Parties' Contentions

Complainant alleges that AT&T has discriminated against him both in service and in application of its rules, including improper long distance restrictions, in part because he complained about the problems. Complainant also alleges that AT&T violated Pub. Util. Code §§ 451, 2890(c) and 2891.1. Complainant further alleges Pacific's facilities are defective and that Pacific improperly imposed its Rule 11 restriction. Complainant seeks the following relief: 1) repair of allegedly defective lines; 2) rescission of written contact restrictions; 3) determination of responsibility for problems with listings; 4) establishing a single point of contact at each company who will communicate by fax, phone or e-mail to deal with service problems, billing problems, and problems with listings; and 5) levying of fines for violations of Commission rules and regulations.

AT&T contends it complied with its tariffs and Commission rules and regulations, that Complainant's testimony is unreliable, and that many of Complainant's allegations are barred by the statute of limitations. Pacific contends that Complainant is not entitled to replacement of his telephone lines, because they are not defective, that Pacific sustained the disputed $6.00 jack charge, and that the Rule 11 restriction was imposed based on numerous and persistent abusive calls.