Findings of Fact
1. D.06-03-013 directed Staff to analyze and report on special problems faced by limited English proficient consumers.
2. Consumers who are limited English proficient (LEP) are consumers who do not speak English fluently.
3. "In-language" means "in a non-English language" (or "in the non-English language," etc.).
4. The Staff report, "Challenges Facing Consumers With Limited English Skills In The Rapidly Changing Telecommunications Marketplace," (Report) issued October 2006, sought to build upon the anecdotal evidence submitted in R.00-02-004, and was prepared to help assess whether the needs of LEP consumers are adequately met by education and enforcement efforts, and whether the Commission should adopt any rules.
5. The Report study relied on census and other demographic information, Commission records, and research into the language accessibility practices of state and federal government agencies, information received from telecommunications carriers, and comments provided by carriers, CBOs and other consumer groups, in writing and orally at a series of workshops and public meetings.
6. This OIR was initiated to consider ways to improve services to LEP telecommunications consumers and to assess telecommunications carriers' current in-language efforts and capabilities, the availability of and need for improved in-language disclosures, and access to in-language customer service.
7. All California telecommunications carriers, including entities registered as providers of prepaid phone debit cards pursuant to Pub. Util. Code § 885, are respondents to this proceeding.
8. The ACR of January 17, 2007, incorporated by reference the limited English proficiency aspects of the record of the CPI proceeding, R.00-02-004, and the meetings, workshops, comments and Report.
9. D.06-03-013 recognized carriers should be the first and most important source of information for consumers.
10. In preparing the Report, Staff contacted all registered and certificated (wireless and wireline) telecommunications corporations in California asking for information on carrier services for and interactions with LEP consumers (Staff Survey).
11. Only 11% of the carriers contacted responded to Staff's Survey (109 responses were received on behalf of 147 carriers out of a total of approximately 1,300 carriers). However, most incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs), major CLCs and major wireless carriers responded and these carriers serve the majority of telecommunications customers in California. The ILECs responding to Staff's Survey represent over 95% of ILEC customers.
12. Most carriers responding to the Staff Survey do not track information about LEP customers, (67%) or do not provide non-English services of any kind (52%), and were unable to provide any information on their LEP customers.
13. Since most responding carriers state they do not track their interactions with LEP consumers, they have provided little data we can point to showing they are meeting the needs of their LEP consumers.
14. The carriers' response to the Staff request for information does not allow the Commission to precisely determine the extent of existing in-language services or unmet LEP consumer needs.
15. Several carriers responding to the Staff Survey provided information on their multilingual marketing, education, and outreach services, and the language demographics of their customers.
16. Many telecommunications carriers provide their own in-language marketing, outreach, and education for existing customers and prospective customers in order to provide better service or to attract new customers.
17. Larger carriers are more likely than smaller carriers to serve larger linguistic groups (e.g., Spanish, Chinese) with in-house employees, and to use Language Line telephone interpretation services for others.
18. Several smaller carriers do not provide any non-English educational materials because these carriers do not see a need for such services among their customers.
19. Some carriers serving multi-ethnic customers also provide in-house customer service in languages other than English, most commonly Spanish, but also several Asian languages, as well as Russian, Armenian, Arabic, and others.
20. The California Utilities Diversity Council (CUDC) was established in March, 2003, as a resource and to work collaboratively with the Commission and regulated utility companies to promote and increase diversity within utilities' governance, customer service and marketing, employment, procurement, and philanthropy programs.
21. In 2005, the CUDC conducted a survey of the language policies and practices within the CUDC utility companies and the Commission.
22. All of those responding to the CUDC survey provide some level of customer service in at least one non-English language.
23. Most of those responding to the CUDC survey regularly monitor customer service telephone calls for quality assurance, and several respondents use telephone interpreter services to serve non-English-speaking customers.
24. Larger carriers responding to the CUDC survey and those serving more diverse areas offer more services in more languages than smaller carriers. Services provided in languages other than English include marketing and outreach information (such as brochures on understanding phone bills) and customer service.
25. Carriers providing in-language support usually provide information only in the most commonly spoken non-English languages, and few carriers provide in-language service contracts or in-language key terms and conditions.
26. The Commission agrees with the Report's assessment of telecommunications carriers' current in-language efforts.
27. The absence of detailed carrier cost information and the lack of quantitatively and qualitatively measured benefits prevents us from conducting a rigorous cost-benefit analysis.
28. Carriers oppose tracking or producing data that might assist the Commission in more precisely determining the extent of LEP needs.
29. Even without detailed carrier cost information and the lack of quantitatively and qualitatively measured benefits, we are still able to assess if proposals for in-language rules are feasible with existing infrastructure, processes and technologies, and without undue financial burden while providing substantial benefits that promote the public interest.
30. Although many carriers provide a variety of in-language services the extent of in-language support varies widely.
31. Existing practices and rules do not adequately protect LEP consumers because they either do not require information to be "in-language" and understandable to LEP customers (as is the case with most existing consumer protection rules and regulations), or they apply only to certain kinds of transactions or customers or they apply to some carriers serving LEP customers but not to others (e.g., tariffs, D.96-10-076, D.98-08-031).
32. None of the currently mandated annual notices are required to be in-language for LEP consumers.
33. Providing disclosures in English does not allow an LEP consumer sufficient information to make an informed choice.
34. Less than half (48%) of carriers responding to the Staff Survey provide any in-language information or support whatsoever to LEP consumers.
35. The Asian Law Caucus (ALC) declaration describing its effort to find useful in-language information on major wireless carrier websites substantiates the lack of useful in-language support for LEP customers.
36. The U.S. Census survey data for tracts in small LEC areas show several of small LECs operate in areas with significant (more than 5%) LEP populations, and some operate in areas with much greater LEP populations.
37. LEP customers who receive but do not understand notices and other important information provided only in English are not receiving adequate service with respect to important information carriers are required to provide customers.
38. While local exchange competition has not been authorized in the territories of cost-of-service regulated carriers, these carriers may nonetheless face competition from wireless and Voice over Internet Protocol (VOIP) providers.
39. Although competition has been in place elsewhere in the state for over a decade, few carriers provide any in-language materials or services, and many that do are required to do so by rules adopted in D.96-10-076 for CLCs or the in-language rules adopted in D.00-10-028 for carriers providing ULTS.
40. Competition to date has not addressed the needs of LEP consumers, particularly where LEP consumers may enter into annual or multi-year contracts which may limit their ability to cancel or change service that is not meeting their needs.
41. LEP consumers who purchase service through prepaid or month-to-month contracts are not locked in to long term agreements, and able to easily cancel or change service at little cost or penalty.
42. Where competition is in place, it should function more effectively as a result of our in-language rules because LEP customers that enter into annual or multi-year contracts will have better information upon which to make their purchasing decisions.
43. In 2003, slamming was the most prevalent source of fraud, and Hispanics were more than twice as likely to be victims as non-Hispanic whites.
44. Consumers who have limited English-language proficiency are a group that may be particularly vulnerable to fraud or slamming because of their inability to understand oral offers.
45. LEP consumers that may enter into annual or multi-year contracts are vulnerable when they rely on in-language oral communications at the point of sale because oral communications may not accurately or completely disclose key terms and conditions of English language contracts and secondary contracts.
46. LEP consumers may not speak, read, write, or understand the English language sufficiently to access services to which they may be entitled.
47. Providing LEP customers with information only in English about how to protect against fraud is ineffective.
48. The limited translation and other in-language customer services some carriers provide voluntarily as a courtesy to LEP consumers are inadequate to fully protect or inform LEP consumers enter into annual or multi-year contracts.
49. Victims of fraud who are not fluent in English may be less likely to complain about a fraudulent experience.
50. Despite the particular vulnerability of LEP consumers to fraud and marketing abuse, no wireless or other carriers provide in-language notices informing LEP consumers how to avoid fraud and marketing abuse.
51. CBOs have unique insights into the consumer problems faced by specific communities.
52. There is not sufficient information to conclude carriers' wholesale or business customers need in-language protection.
53. No matter how much general education the Commission might provide on how to shop for telecommunications services, LEP consumers that enter into annual or multi-year contracts still need specific information about the rates, terms, and conditions of service so they may make informed purchasing decisions.
54. Only the carrier setting the rates, terms, and conditions of its services can provide the information needed by LEP consumers enter into annual or multi-year contracts to get their problems addressed.
55. A trigger for in-language obligations that relies on the collection or monitoring of demographic or customer profile information is too complex to manage and the quality of collected information too unreliable.
56. A company marketing its non-exempt services in a particular non-English language is a trigger that is simple to determine and enforce.
57. Requiring carriers marketing non-exempt services to provide in-language support to customers speaking the language(s) in which a carrier already markets its services is not unduly burdensome to carriers.
58. In-language obligations should apply only to carriers marketing non-exempt services in-language and only to those languages in which the carrier markets.
59. Due to language barriers, LEP customers that enter into annual or multi-year contracts for non-exempt services need in-language assistance understanding the terms of transactions to which they are bound by English language contracts, or to discuss service or billing problems.
60. There are several ways in which carriers can ensure LEP consumers to acquire the necessary customer support or transaction-related information in the language(s) in which the carrier markets its non-exempt services to allow them to make informed purchasing decisions and to discuss service or billing problems.
61. In-language information on carriers' currently offered services, calling plans and explanations of bills does not provide sufficient information for LEP consumers that enter into annual or multi-year contracts to understand the terms and conditions of their specific transactions.
62. LEP customers enter into annual or multi-year contracts need access to a summary of their transactions in the language(s) in which the carrier markets its services (Confirmation Summary).
63. LEP customers that enter into annual or multi-year contracts need access to information contained in Commission-mandated notices and disclosures in the language(s) in which the carrier markets its services.
64. LEP customers that enter into annual or multi-year contracts need access to Customer Service in the language(s) in which the carrier markets its services or through a third-party interpreter service such as Language Line for assistance with service or billing problems.
65. LEP customers that enter into annual or multi-year contracts need access to in-language instructions for how to obtain Customer Service assistance in the language(s) in which the carrier markets its services.
66. The use of only one method to provide in-language information and support to LEP consumers that enter into annual or multi-year contracts is inadequate.
67. LEP customers that enter into annual or multi-year contracts are unable to understand contracts written in English.
68. In-language oral communications at the point of sale may not accurately and completely disclose key terms and conditions contained in English language contracts for non-exempt services.
69. Written in-language brochures or other collateral marketing material may not accurately or completely disclose key contract terms and conditions contained in English language contracts.
70. LEP consumers that enter into annual or multi-year contracts are especially disadvantaged in negotiating agreements to which they are bound by contracts written in English.
71. Collecting extensive and detailed information about their customers is a common, if not essential, practice of modern businesses seeking to provide products and services of interest and value to their customers.
72. CBOs play an important role in bridging barriers to effective communications between carriers and LEP consumers.
