STATE OF CALIFORNIA GRAY DAVIS, Governor

PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

505 VAN NESS AVENUE

SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-3298

March 14, 2003

TO: PARTIES OF RECORD IN CASE 01-07-034

This proceeding was filed on July 25, 2001, and is assigned to Commissioner Geoffrey Brown and Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Janice Grau. This is the decision of the Presiding Officer, ALJ Grau.

Any party to this adjudicatory proceeding may file and serve an Appeal of the Presiding Officer's Decision within 30 days of the date of issuance (i.e., the date of mailing) of this decision. In addition, any Commissioner may request review of the Presiding Officer's Decision by filing and serving a Request for Review within 30 days of the date of issuance.

Appeals and Requests for Review must set forth specifically the grounds on which the appellant or requestor believes the Presiding Officer's Decision to be unlawful or erroneous. The purpose of an Appeal or Request for Review is to alert the Commission to a potential error, so that the error may be corrected expeditiously by the Commission. Vague assertions as to the record or the law, without citation, may be accorded little weight.

Appeals and Requests for Review must be served on all parties and accompanied by a certificate of service. Any party may file and serve a Response to an Appeal or Request for Review no later than 15 days after the date the Appeal or Request for Review was filed. In cases of multiple Appeals or Requests for Review, the Response may be to all such filings and may be filed 15 days after the last such Appeal or Request for Review was filed. Replies to Responses are not permitted. (See, generally, Rule 8.2 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure.)

If no Appeal or Request for Review is filed within 30 days of the date of issuance of the Presiding Officer's Decision, the decision shall become the decision of the Commission. In this event, the Commission will designate a decision number and advise the parties by letter that the Presiding Officer's Decision has become the Commission's decision.

/s/ ANGELA K. MINKIN

Angela K. Minkin, Chief

Attachment

ALJ/JLG-POD/tcg

PRESIDING OFFICER'S DECISION (Mailed 3/14/2003)

BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mike Knell, dba JTR Publishing, Complainant, vs. Pacific Bell Telephone Company and AT&T Communications of California, Inc., Defendants.

Case 01-07-034 (Filed July 25, 2001)

Mike Knell, representing himself, complainant.

Michelle R. Galbraith, Attorney at Law, for Pacific Bell Telephone Company, defendant.

Darlene M.Clark, Attorney at Law, for AT&T Communications of California, Inc., defendant.

OPINION RESOLVING COMPLAINT

Summary

In today's decision, we find that Pacific Bell Telephone Company (Pacific) and AT&T Communications of California, Inc. (AT&T) did not violate our rules and regulations in handling Complainant's service quality problems and did not improperly require that Complainant communicate with them in writing. We also find that AT&T did not improperly restrict Complaint's long distance service.

We find that AT&T violated Pub. Util. Code § 2891.1 when Complainant's residential number was published. We also find that AT&T did not fully credit Complainant for listings problems. We order Pacific to refund a $6.00 overcharge. We note that Complainant's efforts to get better service quality by switching to another service provider caused additional problems, without resolving his service quality issues, and order AT&T to provide Complainant with on-line management of his business telecommunications needs.