20020606_151.html

DECISION MEMORANDUM TO: COMMISSIONER KJELLANDER COMMISSIONER SMITH COMMISSIONER HANSEN JEAN JEWELL RON LAW LOU ANN WESTERFIELD LYNN ANDERSON DON HOWELL RANDY LOBB JOE CUSICK WAYNE HART TERRI CARLOCK TONYA CLARK BEV BARKER GENE FADNESS WORKING FILE FROM: JOHN R. HAMMOND DATE: JUNE 4, 2002 RE: IN THE MATTER OF THE ST. ONGES' PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE COMMISSION'S DISMISSAL OF THEIR FORMAL COMPLAINT AGAINST QWEST. CASE NO. QWE-T-01-25. On May 14, 2002, Lance and Karissa St. Onge filed a timely Petition for Reconsideration of the Commission's Order No. 29011 that dismissed their formal Complaint against Qwest Corporation. Qwest has not filed a response to this Petition. BACKGROUND On September 6, 2001, the Commission received a formal complaint against Qwest from the St. Onges requesting that it review a line extension decision made by the Company. The St. Onges stated that they had been seeking installation of basic phone service for their home but Qwest's line extension decision made it to cost prohibitive. In the Spring 2002, the Commission Staff was informed that the parties reached a settlement. Staff was provided with a work order that contained the charges for extending service to the St. Onges and the date that service was provided to them. This document was signed by a Qwest manager and the St. Onges. According to this settlement, Qwest agreed to reduce the charge for extending service to the St. Onges from $5,700 to $1,006.23. Qwest also agreed to allow the St. Onges to split this amount into two payments. The St. Onges made the first payment of $503.12 to Qwest on November 9, 2001. In return, Qwest extended basic phone service to the St. Onges on December 24, 2001. Based on this information and the Staff's recommendation the Commission found that the issues raised by the St. Onges' Complaint had been resolved. Accordingly, the Commission dismissed the St. Onges' Complaint. Order No. 29011. As stated previously, the St. Onges filed a Petition for Reconsideration requesting that the Commission reconsider its dismissal of their Complaint. In this Petition the St. Onges raise three arguments. First, the St. Onges allege that they paid Qwest to extend service to them as contemplated by the agreement but the Company did not complete the work to provide them this service. Specifically, they claim that Qwest did not bury the cable used to provide them service as was agreed upon. Second, the St. Onges contend that they are served off of a box in the 843 prefix, but have received a 924 prefix. Lastly, the St. Onges allege that the cable that Qwest uses to provide them service is at least twenty-five (25) years old and incapable of supplying them with services the Company is billing them for (Caller ID, call waiting, Internet access). Based on these grounds the St. Onges request that the Commission reconsider the dismissal of their Complaint. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff has reviewed the record in this case and considered the arguments in the St. Onges' Petition for Reconsideration. Staff believes that the St. Onges' first argument in their Petition, that the cable used to provide them telephone service has not been buried as specified in the agreement between the parties, falls within the scope of the formal Complaint. Based on the information and documentation provided to the Commission in this case Staff is uncertain whether the agreement between the parties required the cable to be buried. However, Staff believes that burying a cable of this type is standard practice for the Company and over the life of this case Qwest has consistently represented that it must be buried or hung above ground. Finally, Qwest has not responded to the St. Onges making it impossible to determine what this agreement called for. In order to clarify what the agreement called for and to determine whether this cable should be buried Staff recommends that the Commission grant the St. Onges' Petition for the purpose of holding a hearing and/or status conference. At this hearing/status conference the Commission should conclusively determine whether the terms of the settlement agreement between the parties in this case are being complied with or that standard Company practice dictates that this cable should be buried. Staff believes that the two remaining arguments raised in the St. Onges Petition, although tangentially related to their Complaint, are outside the scope of this proceeding. These matters were not raised in the formal complaint and thus should not form the basis to grant or deny the Petition for Reconsideration. However, Staff represents that it will attempt to informally resolve these two issues between the St. Onges and the Company so that the Commission may focus on matters that are appropriately before it as a result of the St. Onges Complaint. COMMISSION DECISION Does the Commission wish to grant the St. Onges Petition for Reconsideration for the purpose of determining whether Qwest was required by the settlement agreement or Company practice to bury the cable used to provide them telephone service? Does the Commission wish to hold a hearing/status conference in order to make this determination? Does the Commission wish to direct the Commission Staff to attempt to informally resolve the remaining issues raised by the St. Onges' Petition for Reconsideration? John R. Hammond Staff: Wayne Hart M:QWET0125_jh3