[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
CPUC Preliminary Hearing
- To: kluz1@llnl.gov (Stan Kluz - LLNL), dalerogers@attmail.com (Dale Rogers), kathieb@svi.org (Kathie Blankenship), tdbayle@popper.pacbell.com (Tom Bayless - Pacific Bell), reginacost@igc.apc.org, russ@internex.net, fraser@acusd.edu, isdn@essential.org, ciug.internex.net, knilles@slip.net, dcbarry@pacificnet.net
- Subject: CPUC Preliminary Hearing
- From: bob@larribeau.com (Bob Larribeau)
- Date: Sat, 24 Feb 1996 11:02:41 -0800
Pacific Bell ISDN Tariff Increase Application
CPUC Preliminary Hearing
February 21, 1996
The California Public Utilities Commission held its preliminary hearing to
review the Pacific Bell ISDN Tariff Increase Application. The purpose of
this hearing was to set the schedule for the hearing. The Administrative
Law Judge will set the schedule based on what was presented in the hearing.
She said she was considering a schedule where the formal hearings would
start on June 26.
The meeting room was full. There were the normal complement of lawyers from
Pacific Bell, AT&T, and so on. Intel was there. Consumer groups like TURN
and UCAN. There were also a lot of regular people there who are opposing
this price increase. The California ISDN Users' Group signed up as a party
to the hearings to protest the tariff.
The main issue discussed was the Non-Disclosure Agreement that was
distributed by Pacific Bell to receive a copy of the cost data supporting
the tariff. Pacific Bell has requested that this cost data be kept under
seal. The Administrative Law Judge did not accept Pacific's simple
statement that this information should be sealed. She told Pacific that
they have to provide justification.
The Non-Disclosure Agreement was particularly onerous. It includes a
consequential damages clause and requires that the signature be notarized.
The Administrative Law Judge gave the parties one week to come to agreement
on a Non-Disclosure Agreement or she would issue one herself on Friday,
March 1. She made it clear that she does not find consequential damages
clauses acceptable.
In response to a question about why Pacific Bell added the consequential
damages clause and the notarized signatures, they said it was due to the
broad interest that this tariff application was generating. Normally only
Pacific Bell, AT&T, MCI, etc. are involved in these hearings. They seem to
find all of us regular people there somewhat scary. What really scares them
is our ability to distribute information on the Web!
The Administrative Law Judge was also sympathetic to a request to make an
abridged version of the cost data available to the general public. Strong
requests were made to Pacific Bell to publish their methodology at a minimum.
This hearing was a preliminary skirmish in what looks to be a long and
interesting process. The CIUG will be doing everything we can to defeat or
ameliorate this price increase. We need your support.
You can subscribe to our mail group by sending email to
"majordomo@internex.net" with "subscribe ciug" in the body of the message.
We will also be posting information on our web page at
"http://www.ciug.org". You can contact us at "info@ciug.org".
*****************************************************************
* California ISDN User's Group info@ciug.org *
* P.O. Box 27901-318 http://www.ciug.org *
* San Francisco, CA 94127 Voice: (415)241-9943 *
* A California nonprofit corporation Fax: (415)753-6942 *
* *
* Send us your postal address Spring Conference *
* and we will send you our June 5 & 6 *
* latest newsletter and Los Angeles Airport *
* information on our next conference Hilton Hotel *
*****************************************************************