11. Remedies

11.1. Caller ID Blocking

We will not require that Pacific cease marketing of Caller ID services or its efforts to persuade customers to Switch from Complete Blocking to Selective Blocking. However, as we stated in D.92-06-065, we would not assist Pacific's selling effort by infringing upon the rights of individuals. Pacific has the right to market its Products (including Call ID) and use marketing strategies to increase market share for its products. But we remind Pacific that this right comes with the obligation to permit customers to make fully informed decisions as required by § 2896 and D.92-06-065. Pacific's marketing of Caller ID in this case failed to do that.

Our goal is to ensure that all customers are fully informed of their service options so those customers who choose to transmit their telephone number are knowingly waiving their privacy rights. Pacific's unbalanced and incomplete information to consumers in its marketing of Caller ID services undercuts consumers' ability to make informed decision and undermines our goal. Therefore, we instruct Pacific Bell to comply with this decision, and our previous decisions, in making the required explanations.

With respect to customers who may have switched from Complete Blocking to Selective Blocking without sufficient information on alternative options, we will order Pacific to inform these customers of the options available to them and allow them to switch back to Complete Blocking, if they so choose, without any charges.

We direct Pacific Bell to contact customers who were switched to Selective Blocking since January 1, 1998, excluding those customers whose choice has already been confirmed through the BRI remedial effort. While commending Pacific for its prompt and through efforts in rectifying problems that ensued BRI's marketing of its Caller ID Service, we direct Pacific to use the same approach in contacting customers who may choose to select Selective Blocking. No later than a year from the effective date of this decision, Pacific shall notify the Telecommunications Division on the results of its compliance with this order.

Because the choice of Complete Blocking or Selective Blocking has no financial impact (there is no charge for either service), we need not consider the issue of financial reparations. We consider the cost that Pacific will incur in contacting and disseminating information on call blocking options to affected customers as part of the fine for Pacific's failure to properly inform customers in the first instance.

11.2. Sequential Offering

With respect to Pacific's sequential offering of packaged services, we will not mandate that Pacific offer these discretionary services in any specific order. That decision is better left to Pacific than to this Commission. To order more stringent selling practices in a market that is increasingly competitive and for services that are not essential such as Caller ID, Call Forwarding, and Call Return would be futile and consumer-unfriendly. We will refrain from micromanaging how Pacific will conduct its marketing of these discretionary services. We do mandate that Pacific Bell make it clear to customers that services can be purchased separately and in packages and that lower priced packages may exist before beginning its sequential offerings. We also put Pacific on notice that it, as well as all other providers, must self-regulate to ensure that its marketing strategies do not tread upon consumers' rights.

We order Pacific Bell to file a revised Tariff Rule 12 to offer information to customers on the availability of other service options.

11.3. Changes to Tariff Rule 12

We direct Pacific Bell to modify Tariff Rule 12 to require that each customer be presented with an initial offer describing the availability of optional services. With the customer's consent, Pacific shall provide a quotation of applicable rates and charges for each individual component of a package as well as a package as a whole, and inform the customer that each of the components can be purchased separately. We order Pacific Bell to file an advice letter proposing revisions to Tariff Rule 12 that will address these requirements. Such an advice letter shall be filed within 120 days of the effective date of this order and shall be served on all parties to this proceeding, and shall comply with all other requirements for advice letters.

11.4. Landlord Obligation

Pacific Bell shall resume disclosing to its customers who are tenants that the landlord is responsible for inside wire maintenance. We will not specify the precise details of the disclosure statement.²¹

While we believe that Pacific Bell remained under an obligation to disclose landlords' responsibility for inside wire notwithstanding the expiration of the specific disclosure requirement of D.92-02-024, the expiration date created ambiguity on this issue. For this reason, we will not require Pacific Bell to make refunds of all inside wire amounts collected from tenants; nor will we impose a fine.