FINDINGS

1. In 1998, Cox implemented a new computer software program in its San Diego system for the purpose of translating Cox's customer listing information from its own database into a file format that satisfied Pacific's requirements for listing in its directories and in its 411 database.

2. Pursuant to its interconnection agreement with Pacific and for purposes of ensuring that all of Cox's customers receive delivery of Pacific's White Page Directory, Cox is required to transmit all of its customer listings to Pacific, including unlisted and non-published listings.

3. In April 2000, Pacific published approximately 1.3 million White Page Directories (i.e., approximately 970,000 for distribution to existing customers and approximately 330,000 for future customers and other special orders during the year) for the South and East San Diego regions. Pacific's White Page Directories for the South and East San Diego regions included customer data provided by Cox.

4. On May 2, 2000, Pacific began distributing White Page Directories for the South and East San Diego regions.

5. On May 4, 2000, Cox became aware that Pacific's White Page Directories for the South and East San Diego regions contain the names, telephone numbers and addresses of some Cox customers who had requested unlisted and non-published status.

6. Cox discovered that on or about August 1999, its computer software program began failing to translate the customer privacy designator into the format required by Pacific that would have identified unlisted and non-published listings.

7. Between mid-August 1999 and March 2000, Cox transmitted approximately 16,000 unlisted and non-published listings from its San Diego system to Pacific, of which, approximately 13,000 listings (for 11,455 customers) were not properly identified as unlisted or non-published numbers.

8. Section 2891 of the PU Code prohibits telephone companies from making available to any person or corporation, without first obtaining the residential subscriber's written consent any information including any listing of the telephone. Further, section 2891.1 states, "Notwithstanding Section 2891, a telephone corporation selling or licensing lists of residential subscribers shall not include the telephone number of any subscriber assigned an unlisted or unpublished access number."

9. Cox's California Tariff Schedule Cal. P.U.C. A-1, Rule No. 27, describes the liability attributable to Cox or its agents in cases where Cox or its agents make an error or a mistake.

10. Pacific ceased delivering the directories on May 12, 2000. By that time, Pacific had already distributed approximately 400,000 White Page Directories.

11. Between May 13 and May 15, 2000, Cox sent a notification letter to all of its 11,455 affected customers offering them two options for remedying the situation.

12. On May 17, 2000, Cox met with the Directors of the Telecommunications and the Consumer Services Divisions and informed them about the directory-listing situation.

13. On May 26, 2000, Cox filed Advice Letter No. 50 with the Commission.

14. On May 31, 2000, Pacific began redistributing its directories for the South and East San Diego regions, but ceased the redistribution after a request from the Chief ALJ. By the time of that request, Pacific had already distributed an additional 40,000 White Page Directories.

15. On May 31, 2000, Cox filed with the Commission an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and for a preliminary injunction requesting that Pacific be enjoined from further distribution of the San Diego White Page directories that contained the listing of Cox's customers who had requested unlisted and/or non-published status. Cox's motions also requested that Pacific be ordered, on a prospective basis, to begin printing new, corrected directories.

16. On June 2, 2000, the President of the Commission issued a ruling granting Cox's motion for temporary restraining order.

17. On June 8, 2000, the Commission issued D.00-06-042, which confirmed the President's June 2, 2000, Ruling granting Cox's motion for a temporary restraining order.

18. On June 8, 2000, Cox and Pacific filed in R.95-04-043/I.95-04-044 a stipulation withdrawing Cox's two motions, and stating that Cox and Pacific had agreed upon a program to recover and destroy promptly the tainted directories, to correct third-party listings, and to reprint new directories.

19. On June 12, 2000, a hearing was held in R.95-04-043/I.95-04-044 to take evidence regarding the details of the plan described in the June 8, 2000 stipulation between Cox and Pacific.

20. On June 14, 2000, Cox discovered that information regarding 23 additional customers who had requested that their listings be unlisted, non-published or published with name and number only had been erroneously published in the North San Diego County directory

21. On June 21, 2000, Cox filed a supplement to AL 50. In its supplement AL 50-A, Cox modified its offers to accommodate additional customer concerns and to clarify some options. Cox's proposals and credit offers to its affected customers are summarized as follows:

_ Option 1. The customer, who wish to change to a new, unlisted phone number, Cox would make that change at no cost to the customer. In addition, Cox would provide up to 120 minutes worth of prepaid calling cards to allow the customer to contact friends and family who might have a need to know of their new telephone number. Those customers who are not satisfied with 120 minutes of free calling would be offered an additional 120 minutes (i.e., a total of 240 minutes) of free prepaid calling cards. This offer is extended to all affected customers up to May 31, 2001, (or June 15, 2001, for North San Diego County affected customers) or until when the 2001/2002 edition of the directories are issued, whichever is later.

_ Option 2. For those customers who wish to keep their existing phone number, but are concerned about receiving unwanted telephone calls, Cox would provide a special package of services that includes various privacy features (such as Caller ID, Call Waiting ID, Selective Call Acceptance, Selective Call Rejection, Priority Ringing and other benefits), as well as the necessary equipment to display Caller ID information at no charge to the customers. This offer is extended to all affected customers up to May 31, 2001, (or June 15, 2001, for North San Diego County affected customers) or until when the 2001/2002 edition of the directories are issued, whichever is later.

_ In addition to Options 1 and 2 above, for customers who demand additional recompense, Cox would offer them credit allowances of up to $129.00 for residential customers and up to $105.00 for business customers pursuant to Cox's California Tariff Schedule Cal. P.U.C. A-1, Sheet 151-T, Section 27.3.1. This offer is extended to all affected customers up to May 31, 2001, (or June 15, 2001, for North San Diego County affected customers) or until when the 2001/2002 edition of the directories are issued, whichever is later.

_ For customers, who have reasonable concerns regarding their safety as a result of the publication of their directory information (particularly their address), Cox has developed additional escalation procedures that classify these customers into one of four risk levels and offer compensation based on the risk level assigned to the customer.

_ In the past, Cox has not billed customers for having requested their telephone numbers to be unlisted or non-published. Cox would continue to waive the applicable unlisted and non-published number charges to affected customers for a twelve-month period commencing on the date Pacific began distribution of the tainted directories or until when the 2001/2002 edition of the directories is issued, whichever is later.

.

_ Cox offers to track the losses incurred by any public programs (such as the Universal Lifeline Telephone Service ("ULTS") Fund, the Deaf and Disabled Telecommunications Equipment and Service Program, the California High Cost Funds A and B, and the California Teleconnect Fund) as a result of the credits provided. Cox will reimburse these public programs for any such losses.

_ Cox would not seek reimbursement from the ULTS Fund for any costs associated with changing the telephone number of an affected ULTS customer up to May 31, 2001, (or June 15, 2001, for North San Diego County affected customers) or until when the 2001/2002 edition of the directories are issued, whichever is later.

22. TD recommends that the Commission deny Cox's proposal to request that affected customers sign a waiver and release prior to accepting the escalated offers.

23. For Option 1, Cox requests a temporary waiver of its Tariff Schedule Cal. P.U.C. A-1, Sheet 49, Section 1.13 (charge for changing telephone number), and Tariff Schedule Cal. P.U.C. C-1, Sheet 11-T, Section 2.4 (charges for prepaid calling cards), for its class of affected customers. For Option 2, Cox requests a temporary waiver of its Tariff Schedule Cal. P.U.C. A-1, Sheet 21-T, Section 1.2.1 (charges for Cox's Solution Package), for its class of affected customers. For waiving the charges for listings of unlisted and non-published numbers, Cox requests a temporary waiver of Tariff Schedule Cal. P.U.C. A-1, Sheet 33-T, Section 1.8 (charge for non-published service or for an unlisted telephone number) for the affected customers. Cox's request for a temporary waiver of its tariffs for affected customers is reasonable.

24. In this resolution, TD is not addressing the issue of the liability of Cox or its Agents for providing non-published customer information to Pacific for inclusion in Pacific's White Page directories. Cox's request for temporary authorization to offer a credit to affected customers may only cover a portion of its liabilities described in its tariff Rule 27.

25. Cox's offer to voluntarily compensate affected customers in this advice letter does not relieve Cox from any liabilities for possible violations of the PU Code, its own tariff rules, and/or any other Commission rules and regulations that may be applicable to this situation; nor does it relieve Cox from any action the Commission may take in the future.

26. In this resolution, TD is not addressing issues relating to the retrieval and destruction of the tainted directories, or issues relating to the reprinting and redistribution of new, corrected directories. Those issues are before the Commission in R.95-04-043/I.95-04-044. In this resolution TD is only addressing Cox's request for temporary authority to provide credits to its affected customers.

27. Cox revised its response plan in the supplement AL 50-A. TD considers Cox's revised response plan to be reasonable. However, TD recommends that Cox should be ordered to report to the Director of the TD, on a weekly basis, until Cox has made a contact with all of its affected customers regarding its offers, the total number of customers affected; the total number of customers who have been contacted; the number of customers who have accepted Option 1, the number of customers who have accepted Option 2, the number of customers who have qualified for the escalation procedures, the number of customers, by category, who have accepted one of Cox's offers; and the number of customers who have refused to negotiate with Cox.

28. In view of the long period of time between the time that Cox began transmitting erroneous listings to Pacific on account of the computer software error (in mid-August 1999) and the time that Cox became aware of these erroneous listings due to customer calls (on May 4, 2000), Cox should be required to implement procedures to detect and immediately correct such errors, and to avoid such software errors in the future. Cox should be ordered to file a report with the Director of the Telecommunications Division, within 30 days from the effective date of this resolution, explaining the operating procedures it has implemented to detect and immediately correct such software errors, and to avoid them in the future.

29. TD considers Cox's request to offer credits to be reasonable. However, TD recommends that Cox be ordered to track and report to the Director of the TD, on a monthly basis until December 31, 2001, all costs associated with Cox's offers shown above. The monthly report should identify costs associated with each offer, separately, for the previous month that ended and should be filed with the Director of the Telecommunications Division on the 15^th of each month.

30. On June 14, 2000, Cox discovered 23 additional customers erroneously published in the North San Diego County directory. These 23 customers had requested that their listings be unlisted, non-published or published with name and number only. Because these customers have the same interests as those customers identified in AL 50, Cox extended the same offers set forth in ALs 50 and 50-A to them.

31. TD recommends that Cox be ordered to track and report to the Director of the TD, on a monthly basis until December 31, 2001, the losses associated with each of the public program as a result of Cox offering credits to its affected customers, that Cox promises to reimburse.

32. In this resolution, the Commission is not addressing the issue of whether Cox's computer software error that resulted in the inclusion of unlisted and non-published number listings in Pacific's White Page directories constitutes "negligence" or "gross negligence" as those terms are used in Cox's tariffs.

33. TD considers reasonable Cox's request for a temporary deviation from its tariffs to offer credits to its affected customers, and to ensure that its affected customers are aware of the response program reasonable.

34. TD concurs with Cox for the need of immediate approval of these advice letters due to privacy and security concerns. Cox is requesting an exemption from PU Code Section 491, which requires a utility to provide 30 days' notice for any changes in rates, rules, classification, service, or privileges, etc. In view of the privacy and security concerns described herein, Cox's request is reasonable and should be granted.

35. Cox's request that the Commission keep under seal the amounts that Cox is prepared to pay to customers who qualify for and accept one of the escalation procedures set forth in Attachment 2 to AL 50, is reasonable and should be granted.

THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Cox's request for authorization for a temporary deviation from its tariffs until the 2001/2002 edition of the San Diego directories are issued and to voluntarily offer credits to affected customers as specified in Advice Letter No. 50 and its supplement, is granted. Cox's request for temporary authorization to offer credits to the affected customers may only cover a portion of its liabilities described in Cox's tariff Rule 27. However, the approval of Cox's Advice Letter No. 50 and its supplement, does not relieve Cox from any liability for possible violations of its applicable tariff rules, PU Code, and/or the Commission rules and regulations as applicable; nor does it relieve Cox from any liability resulting from any action the Commission may take in the future.

2. This temporary authorization to offer credits to affected customers shall expire for the South and East San Diego County affected customers on May 31, 2001, (or June 15, 2001, for North San Diego County affected customers) or when the 2001/2002 edition of the directories are issued, whichever is later.

3. Cox's request that it be allowed to ask qualifying customers to sign a waiver and release prior to accepting any of the escalated offerings described in Attachment 2 to AL 50, even though Cox is willing to extend these escalated offerings to qualified customers (even if the customer declines to execute a waiver and release), is denied.

4. Because of the privacy and security concerns of affected customers, Cox's request for immediate approval of Advice Letter No. 50 and its supplement is granted.

5. Cox shall file a report with the Director of the Telecommunications Division, within 30 days from the effective date of this resolution, explaining the operating procedures Cox has implemented to detect and immediately correct such software errors and/or to avoid such software errors in the future.

6. Cox shall track and report to the Director of the TD, on a monthly basis until December 31, 2001, all costs associated with offers to its affected customers. The monthly report shall identify the costs associated with each offer for the previous month that ended and be filed with Director of the Telecommunications Division on the 15^th of each month.

7. Cox shall track and report to the Director of the TD, on a monthly basis until December 31, 2001, the losses associated with each of the public program as a result of Cox offering credits to its affected customer. These programs include the Universal Lifeline Telephone Service (ULTS) Fund, the Deaf and Disabled Telecommunications Equipment and Service Program, the California High Cost Funds A and B, and the California Teleconnect Fund. Cox shall reimburse these public programs for any such losses.

8. Cox shall not seek reimbursement from the ULTS Fund for any costs associated with changing the telephone number of any affected ULTS customer. This requirement shall expire on May 31, 2001, (or June 15, 2001, for North San Diego County affected customers) or when the 2001/2002 edition of the directories are issued, whichever is later.

9. Cox shall report to the Director of the TD, on a weekly basis until Cox has contacted all of its affected customers regarding its offers, the total number of customers affected; the total number of customers who have been contacted; the number of customers who have accepted Option 1; the number of customers who have accepted Option 2; the number of customers who qualified for the escalation procedures and the number of customers, by category, who accepted Cox's offer of escalation procedures; and the number of customers who have refused to negotiate with Cox.

10. The amounts that Cox is prepared to pay to customers who qualify for and accept one of the escalated offers set forth in Attachment 2 to AL 50 shall remain under seal until further order of the Commission, the Commissioner or Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) assigned to Rulemaking 95-04-043/Investigation 95-04-044, or the ALJ then designated as Law and Motion Judge.

This Resolution is effective today.

I hereby certify that this Resolution was adopted by the Public Utilities Commission at its regular meeting on September 7, 2000. The following Commissioners approved it:

_____________________________

WESLEY M. FRANKLIN

Executive Director