Conclusions of Law

1. Competition should be relied on when it is the most appropriate solution, and we should consider whether rules are cost-effective when adequate information is available to make that determination.

2. It is not reasonable to conclude competition can adequately protect limited English proficient (LEP) consumers, particularly where LEP consumers enter into annual or multi-year contracts which may limit their ability to cancel or change service that is not meeting their needs.

3. LEP consumers who purchase service through pre-paid or month-to-month contracts do not need the in-language information and disclosures because they are not locked in to long term agreements and are able to easily cancel or change service at little cost or penalty.

4. Services to wholesale or business customers, and wireless services offered through pre-paid or month-to-month contracts should be exempt from our in-language requirements.

5. Section 2892.3 obliges the Commission to require mobile telephony service providers to report to the Commission on problems with fraud and actions taken to combat it, and to require these providers to inform customers about ways to protect against fraud.

6. It is in the public interest to establish clear and efficient rules that carriers marketing non-exempt services can follow to ensure LEP customers that enter into annual or multi-year contracts have a wide range of competitive service alternatives

7. In-language obligations should apply only to carriers marketing non-exempt services in-language and only to those languages in which the carrier markets.

8. Carriers marketing non-exempt services that become aware of unauthorized in-language marketing by their employees or agents should be required to take corrective action within 30 days with employees or agents who conducted the unauthorized in-language marketing and document the corrective action taken to prevent further unauthorized in-language marketing.

9. LEP customers that enter into annual or multi-year contracts are entitled to reasonable, just and adequate service just like other customers, a failure to do so is unreasonable.

10. There is no need to meet a cost-effectiveness test in order for a carrier to be required to correct fraudulent conduct or compensate victims of fraud.

11. Carriers are not entitled to retain any ill-gotten gains and victims of fraud should always be made whole to the extent possible.

12. Existing practices and rules do not adequately protect LEP consumers that enter into annual or multi-year contracts and in-language rules are necessary.

13. The Commission can not rely on carrier assertions that in-language support is adequate and no additional protection of LEP consumers is needed.

14. LEP consumers that enter into annual or multi-year contracts who do not receive adequate notices, disclosures or other important information do not receive the information needed to fully participate in the marketplace.

15. We should not rely solely on the competitive marketplace to address the needs of LEP consumers that enter into annual or multi-year contracts because even with competition achievement of important public policy objectives requires additional measures.

16. Rules that require carriers that market non-exempt in-language to also make available in-language notices, disclosures and other important transaction or service-related information already required for carriers serving customers in English do not raise an issue with regard to a utility's First Amendment commercial speech rights.

17. Requiring a carrier who markets its non-exempt services in a language that triggers the Commission's in-language rules to continue its dealings with customers in that same language is reasonably related to consumer protection in that it prevents deceptive, fraudulent and discriminatory practices.

18. Section 332(c)(3)(A) of the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. § 151 et seq., as amended, authorizes states to establish terms and conditions for wireless service, other than those that directly regulate rates or market entry.

19. Section 253(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. § 151 et seq., as amended, confirms state authority to safeguard the rights of customers.

20. Congress has expressly delegated to individual states authority to regulate intrastate telecommunications carriers and has expressly delegated to individual states authority to regulate the terms and conditions of wireless service.

21. The claim that in-language rules amount to compelled protected speech has no merit.

22. The argument that the Commission's language rules are preempted has no merit.

23. In-language should be defined as "a non-English language."

24. Services should be defined as "telecommunications services, features or rate plans."

Marketing in-language should be defined as "carrier-initiated and carrier-approved communication in a non-English language intended to induce a customer to purchase non-exempt services that are in writing or publicly broadcast or made available through print media, television, radio or the Internet, or conveyed orally through a carrier-initiated or carrier-approved contact, such as outbound telemarketing or door-to-door sales." The definition of marketing in-language should exclude in-language communications that are incidental to English language telemarketing or door-to-door marketing, individual conversations between sales representatives and customers or potential customers, conversations between customer service representatives and consumers during consumer-initiated calls and follow up calls related thereto, and "image" or "brand" advertising, which may name the Carrier and the non-exempt Service(s), but does not include terms, prices or specific information about non-exempt Services; and communications in a non English language that involve only the sale of telecommunications equipment (e.g. handsets) with no Service component.

25. The geographic scope of a carrier's obligation once in-language obligations are triggered should be limited to the in-language advertising area.

26. To the extent that a carrier's business establishment(s) (including a carrier's dealer or agent locations) separately trigger in-language requirements by conducting in-language marketing of non-exempt services, in-language obligations should be triggered only for each carrier location that does so.

27. A carrier that becomes aware of unauthorized in-language marketing by their dealers, agents or employees should be required to take corrective action within 30 days with such dealers, agents or employees, and should be required to document the corrective action taken to prevent further unauthorized in-language marketing.

28. Resellers which are registered or certificated by the Commission are independent carriers, and not agents of facilities-based carriers from whom they purchase on a wholesale basis and sell under their own brand name.

29. Dealers are agents who sell on behalf of a facilities-based or resale carrier under the carrier's name.

30. Carriers are responsible for the acts of their agents under the Civil and Public Utilities Codes.

31. Adequate enforcement tools are in place to achieve carriers' agents' compliance with our in-language requirements.

32. The Commission has authority to impose fines or other sanctions on entities which are required to register, but have failed to do so, and entities denied registration that offer prepaid phone cards.

33. Carriers that market non-exempt services in-language should be required to make available to LEP consumers that enter into annual or multi-year contracts information needed to obtain and maintain telecommunications services, and to protect these customers from fraud or abuse.

34. In-language rules should provide flexibility to carriers that market in-language but at the same time ensure LEP consumers that enter into annual or multi-year contracts receive adequate information, including a way to access in-language information contained in Commission-mandated notices and disclosures.

35. When a carrier markets non-exempt services in a particular language to consumers that enter into annual or multi-year contracts, that carrier should be obligated to make available to consumers enough information in the language the carrier is marketing in to allow consumers to make informed purchasing decisions and resolve service or billing problems.

36. Carriers that market non-exempt services in-language should make available a LEP customer that enters into annual or multi-year contract a summary of the customer's transaction in the language(s) in which the carrier markets its non-exempt services, including the name of the Service Carrier, its contact information, and a brief description of the telecommunications Services or wireless carrier calling plan(s) purchased by the customer, including pricing, term, and any early termination fee (Confirmation Summary).

37. Carriers that market non-exempt services in-language should make available to a LEP customer that enters into annual or multi-year contract access to information contained in Commission-mandated notices and disclosures in the language(s) in which the carrier markets its non-exempt services.

38. Carriers marketing non-exempt Services in a non-English language should be required to provide during its normal business hours access to live, person-to-person customer service over the telephone in the language(s) in which the Carrier markets its non-exempt Services. A carrier should be allowed to provide in-person customer service, in addition to telephonic customer service, if a carrier chooses to do so.

39. Carriers should have a choice of ways to satisfy in-language obligations that accommodates the variety of carrier types, their diverse marketing strategies and their different modes of operation.

40. Carriers should have alternative ways of making available to LEP consumers that enter into annual or multi-year contracts confirmation information in the language(s) in which the carrier markets its non-exempt services.

41. Carriers which have initiated service with a consumer as a result of in-language marketing of non-exempt services should make available by telephone live, person-to-person customer service and use at least one other method to make available in-language support to LEP consumers.

42. Carriers that market non-exempt services in-language should be allowed to use an interactive voice response (IVR) system as one of the ways carriers may make required information available orally over the telephone in the language(s) in which the carrier markets its no-exempt service to LEP consumers.

43. Carriers that use IVR systems to make required information available orally over the telephone to LEP consumers that enter into annual or multi-year contracts should allow callers to receive the required information in the language(s) in which carriers market their non-exempt services.

44. Carriers that use IVR systems to make required information available orally over the telephone to LEP consumers that enter into annual or multi-year contracts should make the phone number for the IVR system available at retail establishments, including those of dealers and agents.

45. Carriers that market in-language should be allowed to make available information in writing in the language(s) in which the carrier markets its service as one of the ways carriers may provide required information to LEP consumers that enter into annual or multi-year contracts.

46. Carriers that provide information to LEP consumers in writing should have the option to provide this information by U.S. Mail, text messages or email if the customer is able to receive text messages or email.

47. For non-exempt services sold under contract to LEP consumers that enter into annual or multi-year contracts, the required in-language information should be presented (made available or postmarked) at either point of sale, or no later than ten (10) calendar days after the transaction but not less than ten (10) calendar days prior to the expiration of any applicable grace period to allow sufficient time for the customer to cancel the carrier's service agreement without incurring an early termination fee or penalty.

48. For non-exempt services not sold under contract, the required in-language information should be presented (made available or postmarked) at either point of sale, or no later than ten (10) calendar days after the transaction.

49. Carriers that market non-exempt services in-language should be allowed to make required information available through a website in the same language(s) in which the carrier markets its service as one of the ways carriers may provide required information.

50. If the customer interacts with a Carrier marketing in-language solely by ordering service on a website and manages the account online where communications are primarily by email, the Carrier should be allowed to satisfy the in-language information obligations by providing required in-language information on a publicly available website. However, any carrier doing business in this manner should still be required to comply with in-language customer service obligations.

51. However, because many LEP consumers that enter into annual or multi-year contracts may not have Internet access, use of the Internet/website to provide information in either audio form, written form, or both should be considered "one option".

52. Carriers that market non-exempt services in-language should be allowed to make required information available in writing at the point-of-sale in the language(s) in which the carrier markets its service as one of the ways carriers may provide required information to LEP consumers that enter into annual or multi-year contracts.

53. Carriers that market non-exempt services in-language should not be required to provide contracts in-language.

54. Any representation made in the in-language information provided via IVRs, web sites, confirmation letters or other written or oral presentations should be consistent with the terms and conditions of the applicable contract.

55. Carriers that market non-exempt services in-language should not be required to provide Commission-mandated notices or bills in-language. However these carriers should be required to make available in-language instructions for how to obtain the information contained in Commission-mandated notices or assistance with billing questions in the language(s) in which the carrier markets its non-exempt services.

56. Carriers that market non-exempt services in-language should inform their LEP customers that enter into annual or multi-year contracts upon initiation of service and annually thereafter about ways to protect against fraud. However, the Commission should first determine the content, format and timing of notification to LEP consumers.

57. Carriers that market non-exempt services in-language should be required to report to the Commission annually on problems with fraud and actions taken to combat it. However, the Commission should first determine the content, format and timing of reports to the Commission.

58. In order to yield useful information, several critical issues must be resolved before requiring carriers to track LEP consumer complaint and language preference tracking, including developing a definition of "complaint" that is consistently applied, identifying the specific information to be tracked, how that information will be used, and what kinds of exceptions to any tracking requirements are appropriate.

59. Efforts to resolve the issues raised by parties concerning carrier tracking of LEP consumer complaint and language preference should benefit from our own experience working with the new CAB database.

60. Imposing LEP consumer complaint and language preference tracking requirements on carriers at this time is premature.

61. Telecommunications complaint information collected by the Commission's Consumer Affairs Branch (CAB) should to be made widely available, once the new database becomes operational.

62. Community based organizations (CBOs) should be authorized to act on behalf of any LEP telecommunications consumer who has explicitly authorized a CBO to do so.

63. All carriers should permit CBOs to represent any customer who has authorized a CBO to assist it in dealings with carriers.

64. Commission Staff should be directed to design a program that integrates CBOs in our outreach, education and complaint resolution processes, including a mechanism for compensating CBOs for their efforts while ensuring financial accountability.

65. The Commission should consider additional comments before establishing a definition of "reportable telecommunications complaint" and related LEP consumer complaint and language preference tracking issues.

66. The rules we adopt today and our existing enforcement powers should allow us to protect LEP consumers from fraudulent or abusive conduct by carriers or their agents.

67. Entities that are interexchange carriers and offer prepaid phone cards or entities that purchase bulk time from underlying interexchange carriers and thereby offer prepaid phone cards are required to register with the Commission pursuant to § 1013, unless already certificated by the Commission.

68. The Commission has authority to impose fines or other sanctions on entities that are required to register, but have failed to do so, and entities denied registration that offer telephone prepaid debit cards. The Commission has have authority under § 1013(g) and (h) to cancel, revoke, or suspend the registration of any telephone corporation that violates our rules.

69. Standards and requirements for consumer disclosure and services applicable to the advertising and sale of prepaid calling cards and prepaid calling services, including in-language requirements, are contained in Business and Professions Code § 17538.9(b).

70. This Business and Professions Code section can be enforced only in court

71. Among other things, violations of Business and Professions Code § 17538.9(b) can result in a misdemeanor conviction.

72. This Commission lacks criminal jurisdiction.

73. Not all entities that are subject to this Business and Professions Code section are telephone corporations registered or certificated by this Commission.

74. The Commission does not propose to apply its regulations to anyone who is not required to be registered or certificated by the Commission.

75. The Commission should continue the efforts initiated by D.06-03-013 where it ordered Staff to collaborate with law enforcement.

76. Staff should continue to work with the Attorney General in enforcing Business and Professions Code § 17538.9.

77. We have sufficient authority under § 2100 et seq. to impose substantial penalties for violations of our in-language rules.

ORDER

Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. The in-language rules contained in Appendix A to this decision are hereby adopted.

2. The in-language rules contained in Appendix A shall not apply to carriers' wholesale or business customers or wireless services offered through prepaid or month-to-month contracts (exempt services).

3. Carriers that market non-exempt products or services in a non-English language shall comply with the in-language rules contained in Appendix A.

4. In-language marketing shall be defined as "a carrier-initiated and carrier-approved communication in a non-English language intended to induce a customer to purchase non-exempt services that are in writing or publicly broadcast or made available through print media, television, radio or the Internet, or conveyed orally through a carrier-initiated and carrier-approved contact, such as outbound telemarketing or door-to-door sales." This definition shall exclude in-language communications that are incidental to English language telemarketing or door-to-door marketing, individual conversations between sales representatives and customers or potential customers, and conversations between customer service representatives and consumers during consumer initiated calls and follow up calls related thereto, and "image" or "brand" advertising, which may name the Carrier and the non-exempt Service(s), but does not include terms, prices or specific information about non-exempt Services; and communications in a non-English language that involve only the sale of telecommunications equipment (e.g., handsets) with no service component.

5. The geographic scope of a carrier's obligation once in-language obligations are triggered shall be limited to the in-language advertising area.

6. Whenever a carrier's business establishment(s) (including a carrier's dealer or agent locations) separately trigger in-language requirements by conducting in-language marketing of non-exempt services, in-language obligations shall be triggered only for each location that does so.

7. Carriers that become aware of unauthorized in-language marketing of non-exempt services by their employees or agents shall take corrective action, within 30 days and shall document the corrective action with employees or agents who conducted the unauthorized in-language marketing to prevent further unauthorized in-language marketing.

8. Carriers that market non-exempt services in-language shall use at least two of the options listed in Appendix A to provide in-language support to limited English proficiency (LEP) consumers, one of which shall be through oral in-language customer service by telephone.

9. Any representation made in the in-language information provided via interactive voice response (IVR) systems, web sites, confirmation letters or other written or oral presentations shall be consistent with the terms and conditions of the applicable contract.

10. The assigned Commissioner shall issue a ruling seeking comments on the content, format and timing of notification to LEP consumers about ways to protect against fraud and reports to the Commission on problems with fraud and actions taken to combat it.

11. The assigned Commissioner shall issue a ruling seeking comments on whether in-language market trial should be permitted, and if so, what rules, if any, should apply to in-language market trials.

12. The assigned Commissioner shall issue a ruling seeking comments on a definition of "reportable telecommunications complaint" in addition to related LEP consumer complaint and language preference tracking issues.

13. Staff shall design a program that integrates community based organizations (CBOs) in the Commission's outreach, education and complaint resolution processes, including a mechanism for compensating CBOs for their efforts while ensuring financial accountability and prudent use of public funds. Staff shall include in its proposal any necessary documents and/or procedures needed to ensure LEP consumers and carriers are protected from consequences of unauthorized representation, and to ensure LEP consumers and CBOs authorized relationships are recognized and respected by carriers. Staff shall present its recommendation as a resolution for Commission consideration before the end of calendar year 2007.

14. All carriers shall permit CBOs to represent any customer who has authorized a CBO to assist it in dealings with carriers.

15. Where the Attorney General is designated to enforce Business and Professions Code §17538.9, Staff shall continue to work with the Attorney General in enforcing prepaid calling card standards and requirements.

This order is effective today.

Dated July 26, 2007, at San Francisco, California.

MICHAEL R. PEEVEY

President

DIAN M. GRUENEICH

JOHN A. BOHN

RACHELLE B. CHONG

TIMOTHY ALAN SIMON

Commissioners

I reserve the right to file a concurrence.

/s/ DIAN M. GRUENEICH

Commissioner

I reserve the right to file a concurrence.

/s/ RACHELLE B. CHONG

Commissioner

I will file a concurrence.

/s/ TIMOTHY ALAN SIMON

Commissioner

APPENDIX A

Rules for In-Language Support to Limited English Proficient (LEP) Telecommunications Consumers

Rule I. When In-Language Rules Apply

I.A. Applicability. Telecommunications carriers ("Carriers") that market telecommunications services, features or rate plans ("Services") in a non-English language shall be subject to these In-Language Support Rules ("Language Rules").
I.B. Exemptions from Language Rules. These Language Rules do not apply to: (1) carriers' services to wholesale or business customers; or (2) to wireless services provided through either prepaid/pay-in-advance methods or month-to-month contracts ("exempt services").

Rule II. Marketing In-Language Definition

I II.A. Marketing In-Language Definition. Marketing In-Language is defined as "a carrier-initiated and carrier-approved communication in a non-English language that are: (1) intended to induce a customer to purchase non-exempt telecommunications service(s); and (2) that are either (a) in writing; (b) publicly broadcast (e.g. television, radio or Internet) or made available through print media, (c) or conveyed orally through a carrier-initiated and carrier-approved contact, such as outbound telemarketing or door-to-door sales."
II.B. Exclusions. This Marketing In-Language definition shall exclude: (1) in-language communications that are incidental to English language telemarketing or door-to-door marketing; (2) individual conversations between sales representatives and customers or potential customers; (3) conversations between customer service representatives and consumers during consumer-initiated calls and follow up calls related thereto; (4) "image" or "brand" advertising, which may name the carrier and the non-exempt service(s), but does not include terms, prices or specific information about non-exempt services; and (5) communications in a non English language that involve only the sale of telecommunications equipment (e.g. handsets) with no service component.
II.C. Geographic Scope. The geographic scope of a carrier's in-language obligation is limited to the in-language advertising area. If an individual reseller, dealer or agent conducts in-language marketing at a particular location, in-language obligations are triggered only for the location (e.g. store, kiosk) that does so.
II.D. Unauthorized In-Language Marketing. Unauthorized In-Language Marketing occurs when a carrier's dealer, agent or employee engages in the activities described above as "Marketing In-Language" without the approval or authorization of the carrier. A carrier that becomes aware of unauthorized in-language marketing by their dealers, agents or employees shall take corrective action within 30 days with such dealers, agents or employees, and shall document the corrective action taken to prevent further unauthorized in-language marketing.

Rule III. Language(s) Required

Language(s) Required. Any non-English language in which a carrier markets its non-exempt services in accordance with the Marketing In-Language Definition set forth above.

Rule IV. In-Language Customer Services Required

IV.A. Customer Service Requirement. During its normal business hours, carriers marketing non-exempt services in a non-English language shall provide access to live, person-to-person customer service over the telephone in the language(s) in which the carrier markets its non-exempt services. A carrier may provide in-person customer service, in addition to telephonic customer service, if a carrier chooses to do so.
IV.B. Telephonic Customer Service Option. Carriers shall provide telephonic in-language customer service using either: (1) a customer service representative fluent in the language(s) in which the carrier markets its non-exempt service; or (2) through a third-party interpreter service, such as Language Line.

Rule V. In-Language Information Required

V.A. Information Required. In addition to the In-language Customer Services requirement in Rule IV, carriers, dealers or agents marketing a carrier's non-exempt services in a non-English language shall make available one or more of the following:
1. A translation of the contract in the language in which the carrier markets its non-exempt services; or
2. A summary of the customer's transaction in the language(s) in which the carrier markets its non-exempt services (In-Language Confirmation Summary); or,
3. A summary of the customer's transaction in English (English Confirmation Summary) so long as the carrier, dealer, or its agent provides the customer with instructions on how to access the translation or interpretation of that English Confirmation Summary into the language(s) in which the carrier markets its non-exempt services. Carriers shall provide access to required information using at least one of the following methods:
(a) Carriers may provide oral translation/interpretation through in-person or telephone customer service.
(b) Carriers may use an interactive voice response (IVR) system to make required information available to LEP consumers orally over the telephone in the language(s) in which the carrier markets its non-exempt services. Carriers shall make a toll free phone number for the IVR system available at retail outlets, including those of dealers and agents, where non-exempt services are marketed in-language.

(c) Carriers may make required information available to LEP consumers in writing in the language(s) in which the carrier markets its non-exempt service, with the option to provide this information at the point-of-sale, by U.S. Mail, text messages or email if the customer is able to receive text messages or email.
(d) Carriers may make the required information available through a website in the language(s) in which the carrier markets its non-exempt service. This website option may only be used if access to the website is available and offered to the LEP consumer at point of sale at the location of the carrier, dealer or agent.
(e) Carriers may make required information available through use of "guides" in the language(s) in which the carrier markets its service. This in-language guide shall provide guidance to the LEP consumer to understand the English language version of the document(s) (e.g. "Line 1 is the name of the rate plan, the monthly price, and how many peak and non peak minutes of use are provided under the plan. Line 2 is the term of the rate plan, if any. Line 3 shows any early termination fee if you terminate your plan earlier than the term show in Line 2. Line 4 is the ULTS monthly surcharge." etc.). This in-language guide shall be provided concurrently with the English-language document(s).
V.B. Confirmation Summary Definition. A "Confirmation Summary" is defined as a summary of the transaction entered into by the carrier and the customer, showing the name of the service carrier, its contact information, and a brief description of the telecommunications services or wireless carrier calling plan(s) purchased by the customer, including pricing, term, and any early termination fee. This information may be conveyed in more than one document.
V.C. Access to Commission mandated Notices and Disclosures. Carriers are required to provide access to Commission-mandated notices and disclosures relating to regulated telecommunications services in the language(s) in which the carrier markets its non-exempt services. This access may be provided by website, IVR or other written document(s) sent to the customer via U.S. mail, email, or text message, if the customer has the latter two methods of contact information on file with the carrier in the normal course of business. If the required Commission notice is unrelated to the transaction initiating service, the notice shall be given in the same general time frame to in-language customers as notices in English are given to customers.
V.D. Online Exception. If the customer interacts with a carrier marketing in language solely by ordering service on a website and manages the account online where communications are primarily by email, the carrier may satisfy the in-language obligations by providing required in-language information on a publicly available website. Any carrier doing business in this manner as to services must still comply with Rule IV as to In-Language Customer Service obligations.

Rule VI. Schedule for Providing Required Information

VI.A. Non-exempt Services sold under contract.
Required information shall be presented (made available or postmarked) at either point of sale, or no later than ten (10) calendar days after the customer's transaction, but not less than ten (10) calendar days prior to the expiration of any applicable carrier grace period to allow sufficient time for the customer to cancel the carrier's service agreement without incurring an early termination fee or penalty.
VI.B. Non-exempt Services not sold under contract.
Required information shall be presented (made available or postmarked) within ten (10) days after the transaction.

(END OF APPENDIX A)

Commissioner Dian M. Grueneich, concurring:

I support today's decision adopting formal rules to assist telecommunications consumers with limited English proficiency as a first step. Frankly, I think the Commission should and could have done more. But the Commission has been studying this issue for over five years. I could not in good conscience advocate putting off adoption of even a modest rule yet again. Thus, I support the adoption of today's rule as a reasonable first step that moves the Commission and telecommunication carriers in the right direction.

I applaud the decision's requirement for in-language customer representatives and the multiple options available to applicable carriers to provide written in-language transaction confirmations. These requirements will help to protect customers whose first language is not English. At the same time, the menu of options will alleviate additional costs for most if not all applicable carriers. But, our goal is not and legally cannot be to adopt only those rules that impose no costs on carriers.

I am disappointed in the limitations of the final decision and would have supported adoption of the proposed decision as originally issued by President Peevey. Our decision today does not require in-language transaction documentation at the point of sale; it does not require language preference tracking; and it does not establish either a system for monitoring compliance with the rules we adopt today nor a clear enforcement protocol. I would have preferred to provide customers with an assurance that violations of these rules would result in the ability to cancel a contract without additional fees.

Of particular concern is the decision's failure to establish a monitoring program. Regulatory commissions typically establish systems to monitor compliance with their rules in order to know if the rules are being followed and to understand what, if any, additional public education, rule clarification, or enhanced enforcement actions are needed. Today's decision provides neither the public, our telecommunication carriers, nor this Commission with the information needed to know whether the rules we adopt today are sufficient to protect limited English proficiency customers.

Today's decision does include some initial steps in the area of monitoring. We commit to utilize our in-house resources along with the expertise of community-based organizations. We also commit to a Phase II to look at the feasibility of applicable carriers reporting in-language complaints to the Commission. We cannot be certain of the success of these rules without carriers providing this additional data. For this reason, we must start Phase II immediately and, I believe, we should commit to issuing a decision on Phase II by the end of the year.

Last year when the Commission adopted its telecommunications consumer protection initiative, I was concerned that our actions left out a large portion of California telecommunications customers - those forty percent of California households that speak a language other than English at home. Today's step, well overdue, is a reasonable and significant first step in protecting all Californians, not just those proficient in English. For these reasons I support the decision.

/s/ DIAN M. GRUENEICH

Dian M. Grueneich

Commissioner

San Francisco, California

July 26, 2007

Commissioner Rachelle B. Chong, concurring:

I fully support today's Language decision and the rules. Today's action is one of the most innovative of its kind in the nation. Twin goals of this Commission have been both consumer protection and encouraging a vibrant competitive telecommunications market in California's information economy.

Publicly I have said that I would support language rules, and I am keeping that promise today. As a descendant of Chinese immigrants who came to California during the gold rush in the 1850s, I understand the importance of immigrants to our great nation. The diversity of California is one of our greatest strengths.

I further understand how important telecommunications is to an immigrant's life. It is a link to their family back in their home country and a key tool to function in a modern information society. The PUC is letting our phone companies know that these newcomers to our society need to understand the basic service agreements they are entering into, and have a way to get their service questions answered.

I want to put today's action in context. This decision represents a bold next step in the Commission's consumer protection efforts. Last year, we issued our Consumer Protection Initiative (CPI) decision in March in which we articulated seven consumer rights. See D.06-03-013. In that decision, we committed to launch 23 new Commission-led consumer initiatives. We have been delivering on those initiatives in the last year and four months, in an unprecedented effort across this Commission.

Our 23^rd initiative directed our PUC staff to report on specific problems facing telecom consumers with limited English proficiency (LEP). Staff put together a thorough study. The PUC held numerous public meetings around the state to gather information on language issues. I attended two workshops and a public meeting and listened to consumers and community based organizations describe their issues. The PUC then opened this rulemaking.

Many of our Consumer Protection Initiatives are already helping LEP consumers. For example,

· The PUC added fifteen new Consumer Affairs Bureau employees - nine of which are bilingual -- to respond more effectively to consumers with complaints and to reduce our complaint backlog.

· We developed consumer friendly brochures in thirteen languages on topics, like "10 Tips for Buying Wireless Service," "Slamming & Cramming," and "Understanding Your Bill."

· We also put this important consumer education information on the new CalphoneInfo.com website - in thirteen languages.

· We held five consumer bill fairs around the state - which have focused on educating the LEP, senior, and low income communities on consumer education issues, and complaint resolution. The bill fairs have been well attended and popular.

· We have also partnered and trained dozens of community based organizations to help with consumer education and intake of consumer complaints, particularly from limited English communities who may for cultural reasons be hesitant to come to a government agency for help.

· We are in the process of launching a second consumer education program in early September. This will be a statewide campaign in print, television, and radio. The ads will be in English, Spanish, Cantonese and Mandarin.

· Finally, we have created a Telecommunications Consumer Fraud Unit. We expanded our toll free hotline for this purpose.

Our efforts are paying off. The PUC recently worked with the Attorney General's office in filing a complaint in Superior Court against a prepaid phone company. The court issued a ground-breaking judgment - requiring that company to pay penalties, and to disclose fees, surcharges and other costs with their cards, and prohibiting misleading advertising.

Today's new language rules will further empower this Commission to address the problem of "bad actors" in the telecom market. The Commission makes clear it will not tolerate fraud upon its consumers, no matter what language it is conducted in. We further make clear that telecommunications carriers are responsible for their agents' actions. We expect the carriers to train their employees, dealers and agents in the new Language Rules and to comply with them.

I believe the new rules strike a fair balance between, on the one hand, ensuring that limited English consumers have access to customer service and in language information about the services they bought, and on the other hand, ensuring that our rules are simple and pragmatic so that they get the job done but are not unnecessarily costly or burdensome on carriers.

It is a fact that these telecommunications carriers are national carriers. Overly burdensome language rules for our state may cause carriers to make cost-benefit analyses when they consider marketing in a non English language. I was concerned that overly zealous rules that are costly to comply with may result in `English only' policies being ordered by the carriers for employees, dealers and agents. I do not think that such an inadvertent result would serve the public interest in a state as marvelously diverse as California. For these reasons, I strongly support this decision today.

/s/ Rachelle B. Chong

Rachelle B. Chong

Commissioner

San Francisco, California

July 26, 2007

Commissioner Simon, concurring:

This order has my full support. I write this concurrence to clarify the specific reasons that lead me to conclude that the policies it adopts best serve Californians.

Today, 95% of all Californians live in areas where companies offer customer service and support for telecommunications services in languages other than English. This strikes me as responsible corporate behavior that merits commendation.

Fundamentally, markets work best when consumers are informed and have choices. If firms have a proactive campaign to market their services in a language other than English, then it is reasonable to require that they provide the customer with information on what he or she has purchased and provide a minimal level of customer support in the language used to make the sale. The rules that we adopt offer carriers a flexible menu of choices that will ensure that this happens. Most importantly to me, if a carrier markets in a language other than English, the carrier incurs the obligation to enable a consumer to reach a live person that speaks the language and can assist the customer.

Today's decision seeks to insure that these rules of conduct, already followed by major carriers, become a standard practice throughout California. Today's decision is about making markets work by empowering consumers with information.

Let me discuss briefly two other major aspects of this decision. First, fraud is fraud and a violation of California and the common law, whether the fraud takes place in English or some other language. The rules we adopt today will empower Californians, deter fraudulent business practices and help us to enforce California anti-fraud laws. Second, Californians who have limited proficiency in English are not powerless - indeed, they are often the most resourceful individuals in our state.

As an American of African decent, my family has spoken English since before the American Revolution. As a Californian, the abilities of those who come to California not speaking English with native proficiency are made clear to me daily. My chief of staff, Marzia Zafar, for example, arrived at the age of 14 in California from Kabul, a Pashtune-speaking Farsi. She has made it clear to me the importance of avoiding a misguided altruism that marginalizes those it purports to assist. When I served as Governor Schwarzenegger's appointment secretary, it became clear that pronouncing our state as Cal "ee" "phone" is not a sign of weakness that requires regulatory assistance. Today's decision creates market rules without belittling as victims those who are not native English speakers.

Let me also point out that today's decision does not impose a "gag order" in the workplace or prevent salespersons from providing assistance to those of limited English proficiency. Only a deliberate corporate solicitation triggers the requirements adopted today, not the spontaneous communications of multi-lingual individuals. Thus, this area will continue to be one that rewards entrepreneurial ability, particularly small businesses, whether the ability is exercised in English or in some other language.

In summary, I support today's rules as a reasonable approach to the complex realities of California's telecommunications markets.

/s/ TIMOTHY ALAN SIMON

Timothy Alan Simon

Commissioner

San Francisco, California

July 26, 2007

Rule III. Language(s) Required	Language(s) Required. Any non-English language in which a carrier markets its non-exempt services in accordance with the Marketing In-Language Definition set forth above.
Rule IV. In-Language Customer Services Required	IV.A. Customer Service Requirement. During its normal business hours, carriers marketing non-exempt services in a non-English language shall provide access to live, person-to-person customer service over the telephone in the language(s) in which the carrier markets its non-exempt services. A carrier may provide in-person customer service, in addition to telephonic customer service, if a carrier chooses to do so. IV.B. Telephonic Customer Service Option. Carriers shall provide telephonic in-language customer service using either: (1) a customer service representative fluent in the language(s) in which the carrier markets its non-exempt service; or (2) through a third-party interpreter service, such as Language Line.
Rule V. In-Language Information Required	V.A. Information Required. In addition to the In-language Customer Services requirement in Rule IV, carriers, dealers or agents marketing a carrier's non-exempt services in a non-English language shall make available one or more of the following: 1. A translation of the contract in the language in which the carrier markets its non-exempt services; or 2. A summary of the customer's transaction in the language(s) in which the carrier markets its non-exempt services (In-Language Confirmation Summary); or, 3. A summary of the customer's transaction in English (English Confirmation Summary) so long as the carrier, dealer, or its agent provides the customer with instructions on how to access the translation or interpretation of that English Confirmation Summary into the language(s) in which the carrier markets its non-exempt services. Carriers shall provide access to required information using at least one of the following methods: (a) Carriers may provide oral translation/interpretation through in-person or telephone customer service. (b) Carriers may use an interactive voice response (IVR) system to make required information available to LEP consumers orally over the telephone in the language(s) in which the carrier markets its non-exempt services. Carriers shall make a toll free phone number for the IVR system available at retail outlets, including those of dealers and agents, where non-exempt services are marketed in-language. (c) Carriers may make required information available to LEP consumers in writing in the language(s) in which the carrier markets its non-exempt service, with the option to provide this information at the point-of-sale, by U.S. Mail, text messages or email if the customer is able to receive text messages or email. (d) Carriers may make the required information available through a website in the language(s) in which the carrier markets its non-exempt service. This website option may only be used if access to the website is available and offered to the LEP consumer at point of sale at the location of the carrier, dealer or agent. (e) Carriers may make required information available through use of "guides" in the language(s) in which the carrier markets its service. This in-language guide shall provide guidance to the LEP consumer to understand the English language version of the document(s) (e.g. "Line 1 is the name of the rate plan, the monthly price, and how many peak and non peak minutes of use are provided under the plan. Line 2 is the term of the rate plan, if any. Line 3 shows any early termination fee if you terminate your plan earlier than the term show in Line 2. Line 4 is the ULTS monthly surcharge." etc.). This in-language guide shall be provided concurrently with the English-language document(s). V.B. Confirmation Summary Definition. A "Confirmation Summary" is defined as a summary of the transaction entered into by the carrier and the customer, showing the name of the service carrier, its contact information, and a brief description of the telecommunications services or wireless carrier calling plan(s) purchased by the customer, including pricing, term, and any early termination fee. This information may be conveyed in more than one document. V.C. Access to Commission mandated Notices and Disclosures. Carriers are required to provide access to Commission-mandated notices and disclosures relating to regulated telecommunications services in the language(s) in which the carrier markets its non-exempt services. This access may be provided by website, IVR or other written document(s) sent to the customer via U.S. mail, email, or text message, if the customer has the latter two methods of contact information on file with the carrier in the normal course of business. If the required Commission notice is unrelated to the transaction initiating service, the notice shall be given in the same general time frame to in-language customers as notices in English are given to customers. V.D. Online Exception. If the customer interacts with a carrier marketing in language solely by ordering service on a website and manages the account online where communications are primarily by email, the carrier may satisfy the in-language obligations by providing required in-language information on a publicly available website. Any carrier doing business in this manner as to services must still comply with Rule IV as to In-Language Customer Service obligations.
Rule VI. Schedule for Providing Required Information	VI.A. Non-exempt Services sold under contract. Required information shall be presented (made available or postmarked) at either point of sale, or no later than ten (10) calendar days after the customer's transaction, but not less than ten (10) calendar days prior to the expiration of any applicable carrier grace period to allow sufficient time for the customer to cancel the carrier's service agreement without incurring an early termination fee or penalty. VI.B. Non-exempt Services not sold under contract. Required information shall be presented (made available or postmarked) within ten (10) days after the transaction.