20120525Comment.pdf

Jean Jewell
From: johnandlindabrownq.com
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2012 1:28 PM
To: Jean Jewell; Beverly Barker; Gene Fadness
Subject: PUC Comment Form
A Comment from Linda Brown follows:
Case Number: (GNR-T-12-03)
Name: Linda Brown
Address: 2184 Middlefield Rd.
City: Boise
State: ID
Zip: 83704
Daytime Telephone: [phone]
Contact E-Mail: johnandlindabrown(@g.com
Name of Utility Company: Century Link/Qwest
Acknowledge: acknowledge
Please describe your comment briefly:
I disagree with Century/Qwest when they say we customers can simply change to another company
if we get upset with them. What if I don't want to change my landline? And what a 'line' to
say that because they value us (!) they want to stretch the 24-hr. requirement to 48 hrs.,
AND remove the penalty credit if not done in that time frame?!! Huh?! We've been with Qwest
for over 25 years. We have a landline and DSL through Qwest. As can often be the case, cell
phone access can be lost during disasters. Therefore we want to keep our landline active.
Waiting until I 'get upset' enough with their service to change is a ridiculous and
irresponsible suggestion. Although admittedly they say THAT would upset them more, it is not
evident to me. At the very least, if you're going to change it to 48 hours, then keep the
credit due back if they do not restore power within that time frame. It is absolutely
meaningless without the credit-back 'punishment.' Removing that denudes the entire rule.
Please keep the requirement of the credit-back feature if the hours are stretched to 48. Or
why not just throw it all out; for as your proposal now stands, it's a farce - it'll be a
rule with absolutely no teeth in it whatsoever and it will make their customers angrier in
the long run - the very defense they give now to removing the requirements of the rule!
The form submitted on http://www.puc.idaho.gov/forms/€€€`ipuci/ipuc.html
IP address is 174.27.27.144
1