Background

On June 15, 2002, Posselt contacted SBC California's residence service center to report that his Caller ID Complete Blocking service was not blocking all outbound telephone calls. He stated that his telephone number was revealed to a telemarketer when he returned a call to an "866" number to request removal from the telemarketer's list. He contends that SBC California's offering of a service labeled as "Caller ID Complete Blocking" is intentionally erroneous and misled him into believing that no one he called received any information about him.

Citing Webster's New World Dictionary in the complaint, Posselt argues that the definition of "complete" is "whole" and "thorough," which does not imply any exception. Further, he asserts that given his selection of "Caller ID Complete Blocking" service, SBC California's failure to disclose who obtains information about him when he calls is an intentional invasion of the privacy to which SBC California acknowledges that he has a right. Posselt states that he has twice been the victim of identity thieves; consequently, he takes privacy very seriously. As relief, he asks to actually have " `Caller ID Complete Blocking' with the exception of 911 as offered, ordered and as stated" on his bills. Posselt believes that this matter can be resolved without hearings.

In response to Posselt's initial contact, SBC California reported that one of its service representatives explained to him that Caller ID Complete Blocking prevents a customer's name and number from being transmitted on all outbound calls with the exception of those calls made to 911, 800, 888, and 900 numbers. After he filed an informal complaint at this Commission, SBC California advised Posselt by letter that, "Caller ID Complete Blocking prevents the transmission of your telephone number on all outbound calls, with the exception of 911, 800, 888, 877 and 866 number calls."¹

In its answer to the formal complaint, SBC California denies any wrongdoing and maintains that it "is in compliance with all applicable statutes, government regulations and decisions relevant to Caller ID Complete Blocking." (SBC California Answer at 2.) It also states that pursuant to its statutory and regulatory obligations, SBC California provides a quarterly informational newsletter to all customers as well as an annual February bill insert entitled, "What's Available" to residential customers.² Both documents inform customers about the numbers that are the exceptions to Caller ID Complete Blocking.

SBC California asserts that these ongoing notifications meet its statutory and regulatory mandates for protecting privacy with 800, 888, and 900 numbers. Accordingly, it argues that this complaint should be dismissed for failure to state a cause of action because the complaint "does not set forth any act or thing done or omitted to be done, which is claimed to be in violation of any provision of law or any order or rule of the Commission." Public Utilities (Pub. Util.) Code § 1702 and Rule 9 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure. (SBC California Answer at 5.) SBC California considers the request for relief specified in the complaint, or any other relief, to be inappropriate. It also agrees that hearings are not necessary.

A prehearing conference was held on February 7, 2003. Thereafter, SBC California provided copies of the applicable tariffs to the assigned Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) and the complainant. No evidentiary hearings were held.³