20061011Reconsideration request.pdf

ldwell C~iropraclic Center
0/4/06
~EIVED
200& OCT II AM 8: 06
JOHN C. DOWNEY, D.
104 EAST PINE
CALDWELL, IDAHO 83605
TELEPHONE: [phone]IDM10 HJU~J~; .Idaho Public Utilities Commission UTILITIES COMMISSIO!'
Attn: Commission Secretary Jean Jewell
PO Box 83720
Boise 10 83720-0074
RE: FORMAL COMPLAINT
Dear Ms. Jewell
I respectfully request the reconsideration of order No. 30129 in the case aWE-
O6-10.
This petition takes issue with the Commissions finding (page 1): "The third line is the
focus of this dispute...
More correctly we believe the focus of the dispute should be g phone service
that awest failed to provide but charged for anyway. More history might help.
Before May 2001 the Center had 2 business phone lines that served a phone
system with 6 phones. The internet and fax machine operated by disabling one of the
phone lines (459-9438), but internet access was only possible from one phone (at the
front desk). In May 2001 the Center contacted awest so that internet access could be
available to the entire system, but particularly to the phone in Dr. Downey s office.
After a service call and communication with awest the internet connection was
established for the entire phone system including Dr. Downey s phone, which disabled
the 459-9438 as before. awest consequently billed for a "third Line" which was
apparent on the first bill and the February bill only for the next two years. Nowhere
was a 454-7296 number ever published, which the Center finds to be very curious.
The Center has all of the bills.
The Center could only believe until September 2005 that it was being charged
for an internet connection via a "third line" to it's 30 year old phone system. In
September 2005 however when Qwest offered to be the long distance carrier for a
third line" the Center learned that it was in fact being charged for a separate
connection, a third line that was not connected to any phone, phone jack, or computer.
This begins the dispute.
We now argue that since Qwest failed to make this line functional and therefore
known, we are not liable for charges. Disputing the existence of the third line in the
original complaint should be construed in this context. That is, not a denial of the
existence of a third line but the denial of the existence of additional service.
The Center was not then or now interested in a "third phone" line. It's only
interest was an internet connection to it's system, which it received. We believe that no
review of the bills could discover the existence of a dysfunctional phone service unless
the 454-7296 number had been published, and that Qwest's billing scheme was
misleading for this reason (rule 101).
Finally, even if the Commission yet deems the Center should have discovered
that it was being charged (unfairly) for the third line, it doesn t seem reasonable that
the Center is liable for those (unfair) charges for that reason alone. Should it have
been the Center s technical challenge to make the line functional if possible so that it
could have canceled the function and avoided this dispute? Isn t Qwest capable of
u5e
showing that the 454-7296 was never Junctien8f thus supporting our claim? Thank
you for your time.
Sincerely,
John c~c.