20060922final_order_no_30129.pdf

Office of the Secretary
Service Date
September 22, 2006
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
CALDWELL CHIROPRACTIC CENTER,
CASE NO. QWE-06-
COMPLAINANT,
QWEST CORPORATION ORDER NO. 30129
RESPONDENT.
On May 5, 2006, Caldwell Chiropractic Center (the "Center ) filed a complaint with
the Commission regarding a billing dispute with Qwest Corporation. After attempts to settle the
dispute informally were unsuccessful, the Commission issued a Summons to Qwest on June 20
2006. Qwest timely filed an Answer to the Complaint. On August 22, 2006, the Center filed
supplemental information and Qwest submitted a letter in response on September 6, 2006.
Neither party requested a hearing. After reviewing the Complaint and the materials submitted by
both parties, the Commission issues this Order.
THE COMPLAINT
According to the Complaint, the Center has been a Qwest customer for more than 15
years. The Center has had two telephone numbers that it regularly uses: its primary line (459-
4354) and its facsimile or fax line (459-9438). In May 2001 , Dr. John Downey (the owner ofthe
Center) contacted Qwest to discuss obtaining an Internet phone connection that would "allow my
phone lines to be functional while receiving internet service." Complaint at 1. Following this
discussion with the Qwest service representative, the Center used the fax line (459-9438) for its
dial-up Internet service. The Center acknowledges in its Complaint that using the fax line to
access the Internet "disabled the fax/phone (line) for the short times when the internet was in
use.Id. What was allegedly not apparent to Dr. Downey at the time of his conversation with
the Qwest service representative was that the service representative made a service order for a
third line (454-7296), presumably to s~rve as the Internet telephone connection. According to
Qwest, this third line was ordered on May 7, 2001 and "installed" on May 10, 2001. Qwest
Answer at 2. The third line is the focus of this dispute.
ORDER NO. 30129
In September or October 2005, Dr. Downey called Qwest to upgrade the Center
telephone service to digital subscriber line (DSL) service.! During that conversation, the Qwest
service representative asked Dr. Downey if Qwest could be the assigned long-distance carrier on
the third line that according to the representative, was a part of the Center s account. Dr.
Downey maintains he had a complete lack of knowledge about the third line s existence. Dr.
Downey asserts that this was the first time he learned that the third line was connected back in
May 2001. Complaint at 1. Upon learning of this third line, Dr. Downey asked that it be
disconnected.
In support of his Complaint Dr. Downey asserts that the third line was not connected
to a separate telephone jack or separate Internet connection at the Center. Complaint at I.
According to the Complaint, if one were to call this third number, a caller would hear a ring but
there was no device in the Center with which employees could hear it ring or answer the line. Id.
Despite Qwest's claim that it sent the Center a "confirmation letter" after the line was installed
Dr. Downey maintains that the Center never received such a letter for this line. Moreover, he
asserts that the Center did not receive any notice on its monthly billing statements that would
disclose the presence of the third line. Id.
To resolve the dispute, Dr. Downey asked Qwest for a full credit or refund for the
third line from October 2005 back to May 2001. Qwest provided a credit for one year of
payments on the disputed line totaling $598., but declined to provide a refund beyond
September 2004.
QWEST'S ANSWER
Qwest asserts in its Answer that its business records reveal that an order for the third
line was placed on May 7, 2001 and that notes indicate that Qwest was to contact "Lisa" at 459-
4354 (the primary telephone number used by the Center) when the order was complete. Answer
at 2. Qwest also insists that its business records made contemporaneously with the recorded
events indicate that "John" called on May 10, 2001 to check on the order for an additional line
and that service was installed on May 10 2001. Id.
Qwest further asserts that its business practice is to send a confirmation letter to the
customer when a new line is installed. Id. This letter would have informed (the Center) of the
I DSL service allows a customer to use a single digital line to conduct voice communications and access the Internet
at the same time - as opposed to one or the other with a conventional line.
ORDER NO. 30129
additional line installation.Id. However, due to the voluminous nature of its records, Qwest
does not maintain copies of its confirmation letters sent to each customer.
Qwest also insists that its monthly telephone bills disclose "the number of lines in
service as well as the amount charges for the services rendered.Id. The Center s bills show
that it was billed for a "primary line and two additional lines.Despite these monthly bills
Qwest claims the Center never objected.
Qwest states that on September 13 , 2005, the Center informed Qwest that it wanted
the third line removed. Id. Additionally, Qwest states that in an effort to satisfy a customer, it
provided a credit to the Center of 14 months of payments.Id. at 2-3. Qwest requests that the
Center s request for further credits be denied and that the Complaint be dismissed.
SUPPLEMENT AL FILINGS
The Center supplemented its Complaint with copies of its monthly telephone bills for
2001 , and six months of bills for each of 2003 , 2004 and 2005. The telephone number for the
disputed line does not appear on any of these bills.
Responding to Qwest's argument that the total number of lines was disclosed on the
bills, the Center states that the notations on the bill of "2 ADDL LINE-PRl BUS FLAT" and "
PRIV ATE BUSINESS LINE" do not clarify to the Center that it was being charged for three
lines.
The Center further states that in May 2001 , when it contacted Qwest about obtaining
an Internet connection, it accessed the Internet over its fax line and not the third line. The Center
believed that the extra charge on its monthly billing was for the Internet connection and not for
another telephone line. Dr. Downey believed that the additional monthly charge "made my
internet connection possible and (assumed) therefore the charge was legitimate." Supplement
1. It was not until he discovered that the charge was for an unused third line that he objected to
the monthly charge. Id.
Qwest's rebuttal letter states that it believed the bills supplied the Center supported its
position for several reasons. Qwest notes that the February bills for 2003 and 2004 "itemize the
2 There is an unexplained lapse of two months between the Center s first request for disconnection and a subsequent
request by the Center for the disconnection; hence, Qwest reimbursed for a year of payments and for the two months
of payments made after the first request for disconnection.
ORDER NO. 30129
existence of three lines.3 Second, the Center s June 2001 bill shows, under the heading of
SERVICE ADDITIONS AND CHARGES " a $52 fee for a service line connected on May 10
2001 , referring to the installation of the third line. The added service was one "ADDL LINE-
PRI BUS FLAT." Finally, starting in June 2004
, "
Qwest adopted a new billing format that
itemized the number of lines being provided each month.Id. Qwest maintains that the Center
monthly bills from June 2004 onward show that the Center had three business lines on its
account. Qwest asserts that its one-year s credit is reasonable.
COMMISSION FINDINGS
The Commission believes that the parties have provided sufficient evidence for us to
decide this matter. The Commission has jurisdiction to hear this dispute pursuant to Idaho Code
9961-302 61-503 61-641 , and 61-642.
We turn first to the period of recovery. The Center s Complaint seeks recovery of all
payments made to Qwest for the third line from October 2005 to May 2001. Under Idaho law
the Commission has the authority to grant a reimbursement or credit to a utility customer not to
exceed three years of payments prior to the dispute. See Idaho Code 99 61-641 and 61-642.
Thus, the Commission may only consider payments made by the Center to Qwest for the third
line for three years, from October 2005 to October 2002.
Turning next to the underlying dispute, it is apparent to us that there was a
miscommunication between Dr. Downey and the Qwest customer service representative in May
2001. As Dr. Downey explained in the Complaint, he wanted to "establish an internet phone
connection that would allow (the Center s) phone lines to be functional while receiving internet
service Complaint at 1 (emphasis added). At that time, prior to the availability of DSL
service, the surest way to accomplish this objective - access the Internet service without
interfering with the functionality of the existing two lines - and maintain the Center s existing
dial-up service was to add a separate third line.4 Thus, the service representative apparently
interpreted the Center s inquiry as an order for a third line. Qwest installed the third line on May
3 Commission Telephone Customer Relations Rule 101 requires that Qwest annually provide the Center "a clear and
concise written explanation of all the services for which the customer subscribes and the charges for those services.
IDAPA 31.41.02.101.
4 Dial-up Internet service acts as a telephone call made from your computer to the Internet service provider. The
line will register as "busy" for the duration ofthe operator s time accessing the Internet and preclude the use of that
line for voice or fax communications. It is unknown whether DSL service was available to the Center in 2001 and it
likely was not an option for the Qwest representative to recommend at that time.
ORDER NO. 30129
, 2001 , the same day Qwest's business records indicate that "John" called to check on the
order for the additional line.
We further find that the monthly telephone bills would put a reasonable person on
notice that a new line was installed in May 2001. The June 2001 bill shows a $52.00 installation
charge for a "SERVICE LINE CONNECTED" on May 10 2001 , and an addition to the Center
local monthly service of "1 ADDL LINE-PRI BUS FLAT.These billing notations and the
increased charges are sufficient to indicate that an additional private business line was added to
the Center s local service package. It is also apparent that the Center had three business lines on
the February 2003 and 2004 bills. The "itemized monthly service" sections on these bills show
that the Center had three business lines:
ADDL LINE-PRl BUS FLAT
PRlV ATE BUSINESS LINE
While these notations may not be immediately understood by a customer, they are sufficient to
alert a customer to the need to inquire about the meaning of the charges.
The monthly bills beginning in June 2004 each indicate that the Center had three access
lines. These bills also indicate in two separate places that there is a monthly local 911 fee of
$1.00 per access line, for a total 911 fee of$3.00 per month. Although the Center was on notice
that another line was added in May 2001 and could determine that thereafter the cost of its local
monthly service increased substantially, the Center may not have objected because it thought it
was receiving and paying for the requested service - access to the Internet.
Taken together, we find there were miscommunications and misunderstandings at the
time the Center talked to Qwest about obtaining Internet access. However, there is substantial
evidence that the Center could have and should have known that it was paying for a third
telephone line. Qwest has already provided the Center with a reimbursement for one year. We
find that no additional credit is required. The Commission concludes that the Complaint should
be dismissed.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Complaint of Caldwell Chiropractic Center is
dismissed.
THIS IS A FINAL ORDER. Any person interested in this Order may petition for
reconsideration within twenty-one (21) days of the service date of this Order with regard to any
matter decided in this Order. Within seven (7) days after any person has petitioned for
ORDER NO. 30129
reconsideration, any other person may cross-petition for reconsideration. See Idaho Code 99 61-
626 and 62-619.
DONE by Order of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission at Boise, Idaho this ;2;J...
JJ.
day of September 2006.
, PRESIDENT
MARSHA H. SMITH, COMMISSIONER
ATTEST:
J~ay1 D. Jewe
C6mmission Secretary
O:QWE-06-cg_
ORDER NO. 30129