Comments on Draft Decision

The draft decision of the presiding officer was mailed to the parties in accordance with Section 311(g)(1) and Rule 77.7. No comments were received.

We recognize that the ILECs may find it challenging to accept customers whose local service is transferred if they have to make a large volume of facilities rearrangements in a very short time. We did not intend to allow these transferred customers to be left in limbo while the ILECs work down any backlog their being switched over en masse might cause, something our Ordering Paragraph #5 in the draft decision was intended in part to convey: Sprint must certify "that no former ION customers have involuntarily lost their basic local exchange service for failure to choose another provider." To clarify this point, we have added the last sentence in Ordering Paragraph #4 and revised the wording in Ordering Paragraph #5.

Findings of Fact

1. Sprint's ION service consists of bundled offerings including local service, intraLATA and interLATA long distance service, and high-speed data service.

2. Although Sprint wishes to withdraw its ION service, it plans to continue offering its core intraLATA and interLATA long distance services. Sprint's notices inform customers of their right to select a different long distance carrier of their choice, and that it will continue to provide intraLATA and interLATA long distance service to them at rates specified unless and until they choose otherwise.

3. Sprint's customer notice and local exchange transfer plan outlined in the application are consistent with the Commission's requirements of telecommunications carriers who wish to withdraw their services. To be fully compliant, Sprint would have to include 30-day and 7-day notices for business customers as well as residence customers.

4. Pacific Bell and Verizon are the ILECs in the areas where Sprint offers ION service.

5. An investigation of the ILECs' business practices would be beyond the scope of this proceeding.

6. Protestants did not avail themselves of their opportunity to appeal the Assigned Commissioner's Scoping Memo and Ruling that confirmed this as a ratesetting proceeding.

7. No hearing is needed.

Conclusions of Law

1. Sprint is required to obtain Commission approval before it may discontinue providing ION service.

2. The customer notice requirements of D.97-06-096 apply to requests to discontinue services such as this one. In addition, the Commission requires: that each notice sent to customers before the Commission has approved the withdrawal state that Commission authorization is required before service may be discontinued; that each notice sent after approval must state that the Commission has authorized the withdrawal; and that every notice make clear that if the customer does not choose a new local exchange service provider, the customer will be transferred to the applicable carrier of last resort for local service.

3. Section 2889.5 does not apply to the changes Sprint proposes in its application.

4. The reimbursements that Alonzo, Holt, and Goldfarb seek in their protests are damages, which the Commission lacks jurisdiction to award.

5. To the extent that the amounts Sprint will compensate ION customers are insufficient, customers may pursue claims for damages against Sprint in the courts under Section 2106.

6. This is properly categorized as a ratesetting proceeding.

7. The protests of Alonzo, Holt, and Goldfarb should be denied.

8. Sprint should be allowed to discontinue its ION service.

9. Sprint should be required to send to both residence and business customers 30-day and 7-day notices consistent in form and content with the notices it has included in the application as Exhibits A-1, A-2, B and C.

ORDER

IT IS ORDERED that:

1. The application of Sprint Communications Company L.P. (Sprint) to withdraw its Sprint ION (Integrated On-demand Network) services in California, and to transfer the local exchange service component of ION customers' service to other local service providers, is granted subject to Sprint's compliance with its representations in the application and the conditions set forth in this order.

2. Sprint shall send not later than 30 days before it discontinues ION service, and again not later than 7 days nor earlier than 10 days before it discontinues ION service, written notices to its residence and business ION customers who have not by those dates discontinued ION service. Those notices shall be consistent in form and content with the proposed 30-day and 7-day notices Sprint included in the application as Exhibits A-1, A-2, B and C.

3. Sprint shall transfer to the applicable incumbent local exchange carriers any customers who do not choose a new local exchange service provider in response to its 30-day and 7-day notices.

4. Pacific Bell Telephone Company and Verizon California Inc. are directed to accept for the purpose of providing basic local exchange service all former customers transferred to them from Sprint, subject to their existing rights to terminate such customers after proper notice. Sprint shall work cooperatively with Pacific Bell and Verizon to ensure that transferred customers suffer no interruption in local exchange service.

5. Sprint shall within 10 days after discontinuing ION service send to the Commission's Telecommunications Division a compliance letter: certifying that it has given proper customer notification as directed in this order; certifying that any customers who did not choose a new local exchange service provider have been transferred to the applicable incumbent local exchange carrier; certifying that no former ION customers have suffered any involuntarily interruption in their basic local exchange service for failure to choose another provider; certifying that every former ION customer's account has been credited with the compensation amount set forth in the application for that type of customer; and attaching a sample copy of each type of notice sent.

6. The protests of Manuel J. Alonzo, Larry Don Holt, and Benjamin P. Goldfarb are denied.

7. A copy of this order shall be served on Pacific Bell Telephone Company and Verizon California Inc.

8. The authority granted in this order shall expire if not exercised within 12 months after the effective date of this order.

9. Application 01-10-040 is closed.

This order is effective today.

Dated March 6, 2002, at San Francisco, California.

Previous PageTop Of PageGo To First Page