VI. Information Required to Complete an Application
Section IV of our draft General Order described the five steps required to obtain a state video franchise. The OIR sought comments on whether: (i) Section IV is consistent with DIVCA; (ii) the description of our state video franchise application process is clear; and (iii) the proposed application elements are reasonable. We also solicited comments on the design and language of the state video franchise application.
Parties' responses were so extensive that we cannot address them in a single section. Consequently, we divide our assessment of these comments among Sections IV-XI. We begin our review by addressing comments on the information required to complete the application.
A. Service Area and Expected Deployment Information
DIVCA requires an applicant to provide information on both "its video service area footprint" and the "expected date for the deployment of video service." These requirements are split between two parts of Public Utilities Code § 5840(e). First, Public Utilities Code § 5840(e)(6) directs applicants to give "[a] description of the video service area footprint that is proposed to be served, as identified by a collection of United States Census Bureau Block numbers (13 digit) or a geographic information system digital boundary meeting or exceeding national map accuracy standards." Second, Public Utilities Code § 5840(e)(8) requires that a state video franchise application contain "[t]he expected date for the deployment of video service in each of the areas identified in paragraph (6)."
Parties' comments on implementation of these statutory provisions focus on the level of detail that we should seek concerning "the video service footprint" and "expected date for the deployment of video service." Some parties argue that DIVCA does not provide justification for requiring detailed and disaggregated information, while other parties assert that such information is necessary and important.
AT&T states that application information regarding the applicant's proposed video service area footprint and expected deployment dates "may include trade secrets."137 "If cable companies knew exactly where new competition would arrive, and when," AT&T argues, "they could carefully target price promotions and other tactics that would thwart competition and customer choice."138 Given its concerns, AT&T asks that the General Order include explicit acknowledgement of the Commission's obligation to protect trade secrets.139
Verizon maintains that the proposed state video franchise application required deployment information at a much more granular level than specified in DIVCA. According to Verizon, the "census block numbers (13-digits)" referred to in DIVCA are, in "Census Bureau parlance," numbers establishing a census block group.140 Thus, Verizon concludes that the Commission has impermissibly exceeded its authority under DIVCA by requiring deployment data on a census block basis, which is much more granular than a census block group basis.141
More generally, Verizon argues that "information should not be required at any granular geographic level and should be subject to confidential treatment."142 "Without adequate measures to protect proprietary business information," Verizon contends that "such data will signal future business plans throughout a holder's potential service areas to all competitors. Disclosure of this information will put an applicant at a competitive disadvantage."143 Accordingly, Verizon recommends that the Commission "provide that any information obtained by cities pursuant to the application process or any process under the Act is subject to the provisions of General Order 66-C as well as these [Penal Code § 637.5(c)] provisions."144
In contrast to AT&T and Verizon, TURN supports our collection of granular data. TURN argues that disaggregated data are necessary for the Commission to assess the applicant's "ability and commitment to fulfill the requirements of DIVCA."145
DRA states that DIVCA calls for applicants to be required to disclose their expected deployment information on a census block number or geographic information system basis.146 DRA adds that "neither the proposed area footprint nor the expected deployment dates warrant confidential treatment, but instead should remain as public information."147 According to DRA, the "[i]ntended deployment areas and dates for intended deployment require notice under relevant sections of Division 2.5 . . . ."148 DRA also charges that AT&T "failed to provide any cite to the DIVCA to justify its request for confidential treatment."149
CCTPG/LIF contends that "[t]he video service footprint data and the plan for build out . . . is absolutely necessary for the Commission to enforce its responsibilities under § 5840(e)(B)(i) and § 5890 . . . [and] must be supplied to the Commission, local governments and DRA, as required by § 5890(g). In addition, it should be publicly available to parties interested in combating the Digital Divide."150 CCTPG/LIF argues that there is no support to the claim that "video service footprint and the plan for build out . . . is proprietary data."151
League of Cities/SCAN NATOA notes that "[s]everal parties express concerns that state franchise holders could be required to submit reports and information to the Commission that are overbroad, unnecessary or that require the provider to disclose confidential or proprietary information. The Commission should not be swayed by such arguments."152
CCTA recognizes the need for Commission information requests. CCTA states that "the Commission is compelled by the Legislation to collect data and review compliance with discrimination provisions, build-out requirements and cross-subsidy restrictions, and to the extent that the reporting formats facilitate compliance, the Commission should have information at its disposal."153
Greenlining states that it "needs more time to assess the implications of the data it wishes to exclude such as the expected date of deployment by census block."154 It, therefore, declines to take a position on data requested.
Our analysis begins with an applicant's description of its proposed video service area footprint. Public Utilities Code § 5840(e)(6) gives an applicant two choices for how it may describe its proposed video service area footprint: (i) with "a collection of United States Census Bureau Block numbers (13 digit)" or (ii) with "a geographic information system digital boundary meeting or exceeding national map accuracy standards."
We conclude that the draft application that we previously proposed requested information at a level inconsistent with Public Utilities Code § 5840(e)(6)(a). We now recognize that "United States Census Bureau Block numbers (13 digit)," cited in Public Utilities Code §§ 5840(e)(6), are equivalent to census block groups in standard "Census Bureau parlance."155 Thus, we revise the application so that it gives applicants the option of describing their proposed video service area footprints as a collection of census block groups, rather than census blocks.
We now turn to the requirement for an applicant to list its expected dates of deployment. Pursuant to Public Utilities Code § 5840(e)(8), applicants must provide "[t]he expected date for the deployment of video service in each of the areas" described in Public Utilities Code § 5840(e)(6). These "areas," pursuant to Public Utilities Code § 5840(e)(6), are either collections of census block groups or regions defined by geographic information system boundaries. DIVCA is silent on how small or large these individual collections or regions may be. Clarification of these requirements is delegated to the Commission.
We conclude that each "area," referenced in Public Utilities Code § 5840(e)(8), is a set of contiguous (i) groupings of census block groups or (ii) regions that are mapped using geographic information system technology. Thus, an applicant must provide an expected date of deployment for the entirety of each noncontiguous grouping or region included in its proposed video service area footprint. These data will help us to anticipate an applicant's future build out, but is not so granular as to put new video service providers in competitive jeopardy. This approach also corresponds to common meanings of the word "area."
We find that requiring any further level of granularity would be contrary to the intent of DIVCA. We heed Verizon and AT&T's concerns that our requiring granular data could put some applicants "at a competitive disadvantage."156 We do not want new video market entrants to suffer a competitive disadvantage due to public release of granular estimates of their video deployment dates.157 This result would be contrary to the intent of DIVCA. As indicated by Public Utilities Code § 5810(a)(2)(A), the statute was designed to "[c]reate a fair and level playing field for all market competitors that does not disadvantage or advantage one service provider or technology over another."
DRA's and TURN's calls for extremely granular information are unpersuasive.158 First, reporting at their proposed level of detail is not required by the statute. Second, TURN and DRA fail to acknowledge or address the potential anticompetitive effects of public disclosure of deployment data at the census block level. Third, the consumer organizations disregard the fact that the Commission, pursuant to Public Utilities Code § 5960, has other means of obtaining detailed deployment data, which will be subject to confidentiality protection.159 Indeed, video deployment data required by Public Utilities Code § 5960 is more useful for our assessment of build-out compliance, because these data focus on actual deployment, rather than the mere projections called for at the time of application.160
Finally, we find that we cannot afford confidential treatment to expected deployment data or any other portion of the state video franchise application. Despite AT&T's and Verizon's requests, we find no statutory basis for providing such protection.161 DIVCA does not give the information in the application the same protections that it gives information provided to the Commission in subsequent reports.162 Moreover, we have no ability to prohibit public distribution of application information. Affected local entities have a right to all the information provided in the application, and DIVCA does not give us authority to impose confidentiality requirements on these local entities.163
B. Socioeconomic Status Information
Public Utilities Code § 5840(e)(6) and (7) require an applicant to provide the "socioeconomic status information" of all residents within its proposed video service area and telephone service area (if applicable). The statute, however, does not define what specific data qualifies as socioeconomic status information.
In the context of legislation focused on communications, the OIR interpreted "socioeconomic status information" to include data on household access to and usage of broadband and video services. This section discusses and assesses parties' comments on required socioeconomic status information.
DRA praises the draft General Order and application for adopting "an efficient and consistent approach for the collection of the required socioeconomic information. . . ."164 By relying "on the statute itself for guidance," DRA argues that "the Commission here has not overstepped the bounds of its authority. Rather, it has appropriately implemented the requirements of § 5840(e)(6) and (7) by using a definition and requirement which are already in the statute. . . ."165
TURN agrees that the socioeconomic status information requested is "precisely the kind of information discussed in the statute."166 According to TURN, the "identified information is necessary for the Commission to engage in a reasoned assessment of a franchise applicant's credentials and ability and commitment to fulfill the requirements of DIVCA."167
"[I]f it is a burden for applicants to immediately provide such data," CCTPG/LIF declares that "it is not a fatal violation of DIVCA" to give applicants additional time to submit socioeconomic status data.168 CCTPG/LIF does not protest "a four month delay in the data" if "it does not delay the Commission's review and review and reporting, notification to applicants' of potential discrimination and requirements for modification."169
Verizon argues that the Commission's description of socioeconomic status information is overbroad and inconsistent with the Act."170 First, Verizon contends that "[n]o need for this level of information exists at the time of application, as its articulated purpose is to enable the Commission to annually compile the aggregated report to the Governor and Legislature. . . ."171 Second, Verizon asserts that requiring information as of January 1 of the year in which the applicant applies "will be impossible to satisfy for applications submitted early in the year."172 Third, Verizon argues that defining the socioeconomic status information in this manner "runs afoul of section 5840(b)'s requirement that the application process not exceed the provisions set forth in section 5840."173 Fourth, "however `socioeconomic' is defined in normal usage," Verizon declares that "nothing in the Act compels an interpretation that includes access or subscription to broadband or video service. Access to these services is neither a social nor an economic factor."174
Given these alleged contradictions, Verizon urges us to modify the application to request only one form of socioeconomic information: residents' income.175 Verizon reasons that "the only discrimination expressly addressed in the act is discrimination against potential video subscribers based on their income."176 Furthermore, Verizon maintains that "the application should provide the most currently available Census Bureau income information, which is 2000 data."177
SureWest "concurs with Verizon's proposal to limit the definition of `socioeconomic status information' to income."178 SureWest contends that the Legislature did not intend for additional information to be included in the state-issued franchise application, "otherwise it would have indicated as such in Section 5840."179
AT&T calls for us to refrain from clarifying what the statute means when it refers to "socioeconomic status information."180 AT&T lists three reasons for this recommendation: (i) the "collection, preparation and submission of additional data required by the GO and application form would be costly and time-consuming"; (ii) "the additional data are not relevant to the processing of a franchise application; and (iii) the additional requirements are contrary to AB 2987."181 Alternatively, AT&T requests that, if the specified socioeconomic data are required, "it should be accorded the same confidential treatment it would enjoy if it were reported annual pursuant to section 5960."182
Small LECs states that socioeconomic status information should not include broadband availability or video availability data.183 According to Small LECs, socioeconomic status information "should be limited to income information, since this in the only type of information that could be relevant to the Commission's review of franchise applications."184
We, like DRA, find that our definition of "socioeconomic status information" properly relies on the statute for guidance. Our focus on access and adoption of communications services is appropriate in the context of legislation devoted to digital infrastructure and video competition. We have not overstepped the bounds of our authority; rather, we have "appropriately implemented the requirements of § 5840(e)(6) and (7) by using a definition and requirement which are already in the statute. . . ."185
We recognize that access and subscription to advanced communication technologies are important socioeconomic indicators. Indeed, broadband and video services now are becoming increasingly important to active participation in our modern-day economy and society. For example, rural California residents may use broadband services to sell or purchase goods they may not otherwise have access to, or they may use online video services to learn about news at home or abroad. Verizon's claim that access to broadband and video services "is neither a social nor economic factor" rings hollow.186
In contrast to our proposal, Verizon's recommended definition for socioeconomic status information is unduly constricted.187 The Merriam-Webster online dictionary defines "socioeconomic" as "of, relating to, or involving a combination of social and economic factors."188 Looking only at income, as proposed by Verizon, focuses too narrowly on economic factors, and does not encompass "social factors."
Moreover, limiting socioeconomic status information to household income fails to account for the broader legislative purposes to "[p]romote the widespread access to the most technology advanced . . . video services"189 and "[c]omplement efforts to increase investment in broadband infrastructure and close the digital divide."190 Income information alone does not provide us appropriate initial benchmarks by which to measure our success in fulfilling these purposes.
Similar to Verizon, AT&T criticizes our proposed definition, but fails to provide an appropriate alternative.191 AT&T's proposal to not define "socioeconomic" would lead to confusion by applicants as to what information we expect to be filed with the Commission. Indeed, parties' comments demonstrate that reasonable people can disagree regarding the appropriate definition of "socioeconomic status information."192
We also find that early collection of broadband and video services information will give us time to address and resolve any data collection and analysis issues that may arise. By the terms of the statute, we have three months to assess extensive broadband and video services data upon their receipt, and we must produce a report on these findings by July 1, 2008. Additional time to prepare for this reporting obligation is critical to ensuring that we are capable of fulfilling the statutory reporting requirement.
We, however, recognize that carriers may have issues with meeting our application reporting requirements. In particular, special issues may arise if a company applies for a state video franchise early in the year. As recognized by AT&T and Verizon, it takes time for a communications company to collect and process year-end internal video and broadband data.193
Thus, we will deem the requirement for "socioeconomic status information" satisfied if an applicant attests in its application that it will provide us the requested broadband and video information within 90 calendar days of the date when the Commission issues a state video franchise to the applicant. This modification ensures that we have appropriate broadband and video information for reviewing a company's progress, but does not impose an unnecessary barrier to entry. Also the three-month time period mirrors the amount of time allotted to state video franchise holders for their preparation of annual broadband and video reports.194
The revised application now clarifies that applicants shall utilize U.S. Census projections of low-income households available as of January 1, 2007 to determine the number of low-income households. This reporting period is the same as that employed in the annual broadband and video reports required pursuant to Public Utilities Code § 5960.
Finally, we afford socioeconomic status information the same confidential protection as annual broadband and video data submitted pursuant to Public Utilities Code § 5960. The required socioeconomic data are granular: Required reporting is on a "census tract basis," as detailed in Appendix D and Section II of Appendix E. Further explanation of revisions related to how socioeconomic status data are collected are explained and justified in Section XIII below.
C. Additions to the Application and the Affidavit
Based on our review of DIVCA and parties' comments, we conclude that few additions to the state video franchise application and affidavit are warranted. This section reviews parties' proposed changes to the application and affidavit below.
Parties raise concerns regarding the content and clarity of the state video franchise application. Some parties request additional application content, while others request current content to be rephrased or deleted.
Several communications companies protest expanding any requirements of the proposed state video franchise application. First, SureWest contends that "nowhere in the Franchise Act is there explicit authorization for the Commission to require" expansion of the application.195 Second, Small LECs argues that additional application requirements would "unduly increase the costs of the program, and create unnecessary delays and burdens in processing and approving video franchise applications."196 Third, AT&T protests our requiring any information in the application if the information is not explicitly required by Public Utilities Code § 5840.197
In response to these arguments, we note that we will consider each of the requests for changes in light of the statutory application requirements and the statutory constraints on our authority. The limited changes we adopt in the sections below are necessary and reasonable.
Joint Cities urges us to modify the state video franchise application to "include information on all parent entities, if more than one, including the ultimate parent."198 We find that this request is reasonable and based upon the statute. Public Utilities Code § 5840(e)(5) states that the applicant must provide the "legal name, address, and telephone number of the applicant's parent company, if any." The statute provides no exception that allows an applicant to omit listing a parent company if the applicant has more than one parent company. Accordingly, we clarify that the Application must include information on all parent entities, including the ultimate parent.
CFC argues that the "Commission does not explain in Paragraph IV.1.a. of the GO what proof of `legal' and `technical' qualification is expected . . . ."199 We, however, find that our bond requirement eliminates the need for any further explanation. As discussed in SectionVII, the Commission is requiring the submission of a bond in order to provide "[a]dequate assurance that the applicant possesses the financial, legal, and technical qualifications necessary to construct and operate the proposed system and promptly repair any damage to the public right-of-way caused by the applicant."200
Joint Cities asks the Commission to update annually the local entity contact information for each municipality.201 According to Joint Cities, the Commission should take "information-gathering steps."202 Joint Cities encourages the Commission to "work with local governments" to develop "standard information solicitation forms" for local entity contact information; gross revenue documentation provided to the local entities by the state video franchise holders; and PEG information.203
In response to Joint Cities, we clarify that the Commission will continue to work with local entities to ensure strong communication channels. We view the local entities as our partners in oversight of state video franchise holders. We have worked with and expect to continue to work with individual cities and organizations, such as the League of Cities, to develop communication systems and other documentation to facilitate the success of the new state video franchise system.
Concerning the specific items requested above, we find that these items are best addressed at the administrative level of the Commission. We anticipate that action on these specific items will commence following the staffing of the Commission's new video franchise unit.
e) Discussion of Plans for Complying with
Antidiscrimination and Build-Out Requirements
TURN states that the "application process should require applicants to present how they intend to meet the statute's build-out and anti-discrimination requirements."204 We, however, decline to add this requirement to the application. To address antidiscrimination and build-out issues, we will rely upon the reporting requirements and enforcement procedures already provided by DIVCA and fully described and addressed in Sections XIII, XXIV and XV respectively. Requiring further information on what state video franchise applicants "intend" is not necessary. Our enforcement will be based on what applicants do, not their initial intentions.
Greenlining calls for imposition of a number of new reporting requirements in the application form.205 Specifically, Greenlining argues that applicants should be required to provide information on their efforts, over the last three years, to accomplish the following: help close the Digital Divide; fund access to new technology by underserved communities; demonstrate diversity at all levels of employment and management; demonstrate business opportunities created for small, minority-owned, and women-owned businesses; and provide full content access to underserved and minority communities.206
We decline to make any such modifications to the application. As discussed in Section IX, DIVCA sets forth the application process with particularity and strictly limits the Commission's role to determining whether the application is complete or incomplete. We, therefore, find no statutory basis or support for including any of Greenlining's proposed reporting requirements in the application form.
Nevertheless, we recognize the particular importance of diversity in workplace, suppliers of goods and services, and video programming. California's population is more diverse than any other state's. That diversity is a tremendous asset to our state. We expect that diversity to be reflected in the employees hired by state video franchise holders, as well as in the programming these employees offer to California residents. Section XIII ensures that we receive annual reports on workplace diversity efforts of state video franchise holders.
Greenlining urges the Commission to require applicants to "set forth the types of services that will be provided in languages other than English, the names of the languages in which these services will be provided, and the specific capacity of the applicant to provide such services."207 We find no statutory basis for requiring reporting of services provided in languages other than English. Thus, we impose no such requirement.
Many parties ask for additional content in the affidavit. We discuss these requests and respond to each below.
CWA urges the Commission to require each applicant to "state whether or not its employees are covered by a collective bargaining agreement."208 For applications for an amended state video franchise, CWA requests that the applicant be required "to state that it has agreed to honor the agreement and pay, or perform obligations under the agreement to the same extent as would be required if the previous franchise continued to operate under the franchise."209
We find that there is significant DIVCA support for collective bargaining agreements. First, Public Utilities Code § 5810(c) states that it is "the intent of the Legislature that collective bargaining agreements be respected." Second, Public Utilities Code § 5870(b) provides that when a state video franchise is transferred to a new entity, the transferee must agree "that any collective bargaining agreement entered into by a video service provider shall continue to be honored, paid, or performed to the same extent as would be required if the video service provider continued to operate under its franchise . . . ."
To reinforce these and other DIVCA provisions, Public Utilities Code § 5840(e)(1)(B) requires that applicants file an affidavit stating that the "applicant or its affiliates agrees to comply with all federal and state statutes, rules, and regulations . . . ." Thus, any applicant for a state video franchise, an amended state video franchise, or the receipt of a state video franchise must attest that it will comply with existing collective bargaining agreements and honor such agreements when transferring a franchise.
More specifically, Public Utilities Code § 5840(e)(1)(B) further requires that an applicant make four statements attesting to its compliance with individual provisions of state law. Compliance with DIVCA labor requirements is not included in these provisions.
To ensure clarity, we mandate an additional statement in the affidavit. We require the affidavit to include a statement that the applicant will fulfill all DIVCA requirements. This addition to the affidavit allows us to address this meritorious claim of CWA. Furthermore, this broad language enables us to address with economy the meritorious claims of other parties discussed below.
If transfer of a state video franchise is sought, we also shall require the transferee to state, by affidavit, that it "agrees that any collective bargaining agreement entered into by a video service provider shall continue to be honored, paid, or performed to the same extent as would be required if the video service provider continued to operate under its franchise for the duration of that franchise unless the duration of that agreement is limited by its terms or by federal or state law." We support CWA's assessment that this stipulation is necessary for implementation of DIVCA collective bargaining provisions.210 Public Utilities Code § 5970(b) specifically requires that the transferee agree to respect a collective bargaining agreement in this manner.
Finally, we direct state video franchise holders to submit annual reports that indicate whether their California employees are covered by a collective bargaining agreement. While submission of this information is outside of the scope of the tightly prescribed application process, we find that this reporting requirement is necessary for ongoing enforcement of DIVCA labor provisions. A regular reporting requirement will help us to ensure that existing collective bargaining agreements are identified and respected during the transfer process.211
CFC states that the affidavit "does not require sufficient assurances that the affirming individual has authority to speak for and bind the Company."212 It notes that "[t]here is no requirement that the individual holds a position with the Company that would give him or her that authority."213 Consequently, CFC urges the Commission to revise the affidavit form to guarantee "that the individual who signs it has personal knowledge of the facts which he or she is affirming."214
We find that CFC's proposed alterations are not necessary. The content of our affidavit already adequately addresses CFC's concerns. The affidavit requires the affiant to swear that she or he has "personal knowledge of the facts," is "competent to testify to [the facts]," and has "authority to make this Application on behalf of and to bind the Company."
The Cities and Pasadena call for an addition to the section of the affidavit addressing PEG. Specifically, they ask that we require the following statement to be included in the affidavit: "Applicant will timely and fully provide the public, educational, and governmental access (PEG Access) channels, as well as associated funding and support (such as system interconnection, where applicable), required by AB 2987, as well as any continued institutional network (I-Net) facilities and support required by AB 2987."215
The addition of a statement by which the applicant affirms compliance with all DIVCA requirements, as discussed above, meets this concern. No further modification to the affidavit is necessary.
CCTPG/LIF requests that the affidavit "include an additional affirmation that the applicant will provide free community center service as provided by Section 5890(b)(3)."216
The addition of a statement by which the applicant affirms compliance with all DIVCA provisions, as discussed above, meets this concern. No further modification to the affidavit is necessary.
Finally, we note that Pasadena, Joint Cities, and League of Cities/SCAN NATOA ask that the application require the franchise applicant to state that the applicant agrees that Commission or state fees do not qualify as franchise fees pursuant to caps imposed by the federal Cable Act.217 We decline to impose such a requirement. We find that this statement is unnecessary and likely would carry little legal force. This matter is discussed in further detail elsewhere.
137 AT&T Opening Comments at 4.
138 AT&T Reply Comments at 10.
139 AT&T Opening Comments at 4-5.
140 Verizon Opening Comments at 11.
141 Id.
142 Id. at 13 (emphasis added).
143 Id.
144 Verizon Reply Comments at 16.
145 TURN Reply Comments at 10.
146 DRA Reply Comments at 11.
147 Id. at 5.
148 Id.
149 Id.
150 CCTPG/LIF Reply Comments at 5.
151 Id.
152 League of Cities/SCAN NATOA Reply Comments at 11.
153 CCTA Reply Comments at 6.
154 Greenlining Reply Comments at 5.
155 Verizon Opening Comments at 11.
156 Verizon Opening Comments at 13. See also AT&T Reply Comments at 10 (worrying about "what would happen if cable companies knew exactly where new competition would arrive, and when").
157 Information contained in the state video franchise application is publicly available due to the Public Utilities Code § 5840(e)(1)(D). This statutory provision requires applicants to send unredacted copies of their state video franchise applications to affected municipalities, and those municipalities are not required to keep the applications' contents confidential. Cal. Pub. Util. Code § 5840(e)(1)(D). Recognizing the public nature of the application, we also will post an unredacted copy of each state video franchise application on the Commission's public website.
158 See DRA Reply Comments at 11 (requesting detailed, disaggregated data); TURN Reply Comments at 10 (same).
159 See Cal. Pub. Util. Code § 5960 (requiring detailed video deployment data pursuant to confidentiality protections of Public Utilities Code § 583).
160 We recognize that expected deployment dates are merely estimates and subject to change, and we make clear that we will not hold an applicant strictly accountable to such dates. As Verizon properly acknowledges, "[d]eployment depends on a variety of operational and budgetary factors, including the availability of capital relative to other operational demands, the availability of manpower, and the timing of construction based on local entity permit requirements, weather, and numerous other circumstances beyond a company's reasonable control." Verizon Opening Comments at 12.
161 See AT&T Opening Comments at 4-5 (urging the Commission to afford application information "trade secret" protection); Verizon Opening Comments at 13 (asking for application information to be "subject to confidential treatment").
162 See, e.g., Cal. Pub. Util. Code § 5960 (affording annual broadband and video reports confidentiality protections pursuant to Public Utilities Code § 583).
163 Id. at § 5840(e)(1)(D).
164 DRA Reply Comments at 4-5.
165 Id. at 5.
166 TURN Reply Comments at 10.
167 Id.
168 CCTPG/LIF Reply Comments on the PD at 4.
169 Id.
170 Verizon Opening Comments at 8.
171 Id.
172 Id.
173 Id. at 9.
174 Id.
175 Id.
176 Id.
177 Id. at 10.
178 SureWest Reply Comments at 12.
179 SureWest Opening Comments at 19.
180 AT&T Opening Comments at 4.
181 Id.
182 AT&T Reply Comments on the PD at 4.
183 Small LECs Reply Comments at 6.
184 Id.
185 DRA Reply Comments at 5.
186 See Verizon Opening Comments at 9 (arguing that "nothing in the Act compels an interpretation that includes access or subscription to broadband or video service").
187 See id. (urging us to focus exclusively on residential income levels).
188 Merriam-Webster OnLine, at http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/socioeconomic.
189 Cal. Pub. Util. Code § 5819(a)(2)(B).
190 Id. at § 5819(a)(2)(E).
191 AT&T Opening Comments at 4 (proposing that we delete, but not replace, our definition of "socioeconomic status information").
192 Compare DRA Reply Comments at 4-5 (praising our definition of socioeconomic status information), with Verizon Opening Comments at 9 (proposing we replace our definition of socioeconomic status information with an altogether different definition).
193 AT&T Opening Comments at 4.
194 Cal. Pub. Util. Code § 5960(b) (giving state video franchise holders until April 1 to submit annual video and broadband service reports for the prior calendar year).
195 SureWest Reply Comments at 3.
196 Small LECs Reply Comments at 8.
197 AT&T Reply Comments at 6.
198 Joint Cities Opening Comments at 20.
199 CFC Opening Comments at 3.
200 Cal. Pub. Util. Code § 5840(e)(9).
201 Joint Cities Opening Comments at 22-23.
202 Pasadena Opening Comments at 4.
203 Joint Cities Opening Comments at 22-23.
204 TURN Reply Comments at 7.
205 Greenlining Reply Comments at 2-3.
206 Greenlining Opening Comments at 2.
207 Id. at 6.
208 CWA Opening Comments at 1.
209 Id. at 1.
210 Id.
211 See Cal. Pub. Util. Code ("It is the intent of the Legislature that collective bargaining agreements be respected.").
212 CFC Opening Comments at 4.
213 Id.
214 Id.
215 Joint Cities Opening Comments at 21; City of Pasadena Opening Comments at 6-7.
216 CCTPG/LIF Opening Comments at 11.
217 Pasadena, Opening Comments at 4; Joint Cities Opening Comments at 15; League of Cities/SCAN NATOA Opening Comments at 5. These parties reference 47 U.S.C. § 542(b).
