Findings of Fact
1. The ongoing shift to a more competitive telecommunications marketplace increases consumers' vulnerability and challenges the Commission to step up its efforts to protect them. Establishing updated consumer protection rules applicable to all regulated telecommunications utilities should be part of those efforts.
2. Through its statements in the many public participation hearing sessions held throughout California in this proceeding, and through its follow-up letters and e-mail, the public has conveyed its frustration with the present state of consumer protection in the regulated telecommunications industry, and its approval of the Commission's assuming a stronger consumer protection role.
3. To promote consumer protection, all California consumers who interact with telecommunications providers should be afforded the following basic rights as defined in Part 1 of G.O. ___, Appendix B to this order: Disclosure; Choice; Privacy; Public Participation and Enforcement; Accurate Bills and Redress; Non-Discrimination; and Safety.
4. The Part 2 Consumer Protection Rules will help protect the consumer rights set forth in Part 1.
5. Small businesses suffer many of the same problems as individuals and need the protections the Part 2 rules will provide.
6. Large businesses are less dependent on the kinds of rules we are establishing in Part 2. Even though those rules do not apply to them directly, large businesses will benefit from improvements the rules will generate.
7. For purposes of these rules, it is useful and effective to define small businesses as those having a carrier's service on twenty or fewer telephone access lines.
8. The Part 2 rules were designed taking into consideration the Consumer Protection and Consumer Information Rules for CLCs set forth in D.95-07-054, Appendix B. With implementation of these Part 2 Rules, those CLC rules are no longer needed.
9. The Part 2 rules were not designed to replace the Initial Rules for Local Exchange Service Competition in California set forth in D.95-12-056.
10. The Part 2 rules were designed taking into consideration the Consumer Protection Rules for Detariffed Services set forth in D.98-08-031, Appendix A. With implementation of these Part 2 Rules, those non-tariffed NDIEC rules are no longer needed.
11. The Part 2 rules were designed to meet the need stated in D.96-12-071 for a generic set of consumer protection rules for CMRS providers that would supersede any previously filed CMRS consumer protection tariff rules.
12. The Part 2 rules were designed to be applied to Commission-regulated carriers of all classes, their agents, and other entities providing telecommunications-related products or services which the Public Utilities Code makes subject to the Commission's rules.
13. The rights and rules in G.O. ___ do not conflict with any other Commission general orders.
14. It is not in the public interest to allow any carrier to rely on its filed tariffs for protection against liability for unlawful or deceptive conduct.
15. It is just and reasonable to establish an exception as permitted by Section 532, in cases where carriers have misrepresented their tariffed rates, terms or conditions for competitive services.
16. The Part 4 Rules Governing Slamming Complaints were designed to parallel the FCC's slamming rules in most respects.
17. It is just and reasonable to require an allegedly unauthorized carrier to promptly reimburse subscribers 50% of any charges already paid when a slamming allegation involving their intraLATA, interLATA and interstate toll carriers is made. While this differs from the corresponding provisions in the FCC slamming rules, both methods produce similar results after the slamming allegation has been resolved.
18. The Part 4 rules will help protect consumers' rights.
19. There are currently consumer protection requirements in carriers' tariffs, the Commission's previous decisions, its general orders, state and federal statutes, and FCC orders. While G.O. ___ draws on those sources, it does not supersede them except as explicitly stated in this interim order.
20. It is not in the public interest to allow carriers to weaken or eliminate current consumer protection provisions in their tariffs.
21. It is not in the public interest to foreclose consumers or others from enforcing consumer protections through the courts.
22. It would be prudent to enact new G.O. ___ and monitor its effectiveness for some time before deciding whether to detariff competitive services.
23. The Commission's limitation of liability provision has historically been intended to protect both carriers and their ratepayers from excessive liability risks and thus ensure the availability and affordability of utility services. This is less relevant in today's more competitive market environment where there are multiple providers and rates are not necessarily based on cost of service.
24. Carriers who want to control their liability risks for competitive services may do so in ways that do not rely on a Commission-sanctioned limitation of liability.
25. The advantages of eliminating the Commission-sanctioned limitation of liability for competitive services outweigh the disadvantages.
26. It is in the public interest to eliminate the Commission-sanctioned limitation of liability for competitive telecommunications services, but to retain it for non-competitive services.
27. The Commission finds no justification for CMRS providers to have any limitation of liability beyond the minimum that may be required by law.
28. During the course of this rulemaking proceeding, the Commission distributed the initially-proposed rights and rules which have evolved into Parts 1, 2, 3 and 4 of G.O. ___, Appendix B to this order, and the Commission's proposed policy changes for limitation of liability and detariffing. The respondent utilities and all interested parties have been afforded an opportunity to submit comments and replies to comments on each of those topics.
29. The initiatory order in R.00-02-004 required parties to make offers of proof for any matters for which they believe evidentiary hearings are required, and failure to do so would waive the parties' right to hearing. The proposal to curtail the Commission-sanctioned limitation of liability was the only matter for which offers of proof were submitted.
30. We have examined the parties' offers of proof and determined that even if we were to assume as true the facts they allege, it would not change the outcome we have reached on limitation of liability.
31. Consumers need to be aware of and understand the rights and rules in G.O. ___ if those rights and rules are to be fully effective in protecting them.
32. Consumer protection is strongest when consumers have multiple avenues of enforcement.
