V. Qwest's Response to the Allegations
A. Slamming Allegations
Qwest believes that the evidence demonstrates no more than 106 slams, largely based on alleged problems with the LECs reporting the PIC disputes attributable to Qwest. Qwest also contends that, for a number of specific reasons, CSD did not meet its burden of proving a slam in the cases where it interviewed the complaining customers. Qwest believes the evidence does not support Greenlining/LIF's theory that reported slamming is the "tip of the iceberg." Qwest also believes that its Welcome Card, which is required by law, is not misleading.
Qwest states it has always had a zero tolerance policy for slamming, and has always required 100% third-party verification for California sales. Even with this policy, Qwest admits to a higher than expected PIC dispute rate in 1999. According to Qwest, starting in the second half of 1999 and through 2000, it implemented changes which culminated in the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Consent Decree.6 Qwest maintains it currently has a "state of the art" process to protect against slamming and describes its current "anti-slamming" process in detail.
Qwest also argues that it complied with Pub. Util. Code § 2889.5(f)7 and made whole customers who complained that they were slammed. Qwest argues that CSD did not meet its burden of proof to show that any customers are still entitled to refunds, because CSD did not ask for the customers' preferred carrier or the rates both the preferred carrier and Qwest charge, and did not ask customers how much they thought they should have been credited.
B. Cramming Allegations
Qwest claims that CSD has proven at most five out of 6,553 crams alleged by CSD based on Pacific's cramming report titled the Business Office Referrals Report (BOR). Qwest believes this report is not supported by documentation or other backup, such as investigation by Pacific to substantiate customers' allegations. According to Qwest, CSD's own interviews confirm the lack of reliability of the BOR report. Qwest also disputes many of the specific allegations, arguing that some of the charges are authorized, or they are "billing disputes", and not crams.
6 Qwest entered into a July 21, 2000 Consent Decree concerning slamming with the FCC. See also "Other Investigations" discussed below. 7 Pub. Util. Code § 2889.5(f) requires a telephone corporation that violates the verification procedures described in that section to credit to a subscriber any charges paid by the subscriber in excess of the amount that the subscriber would have been obligated to pay had the subscriber's telephone service not been changed.
