[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
INTEL's Motion in California ISDN Case
- To: isdn@tap.org
- Subject: INTEL's Motion in California ISDN Case
- From: James Love <love@tap.org>
- Date: Sat, 6 Jan 1996 11:01:32 -0500 (EST)
This is a motion Intel filed in the California Pac Bell ISDN tariff
proceeding. Also, i might add that on friday CPT was told by the
California PUC that they protests filed after the 5th would be accepted,
and that they were processing the comments filed by electronic
mail at public.advisor@cpuc.ca.gov, and these comments were considered to
be thoughtful and useful to the PUC staff. jamie
BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Application of Pacific Bell for )
Authority to Increase and Restructure )
A.95-12-043
Certain Rates of its Integrated )
Services Digital Network Services )
___________________________________________)
EX PARTE MOTION FOR EXTENSION FOR FILING OF PROTESTS
I. Introduction and Summary
Intel Corporation ("Intel") hereby moves to extend the
date for filing protests to the above-captioned application (the
"Application") from January 19, 1996 to February 19, 1996. In the
Application, Pacific Bell is seeking to increase the rates for its
Integrated Services Digital Network services ("ISDN services").
This motion should be granted because: (i) Intel first
received a copy of the Application on January 3, 1996 (para. 2,
attached Declaration of Dhruv Khanna ("Khanna Decl.")) -- almost a
full month after it was originally filed; (ii) this Application is
of enormous public significance; (iii) numerous high-technology
companies, Internet access providers, on-line service providers and
users of personal computers ("PCs") and others have a vital stake
in this Application -- who have not been served with the
Application, and will require adequate time to review the
Application and respond accordingly (para. 3., Khanna Decl) ; (iv)
the public interest will be served by participation of PC industry
and on-line community in this proceeding; (v) the due process
rights of the PC and on-line industry participants should be
safeguarded; and (vi) Pacific Bell will not be unfairly prejudiced
by the grant of this motion.
II. Public Interest in ISDN PC Communications and this
Application
Intel, a leader in the computer industry, is playing an
instrumental role in transforming the PC into a powerful,
interactive, PSTN-connected communications tool. Over the years,
Intel has roughly doubled the computing power of PC microprocessors
available every 18 months at constant prices. As a result, PCs
are increasingly able to provide high-quality performance of a
variety of interactive multimedia applications, including access to
the Internet and other on-line services, remote-Local Area Network
("LAN") access, and simultaneous data, audio and videoconferencing.
More than a third of all U.S. households have PCs. Internet use
is increasing dramatically. The use of telecommuting,
videoconferencing and remote LAN access is also poised to increase
dramatically.
However, the only affordable bandwidth that is
currently available ubiquitously on the PSTN is limited to analog
POTS (plain old telephone service). Analog POTS affords limited
bandwidth, and recent developments in the PC industry and in
customer preferences are highlighting the inadequacies of analog
POTS as means for PC communications. For example, access to the
Internet, access to commercial online services, remote-LAN access
and videoconferencing over analog POTS is significantly inferior (4
times as slow) than over ISDN services. While analog POTS affords
up to 28.8 kilo bits per second ("kbps") transmission speeds over
28.8 kbps POTS modems, ISDN provides digital connectivity at up to
128 kbps (two 64 kbps channels) over the same ubiquitous copper
local loop and digital switches that are currently used for analog
POTS. Many PC users have already invested in powerful,
multimedia-capable PCs. The PC industry (hardware and software
companies), the on-line service industry and others have invested
heavily and continue to invest heavily in a wide array of
ISDN-related products. An entire industry is poised to deliver
mass-market ISDN products. Unreasonable ISDN pricing, as proposed
by Pacific Bell in this Application, may preclude the development
of a mass-market ISDN industry, and will certainly retard its
growth.
III. Service of this Application on the PC Industry and On-line
Community
Intel and other PC companies and on-line industry
participants have not historically been actively involved in the
regulatory processes related to telecommunications carriers at this
Commission or elsewhere. Based on Intel's previous, and highly
limited, but ISDN-focused, participation in regulatory matters at
the Commission, Pacific Bell should have reasonably known that
service of this Application at least on Intel, and on similar PC
industry participants and on-line service providers was necessary
when it was filed on December 5, 1995. (Para. 4, Khanna Decl.)
Intel was not served with this Application when it was filed and
obtained a copy on January 3, 1996 only after making repeated
requests. (Para. 2, Khanna Decl.) Thus Intel has received the
Application almost a whole month after it was originally filed.
Intel believes that other PC industry participants who are selling
ISDN hardware and software, and on-line service providers also have
not been served with the Application, even though Prodigy in 1993
submitted a formal protest to Pacific's ISDN tariff as originally
proposed. (Para. 3, Khanna Decl.)
Granting this motion is in the public interest: the
Commission, the state of California and the California public have
an enormous stake in the rapid growth of ISDN-based PC
communications: The growth of ISDN-based PC communications will
directly and substantially enable the continued growth of
California's (and the nation's) high-technology industry. It will
also deliver educational, environmental, productivity, competitive,
and a host of related benefits to the California public -- school
children, teenagers, seniors, small and large businesses, health
care providers, and others -- and quality of life benefits to
telecommuters and the online community. The growth of ISDN-based
PC communications will be severely retarded unless ISDN rates in
California are reduced. The Commission and the public will benefit
from the considered participation of the PC industry, on-line
industry, and the on-line community in this matter. The
Commission should allow for more time for the PC industry, on-line
industry and the vast community of on-line users to receive,
review, consider and respond to Pacific's Application, and not
accept Pacific's invitation to proceed with haste on this
Application.
IV. Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, Intel respectfully requests that
the Commission extend the deadline for the filing of protests to
this Application through February 19, 1996. Intel respectfully
requests that the Commission issue a ruling extending the current
deadline of January 19, 1996 as soon as feasible and fax such
ruling to Intel counsel indicated below.
Date: January 4, 1996
Respectfully
submitted,
INTEL
CORPORATION
____________________________
Dhruv Khanna,
Esq.
Intel
Corporation
Mail Stop:
HF3-03
5200 N.E. Elam
Young Parkway
Hillsboro, OR
97124
(503) 696-7162
fax: (503)
696-1809
Attorney for Intel
Corporation
DECLARATION OF DHRUV KHANNA
1. My name is Dhruv Khanna. I am an active member of
the California State Bar, and I am currently employed by Intel
Corporation as a Senior Attorney in Hillsboro, OR.
2. Pacific Bell filed the above-captioned application
with the Commission on December 5, 1995 and did not serve Intel
with this Application. Since receiving the Commission's daily
calendar dated December 20, 1995, which notes the filing of Pacific
Bell's ISDN rate increase application, A.95-12-043, I have made
numerous attempts to reach the appropriate individuals at Pacific
Bell in order to obtain a copy of the Application. I was directed
from Ms. Mary Van Der Pan to Mr. Robert Mazique to Mr. Larry
Bercovich to Mr. Larry Green. I received a copy of Pacific Bell's
Application on January 3, 1996, almost a full month after it was
originally filed by Pacific Bell.
3. On information and belief, I declare that numerous
PC industry participants, Internet access providers, and on-line
users are vitally interested in and affected by this Application.
I am aware that Prodigy, a commercial on-line service provider,
filed a formal protest to Pacific Bell's advice letter submitting
its 1993 ISDN tariff. I am informed and believe that such entities
and individuals have not yet received, and have therefore not yet
reviewed this Application.
4. Intel's previous participation at the Commission on
telecommunications matters has been focused on ISDN matters of
which Pacific Bell has had actual notice.
To the best of my knowledge and belief, and under
penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California, I
declare that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 4th
day of January, 1996, at San Francisco, California.
_________________________________
DHRUV KHANNA
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I have had served this day the foregoing
document by fax on Larry Bercovich, attorney for Pacific Bell, at
(510) 867-0150.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State
of California that the foregoing is true and correct and that this
declaration was executed on January 4, 1996, at San Francisco, CA.
________________________________
Dhruv
Khanna
BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Application of Pacific Bell for )
Authority to Increase and Restructure )
) A.95-12-043
Certain Rates of its Integrated )
Services Digital Network Services )
____________________________________ )
[PROPOSED] ALJ RULING GRANTING EX PARTE MOTION FOR EXTENSION FOR
FILING OF PROTESTS
For good cause shown, Intel's Ex Parte Motion For Extension for
Filing of Protests to the above application is hereby granted. The
deadline for filing of protests to the application shall be
extended through February 19, 1996.
This order is effective today.
Dated: _________, at San Francisco, CA
__________________________________________
Administrative Law Judge