3. Discussion

The facts presented here indicate a serious problem in regard to automatic direct-dialed calls from a computer to an ISP. Because the dial-up is automatic, the user is not alerted to the possibility that the dial-up number is a local toll call rather than a local call. The user does not realize there is a problem until the monthly statement arrives with a shockingly high telephone bill.

SBC Pacific Bell's argument that Complainant's recourse is with her ISP has no merit. SBC Pacific Bell has made it difficult, inconvenient, and impracticable to get accurate information distinguishing local calls from local toll calls. This information, which at one time was provided in its telephone books, has been deleted from the telephone books with the notation to call the operator. But, as we have found, calling the operator often results in misinformation.

In Decision (D.) 02-08-069 in Case (C.) 01-03-028 et. al., we considered these problems in relation to SBC Pacific Bell. We found that in regard to obtaining local toll information, " . . . contacting the `O' operator increases the possibility of error and is less convenient." (Finding of Fact 10.) And `substituting a less accurate and less convenient means of obtaining local toll pricing information is unreasonable." (Finding of Fact 11.) (D.02-08-069 at 14.) We concluded that SBC Pacific Bell had failed to provide just and reasonable service in violation of Pub. Util. Code § 451 (D.02-08-069 at 15), and that it should not be permitted to take advantage of its own wrong. (D.02-08-069 at 10, citing Civil Code § 3517.)

In D.02-08-069 we cancelled the local toll charges in dispute. Likewise, based on D.02-08-069, we cancel the $435.32 charge in dispute here. We note that in D.02-08-069, we ordered SBC Pacific Bell to restore the local/toll calling information to SBC Pacific Bell's telephone books but, owing to publication schedules, the restoration will take a long time, and certainly comes too late for the calls involved in this complaint.

We are satisfied that the Complainant took all reasonable steps to ensure that her dialer software was not programmed to dial the disputed local toll calls to access her ISP. As Complainant testified, she did everything to ensure that she was not dialing a local toll number to reach her ISP. Moreover, the problem experienced by Complainant is not unique. The Commission has received numerous similar complaints. The responsibility for remedying the situation lies with the phone companies and the ISPs. They are the beneficiaries of the customers' dollars for dial-up Internet access, and only they have the technical expertise to fix the problem. They should not hold customers responsible for this situation. Accordingly, we reject SBC Pacific Bell's argument that Complainant should be required to pay for the toll calls in dispute.