Discussion

In order to address AT&T's Motion to dismiss this proceeding, we first address the requirements for a complaint. Public Utilities Code Section 1702 sets the parameters for complaints before the Commission. Notably, Section 1702 states who may make a complaint, how the complaint may be made, and what should be included in the complaint. Specifically, Section 1702 states that a complaint must:

...set forth any act or thing done or omitted to be done by any public utility, including any rule or charge heretofore established or fixed by or for any public utility, in violation or claimed to be in violation, of any provision of law or of any order or rule of the commission.

Complainants' initial filing alleges that AT&T did not provide adequate service from August 2009 through March 2010. This portion of the complaint complies with Section 1702.

Regarding the complaint of inadequate service quality in the vicinity of Orosi, CA, the Commission is responsible for ensuring adequate service quality in rural California. In the Orosi area, AT&T is the carrier of last resort to provide landline telephone service. As far as alternative telephone service, Complainants mention that mobile phone service reception in this area is difficult due to the rural terrain. Thus, Complainants have access to no other options for telephone service. Given the lack of other service options, we agree with the Complainants that AT&T's landline telephone service is a lifeline. However, we find that the complaint of inadequate service quality in rural California is more appropriately addressed within the confines of a Commission investigation or rulemaking.

As AT&T has correctly pointed out,¹³ General Order (GO) 133-C¹⁴ allows the Commission staff to investigate carrier service quality reporting and recommend to the Commission to open a formal investigation. On December 1, 2011, the Commission approved the opening of a new rulemaking to review carrier's performance, including AT&T, in meeting GO 133-C service quality performance standards in 2010, and to assess whether the existing standards meet the goals of the Commission. The new rulemaking, R.11-12-001, is the more appropriate venue to determine whether AT&T provides adequate telephone service quality in rural California.

In its Motion, AT&T contends that full reparation for the service interruptions has been provided to Complainants in the form of bill credits and checks. Complainants allege that while they received credits on their bill equaling $208.41, they did not receive a check from AT&T for $255.94 as AT&T claims.¹⁵ In the Amendment to the Motion, AT&T asserts that in discovery, Complainants confirm they received and cashed a check for $255.94.¹⁶ Complainants do not deny receiving and/or cashing the check in the response to the Amendment, but now request that AT&T cease and reverse collection actions.¹⁷

As shown by AT&T, Tariff Rule 14 specifically indicates the limitations of liability:

[D]amages arising out of mistakes, omissions, interruptions, delays, errors or defects in any of the services or facilities furnished by the Company...shall in no event exceed an amount equal to the pro rata charges to the customer for the period during which the services or facilities are affected by the mistake, omission, interruption, delay, error or defect,...but in no event shall the liability exceed the total amount of the charges to the customer for all tariffed services or facilities for the period affected by the mistake, omission, interruption, delay, error or defect.

We find that Complainants have received full reparation for all payments made to AT&T during the August 2009 to March 2010, as requested in the original complaint. Complainants subsequently requested that AT&T cease and reverse collection actions. While AT&T claims to have ceased collections, we note that Tariff Rule 14 does not require AT&T to provide for further reparation other than reimbursement of all payments made from the Complainants. Thus, we find that AT&T has provided the Complainant reparation to the extent the law allows, and therefore, we find the Complaint moot. This proceeding is closed.

¹³ AT&T Comments to Proposed Decision, December 5, 2011 at and AT&T Reply to Complainant's Opposition to Motion, August 25, 2011 at 8.

¹⁴ GO 133-C is the minimum set of service quality standards and measures for installation, maintenance, and operator services for local telephone service.

¹⁵ Complainants' Reply to Motion, filed on August 15, 2011 at 4.

¹⁶ AT&T Amendment at 2-3.

¹⁷ Clarence and Marciana Bush response to AT&T September 22, 2011 Amendment to July 29, 2011 Motion to Dismiss, late-filed on October 20, 2011 at 2.