III. Comments on Draft Decision
The draft decision of ALJ Thomas R. Pulsifer in this matter was mailed to parties in accordance with Pub. Util. Code § 311(g) and Rule 77.7 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure. Comments were filed on July 10, 2000 and reply comments were filed on July 17, 2000. A revised draft decision was mailed to parties on September 8, 2000.
1. In D.98-04-012, the Commission raised generic concerns regarding the accuracy and completeness of directory listing databases upon which the public relies to obtain timely information concerning subscribers' telephone numbers.
2. While directory assistance historically has been provided by ILECs, state and federal policy have opened the service to competition.
3. Current Commission rules and the Telecommunications Act of 1996 require ILECs to include competitors' customers in local DA databases and provide associated services.
4. Competitive DA providers may purchase updates from local exchange carriers on a daily, weekly or monthly basis to reflect changes in customers' services and telephone numbers.
5. A customer could be left out of a database for long periods or indefinitely if the carrier inadvertently failed to update the database or delayed database updates.
6. The Nortel national listings, including the portion covering California, do not reside in Pacific's database, but are available to Pacific only on a query-by-query basis, with no independent proprietary rights.
7. Any information that Pacific may obtain from Nortel or any other nationwide directory service on a query basis doesn't provide a competitive advantage to Pacific compared with any other carrier that purchases the same or comparable query service.
1. A telephone subscriber should have reasonable assurance of not being removed from an ILEC's DA database merely due to a change in the subscriber's local carrier.
2. Carriers should not be required to provide a notice to customers that their listing information could be erroneously reported or omitted from DA databases due to switching service providers.
3. Each carrier has an obligation to its customers to protect their rights to privacy and to impose reasonable restrictions on how a customer's subscriber listing information may be disseminated to third parties or the purposes for which it may be used.
4. A carrier may not unreasonably exclude its customer's listings from the DA database of the ILEC in a capricious or discriminatory manner. Similarly, they may not refuse to allow the ILEC to release their listings included in the ILEC's database.
5. While release of CLEC independent telephone company (CTC) directory listing information is subject to CLEC or ITC consent, no CLEC or ITC should unreasonably withhold such consent. The only reason basis for withholding such consent is if the customer has requested a private or non-published listing.
6. In the event mutual agreement cannot be reached as to the terms and conditions for the inclusion of its subscriber listings in the ILEC's DA database, the carrier may pursue its existing legal remedies with the Commission to obtain resolution of its dispute. Pending resolution of dispute, the CLEC's listings will be included in and released from the ILEC's DA database. The ILEC is not required to obtain affirmative consent, in writing or otherwise.
7. Carriers may provide a blanket authorization to respond to requests for subscriber listings by referring those companies to Pacific's database.
8. The independent LECs should make available their listings to Pacific for inclusion in its database based on the same principles discussed above with respect to CLECs.
9. To the extent that Roseville's DALIS tariff has been previously approved by the Commission, Roseville is entitled to compensation for the release of Roseville's subscriber listings under the terms of its DALIS tariff. Nonwithstanding Roseville's DALIS tariff, however, ILECs are authorized to release Roseville's listings to third parties as required by the Act. ILECs are not required to impose Roseville's tariff charges but will continue charging their own rates.
10. Any other third party DA vendor seeking to obtain access to Roseville Telephone's subscriber listings may do so under the terms of Roseville's DALIS tariff. Similar principles should apply to any other carrier that has a Commission-approved tariff governing the use of subscriber listings for DA purposes.
11. There is no basis to require Pacific to make available to third parties directory listings queried from a national directory listing service since such listings were not gathered in Pacific's capacity as a provider of telephone exchange service.
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. No local exchange carrier (LEC) shall unreasonably withhold consent for the release of its Directory Assistance (DA) listings to third parties as provided for in Decision 97-01-042.
2. To ensure the completeness and accuracy of the DA databases of the local exchange companies (ILECs), CLECs shall be required to make available their directory listings to the ILECs subject only to exclusions for unpublished listings and related customer privacy rights.
3. In the event mutual agreement cannot be reached as to the compensation or other terms and conditions related to the inclusion of a carrier's directory listing in the ILEC's DA database, the carrier may pursue its existing legal remedies with the Commission to obtain resolution of its dispute.
4. During the pendancy of any dispute as to terms and conditions, the carrier may not withhold release of its listings for inclusion in the ILEC's DA database, and the ILEC will release the listings to third party DA providers, upon request.
5. Pacific shall be required to provide Roseville with an ongoing list of third parties that obtain Roseville's listings indirectly through Pacific. Roseville may bill those third parties any applicable charges due pursuant to Roseville's DALIS tariff. Pacific shall also inform third party purchasers of their listings that they must pay Roseville for applicable charges under Roseville's DALIS tariff. Pacific will continue to bill its rates for all listings released.
6. To the extent that any provisions of Roseville's DALIS tariff is in conflict with the process we adopt in this order, Roseville is directed to promptly file any necessary amendments to its tariff to conform to this order.
7. Pacific and GTEC shall each prepare a list disclosing the identity of each carrier that has provided its subscribers' directory listings to be included in the ILECs' directory database, and the list of such carriers shall be made available to third parties upon request
8. Carriers are authorized to respond to requests for subscriber listings by referring those companies to Pacific's or GTEC's database.
9. D.97-01-042, Conclusion of Law No. 2 is hereby modified to state:
"While release of CLEC or ITC directory listing information of its customers is subject to CLEC or ITC consent, no CLEC or ITC should unreasonably withhold such consent. The only reasonable basis for withholding such consent is if the customer has requested a private or non-published listing. The ILECs are not required to obtain affirmative consent, in writing or otherwise, before releasing such listings to third party DA providers.
This order is effective today.
Dated , at San Francisco, California.
