Discussion

Standard of Review

Rule 12.1(d) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure provides that a settlement must be reasonable in light of the whole record, consistent with the law, and in the public interest for the Commission to approve it. We examine this settlement considering these three criteria.

Reasonable in Light of the Whole Record

UCAN identified three key concerns in this proceeding: (1) the reason(s) why Duclo was erroneously billed the basic monthly fee and related taxes, fees and surcharges; (2) the reason(s) why Duclo's account was not properly credited by CSRs for the erroneous taxes, fees and surcharges, despite Duclo's complaints; and (3) prevention and prompt resolution of further billing errors for other consumers. The Settlement Agreement appears to address these concerns.

First, the Settlement Agreement contains provisions intended to ensure that the computer billing error that resulted in MCI wrongfully charging Duclo and other customers a basic monthly fee and related taxes, fees and surcharges does not occur again. As set forth in the accord, MCI has added the missing hard code logic that caused the billing error issue and modified MCI's billing system to alert users to add the hard code logic before changing the basic monthly fee component in the future. These changes should remedy this billing problem.

Second, the Settlement Agreement contains provisions that address the CSRs' handling of the credits to Duclo's account. MCI has implemented a new escalation policy whereby customer complaints will enter the escalation process when a CSR identifies that he or she issued multiple credits to a customer on what appears to be the same issue. MCI has also implemented training to inform the CSRs about the new policy. Further, MCI has added a bullet to the "pop-up" that appears as part of the computer-based crediting procedures to remind CSRs to apply a companion credit when applicable, and has included the "pop-ups" in its CSR training. Finally, MCI is in the process of reviewing, consolidating and improving its billing systems to avoid future crediting issues.

Third, the Settlement Agreement addresses UCAN's concerns regarding prevention and resolution of future problems with MCI. Under the terms of the accord, MCI will provide a contact person for UCAN in order to improve communication and expeditiously and effectively resolve billing or other issues that arise in the future prior to filing a complaint with the Commission. MCI has also agreed to demonstrate the efficacy of the improvements to its billing systems. At the 90- and 180-day intervals after it completes the improvements, MCI will provide UCAN with a random sampling of 12 long-distance standalone accounts that received credits from a CSR, including the internal details showing how MCI credited all fees, taxes and surcharges. UCAN and MCI state that their understanding is that this will allow UCAN to independently verify that MCI's system improvements are working.

This accord, as well as the operational improvements and changes in business practices that have been, or are being, implemented by MCI, address each of UCAN's concerns, and represent a fair compromise of the issues identified. Also, the remedies set forth in the Agreement are commensurate with the problems documented. We conclude that the Settlement is reasonable in light of the whole record.

Consistent with the Law

Pursuant to Pub. Util. Code § 2890(a), MCI may only bill for charges that the subscriber has authorized. Under the Settlement Agreement, MCI has agreed to make operational improvements designed to better ensure compliance with statutory requirements. In addition, the agreement implements operational procedures that will help prevent future billing errors and mistakes on crediting fees, taxes and surcharges. UCAN and MCI contend that this agreement promotes the fair and proper treatment of the customers the Commission is required to protect as well as compliance with all applicable statutes and Commission decisions. We agree; and conclude that the settlement is consistent with the law.

In the Public Interest

The Settlement Agreement provides an effective and efficient resolution of the parties' dispute and removes the need for further action in this proceeding. Since MCI has made whole all customers affected by this billing error and made additional improvements in its operations, the public at large benefits from this agreement. Thus, we conclude that the settlement is in the public interest.

In sum, the UCAN-MCI settlement satisfies the three criteria, and we grant the Joint Motion and adopt the Settlement Agreement.