ALJ/JSW/sid DRAFT Item 6
9/7/2000
Decision DRAFT DECISION OF ALJ WONG (Mailed 8/8/2000)
BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Westcom Long Distance, Inc. (U5163C), Complainant, vs. Citizens Utilities Company of California (U87C), Defendant. |
Case 92-03-049 (Filed March 30, 1992) |
|
Westcom Long Distance, Inc. (U5163C), Complainant, vs. Citizens Utilities Company of California (U87C), Defendant. |
Case 92-09-006 (Filed September 3, 1992) |
|
Citizens Utilities Company of California (U87C), Complainant, vs. Westcom Long Distance, Inc. (U5163C), Defendant. |
Case 92-09-025 (Filed September 16, 1992) |
TABLE OF CONTENTS
FINAL OPINION REGARDING THE CONSOLIDATED
COMPLAINT CASES..............................................................................2
I. Summary......................................................................................2
II. Procedural Background...................................................................5
A. Introduction 5
B. C.92-03-049 6
C. C.92-09-006 10
D. C.92-09-025 11
E. Westcom's Request For Compensation 12
F. Proposed Decision and Comments 13
III. C.92-03-049.................................................................................13
A. Westcom's Allegations 13
B. Description of the Access Services 17
C. Feature Group B Services 19
D. Equal Access FGD 916 Calls 38
E. FGD Alleged Overbillings 53
F. PacBell Rate Elements 63
G. Elk Grove FGD Lines 96, 97 and 100 65
H. Late Charges 67
I. Conclusion 67
IV. C.92-09-006 And C.92-09-025...........................................................68
A. Introduction 68
B. Westcom's Complaint In C.92-09-006 69
C. Position of Citizens in C.92-09-006 79
D. Citizens' Complaint in C.92-09-025 84
E. Position of Westcom in C.92-09-025 89
F. Discussion 94
1. FGB Allegations 94
2. FGB Bills for June 1992 Through August 1992 100
3. Allegations Regarding Discrimination 103
a. Billing Assumed FGB Termination Usage 103
b. Placing "Assumed" on the FGB Bills 105
c. Notice of the Billing of Assumed FGB Terminating Usage 106
d. Citizens' Demand for a Deposit 107
e. Citizens' Refusal to Change the FGB Service to
Originating Only 108
f. Credit Check of Westcom's Customers 114
g. 700 Dialing 115
4. Events Related to the Cutoff of Service 126
a. Introduction 126
b. Westcom's Violation of D.92-08-028 126
c. The LOAs 134
d. Slamming Allegation 139
e. Information Provided by Citizens' Service Representatives 146
5. Antitrust and Business and Professions Code Allegations 157
6. Other Alleged Billing Errors 158
7. Solicitation of IntraLata Traffic 162
8. Miscellaneous 170
V. Westcom's Request for Compensation.............................................172
Findings of Fact 177
Conclusions of Law..............................................................................191
FINAL ORDER....................................................................................198
I. Summary
Today's decision addresses three complaint cases involving Westcom Long Distance, Inc. (Westcom) and Citizens Utilities Company of California (Citizens). Westcom is a certificated interexchange carrier (IEC) and Citizens is a local exchange carrier (LEC). Westcom filed two of the complaint cases against Citizens (Case (C.) 92-03-049 and C.92-09-006), and Citizens filed C.92-09-025 against Westcom.
The complaint cases involve numerous allegations and arguments, as evidenced by the length of this decision. The complaint cases at issue involve billing disputes associated with Feature Group B (FGB) and Feature Group D (FGD) access service, the capabilities of the networks of both Westcom and Citizens, the cutover to equal access in June 1991, the issuance of Decision (D.) 92-08-028, and certain events which occurred before and after these events.
Two separate evidentiary hearings were held in June 1992 and in June 1993, for a total of eight days of hearing. Two interim decisions have been issued as a result of these complaint cases.
This decision concludes that the Commission has no jurisdiction over the FGB billings that occurred prior to June 1, 1992. That is because Westcom reported a percent of interstate usage (PIU) factor to Citizens of 100%, and, as a result, Citizens billed Westcom using the interstate tariff on file with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). As for the FGB bills for June 1992 through the termination of service on August 25, 1992, Westcom has not proved that it is entitled to any credit. In addition, based on the evidence, we cannot agree with Westcom's assertion that Citizens had the ability to actually measure FGB terminating usage during the time period in question.
With respect to the FGD billings, we conclude that the problems are attributable to: (1) Westcom's failure to provision its switch to recognize a 1 + 7-digit call as an interLATA1 call within the 916 area code; and (2) the tariff provision which provides that the number dialed by the end user shall be a seven or 10-digit number. Due to the tariff provision, we conclude that Citizens should have allowed its switch to pass on a 1 + 916 + 7-digit call to Westcom's switch at the time of the cutover to equal access. We have determined, however, that no reparations are owed to Westcom, except for a $20 credit for calls to Westcom over its 800 toll free line. Since the other request for relief by Westcom is a request for damages, this Commission has no jurisdiction to award that kind of relief. The Commission's Fiscal Office is directed to tender to Citizens the $12,608.79 that it received as a deposit from Westcom in connection with C.92-03-049.
This decision also concludes that Westcom violated Public Utilities Code § 7022 by failing to comply with the notice required by D.92-08-028, and failing to comply with the intraLATA restrictions contained in D.88-09-009 and D.91-09-018. We also find that Westcom "slammed" five of its former customers without their authority by changing their IEC to Westcom without their permission. The Commission imposes penalties in the total amount of $11,000 against Westcom.
Since Westcom is no longer operating as an IEC in California, we will suspend the imposition of the penalties, and will not revoke its operating authority at this time. If, however, Westcom resumes activities in California as an IEC, the Commission staff is directed to open an Order Instituting Investigation (OII) into why Westcom's operating authority should not be revoked. In addition, the suspension of the penalties shall be lifted, and the Commission shall then take action to impose and collect the penalties for Westcom's failure to comply with Commission decisions and for slamming. Similarly, if Westcom's officers or shareholders become involved with an entity that seeks to operate as a provider of telecommunication services in California, the staff is directed to bring this to the Commission's attention, so that the Commission can open an OII into the revocation of Westcom's operating authority, and to take action to impose and collect the penalties from Westcom.
We note that Westcom could have easily avoided termination of its access services by paying all the monies in dispute to Citizens pending a decision, or it could have deposited all of the disputed amounts with the Commission. In doing so, Westcom could have also avoided having to send the notice required by D.92-08-028. Westcom's decision not to tender all of the disputed amounts, and its failure to comply with D.92-08-028, have resulted in today's outcome.
In resolving the issues raised in all three complaint cases, we had to carefully weigh all of the evidence, and the veracity of the various witnesses and exhibits. Since some of the evidence presented by both Westcom and Citizens relied on hearsay, we had to carefully review all of the evidence that was presented. Based upon our review of the evidence, and as explained in the text of this decision, we find that most of Westcom's allegations are unsupported by the overwhelming weight of the evidence.
With respect to Westcom's request for intervenor compensation, we conclude that since no common fund was created, Westcom is not entitled to any compensation from a common fund or from the Advocates Trust Fund. With respect to Westcom's request for compensation from § 1801 and following, Westcom's request is denied because it did not timely file a notice of intent to claim compensation.
