STATE OF CALIFORNIA GRAY DAVIS, Governor

PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

505 VAN NESS AVENUE

SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-3298

September 27, 2002

TO: PARTIES OF RECORD IN CASE 02-01-007, INVESTIGATION 02-01-024

This proceeding was filed on January 7, 2002, and is assigned to Commissioner Carl Wood and Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) James C. McVicar. This is the decision of the Presiding Officer, ALJ McVicar.

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/ CAROL A. BROWN

Carol A. Brown, Interim Chief

Administrative Law Judge

CAB:tcg

Attachment

ALJ/POD-JCM/tcg

PRESIDING OFFICER'S DECISION (Mailed 9/27/2002)

BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

The Utility Consumers' Action Network (UCAN), Complainant, vs. Pacific Bell Telephone Company, Defendant.	Case 02-01-007 (Filed January 7, 2002)
Investigation on the Commission's Own Motion into the Operations, Practices, and Conduct of Pacific Bell Telephone Company (U 1001 C), Pacific Bell Internet Services, and SBC Advanced Solutions, Inc. (U 6346 C) to Determine Whether They Have Violated the Laws, Rules and Regulations Governing the Inclusion of Charges for Products or Services on Telephone Bills.	Investigation 02-01-024 (Filed January 23, 2002)

Michael Shames, Lee Biddle, Alan Mansfield and Hallen D. Rosner, Attorneys at Law, for The Utility Consumers' Action Network, complainant.

Garrett Wong, James B. Young, and Ed Kolto, Attorneys at Law, and Cynthia Wales for Pacific Bell Telephone Company, defendant and respondent.

William H. Booth and Merrie M. Cavanaugh, Attorneys at Law, for SBC Advanced Solutions, Inc., respondent.

Keith Epstein, Marilyn Salmon, Steven D. Rathfon, and Merrie M. Cavanaugh, Attorneys at Law, for Pacific Bell Internet Services, respondent.

James Anthony, Attorney at Law, for The Utility Reform Network, interested party.

Travis T. Foss and Laura Tudisco, Attorneys at Law, for Consumer Services Division.

OPINION ADOPTING SETTLEMENT

Summary

Pacific Bell Telephone Company (Pacific Bell), Pacific Bell Internet Services, (PBI), SBC Advanced Solutions, Inc. (ASI), Utility Consumers' Action Network (UCAN) and the Commission's Consumer Services Division (CSD) have jointly proffered an uncontested settlement agreement in this consolidated complaint and investigation proceeding involving the companies' billing for DSL services.¹ Under the settlement agreement, Pacific Bell, PBI, and ASI (jointly, Respondents) acknowledge their billing problems and reporting deficiencies, and agree to pay a $27,000,000 penalty to the State General Fund. The settlement describes the many measures Respondents have taken and will take to correct their problems and ensure that they do not recur. The Commission adopts the settlement, the full text of which is set forth in Appendix A, as resolving all issues in the complaint and investigation, and closes the proceeding.