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 _________ and reply comments were filed on ____________.
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 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.
5. While release of CLEC directory listing information is subject to CLEC consent, no CLEC should unreasonably withhold such consent.
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 CLEC may file an arbitration application or complaint with the Commission seeking resolution of its dispute.
7. The small independent LECs may provide a blanket authorization to respond to requests for subscriber listings by referring those companies to Pacific's database.
8. The small 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, we find no basis to require the release of Roseville's subscriber listings under terms that would circumvent or violate the terms of its tariffs.
10. To the extent that Roseville's DALIS tariff has been previously approved by the Commission, we find no basis to require the release of Roseville's subscriber listings under terms that would circumvent or violate the terms of its tariffs.
11. 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.
12. 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 competitive local exchange carrier (CLEC) 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 the CLEC cannot reach agreement on the compensation or other terms and conditions related to the provision of its directory listings, the CLEC may file an application for arbitration or a complaint with the Commission seeking resolution of its dispute.
4. During the pendancy of the arbitration or complaint, the CLEC may not withhold release of its listings for inclusion in the ILEC's DA database.
5. Pacific and GTEC shall each prepare a list disclosing the identity of each CLEC that has failed to consent to permit its subscribers' directory listings to be included in the ILECs' directory database made available to third parties.
6. The Smaller Independent local exchange carriers are authorized to respond to requests for subscriber listings by referring those companies to Pacific's database.
This order is effective today.
Dated , at San Francisco, California.
