Motion to Intervene

On November 6, 2001, Morgen Van Buren, a resident of San Francisco and subscriber to the DSL service of ASI through an independent ISP and CISPA member, filed a motion to intervene in this complaint. Van Buren states he has experience with one of the alleged abuses in the complaint and he wishes to represent the interests of end-users of DSL services.

Defendants oppose Van Buren's intervention request stating it is procedurally defective because he has not stated the alleged basis for his intervention and he fails to articulate any direct or immediate interest that he will either gain or lose by the judgment in this case. According to Defendants, Van Buren's DSL internet service may or may not be affected by the resolution of this case and Van Buren, as a consumer, has no direct interest in the issues at the center of this dispute. In addition, Defendants state that Van Buren's claims concern hypothetical future conduct by Defendants so the issues he raises are not ripe. Defendants urge rejection of Van Buren's motion because the Commission does not have jurisdiction over the subject matter and the claims are rendered moot by ASI's federal tariff.

Complainants do not object to Van Buren's intervention as long as it is limited to the issues found within the scope of the complaint.

We have already rejected Defendants' assertions that the Commission does not have jurisdiction over ASI's DSL Service and that the federal tariff moots the issues raised in the complaint. Likewise, we do not agree with Defendants that Van Buren's issues are not ripe. Defendants are confusing statements Van Buren offers in opposition to the motion to dismiss with his request for intervention. Van Buren's statements regarding Defendants' future plans for DSL are related to the motion to dismiss rather than the intervention request. The Commission may gain factual information regarding the abuses alleged in this complaint from a DSL end-user such as Mr. Van Buren. Therefore, pursuant to Rule 53 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure, we will allow Van Buren to intervene in this case as a DSL end-user, but his participation must be pertinent to the issues already presented by CISPA and he may not unduly broaden them.

IT IS RULED that:

1. This is an adjudicatory proceeding.

2. The issues to be addressed are those set forth in this ruling.

3. The schedule of this proceeding is as set forth herein. The evidentiary hearing will commence at 10:00 a.m., on September 16, 2002, at the Commission Courtroom, State Office Building, 505 Van Ness Avenue, San Francisco, California and continue on subsequent days as established by the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ).

4. A prehearing conference will take place on September 12, 2002 at 10:00 a.m.

5. In advance of the September 12 PHC, parties shall meet and confer to address witness availability and scheduling, estimates for cross-examination, and preparation of the Exhibit List.

6. Administrative Law Judge Dorothy Duda is designated as the presiding officer.

7. Morgen Van Buren's motion to intervene is granted.

Dated May 10, 2002, at San Francisco, California.

/s/ LORETTA LYNCH		/s/ DOROTHY J. DUDA
Loretta Lynch Assigned Commissioner		Dorothy J. Duda Administrative Law Judge

Appendix A

Page 1

Ground Rules for Exhibits and Hearings