20091028Verizon Comments.pdf

oi:c. ¡: IVThomas F. Dixon i '\ C .J ".. .
Assistant General Counsel - Northwest Region
IØ89 OCT 28 AM It: l9
~.ver.z°'1
October 27,2009
707 17th Street, Floor 40
Denver, CO 80202
Jean Jewell
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
472 W. Washington
Boise, Idaho 83702
Phone [phone]
Fax [phone]
thomas.f.dixon ~verizon.com
SENT BY E-MAIL AND BY FEDERAL EXPRESS OVERNIGHT DELIVERY
RE: Case No. RUL-T-09-1, Comments ofVerizon
Dear Ms. Jewell
Enclosed are the Comments of Verizon on the proposed changes to the
Commission's Telephone Customer Relations Rules. Please fie these comments within
the appropriate docket. Than you.
,/'
c. Weldon Stutzman
STATE OF IDAHO
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
RECE ~-1,,
2009 OCT 28AH II: 19
IDAHO PLIB.~iÇ .
UTILI'I'I,.'H'" r..r.!HA1""in~,Cv L,v..irn 0.; VI
IN THE MATTER OF THE COMMISSION'S
NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING
AMENDING THE TELEPHONE CUSTOMER
RELATIONS RULES.
CASE NO. RUL-T-09-1)
)
)
)
COMMENTS OF VERIZON
Verizon1 submits these comments in response to the Commission's Notice of
Proposed Rulemakng issued in this docket on August 28,2009.1
COMMENTS
A. TITLE AND SCOPE (RULE 1)
Verizon respectfuly requests that the proposed rules be clarified to state that they
do not apply to telecommunications providers when providing telecommunications
services to multi-state business customers or business customers with 5 or more lines in
Idaho3 that have entered into written contracts governng billng (collectively "Large
Business Customers"). That appears to be the intent of the proposed rue changes, as the
justifications for them seem to apply only to residential and small business customers.
i The Verizon entities submitting these comments are: MClmetro Access Transmission Services LLC d//a
Verizon Access Transmission Services; MCI Communications Services, Inc. d//a Verizon Business
Services; TTl National, Inc.; Teleconnect Long Distace Services and Systems Co. d//a Telecom USA;
Verizon Northwest Inc., Verizon Select Servces Inc.; Verizon Enterprise Solutions LLC and Verizon Long
Distance LLC.
2 Verizon has used the following methods to highlight its recommended changes within the proposed rules.
When Verizon proposes additional language, the new language is CAPITALIZED and double underlined.
When Verizon recommends language be deleted, the language to be deleted is CAPITJ11iIZliQ and
overlaid with a double strikethough.
3 The 5 or more line theshold is taen from the definition of a "Small Business Service" which provides, in
par, that Small Business Services are those that do not subscribe to qiore than five (5) local access lines
within a building. (IDAPA 3 i, Title 41, Chapter 01, draft revision to section 005.06).
Moreover, excluding Large Business Customers from application of the proposed rues
makes sense.
Large Business Customers frequently attempt to have a single provider for all of
their telecommunications services nationwide. These customers have many choices of
service providers available to meet their telecommunications needs. Competition in this
segment is robust and intense. In recognition of the competitive nature of services
provided to these customers, less regulation is traditionally applied. As the
telecommunications market continues to evolve dramatically, services provided to these
large customers should not be subject to any Commission regulation at all. Quite simply,
the concerns that historically underlie consumer protection rules no longer pertin to
Large Business Customers.
Large Business Customers are more sophisticated and savvy in their selection of
telecommunications services. Many have complex requirements that go beyond basic
local exchange service that is the main focus of the proposed rules. Significantly, these
Large Business Customers increasingly procure telecommuncation services through
contracts with their service providers that set fort the pertinent terms and conditions of
service. There is no need for state-specific, regulatory rules that could constrain a
prospective customer from negotiating with a prospective wireline provider.
An overview ofVerizon's experience in serving Large Business Customers offers
additional practical reasons why state regulation of their services is inappropriate and,
indeed, not helpful for Large Business Customers. Verizon is a national and global
provider of services to Large Business Customers, and many of its customers have
multiple locations across numerous states and/or countres. These customers seek what
2
Verizon offers: (i) a single, electronic, bil for operations across all states; (ii) consistent
service quality; and, (ii) uniform processes and procedures regardless of what the service
is or where it is provisioned. The regulatory rules should allow for effective
implementation of this customer choice. These customers desire a uniform approach and
treatment for all of their services across the enterprise. State-specific treatment that can
var dozens of ways and affect various locations within the enterprise differently is not
helpfu to ths type of customer. From the perspectives of both the provider and the
customer, absent unecessary state regulations, there is no reason for terms and
conditions of service to var from location to location when this tye of customer wants
service to be provided in a uniform maner regardless of where it is provisioned. Thus,
state regulation of Large Business Customer services undermines both the customer's
abilty to exercise competitive choice and the provider's abilty to respond to
competition.
As one example, there could be a Large Business Customer, such as an oil
company, with headquarers in Texas, but with service stations in a number of states,
including Idaho. Its headquarers may have a robust suite oftelecommunications
services, but each of its service stations may have only two or three lines. The customer
has selected a carer that has agreed to provide (among other things) the customer with a
single, electronic, bil for all of its services across the countr. The customer also seeks a
unform customer relationship on issues such as biling, termination of service, payment
arangements, repair service stadards, credits for outages, and other quality of service
issues. In such a situation, this customer seeks to obtan the service solution appropriate
for its needs and, in the curent competitive environment seeks a negotiated service
3
package; consequently, it does not need any regulatory "protection" for its locations in
Idaho. Indeed, the type of "protection" encompassed by the existing and proposed rules
is actually unwanted by the customer.
Accordingly, Verizon requests the Commission add the following sentence to the
end of Rule 31.41.01.001: "These rules only apply to services provided to residential and
small business customers and do not apply to multi-state business customers or business
customers with 5 or more lines in Idaho."
B. EXPLAATION FOR DENIAL OF SERVICE OR REQUIREMENT
OF DEPOSIT - LECS (RULE 102)
This proposed rues states in pertinent par: "If the local exchange company lf
requires a CASH deposit as a condition of providing service, then it shall immediately
provide an vlftteB explanation to the appliean Of customer stating the precise reasons
why it fequires a deposit Of deBIes sefViee is required."
Verizon recommends the Commission remove the reference to "cash". By
deleting the word "cash", it is clear that the requirements of this rule apply to all required
deposits, whether they are paid in curency or by check, credit card, debit card or any
other means.
c. REQUIREMENTS FOR NOTICE BEFORE TERMINATION
OF BASIC LOCAL EXCHAGE SERVICE (RULE 303) AND
CONTENTS OF NOTICE OF INTENT TO TERMINATE
LOCAL EXCHANGE SERVICE (RULE 304)
Verizon recommends that the Commission authorize the use of electronic notices
to terminate service when the customer has agreed to electronic biling. Electronic notice
4
of termination will actually provide a customer who has elected electronic biling with
faster notice since it eliminates the mailing time associated with sending a notice of
termination through the maiL. Furher, since the customer has elected electronic biling,
the customer's electronic address is known to the provider thereby reducing the risk that
the customer would not actually receive the notice. Finally, this approach saves the
provider postage and other costs of mailing and lowers a provider's cost of doing
business. In the event the provider receives a rejection of an electronic notice, Verizon
recommends that the provider would then be required send a wrtten termination notice to
the customer by mail at least seven calendar days prior to termination. If this
recommendation is accepted, corresponding changes should be made rule 304 concerning
the contents of the notice.
Accordingly Verizon suggests the following changes in the proposed rue
language:
REQUIREMENTS FOR NOTICE BEFORE TERMINATION OF
LOCAL EXCHANGE SERVICE (RULE 30ID.
01. SeleD Day Initial Notice. Ifthe telephone company intends to
terminate local exchange service under Rule 30il, it must send to the
customer wrtten notice of termination mailed at least seven (7) calendar
days before the proposed date of termination OR ELECTRONIC NOTICE
AT LEAST SEVEN (7) CALENDAR DAYS BEFORE THE PROPOSED
DATE OF TERMINATION TO THOSE CUSTOMERS WHO HAVE
ELECTED ELECTRONIC BILLING. This 'WRITTBf notice must
contain the information required by Rule 30~.
* * *
03. Additional Notice. If the telephone company has not terminated
service within twenty-one (21) days after the proposed termination date as
specified in a Vi'RITTBf notice, the telephone company must again
provide notice under Subsections 304J.OL and 3041.02 if it stil intends to
terminate service.
5
30~. CONTENTS OF NOTICE OF INTENT TO TERMINATE
LOCAL EXCHANGE SERVICE (RULE 306Ð.
01. Contents of Notice. The written, ELECTRONIC or oral notice of
intent to terminate local exchange service required by Rule 3041 must
state:
D. INSUFFICIENT GROUNDS FOR TERMINATION OF BASIC
LOCAL EXCHAGE SERVICE (RULE 310)
This proposed rule provides in pertinent par:
01. Termination Prohibited. No customer shall be given notice of
termination of local exchange services nor shall the customer's local
exchange service be terminated if the unpaid bil cited as grounds for
termination is:
(H!. Less ThftB Fifty DollftFs. Th ea8tomef's l:paid bil eited
as gFouns fof temiiaatioB is lless than fifty ($50) dollars~~
It is not clear to Verizon if the $50 dollar threshold described in this rule applies
only to local exchange service. Verizon recommends that the subsection .01 be clarified
to state that the unpaid balance specifically relates only to local exchange service and
fuher requests that the threshold be lowered to $30. A $30 theshold is consistent with
the majority of the states within which Verizon operates. In the event Verizon is unable
to terminate local exchange service to a customer whose outstanding balance is between
$30 and $50, Verizon could lose revenues and incur additional costs in the event Verizon
is unable to collect amounts due for local exchange service. The lost revenue as well as
any collection costs incured becomes an additional cost of doing business which Verizon
ultimately will pass onto other consumers. Therefore, Verizon recommends that the rule
be changed as follows:
6
01. Termination Prohibited. No customer shall be given notice of
termination of local exchange services nor shall the customer's local
exchange service be terminated if the unpaid bil FOR LOCAL
EXCHANGE SERVICE cited as grounds for termination is:
M!. Less ThaD Fifty Dollat'. The eustomef's unpaid bil eitd
as gfOUBs fof temiiaatioB is ILess than THIRTY ($30) fift ($50)
dollars~;
E. RESTRICTIONS ON TERMINATION OF BASIC LOCAL
EXCHANGE SERVICE - OPPORTUNITY TO AVOID
TERMINATION OF BASIC LOCAL EXCHAGE SERVICE (RULE
309)
This rule generally prohibits termination of service on certain days of the week
(Fridays, Satudays and Sundays) or on legal holidays. Verizon opposes these limitations
concerning when a provider may terminate service because they ignore the relevant
consideration: whether the provider's customer service center is open to receive
payments such that the customer can avoid termination. In other words, the intent of ths
rule seems to be to avoid putting the customer in a situation where he or she does not
have the opportty to make a payment to avoid termination. So the rule should be
drafted to focus on whether that opportty exists.
For example, Verizon customers can call Verizon customer service centers and
make payments over the telephone by debit and credit cards thereby preventing the
termination of service on a real time basis. And when Verizon customers may make
payments by telephone through its customer service centers, receipt of payments by
telephone protects customers from being improperly terminated. Thus, to account for
these opportunities (and to avoid unecessarily increasing the carier's costs), Verizon
respectfully requests that the Commission allow a provider to terminate basic local
exchange service whenever a provider's customer service center is open to receive
7
payments.
Accordingly, Verizon requests that the Commission delete subsection .Ola and
move the curent language in subsection .01b be into subsection .01. Verizon also
requests that the Commission delete subsections .02 b, c, and d and move the curent
language in subsection .02a be into subsection .02, as follows:
01. When Termination Not iA..llowed of Service is Prohibited.
UBless th eustomef affeetd has eOBseBted iB ..lFitiag, loeal e*ehage
sefViee shll Bot be temiiaated OB an Ffiday afef I'Nelve BOOB Of OB an
8atday, 8ooday, legal holidays feeognzed by the stte of Idal, Of aftf
twelve BOOB OB any day immediately befofe any legal liliday, Of at af
time vmeB the telephoBe eompan's busiBesS offiees ar BOt opeB fOf
busiBess, eExcept as authorized by Rules 303.01 and 303.02, Of fof BOB
fesideBtial eustomeFs, as authorized by any 8ubseetioB of Rule 303-2-; or
this rule, service provided to a customer shall not be terminated,¡ AT ANY
TIME WHEN THE TELEPHONE COMPANY is NOT OPEN FOR
BUSINESS. Loeal e'ehage sefViees may be temiiaated oBlY betweea the
liUfS of8 a.m. and 4 p.m., e*eept as autfized by Rules 303.01 an
303.02.
a. OlT MTY FRIBAY, SlJURÐAY, SUlTBAY, LEGAL
1I0UBA¥S RlCOGl'HZEB QY TIlE STATE OF IBAIIO, OR OlT ANY
BAY IMMEBIATEL Y PRlCEBl)TG Al'TY LEGAL I¡OUBAY; OR
h. AT Al'TY TlME \¥Hl3T TIlE TELEPIIOlTE COMPAl'TY
is l'TOT OPBT FOR QUSIMESS.
02. PersoBBel to iA..uthor~e ReeoBBeetioB. Eaeh telephoBe eompan
pfOvidiBg loeal e*ehange sefviee shall have pefsonnl available aft the
time of temiiaatioB v/ho ar autfized to reeonnet sefViee if the
eoBditioBs eited as gfOoods fOf temiiaatioB aFe eOfFeted to the telepliBe
eompan's satsfaetioB. Customefs may be asked to pay feeoßBeetioB fees
before festofatioB of sefViee. Times When Service May Be Terminated.
Service may be terminated: SERVICE MAYME TERMINATED AT
ANY TIME WHEN THERE IS A DANGEROUS CONDITION
PURSUANT TO RULE 302.01 OR THE TELEPHONE COMPANY IS
ORDERED TO DO SO PURSUANT TO RULE 302.02;
a. AT Al'TY TIME \¥Hl3T TIIERl is A BAl'TGEROUS
COl'TBITIOlT PURSUAl'TT TO RULE 3QíUH OR TIm
TELEPIIOME COMPAlTY is ORÐERlB TO BO SO
8
PURSUANT TO RULE 3Q2.Q2;
Bo BETWlìElT TIlE HOURS OF 8 A.M. Al'TQ § P.M..
MrnTQAY TIIR-0UGII TlIURSQAY, FOR Al'TY
REAsrnT AUTHORIZEQ BY RULES 3Ql ¡yeTQ 3Q2;
e.BETWlìElT THE HOURS OF 8 A.M. Al'TQ § P.M. rnT
FRIQAY FOR ILLEGAL USE OF SERVICE
PURSU¡yeTT TO RULE 3Q2.Q3 OR IF THE PREMISES
ARE UlTOCCUPIEQ MTQ SERVICE HAS BEElT
ARyeTQOl'TEQ; OR
tl BETWlìÐT THE HOURS OF § P.M. A:l'TQ 9 P.M.,
MOl'TQAY TIIROUGII TIIURSQAY, IF TIlE
TELEPHONE COMPAl'TY IS UlTABLE TO GADT
ACCESS TO ITS EQUIPMElTT QURDTG THE
l'TORMAL BUSDTESS HOURS OR FOR ILLEGAL USE
OF SERVICE PURSU¡yeTT TO RULE 3Q2.Q3.
CONCLUSION
The Customer Relations Rules should clearly state that they are only applicable to
residential and small business customers and should not apply multi-state business
customers or business customers with 5 or more lines in Idaho. The Commission should
also allow termination of services to be provided by electronic notice to customers who
have elected electronic biling because such notice wil arive sooner and wil reduce the
costs association with termination notices sent by maiL. Finally, the Commission should
allow for termination of service when providers are available to accept payment from
customers and when the cost of past due regulated services is $30 or more.
Accepting Verizon's recommendations wil avoid imposing the biling stadards
where they are not needed, and wil narowly talor the proposed rues to protect
consumers from the hars the rules are designed to guard against.
9
By:
/r) .
:f::):it; -
Thomas F. Dixon, Colo. Rei No. 500
Assistant General Counsel, NW Region
707 - 17TH Street, 40th Floor
Denver, Colorado 80202
303-390-6206 (telephone)
303-390-6333 (facsimile)
thomas.f.dixonßYverizon.com
Dated: October 27, 2009
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I sent an original and 7 copies of the within Comments of
Verizon for filing in this docket by Federal Express overnight stadard delivery for
delivery on October 28,2009, addressed to:
Jean Jewell
Idaho Public Utilties Commission
472 W. Washington
Boise, Idaho 83702
And also sent copies bye-mail this date to:
iean.ìewellßYuc.idaho.gov
weldon.stutzmanßYuc.idaho.gov
Dated: October 27,2009
10