20091028Qwest Comments.pdf

Mar S. Hobson (ISB. No. 2142)
999 Main, Suite 1103
Boise, ID 83702
Tel: [phone]
mar.hobsonCigwest.com
R.E. CEIi" r- l'i, ". L-
iong OCT 28 PM 4: 23
Adam Sherr
Corporate Counsel, Qwest
1600 7th Avenue, Room 1506
Seattle, W A 98191
Tel: [phone]
adam. sherr(fqwest. com
Attorneys for Qwest Corporation
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
TELEPHONE CUSTOMER RELATIONS
RULES
RULEMAKING DOCKET
Case No. RUL-T-09-01
DOCKET NO. 31-4101-0901
COMMENTS OF QWEST CORPORATION
INTRODUCTION
Qwest Corporation ("Qwest" or "the Company") is Idaho's largest provider of
telecommunications services to residence and small business customers. While Qwest s
predecessor company was originally regulated as a public utility, the Company now conducts all of
its operations under Title 62, Idaho Code. This regulatory status reflects the fact that Qwest
operates in a business setting that is radically altered from the environment that prevailed when the
Commission last reviewed its Telephone Customer Relations Rules. While in the past Qwest was
the sole provider of telecommuncations serices for local customers in its serice area, today
Qwest competes with competitive local exchange companies that have never been subject to
extensive regulation by the Idaho Public Utilties Commission ("Commission"), as well as with
cellular/wireless companies, Internet-based services, and cable providers of telecommunications
serices whose operations are entirely outside the Commission's regulatory jurisdiction.
Section 62-605 (5). (b), Idaho Code provides that "the commission shall have the cQntinuing
authority to determine the non-economic regulatory requirements relating to basic local exchange
service... which requirements shall be technologically and competitively neutral." The requirement
that non-economic regulation is to be "technologically and competitively neutral" was added in
Qwest Rulemaking Comments - 1 -
2005 when the Legislature provided for deregulation of basic local exchange service (i.e., its
potential removal from Title 61 regulation to Title 62) based on the presence of competition from
other technologies-specifically cellular/wireless and, to a lesser extent at the time, telephone
services provided by cable companes.
Thus, Qwest believes the Legislatue's intent was to limit the Commission's non-economic
regulatory authority over Title 62 companies to regulation that could also be imposed on these other
technologies and competitive providers on the same basis. Since the curent and proposed
Telephone Customer Relations Rules do not apply to cellular/wireless serices, cable providers, or
voice over Internet protocol (VoIP) providers, they are inconsistent with the language and the intent
of the Idaho law requiring that they be "technologically and competitively neutral." Based upon this
Legislative history, Qwest believes the proposed Telephone Customer Relations Rules should not
apply to companies whose local exchange operations are conducted entirely under Title 62, Idaho
Code.
Although the proposed rules do not exempt Title 62 companes, Qwest believes the
proposed changes in most cases generally meet the Commission's stated intention to "simplify
regulatory requirements and allow carer more flexibility to respond to customer
service requests."l Qwest supports ths perspective and agrees that in many areas the proposed rules
changes have succeeded in those objectives. In some important pariculars, however, the proposed
rules have either added additional and unecessar regulation where it did not previously exist or
failed to streamline and eliminate regulatory requirements that are no longer useful or appropriate in
today's environment.
Without waiving the opening position stated above, Qwests comments in this docket are
intended to address those areas in which Qwest believes the proposed rules do not meet the
objective of bringing the Telephone Customer Relations Rules into conformance with the
Commission's stated intentions, much less with the regulatory requirements brought about by
changes in state and federal law .
COMMENTS ON SPECIFIC RULES
Rule 005. Def"mitions
Commission's Proposed Language:
lO2. Small Business Teleph8Be Service: "Small business telejoae serice" means
telecommunications service fuished to a business or institutional entity, whether an individual,
parnership, corporation, association, or other business or institutional form, for occupational,
professional, or institutional puroses, to customer who do not subscribe to more than five (5) local
access lines within a building, i.e., service provided to small business customers as defined in
Section 62-603(11), Idaho Code.
Qwes! Position:
This language should be updated to conform to the present language of §62-603 (11), Idaho
Code, which focuses on the number of lines associated with a paricular biling address rather than
the physical building location of lines to determine whether a customer is or is not a small business
customer.
1 Notice of Rulemakng at 1.
Qwest Rulemaking Comments - 2-
Qwest Proposed Language:
-l02. Small Business Teleph8Be Servce: "Small business teleplioae service" means
telecommunications service furnished to a business or institutional entity, whether an individual,
parership, corporation, association, or other business or institutional form, for occupational,
professional, or institutional purposes, to customer who do not subscribe to more than five (5) local
access lines which are biled to a single biling location, i.e., serice provided to small business
customers as defined in Section 62-603(11), Idaho Code.
Rule 100 - DEPOSIT REQUIREMENTS - LECs
Commission's Proposed Language:
Rule 100.01 Residential Customers. No kJæl C:Jfhflit company providing local exchange
serice shall demand or hold any deposit from any curent residential customer 81" appliænt for
service without proof that the customer 81" applicflnt is likely to be a credit risk or to damage the
property of the local exchange company or MTS other companies for which it bils. A history of
late payment or lack of previous history with the local exchange company does not, in itself,
constitute such proof. A local exchange company shall not demand or hold a deposit under this rule
as a condition of service from a residential customer 81" appliænt unless one or more of the
following criteria applies:
b. The customer's Of a~~lieaa's serice frm any teleplioae eo~any has been
temporarly denied or terminated within the past four (4) years for one (1) or more ofthe following
reasons:
i. Non-payment of any undisputed delinquent bil.
Qwest Position:
The second sentence of Rule 100.01 is not justified. A provider of telecommunications
service should be allowed to consider a "history of late payment" as proof of credit risk that justifies
requesting a deposit to guarantee payment for futue serice. In fact, such history is used by the
national credit reporting agencies as a factor in determining a consumer's credit worthiness.
Where telephone companes are not rate-regulated and customer nonpayment canot be
passed on as a general cost of a doing business to other customers, telephone companies should be
given the freedom to consider rational business considerations in determining when a deposit to
guarantee payment is appropriate.
Similarly, in i OO.OI.b, the Company should be allowed to consider non-payment of any past
undisputed bil as grounds for asking a customer for a deposit for future servce. The limitation that
non-payment can only be considered if it occurred in "the past four (4) years" is without
justification. The mere passage of time does not change the fact that prior denial or termination of
serice could reasonably indicate that the customer is a non-payment risk. Requiring a customer to
make a deposit is a fair and reasonable way to limit the telephone companies' risk while stil
allowing customers to obtain service. Since the Commission is no longer regulating the economic
operations of Title 62 companies, it should not impose rules that limit the companies' flexibilty in
making rational business decisions as to which customers represent a risk. Indeed, the differences
Qwest Rulemaking Comments - 3 -
in how companies choose to deal with such questions could be a way in which companies
differentiate themselves from competitors (i.e., some may require deposits while others may charge
higher rates etc.).
In the negotiated rulemaking, the Commission Staff suggested that the four year perod
should be retained because it reflects the statute of limitations on the providers' ability to recover
from the customer for an unpaid debt. Although Qwest objects to this overly simplified summar of
the possible effect of the statute of limitations, the Staff arguent is beside the point. The issue for
consideration under this rule is what the Company is allowed to consider when assessing whether it
should ask for a deposit from a customer. Whether or not the Company could today initiate a cour
case against the customer to recover the bad debt is not determinative (in fact, the Company may
even have an unpaid judgment against the customer, yet the rule would preclude seeking a deposit if
four years have passed, regardless the customer's legal duty to pay).
What is important in deterining whether a deposit is appropriate is that the customer
demonstrated he/she is a risk for nonpayment. The Company should be allowed to consider that
customer behavior in assessing whether a deposit should be required.
Qwest's Proposed Language:
Rule 100.01 Residential Customers. No 18cfll C*hflnge company providing local exchange
serice shall demand or hold any depsit from any curent residential customer 81" 8fJliænt for
serice without proof that the customer 81" 8ppliænt is likely to be a credit risk or to damage the
property of the local exchange company or M+ther companes for which it bils. A history of
late ~a)'fea Of laok Of~fe'iÌOl:S liistory will tlie looal e*elaage oo~any does aot, ia itself,
eoastiMe Sl:el ~fOof. A local exchange company shall not demand or hold a deposit under this rule
as a condition of serice from a residential customer 81" applicflnt unless one or more of the
following criteria applies:
b. The customer's or applicant's serice from any telephone company has been
temporarly denied or terminated 'liÌtæa in the past fo (4) year for one (1) or more of the
following reasons: ....
Rule 105 - RETURN OF DEPOSIT - LECS
Commission's Proposed Language:
105.02 Existing Customers. The deposit, will aOOled iaterest, ffst eitlier be
eredited to lle Ol:Btomer's Olrr bil Of be femaded ~fO~tly by lle looal e*elaae oo~aa
wl If the customer has paid all undisputed bils and has no more than one (1) late payment
durng the past twelve (12) consecutive months of serice, the telephone company shall promptly
retu the deposit (with accrued interest) by crediting the customer's curent account or issuing a
refund.
Qwest Position:
This proposal has the effect of applying an additional limitation to the Company's retention
of deposits from residential customers. The curent version of the rule does not give residential
customers "one free late payment." Certainly a late payment, paricularly if it occurs late in the
Qwest Rulemaking Comments - 4-
twelve month period, could be evidence that the customer is at risk for not making his payments. If
that occurs, the continuation of the deposit is an important tool in managing business risk. There is
no evidence this added regulatory limitation is necessar or desirable. Instead, unless the customer
has completed one full year of on-time payments (as contemplated under the rule), when to refud
deposits should be a business decision of the telephone company that wil be tempered by the
competitive market pressures associated with customers having alteratives.
Qwest's Proposed Language:
Qwest proposes that 105.02 should be eliminated or, at minimum, remain unchanged with
regard to residential customers.
Rule 201 - ISSUANCE OF BILING STATEMENTS - CONTENTS OF BILLS -
RESIDENTIAL AND SMAL BUSINESS SERVICE
201.01, subparagraph "c"
Commission's Proposed Language:
c. The due date oftle bil by which payment must be received, unless the customer has
authorized automatic monthly payment. If automatic payment is authorized, the biling statement
must reflect the actual or earliest possible date that funds wil be withdrawn from a ban account or
charged to a credit card account;
Owest Position:
Qwest agrees with the changes proposed for the first sentence of subparagraph c. However,
Qwest strongly disagrees with the second sentence. The addition of a requirement for ''the actual or
earliest possible date" for optional bil-paying arangements severely limits the value of allowing
such arangements and, in the case of the option of automatic credit payment, imposes costs and
difficulties that are in no way justified by any appropriate regulatory concern.
The automatic credit card payment issue: It is important to understand that customers
who have opted to have their bils paid by pre-aranging to have their credit cards charged
automatically each month stand in a unique relationship to all other customers using the methods
that are presently available to customers for bil payment. Qwest believes that the failure to
understand the distinctions between this form of payment and others is one reason this issue has
proved particularly diffcult to address in the negotiated rulemaking that preceded this docket.
Customers must make an affrmative choice to have a credit card automatically biled as a
means of paying their monthly bil. At the time they choose that option they are told their credit
card wil be charged three to five days after their bil date and they consent to this arrangement.
They receive a biling statement that allows them to keep track of their expenditures, but they are
not expected to take any action on that biling statement; instead they have chosen to have a credit
card automatically charged by the Company. Their reasons for choosing this form of payment may
be varied, but it is well known that many customers obtain "air miles," "bonus points" or other
promotional benefits for using their cards. They also enjoy the "float" of having their telephone bil
paid but not writing a check for several weeks later, i.e., until they pay their credit card company.
Qwest Rulemakng Comments - 5 -
Customers who have this arangement are unque in that they do not actually par with any of their
own money until they pay the credit card bil, which in most cases wil be weeks after it is charged
to pay the phone bil.
Traditional customers who, for example, receive a bil and then write a check and mail it to
the Company benefit from knowing when the bil must be paid to avoid making a late payment.
The first sentence of the proposed 201.01 c. accomplishes that goal. Customers who have arranged
to have payment automatically withdrawn from a checking or saving account, while also choosing
an optional method, can at least arguably benefit from being able to predict when their account wil
be reduced by the amount of the bil to avoid overdrafts, etc. Qwest's bils provide that information
and these arrangements are not at issue here.
Customers paying by automatic credit card arangements have none of these concerns. The
proposed rule's insistence that these customers must be informed each and every month when their
credit card wil be automatically charged seres no beneficial purose. These customers stil have
the opportnity to challenge the bil and receive a credit (or perhaps a refud) from the telephone
company if they have a verified billng concern. They also have the option of not paying their
credit card bil (or at least that portion of it that is disputed) until their biling issue is resolved.
They do not ru the risk of late payment and they are in complete control as to when their checking
account is reduced by the amount of the credit card bil associated with their telephone charges.
Complyig with the proposed Rule wil penalie Qwest and customers without
producing any advantage: Whle printing the date the credit card wil be charged on the bil may
intuitively seem like a small thing, it is not. The added requirement would be costly to Qwest. In
fact, any change in biling format is very expensive to implement-particularly, as here, when it is
required only in Idaho and for only a small portion of the customers. This requirement would also
unduly limit the ability of telephone companes like Qwestto offer optional biling arangements to
customers. For example, future optional payment arangements may also be impacted by the
language requiring notice as to when some phase of the automatic process wil take place, making
such future options too difficult or costly to implement. Imposing such a requirement in the
proposed rule aimed at optional programs, chosen by customers for their own convenience, could
mean Idaho customers may not be offered the advantages of future optional arangements.
Limiting customer options rus against the grain of the legislative enactments of the Idaho
Legislatue and of Congress and against the stated objectives of this Commission to "simplify()
regulatory requirements and allow() companies more flexibility to respond to customers' service
requests." 2 The second sentence of proposed Rule 201.01 subparagraph "c" produces this result
without offering any offsetting customer advantage. Qwest has offered automatic credit card
payment arangement to literally thousands of Idaho customers for several years. To the best of the
Company's information it has received only one customer complaint during all that time.
One customer complaint: The customer whose complaint brought this issue to the
Commission's attention had been using automatic credit card biling for about two years when he
was inadvertently overcharged by $1.32. When the eror was brought to the Company's attention,
the charge was reversed and the customer received a credit for the full amount of the overcharge the
following month (i.e., his credit card was automatically charged $1.32 less than it would otherwise
be charged and he was thereby made whole.) It is impossible to imagine how the customer could
have benefited by knowing when his credit card would be charged. Because that customer had
chosen an optional approach to paying his bil, he lost some of the flexibilty the traditional
2 !d.
Qwest Rulemaking Comments - 6-
customer had to review his telephone bil before he wrote his check to the telephone company.
However, he stil had the opportnity to review his credit card bil before he wrote that check to the
credit card company.
And, as this particular customer's experence proved, his issue was quickly and efficiently
addressed and corrected by the Company. If the customer wanted an absolute right to review his
bil before the telephone company is paid, he is free to change the method of bil paying he has
chosen. Neverheless there is nothing about his experence that suggests this Commission has
reason to regulate how Qwest offers this paricular option to customers. Nor does this one customer
experence justify imposing thousands of dollars of expense on Qwest to retool is biling process,
when that expense wil ultimately have to be borne by Idaho customers. It also addresses an issue
no other state regulatory body has found to be an issue.
Overall the proposed language for the second sentence of subparagraph "c" fails to
recognize the competitive realities that new biling and payment methods continue to emerge in the
marketplace. Such arrangements, like automatic credit card payments, are optional for customers.
Qwest's proposed language satisfies the intent to require a statement date and a due date for
traditional biling and payment methods that wil continue to exist, while allowing futue, optional
biling/payment arrangements to be offered without undue limitations.
Qwest's Proposed Language:
c. The due date oftlie bil by which payment must be received, unless the customer has
authorized an optional biling or payment method;
Rule 302 - GROUNDS FOR DENIAL OR TERMINATION OF A SERVICE, WITHOUT
PRIOR NOTICE
Commission's Proposed Language:
302.06 - Obligation to Connect Service
Nothing in this rule requires the telephone company to connect service for a customer who owes
money on an existing account or from a previous account if the unpaid bil is for service provided
within the past four (4) years.
Qwest Position:
This regulation precludes telephone companies from denying servce to a customer who
owes for past service, if that serice was rendered more than four years ago. Once again the rule
provides that some companies in a competitive market must provide service to those who have not
paid undisputed past bils. Meanwhile, no similar rule applies to cellular/wireless, Internet, or cable
competitors. The regulation is an obvious hold-over from the time when Commission-regulated
companies were the sole providers of telephone serice and bad debt could be incorporated in
Commission-regulated rates. Such provisions have no place in a competitive market.
Once again in the negotiated rulemaking the Staff suggested that the statutes of limitations
would bar a company from bringing a suit to recover a bad debt after four years. This is irrelevant.
As the Rule is wrtten, the Company could have brought and won such a case within the past four
Qwest Rulemaking Comments - 7 -
years, yet the Company would be required to offer serice to the customer once four years had
passed, even if he evaded payment of a cour judgment. Moreover, under proposed Rule 100.01 b.
i., the Company would not even be peritted to collect a deposit from the customer. Both of these
rules ignore the reality that failure to pay undisputed bils for serices that have been received
makes these customers poor prospects for the future.
Customers who do not pay undisputed bils are a bad debt risk and telephone corporations
should be allowed the freedom to exercise their business judgment as to how to deal with them.
There is no valid justification for limiting a company's ability to protect itself from known risks
through means such as refusing to connect if an unpaid debt is found. If there is a concer that
"old" bils may not be actually owed or are disputed, such issues can be properly addressed in the
complaint process. There has been no history of problems on this topic to justify imposition of
these restrictions on Title 62 companies.
Qwest's Proposed Language:
Qwest proposes deleting closing phrase, "if the unpaid bil is for service provided within the
past four (4) years," from the proposed Rule 302.06.
Rule 308 - INSUFFICIENT GROUNDS FOR TERMINATION OF LOCAL EXCHAGE
SERVICE
Commission's Proposed Language:
308.01, subparagraphs "a" and "d"
01. Termiation Prohibited. No customer shall be given notice oftermination oflocal
exchange services nor shall the customer's local exchange service be terminated if the unpaid bil
cited as grounds for terination is:
Q.a. Less Tlttl Fif 961111,8. The eust8wter'S blnPfid bil cited fl g1"8blnds fey
tCl"l'iinflH:8n is lLess than fifty ($50) dollars.
d. Inside )IrI"C wtflintenflnee. For serice provided four (4) or more years ago unless the
customer made a payment on the bil within the past four (4) years, or the customer signed a written
payment agreement and then failed to paid;
Qwest Position:
Regarding subparagraph "a," there is no basis for limiting the size of an undisputed bil to
$50. That amount is roughly two months' of local exchange serice. Whether a customer
delinquency is sufficient to justify termination should be a business decision of the telephone
company, since it is natually limited by business constraints (e.g., costs). Terminating service to
customers for minor delinquencies would likely prove a poor business strategy. However, requiring
that all companies carr customers who are nearly two months delinquent without recourse makes
no business sense and has no valid regulatory basis. Contrar to when this rule was initially
Qwest Rulemaking Comments - 8 -
adopted, customers have many alteratives to their current company including wireless, cable, and
Internet-based services. Telephone companies should be granted the freedom to decide when they
disconnect a customer who refuses to pay undisputed bils for past serice.
Subparagraph "d," like proposed Rules 100.01.b. i. and 302.06 prohibits telephone
companies from relying on undisputed delinquent bils for services rendered more than four years
previously as a basis for disconnection of service. This paricular reversion is marginally better
than the other two articulations of this idea, in that it does recognize two exceptions to what is
elsewhere simply a blanet rule. While this is an improvement, it is stil overly restrictive. As
stated above, the mere passage of time does not absolve a customer of his responsibilty to pay for
the services he has received. Whether or not a company should use unpaid past bils as a basis for
requiring a deposit, refusing to connect service, or disconnecting existing serice should be a
business decision within the context of the competitive marketplace. Those cases in which the
customer has a dispute or concern about said bils can and should be handled in the complaint
process. Meanwhile customers have options, including pre-paid cellular/wireless service that wil
enable them to enjoy the benefits.oftelecommunications service.
Qwest's Proposed Language:
Qwest proposes that subparagraphs 308.01.a and 308.01.d be deleted as unwaranted.
Rule 309 - RESTRICTIONS ON TERMINATION OF LOCAL EXCHANGE SERVICE
Commission's Proposed Language:
3-l9. RESTRICTIONS ON TERMINATION OF LOCAL EXCHANGE SERVICE --
OPPORTUNITY TO AVOID TERMINATION OF LOCAL EXCHAGE SERVICE (RULE
3Y09).
01. When Termiation Nat AlaweEl of Service is Prohibited. Ualess tlie æSIomer
affected lias ooaseated ia vlrtiag, looal eKelange servioe shall aot beteniaated OR aay Friday after
hveIYe aooa Of oa any 8atay, 81:day, legal lioliday reoogaí'ed by tle state of Idaho, Of after
hvelve aooa oa aay day iIlediately befofe any lega lioliday, Of at any time væea tle teleplioae
oo~any's bl:siaess offioes are aot o~ea fOf bl:siaess, eExcept as authorized by RÐles 303.01 aad
303.02, Of fof aoa fesideatal OlstomeF, as a1:tlorií'ed by any 8l:bsectioa of Rule 303 or this rule,
service provided to a customer, applicant, resident, or occupant shall not be terminated':~ be
e*elaage seroes may be teniaated oaly bet'.yeea tlie liOl:S of g a.m. aad 4 ~.m., eKoept as
al:liorí'ed by Rl:es 303.01 and 303.02. (1 1 95)( )
!: On any Friday, Satuday, Sunday, legal holidays recognzed by the State of Idaho, or
on any day immediately preceding any legal holiday; or ( )
b.At any time when the telephone company is not open for business.()
Qwest Rulemaking Comments - 9-
Qwest Position:
This proposed rule change actually expands the hours during which a telephone company is
prohibited from terinating a customer's service in those cases in which all requirements of notice
and grounds for terination are met. The new rule would prohibit terminations on Friday's before
noon every week, and the whole of every day preceding a legal holiday (even a minor one). The
current rule has peritted terinations on a more relaxed basis for nearly 15 years. There has been
no need demonstrated to add to the regulatory burden limiting the hours during which terinations
can occur. This Qwest objection also impacts proposed Rule 309.02 subparagraphs b. and d., which
inexplicably incorporate these new limitations even where, as in subparagraph d, it appears the
intent of the new language is to give the telephone company an exception to the general rule, in
cases in which it is unable to gain access to its equipment durng normal business hours."
Whether or not some companies may choose to expand the hours they do not terinate
service, there is no basis for the Commission to enlarge the regulatory requirements, particularly
where current practices have not been shown to be inadequate. These items should be left to the
discretion of the telephone companies as business decisions that would naturally consider risk to the
company's propery and facilities.
Qlest's Proposed Language:
Qwest proposes that the language of the curent Rule 311 be restored and all additional
limitations on the times during which terminations can be conducted be rejected.
Rules 500 and 502 - QUALITY OF SERVICE
Commission's Proposed Language:
500.01. Service Standards. Each telephone company providing local exchange
serice pursuant to Title 61 or Title 62, Idaho Code, as applicable, and each eligible
telecommunications carrer (ETC) designated company is required to employ prudent management
and engineering practices to ensure that customer receive the best quality of service practicable.
Each telephone company is required to adopt and pursue a maintenance program aimed at achieving
efficient operation of its systems to render safe, adequate and uninterrpted service. These programs
must include guidelines for keeping all plant and equipment in good repair, including the following:
502.0L.b Restore service within twenty-four (24) hours after the report ofthe outage if
no emergency exists, except that outages reported between noon on Satuday and 6 p.m. on the
following Sunday must be restored withn forty-eight (48) hours or by 6 p.m. on the following
Monday, which ever is sooner. Ifthe telephone company does not restore service within the times
required by this subsection the telephone company must credit the customer's account for an
amount equal to the monthly rate for one (1) month oflocal exchange service.
Qwest Position:
The current version of the rule is appropriately limited to services offered by companes
regulated under Title 61, Idaho Code, i.e., to those companes who are fully regulated by the Idaho
Qwest Rulemaking Comments - 10-
Commission. Although competitive local exchange carrers have been legally permitted to operate
in Idaho since the passage of the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, this rule, by its terms
has not applied to them or to companies, such as Qwest, who elected to remove their basic local
exchange services from Title 61 regulation. Now, without justification or any demonstration of
inadequate service, the Commission proposes extending this rule to companies who have operated
successfully without it for many years.
There is no basis for applying these two rules to Title 62 telephone companies. Few areas
provide such ripe opportunities for competitive differentiation than service quality--paricularly in
customer-impacting areas like service restoration. Market demands, not governent regulation,
drive these aspects of service quality. These rules may have been appropriate for fully-regulated
companies, but there is no reason to retain them for telephone companies when cable, wireless,
VoIP, etc., do not have such regulations. Service quality is a signficant means by which customers
choose between competing providers. Accordingly, remedies for poor service should be a business
decision of telephone companies in response to market demands.
Qwest's Proposed Language:
Delete language applying these two rules to Title 62 companies.
Rule 604 - PUBLIC NOTICE
Commission's Proposed Language:
Telephone companies must give "public notice" of all proposed changes in rates as required by
Section 62-606, Idaho Code. Public notice must be reasonably designed to call affected customers'
attention to the proposed changes in rates. Legal advertisements alone wil not be considered
adequate public notice. Individual notice to all customers affected wil always constitute public
notice. Notices must be provided to individual customers at least thirty (30) days before change is
effective.
Qwest Position:
This language tracts the provisions of § 62-606, Idaho Code, except for the obvious
exception of the last sentence, which deviates from the language of the Legislature. The Rule goes
beyond the requirement of the statute and requires that telephone companies provide 20 additional
days (making a total of 30 days) advance notice to customers of changes to "tarffs and price lists."
The statute calls for advance notice of "not less than 10 days" to customers. This law has
been in effect since 1988 and, to the best of the Company's information, has created no problems
for customers. While it is understandable that the Commission and Staff believe this change would
be nice for customers, it potentially creates havoc for companies who wish to give actual notice to
customers by placing the information in their bils. Although it is often the case that customers
receive their bils a full 30 days in advance of the next biling cycle, vagares of the postal system,
holidays, or even natural disasters can mean that 30 days become 29 or 28 days after the bils are
sent. Moreover biling changes that need to go into effect on a particular date, e.g., surcharges, can
easily be noticed in the preceding bil if the customer is to be given at least ten days notice, but
would require Qwest to give notice two full biling cycles in advance to achieve a full 30 days for
every customer. Such added expense and administrative difficulty is not justified, paricularly
Qwest Rulemaking Comments - 11 -
where the Legislature has already deterined the 10-day interal for notice meets its intent for
balancing the needs of customers and the companies that serve them.
Qwest's Proposed Language:
Qwest proposes that "thirty (30) days" be changed to ''ten (10) days."
Rule 605 - TELEPHONE SOLICITATIONS
Commission's Proposed Language:
Each telephone company providing local exchange serice must summarze the provisions of
Sections 48-1001 et seq., Idaho Code, in an anual inser in a biling statement mailed to customers
or by conspicuous publication in the consumer pages of the local telephone directory. Local
exchange companies may meet the requirements of this notice by publishing the following
explanation or one (1) substantially similar:
IMPORTANT NOTICE CONCERNING PURCHASE
OF GOODS AND SERVICES BY TELEPHONE
You have important rights under the Idaho Telephone Solicitation Act. Under this
Act it is ilegal for persons attempting to sell you goods or services by telephone (telephone
solicitors):
*To intimidate or harass you in connection with the attempted sale.
* To refuse to hang up and free your telephone line immediately once you
request them to do so.
~ To misstate the price, quality, or availability of goods or services, or to fail to
reveal all material terms relating to the sale of goods or serices.
* To advertise, represent or imply that they have the endorsement of any
governent office or agency when they do not.
~ To advertise, represent or imply that they have a valid registration number
with the Attorney General when they do not.
*To use any unfair method of competition or unfair or deceptive practice.
Any person not yet 18 years old who purchases goods or services pursuat to a
telephone solicitation may cancel the purchase within a reasonable time after the purchase is
made. No parent or legal guardian having custody of a person not yet 18 years old is liable
for the purchase of goods or services by a person not yet 18 years old pursuant to telephone
solicitation.
Qwest Rulemakng Comments - 12 -
When you agree to purchase goods or services over the telephone, you may have a
right to reconsider and cancel your agreement for three business days after receiving a
written confirmation of the sale.
A person whose rights are violated by telephone solicitors may have the right to
declare a contract of purchase null and void or invoke other remedies under the Idaho
Consumer Protection Act.
If you believe that a telephone solicitor has done any unlawful acts, you may contact
the Attorney General's Offce for assistance and information at: 1 [phone] (toll-free)
or 334-2424 (Boise Area).
Owest Positon:
This Rule effectively burdens telephone corporations with the responsibility for educating
customers on coiisumer issues that are of general interest but that do not directly apply to the goods
and services provided by the telephone company. Telecommuncations servces are simply the
medium that some law-breakers choose to employ to prey on consumers. There are obviously a
varety of other media that provide similar opportunities to those that wish to take advantage of the
unsuspecting. There is no valid reason to impose these costs and obligations on telephone
companies when cable, wireless, and Internet-based competitors do not have such burdens.
The cost of educating consumers on this topic should not be borne by Title 62 telephone
companies. If the Commission believes such education is required, it could enhance its website by
posting educational material of the type mandated here. Qwest (and likely other telephone
companies) would be wiling to offer links to the Commission's website for this and similar
purposes. Alteratively, telephone companies could place this information directly on their public
web sites, rather than providing anual bil insers.
Qwest's Proposed Language:
Delete this section or, alteratively, post the material on the Commission's website and
invite telephone companies to offer links to it on their public web sites.
Qwest Rulemaking Comments - 13 -
CONCLUSION
Qwest wishes to express its thans for the Commission's efforts in updating these rules to
better conform to the legislative and business environment Idaho's Title 62 companes now find
themselves in. Qwest respectfully asks that the Commission carefully consider these Rules in light
of the concers expressed here and with an eye to the futue, which wil certainly call for ever more
flexibility and innovation to meet Idaho customers' needs.
Respectfully submitted this 28th day of October, 2009.
Mar S. son (ISB. No. 2142)
999 Main. Suite 1103
Boise, ID 83702
Adam L. Sher
Corporate Counsel, Qwest
1600 7th Avenue, Room 150 06
Seattle, WA 98191
Attorneys for Qwest Corporation
Qwest Rulemaking Comments - 14-