6. Violation of § 2890

Greenlining argues that the per-minute charges Pacific assesses for call forwarding and message retrieval are improperly hidden in the aggregate "local direct dialed" business calls on a customer's bill, in contravention of § 2890(e)(2)(A). It is undisputed that there is no reference, or cross-reference, to business line usage charges on the portion of the bill which contains PBIS' monthly voicemail charge. Likewise, there is no reference to the inclusion of call forwarding charges or mailbox retrieval charges in Pacific's direct-dialed call summary.

Section 2890(e), in relevant part, provides that a telephone bill must include "... the amount being charged for each product or service, including any taxes or surcharges, and a clear and concise description of the service, product, or other offering for which a charge has been imposed." (§ 2890(e)(2)(A).)

In fact, as the record shows, both call forwarding from a customer's business telephone line to a voice mailbox and message retrieval from the voice mailbox using the business line are treated as local direct-dialed calls. Business customers have measured rate service and Pacific's A5.2 local exchange tariff provides that local direct-dialed charges (i.e., for local, extended area, and Zones 1 and 2 calls) are summarized on the bill. (Schedule Cal. P.U.C. No. A5.2.1.B.2.c.)

Therefore while we conclude that defendants' billing format does not violate § 2890(e), we are concerned that other evidence in the record suggests more explicit disclosure of the actual costs of business voicemail use is warranted. Greenlining's witness Rodriguez testified that he understood the charge for business voicemail was a flat rate, and that was what he saw when he reviewed the bill. When asked if, upon review of the bill, he concluded he was being billed differently, he answered: "No." (Tr. 287.) But Rodriguez' prepared testimony also states he was "completely unaware that there [sic] additional per-minute or per-message charges which attached to every message left in a Pacific Bell business voicemail box, or for the retrieval of messages." (Ex. 213.) If he did not know that, regardless of whether defendants disclosed it, he would not know the amount of the local direct-dialed charges on his bill reflected voicemail use.

True, Rodriguez also testified that the only queries he made to Pacific about charges on his bill were with respect to individual calls. Presumably, the total monthly charges for local direct-dialed calls never appeared unreasonably large to him. Defendants make much of the fact that the per-minute charge for such calls is only three cents for the first minute and less for each additional minute. They comment that neither De Vries, Redburn, nor Mitchell cancelled PBIS business voicemail after learning about the business line usage charges (though Greenlining and Latino Issues Forum did). Defendants suggest that for the customers who have continued their business voicemail subscriptions, these charges must be immaterial. We will not begin to presume what costs are or are

not material for California business customers. We think they should decide that question for themselves. But to decide that, they need to be informed.

In amending other portions of § 2890 in 1998 to address the problem of "cramming" (the inclusion of unauthorized charges on a telephone subscriber's bill), the Legislature stated its intent, among other things, "to encourage the verification of telephone charges." (Stats. 98-1041, Section 1(d) [SB 378, Peace].) Though cramming is not the issue before us here, we think that legislative policy is also important with respect to authorized services and products. Technological advances are rapidly increasing the array of telecommunications services and products offered by an increasing number of competitors. Customers need information. Therefore, similar to our direction to defendants to revise and clarify their tariffs, we direct them to improve the quality of the information provided on their bills.

Greenlining would have us order defendants to separate out those local direct-dialed charges attributable to call forwarding and mailbox message retrieval from other local direct-dialed charges. Testimony from defendants' witnesses Grewen, Godfrey, and Rodgers about defendants' switches and billing systems indicates defendants do not have the capability to do this for all calls. Without determining whether or not such detail is desirable, we conclude defendants' current technology does not permit that breakout. We require defendants to include two references in their bill, however. First, at the place where the local direct-dialed summary appears, Pacific shall include a statement that, for call forwarding and voicemail subscribers, the total shown reflects any business line usage charges incurred during the billing period for call forwarding and mailbox message retrieval. Second, at the place where the monthly voicemail charge appears, defendants shall specify whether or not the monthly charge includes call forwarding.

Accordingly, defendants shall submit bill format revisions responsive to this directive to the Director of the Telecommunications Division within 30 days of the effective date of this decision, for compliance review and approval. Upon approval, defendants shall use the revised bill format for all billings, beginning with the first billing cycle practicable.