Findings of Fact
1. A primary role of the Commission is to protect consumers against fraud.
2. Consumer education coupled with clearly delineated rights, a competitive marketplace, and effective enforcement of regulations, laws, and guidelines arm consumers with the tools necessary to empower themselves when making decisions about telecommunications products and services.
3. The number of complaints and inquiries to this Commission by wireless customers in 2004 constituted just .04% of the entire universe of 23 million wireless customers in California.
4. Complaints and inquiries to this Commission by wireless customers between 2000 and 2004 amount to only one-quarter of the total complaints and inquiries concerning telecommunications services.
5. With respect to complaints concerning billing, the record evidence in this proceeding does not include an analysis to enable us to draw valid inferences concerning the substance of the complaints nor does it permit us to determine whether a proposed rule would prevent customer complaints.
6. The record evidence concerning disclosure complaints against wireless carriers is insufficient to determine whether the matters fall within the Commission's jurisdiction or that of the Federal Communications Commission.
7. Carriers already make substantial disclosures to telecommunications customers.
8. There is no reliable baseline evidence in the record of this proceeding that enables us to determine how the number of consumers complaining about telecommunications service compares with consumer experiences in other areas.
9. The record of this proceeding provides no explanation of why complaints concerning wireless service are made at levels and rates far below those for wireline service.
10. There is no conclusive showing on the record that telephone customers in general are significantly dissatisfied with their service or that their level of dissatisfaction is increasing.
11. Survey data in the record of this proceeding does not permit us to draw conclusions concerning customer service and satisfaction in California.
12. Anecdotal evidence can prove valuable to the Commission in developing enforcement and education programs.
13. Anecdotal evidence does not provide a basis for imposing wholesale regulations on an industry.
14. Carriers introduced credible evidence that detailed prescriptive regulations would impose significant new costs on them.
15. When customers have a choice of service providers, investments serve as "hostages" that create economic incentives to maintain good reputations with customers.
16. There are substantial consumer protection laws and rules already in place concerning wireline and wireless telecommunications services.
17. Public safety is critical to consumer protection, and as such, public safety rights are properly included in the Consumer Bill of Rights.
18. Increasing competition in the provision of telecommunications services reduces the need for Commission regulation of telephone service providers.
19. Freedom of choice better enables consumers to benefit from competitive markets.
20. Some laws and regulations are applicable only to providers of basic service.
21. Regulations applicable to providers of basic service are not necessarily applicable to providers of wireless service.
22. Carriers introduced credible evidence that consumers are protected by existing rules, laws, and guidelines.
23. The substantial majority of small businesses in the state of California have less than ten employees.
24. A single T-1 can serve 24 lines.
25. Repealing the Interim Non-Com Rules does not alter or reduce carriers' obligations under P.U. Code § 2890, which bars carriers from placing any unauthorized charges, including charges for non-communications services, on a phone bill.
26. The record developed in this proceeding does not support the imposition of new detailed prescriptive regulations on telephone service providers.
27. Wireless companies introduced no credible evidence that that they will suffer significant costs due to extension of rules regarding compliance with CAB requests for information, worker identification, and emergency 911 service to wireless carriers.
28. The rules requiring compliance with CAB requests for information support the Commission's mission to oversee the telecommunications industry.
29. The rules requiring worker identification and the provision of 911 service promote public safety.
30. The Interim Opinion Adopting Interim Rules Governing the Inclusion of Non-Communications-Related Charges in Telephone Bills, D.01-07-030, called for a re-evaluation of the interim rules after 18 months.
31. Aside from our efforts in this proceeding, the rules pertaining to non-communications-related charges on telephone bills have never been formally re-evaluated
32. The record developed in this proceeding shows that the Interim Non-Com Rules place a considerable burden on consumers and carriers alike.
33. The Interim Non-Com Rules create an irrational regulatory regime in which consumers can incur expensive obligations to pay for telecommunications services without entering a PIN, but must enter a PIN or an "equally reliable security procedure" when incurring even modest non-communications charges.
34. There are other ways of verifying charges other than requiring the entering of a PIN.
35. In the four years that the Interim Non-Com Rules have been in place, not one single carrier in California has elected to offer this billing service pursuant to the Rules.
36. The evidence in this record shows that in jurisdictions outside California, customers are ready, willing, and able to place non-communications charges on their phone bills.
37. The "opt-in" requirement in the Interim Non-Com Rules has discouraged non-communications services billing.
38. For small carriers, the requirement of "written prior authorization" has been burdensome because of the costs of tracking which customers have opted-in.
39. Because of the diversity of security measures available, it is not reasonable for this Commission to micro-manage the form of security, as the Interim Non-Com Rules do.
40. The repeal of the Interim Non-Com Rules will not likely result in any significant detriment to consumers, and likely will provide the benefit of new services.
41. The adoption of cramming rules is needed to provide clarification of statutes that address cramming.
42. It is reasonable to require a carrier to resolve a cramming complaint within thirty days of the date the carrier received the complaint.
43. The Commission has a significant backlog of consumer complaints.
44. The Regulatory Complaint Resolution Forum offers a mechanism for improving the processing of consumer inquiries and complaints.
45. It is reasonable to rely on the best practices of other states that handle consumer complaints concerning telecommunications carriers.
46. The evidence in this proceeding concerning the difficulty of using the complaint data and the significant backlog in the processing of complaints demonstrate that it is reasonable to increase call center staff, call center resources, and the call center database.
47. Call center hours are currently only from 10 A.M. to 3 P.M.
48. Because of the linguistic diversity of California customers, it is reasonable to staff some call center positions with bilingual staff.
49. CBOs possess unique insights into the consumer problems faced by specific communities.
50. A special telecommunications fraud unit would enhance the Commission's ability to respond to this form of consumer fraud.
51. Current enforcement proceedings are cumbersome, expensive, and lengthy.
52. A telecommunication consumer education program developed and publicized in conjunction with carriers and community organizations is the most effective way to empower consumers to choose among competing providers and service offerings.
53. Enhanced enforcement of existing laws and regulations, including increased cooperation with other law enforcement bodies, is the most effective way to protect consumers against fraud and deception in the provision of telecommunication services.
54. It is reasonable to hold a workshop on the best way to implement reporting requirements pursuant to P.U. Code § 2889.9.
Conclusions of Law
1. Since complaints by wireless customers run at one quarter the rate of complaints by wireline customers, it is not reasonable to make a wholesale extension of wireline regulations to wireless carriers.
2. It is not reasonable to reinstitute the version of that General Order previously adopted by D.04-05-057 and later suspended by D.05-01-058.
3. Except as set forth in the ordering paragraphs below, this order and revised G.O.168 do not relieve any carrier from compliance with any existing Commission decision, rule or General Order, any state or federal statute, or any other requirement under the law.
4. The Commission's adoption of revised G.O. 168 does not create a private right of action against any telecommunications carrier nor may the revised General Order be used as the predicate for any private assertion of liability against a telecommunications carrier including, without limitation, monetary damages, restitution, or injunctive relief.
5. The consumer rights regarding disclosure, privacy, public participation and enforcement, accurate bills and dispute resolution, non-discrimination and public safety contained in G.O. 168 are reasonable and consistent with the provisions of the P.U. Code.
6. It is reasonable to expand the scope of the public safety rules requiring worker identification and access to 911 emergency services, even when a bill is delinquent.
7. For the worker identification rule, it is reasonable to define a small business as a business or individual that subscribes or applies for not more than ten telephone access lines from any single carrier.
8. Rules requiring carriers to comply with information requests from this Commission are reasonable in light of the statutory obligations contained in the P.U. Code.
9. The Commission should increase call center staff and call center resources, as well as redesign the call center database.
10. The Commission should work with the Department of Personnel Administration to increase the number of bilingual CAB personnel.
11. The Commission should develop an action plan to facilitate partnering with CBOs.
12. The Commission should review its formal complaint process and identify areas for improvement.
13.. Additional enforcement personnel can prepare cases to address telecommunications fraud.
14. The rules and regulations contained in Parts 2, 3, and 4 of G.O. 168 may be utilized by law enforcement authorities to form the predicate for civil or criminal action in their enforcement of generally applicable consumer protection laws.
15.. Cooperation and coordination between law enforcement agencies taking concurrent actions and the Commission will help to ensure that no remedy sought by the public attorneys undermine or interfere with administrative remedies imposed by the Commission or hinder the ability of the Commission to effectively and efficiently carry out its statutory and constitutional mandates.
16. Through its orders in CC Docket No. 94-129, the FCC has given each state the option to act as the adjudicator of slamming complaints, both interstate and intrastate. California has opted to do so.
17. The FCC has given states which elect to handle slamming complaints great latitude in fashioning their own procedures, so long as those procedures are not inconsistent with Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934 as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
18. Current law prohibits carriers from placing unauthorized charges on their customers' phone bills.
19. The cramming rules adopted herein are reasonable and consistent with the provisions of the P.U. Code prohibiting the placing of unauthorized charges on customers' phone bills.
20. 19. The Commission should reinstitute the RCR Forum to improve the processing and resolution of consumer inquiries and complaints.
21. The Commission should host a workshop to learn about other jurisdictions' best practices with respect to handling consumer complaints involving telecommunications carriers. It is reasonable to consult with NARUC and NRRI on this matter, as well as leading states.
22. It is reasonable for the Commission to seek to increase the call center hours from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m.
23. The Commission should participate in conference calls and meetings involving state attorneys general and state commission personnel.
24. The Commission should explore ways to cooperate with the FCC and FTC concerning consumer issues.
25. The Commission should create a telecommunications consumer fraud unit.
26. The Commission should determine whether it is feasible to implement a streamlined enforcement procedure, such as a citation program.
27. The Commission should develop a new initiative to educate consumers.
28. Monitoring and evaluation is key to effectiveness of consumer education programs.
29. The Commission should adopt revised G.O. 168, Market Rules to Empower Telecommunications Customers and to Prevent Fraud (Appendix A to this order).
30. The Commission's adoption of revised G.O. 168 does not create a private right of action against any telecommunications carrier nor may the revised General Order be used as the predicate for any assertion of liability against a telecommunications carrier including, without limitation, monetary damages, restitution or injunctive relief.
31 The Commission's adoption of revised G.O. 168 does not enlarge or diminish any other rights or preclude any other actions that may be available by law.
32. The incremental benefits of revised G.O. 168 outweigh its incremental costs.
33. The Commission has complied with P.U. Code § 321.1.
34. The Commission should produce a report annually evaluating how to improve the consumer education program and assessing its effectiveness.
35 The parties to this proceeding have been provided with notice, and an opportunity to be heard through their multiple rounds of comments and replies to comments, their prepared testimony, and a formal hearing.
36. Revised G.O. 168 is based on the record developed in the proceeding and is a reasonable response to the evidence presented in the proceeding.
37. Pursuant to P.U. Code § 2889.9, carriers should be subject to Commission-imposed reporting requirements related to cramming.
38. This order should be effective today.
