Scope of Issues
This adjudicatory proceeding shall consider the following issues:
1. Failure to Furnish Just and Reasonable DSL Transport. Whether Defendants have failed to furnish and maintain such adequate, efficient, just and reasonable DSL Transport service, as set forth in Pub. Util. Code § 451.1 This issue shall include whether Defendants:
a. Disconnected for an unreasonable period of time the DSL Transport facilities of end-use customers who desire to change their ISPs, thereby retaining or "clenching" customers for the benefit of ISPs owned or controlled by SBC ("Affiliated ISPs");
b. Required ISPs to migrate all of their end-use customers to a new DSL Transport architecture prior to the filing of ASI's FCC tariff for DSL Transport Service.
c. Generally failed to provision DSL Transport in a just and reasonable manner, although the proceeding will not address the explicit service provisioning terms set forth in Section 6.2 of ASI's FCC Tariff for wholesale DSL Transport.
d. Failed to resolve billing and service disputes with ISPs involving DSL Transport in a just and reasonable manner.2
2. Discrimination in Provision of DSL Transport. Whether Defendants violated Section 453 and 532 by granting a preference or advantage to Affiliated ISPs in providing and supporting DSL Transport, or by subjecting independent ISPs, and end-use customers of independent ISPs, to prejudice or disadvantage. This issue shall include whether Defendants:
a. Offered and provisioned DSL Transport to Affiliated ISPs on preferential terms, including the time taken to provision DSL Transport facilities and establish DSL Transport connections for affiliates end-use customers versus independent ISPs end-users;
b. Substituted an affiliated ISP for the customer's requested independent ISP when provisioning the end-user's order for DSL Transport;
c. Allowed the sales representatives of Affiliated ISPs to have access to the DSL Transport orders placed by independent ISPs;
d. Paid bonuses to DSL Transport sales representatives when an end-use customer calls to inquire about DSL Transport and thereafter subscribes to an Affiliated ISP;
e. Used customer information provided by independent ISPs placing DSL Transport orders to solicit end-use customers on behalf of Affiliated ISPs;
f. Stated that an end-use customer must subscribe with an Affiliated ISP if the end-use customer wants to obtain DSL Transport from SBC-ASI;
g. Stated that an end-use customer will obtain DSL Transport more quickly if the end-use customer subscribes to an Affiliated ISP;
h. Disparaged independent ISPs to end-use customers that inquire about DSL Transport, so as to encourage end-use customers to subscribe to an Affiliated ISP to obtain DSL Transport;
i. Provided DSL Transport support services to Affiliated ISPs on a preferential basis;
j. Allowed Affiliated ISPs to place DSL Transport orders for DSLAMs that are not available to independent ISPs.
3. Failing to Furnish Sufficient Information for Informed Consumer Choice. Whether Defendants violated § 2896 and D.00-05-021 by failing to provide sufficient information upon which California consumers may make informed choices among telecommunications services and providers, by:
a. Stating that an end-use customer must subscribe to an Affiliated ISP if the end-use customer wants to obtain DSL Transport from SBC-ASI; and
b. Stating that an end-use customer will obtain DSL Transport more quickly if the end-use customer subscribes to an Affiliated ISP.
4. Withdrawal of Benefits Available to DSL Transport Customers of Pacific Bell. Whether Defendants violated the provisions of D.00-05-021 by withdrawing benefits that were available to DSL Transport customers of Pacific, and which were required to be maintained for DSL customers transferred to SBC-ASI, by:
a. Unreasonably interrupting DSL Transport service to an end-user seeking to change ISPs, even though this changeover had been accomplished by Pacific with minimal service disruption prior to the transfer of customers to SBC-ASI; and
b. Withdrawing the benefits of an always on, point-to-point connection, for the period prior to the filing of ASI's federal tariff.
5. Improper Use of Non-Public Customer Information. Whether Defendants violated § 2891 and Consumer Protection Rule 14 by improperly using non-public consumer information. This issue shall include whether Defendants:
a. Allowed the sales representatives of Affiliated ISPs to have access to orders for DSL transport placed by independent ISPs; and
b. Used customer information provided by independent ISPs to solicit DSL Transport customers on behalf of Affiliated ISPs.
1 All references are to the Public Utilities Code unless otherwise noted.
2 This item will not include the subject of "split billing" which was raised by CISPA in a July 26, 2001 motion in this case. CISPA later withdrew that motion. This item is also not intended to duplicate any of the issues in C.02-01-007/Investigation (I.) 02-01-024.
