III. The Settlement Agreement

UCAN and Choctaw state that the Settlement Agreement ("Settlement"), attached to this decision as Appendix A, resolves UCAN's complaint and satisfies all existing criteria for adoption by the Commission. Curiously, some of the issues raised in UCAN's complaint and written PHC statement are not addressed by the Settlement,⁵ while one issue appears for the first time in the Settlement. A summary of the Settlement is provided below.

Measured Rate Service. UCAN alleged that Choctaw has not provided MRS to all of its customers as required by D.96-10-066. Choctaw admitted that its has not provided MRS to all of is customers, but denied that it is required to do so by D.96-10-066. The Settlement insinuates that the requirement to offer MRS may impose an undue hardship on prepaid service providers, and urges the Commission to open a generic investigation into whether and how prepaid providers of local service should comply with D.96-10-066.

ULTS Installation Charges. UCAN alleged that Choctaw has not provided its ULTS customers with discounted installation charges as required by Pub. Util. Code § 874(c).⁶ Choctaw denied the allegation. The Settlement states that Choctaw will comply with § 874(c).

Access to Local Directory Assistance. UCAN alleged that Choctaw has not provided its customers with access to local directory assistance as required by D.96-10-066. Choctaw denied the allegation. The Settlement states that Choctaw is in compliance with the law.

Telephone Books. UCAN alleged that Choctaw has not provided telephone books to its customers as required by D.96-10-066. Choctaw denied the allegation. The Settlement states that Choctaw will take reasonable steps to ensure that its customers receive printed directories, but that Choctaw cannot guaranty that the underlying ILEC, whose services Choctaw is reselling, will timely distribute the telephone books.

Access to Toll-Free Numbers. UCAN alleged that Choctaw's tariffs limit access to 800 or 800-like toll free services in violation of D.96-10-066. Choctaw acknowledged that its tariffs indicate that access to 800 or 800-like toll free services may be limited in some circumstances, but denied that it ever limited such access. The Settlement states that Choctaw will revise its tariffs to indicate that customers have unconditional access to 800 or 800-like toll free services.

Billing Adjustment for Calls Made to 1-900 Numbers. UCAN alleged that Choctaw has not always complied with the requirement in D.96-10-066 to offer its customers a free, one-time billing adjustment for 1-900 calls that were made inadvertently, mistakenly, or were unauthorized. Choctaw disputed the allegation, claiming that there are likely to be few instances of customers incurring charges for 1-900 calls, since Choctaw blocks such calls pursuant to its Commission-approved tariff. The Settlement states that Choctaw will offer a free, one-time billing adjustment for 1-900 charges incurred by its customers.

Access to California Relay Service (CRS). UCAN alleged that Choctaw has not provided its customers with access to CRS as required by § 2881.⁷ Choctaw denied the allegation. The Settlement states that Choctaw will (1) offer access to CRS, (2) increase its customer education efforts to ensure that its customers are properly informed of this fact, and (3) include in its marketing to California consumers an 1-800 number to contact Choctaw about CRS. The Settlement also states that a caller to the 1-800 number who has a question about CRS will be routed to appropriately trained personnel who can provide specific answers to the inquiry.

Blocking of Discretionary Services. The Settlement states that "Choctaw agrees that it will revise its service initiation process so as to ensure that customers are given an option to selectively or completely block the transfer" of the customer's telephone number when making calls as required by the Commission's rules on CALLER ID blocking. This issue appeared for the first time in the Settlement.

Consistency with Filed Tariffs. UCAN alleged that Choctaw service representatives have not always provided information that is consistent with Choctaw's tariffs. Choctaw argued that such events are isolated instances. The Settlement states that Choctaw will work to educate its employees so as to ensure that statements made by its employees are consistent with its tariffs.