litigation and made a substantial contribution to each issue in the case. This was a data-driven proceeding. The Final Decision relies on carrier data responses to Commission information requests and data requests issued to carriers by TURN and ORA, as well as testimony, reports and federal data to support the Commission’s conclusions and findings. Despite the carriers’ best efforts to prevent disclosure of their most confidential subscription data, TURN provided a comprehensive analysis on each issue in the Scoping Memo through its testimony, hearing participation, briefs, and comments. TURN’s witnesses submitted extensive testimony on market definition, competition, wholesale markets and market analysis criteria. Ultimately, TURN’s substantial contribution, along with other intervenors and ORA, presented the Commission with comprehensive analysis on just and reasonable rates and competitive choice for California consumers. In addition to addressing substantive issues, the docket was marked by significant motion practice. TURN, in collaboration with other intervenors, issued, responded to, or opposed no fewer than 20 motions regarding all aspects of this proceeding including categorization, discovery and data production, scope and jurisdiction, and scheduling. TURN submits, as discussed below, that its work on these motions was critical to ensuring that the proceeding moved forward on a clear and productive path and shaping the Final Decision’s scope and conclusions. This proceeding was also unique in that several carrier respondents moved for response to Information Requests, June 1, 2016. Supplemental Testimony of Susan Baldwin, June 1, 2016. Rebuttal Testimony of Susan Baldwin, July 15, 2016. Rebuttal Testimony of Trevor Roycroft, July 15, 2016. Numerous carrier motions regarding procedural and substantive issues, including motions for reconsideration ALJ Ruling Adopting Protective Order, March 1, 2016. ALJ Ruling Revising Protective Order, April 1, 2016. TURN Motion to Compel, April 19, 2016. ACR/ALJ Ruling re: Outstanding Motions, May 3, 2016. ALJ Ruling re: Carrier Motions for Reconsideration and to Stay, May 5, 2016 New Cingular v. PUC, Federal Court complaint/TRO, May 5, 2016 Scoping Memo, July 1, 2016. TURN Opening Brief, August 12, 2016. TURN Reply Brief, August 26, 2016. TURN Opening Comments on Proposed Decision, November 7, 2016. TURN Reply Comments on
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).
nondiscriminatory access to advanced services. TURN’s expert witnesses also submitted testimony stating that the Commission must take a broad approach to its investigation, including all voice and broadband providers, to gain a clear “snapshot” of today’s communications marketplace. The ALJ, Assigned Commissioner, and full Commission ultimately rejected each of the carriers’ motions regarding scope and jurisdiction, including requests for interlocutory appeal to the full Commission. Decision makers agreed with TURN that the Commission’s relevant jurisdiction, along with the scope of this docket, should be defined broadly across technologies and corporate entities. The July 1, 2016 Scoping Memo explicitly noted that, “The landline voice market cannot be understood without understanding the telecommunications ecosystem as a whole,” including digital services and devices. The Final Decision agreed that voice and broadband markets are inextricably linked and, as a result, the Commission’s investigation must encompass all relevant “submarkets” and services offered over a variety of communications technologies. ACR/ALJ Ruling re: Outstanding Motions, May 3, 2016. ALJ Ruling re: Carrier Motions for Reconsideration and to Stay, May 5, 2016. Scoping Ruling (July 1, 2016), pp. 1-3. Final Decision: p. 3 (voice market is tied to the broadband market in a number of ways). p. 29 (Commission will examine markets and services including voice, broadband, wholesale and retail, mobile, landline and fixed wireline technologies). COL 1 (continued statutory obligation to ensure just and reasonable charges and services). COL 6, 7- Commission policies must encourage wide choice of advanced telecommunications services. COL 11 (Telecommunications markets extend to all types of services and technologies). 4.Document Production The carriers’ data responses to the OII’s Information Requests were at the core of the record in this proceeding. OII, pp. 2, 10, 14-15. ALJ Ruling Adopting Protective Order, March 4, 2016. Verified
the court about the importance that intervenors have access to this information to ensure full and effective decision-making by the Commission and due process to intervenors like TURN. The carriers’ arguments were unsuccessful in federal court. The Court granted the carriers’ request for a temporary restraining order to prevent TURN initially from getting access to certain carrier confidential data while the federal litigation was pending. But after TURN and the Commission submitted further briefing, the Court determined that the Commission was not categorically preempted by FCC rules from releasing the data to TURN and others, as long as the data was protected by an adequate protective order and statutory rules that would prevent release of the data to the general public. While the federal court action was pending, the Commission adopted the Final Decision and closed this docket. The federal judge agreed with TURN and the Commission that without the risk that the Commission would enforce the ALJ’s ruling in the underlying Commission docket, the federal case is moot. Show Cause re: Mootness, December 15, 2016. Court Order Dismissing Action, January 12, 2017. 6. Market Concentration/HHI The OII asked parties to address whether and to what extent intermodal competition exists and to analyze the competitive choices for voice and broadband services in California. TURN endeavored to provide a detailed, comprehensive, and data driven analysis in response to the OII’s inquiry. OII, pp. 14, 21. Direct Testimony of Trevor Roycroft on behalf of TURN in response to Information Requests, June 1, 2016, pp. 6, 22, 75, 83, Appendix A, Appendix B. Verified