II. Background

On April 3, 2000, AT&T Communications (AT&T), MCI WorldCom (Worldcom¹), and Sprint Communications (Sprint) filed an application for rehearing of D.00-03-020. In D.00-05-052, the Commission ordered that the Application for Rehearing be re-docketed as a petition for modification. In the re-docketed petition for modification the petitioners requested that the Commission modify the requirement that the name appearing on the carrier's Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) be used on customer bills to allow carriers to use other names "so long as it is abundantly clear who the entity is." The petition also sought to have billing for corporate affiliates excluded from the complaint reporting requirements. The petition proposed that the Commission, having done away with local disconnect for nonpayment of long distance, should instead institute a policy of allowing Local Exchange Carriers (LEC) to block access to all long distance providers for nonpayment of charges to a long distance provider.

On May 31, 2000, the California Small Business Association (CSBA), California Small Business Roundtable, Utility Consumer Action Network, and The Utility Reform Network (TURN) filed a joint petition to modify D.00-03-020. The joint petition noted that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) had adopted an order that gave states the option to assume responsibility for addressing slamming complaints. The joint petition recommended that the Commission reopen this proceeding to assume this responsibility, adopt any needed procedures, seek additional resources from the State Legislature, and inform consumers of their rights.

On June 13, 2000, Pacific Bell, Roseville Telephone Company, Ponderosa Telephone Company, Sierra Telephone Company, Citizens Telephone Companies, Evans Telephone Company, Calaveras Telephone Company, Ducor Telephone Company, Cal-Ore Telephone Company, ForestHill Telephone Company, Kerman Telephone Company, and Siskiyou Telephone Company filed a petition for modification of D.00-03-020. These petitioners sought: (1) clarification of the term "interexchange carrier" in Ordering Paragraph 4, (2) a determination of whether Ordering Paragraph 7 applied to all service providers or only competitive local carriers, (3) assignment of the responsibility for ensuring the "unique" name of the service provider uses, as well as a definition of the term, and (4) a finding that failure to comply with the information reporting requirements will be excused where the billing telephone company does not possess the required information.

On June 14 and 15, 2000, the assigned Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued rulings allowing the parties to file and serve responses and replies to the petitions for modifications.

On June 30, 2000, OAN Services, Inc., (OAN) filed its response to the petitions for modification. OAN stated that it had no way of knowing a particular service provider's "unique name" and thus requested a finding that a sworn statement from the service provider would shield them from liability under this rule. OAN also stated that it does not possess several pieces of information required by the rules to be reported. OAN also supported reopening this docket to address the issues raised by the FCC decision.

TURN and the Commission's Office of Ratepayer Advocates (ORA) filed a joint response to the MCI, AT&T, and Sprint application for rehearing on April 20, 2000. As provided in the ALJ ruling, on June 30, 2000, TURN and ORA also filed responses in opposition to the petitions for modification filed by Pacific Bell (and several other incumbent local exchange carriers) and the re-docketed petition for modification filed by MCI, AT&T, and Sprint. On July 11, 2000, TURN and ORA also filed a reply to the other parties' responses.

In all their filings, TURN and ORA oppose the LECs' requested change to the decision to limit disconnection of local service for nonpayment of third party toll service. TURN and ORA contend that such an interpretation was contrary to the Commission's intent to prohibit LECs from disconnecting local service for nonpayment of any long distance service, including that provided by the LEC. TURN and ORA also stated that the Commission had excluded the issue of full toll denial from the re-docketed petition for modification. To the extent it was not, TURN and ORA vigorously opposed such a policy because it is both anti-consumer and anti-competitive. TURN and ORA stated that full toll denial would not further the Commission's goal of making long distance carriers' billing and collection practices similar to those in other competitive industries. Allowing one carrier to prohibit access to all other service providers is unprecedented in competitive industries. In their reply comments, TURN and ORA oppose the request of the Association of Communications Enterprises (ASCENT) (formerly known as the Telecommunication Resellers Association) to take comments or hold workshops on the full toll denial issue, and OAN's interpretation of CSBA's petition as requesting that the Commission "re-explore" the issues addressed D.00-03-020, but rather only to address the discrete issues raised by the FCC's recent order.

On July 11, 2000, Pacific Bell filed its reply to the parties' comments on its petition for modification. Pacific Bell agreed with ASCENT that international toll has never been included within the definition of interexchange service. Pacific Bell also stated that it did not intend to advocate a change to D.00-03-020 to would allow an incumbent LEC to disconnect local service for nonpayment of long distance where the LEC provided both services. Pacific Bell proposed alternative language to accomplish its narrow objective.

On June 30, 2000, MCI filed a response to the LECs' petition to modify. MCI stated that limiting the definition of the services for which a LEC could not disconnect local service to those services provided by a third party would allow a LEC to disconnect local service for nonpayment of its own long distance service. MCI opposed such a change.

MCI also stated that it agreed with the LEC petitioners that the definition of "unique name" should include trade names as stated in the FCC Truth-in-Billing decision. MCI also supported the LEC petitioners in their request that Rules 3 and 5 of the Subscriber Complaint Reporting Rules be limited to information that the Billing Telephone Company possesses.

On June 30, 2000, GTE California Incorporated (GTE) filed its response to the petitions to modify. GTE supported the modifications requested in the LEC petition and MCI, AT&T, and Sprint petition. GTE took no position on the CSBA petition.

ASCENT filed a response to the petitions for modifications on June 30, 2000. ASCENT opposed LEC petitioners' request that interexchange service be defined to include international toll service. ASCENT stated that expanding the time limit for submitting service provider change requests from just CLCs to including IXCs would have little effect because IXCs have substantial commercial incentives to promptly make such changes. ASCENT also opposed the LEC petitioners' request that the Commission allow a Billing Telephone Company to accept certification from a service provider that the service provider is using its unique name in billings it submits. ASCENT stated that this proposal was "regulatory overkill" and that the rule leaves the means by which the unique name is verified to the Billing Telephone Corporation. ASCENT also addressed the definition of "unique name." ASCENT contended that determining a unique name is a highly subjective process and that carriers should be allowed to select any name they want so long as the carrier complies with the requirements of the Secretary of State. ASCENT also supported using the FCC standard but only on a voluntary basis.

ASCENT opposed the regulation proposed by the LEC petitioners that would limit Billing Telephone Companies to producing information they possess. ASCENT stated that there might be situations where the Billing Telephone Company should have the requested information. The LEC petitioners' proposal would protect the Billing Telephone Company in instances where it should but does not possess the information. Finally, ASCENT supported the request of AT&T, MCI, and Sprint that the Commission consider full toll denial or other means to protect carriers from fraud by customers.

On July 11, 2000, AT&T, MCI, and Sprint filed their reply to the responses. These petitioners stated that § 2889.9(d) provides the Commission with sufficient discretion to allow carriers that bill only for itself and its affiliates to be subject to relaxed reporting requirements. Specifically, these petitioners stated that the Commission should rule that a Billing Telephone Company that bills only for itself and corporate affiliates is subject only to minimal record-keeping requirements. (The reply did not provide any detail on the "minimal record-keeping requirements" advocated by the petitioners.) The petitioners also reiterated their support for an alternative to full toll denial.

On July 11, 2000, the Greenlining Institute and the Latino Issues Forum (Greenlining) filed their reply to the parties' responses. Greenlining took "umbrage" at the IXCs' attempts to interject the new issue of full toll denial. Greenlining stated that full toll denial is not justified based on the record and should be rejected because it would promote fraud and abuse of customers since failure to pay unauthorized charges will result in loss of toll access. Greenlining agreed with TURN and ORA that no public policy supported denying a customer access to all long distance carriers for failure to pay one long distance carrier.