gnrt0038.babdh.doc

DONALD L. HOWELL, II
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
PO BOX 83720
BOISE, IDAHO 83720-0074
[phone]
IDAHO BAR NO. 3366

Street Address for Express Mail:
472 W. WASHINGTON
BOISE, IDAHO 83702-5983

Attorney for the Commission Staff

BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

IN THE MATTER OF THE EXAMINATION WHETHER THE COMMISSION SHOULD ADMINISTER THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION'S NEW SLAMMING RULES, 47 C.F.R. §§ 64 64.1100 et seq. )
)
)
)
)
) CASE NO. GNR-T-00-38

COMMENTS OF THE
COMMISSION STAFF

COMES NOW the Staff of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission, by and through its attorney of record, Donald L. Howell, II, Deputy Attorney General, and in response to the Notice of Modified Procedure, Order No. 28580 issued on December 4, 2000, submits the following comments.
COMMENTS
A. Background
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) recently promulgated new regulations that prohibit telecommunications carriers from submitting or executing an unauthorized change in a telephone customer’s selection of a local or long distance carrier. This fraudulent practice is commonly referred to as “slamming.” The FCC has encouraged state commissions to administer the new slamming rules. Given this invitation, the Commission on its own Motion initiates this inquiry whether it should adopt and administer the FCC’s new slamming rules. If adopted, the Commission would investigate slamming complaints filed by Idaho customers and carriers regarding both intrastate and interstate telecommunication services. The slamming rules were published in the Federal Register at 65 Fed. Reg. 47,690-693 (August 3, 2000).
Slamming has been a serious problem at both the state and national level. The intent of the FCC rules is to stop slamming. The rules establish financial disincentives to carriers who engage in slamming, and, perhaps most importantly, provide various remedies to consumers who have been slammed. The Commission Staff strongly encourages the Commission to administer the FCC rules.
Individual state efforts to stem the tide of slamming complaints have largely failed. The new FCC rules, which became effective November 28, 2000, provide for ubiquious enforcement for state as well as federal efforts to stem slamming. Over two-thirds of the states have already accepted the responsibility to administer the FCC rules. The Commission can send a strong signal that it will not tolerate slamming by joining the ranks of states that have already enlisted.
From 1997 to 1999, the Commission Staff received 1,453 informal complaints regarding slamming. An additional 112 informal slamming complaints have been received this year. Interestingly, from January through June 2000, the FCC received only two complaints regarding slamming from Idaho consumers. During that same time frame, 65 consumers sought assistance from the PUC. Clearly, Idaho consumers prefer to seek assistance from resources closer to home than Washington, D.C.
Idaho Code § 61-506 allows the Commission to investigate all regulations pertaining to interstate practices that "take place in this state." However, the Staff has been hampered in its efforts to help consumers resolve slamming complaints. In many cases, carriers have been uncooperative and unresponsive to Staff’s attempts to investigate complaints. The Commission currently has only one rule that specifically addresses slamming. Rule 606 of the Commission’s Telephone Customer Relations Rules (IDAPA 31.41.01) requires reinstatement of the consumer’s preferred carrier and removal of fees for carrier switching in slamming situations. The substance of Rule 606 is addressed in 47 C.F.R. § 1140(b)(3) and § 1170(f).
The Idaho Attorney General investigates slamming complaints under the Idaho Consumer Protection Act, Idaho Code §§ 48-601 et seq. The Commission Staff and the Attorney General’s Consumer Protection Unit, have agreed to have the Commission be the primary agency to investigate and resolve slamming complaints. The agreed procedures are more fully described in the Attorney General’s comments filed in this case. If the Commission accepts responsibility to administer the FCC rules, the Commission would be the primary agency for resolving slamming disputes. The Attorney General's office would still be able to prosecute aggregious offenders under the Consumer Protection Act. See 47 U.S.C. § 258(b) and 47 C.F.R. § 64.1140(a).

B. Suggested Procedures
Staff anticipates that the investigation and resolution of slamming complaints will
follow the Best Practices "Guide to Administering the New FCC Slamming Rules" issued in September 2000. As set out in the Notice, the Staff believes that the most convenient and efficient way to process a slamming complaint is through the "informal" complaint process (IDAPA 31.01.01.021 - .026). The Staff also maintains that appeals of slamming complaints be processed as "formal" de novo complaints pursuant to Commission Rule 54, IDAPA 31.01.01.054. To ensure the timely resolution of slamming complaints, Staff recommends that formal complaints appealing the Staff's informal written resolution of complaints, be filed within fourteen (14) business days. If no formal complaint is filed within fourteen (14) days, then the aggreived party's right to appeal should be considered waived or abandoned. Staff also recommends that reconsideration (Rule 331, IDAPA 31.01.01.331) and judicial review (Rule 341, IDAPA 31.01.01.341) of a slamming complaint follow the state's appeal process pursuant to Idaho Code §§ 61-626, 61-627, 62-619. See 65 Fed. Reg. 47,683 at ¶33.
Staff notes that Verizon recently sought and received approval from the Commission to modify its Idaho tariff to implement the billing provisions of the FCC’s slamming rules. Staff has had informal discussions with several other local and long distance carriers concerning implementation of the FCC’s rules. These discussions did not reveal any concerns about the ability of the Commission to administer the rules in a fair and impartial manner.

CONCLUSION
Staff strongly encourages the Commission to administer the FCC slamming rules. Doing so will clarify the Commission’s authority and ensure that Idaho consumers can effectively resolve slamming complaints at the state level.

Respectfully submitted this day of December 2000.

______________________________
Donald L. Howell, II
Deputy Attorney General

Technical Staff: Beverly Barker

BAB:gdk:umisc/comments/gnrt0038.babdh
STAFF COMMENTS 3 DECEMBER 26, 2000