Factual Background

Complainant had four telephone lines with Pacific, two residential and two business, that he moved to AT&T's resale competitive local exchange service in April 1997, because he was dissatisfied with Pacific's service quality. Complainant continued to experience service quality problems under resale service and also faced problems with incorrect listings, publishing his home address with his business listing, and incorrect billing. Complainant's service quality problems included outages, static, and the inability to complete credit card transactions and facsimile transmissions. Complainant moved the two residential lines to AT&T's broadband service in November 1999 when AT&T began offering that service. Complainant experienced listing and billing problems after switching to broadband. Complainant has one line with Pacific.

AT&T had difficulties when it initially offered resale local service and broadband, prompting listing and billing problems. AT&T continually worked to address Complainant's listing and billing problems. AT&T monitors Complainant's listings under its high profile listings practice to ensure that Complainant does not experience recurring problems with his listings.

Pacific changed the copper pairs which serve Complainant two times, first in 1996 and again in 2001. Pacific has responded to each request from AT&T to test Complainant's lines when Complainant experienced service quality problems. In September 2001, Pacific, on its own initiative, rebuilt the serving terminals to Complainant's neighborhood as a preventative measure. Pacific's records indicate AT&T has not forwarded Pacific any trouble reports (a work item generated by Pacific's customer service when a customer has a service problem) concerning Complainant since January 2001.

Both Pacific and AT&T, since 1997 and 1999 respectively, require that Complainant communicate with them in writing when Complainant needs customer service. Pacific's records on why it imposed its Rule 11¹ restriction are incomplete, due to the length of time that has passed, but documents introduced in this proceeding indicate that Complainant made numerous calls to Pacific employees and that those employees believed that Complainant's persistence was an attempt to annoy or harass. In addition, Pacific employees reported that Complainant generally threatened Pacific employees. AT&T has no tariff rule comparable to Rule 11, but it imposed a restriction on Complainant's contacts after he recorded calls with AT&T employees without their consent and persistently called employees other than those involved with consumer service, including calls to employee's homes.

Complainant also has a dispute with Pacific over a $6.00 charge for a jack that he states was already there.