XII Comments on Commissioner Wood's Alternate Draft Order
Commissioner Wood's Alternate Draft order was mailed for comments on October 11, 2002. Greenlining Institute and Latino Issues Forum filed joint comments on October 16, 2002. Qwest Communications Corporation filed comments on October 18, 2002. In their comments parties reargued many of the same issues that were raised in their appeals. We have reviewed the comments and determine that there is need to make changes to the order.
1. During 1999 and 2000, the FCC and other states have also investigated Qwest for, among other things, slamming and cramming.
2. CSD's compliance filing in C.99-12-029 and C.00-02-027 have no evidentiary value in this investigation.
3. The reliability of the interLATA PIC dispute reports has been exhaustively tested in this investigation and has been found to be high. Based on 61 customer declarations that CSD obtained, we find that Qwest switched 60 of these customer's telephone service without authorization; based upon the CSD investigators' 115 completed customer interviews, we find that Qwest switched 99 of these customers' telephone service without authorization. CSD confirmed that about 90% of those it interviewed or obtained declarations from were slammed.
4. Since October 2000, shortly after the adoption of the FCC Consent Decree, Qwest investigates all reported PIC disputes and tracks those that it defines as "realized." Qwest classifies a PIC dispute as "realized" if (a) Qwest cannot produce a third-party verification tape within 14 days of the complaint, or (b) the customer denies that the voice on the third-party verification tape is the voice of someone authorized to make changes to the service.
5. From October 2000 through March 2001, Qwest recorded 3,420 PIC disputes.
6. Qwest's "realized" PIC disputes are compelling evidence of violations of § 2889.5, because the complaining customers have not only alleged their telephone service was switched without authorization, but they have also either denied that the voice on the verification tape is that of someone authorized to make the switch, or Qwest has been unable to timely retrieve the verification tape.
7. In 1999 and 2000, Qwest had a serious problem with its sales agents or telemarketers forging or falsifying letters of authorization or third-party verification tapes.
8. In 1999 and 2000, Qwest had serious problems with maintenance and retrieval of third-party verification tapes.
9. For 1999 and 2000, the interLATA PIC dispute rate for Spanish and Asian language preferred residential customers was higher than the rate for English language preferred customers.
10. We will not tolerate singling out any group of customers due to "industry norms" or any other spurious reason.
11. PIC disputes from Spanish and Asian preferred speaking customers may be understated.
12. Qwest's new policy requiring a sales agent with a "realized" PIC dispute rate that exceeds 2% to be terminated after several phases of probation does not appropriately protect California consumers.
13. Qwest's actions concerning its hiring Results Marketing as a sub-agent of another marketing firm, on the eve of terminating Results for a high PIC dispute rate, demonstrate its continued difficulty in enforcing its "zero tolerance" policy with respect to slamming, and its poor supervision over its sales agents as late as mid-2000.
14. Pacific reported 6,553 cramming complaints attributable to Qwest in 1999 and 2000 in its BOR report. This report's tabulation of complaints regarding unauthorized third-party billing charges for products and services is reliable and is the most accurate and up-to-date record the Commission has of cramming complaints.
15. We adjust the numbers in the BOR report as discussed in the decision to account for (1) customers who were unable to provide billing records or were unclear on the carrier complained about; (2) authorized charges; and (3) duplicate entries, and fine Qwest for 4,871 violations of § 2890 based on these adjusted figures.
16. In D.00-06-079, the Commission approved Qwest's acquisition of US West and its affiliates, conditioned upon the specific mitigation measures designed to address ORA's service quality concerns because of the large number of slamming and cramming complaints against Qwest.
17. D.00-06-079 required Qwest to submit quarterly reports containing slamming and cramming dispute information commencing November 29, 2000. Qwest submitted its first compliance report on May 2, 2001. Qwest had ample notice and opportunity to address the compliance issue at the hearings.
18. Qwest has not provided refunds or a credit to all customers who allege an unauthorized switch of their telephone service.
19. We fine Qwest for 3,581 violations of § 2889.5 for changing a subscriber's telephone service without authorization, based on Qwest's own admission of "realized" PIC disputes (3,420) and the actual slamming violations from the customers CSD (159) and Greenlining/LIF (2) presented in the form of witnesses or interviews.
1. CSD has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Qwest has failed to comply with relevant provisions of the Public Utilities Code, including § 2889.5 and § 2890.
2. Submission of this proceeding should be set aside in order to consider the following motions and related responses and replies, which replies we grant Qwest leave to file: (1) Qwest's August 17 motion, CSD's August 22 response, and Qwest's August 29 reply; (2) Qwest's September 6 motion, CSD's September 21 response, and Qwest's October 2 reply; and (3) Qwest's September 28 petition to set aside submission, CSD's October 15 response, and Qwest's October 25 reply.
3. Pursuant to Rule 73 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, we deny Qwest's motions for us to take official notice of CSD's August 7, 2001 compliance filing and Pacific's response in C.99-12-029 and C.00-02-027, as well as Qwest's related requests for sanctions against CSD.
4. A customer's credible allegation of a PIC dispute, standing alone, constitutes compelling evidence that Qwest has violated § 2889.5 by failing to ensure the steps outlined in the statue were followed.
5. The PIC dispute data of the LECs and Qwest in 1999 and 2000 indicate widespread slamming in violation of Pub. Util. Code § 2889.5.
6. Once CSD establishes by credible evidence that Qwest has switched a subscriber's telephone service without the customer's authorization, the burden shifts to Qwest to demonstrate that another adult authorized this switch on a customer's behalf. To the extent a third party, such as Qwest, wishes to rely on the agency relationship to bind the principal, the third party has a duty to ascertain the scope of the agency. CSD does not have the burden of proving a negative, namely, that no adult living or answering the telephone in the household was ever authorized to switch the telephone service.
7. CSD may establish through another adult living in the household that the subscriber's telephone service was switched without authorization; CSD does not always have to produce testimony from the subscriber of record to prove its case.
8. In the future, Qwest shall produce the record of verification required by Pub. Util. Code § 2889.5 (a)(7) no later than 10 business days after a customer's or the Commission's request.
9. Qwest is responsible for the actions of its third-party sales agents, and may be punished for the acts of its independent contractors.
10. Commencing with its next quarterly compliance report required by D.00-06-079, Qwest should disaggregate the actual PIC dispute numbers in California, as well as the PIC dispute rate, for English, Spanish, and Asian preferred language customers. If the PIC dispute rate for Spanish and Asian preferred language customers continues to be higher than the PIC dispute rate for English preferred language customers in any quarter, Qwest shall explain why and how it proposes to abate the problem.
11. In the past, several of Qwest's third-party verification vendors have not been "independent" as required by Pub. Util. Code § 2889.5(a)(3)(A).
12. Qwest's new policy requiring third-party verification vendors to retrieve 98% of the third-party verification tapes requested also violates Pub. Util. Code § 2889.5(a)(7) which requires Qwest to make the verifications available to all subscribers upon request.
13. Qwest violated Ordering Paragraphs 2(e) and (h) of D.00-06-079 from November 29, 2000 through at least May 2, 2001 by failing to file the required quarterly reports in a timely manner.
14. Qwest should meet and confer with representatives from CSD and ORA no later than 30 days after the issuance of this decision in order to refine the format of the compliance report required by D.00-06-079. If these parties thereafter believe that the reporting requirements of D.00-06-079 need to be clarified or supplemented, or if these parties cannot agree on the report's format, they should petition to modify D.00-06-079. For this reason, the Commission's Process Office should also serve a copy of today's decision on the service list of Application 99-09-039 (the merger proceeding in which the Commission issued D.00-06-079).
15. No later than 90 days after the effective date of this decision, Qwest should provide full refunds as set forth in this decision for those customers for which it has not already done so who are listed on the PIC dispute reports of the LECs, Qwest, and CAB's complaint list. No later than 120 days from the effective date of this decision, Qwest shall file a compliance report with the Director of the Commission's Consumer Services Division, served on the service list of this investigation, which demonstrates that it has fully complied with this directive.
16. The purpose of a fine is to effectively deter further violations by the perpetrator or others.
17. Weighing the severity of the offense, Qwest's mitigation measures, its financial resources, and the public interest in this proceeding, a fine of 20,340,500 is warranted, which is significant, but still at the lower end of the fine range (between $4,226,000 and $169,040,000) under Pub. Util. Code § 2107.
18. The conditions in Appendix B are reasonable to impose to ensure future compliance with Pub. Util. Code § 2889.5 and § 2890 and Qwest should comply with them.
19. At the time the customer calls to complain that the telephone service has been switched to Qwest without authorization, Qwest should provide customers with the telephone number of the LEC which customers must call to reverse the unauthorized switch, if, (a) in response to a required inquiry from Qwest's customer service representatives, the customers identify their LEC; and (b) CSD provides Qwest with a list of customer service telephone numbers for the LECs doing business in California, updated every six months and more frequently if conditions warrant. Additionally, within two business days of the call, Qwest should mail a postcard to that subscriber with the same information. In order to minimize customer confusion, Qwest should not use that postcard for any other activity (marketing or otherwise). Qwest should have this postcard written in English, Spanish, and Asian languages and send it in the language in which the customer was originally solicited. Qwest should implement this condition within 30 days from the effective date of this decision.
20. Qwest should obtain approval from CSD and the Commission's Public Advisor on the content of the notices required to be sent to customers by this decision.
21. This decision should be effective immediately in order to provide full customer reparations as soon as possible.
22. The January 22, 2002 motion of CalTel to enter a special appearance for the purpose of filing a response to Qwest's appeal of the POD should be denied.
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. Qwest Communications Corporation and its wholly-owned subsidiary, LCI International Telecommunications Corporation (collectively Qwest) shall cease and desist from engaging in slamming (unlawful switches in service) and cramming (placing unauthorized charges on a customer's telephone bill), and from all further violations of the Public Utilities Code and other applicable California or federal law.
2. No later than six months after the effective date of this decision, Qwest shall pay a fine of $20,340,500 to the General Fund of the State of California.
3. No later than 90 days from the effective date of this decision, Qwest shall provide full reparations for those customers it has not already fully reimbursed who are listed on the primary inter-exchange carrier (PIC) dispute reports of the Local Exchange Carriers (LECs), Qwest, as well as the customers who complained to the Commission's Consumer Affairs Branch. Qwest shall provide these customers with a refund of any PIC change fee and other applicable administrative fees, as well as any charges paid by the subscriber in excess of the amount that the subscriber would have paid his or her carrier of choice. Qwest shall make any checks payable to the subscriber of record for the telephone line, and shall meet and confer with the Commission's Consumer Services Division to ensure that it has credited all appropriate customers. No later than 120 days from the effective date of this decision, Qwest shall file a compliance report with the Director of the Commission's Consumer Services Division (CSD), served on the service list of this investigation, which demonstrates it has fully complied with this directive.
4. Commencing with its next quarterly compliance report required by Decision (D.) 00-06-079, Qwest shall disaggregate the actual PIC dispute numbers in California, as well as the PIC dispute rate, for English, Spanish, and Asian language preferred customers, for comparative purposes. If the PIC dispute rate for Spanish and Asian preferred language customers continues to be higher than the PIC dispute rate for English preferred language customers in any quarter, Qwest shall explain why and how it proposes to abate the problem.
5. Qwest shall meet and confer with representatives from CSD and the Office of Ratepayer Advocates no later than 30 days after the issuance of this decision in order to refine the format of the compliance report required by D.00-06-079. If these parties thereafter believe that the reporting requirements of D.00-06-079 need to be clarified or supplemented, or if these parties cannot agree on the report's format, they should petition to modify D.00-06-079.
6. The Commission's Process Office will also serve a copy of today's decision on the service list of Application 99-09-039 (the merger proceeding in which the Commission issued D.00-06-079).
7. Qwest shall comply with the conditions set forth in Appendix B of this decision, as well as with the following conditions: (a) Effective immediately, Qwest shall produce the record of verification required by Pub. Util. Code § 2889.5(a)(7) no later than 10 business days after a customer's or the Commission's request; and (b) at the time the customer calls to complain that the telephone service has been switched to Qwest without authorization, Qwest shall provide customers with the telephone number of the LEC which customers must call to reverse the unauthorized switch, if, (i) in response to a required inquiry from Qwest's customer service representatives, the customers identify their LEC; and (ii) CSD provides Qwest with a list of customer service telephone numbers for the LECs doing business in California, updated every six months or more frequently if conditions warrant. Additionally, within two business days of the call, Qwest shall mail a postcard to that subscriber with the same information. In order to minimize customer confusion, Qwest shall not use that postcard for any other activity (marketing or otherwise). Qwest shall have this postcard written in English, Spanish, and Asian languages and send it in the language in which the customer was originally solicited. Qwest shall implement this condition within 30 days from the effective date of this decision.
8. Qwest shall obtain approval from CSD and the Commission's Public Advisor's office on the content of the notices required to be sent to customers by this conditions adopted in this decision.
9. The January 22, 2002 motion of the California Association of Competitive Telecommunications Companies to enter a special appearance for the purpose of filing a response to the appeal of Qwest is denied.
10. This investigation is closed.
11. This order is effective today.
Dated October 24, 2002, at San Francisco, California.
LORETTA M. LYNCH
President
HENRY M. DUQUE
CARL W. WOOD
GEOFFREY F. BROWN
MICHAEL R. PEEVEY
Commissioners
APPENDIX A
Travis T. Foss |
|
*Itzel Berrio |
|
Susan E. Brown |
|
Joseph M. Malkin |
|
Kathryn E. Ford *Christopher P. Witteman was council for Greenlining from the commencement of the investigation and throughout the hearings and briefing schedule. |
APPENDIX B
ADDITIONAL ADOPTED CONDITIONS
CSD recommended that the Commission impose 21 special conditions and restrictions on Qwest, in order to ensure compliance with Pub. Util. Code § 2889.5 and § 2890. Qwest states that it has already implemented 14 of these conditions and agrees to implement the remaining with some modification. CSD and Qwest have a significant disagreement over one recommendation, which is discussed in the body of the decision.
Qwest is directed to comply with the following conditions:
The Anti-Slamming Advisory that Qwest requires its third-party marketers to sign shall be more strongly worded to prohibit certain persistent problems; Qwest shall work with CSD to re-write the existing advisory language, and shall complete this re-write no later than 60 days from the effective date of this decision.
Qwest shall electronically store letters of authorization and third-party verification tapes, which Qwest shall maintain for one year on its premises. Qwest shall implement this measure no later than 60 days from the effective date of this decision.
Prior to processing any sales order, Qwest shall compare the sales order to the third-party verification tape data stream. If the data do not exactly match, Qwest shall only process that portion of the order for which the data match. Qwest shall implement this provision no later than 30 days from the effective date of this decision.
Qwest sales agents shall not be allowed to contract with a third-party verification vendor directly. Qwest shall ensure that its sales agents and third-party verification vendors do not have a direct contractual relationship, and that Qwest itself contracts with its third-party verification vendors. Qwest shall implement this provision no later than 30 days from the effective date of this decision.
Qwest shall ensure its third-party verification vendors do not provide sales services, such as marketing or customer service. Qwest's third-party verification vendors shall only provide verification services. Qwest shall implement this provision no later than 30 days from the effective date of this decision.
Qwest shall send each new customer a "welcome postcard" with an 800 number to report any unauthorized switch or change in service, or any unauthorized charges. Qwest shall implement this provision no later than 30 days from the effective date of this decision.
Qwest shall use CARE flags to track customer telephone numbers that report being slammed by Qwest, to prevent re-installation of Qwest service after a reported slam. Qwest shall implement this provision no later than 30 days from the effective date of this decision.
Qwest shall maintain a "Stay Away" list of customers who report being slammed by Qwest in the past. Qwest shall also add these names to its "Do Not Call List" for a period of three years, and shall ensure its telemarketers refrain from contacting these customers, either by telemarketing, face-to-face marketing, or other type of marketing during that period. Qwest shall implement this provision no later than 30 days from the effective date of this decision.
Qwest shall modify its contracts with its third-party verification vendors to require both 100% retrieval of the third-party verification tapes and appropriate financial penalties for their failure to comply with this condition. Qwest shall implement this provision no later than 90 days from the effective date of this decision.
Qwest shall review letters of authorization and monitor third-party verification calls for suspected forgeries, and shall immediately terminate individual sales representatives for any forgery or any other realized PIC dispute. Qwest shall place a sales agent who remains above a 1% realized PIC dispute rate for any calendar month on a 90- day probationary/retraining period, and shall terminate a sales agent who remains above a 1% realized PIC dispute rate for any calendar month after its first 90 day probationary period. Qwest shall also implement mandatory retraining for any agent who remains above 0.5% realized PIC dispute rate for one month. Qwest shall implement this provision no later than 30 days from the effective date of this decision.
Qwest shall ensure that its sales agents disgorge profits (usually commissions and fees from a disputed sale) from disputed slamming and cramming activities. Qwest shall implement this provision no later than 30 days from the effective date of this decision.
Qwest shall perform its own investigation into disputed charges concerning sales agents, and shall not rely on the sales agents to conduct an investigation of the disputed charges against themselves. Qwest shall implement this provision no later than 30 days from the effective date of this decision.
Qwest shall report and track the following information from its third-party distributors and sales agents: (1) rejections for facial defects; (2) charge-backs; (3) PIC disputes and other billing adjustments; (4) allegations of forgeries, including the names of the individual sales representative and the sales agent involved; (5) terminated individual sales agents by last name. Qwest shall include these categories in its quarterly reports to the Commission as required by D.00-06-079. Qwest shall implement this procedure on the effective date of this decision.
Qwest shall strengthen its sales representative enforcement procedures by requiring representatives to sign the Anti-Slamming Advisory and shall immediately terminate individual representatives for a single realized PIC dispute. Qwest shall implement this provision no later than 30 days from the effective date of this decision.
Qwest shall target areas of reported abuse by sales or sales channels and take steps to remedy this reported abuse. Qwest shall implement this provision no later than 30 days from the effective date of this decision.
Qwest shall strengthen its sales agent enforcement procedures, including but not limited to (1) adding triggers for mandatory training; (2) providing stricter thresholds for its distributors; and (3) requiring distributors to sign the Anti-Slamming Advisory. Qwest shall implement this provision no later than 30 days from the effective date of this decision.
Qwest shall strengthen its procedures regarding pre-screening proposed distributors and sales agents. Before entering into new contracts with distributors and sales agents, Qwest shall require the distribution and sales agents to disclose: (1) information of past lawsuits involving allegations of forgery or fraud; (2) any complaints against the distributors or sales agents for forgeries, slamming, or cramming; (3) any past settlements regarding forgeries, slamming or cramming; and (4) any instances of termination of contracts due to related misdeeds. Qwest shall implement this provision no later than 30 days from the effective date of this decision.
Qwest shall require refresher training of its sales representatives. Qwest shall implement this provision no later than 30 days from the effective date of this decision.
Qwest shall undergo regular independent audits, where an annual independent auditor examines reporting and data tracking mechanisms and the enforcement procedures. Qwest shall implement this provision no later than 30 days from the effective date of this decision.
Qwest shall require its sales agents and distributors to conduct self-audits on a quarterly basis. Qwest shall implement this provision no later than 30 days from the effective date of this decision.
Qwest shall deliver a summary of the independent audits and the sales agents and distributors self-audit to the Commission with its quarterly reports. Qwest shall include these categories in its quarterly reports to the Commission as required by D.00-06-079. Qwest shall implement this procedure on the effective date of this decision.
(END OF APPENDIX B)
Conclusions Regarding Qwest's Summary of Slamming Complaints for Which Qwest Alleges That CSD Did Not Meet Its Burden of Proof53
Declarant or Interviewee |
Summary of Complaint |
Qwest's Alleged Missing Evidence |
Other Additional Record Evidence and Conclusion |
2.54 Bertz (Ex. C-5) |
Subscriber did not authorize Qwest to switch her telephone service. Bertz has had her telephone number for two years prior to the switch. |
Never testified that no other household member authorized the switch. |
11/23/99 Qwest letter stating Qwest's position that the LEC assigned the consumer a recycled telephone number, and the number belonged to a consumer who previously had Qwest services. Bertz stated she had her phone number for 2 years and Pacific Bell stated the recycled number rationale is not possible. Conclusion: Slam |
8. Garcia (Ex. C-5) |
Garcia did not authorize Qwest to switch her telephone service; her husband told her he did not fill out any portion of the LOA, which appears to contain her husband's name, address, phone number, and signature. |
Did not testify whether signature appeared to be his or whether birthday was correct. No explanation for how Qwest sales agent would have known husband's name. |
Conclusion: Slam |
19. Li (Ex. C-5) |
Subscriber did not authorize Qwest to switch his long distance service; the account was also changed from his name to that of his wife. |
Never testified that his wife did not authorize the switch. Never explains how Qwest sales agent could have known his wife's name, or how Qwest could have switched the name on the LEC-billed account. |
Qwest could not find the LOA for this account. Qwest received authorization from Snyder Direct. Conclusion: Slam |
20. Henry Lim (Ex. C-5) |
Subscriber did not "order anything" from Qwest, but was billed for unauthorized charges. LOA appears to contain his name, address, and telephone number, but the signature of "Hang Lim". Henry Lim did not fill out or sign the LOA. |
Subscriber never testified that he did not know Hang or that Hang lacked authority to authorize the switch. |
Conclusion: Slam |
31. Raddatz (Ex. C-6) |
Subscriber states Qwest switched her telephone service without her authorization twice. She does not know Jesus Ramirez, the name on the LOA, and the LOA also has a different address. Raddatz states Qwest switched her service again two months later. |
Qwest admits one slam. For the second slam, there is no evidence that CSD attempted to obtain an LOA or TPV and to show them to the witness; that it is not clear from her bills that she was slammed twice as opposed to her service simply never switched away from Qwest; there is no indication that she called her LE to switch away. |
Raddatz states that two Qwest operators who took her complaints were rude to her. Conclusion: One slam |
32. Shen (Ex. C-6) |
Subscriber states that Qwest switched her telephone service without her authorization. |
Shen did not testify that no one else with authority to make the change could not have or did not make the change. |
Shen testifies that she spoke with a Qwest sales agent before she was slammed, but she never authorized a change in telephone service. Qwest could not find the LOA for this account. Conclusion: Slam |
33. Schultz (Ex. C-6) |
Subscriber states Qwest switched his telephone service without his authorization. LOA bears roommate's name, but roommate told Schutlz he did not fill out any part of the LOA. |
Never testified that no one else with authority to make the change could not have or did not make the change, or how Qwest's sales representative would have known the roommate's name. |
Conclusion: Slam |
39. Ybarrando (Ex. C-6) |
Subscriber states Qwest switched his telephone service without his authorization. |
Never testified that no other authorized adult placed the order. |
Qwest was unable to retrieve verification from its third party distributor. Conclusion: Slam |
40. Yi (Ex. C-6) |
Subscriber states Qwest switched his telephone service without his authorization. |
Does not testify that no other authorized adult placed the order. |
Qwest unable to retrieve verification. Account was established in the name of Ki Tony Yi. Subscriber Yi's first name is spelled Kitong. In October 1999, Yi received what he described a "suspicious" call from a man claiming to represent AT&T with an offer for better distance rates. Yi stated he was already with AT&T and did not want to switch. Conclusion: Slam |
41. Brizuela (Ex. C-7) |
Subscriber states Qwest switched his telephone service without his authorization in August 1998. Subscriber and his daughter also complained to Qwest about billing problems in 1999. |
No explanation for why it took 10 months to complain. Qwest argues that subscriber's July 14 letter written by his daughter on his behalf is inconsistent with his declaration. |
Conclusion: Slam |
42. Hernandez (Ex. C-7) |
Hernandez states that neither she nor her husband Eduardo (the subscriber) authorized Qwest to switch their long distance telephone service. Neither know Alfredo Sanchez, who the Qwest letter says established the account. |
The Qwest letter referencing Sanchez contains a "cut and paste" typographical error. Qwest has a TPV for this account in Eduardo Hernandez' name, who is the subscriber of record. |
Qwest's 12/16/99 letter says the voice capture reveals the account was established in the name of Sanchez Alfredo. Conclusion: Slam
|
43. Wu (Ex. C-7) |
Subscriber states that he did not authorize Qwest to switch his telephone service. |
Qwest alleges it has a TPV recording for this account, and CSD never played the recording for the witness. |
9/20/99 Qwest letter indicates that Qwest received authorization from third party distributor called Snyder Direct. Qwest was unable to find LOA as of 9/20/99. Handwritten "Qwest Authorization to Change Long Distance Service" appears in Ex. C7, together with a letter from Wu stating that both the birthday and signature are incorrect. Conclusion: Slam |
45. Gomez (Ex. C-7) |
Subscriber did not authorize Qwest to switch his telephone service |
Did not testify that no other authorized adult placed the order. |
When Gomez initially called to complain, Qwest's service representative was not helpful in resolving complaint and hung up on Gomez when he requested to speak to representative's supervisor. When Gomez tried to call Qwest back, all he got was recorded messages. In 9/8/99 letter sent to Gomez in response to written complaint, Qwest stated it was unable to find the LOA. Conclusion: Slam |
46. McRae (Ex. C-7) |
Qwest states the account was established under McRae's fiancée's (now wife's) name. McRae (the subscriber) states that neither he nor his wife authorized Qwest to switch telephone service. |
Qwest alleges it has a TPV tape for Deena Shin (the wife of McRae); that CSD did not play the recording to McRae or his wife, even though Qwest's letter to CAB enclosed the recording; Qwest alleges that Shin represented she had authority to make changes to the account. McRae did not explain how Qwest's sales agent could have known his then fiancée's name if she had not in fact placed the order. |
McRae declaration further states, "Qwest sent me a disk that supposedly contained a voice record file of my wife authorizing the switch. The file is in a language neither my wife or I speak and was very fast. It was obviously faked! I still have the file for evidence." Conclusion: Slam |
50. Diaz (Ex. C-8) |
Subscriber states Qwest switched his service without authorization. |
Qwest has TPV recording for this account; CSD did not play the recording for the witness. |
Qwest's 12/29/99 letter to the CPUC states it was unable to obtain the LOA establishing the account but would forward it once received. Qwest states it has TPV recording in Ex. 300 (Pitchford Testimony prepared for this case.) The record is unclear when Qwest informed CSD of this recording. Conclusion: Slam |
52. Newman (Ex. C-8) |
Subscriber never authorized Qwest to be his service provider and states that Qwest billed him for services he never ordered. |
Never testified that no other authorized adult placed the order. |
Newman states that Qwest representatives were very rude to him when he called to complain.; Qwest's 9/8/99 letter to the CPUC addressing the complaint states that it is unable to obtain the LOA which established the account. Conclusion: Slam |
53. Acosta (Ex. C-8) |
Subscriber states Qwest switched his telephone service without authorization. |
Qwest has TPV recording for this account; CSD did not play recording for witness. |
Qwest's 11/8/99 letter to CPUC regarding complaint states that it is unable to obtain the LOA at this time. Qwest states it has TPV recording in Ex. 300 (Pitchford Testimony prepared for this case.) The record is unclear when Qwest informed CSD of this recording. Conclusion: Slam |
56. Nhung (Ex. C-8) |
Subscriber states Qwest switched his telephone service without his authorization. |
Never testified that no other adult placed the order. |
12/14/99 Qwest letter states it received authorization from Snyder, and Qwest is unable to obtain the LOA at that time. Conclusion: Slam |
58. Bernstein (Ex. C-9) |
Subscriber states he never authorized Qwest to switch his telephone service. |
Qwest found TPV recording for account and CSD did not play the recording. |
11/16/99 Qwest letter to CPUC states it is Qwest's position that the LEC assigned the consumer a recycled telephone number. Qwest was unable to find the LOA at that time. Qwest states it has TPV recording in Ex. 300 (Pitchford Testimony) prepared for this case. Ex. 300 states that TPV recording in name of Masato Nakamura. The record is unclear on when Qwest informed CSD of this recording. Conclusion: Slam |
59. Sabo (Ex. C-9) |
Subscriber states that Qwest switched his telephone service on two separate occasions without his authorization. |
Never testified that no other authorized adult placed the order, or that the person whose name appears on the LOA is unknown to him or lacks authority to make the changes in the phone service. |
Sabo states that he called Qwest, as well as AT&T and Pacific Bell to rectify the slam and three months later Qwest charges appeared on his bill again. 9/13/99 letter to CPUC indicates that Qwest was unable at that time to find the LOA for the account. The letter further states, "It would seem most likely that Xuan Ho service was disrupted when Eric Sabo information was entered incorrectly into our database." Qwest letter of authorization survey signed by Sabo states that the LOA is not in his name, nor does he know a Xuan Ho, and the address on the LOA is not, and has never been, his address. Sabo further states, "Is Xuan Ho a real person? Why is he using/claiming my phone number?" Conclusion: Slam |
FBW-1. McAffee (Ex. C-24) |
McAffee, of Crestridge Management, which oversees certain apartments, stated that Qwest switched the telephone service of the apartments without authorization. Qwest told her that Betty Guerra authorized the switched, but Guerra, who answers phones, told McAffee that she did not authorize the switch. |
CSD never asked Qwest for an LOA or interviewed Ms. Guerra. |
Conclusion: Slam |
FB W-2. Boyd (Ex. C-24) |
Manager of business stated that no one in her firm authorized the switch of telephone service to Qwest. |
Qwest states it has TPV recording in Ex. 300 (Pitchford Testimony prepared for this case), which CSD did not play. CSD did not interview any other employees. |
Conclusion: Slam |
FBW-3. Berry (Ex. C-24) |
Manager of apartments states that no one authorized the switch of telephone service. She learned of the switch upon receiving a telephone bill from Qwest addressed to Barbara, a part time employee telephone person. |
CSD never established whether Berry spoke with Barbara or whether Barbara had authority to make changes to the phone service. CSD never attempted to interview Barbara. CSD never asked Qwest for an LOA. |
Berry thinks it is possible that a Qwest caller had talked to Barbara and obtained her name, thus was able to use the name to substantiate an authorization for the switch. Conclusion: Slam |
FB W-8. Cohen, Vernon (Ex. C-24) |
Qwest switched Cohen's business telephone without his authorization, and he is the only one with such authorization. |
CSD did not review copies of bills showing Qwest as carrier. CSD did not ask Qwest for a LOA. Qwest's records show no account for complainant. |
Qwest also switched Cohen's home phone without authorization. Neither he nor his wife authorized this switch. Conclusion: Slam |
FB W-9. Bravo (Ex. C-24) |
Subscriber states Qwest switched his telephone service without authorization. |
Subscriber never told CSD, and CSD never established, that no other authorized adult placed the order. |
Bravo told CSD he does not know who authorized the switch. He was not contacted by a TPV company regarding the switch. Conclusion: Slam |
FBW-10. Cornejo, Alma (Ex. C-24) |
Subscriber states Qwest switched her telephone service without her authorization. She listened to a TPV tape Qwest provided and stated the voice was not hers, and the name and date of birth were not correct. |
She never told CSD, and CSD never established, whose name was on the recording, whether she knew the person, or whether the person had authority to place the order. |
Cornejo states she does not know who authorized the switch. Conclusion: Slam |
FBW-13. Delgado (Ex. C-24) |
Subscriber states Qwest switched his telephone service without authorization. |
Qwest states it has TPV recording in Ex. 300 (Pitchford Testimony prepared for this case), which CSD did not play. CSD did not establish whether any other authorized adult might have placed the order. |
Delgado states he did not authorize the switch, nor does he know who did authorize the switch. Conclusion: Slam |
FBW-14. Zavaleta (Ex. C-24) |
Subscriber states Qwest switched her telephone service without authorization. |
Qwest states it has TPV recording in Ex. 300 (Pitchford Testimony prepared for this case), which CSD did not play. CSD did not establish whether any other authorized adult might have placed the order. |
Zavaleta states she did not authorize the switch, nor does she know who did authorize the switch. Conclusion: Slam |
FBW-18. Gomez (Ex. C-24) |
Subscriber states Qwest switched his telephone service without authorization twice. |
Qwest states it has TPV recording in Ex. 300 (Pitchford Testimony prepared for this case), which CSD did not play. CSD did not obtain any information to substantiate the claim that his service was switched twice. CSD did not establish whether any other authorized adult might have placed the order. |
Gomez does not know who authorized the switch in 2000. Gomez told CSD that Qwest had previously switched his long distance service in 1999 and it took him several months to restore service to his carrier of choice. Conclusion: Slam |
FBW-22. West (Ex. C-24) |
Subscriber states Qwest switched his telephone service without authorization. |
CSD did not establish that no other authorized adult placed the order. |
West states he does not know who authorized the switch. Conclusion: Slam |
FBW-25. Sotello (Ex. C-24) |
Subscriber states Qwest switched her telephone service without authorization. |
Qwest states it has TPV recording in Ex. 300 (Pitchford Testimony) prepared for this case, which CSD did not play. CSD did not establish whether any other authorized adult might have placed the order. |
Sotello states that she does not know who authorized the switch. Conclusion: Slam |
FBW-26. Abe (Ex. C-24) |
Subscriber states Qwest switched his telephone service without authorization. |
CSD did not establish that no other authorized adult placed the order. |
Abe states that he does not know who authorized the switch. Conclusion: Slam |
FBW-32. Paredes (Ex. C-24) |
Subscriber states Qwest switched his telephone service without authorization. |
CSD did not establish that no other authorized adult placed the order. |
Paredes states that he does not know who authorized the switch. Conclusion: Slam |
SN2-2. Nguyen (Ex. C-19) |
Subscriber states Qwest switched telephone service without authorization. Qwest records show that switch was purportedly authorized by subscriber's older brother, Dung Nguyen. Vu Ngyen (subscriber) states that Dung moved to Seattle in February 1999. |
Qwest states it has TPV recording in Ex. 300 (Pitchford Testimony prepared for this case), which CSD did not play. CSD never played the recording for the interviewee, never established that Dung lacked authority to make changes (just that he was not the subscriber), and never established that, though Dung live out of town now, he was not in town at the time the order was placed. |
Vu Nguyen believes the LOA signed in August 1999 was a forgery. Que Nguyen, Vu's father, pays all the household bills, and stated that Dung Nguyen has never been an authorized subscriber to their telephone service. Conclusion: Slam |
SN2-5. Alvarez (Ex. C-19) |
Subscriber states Qwest switched telephone service without Alvarez' authorization. Alvarez is the subscriber, and states that his mother-in-law signed a promotion letter at a fair or mall authorizing the billing, but that she is not the subscriber to the service and therefore not authorized to allow such billing. |
Qwest states it has TPV recording in Ex. 300 (Pitchford Testimony prepared for this case), which CSD did not play. |
Alvarez (to whom CSD spoke through a Spanish interpreter) signed and returned a Qwest Letter of Authorization Survey saying he was not the subscriber, Magdalena Alvarez was the subscriber, but she was "67 years old [;] she hardly reads or write Spanish nor English and was not authorize in any manner to change the phone service." When CSD later questioned Alvarez through a Spanish interpreter, Alvarez stated that he was the subscriber. Conclusion: Slam |
SN2-10. Shen (Ex. C-19) |
Daughter of subscriber states Qwest switched her father's telephone service without authorization, and changed the account to her name. She states that the LOA bearing her name is a forgery because she was not home on the day it was purportedly signed. |
Qwest states that the complaint lacks credibility because only the LEC can change account-holder name. |
Conclusion: Slam |
SN2-12. Gomez (Ex. C-19) |
Gomez had two slamming complaints against Qwest. Qwest admits the switch regarding Gomez home telephone involved a forgery. Gomez also alleges that one month after the unauthorized switch of his residential service, Qwest switched his office telephone without his authorization. |
CSD never provided office telephone number to Qwest nor asked for an LOA or TPV for that account. |
Conclusions: 2 slams |
SN2-14. Chen (C-19) |
Son of subscriber stated that LOA, bearing subscriber's name, is a forgery. The long distance service was switched by Qwest four times without authorization, and the local long distance service was switched once without authorization. |
Qwest admits the first allegation is a forgery, but alleges for the others that CSD has not met its burden of proof. CSD never asked Qwest for proof of authorization for any of the other alleged slams, nor provided copies of bills evidencing other alleged slams. |
Conclusion: 1 slam |
SN3-2. Gutierrez, Elsa (C-20) |
Gutierrez stated that she was subscriber and did not authorize Qwest to switch her telephone service. She listened to TPV tape and stated the voice was not her voice, the verification tape was in Spanish and she does not speak the language. Also, the date of birth provided for her was wrong. |
CSD never found out whether the subscriber knew the person whose voice was on the TPV recording or whether that person had authority to make changes to the telephone service. |
Gutierrez said she had no idea who authorized the switch in her telephone service. Conclusion: Slam |
SN3-8. Kazarya (C-20) |
Wife of subscriber stated that Qwest switched telephone service on two different occasions without her authorization. |
Interviewee never told CSD, and CSD never established, that subscriber did not authorize switch. |
Qwest did not provide a TPV tape for the Kazarya telephone. Conclusion: Slam |
SN3-9. Mercado (C-20) |
Wife of subscriber stated that Qwest switched telephone service without her authorization, and that the voice and date of birth on the TPV tape are not hers. |
She did not tell CSD, and CSD never established, (a) whether the TPV recording purported to be her, and, if not, whether the person who placed the order had authority to do so, or (b) whether the subscriber authorized the switch. |
Wife of the subscriber stated that she handled the complaint. Conclusion: Slam |
SN3-10. Ho (C-20) |
Wife of subscriber stated that Qwest switched telephone service without her authorization. Ms. Ho said the voice on the TPV tape was not her husband's, because he does not speak Chinese. |
She did not tell CSD, and CSD never established, (a) whether the TPV recording purported to be her husband, and, if not, whether the person who placed the order had authority to do so, or (b) whether the subscriber authorized the switch. |
Barbara Ho had no idea who had authorized the switch. Conclusion: Slam |
SN3-11. Cornejo, Ramon (C-20) |
Qwest switched telephone service without subscriber's authorization. Cornejo stated that neither the voice nor the date of birth on the TPV tape were his. |
Cornejo never told CSD, and CSD never established (a) whether the TPV recording purported to be him, and, if not, whether the person who placed the order had authority to do so. |
Cornejo stated he did not know how he came to be switched and was not sure if his local toll service was switched as well. Conclusion: Slam |
SN3-12. Cevallos (C-20) |
Qwest switched telephone service without subscriber's authorization. Cevallos stated that neither the voice nor the date of birth on the TPV tape were hers, and the name was close, but not hers. |
Cevallos never told CSD, and CSD never established, whether the person whose voice is on the recording had authority to place the order. |
Cevallos told CSD that a Qwest sales representative contacted her on the telephone and she told the representative that she did not want any long distance telephone service. Conclusion: Slam |
SN3-13. Cristal (C-20) |
Subscriber states Qwest switched her telephone service without authorization. She listened to the TPV tape and the name on the tape, Yolanda Cortez, was not hers. Also, Cristal states she does not speak Spanish and the TPV tape was in Spanish. |
Cristal never told CSD, and CSD never established, whether she knew Yolanda Cortez or whether Ms. Cortez had authority to make changes to the service. |
Conclusion: Slam |
SN3-17. Barraza (C-20) |
Wife of subscriber states that Qwest switched their telephone service without her authorization. She stated that the name Alicia Barraza was used on the tape, which was not her name or in her voice, and the tape also contained a different birth date than hers. |
Barraza never told CSD (a) whether she knew Alicia, and, if so, whether Alicia had authority to place the order, or (b) whether the subscriber authorized the switch. |
Conclusion: Slam |
SN3-19. Carillo (Ex. C-20) |
Subscriber did not authorize Qwest to switch her telephone service. Carillo stated that she could not understand the TPV tape (in Spanish) except to hear the name Hidalgo Garcia accepting service from Qwest. |
Carillo never told CSD, and CSD never established, whether Carillo knew Garcia or whether he had authority to place the order. |
Conclusion: Slam |
SN 3-22. Amado, Robert (Ex. C-20) |
Subscriber did not authorize Qwest to switch his telephone service. Amado stated that the name, Albert Amado, and the birth date on the verification tape were not his. |
Subscriber never told CSD, and CSD never established, whether he knew Albert or whether Albert had authority to place the order. |
Conclusion: Slam |
SN3-26. Centanni (Ex. C-20) |
Husband of subscriber stated he did not authorize switch to Qwest. Qwest did not provide a TPV tape for this telephone number. |
While he testified that Qwest never contacted him, he did not testify that Qwest never contacted the subscriber. He also never testified that no other authorized adult placed the order. |
Conclusion: Slam |
SN4-24. Florez (Ex. C-21) |
Subscriber's long distance telephone number was switched without his authorization. |
Florez did not know the name of the company that switched his long distance service, that he was not at his residence when this happened, and that the person that took care of the problem in his absence had returned to Mexico. |
Conclusion: No slam |
