices, speeds the deployment of new communication and broadband technologies, creates jobs, and benefits the California economy."14
DIVCA directs the Commission to issue state franchises for the provision of video services in the state. It declares that the state video franchising process should achieve the following objectives:
Create a fair and level playing field for all market competitors that does not disadvantage or advantage one service provider or technology over another.
Promote the widespread access to the most technologically advanced cable and video services to all California communities in a nondiscriminatory manner regardless of socioeconomic status.
Protect local government revenues and their control of public rights of way rights-of-way.
Require market participants to comply with all applicable consumer protection laws.
Complement efforts to increase investment in broadband infrastructure and close the digital divide.
Continue access to and maintenance of the public, education, and government (PEG) channels.
Maintain all existing authority of the California Public Utilities Commission as established in state and federal statutes.15
In DIVCA, the Legislature further observed that the public interest is best served when the Commission is appropriately funded and staffed, and thereby able to give timely and full consideration to these and other related issues brought before it.16
On October 6, 2006, we initiated this proceeding to adopt a general order and establish procedures for implementing DIVCA. The Order Instituting Rulemaking (OIR) provided a draft General Order for public comment. The OIR also established a cycle of comments and replies that would assess whether the Commission is adopting reasonable rules and procedures to implement the new statute.
Opening Comments were due on October 25, 2006. AT&T California (AT&T); California Cable and Telecommunications Association (CCTA); California Community Technology Policy Group and Latino Issues Forum (CCTPG/LIF); the Consumer Federation of California (CFC); the Cities of Arcadia, Berkeley, Long Beach, Redondo Beach, and Walnut (Joint Cities); the City of Pasadena (Pasadena); the City of San Jose (San Jose); the City of Oakland (Oakland); the Division of Ratepayer Advocates (DRA); the Greenlining Institute (Greenlining); the County of Los Angeles (Los Angeles County); the League of California Cities and States of California and Nevada Chapter of the National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors (League of Cities/SCAN NATOA); Calaveras Telephone Company, Cal-Ore Telephone Co., Ducor Telephone Company, Foresthill Telephone Co., Global Valley Networks, Inc., Happy Valley Telephone Company, Hornitos Telephone Company, Kerman Telephone Company, Pinnacles Telephone Co., The Ponderosa Telephone Co., Sierra Telephone Company, Inc., The Siskiyou Telephone Company, Volcano Telephone Company, and Winterhaven Telephone Company (Small LECs); SureWest Televideo (SureWest); the Communications Workers of America (CWA) (filing late); The Utility Reform Network (TURN); and Verizon California, Inc. (Verizon) filed opening comments.
Reply Comments were due on November 1, 2006. AT&T; the Broadband Institute of California (BBIC); CCTA; CCTPG/LIF; Los Angeles County, the City of Los Angeles, and the City of Carlsbad (Los Angeles and Carlsbad Responders); DRA; Greenlining; League of Cities/SCAN NATOA; Oakland; Small LECs; SureWest; TURN; and Verizon filed reply comments.
10 Id. at § 5810(a)(1). The Digital Infrastructure and Video Competition Act of 2006 became effective on January 1, 2007.
11 Id. at § 5810(a)(1).
12 Id. at § 5810(a)(1)(A).
13 Id. at § 5810(a)(1)(D).
14 Id. at § 5810(a)(1)(B).
15 Id. at § 5810(2).
16 Id. at § 5810(3).
