20070130Complaint.pdf

JAN. 12. 2007 2: 31PM P 2
FROM: Panasoni c PPF
f'..)
-(
--.I;::~: C-
..c"" :o
n.:.:,:-
: ~
, 11
;:-J
(),.:.'-
;:- ::c
::;:!" .- -
"0'
..:
FORMAL COMPLAINT
FROM ATLANTA, IDAHO PHONE CUSTOMERS
CONCERNING
RURAL TELEPHONE CO.
(:) C )
-::-'-. '
PUG Commission Secretary
Cc:
front~PUC.idaho.gov
or Fax [phone]
E-mail Nancv.HyltoncW.puc.idaho.aov
Beverly.. Barker(g2Duc. idaho.gov
Ron Law
January 12, 2007
R () R- -=t -0'/-
Dear PUG Staff:
Respondent: Rural Telephone Company
Time Period Concerned: 11-22-05 to 1-
Acts We Are Complaining About and Related Statutes, Rules, Orders or
Other Controlling Laws Involved:
RURAL TELEPHONE CO. DISCRIMINATING AGAINST CUSTOMERS WHO
COMPLAIN ABOUT POOR SERVICE. RURAL TELEPHONE PENALIZING
SAID CUSTOMERS
II.
RURAL TELEPHONE CO. ARBITRARILY RECLASSIFYING THE ACCOUNT
OF CUSTOMERS WHO COMPLAINED ABOUT .POOR SERVICE FROM A
"RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNT" TO A "BUSINESS ACCOUNT"
III.
RURAL TELEPHONE CO. BEING ALLOWED TO: (a) DETERMINE THE
DEFINITION OF THE WORD "PRIMARIL V " (b) ARBITRARILY CHANGE THE
CLASS OF CUSTOMER SERVICE FROM RESIDENTIAL TO BUSINESS BY
USING A 'j RURAL TELEPHONE DEFINITION," AND (c) USE A "GUIDELINE"
TO DETERMINE CUSTOMER CLASS OF SERVICE THAT IS NOT
STANDARDIZED ACROSS IDAHO AND THEREFORE DISCRIMINATES
AGAINST SOME CUSTOMERS
JAN. 12. 2007 2:32PM P 3
FROM: Panasoni c PPF
Page 2
Formal complaint to PUC
12-07
IV.
RURAL TELEPHONE CO. ILLEGALLY THREATENING TO DISCONNECT
THE 864-2158 ACCOUNT WHILE A COMPLAINT IS PENDING AND BY
USING AN ILLEGAL FORM AND AN ILLEGAL METHOD FOR THREATENING
TO DISCONNECT THE ACCOUNT
RURAL TELEPHONE CO. NOT TRAINING ITS TECHNICIANS SO RURAL
STAFF CAN MAKE EDUCATED DECISIONS AND AVOID EXTENDED
OUTAGES AS WELL AS OTHER SERVICE PROBLEMS IN THE ATLANTA
AREA
STATEMENTS OF FACT
STATEMENT OF FACTS RE: RURAL TELEPHONE CO. DISCRIMINATING
AGAINST CUSTOMERS WHO COMPLAIN ABOUT POOR SERVICE AND
PENALIZING SAID CUSTOMERS
As per PUG RULE 402, Rural Telephone customers have the right to complain
about poor phone service and lack of phone service. PUG has advised us to re-
file the formal complaint in this document.
Rules related to this comDlaint that were violated bv Rural Teleohone
Rule 008 Exercise of right by customer
Rule 011 Conflict
Rule 02 Complaints
During the time period of 11-22-05 to 1-, Rural Telephone customers in
Atlanta were without phone service for weeks.
Between November 22-, 2005 , Atlanta customers were without phone for 8
days straight. Customers had a few hours of relief on November 30 but the
JAN. 12. 2007 2:32PM P 4
FROM: Panasoni c PPF
Page 3
Formal complaint to PUC
H2-
second long outage began on that same day and continued until December 7
2005.
The only reason the first outage was fixed even for a few hours was because Bill
Uhl told Mark Martell (Rural Telephone s official) that he could see what the
problem was when he was snowmobile riding. The problem was snow on the
solar panels. Martell gave Uhl permission to ride his snowmobile up to the
repeater on James Cr. to clear the snow off the solar panels. Uhl's actions briefly
alleviated the problem because the phones could run on solar power until the sun
went down. Then the outage resumed so Atlanta was without phones from the
evening of November 30 until December 7.
A third outage began on December 22, 2005. This outage continued until
January 4, 200B-another 13 days without phones.
This means the total days without phones was 29 days in a 44 day period.
Customers Uhl and Helge filed a formal complaint with PUC because, as detailed
in their original complaint to PUC, Rural did not even attempt to fix the problem
on numerous occassions.
Please note:
Recreational snowmobilers and a local trapper were coming and going on
James Cr. Rd. between Rocky Bar and Atlanta the entire time that Rural
Telephone said they could not get to the repeater at James Cr.
Snowmobilers riding for recreation even rode their snowmobiles up to the
repeater during this time period. Rural Telephone never tried to access
the James Cr. repeater from the Atlanta side, the shortest and easiest way
to reach the repeater by snowmobile.
. The Rural Telephone contract person at that time , Sandy Nyej informed
Atlanta customers that all of Rural's technicians were out of state during
the first outage so there would be no attempt to fix the problem for quite a
while.
. The following is another reason we know the phone outages were
unnecessary and continued beyond any reasonable length. During the
outages , PUC personnel told Rural customers who communicated with
PUG by satellite internet that Rural had told PUG staff that the problem
was at the Trinity Mountain repeater. It turned out that the problem was
really at the James Cr. repeater. This is significant because James Cr.
was accessible the entire time, including by recreational snowmobilers.
Rural claimed over and over that the problem was at Trinity but never
checked out James Cr. In case this isn t clear, allow us to rephrase:
JAN. 12. 2007 2:33PM P 5
FROM: Panasoni c PPF
Page 4
Formal complaint to PUC
12-
There was only one problem during the 29-day outage. The problem was
at the James Cr. repeater. . . bad batteries. - . so a solar panel could not
recharge the batteries. Therefore, snow froze on the panels and solar
power was not available. Unfortunately, Rural never checked the James
Cr. repeater site during that time. Yet Rural continued to claim the
problem was at Trinity.
It is no accident that the notice to change our service classification from
residential to business came on the heels of our complaints. Instead of
fixing the problem, Rural sought retaliation for valid complaints. Rural looked at
our account in a discriminatory manner and then created problems for us.
Retaliation and discrimination are megal.
Martell of Rural knew that we were complaining to pue staff about Rural not
fixing the phones during the extensive outages. On January 4, Martell wrote a
letter saying that [phone] would arbitrarily be considered a business
number. (This date was the last day of the 13-day outage.
Customers were flabbergasted to receive Martell's letter. The account had
always been a residential number and nothing had changed.
It cannot be overemphasized how discriminatory Martell's actions were.
Attacking us because we complained about poor phone service constitutes
blatant discrimination against selected customers. Discrimination is prohibited by
the U.S. Constitution, Idaho State Statutes, and by PUG regulations.
Martell was discriminating against us for exercising our rights to file a complaint
(Rule 02) with the PUC.
We protested and supplied an abundance of information indicating that Rural
was discriminating.
PLEA FOR PUC ASSISTANCE TO CUSTOMERS. . . RELIEF DESIRED
We request that Rural be sanctioned for discrimination against customers and for
trying to penalize customers for complaining to PUG. We also request that Rural
pay punitive, compensatory, exemplary, general, vindictive, and specific
damages to us for damage that has occurred.
JAN. 12. 2007 2:33PM P 6
FROM : Panasoni c PPF
Page 5
Formal complaint to PUC
12-
II.
RURAL TELEPHONE CO. ARBITRARILY RECLASSIFYING THE ACCOUNT
OF CUSTOMERS WHO COMPLAINED ABOUT POOR SERVICE FROM A
"RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNT" TO A uBUSINESS ACCOUNT"
Rules related to this complaint that were violated by Rural Telephone
Rule 02 Complaints
Rule 008 Exercise of right by customer
Rule 011 Conflict with telephone tariffs
Rule 09 Residential telephone service
Rule 09 states, if a phone line is in a dwelling and is used PRIMARILY for
personal and domestic purposes, it is a residential service.
Note:
. The question is not whether 864-2158 is used for business, The
question is whether 864-2158 is used "primarily" for residential or
business. Our phone is used primarily for residential use.
Since PUG has not defined the word "primarily" as it applies to Rule 09
Residential Telephone Service, the accepted legal meaning for "primary
would apply. According to Blacks Law Dictionary 4th Edition page 1354,
primary means primary purpose or intent; principle or first
intentions with which an act or course of conduct is
undertaken; that which is first in intention.
Also, since pue has not assigned a value to what constitutes
primarily," a reasonable person can only assume that 50.1% would
constitute "primary use.
With the advent of satellite internet, the phone is no longer the primary
source of communication. It has become the last choice for Rural
Telephone customers. This is true, iffor no other reason, than the sheer
cost of using the phone. Satellite internet is by far more economical. It is
also more reliable than Rural Telephone services.
In our case, 99% of all of our calls are long distance because any call
made to anyone outside of Atlanta, Idaho is a long-distance call! Using
Rural Telephone long-distance service is our last choice.
JAN. 12. 2007 2:34PM P 7
FROM: Panasoni c PPF
Page 6
Formal complaint to PUG
12-07
Note:
0 A precedent. Case No. U-1038-9 Order No. 18102, the case of the door
to door saleswoman who was harassed and discriminated against by a
rural phone company. Her primary source of communication was person
to person so it was ruled that having her phone number on her business
card and flyers was okay.
Phone customers all over the U.S. are using a ground phone line for their
internet connection. They are buying and selling on E-Bay and running all
kinds of home businesses using a ground phone line, not s.atellite. They
are using a residential phone line and are not being harassed by their
local phone company or being discriminated against.
0 PUC cannot allow a phone company to harass and discriminate against
customers who exercise their right to complain about poor service. . . in
this case no service. . . for over 3 weeks. PUC also cannot allow a phone
company to discriminate against customers just because they have a
phone in their home, especially when it is not used for their internet
connection. In the case of our account, satellite internet is our person to
person communication. It is our primary source of communication. Again
note the precedent set in Case No. U-1 038-9 Order No. 18102.
PLEA FOR PUC ASSISTANCE TO CUSTOMERS. . . RELIEF DESIRED
We request that:
our uresidential" classification be re-enstated and that Rural stop billing us
for a business line.
Rural be audited to determine if any other customers in Rural's entire
service area have been discriminated against in the past or are being
discriminated against at this time.
Punitive, compensatory, exemplary, general) vindictive, and special
damages be awarded to us for damages that have occurred.
III.
STATEMENT OF FACTS RE: RURAL TELEPHONE CO. BEING ALLOWED
TO: (8) DETERMINE THE DEFINITION OF THE WORD "PRIMARILY" AND
(8) ARBITRARIL V CHANGE THE CLASS OF CUSTOMER SERVICE FROM
RESIDENTIAL TO BUSINESS BY USING A "RURAL TELEPHONE
DEFINITION," AND (c) USE A "GUIDELINE" TO DETERMINE CUSTOMER
CLASS OF SERVICE THAT IS NOT STANDARDIZED ACROSS IDAHO AND
THEREFORE DISCRIMINATES AGAINST SOME CUSTOMERS
JAN. 12. 2007 2:35PM P 8
FROM: Panason i c PPF
Page 7
Formal complaint to PUC
12-
Section III A.
Related to this comclaint: Case No. RUR-06-
In PUC Staff Report Case No. RUR-O6-1 , please see the statement on page
, "
It is the company s responsibility to consistently use reasonable judgment in
deciding whether to change a customer s service class from residential to
business. "
Please clarify:
. What constitutes "reasonable judgment?"
. What investigatory methods will be used?
It is the PUC's job to protect customers from unethical practices of utility
companies. PUG has a responsibility to set the standard. PUG's job is to tell
phone companies how service class should be determined. Giving that power to
utility company staff sets the stage for discrimination.
If the fox is appointed to guard the hen house (if Rural Telephone regulates and
polices itself), there is no need for PUG to exist. If each utility sets its own
standards, what is acceptable in one area of Idaho will vary widely from what is
allowed in another part of the state. This equals discrimination.
On the other hand, if PUG sets a consistent standard to be applied across the
entire state of Idaho no utility company will be able to discriminate against a
particular customer.
A consistent standard would be in line with Idaho s anti-discrimination laws (and
the U.S. Constitution). This is also very important when, on more than one
occasion, Rural Telephone has violated PUG rules.
If it is really true that PUC has given Rural Telephone the latitude to determine its
own definition of "primarily," it can determine a different definition than other
phone companies. It can arbitrarily devise its own unique method
determining a different class of customer service. This is discriminatory.
Also, when a person moves to a different geographic area of Idaho , a totally
different definition and method of classification will be used. The Idaho
legislature would frown on such a practice, particularly when:
it appears that the word "primarily" is applied in a different way in
diverse areas of Idaho by different companies in PUG's answer
JAN. 12. 2007 2:35PM P 9
FROM: Panasonic PPF
Page 8
Formal complaint to PUG
12-
to our previous questions, PUC staff said there is no written
definition of "primarily." Thus, one can only assume that "primarily
means that, at least 50.01 % of the time, the phone is used for
residential use.
Note that Rural Telephone also has no written definition of
primarily" and customers are given absolutely no information about
primarily" when they sign up for service.
Again, it is very important to note that pue has also not provided
any definition of "primarily." If pue or Rural Telephone arbitrarily
came up with a definition of "primarily') at this point, it would be
discriminatory to apply such a definition "after the fact of
contention.
Section 1118
ijules violated: 09 Residential telephone service and Rule 011 Conflict with
telephone tariffs
In the most recent Case No. RUR-06-, PUG staff used the word "incidental
business use.
" "
Incidental" has a very different meaning than "primarily." This
inconsistency violates PUG Rule 09. (This Rule uses the word "primarily.
Please note that the very fact that PUG approved illegal tariffs of Rural
Telephone is wrong and was not intended by the Idaho legislature. This pue
approval took away the rights of customers. Those rights are protected by Rule
011 Conflict (dated 7-93).
PLEA FOR PUC ASSISTANCE TO CUSTOMERS.
. .
RELIEF DESIRED
We request that:
0 PUG set a step-by-step method to determine whether an account is
residential or business OR eliminate the need for different types of
classifications, This is done by many utUities, such as cell phone
companies.
Determine how many customers have been discriminated against since
PUG approved Rural Telephone s tariff.
Re-enstate our "residential" classification and require Rural to stop billing
us for a business line.
Audit Rural to determine if any other customers in Rural's entire service
area have been discriminated against in the past or are being
discriminated against at this time.
JAN. 12. 2007 2: 36PM P10
FROM : Panasoni c PPF
Page 9
Formal complaint to PUG
12-
0 Award punitive, compensatory, exemplary, general , vindictive, and special
damages to us for damages that have occurred.
IV.
STATEMENT OF FACTS RE: RURAL TELEPHONE CO. ILLEGALLY
THREATENING TO DISCONNECT THE 864-2158 ACCOUNT WHILE A
COMPLAINT WAS PENDING AND BY USING AN ILLEGAL FORM AND
METHOD FOR THREATENING TO DISCONNECT SERVICE
Rules related to this comolaint that were violated bv Rural Teleohone
Rule 011 Conflict with telephone tariffs
Rule 304 Requirements
Rule 306 Content
Rule 307 Records
Rural Telephone s "notice of termination" of a phone account does not even
come close to fulfilling the requirements clearly spelled out in the PUC Rules
listed above.
Rural Telephone sent a letter threatening to disconnect our account. The letter
was sent regular mail , which violated PUG Rules. Note that there was no
guarantee we would even receive the disconnect notice. The letter did not spell
out the reasons for disconnected service, even though this is required by PUG
guidelines. Nor did the letter state how the customers could contest or rectify the
fact that the phones would be disconnected on the date stated in the letter. We
were also not given the appropriate amount of time required by pue rules.
Also, the notice to disconnect was sent while the customer s complaint to pue
was pending.
This is an additional example of Rural's blatant disregard of PUG Rules.
PLEA FOR PUC ASSISTANCE TO CUSTOMERS. . . RELIEF DESIRED
We request that Rural be audited to ascertain how many customers within its
service area have been affected by:
Similar illegal threats to disconnect their phones.
Customers not being informed of their rights before termination
JAN. 12. 2007 2:36PM PH
FROM: Panasoni c PPF
Page 10
Formal complaint to PUC
12-07
We ask that such customers be compensated for all associated costs with
premature termination. We also ask that Rural Telephone be sanctioned and be
required to comply with PUG rules.
Because of Rural's disregard on three separate occasions of the PUG Rules, we
also ask that an audit of all of Rural's procedures and forms be conducted so that
Rural can be brought into alignment with PUG rules.
In addition, we ask for punitive, compensatory, exemplary, general, vindictive
and special damages to us for damages that have occurred.
STATEMENT OF FACTS RE: RURAL TELEPHONE CO. NOT TRAINING ITS
TECHNICIANS SO RURAL STAFF CAN MAKE EDUCATED DECISIONS AND
AVOID EXTENDED OUTAGES AS WELL AS OTHER SERVICE PROBLEMS
IN THE ATLANTA AREA
To our knowledge, Rural technicians have still not been certified in the operation
of a snowmobile and they are not certified in avalanche detection. This
certification is vital for staff safety and so Rural can serve customers. This would
also ensure that Rural could be trusted to be factual when stating whether or not
it is safe for their employees to travel in snow conditions. Without this training,
their people cannot accurately make decisions whether or not to travel. Other
small/remote phone companies across America do ensure that their staff are
trained and certified, so any excuse that this cannot be done is invalid.
PLEA FOR PUC ASSISTANCE TO CUSTOMERS. . . RELIEF DESIRED
. We request that Rural be required to provide avalanche certification and
snowmobile certification classes designed to accommodate their special
needs as technicians on back country assignments.
. Award punitive, compensatory, exemplary, general , vindictive, and special
damages to us for damages that have occurred.
JAN. 12. 2007 2: 37PM P12
FROM: Panasoni c PPF
Page 11
Format complaint to PUC
12-
VI.
The aforementioned Atlanta phone customers seek PUC intervention as
detailed above.
We also hereby request a written response from PUC indicating: (8) that
you have received this formal complaint, and (b) how these matters will be
fairly dealt with.
8$#
Bill Uhl & Doris He
~!
P. O. Box 32
\ ~
J)
~ ,,----
Atlanta, 10 83601
~~
[phone]