STATE OF CALIFORNIA ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor

PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

505 VAN NESS AVENUE

SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-3298

February 1, 2005

TO: PARTIES OF RECORD IN INVESTIGATION 04-03-016

DECISION 05-02-001, Mailed February 1, 2005

On December 30, 2004, a Presiding Officer's Decision in this proceeding was mailed to all parties. Public Utilities Code Section 1701.2 and Rule 8.2 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedures provide that the Presiding Officer's Decision becomes the decision of the Commission 30 days after its mailing unless an appeal to the Commission or a request for review has been filed.

No timely appeals to the Commission or requests for review have been filed. Therefore, the Presiding Officer's Decision is now the decision of the Commission.

The decision number is shown above.

/s/ ANGELA K. MINKIN

Angela K. Minkin, Chief

Administrative Law Judge

ANG:sid

Attachment

ALJ/CMW-POD/sid Mailed 2/1/2005

Decision 05-02-001 February 1, 2005

BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Investigation on the Commission's own motion into the operations and practices of Miko Telephone Communications, Inc. and its sole owner and President Margaret Currie, to determine whether it has violated the laws, rules and regulations governing: 1) payment of surcharges to the Commission, 2) authorized operation in California, 3) providing accurate information to the Commission and 4) the manner in which California consumers are switched from one long distance carrier to another.

Investigation 04-03-016 (Filed March 16, 2004)

Travis Foss, Attorney at Law, Legal Division, for

Consumers Protection and Services Division.

James W. Howard, Consumer Protection & Safety

Division, Sacramento.

PRESIDING OFFICER'S DECISION

I. Summary

This decision finds that respondents Miko Telephone Communications, Inc. (Miko) and its sole owner and President Margaret Currie violated Public Utilities Code Sections 405, 702, 1013(a), and 2229.5(a), as well as Commission

rules and regulations.¹ The uncontested evidence demonstrates that Miko conducted operations in California without operating authority, failed to pay the Commission's telecommunications fees and surcharges, made a material misrepresentation in response to a data request from the Commission's Telecommunications Division, and engaged in a pattern of slamming, i.e., violated regulations governing how telephone subscribers are switched from one interexchange carrier to another.

Therefore, we (1) permanently revoke respondents' operating authority to provide telephone service in California, (2) find that Miko owes the Commission $27,383 for 2002 and $54,019 for 2003 in uncollected fees and surcharges, (3) fine respondents $20,035 pursuant to Section 405, and (4) fine respondents $25,000, pursuant to Sections 2107 and 2108 and the guidelines set forth in Decision (D.) 98-12-075.

In addition, we direct the Telecommunications Division to notify all local exchange carriers (LECs) and billing agents to cease all business with respondents unless respondents have obtained new operating authority and to check the Telecommunications Division's publicly accessible database to ensure that companies with which the LECs do business in fact have valid operating authority.