II. Procedural Background

The history of the Commission's Consumer Bill of Rights proceeding is lengthy and complicated and we will not describe the process in detail in this decision. This rulemaking commenced in 2000 to address concerns over a marked increase in consumer complaints against telecommunications providers. After four years of workshops and numerous rounds of comments, on May 27, 2004 the Commission adopted G.O. 168, Rules Governing Telecommunications Consumer Protection. G.O. 168 was applicable to all Commission-regulated telecommunications utilities and set forth: a telecommunications Consumers' Bill of Rights (Part 1); Consumer Protection Rules to implement the rights (Part 2); Rules Governing Billing for Non-communications-Related Charges ("cramming") (Part 4); and Rules Governing Slamming Complaints (Part 5).

In response to numerous concerns from carriers regarding the implementation of G.O. 168, in January 2005 the Commission adopted D.05-01-058 which stayed G.O. 168 in part in order "to allow adequate time to address implementation issues, to ensure that California's consumer protection structure will be viable and enforceable, and to consider a broader re-examination of policy issues in the Decision [D.04-05-057]."² D.05-01-058 declared that the Commission intended "to act expeditiously to address the Petitions for Modification, implementation issues, and other matters affecting the structure for consumer protection in California."³ D.05-01-058 noted that the stay would be effective until the Commission issued a new decision adopting a consumer protection structure with a sufficient implementation period. Additionally, D.05-01-058 stated the Commission's intent to issue a new decision no later than the end of 2005.

A March 10, 2005 Assigned Commissioner Ruling (ACR) scheduled a prehearing conference to discuss specific issues related to the proceeding:

· Which Rules are not redundant, low-cost to carriers, and address current or emerging technologies?

· What changes to the Rules are needed due to the 2005 Truth-in-Billing Order of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)?

· Have any actions by the carriers or other parties eliminated the need for any of the Rules?

· What should be the issues in this proceeding and how should the Commission analyze those issues?

· Can we find a balance between effective but less restrictive approaches for providing consumer protection?

The Commission received comments from fifteen parties. A second ACR dated May 2, 2005 proposed to reinstate Parts 1, 4 and 5 of GO 168, together with Rules 13, 14 and 15 of Part 2, amended and renumbered (May ACR). The May ACR asked parties to comment on the reinstatement proposal and address three additional issues:

· Are the amended rights sufficient for protecting and empowering consumers?

· Are current laws and regulations sufficient for enforcing these rights?

· If not, what cost-effective revisions are necessary for effective enforcement?

Hearings were held on September 29 and 30, 2005, during which twenty-five representatives of industry and consumer groups organized in five different panels addressed these questions and topics. Written testimony from the witnesses also was accepted into the record. Opening briefs were filed on October 24, 2005. Reply briefs were filed on November 7, 2005.

A proposed decision (PD) was issued on December 21, 2005. The PD proposed to:

· Repeal the Commission's rules (G.O. 168, Part 4) governing the placement of non-communications charges on telephone bills (known as "cramming");

· Delay any protection rules for consumers with limited English proficiency, and instead require the preparation of a staff report;

· Permanently repeal Part 2 of G.O. 168, with the exception of rules on investigatory efforts of the Consumer Affairs Branch ("CAB"), employee identification and Emergency 911 access;

· Ease and move the anti-slamming rules (Part 5 of G.O. 168);

· Create a Commission consumer education program; and

· Place greater emphasis on the Commission's enforcement of laws and regulations.

² Commission Decision 05-01-058, January 27, 2005, page 1.

³ Id., p. 4.