and wide-ranging investigation into Verizon Motion to Remove competition and rates in the California Verizon Wireless and Wireless telecommunications market. The OII Carriers as Respondents explicitly anticipated addressing issues (December 15, 2015); Motion regarding landline, cable, and wireless by Cox on behalf of its services- both voice and broadband- in Affiliated Entity to Modify List its preliminary scope. The Information of Named Respondents Requests attached to the OII requested (December 18, 2015; Motion data and analysis on a full range of by AT&T California and New issues. Cingular to Remove Certain Information Requests and The majority of the approximately Topics of Investigation 20 motions filed by carriers in this (December 22, 2015); Carrier docket raised various objections to the Coalition Motion for scope of the docket and, by extension, Reconsideration of ALJ argued that the Commission lacked February 4, 2016 Ruling jurisdiction to require certain carrier (March 8, 2016); Carrier affiliates to participate, to require Coalition Motion for carriers to provide broadband-related Reconsideration by the full data and analysis. The carriers Commission of the repeatedly urged the Commission to April 1, 2016 Ruling of the limit its investigation only to aspects of ALJ (April 14, 2016). basic local voice service offered by incumbent carriers. TURN, working closely with other Reply to Comments TURN’s consumer intervenors, opposed each of on the Ruling Regarding ALJ’s the motions and supported a Clarification of the Information carriers’ broad scope and clear statement of Requests, January 18, 2016. jurisdiction by the Commission to ALJ Ruling on Pending ensure a meaningful investigation. In its Motions and Issues Discussed pleadings, TURN demonstrated that at PHC, February 4, 2016. under both federal and state law the Joint Consumer Response and Commission retains the authority to Opposition to Pending require document and data production Procedural Motions, from a wide variety of carriers and their January 8, 2016. affiliates, including data regarding wholesale and broadband services and Joint Consumer Consolidated facilities. TURN, with joint consumers, Response to Motions for also argued that the Commission must Reconsideration, etc., have broad and comprehensive March 24, 2016. investigative powers to carry out its ALJ Ruling on Remaining statutory obligations to ensure Protective Order Issues and consumers have access to safe, reliable other Issues (April 1, 2016). and affordable services as well as the
and wide-ranging investigation into competition and rates in the California telecommunications market. The OII explicitly anticipated addressing issues regarding landline, cable, and wireless services- both voice and broadband- in its preliminary scope. The Information Requests attached to the OII requested data and analysis on a full range of issues. The majority of the approximately 20 motions filed by carriers in this docket raised various objections to the scope of the docket and, by extension, argued that the Commission lacked jurisdiction to require certain carrier affiliates to participate, to require carriers to provide broadband-related data and analysis. The carriers repeatedly urged the Commission to limit its investigation only to aspects of basic local voice service offered by incumbent carriers. TURN, working closely with other consumer intervenors, opposed each of the carriers’ motions and supported a broad scope and clear statement of jurisdiction by the Commission to ensure a meaningful investigation. In its pleadings, TURN demonstrated that under both federal and state law the Commission retains the authority to require document and data production from a wide variety of carriers and their affiliates, including data regarding wholesale and broadband services and facilities. TURN, with joint consumers, also argued that the Commission must have broad and comprehensive investigative powers to carry out its statutory obligations to ensure consumers have access to safe, reliable and affordable services as well as the Verizon Motion to Remove Verizon Wireless and Wireless Carriers as Respondents (December 15, 2015); Motion by Cox on behalf of its Affiliated Entity to Modify List of Named Respondents (December 18, 2015; Motion by AT&T California and New Cingular to Remove Certain Information Requests and Topics of Investigation (December 22, 2015); Carrier Coalition Motion for Reconsideration of ALJ February 4, 2016 Ruling (March 8, 2016); Carrier Coalition Motion for Reconsideration by the full Commission of the April 1, 2016 Ruling of the ALJ (April 14, 2016). TURN’s Reply to Comments on the ALJ’s Ruling Regarding Clarification of the Information Requests, January 18, 2016. ALJ Ruling on Pending Motions and Issues Discussed at PHC, February 4, 2016. Joint Consumer Response and Opposition to Pending Procedural Motions, January 8, 2016. Joint Consumer Consolidated Response to Motions for Reconsideration, etc., March 24, 2016. ALJ Ruling on Remaining Protective Order Issues and other Issues (April 1, 2016).
180408369.docx