Background

As the Commission observed in opening this rulemaking, the past decade has been witness to a rapid evolution in the telecommunications industry, not only in the technology the industry employs but as well in its structure, the mix of services it provides, and the ways it provides those services. A wide variety of what were once monopoly services is increasingly available from competing providers. Regulatory policies have likewise been evolving in ways aimed at enabling and promoting competition and all the benefits competition has promised to provide. At the same time, legislators and regulators have not been blind to the potential for abuse that may exist in any market, regulated or fully competitive. This Commission has for some time recognized that the ongoing shift to a more competitive telecommunications marketplace challenges it to find new methods to protect consumers, and it has made great strides in meeting that challenge.

The Commission's stated purpose for this proceeding, then, is to consider whether to revise its existing consumer protection rules and/or establish new rules applicable to regulated telecommunications utilities. If changes are needed, the task is to decide what specific rules should be revised or established and for which classes of telecommunications utilities.

The rulemaking order that began this proceeding introduced a Commission staff report suggesting specific consumer protection measures, including a telecommunications consumers' bill of rights, rules to protect those rights, and changes to the industry's current tariffing and limitation of liability practices. Respondent utilities and interested parties were invited to submit comments and replies, and a full spectrum of stakeholders did so. Regulated utilities were well represented, individually and in groups and associations expressing shared views. Local, state and federal governments commented. Individuals and organized groups made presentations on behalf of residential and small business consumers. In all, the Commission received 71 submittals from 39 groups consisting of 67 named entities, some of which were in turn associations of many more unnamed members. Not surprisingly, commenters representing the telecommunications utilities were generally opposed to the staff report's proposed rights and rules and other measures, while consumer representatives were generally supportive. There were exceptions in each camp, both as to individual commenters and specific proposed measures. The rule-by-rule discussion sections to follow will provide more on the positions taken in comments, and some of the alternatives suggested.

The Commission's next step was to arrange to hear as much input as possible from consumers. The public was invited to 20 public participation hearing sessions in 13 locations throughout the state between mid-June and September, 2000. With the utilities' assistance, informative notices were published and mailed to virtually every telecommunications consumer in California. Those who couldn't attend were urged to express their views in writing. By Fall, 2000, some 1200 people had taken the time to attend one of the public sessions and more than 300 of them made public statements. Those who spoke represented a cross section of the affected public: residential customers, large and small business customers, senior citizens, union members and representatives, public officials, minority business associations, low income groups, community-based organizations of every kind, and many others. Another 2000 responded and made their views known by letter or e-mail. The general public sentiment as expressed in both the public participation hearings and correspondence was overwhelmingly in favor of the Commission's taking on a much stronger consumer protection role.

After considering the extensive party and public input, the Commission is adopting the telecommunications consumers' Bill of Rights, and the Rules Governing Telecommunications Consumer Protection, set forth in G.O. ___, Parts 1 and 2, Appendix B to this order.

In January, 2001, assigned Commissioner Carl Wood issued two rulings seeking comments on two additional sets of proposed rules falling within the scope of the rulemaking proceeding. The first set was Proposed Rules on the Inclusion of Non-communications-Related Charges on Telephone Bills. On September 29, 2000, Governor Gray Davis signed Assembly Bill (AB) 994¹ extending a Public Utilities Code Section 2890² ban on non-communications-related charges in telephone bills to July 1, 2001. AB 994 also added Section 2890.1 to the Public Utilities Code, explicitly directing the Commission to adopt by that date any additional rules it determined necessary to implement the billing safeguards set forth in Section 2890. AB 994, Sections 1(c) and 1(d), cites this rulemaking proceeding as a proper vehicle for the Commission to do so. After considering comments and replies from the parties, we issued Decision (D.) 01-07-030 adopting a set of interim rules governing the inclusion of non-communications-related charges on telephone bills. We stated that those rules, possibly with some modifications, would be incorporated into and superseded by the new general order we adopt in this decision. The D.01-07-030 rules, no longer interim, will now be Part 3, Rules Governing Billing for Non-communications-Related Charges, of new G.O. ___.

In the second January ruling, the assigned Commissioner sent out for comments his Proposed Rules for Slamming, prepared in response to the FCC's decision in CC Docket No. 94-129. The FCC rules gave each state the option to act as the adjudicator of slamming complaints, both interstate and intrastate. Under the FCC's order, each state which opts to take on that responsibility must notify the FCC of the procedures it will use to adjudicate individual slamming complaints. After considering comments and replies from the parties, the Commission is adopting for that purpose the Rules Governing Slamming Complaints included in G.O. ___, Part 4.

Below we discuss each part of new G.O. ___ in turn. For the consumer protection rights and rules in Parts 1 and 2, each right is addressed and then each rule, linking the rule to the right(s) it will help safeguard. The input we received on the draft rights and rules from the parties was extensive and generally very constructive. It would be unhelpful, and because so many contributed, impractical as well, to repeat every point raised in the comments. Instead, we summarize the significant issues raised and explain how these updated rules accommodate them.