ALJ/TRP/eap Mailed 8/6/2001

Decision 01-08-019 August 2, 2001

BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Order Instituting Rulemaking on the Commission's Own Motion into Competition for Local Exchange Service.	Rulemaking 95-04-043 (Filed April 26, 1995)
Order Instituting Investigation on the Commission's Own Motion into Competition for Local Exchange Service.	Investigation 95-04-044 (Filed April 26, 1995)

O P I N I O N

I. Introduction

We hereby find Sprint Spectrum L.P., as agent for Cox Communications PCS ¹ doing business as Sprint PCS (Sprint PCS) to be in violation of Rule 1 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, and consequently, impose penalties of $200,000 as provided for in the Public Utilities Code. Rule 1 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure states:

"Any person who signs a pleading or brief, enters an appearance at a hearing, or transacts business with the Commission, by such act represents that he or she is authorized to do so and agrees to comply with the laws of this State; to maintain the respect due to the Commission, members of the Commission or its Administrative Law Judges; and never to mislead the Commission or its staff by an artifice or false statement of fact or law."

Our authority to impose penalties for Sprint PCS' violations of Rule 1 is provided for in Public Utilities Code Section 701, which states that the Commission is "empowered to supervise and regulate every public utility in the State and may do all things . . . which are necessary and convenient in the exercise of such power and jurisdiction." (See also, Calif. Constitution, Article 12, Sec. 6.) The Commission is required by law to ensure that the provisions of the Constitution and statutes of this State affecting public utilities, the enforcement of which is not specifically vested in some other officer or tribunal, are enforced and obeyed, and that violations thereof are promptly prosecuted and penalties due the State therefor recovered and collected. (Pub. Util. Code, § 2101.)

Moreover, the Public Utilities Code further provides that:

"Any public utility which violates or fails to comply with any provision of the Constitution of this state or of this part, or which fails or neglects to comply with any part or provision of any order, decision, decree, rule, direction, demand, or requirement of the commission, in a case in which a penalty has not otherwise been provided, is subject to a penalty of not less than five hundred dollars..., nor more than twenty thousand dollars ... for each offense." (Id., Sec. 2107.)

Even though the Commission does not regulate wireless carriers such as Sprint PCS with respect to rates or entry, Sprint PCS still comes under our jurisdiction as a public utility to the extent that we have delegated authority over area code relief and related number allocation measures. (See FCC Orders adopted September 15, 1999 FCC 99-48; CC Docket No. 96-98.)

The specific action for which Sprint PCS is found to be in violation of Rule 1 relates to representations and omissions made to the Commission's Telecommunications Division (TD) staff in connection with Sprint PCS' request for numbering resources in the 310 Numbering Plan Area (NPA). In providing data responses to TD staff concerning number utilization, Sprint PCS failed to disclose relevant information regarding NXX codes that it possessed in the Culver City and Inglewood Rate Centers.

In view of Sprint PCS' failure to disclose this information in its data response, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Ruling was issued on December 5, 2000. In the Ruling, Sprint PCS was ordered to show cause as to why it should not be found in violation of Rule 1 due to its failure to disclose this information to TD staff. In the event that it was found in violation of Rule 1, Sprint PCS was also to show cause why it should not be liable for penalties and sanctions.

On December 20, 2000, Sprint PCS filed a response to the ruling denying any Rule 1 violation, and objecting to imposition of penalties or sanctions. In support of its position, Sprint PCS attached a copy of its request for NXX codes and a notarized affidavit of Scott Ludwikowski, a Senior Network Engineer employed by Sprint PCS. Mr. Ludwikoski attested that the omission of responsive information to Commission staff was due to unintentional error and due to differences in interpretation regarding the intent of the data request.

A response to the ALJ Ruling was also filed by Cox California Telcom, L.L.C. dba Cox Communications (Cox). Cox takes no position on the merits of the Commission's inquiry as set forth in the ALJ Ruling. Cox expresses concern, however, that some confusion may exist regarding the relationship--or lack thereof--between Sprint PCS and Cox Communications, Inc., a parent company of Cox California Telecom. Cox is concerned that such confusion could erroneously color the Commission's opinion of Cox's veracity before the Commission. Cox states that no legal relationship exists between Cox or its parent companies and Sprint Spectrum L.P. which does business as both Sprint PCS and Cox Communications PCS. Cox attached to its pleading the "Declaration of Carrington Phillip," Vice President of Regulatory Affairs for CCI.

Phillip explains that neither Cox affiliates nor parent have had any ownership interest in Cox Communications PCS since May 17, 1999, even though Sprint Spectrum continues legally operating under the name Cox Communications PCS as allowed under a prior partnership agreement. Cox offers these facts so that the Commission will be clear concerning which entity is responsible for the actions of Sprint PCS.

In view of Cox's statements, we affirm that none of the references to Cox Communications PCS or to Sprint PCS in this order are in any way intended to implicate or be identified with Cox Communications Incorporated or Cox California Telecom.