Comments on Draft Decision

The draft decision of the ALJ in this matter was mailed to the parties in accordance with Pub. Util. Code § 311(g)(1) and Rule 77.7 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure. Complainant filed timely comments. We have taken them into account, as appropriate, in finalizing this decision.

Findings of Fact

1. A prehearing conference was held on February 7, 2003; no evidentiary hearing was held.

2. Complainant Stuart L. Posselt ordered Caller ID Complete Blocking service from SBC California for his residential telephone number.

3. Complainant's monthly telephone bill reflects that SBC California placed Caller ID Complete Blocking service on his residential telephone line.

4. SBC California offers Caller ID Complete or Selective Blocking service without additional charge to the customer.

5. Complainant appended copies of SBC billing statements to his complaint, at the bottom of which appeared the statement: "Caller ID Complete Blocking prevents your name and number from being sent to the person or business you are calling. To display your name and number on a call, press *82 (1182 on rotary phones) before dialing."

6. SBC California has stated that there is no present capability to block the communication of the calling party number from a called party's automatic number identification process inherent in 800 series and 900 series telephone numbers.

7. SBC submitted copies of a July 2002 letter describing Complete Blocking Caller ID service to complainant, a quarterly informational pamphlet, and an annual newsletter, all of which specified the 911, 900 and 800 numbers that could not be blocked from Automatic Number Identification.

8. Official Notice is taken of the current SBC California residential billing statement, which notes under the "Terms and Conditions," that: "Calls to 911, 800 or 900 numbers will not be blocked."

Conclusions of Law

1. SBC California offers and provides Caller ID Complete Blocking service in accordance with its Network and Exchange Services Tariff A5.5.4.10C. subsections 19 and 21.

2. Pursuant to Pub. Util. Code § 2891.2, SBC California's 2002 annual newsletter notifies customers that their telephone numbers cannot be blocked from called parties at 800 and 900 numbers.

3. SBC California's designation of the name "Complete Blocking" to the blocking option that most broadly conceals the calling party's phone number from the party called, and to distinguish the service from Selective Blocking, does not demonstrate an intent to mislead or confuse customers.

4. This complaint should be dismissed because SBC California's offering and provision of Caller Id Complete Blocking service does not violate any statute or Commission order, rule, or regulation.

5. An evidentiary hearing is not necessary.

6. This order should be effective immediately.

ORDER

IT IS ORDERED that:

1. The complaint of Stuart L. Posselt against Pacific Bell Telephone Company, doing business as SBC California, is dismissed for failure to set forth a cause of action or a violation of any statute, Commission order, rule or regulation.

2. Case 02-11-032 is closed.

This order is effective today.

Dated April 1, 2004, at San Francisco, California.

MICHAEL R. PEEVEY

CARL W. WOOD

Previous PageTop Of PageGo To First Page