Appendix A to R0002004
Word Document PDF Document

STATE OF CALIFORNIA Arnold Schwarzenegger, Governor

PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

505 VAN NESS AVENUE

SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-3298

May 13, 2004 Agenda ID# 3570 Alternate to Agenda ID# 2513

Quasi-legislative

TO: PARTIES OF RECORD IN RULEMAKING 00-02-004.

RE: NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY OF PROPOSED DECISION CONSUMER

Consistent with Rule 2.3(b) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, I am issuing this Notice of Availability of the above-referenced proposed decision. The proposed alternate decision was issued by Commissioner Geoffrey F. Brown on May 13, 2004. An Internet link to this document was sent via e-mail to all the parties on the service list who provided an e-mail address to the Commission. An electronic copy of this document can be viewed and downloaded at the Commission's Website ( www.cpuc.ca.gov). A hard copy of this document can be obtained by contacting the Commission's Central Files Office [(415) 703-2045].

This is a proposed alternate decision to Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) McVicar previously served to you. It will be on the Commission's agenda on May 27, 2004, along with the proposed decision of ALJ McVicar. The Commission may act then, or it may postpone action until later.

Among other changes, this alternate does the following:

When the Commission acts on the draft or alternate decision, it may adopt all or part of it as written, amend or modify it, or set aside and prepare its own decision. Only when the Commission acts does the decision become binding on the parties.

As set forth in Rule 77.6, parties to the proceeding may file comments on the enclosed alternate order no later than May 20, 2004. Reply comments will not be accepted. An original and four copies of the comments with a certificate of service shall be filed with the Commission's Docket Office and copies shall be served on all parties on the same day of filing. Anyone filing comments shall electronically serve their comments on Commissioner Geoffrey F. Brown's telecommunications advisor, Robert Wullenjohn, at rw1@cpuc.ca.gov. For those who have not provided electronic addresses, printed copies of the comments shall be served by first class mail or another expeditious mode of delivery.

/s/ ANGELA K. MINKIN

Angela K. Minkin, Chief

Administrative Law Judge

AKM:vfw

Attachment

COM/GFB/RW1/vfw Alternate Draft Agenda ID# 3570

Decision ALTERNATE PROPOSED DECISION OF COMMISSIONER BROWN

BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Order Instituting Rulemaking on the Commission's Own Motion to Establish Consumer Rights and Consumer Protection Rules Applicable to All Telecommunications Utilities.

Rulemaking 00-02-004

(Filed February 3, 2000)

INTERIM DECISION ISSUING GENERAL ORDER ___,

RULES GOVERNING TELECOMMUNICATIONS CONSUMER PROTECTION

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTERIM DECISION ISSUING GENERAL ORDER ___,
RULES GOVERNING TELECOMMUNICATIONS CONSUMER
PROTECTION 2

INTERIM ORDER 155

Appendix A - General Order

INTERIM DECISION ISSUING GENERAL ORDER ___,

RULES GOVERNING TELECOMMUNICATIONS CONSUMER PROTECTION

Summary

By this decision the Commission adopts General Order No. ___ (G.O. ___), Rules Governing Telecommunications Consumer Protection, applicable to all Commission-regulated telecommunications utilities. G.O. ___ sets forth: in Part 1, a telecommunications consumers' Bill of Rights, the fundamental consumer rights that all communications service providers must respect; in Part 2, a set of Consumer Protection Rules all carriers must follow to protect those rights; Part 3, is a reserved section; in Part 4, Rules Governing Billing for Non-communications-Related Charges, in response to recent state legislation; and in Part 5, Rules Governing Slamming Complaints, to implement federal rule changes enacted in 2000 by the Federal Communications Commission. Where the new rules supersede current rules, the order so notes. Carriers are required to revise their tariffs where they conflict with the new rules, provided, however, that those revisions implementing these rules may not reduce current consumer protections. The Commission does not at this time implement the rulemaking order's proposal to have the Consumer Protection Rules replace tariffs for competitive telecommunications services.

This proceeding remains open to consider whether the Commission should establish a privacy rule in addition to existing P.U. Code Section 2891, implement a telecommunications consumer education program, and if so, how it should be structured; whether to curtail the Commission-sanctioned limitation of liability; and whether additional rules requiring that communications directed at consumers and subscribers be in languages other than English are needed.

Top Of PageNext PageGo To First Page