2. Regulatory Background
For more than a decade, we have taken steps to foster telecommunications innovation and competitive markets, as exemplified in the Open Access and Network Architecture Development of Dominant Carrier Networks proceeding (OANAD), R.93-04-003/I.93-04-002; the Competition for Local Exchange Service proceeding, R.95-04-043/I.95-04-044; our decision (Decision (D.) 02-09-050) on SBC-CA's application for long distance authority pursuant to Sec. 271 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-104 (1996 Act);6 and our decision on SBC-CA's compliance with the requirements of Sec. 709.2 (D.02-12-081). The Legislature has consistently expressed its policy of encouraging open markets and consumer choice and discouraging anticompetitive conduct. See Secs. 709; 709.2, subd. 2; 709.5.
With the passage of the 1996 Act, the federal government also asserted its interest in opening local voice service markets to competition and promoting innovation in telecommunications, and provided us with additional direction and requirements for opening telecommunications markets to competition. 7 The 1996 Act also preserved states' authority to enforce state law and to regulate, as long as the state activities do not substantially prevent implementation of the 1996 Act. (47 U.S.C. §§ 252(e)(3); 251(d)(3); 261(b), (c).)
Early in the process of establishing competitive markets, we noted our intention to continue monitoring the progress of competition on an ongoing basis and stated that we would not "prematurely remove regulatory safeguards which are in place to ensure that carriers cannot abuse their market power to the detriment of the public interest." (D.96-03-020, 65 CPUC2d 156, 168.) In our Sec. 271 decision, we noted that our regulatory oversight was a reasonable check on the possibility of anticompetitive behavior. (D.02-09-050, p. 260 (mimeo.).) In D.02-12-081, we reiterated our determination to impose sanctions on demonstrated anticompetitive conduct. (p. 24, mimeo.) In this proceeding, we are presented with claims by some of SBC-CA's competitors that SBC-CA is not playing by the rules of a competitive local voice service marketplace.
6 The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) subsequently approved SBC-CA's entry into the long-distance market in Application by SBC Communications Inc., Pacific Bell Telephone Company, and Southwestern Bell Communications Services Inc., for Authorization to Provide In-Region InterLATA Services in California, WC Docket No. 02-306, 17. F.C.C.R. 25,650 (Dec. 19, 2002). 7 We note that the structure of conditions for competition is not completely established. The FCC recently revised some of its prior requirements for fostering meaningful competition. Review of the Section 251 Unbundling Obligations of Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers; Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996; Deployment of Wireline Services Offering Advanced Telecommunications Capability (TRO), CC Docket Nos. 01-338, 96-98, 98, 147, 18. F.C.C.R. 16, 978 (Aug. 21, 2003), vacated in part and remanded in part, vacatur stayed, sub nom. United States Telecom Association v. Federal Communications Commission, 359 F.3d 554 (D.C. Cir. 2004). (We refer to this order hereafter as the Triennial Review Order.) The UNE pricing and permanent line sharing phases of our OANAD proceeding, as well as the triennial review order nine-month phase of our Local Competition proceeding, are still active. Since this area of law remains dynamic, we cannot wait for complete certainty before we address the issues in this complaint.
