3. Motion to Dismiss and Subsequent Investigation

By motion dated November 12, 1999, GTEC moved to dismiss the complaint on grounds, among others, that GTEC has offered to provide the requested service at cost pursuant to its tariffs, and the complaint fails to allege a violation of tariff, rule or Commission order, pursuant to Pub. Util. Code § 1702.

Meanwhile, by Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Ruling dated November 10, 1999, the parties were asked to explore and comment on the possibility of (1) establishing a public policy payphone at the Tioga Pass Resort,¹ (2) extending cellular service to the area, or (3) enlisting the support of Pacific Bell Telephone Company (Pacific) for a line extension from Pacific facilities that are located closer to the resort than GTEC facilities.

GTEC in its response to the ruling stated that public policy payphone procedures developed by this Commission in Decision (D.) 98-11-029 and D.99-06-032 had not yet been implemented; that the terrain at Tioga Pass precluded effective cellular service, installation of which would be about as costly as landline service; and that installation of a landline from Pacific's facilities would cost about $500,000. Tioga Pass Resort in its response stated that a public payphone would meet some but not all of its needs, and that its talks with Pacific were unproductive because Pacific believed that a service extension was not cost effective. Complainant stated that government agencies in the area were receptive to installation of a cellular site but were not willing to participate in the cost of installation.

In an informal telephone conference with the ALJ on January 18, 2000, GTEC and Tioga Pass Resort agreed to work together with the Commission's telecommunications staff to further explore the feasibility of a public policy payphone and to determine whether other governmental aid might be tapped to help finance telephone service in the area. By ALJ Ruling dated January 19, 2000, the time for Tioga Pass Resort to respond to GTEC's motion to dismiss was deferred pending results of the parties' investigations.