20070420final_order_no_30306.pdf

Office of the Secretary
Service Date
April 20, 2007
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF AN INVESTIGATION
INTO RURAL TELEPHONE COMPANY'
COMPLIANCE WITH COMMISSION
RULES REGARDING CLASSIFICATION OF
LOCAL SERVICE AND NOTICE OF
TERMINATION OF SERVICE
ORDER NO. 30306
CASE NO. RUR-07-
In Case No. RUR-06-, the Commission issued Order No. 30140 October 5, 2006
directing Rural Telephone Company to change its tariff regarding classification of telephone
service as residential or business. Rules of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission provide for
classification for telephone service that is used primarily for personal or domestic purposes and
not for business, professional or institutional purposes as residential service. The Commission
rule "allows some incidental business use of residential telecommunications service without
requiring that it be reclassified as business service." Order No. 30140, p. 4.
Rural changed its tariff as directed by the Commission. On January 12 2007, Rural
customers Bill Uhl and Doris Helge filed a formal complaint alleging that Rural erroneously
applied the new tariff terms to reclassify their service as business rather than residential. The
Commission subsequently determined to open this docket and issued Order No. 30232 directing
Rural to "file an explanation of its procedures regarding classification of Complainants' service
as business rather than residential, and regarding its alleged threatened disconnection of service
while an informal complaint was pending before the Commission." Order No. 30232, p. 2. The
Company filed its explanation on February 26, 2007, and the Complainants filed a response on
March 12, 2007. The Commission finds that Rural did not improperly reclassify the
Complainants' telephone service and we therefore dismiss the formal complaint.
RURAL'S RESPONSE TO ORDER NO. 30232
Rural stated in its response that based on the information provided in the service
application "the Complainants' line should have been classified as a business line when the
application for service was submitted.The Company explained that it had inadvertently
classified the service to these customers as residential. Response to Order, p. 6. The Company
then identified the information it relies on when making a determination to reclassify a
customer s service as business rather than residential, as follows:
ORDER NO. 30306
Whether the customer has used a business name or an individual's name in
applying for telephone service;
Whether the customer has requested a residential or business listing (or both)
in the service provider s telephone directory;
Whether the customer s assigned number is listed in the residential or
business sections (or both) of other telephone directories;
Whether the number is provided as a means of contact in business
advertising;
The relative extent to which the assigned number is associated with personal
as opposed to business or commercial, activities; and
Whether the customer is known to conduct business out of the residence.
Response to Order, p. 8. Rural argued that it made a reasonable and diligent inquiry into the
facts concerning the use of the Complainants' line, and that fall! of the information it has
obtained and reviewed indicates that the Complainants' line is used for business purposes.
Response to Order, p. 9 (emphasis in original). The Company based its determination on the
following information:
1. In May 1998 , the Company received a completed Application for
Telephone Service from "Shimoda" requesting voice grade and data/fax
network access lines to a house in the Atlanta townsite.
2. The applicant did not provide an individual social security number in the
space provided. See http://www.ssa.gov/emplover/stateweb.htm listing
all social security number sequences currently issued or authorized. The
Company presumes that the number provided on the Shimoda application
for service is a taxpayer or employer identification number.
3. The applicant requested a regular telephone listing in the Company
directory under the name "Shimoda.
4. In the space provided for the Applicant's Signature , the applicant signed
Shimoda. "
5. Payment for connection was paid by money order signed by "Shimoda.
6. An Internet search using the Shimoda telephone number 208-864-2158
produced results for the following businesses advertising OHV, A TV and
ORDER NO. 30306
snowmobile training and certification expert witness services, self-
help/motivational book sales and seminars:
a. Forest Education Assembly, Box 32 Atlanta, ID 83601
b. FEA c/o Uhl, P. O. Box, Atlanta, ID 83601
c. OHV Training, c/o P. O. Box, Atlanta, ID 83601 USA (offering
field training and corporate seminars in OHV ATV and
snowmobile riding)
d. The Billy Uhl Riding School (offering training in OHV, ATV and
snowmobile riding)
e. emotional strength. com, FEA c/o Uhl, P. O. Box, Atlanta, ID 83601.
7. Internet searches, including searches using Internet-based business and
residential telephone directories such as AllPages.com
phonenumber.com, PeopleLookup.com Qwest's DexOnline.com
WhitePages.com, Superpages.com ATT's AnyWho.com Online
Directory and Switchboard, using the number "208-864-2158" or the
names "Shimoda" or "Uhl" and "Helge" with "Atlanta, ID" produced
results only for Shimoda.
Response to Order, pp. 9-10. Rural denies that its decision to reclassify Complainants' service is
retaliation for their having complained about service outages that occurred during the winter of
2005-2006, which were the subject of Case No. RUR-06-01. Instead, the Company stated "
extensive search of reasonably available, independent information sources, without exception
indicates that the line is being listed and used only for business purposes.Response to Order
pp. 10-11. The Company did concede that reclassification occurred after the Complainants had
drawn the Company s attention to their account with their communications with the Company
and the Commission Staff.
COMPLAINANTS' RESPONSE
The Complainants contend that Rural discriminated against them with its decision to
reclassify their service from residential to business and that the decision resulted from their
complaints about outages. The Complainants explained that "Shimoda" is the name of a family
trust, and that they would have used one of their individual names when applying for service if
Rural had raised the issue then. The Complainants also believe that Rural is discriminating
against them because the Company is not reclassifying other customers in Atlanta or in other
ORDER NO. 30306
parts of its service territory. The Complainants provided the Company with a list of customers
they believe should also be reclassified if the Shimoda account is reclassified. Rural did
reclassify one other customer account at the time the Shimoda account was reclassified.
The Complainants also argue that Rural erred by "assuming that any listing on the
Internet of a phone as business account automatically proves: because a phone number shows up
on the Internet in a way associated with any business, that the phone account is PRIMARIL Y
used for business; that an Internet listing is accurate, even though any Internet user knows that
anyone can post anything on the Internet, whether or not it is true." Complainants' Response
, p.
2. Complainants also contend, although the Shimoda telephone number is posted on their
business web sites, that in itself does not ,prove their use of the line is primarily for business.
Complainants assert "it is clear Rural has not proven primary usage or intent beyond a shadow of
a doubt " and they "firmly state that we use our phone primarily for personal use and as access to
the Sheriffs office and 911." Complainants' Response , p. 11.
DISCUSSION
After reviewing the record in this case, the Commission finds that Rural did not act
unreasonably, unfairly, or inconsistently with its tariff in determining to reclassify the Shimoda
account as business rather than personal. It appears that the Complainants' 1998 application for
service gave a reasonable indication regarding the anticipated use of the line, where service was
not requested under an individual's name, a tax identification number rather than a social
security number was provided, and the applicants indicated they were self-employed. The fact
that Rural did not question the classification then does not preclude the Company from later
reviewing the classification. Nor does the fact that Rural's attention was drawn to the account by
contact from the customer prevent the Company from reviewing the classification of service on
the account. We find that Rural acted reasonably in obtaining information about the account
and rationally and fairly based its decision on the best information available to it. Therefore, the
Commission cannot rule that the Company s classification of the service was in error. Based on
the information available to Rural, that it provided to the Commission, we find that Rural based
its decision on reasonable evidence when it determined to reclassify the Shimoda account as
business rather than personal. Totality of circumstances includes but does not overemphasize
Internet search results.
ORDER NO. 30306
We note that Rural has not attempted to collect for past underbilling as a result of the
initial residential classification on the account. State law and the Commission s Customer
Relations Rules allow a telephone company to request payment for up to three years when a
billing error occurs, but the rule also states that the company may waive collection on past
underbillings. IDAP A 31.41.01.204. We find that Rural has waived its right to rebill for the
difference between the residential and business rate on past service on the Shimoda account by
its failure to propose this in its response to the Commission. Based on the facts presented, the
Commission would not authorize rebilling for past amounts and instructs Rural to charge the
business rate on a going-forward basis.
The Commission has reviewed the record on the other issues raised by Complainants
and concludes they are not entitled to any relief on those issues. We also remind Rural, however
that it must comply with Commission rules regarding termination of service notices. The
Company is directed to work with the Commission Staff, if necessary, to ensure its notices meet
the standards required of all telephone companies.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Complainants are not entitled to relief from
Rural Telephone Company as a result of the Company s classification of their service as
business, and the Complaint is dismissed and the case closed.
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. Within seven (7)
days after any person has petitioned for reconsideration, any other person may cross-petition for
reconsideration. See Idaho Code ~ 61-626.
ORDER NO. 30306
DONE by Order of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission at Boise, Idaho this d.-O
r+--
day of April 2007.
il1~ IMARSHA H. SMITH, COMMISSIONER
ATTEST:
€tE~/~~Co mission Secretary
bls/O:RUR-07-01 ws2
ORDER NO. 30306