6. Comments on Draft Decision
We initially categorized this proceeding as an adjudication that would go to hearing. We confirm that the proceeding is adjudicatory but find, with the agreement of the parties, that a hearing is not needed.
The draft decision of the ALJ in this matter was mailed to the parties in accordance with Pub. Util. Code § 311(g)(1) and Rule 77.7 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure. Comments were filed on ____________________ and reply comments were filed on __________________.
1. On July 13, 2005, the parties filed a stipulation of material facts.
2. By D.03-01-061, Ordering Paragraph 1, the Commission granted NextG a CPCN to "operate as a limited facilities-based and resale provider of competitive local exchange services."
3. NextG provides radiofrequency transport services, which augment geographic wireless coverage and improve system capacity, to wireless telecommunications service providers.
4. NextG's network comprises a "hub," which operates like a traditional central switch in the wireline network and a system of fiber optic cables, remote nodes, and small antennas attached to poles and other structures.
5. The Commission has granted competitive local exchange carrier CPCNs to carriers providing services similar to NextG's. In D.01-06-019, the Commission reaffirmed Teligent Inc.'s authority to install microwave antennas as part of its limited facilities-based authority. In D.05-01-021, the Commission granted a limited facilities-based CPCN to Crown Castle Solutions Corp., a provider operating a system similar to NextG's.
6. The Commission's standard limited facilities-based CPCN decisions do not mention the type of service the telephone corporation is providing.
7. D.03-01-061 limited NextG's authority to installation in existing buildings and structures.
8. CCSF's Planning Department concluded that the installation of antennas, repeaters, wiring, and equipment cabinets on existing utility poles by NextG would have no effect on land use, traffic and circulation, geology, seismicity, water, hazardous materials, biology, archeological resources or public services.
9. NextG made representations to CCSF and other localities concerning the nature of its services, the authority it had obtained, and its planned construction.
10. CCSF did not permit NextG to operate in San Francisco.
11. NextG filed a written acceptance of its CPCN on February 25, 2003. On January 23, 2004, NextG requested an extension of time to commence service under its CPCN. The Commission granted the requested extension until July 30, 2004. On July 21, 2004, NextG notified the Commission that it had commenced providing telecommunications service under its CPCN in California.
1. NextG is currently providing telephone service in accordance with the limited facilities-based authority granted in D.03-01-061.
2. NextG timely exercised the authority granted in D.03-01-061.
3. It is reasonable to conclude CCSF did not rely on any material representation NextG made to CCSF.
4. It is reasonable to make this order effective today in order to resolve this complaint without further delay.
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. The complaint of the City and County of San Francisco is denied as set forth herein.
2. Case 05-03-010 is closed.
This order is effective today.
Dated , at San Francisco, California.
Grau Attachment Stipulation of Material Facts
