Issue 4. The impact on consumers of AT&T`s removal of the disclosure language in its Rule 12 tariff.
AT&T argues that the fact that DRA/TURN could produce only eleven complaints of various types out of 45 million calls handled during the period following the filing of the Rule 12 Advice Letters demonstrates that removal of the disclosure language had no adverse impact on consumers.56 AT&T notes that those complaints "have little, if any relevance to the removed TR-12 requirements."57 AT&T contends that, moreover, DRA and TURN complain about certain things that are not addressed by Rule 12, including the speed at which customer service representatives speak; their use of "jargon;" and service representatives' making marketing offers on every call."58
DRA and TURN in response assert that the fact that TURN produced eleven complaints in a period where the AT&T customer service representatives handled millions of calls is "not evidence that there is no problem at AT&T."59 DRA and TURN note that AT&T produced "almost none of the complaint evidence" that it has from that period, and further assert that "it is well known that most consumers do not file complaints with third-party agencies like the CPUC."60 They argue that there is, however, evidence that AT&T's modified marketing practices have resulted in customers' failure to learn about the price for stand-alone measured rate service; that consumers were confused by AT&T's customer service representatives' sales offers; and that customer segments, including those who have limited English proficiency (LEP), would be especially harmed by AT&T's marketing practices.61
DRA and TURN moreover claim that the testimony of the witnesses who monitored AT&T customer service calls provides clear evidence of customer confusion based on AT&T's newly implemented Rule 12 tariffs. According to DRA witness Koppman, the CSRs he monitored:
a) avoided telling non-Lifeline customers the actual prices of basic local service62
b) offered customers more expensive services before offering less expensive alternatives63
c) spoke "rapidly" and in "jargon" to customers, who often seemed not to understand what the CSR was saying64
d) aggressively marketed high-priced services, usually unsolicited, to all customers, including Lifeline or other limited income customers65
e) marketed to customers on all calls, often before resolving the customer's stated concerns66 and
f) falsely portrayed themselves as disinterested experts.67
DRA and TURN also provide various examples of actual consumer complaints to support the claim that customers are confused about AT&T's product offerings.68
AT&T refutes the testimony of Mr. Koppman. AT&T asserts that that points a, b, d, e and f have been effectively rebutted by the testimony of AT&T's witnesses together with the written training materials introduced in evidence.69 AT&T contends that its "call monitors also provided much more accurate, detailed, and complete summaries than the DRA monitors."70 AT&T further argues that "Mr. Koppman said nothing more than that AT&T California followed the scripts and that he had a subjective impression that was different from the other people that monitored the calls."71
56 Id., p. 40.
57 Id., p. 39.
58 Id., pp. 39-40.
59 DRA and TURN Post Hearing Reply Brief, pp. 37-38.
60 DRA and TURN Post Hearing Reply Brief, pp. 38-39.
61 DRA and TURN Post Hearing Reply Brief, pp. 44-46.
62 DRA/TURN Opening Brief, pp. 64-65.
63 Id., pp. 67-69.
64 Id., pp. 69-72.
65 Id., pp. 72-73.
66 Id., pp. 74-75.
67 Id., pp. 75-77.
68 Id., pp. 79-80.
69 AT&T Reply Brief, pp. 61-71.
70 AT&T Reply Brief, p. 63.
71 AT&T Reply Brief, p. 65.
