65 (Belser/Kasnitz challenging the Commission’s Testimony); jurisdiction and calling for, among other things, suspension of the CforAT’s Opening Brief proceeding, extension of time to comply and Reply Brief, filed on with discovery orders, changes to the August 12, 2016 and timetable of the proceeding, and August 26, 2016, various housekeeping matters.” Final respectively; Decision at p. 7. The procedural history CforAT’s Opening also describes further challenges to the Comments on the PD, proceeding, including additional filed on November 7, motion practice as well as a challenge in 2016 (with Greenlining) Federal Court. Final Decision at pp. 5-9. and CforAT’s Reply In the face of ongoing carrier Comments on the PD, obstructionism, the Commission and filed on November 14, Intervenors, including CforAT, 2016. persevered in order to obtain some level Below, CforAT discusses the of information such that the specific issues where our Commission could conduct a input made a substantial meaningful review of the contribution to the Final telecommunications marketplace. Decision, as well as our While much important information was procedural contributions never provided, the Final Decision which assisted the expressly notes the important role Commission in moving played by intervenors, citing a past forward in its important observation that “part of what gives review of the [the Commission’s] processes telecommunications legitimacy is participation from outside marketplace in California. groups in our decision making process,” and continuing by noting that “comments received in this proceeding have validated that observation.” Final Decision at p. 169, citing D.06-06-066, Slip Op. at 58-59. Procedural Contributions Verified CforAT, working in As noted in the Final Decision, and conjunction with other described above, the carriers made repeated intervenors, opposed (or (and redundant) efforts to limit the scope of otherwise responded to) this proceeding, challenge the multiple procedural motions by Commission’s jurisdiction, obstruct carriers seeking to constrain discovery, impede the schedule, strike the investigation taking place testimony, and otherwise prevent the in this proceeding. Our efforts Commission’s review of the state of the to support the Commission’s telecommunications market in California ability to move forward with from going forward. CforAT, in this investigation include the conjunction with other intervenors, worked following: diligently to assist the Commission in
65 (Belser/Kasnitz Testimony); CforAT’s Opening Brief and Reply Brief, filed on August 12, 2016 and August 26, 2016, respectively; CforAT’s Opening Comments on the PD, filed on November 7, 2016 (with Greenlining) and CforAT’s Reply Comments on the PD, filed on November 14, 2016. Below, CforAT discusses the specific issues where our input made a substantial contribution to the Final Decision, as well as our procedural contributions which assisted the Commission in moving forward in its important review of the telecommunications marketplace in California. challenging the Commission’s jurisdiction and calling for, among other things, suspension of the proceeding, extension of time to comply with discovery orders, changes to the timetable of the proceeding, and various housekeeping matters.” Final Decision at p. 7. The procedural history also describes further challenges to the proceeding, including additional motion practice as well as a challenge in Federal Court. Final Decision at pp. 5-9. In the face of ongoing carrier obstructionism, the Commission and Intervenors, including CforAT, persevered in order to obtain some level of information such that the Commission could conduct a meaningful review of the telecommunications marketplace. While much important information was never provided, the Final Decision expressly notes the important role played by intervenors, citing a past observation that “part of what gives [the Commission’s] processes legitimacy is participation from outside groups in our decision making process,” and continuing by noting that “comments received in this proceeding have validated that observation.” Final Decision at p. 169, citing D.06-06-066, Slip Op. at 58-59. Procedural Contributions CforAT, working in conjunction with other intervenors, opposed (or otherwise responded to) multiple procedural motions by carriers seeking to constrain the investigation taking place in this proceeding. Our efforts to support the Commission’s ability to move forward with this investigation include the following: As noted in the Final Decision, and described above, the carriers made repeated (and redundant) efforts to limit the scope of this proceeding, challenge the Commission’s jurisdiction, obstruct discovery, impede the schedule, strike testimony, and otherwise prevent the Commission’s review of the state of the telecommunications market in California from going forward. CforAT, in conjunction with other intervenors, worked diligently to assist the Commission in Verified
183365311.docx