VIII. Background--Altrio

Altrio was a Delaware limited liability company authorized to do business in California. Its principal place of business was located at 2702 Media Center Drive, Los Angeles California 90069. By Decision (D.) 01-07-022, Altrio was granted a CPCN to provide limited facilities-based and resold local exchange services, and interexchange services. Altrio's authorization to provide full facilities-based telecommunications services is discussed below.

Altrio's principal place of business was located at 2702 Media Center Drive, Los Angles, California 90069.

On October 20, 2000, Altrio filed Application (A.) 00-10-044 for a CPCN to provide facilities-based and resold local exchange and interexchange services. The facilities it proposed to construct were Open Video Systems (OVS) facilities that would be used to offer cable television, cable modem data services, and telecommunications services. Altrio subsequently amended its application asking the Commission to consider its request in two steps. First, it requested authority to provide limited facilities-based and resold local exchange services within the greater Los Angeles metropolitan area, and interexchange services statewide, along with authority to construct facilities in the Los Angeles area. Second, it proposed to file a Proponent's Environmental Assessment (PEA) seeking full facilities-based authority at a later date.

By D.01-07-022, Altrio was authorized to provide limited facilities-based local exchange and interexchange telecommunications services by reselling other carriers' services, or utilizing unbundled network elements and equipment installed solely within existing buildings or structures. Consideration of the construction activities identified in the amended application were deferred for further consideration pending submittal of a PEA for full facilities-based authority. Altrio was prohibited from constructing buildings, towers, conduits, poles, or trenches, as well as other facilities identified in its application.

After the issuance of D.01-07-022, Altrio pursued construction of the facilities it was prohibited from constructing by D.01-07-022. It did this by obtaining local authority to construct the facilities in order to offer cable television and cable modem data services, neither of which is regulated by this Commission.

Subsequently, Case (C.) 02-11-053 was filed alleging that Altrio violated D.01-07-022 by constructing facilities in Pasadena. A presiding officer's decision (POD) was mailed on August 28, 2003. The POD found that Altrio had violated D.01-07-022 by providing telecommunications services over the OVS facilities it had constructed in Pasadena without first obtaining full facilities-based authority.

On September 8, 2003, Altrio filed an amendment to A.00-10-044 withdrawing its earlier request for full facilities-based authority except where it had built or would build its OVS facilities pursuant to agreements or cable franchises executed with, or granted by, specific local jurisdictions.

Altrio submitted documentation indicating that Pasadena, acting as the lead CEQA agency, approved a franchise agreement with Altrio after determining that a Class 1 CEQA exemption applied to the construction of its OVS facilities in Pasadena. Altrio represented that no construction of additional facilities for telecommunications services was contemplated other than those authorized by Pasadena. Therefore, Altrio requested that the Commission, acting consistent with its duties as responsible agency, adopt Pasadena's CEQA exemption determination, and grant full facilities-based local exchange authority in Pasadena.

Typically, the Commission acts as a lead agency in performing CEQA reviews of telecommunications construction projects that require a CPCN or an amendment to a CPCN. In most cases, such review takes place before construction. However, in that proceeding, Pasadena had found that a Class 1 CEQA exemption applied to Altrio's OVS facilities, and the facilities were constructed to provide cable television and cable modem data services. Altrio sought to use the same facilities to provide telecommunications services, and indicated that no additional construction was contemplated other than that already authorized by Pasadena, or installation of telecommunications equipment permitted under its limited facilities-based authority.

The Commission determined that it would serve no useful purpose to perform a new CEQA review of facilities that had already been installed or would be installed to provide services the Commission does not regulate. At that point, the request was not to construct telecommunications infrastructure, but to use existing and/or authorized infrastructure to provide telecommunications services in addition to cable television and cable modem data services. The Commission determined that Altrio was still required to obtain Commission approval for full facilities-based authority to offer telecommunications services to customers using its OVS facilities.

The Commission also concluded that no useful purpose would be served by denying the request for full facilities-based authority within Pasadena. The Commission found that, since the OVS facilities were approved by Pasadena and were used for services other than telecommunications, the facilities would continue in operation irrespective of how it resolved the request for full facilities-based authority. As a result, by D.03-11-016, the Commission granted full facilities-based authority, within the boundaries of Pasadena, limited to the OVS facilities authorized by Pasadena. To the extent that Altrio sought full-facilities based authority in places other than Pasadena, the request was denied.

By D.03-12-064, in C.02-11-053, the Commission found that Altrio had violated D.01-07-022 because it was required by that decision to have a full facilities-based CPCN before it could offer telephone service using its OVS facilities in Pasadena. D.03-12-064 provided that Altrio may not provide telephone service over its OVS system, to customers who were not receiving service on the effective date of D.03-12-064, without first obtaining full facilities-based authority covering the area in which it intends to provide service.

In A.03-12-005, Altrio sought authority to provide facilities-based local exchange and interexchange telecommunications services in the cities of Arcadia, Sierra Madre and Monrovia, and in certain parts of Los Angeles County. Altrio had already constructed OVS facilities in these areas pursuant to agreements with the cities of Monrovia and Sierra Madre, and Los Angeles County, and a cable franchise in Arcadia. Altrio then had approximately 10,000 customers in these areas of which approximately half received telecommunications service. Altrio represented that of these customers, 173 were telephone-only customers.

Subsequently, Altrio sold its assets to Applicant and went out of business. By D.05-04-002, A.03-12-005 was dismissed for failure to prosecute. As a result Altrio was not authorized to provide telecommunications services in Monrovia, Sierra Madre, Los Angeles County, and Arcadia using its OVS facilities, although it was doing so.