Assignment of Proceeding
Geoffrey Brown is the Assigned Commissioner and Janice Grau is the assigned Administrative Law Judge in this proceeding.
1. 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.
2. Complainant continued to experience service quality problems under AT&T's resale service and also faced problems with incorrect listings, publishing his home address with his business listing, and incorrect billing.
3. Complainant's service quality problems included outages, static, and the inability to complete credit card transactions and facsimile transmissions. Pacific made necessary repairs, and Complainant has had no service quality problems since six months prior to the filing of this complaint.
4. Complainant moved his residential lines to AT&T's broadband service in November 1999 when AT&T began offering that service. Complainant experienced listings and billing problems after switching to broadband.
5. Complainant has a dispute with Pacific over $6.00 charged for a jack that he states was already there.
6. Pacific's records, to which Complainant did not have access prior to filing this complaint, show listings changes by date and phone number and provide Complainant with accurate information on when his listings changed.
7. AT&T did not address overcharges for incorrect listings AT&T stated were barred by the statute of limitations.
8. Complainant's residential number, designated to be non-published, was published between April 2000 and June 2000 and between May 18 and June 7, 2001.
9. Pacific and AT&T restricted Complainant to written contacts with them.
10. AT&T restricted Complainant's long distance service after Complainant did not deposit the full amount of the disputed bill with the Commission.
1. Complainant has the burden of proving violations of our rules and regulations.
2. The statute of limitations bars claims not filed within two years of when the claim accrues.
3. The statute of limitations is tolled by Complainant's recent discovery of when his listings changed. The statute of limitations bars Complainant's earlier service restriction claims.
4. AT&T did not improperly restrict Complainant's long distance service.
5. It is reasonable to require AT&T to refund overcharges for incorrect listings.
6. AT&T violated Section 2891.1 when it released information that allowed Complainant's residential number to be published in directory assistance between April 2000 and June 2000 and between May 18 and June 7, 2001.
7. It is consistent with the Commission's consumer protection rules for customers of competitive local exchange carriers to use Pacific's tariffed contact restriction as a guideline in reviewing AT&T's actions where the Commission did not expressly require AT&T to tariff such a restriction.
8. Pacific had sufficient grounds to restrict Complainant to written contacts under Pacific's Rule 11.
9. It is reasonable to require AT&T to provide Complainant with on-line management of his business telecommunications needs and to require AT&T to waive nonrecurring charges other than charges for necessary equipment for setting up that on-line management.
10. It is reasonable to require Pacific to refund the $6.00 jack charge if it has not issued that credit.
11. It is reasonable to make this order effective today in order to ensure Complainant has more comprehensive management of his telecommunications needs.
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. AT&T Communications of California Inc. (AT&T) shall refund overcharges for incorrect listings as set forth in this decision.
2. AT&T shall provide Complainant with on-line management of his business telecommunications needs and shall waive nonrecurring charges other than charges for necessary equipment for setting up that on-line management.
3. Pacific Bell Telephone Company shall refund Complainant $6.00.
4. The complaint is granted insofar as set forth in this decision and these ordering paragraphs and is otherwise denied.
5. This proceeding is closed.
This order is effective today.
Dated , at San Francisco, California.
