STATE OF CALIFORNIA ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
505 VAN NESS AVENUE
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-3298
June 9, 2004
TO: PARTIES OF RECORD IN CASE 02-11-011
This proceeding was filed on November 5, 2002, and is assigned to Commissioner Geoffrey F. Brown and Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Anne E. Simon. This is the decision of the Presiding Officer, ALJ Simon.
Any party to this adjudicatory proceeding may file and serve an Appeal of the Presiding Officer's Decision within 30 days of the date of issuance (i.e., the date of mailing) of this decision. In addition, any Commissioner may request review of the Presiding Officer's Decision by filing and serving a Request for Review within 30 days of the date of issuance.
Appeals and Requests for Review must set forth specifically the grounds on which the appellant or requestor believes the Presiding Officer's Decision to be unlawful or erroneous. The purpose of an Appeal or Request for Review is to alert the Commission to a potential error, so that the error may be corrected expeditiously by the Commission. Vague assertions as to the record or the law, without citation, may be accorded little weight.
Appeals and Requests for Review must be served on all parties and accompanied by a certificate of service. Any party may file and serve a Response to an Appeal or Request for Review no later than 15 days after the date the Appeal or Request for Review was filed. In cases of multiple Appeals or Requests for Review, the Response may be to all such filings and may be filed 15 days after the last such Appeal or Request for Review was filed. Replies to Responses are not permitted. (See, generally, Rule 8.2 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure.)
If no Appeal or Request for Review is filed within 30 days of the date of issuance of the Presiding Officer's Decision, the decision shall become the decision of the Commission. In this event, the Commission will designate a decision number and advise the parties by letter that the Presiding Officer's Decision has become the Commission's decision.
/s/ ANGELA K. MINKIN
Angela K. Minkin, Chief
Administrative Law Judge
ANG:tcg
Attachment
ALJ/AES-POD/tcg
PRESIDING OFFICER'S DECISION (Mailed June 9, 2004)
BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Telscape Communications, Inc., Complainant, vs. Pacific Bell Telephone Company, Defendant. |
Case 02-11-011 (Filed November 5, 2002) |
John L. Clark, Goodin, MacBride, Squeri, Ritchie & Day, LLP, for Telscape Communications, Inc., complainant.
Randolph W. Deutsch, Sidley Austin Brown & Wood LLP, for AT&T Communications of California, Inc., intervenor.
William C. Harrelson, WorldCom, Inc., for WorldCom, Inc., intervenor.
Michael J. Kass, Pillsbury Winthrop LLP, for Pacific Bell Telephone Company, defendant.
Title Page
OPINION RESOLVING COMPLAINT 1
1. Summary 2
2. Regulatory Background 3
3. Statement of Facts 5
3.1 Complainants 5
3.2 Defendant 5
3.3 DSL and Local Voice Service 6
3.4 Winback Practices 8
3.5 OSS Issues 10
3.5.1. Non-recurring Charges 10
3.5.1.1. Exceptions to Flow-through 11
3.5.1.2. Exclusions from Flow-through 13
3.5.1.3 EISCC Cabling Charges 13
3.5.2. Billing 14
3.5.3. Waiver of Performance Measure Remedies 15
4. Discussion 16
4.1. DSL and Local Voice Service 16
4.2 Winback Practices 23
4.3 OSS Issues 25
4.3.1 Non-recurring Charges 25
4.3.1.1. Exceptions to Flow-through 25
4.3.1.2. Exclusions from Flow-through 28
4.3.1.3. EISCC Cable Charges 28
4.3.2. Billing 29
4.3.3. Waiver of Performance Measure Remedies 30
5. Assignment of Proceeding 31
Findings of Fact 31
Conclusions of Law 35
ORDER 38
Appendix A
Appendix B
1. Summary
This complaint, filed by Telscape Communications, Inc. (Telscape), in which AT&T Communications of California, Inc. (AT&T) and WorldCom, Inc. (MCI)1 have intervened,2 alleges that several policies and practices of defendant Pacific Bell Telephone Company (SBC-CA)3 with respect to the provision of local exchange telephone service (local voice service) are anticompetitive and discriminatory. We find that SBC-CA's refusal to process orders for changing a customer's local voice service to that of a competitive local exchange carrier (CLEC) if the customer also subscribes to SBC Yahoo! DSL (SBC-CA's retail high-speed digital subscriber line (DSL)4 service) violates Pub. Util. Code §§ 451 and 453(a).5
We further find that the partial settlement entered into by AT&T, MCI, and SBC-CA to resolve allegations that SBC-CA has abused the winback process and encouraged incorrect accusations of slamming is reasonable in light of the whole record, consistent with law, and in the public interest. We therefore approve it. We further require SBC-CA to extend its third-party verification process to include slamming allegations for residential local voice service.
We conclude that Telscape has not demonstrated that its broad objections to the functioning of SBC-CA's operational support systems (OSS) are well-founded, but we order SBC-CA to remedy deficiencies in its treatment of certain non-recurring service order charges, in its handling of billing disputes with CLECs, and in its implementation of its Performance Incentives Plan.
This proceeding is closed.
1 During the course of this proceeding, WorldCom changed its name to MCI. 2 We sometimes refer to complainant Telscape and the two intervenors collectively as "complainants." 3 During the course of this proceeding, defendant began using the name SBC California, and we will use it as well. 4 DSL is a broadband service that relies on the traditional copper telephone wire to transmit broadband data to and from the service customer's location. The signals for DSL travel through the high frequency portion of the loop (HFPL), while the signals for ordinary telephone service travel through the low frequency portion of the loop (LFPL). There are several types of DSL; asymmetric DSL is used in the circumstances addressed in this proceeding. Although the existence of types of DSL is sometimes noted by using the acronym "xDSL," we refer simply to "DSL." A table of acronyms is provided in Appendix A. 5 Unless otherwise indicated, all subsequent citations to sections refer to the Public Utilities Code, and citations to rules refer to the Rules of Practice and Procedure, which are codified at Chapter 1, Division 1 of Title 20 of the California Code of Regulations.
