20070312Response to Rural response to ON 30232.pdf

:: c~: i
File name: PUCresponseToRuraIResponse3-07.doc
! "
L;0!
, r;
q. !
l:j
,~- h I I "' . I '-,
,. ; I,
PLEASE SEND A RETURN EMAIL VERIFYING THATY;OTI Q!V'E~.J i\~~S C.
\"\". \"--'"".""..,-
RECEIVED THIS DOCUMENT. Thank you~~ , 1..
f\()~
,-
T -07 -ol
To:
PUC Secretary via secretary~puc.idaho.gov
PUC Attorney Weldon Stutzman Weldon.stutzman~puc.idaho.gov
Daniel.klein~puc.idaho. gov
Dear Mr. Stutzman:
As per a conversation with your secretary, we are hereby submitting our response to
Rural Telephone s Response Order 30232.
Please consider this an addition to our formal complaints of January 12 2007 and
January 9, 2006 concerning Rural Telephone.
RESPONSE TO RURAL TELEPHONE'
RESPONSE ORDER 30232
Submitted on March 9, 2007
By Bill Uhl and Doris Helge
This document provides specific information concerning the following primary areas of
response to Rural Telephone s Response Order 30232.
Relevant PUC Rules related to this response are cited within the document.
Rural discriminated against the Shimoda account (864-2158) customers who
complained on January 9 2006 and January 12 2007. Complainants were
concerned about poor service by Rural Telephone during persistent phone outages
(usually many days at a time) from November 2005 to January 2006. On the
heels of their formal complaint, said customers were penalized by Rural
reclassifying the account as a "business account."
Rural is discriminating by not reclassifying other accounts in its service area. In
order not to discriminate, Rural would have to reclassify accounts which are truly
using residential phone lines to do retail business. Rural has not done so , even
though Rural has had information concerning some such accounts for at least over
Page
Response to Rural Telephone
Response Order 30232
a year. Rural would also-have to reclassify every account in its entire service area
that uses a residential phone to conduct business. . . and Rural is not doing this.
For example, ranchers, people using a residential line when doing a home
business, eBay buyers and sellers, etc.
Rural also retaliated, harassed, and discriminated against the Shimoda account by
sending an illegal "Discontinue" notice while the Shimoda formal complaint was
still pending with the PUC.
Rural violated PUC Rules when sending the discontinue notice.
Shimoda account customers responded appropriately to the information-and lack
of information-Rural provided them when signing them up for their phone
account.
Rural cannot arbitrarily reclassify the account eight years later without allowing
customers an opportunity "to correct Rural's mistake." Rural's attorney now
claims Rural originally made a mistake when it classified the account and claims
that the Shimoda customers must accept the consequences of "Rural's error." Not
providing customers an opportunity to "rectify Rural's error" is discrimination.
Rural Telephone is now choosing to inappropriately define the word "primarily
because it has not been following PUC guidelines on how to classify a phone
account. Rural has chosen to reclassify the complainants as a business account
after eight years of never questioning its original classification until after the
complainants filed a Formal Complaint. This is discrimination. The Rural
formula to determine "primarily" is inappropriate. Rural should not be allowed to
determine the type of phone use by the Shimoda account. Examples follow.
Rural submitted inaccurate information concerning the Shimoda account
to PUC in its Response to Rural Telephone s Response Order 30232.
Rural failed to prove that the Shimoda account is primarily used for
business.
Rural is assuming that any listing on the Internet of a phone as a 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.
Rural has not proven who posted the entries it quotes.
Rural has not proven "primary use of the Shimoda phone as a business line." A
person may receive one business call a month or a year in response to someone
seeing an Internet posting with a telephone number.
Rural also makes inaccurate claims concerning Shimoda s use of the phone line
for personal use. For example, even though, when the Rural phone service signup
Page
Response to Rural Telephone
Response Order 30232
occurred nine years ago, most people didn t use Google, Rural's attorney now
says, if Helge and Uhl don t have their phone number associated with them
personally on the Internet (I suppose this means teenage sites like My Space),
they aren t using their phone for personal use. This line of thinking assumes that
the phone customers don t just call their friends and family and tell them their
telephone number when they want to share it. It assumes that the customers wait
to receive personal calls until friends and family find their phone number on the
Internet. It also assumes we would want to invite unsolicited calls.
The "Notice to disconnect" Rural sent Shimoda customers violated PUC Rules.
Rural used the wrong word, did not tell customers how to rectify what Rural said
was a problem, and did not inform customers of their right to complain. Rural did
not tell customers how to file a complaint about Rural's action with PUC and did
not quote PUC Rules by number. See specifics about these violations in the
interior of this document.
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST CUSTOMERS AND PENALIZATION OF
CUSTOMERS WHO COMPLAINED ABOUT POOR SERVICE
See Rule, 008 "Exercise of rights by customer.
No telephone company shall discriminate or penalize a customer for exercising any right
granted by these rules
Also see the text under Rule 02A&B complaints.
Customers have the right to file an informal or formal complaint against a telephone
company.
Rural Telephone accepted the Application for Service without question nine years ago.
Only after Shimoda account customers formally complained on January 9, 2006 did
Rural decide to try to find a problem with the application and the account. The Rural
attorney admitted this in Rural's Response Order 30232.
If Rural had discovered a problem with the application nine years ago, it would have been
incumbent on Rural to provide an opportunity to correct what Rural decided eight years
later was "a problem listing the account as Shimoda." The account could have been
listed in the name of either "Bill Uhl" or "Doris Helge." This would have been a simple
solution.
It is also interesting that companies like the Houston, Texas and the Atlanta, Georgia
phone companies never had an issue with listing the account as "Shimoda " the name of
the family trust. Why would Rural? And, why after eight years?
It was inappropriate for Rural to decide eight years later that listing the account as
Shimoda" was a problem AFTER A FORMAL COMPLAINT WAS FILED AGAINST
Page
Response to Rural Telephone
Response Order 30232
RURAL BECAUSE OF POOR SERVICE DURING PERSISTENT OUT AGE DURING
A 5- WEEK PERIOD OF TIME from November 2005 to January 2006.
It was inappropriate for Rural to decide eight years later that they made a mistake in
classifying the account. It would be illegal for any other business to hound a
customer eight years later "because they made a mistake eight years ago.
Even if Rural did "make a mistake eight years ago " it is inappropriate for Rural not to
provide an opportunity for discussion so that customers could consider listing the account
under a different name "because the company made a mistake eight years earlier." This
is further evidence of Rural discriminating against Shimoda customers.
Rural made an inappropriate decision to retaliate against customers because they filed a
formal complaint. Rural arbitrarily reclassified our service from a residential to business
account because we complained to PUC about poor service. Again, we have a legal
right to complain about poor utility service. This right is spelled out in PUC rules.
This is a quote from page 11 of Rural's Response to Order 30232
, "
Complainants had
drawn the company s attention to their account because of their complaint." The
statement supports our contention that Rural discriminated against us and penalized us
because we filed a formal complaint. As their document proves, Rural went over the
Shimoda account with a fine toothed comb simply because we filed a formal complaint.
Rural illegally discriminated against and penalized customers who exercised their legal
right to complain about poor service.
DISCRIMINATION BY NOT RECLASSIFYING OTHER RURAL CUSTOMERS,
AS PER RURAL'S OWN DEFINITION OF "DISCRIMINATION"
Please note Rural's definition of discrimination on pages 11-12 of Rural's Response to
Order 30232
, "
Discrimination occurs when similarly situated persons are disparately
treated without any rational basis.
Please see page 3 of our first Formal Complaint to PUC dated January 9, 2006. You will
notice that we provided a list of Atlanta residents who are known to run business out of
their homes, using their residential phone lines. Some even have signs in their front
yards advertising a retail business that is run out of their home.
Page
Response to Rural Telephone
Response Order 30232
To our knowledge, Rural has still not changed said phone accounts from residential to
business accounts even though a list was mailed to Rural during the week of January 9
2006, over one year ago.
Some of these customers are now doing even more businesses, such as Bob
Bartemoccia s e-Bay business. Terry Applegate still buys and re-sells snowmobile parts
from his residence and has done so for at least 14 years. One of his vendors is Western
Power Sports in Boise, Idaho. Applegate s retail business sign, Atlanta Sports Center
still hangs in his front yard. Included in this document are pictures of that sign in
Applegate s yard and a recent mailing label proving that Applegate receives deliveries
addressed to Atlanta Sports Center at his residence address.
No matter how large or small their businesses, people all across the state ofIdaho . . . and
across all of Rural Telephone s geographic region. . . are using their home phone for
business purposes.
Is it illegal for Rural to change the Shimoda account to a business rate without changing
all other accounts? Note: To be legal, Rural must, in a nondiscriminatory manner
change all accounts, not just those in Atlanta (including those we told them about over
one year ago in our formal complaints). Rural, in order not to discriminate, much
reclassify all accounts across Rural's entire service region when business is done over a
residential phone line.
The fact that Rural has not changed other accounts in Atlanta from residential to
businesses-specifically accounts with retail signs in their front yard even though Rural
has had information about these businesses for at least a year-proves discrimination by
Rural. Go farther out in Rural's territory and note which accounts, from ranchers to
people buying and selling on e-Bay to home businesses, are using residential accounts to
conduct business. It is illegal and discriminatory for Rural to change Shimoda to a
business account unless it changes every Rural customer across its entire territory.
RURAL MISUSED THE WORD "PRIMARILY"
The word
, "
primarily" extends beyond a sheer percentage of use. "Primarily" relates to
the intent of why a customer signed up for a telephone.
Blacks Law Dictionary lh Edition page 1354, assigns a definition to the word "primary
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.
Page
Response to Rural Telephone
Response Order 30232
In other words, a sheer percentage of use, even if one could prove such, would not be a
valid test of "primary" because the intent is critical, why a customer signs up for a phone.
In our case, we signed up for a phone primarily for personal use and access to the
Sheriff s Office, 911 , or other emergency services.
A reasonable, unbiased reviewer of Rural's Response to Order 30232 would easily
determine how paltry Rural's "evidence" is that Shimoda s phone use is primarily for
business.
RURAL MISUSED INTERNET DATA IN AN EFFORT TO PROVE ITS POINT.
RURAL'S RESPONSE TO PUC" INCLUDES MANY PAGES THAT HAVE
NOTHING ABOUT SIDMODA AND THIS BULKY DOCUMENT DOES NOT
PROVE "PRIMARY USE"
We all know that anyone can post anything on the Internet whether or not it is true.
this case, much of what Rural offers as "Internet evidence of primary use" is sad indeed.
Is Rural attempting to pad its evidence with thick google searches that don t even
implicate Shimoda? Note: In one 17 page google search, there is only one mention of
Shimoda anywhere in the 17 pages. That one entry mentions nothing about Shimoda
doing business even though other entries do. The Shimoda entry merely says "Shimoda
864-2158." So, that is the Shimoda account phone number. So...
Even ifthe entry mentioned business use (again, it doesn t), it would in no way prove
primary use." It would give no clue how much phone time was related to business.
Rural loses this case for itself by including so much superfluous and inaccurate
information in Rural's Response to Order 30232. Are they assuming PUC will not read
what Rural provides or that PUC just wants bulk? For example, page after page talks
about Shimoda as different people in Hawaii, Florida, Japan, China, Wisconsin
Kentucky, Idaho Falls, Georgia, and other places that have absolutely nothing to do with
a phone under the name of Shimoda in Atlanta, Idaho.
Rural included duplicates of the same page. Would an unbiased reader wonder if Rural
thinks bulk of paper will win their case since they have no real evidence of "primary
business use?"
Page
Response to Rural Telephone
Response Order 30232
Some of the pages Rural provided as google search information clearly state "nothing
was found" and "we could not find any listings to display." Rural makes an assumption
that if "Doris Helge" or "Bill Uhl" did not choose to list their phone number in a google
search that they are not using the phone for personal use. Is Rural assuming that
everyone wants their phone number endlessly on the Internet, inviting unsolicited calls?
When you set up a phone, do you call your friends and family and tell them the number?
Surely, you don t assume your friends and family will look for your number on google.
Our friends and family had our number long before they used google. This number has
been used by them for nine years.
The questionable Internet listings go on and on. In the 17 page search, there is a listing
for "Idaho Horse Board?" What is that? Who put the number 864-2158 by that listing?
Is it a typo? Again, anything can be put up by anyone on the Internet. We can t find
anyone in Atlanta who has heard of an Idaho Horse Board in Atlanta and we have never
been associated with an Idaho Horse Board?
Page after page lists entries for other people and for businesses with which we have no
association. Did Rural assume PUC just wants bulk and bluff instead of substance
prove their case? The following are a small percentage of the names listed in the pages
Rural provided that have nothing to do with Shimoda in Atlanta, Idaho. We do not
know these people and are not associated with their businesses. Their phone
number is not our phone number.
Todd Shimoda has many entries
. A Shimoda in Atlanta Georgia
Sumo wrestlers
. H Shimoda
Shimkus... many, many entries
Shimea
. Shimkus-HelmerkStaab Funeral Homes
Shimla
. Shimley
Shimm
Shimmel... .many entries
Shimmer... many entries
Shimmerance
Shemmering... many entries
Shimmerlik
Shimmers
Shimmery
Page
Response to Rural Telephone
Response Order 30232
Shimmerz
Shimmick . . . many entries
Shimmin. . . several entries
Shimmon
Shimmy. . . several entries
Shimmy
Shimmyo
Shimna
Shimo L
Shimo K
Shimo Restaurant
Shimo Restaurant 2
Shimock's. . . several entries
Finally! Shimoda in Atlanta. . . It says nothing about a business. It just says
Atlanta ID 83601 and the phone number. This is important because other
business listings" describe their business/activities/etc.
Shimoda. . . many entries in many states. In fact 2 pages of Shimoda s that have
nothing to do with us
Shimoff. . . several entries
Shimogaki . . 2 entries
Shimogama
Shimogawa
Shimohara
Shimoide
Shimokajy
Shimokawa
Shimokawa . . . a couple of entries
Shimokochi
Shimomay.
Shimomaye . .. several entries
Shimomi
Shimomora
Shimomota . . . several entries
Shimomura . . . many entries
Shimomura . . . several entries
Shimon. . . several entries
Shimoa . . . 2 pages of entries
Rural also threw in the fact that we buy flower essences from 3 Flowers Healing for our
personal use. We didn t know they had our phone number on their spot on the Internet.
If this is a problem, is Rural claiming that all of its customers who buy products from any
Page
Response to Rural Telephone
Response Order 30232
company that puts their phone number on line are primarily a business? If so, penalize
all Rural customers, not just us.
Rural has a posting of Merchant Circle and Horse Board? Why? What does that have to
do with the Atlanta, Idaho Shimoda account? What is Merchant Circle? What does that
have to do with Shimoda?
Why does Rural care that Bill Uhl had an article printed in a motorcycle journal, for
which he received no pay? Did Uhl advertise his telephone number? No.
Why does Rural care that Doris Helge and Amy O'Brien were in a newspaper article
speaking out against the possibility of a strip mine coming into Atlanta? The article
didn t have Helge s telephone number in it. Does Rural want to penalize Helge for her
right to be a citizen with an opinion?
In addition, many of the entries in Rural's Response to PUC are very jumbled.
Wouldn t a law professor shake his or her head if a law student turned in "evidence" that
wasn t evidence?
RURAL FAILED TO PROVE "PRIMARY USE" OF THE SHIMODA ACCOUNT
FOR BUSINESS
Let's assume for a moment that one of Rural's google search entries turns out to be
legitimate. How does that prove that the Shimoda phone is used "primarily" for
business? If Shimoda received one call a year or even a week, that certainly wouldn t be
primarily.
Having a telephone number show up on the internet has no relationship to determining
primary use" of a telephone.
By PUC Rule 09 "Residential Telephone Service," we can use our residential phone
for business use as long as that is not our primary use.
As previously stated, 98% of our business correspondence is done over the Internet
because we have direct satellite service so we do not have to spend money making a
long-distance call. Except for friends and family who enjoy the personal touch of talking,
most people today feel as we do. This is 2007. Most business is done over the Internet
whenever possible, not on expensive long-distance phone lines.
Page 10
Response to Rural Telephone
Response Order 30232
Note the precedent PUC set in Case No. U-I038-9 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 PUC ruled
that having her phone number on her business card and flyers was okay.
In our case, our business card and flyer is our Internet presence. We do business on the
Internet. According to the precedent PUC set in Case No. U-I038-9 Order No.
18102, our behavior is acceptable. Again, this is 2007. Very few people want to pay
for a long-distance call when they can email for free, at a time that is convenient for
them. Please keep in mind, in Atlanta, Idaho, in the summer, there are a maximum of
approximately 50 people and in the winter at most 27 people Atlanta phone customers
can talk to without paying a long-distance fee.
In summary:
Rural has not proven that "primary use" of our residential phone account is
business.
Nor have they addressed our original intent of getting a phone. (See the Black'
Law Dictionary definition quoted earlier.)
Anyone can post anything on the Internet.
Rural provided very, very questionable information in its Response to PUC.
Rural also provided pages and pages of irrelevant information that has nothing to
do with how we use our phone.
Finally, showing up in a business listing (especially without one s permission) in
no way indicates "primary use" of a phone line.
Rural's "evidence" is not evidence of primary use. Rural has not proven its contentions
regarding how we use our phone.
Just in case Rural misinterpreted the statement on page 6 of our formal complaint of 1-
12-07 at the third bullet statement, note that the entire section of bullets was about
business usage of phones and we were referring to Case #U-I038-8. In other words, we
assumed Rural would understand we were talking about business use of the phone. . .
that our satellite Internet is like the woman in the above case who did her business person
to person, door do door. We use satellite internet this way. It is clearly our primary
business form of communication. Rural Telephone is not.
Weare pointing this out because Rural changed what we said. . . their attorney stated
that we use satellite Internet only for personal use and use the phone line only for
business use.
Page
Response to Rural Telephone
Response Order 30232
Therefore, we are pointing out the incorrect statement made by Rural on pages 8-9 of its
Response to Order 30232
, "
Indeed one might fairly read that statements in the complaint
to indicate that the complainants conduct all or a majority of their personal affairs using
their satellite Internet access and that they rely on their land line for conducting their
several business ventures -- hence the prolific use of the 208864-2158 number in their
business advertisings and directory listings.
The above statement by Rural's attorney is totally false.
One cannot accurately conclude that we do personal interactions and not business
interactions via satellite. First, Rural has no evidence of such a strong claim. Secondly,
many of Rural' s search pages turned up either "no listing" or "we cannot find a listing.
No matter how clever a maneuver to turn the truth upside down, the truth is the truth. We
use our land line primarily for personal calls (including if we need to call the sheriff or
911) and our satellite Internet mostly for business.
We never requested any business listing for 864-2158. In fact, every year Dex calls and
we say the same thing, "We don t want any listing. We wanted an unlisted unpublished
phone number but Rural telephone said that required an extra monthly charge.
didn t know about listings Rural quotes, such as the fallacious listings like Idaho Horse or
Merchant Circle. The only listings we knew about were on our web sites. This is
permissible as per PUC's ruling in Case # UI038-9 Order #18102.
Note:
This is America. We are to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. Rural has not
proven we are guilty. See page 8 of Rural's Response to Order 30232. It is clear Rural
has not proven primary usage or intent beyond a shadow of doubt. We firmly state that
we use our phone primarily for personal use and as access to the Sheriffs office and 911
which is vital because of our remote location.
IfPUC decides that our case is different that Case # UI038-9 Order # 18102 and that
Rural is allowed to discriminate against us, we should be given the opportunity to take
our phone number off of our web sites. We could remove the phone number within 30
days after being notified although we would still need to pursue discrimination because it
is illegal according to Idaho law, the U.S. Constitution, and PUC Rules. We have no
control over any other listings on the internet that Rural is terming business listings since
we never requested those listings and didn t place them on the internet.
Page
Response to Rural Telephone
Response Order 30232
DISCRIMINATORY FORMULA IS BEING USED TO DETERMINE TYPE OF
PHONE USE
Please see pages 7-8 of Rural's Response to Order 30232.
If the information sources that Rural uses when a question of proper classification is
presented is not a pre-set standard (set by PUC) to determine proper classification across
Idaho, this is discriminatory. One customer is treated differently than another.
Rural stated in its Response document
, "
These sources include, but are not necessarily
limited to.
This statement says that Rural may use one method of classification with one customer
but another method with another customer.
Rural does not list all of their methods it uses for classification. This adds to the potential
for discrimination. Any procedure that is not the same for all customers is by nature
discriminatory .
Since Rural has not standardized how it treats customers, PUC needs to do so or at least
ensure that Rural can no longer discriminate.
When the Shimoda customers signed up, Rural did not provide the list of requirements it
later stated (in Rural's Response document). Therefore, customers lacked complete
information concerning how they would or should be classified when they signed up.
Rural cannot change, nine years later, what customers were told when they signed up for
servIce.
Even though Rural has now changed its procedures, customers across the Rural service
region have not been formally notified of the change. If they had been, as customers, we
would have received a mailing regarding this change.
IF RURAL'S STATEMENT IS TRUE, THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN
RESIDENTIAL AND BUSINESS ACCOUNTS SHOULD BE ELIMINATED TO
AVOID DISCRIMINATION
If Rural's statement is true on page 7 of its Response document, since public policy
precludes monitoring and there are no technologies available to determine primary usage
and that is an objective standard, the distinction between residential and small business
accounts should be eliminated because there is no way not to discriminate against some
customers when Rules 004.09 and 004.10 are administered.
Page
Response to Rural Telephone
Response Order 30232
RURAL ISSUED A LETTER OF RECLASSIFICATION THAT VIOLATED PUC
RULES
Rural's letter to Shimoda (see photo) dated 1-06 only states the reason for
reclassification was "being used for business purposes " which is permitted under PUC
Rule .09 Residential.
RURAL'S NOTICE TO DISCONNECT VIOLATED PUC RULES
When Rural threatened to disconnect Shimoda s phone (see photo) by notice, Rural broke
the following rules:
Rule 402.02 Procedure on Review
. 306.04 complaint may be filed
. 311.04 no termination while complaint pending
The fact that Rural now claims they did not know that the complaint was still pending is
not our fault. Rural did not contact PUC to determine the status of the complaint until
after the termination notice had been delivered and the customers complained to PUC
about receiving an illegal termination notice in violation of the above Rules.
The Rural attorney made excuses on page 5 of Rural's Response to Order 30232. The
attorney stated Rural believed the investigation had been fully resolved by Order 30140.
If this is true, Rural had a responsibility to verify that the complaint was resolved and
apparently did not check.
The company sending a disconnect notice has an obligation to first check to see if a
complaint has been resolved before sending out something as serious as a termination
notice.
As per Rural's own statement, they did not do this so they broke the above-cited PUC
Rules. Rural should be penalized for this action.
This was an additional form of harassment. It was more retaliation for filing a formal
complaint.
Page
Response to Rural Telephone
Response Order 30232
RURAL'S TERMINATION NOTICE WAS DEFICIENT
Rural's written notice to disconnect the Shimoda account was deficient. Rural's action
violated PUC Rule 306.01.02.
Rural used the word "discontinued" instead of the words "intent to terminate local
exchange service." This misled customers about their rights.
See 306.01 The Reasons.
The Reason( s), citing these rules, why service will be terminated and the proposed date
of termination.
Rural did not cite these Rules on their written notice. It did not tell the customer in PUC-
prescribed wording why service would be terminated (the reasons for the disconnect) and
the date termination would happen. "Discontinued" is a different word than PUC Rules
dictate
, "
termination.
306.02 Actions
Actions the customer may take to avoid termination
Rural's form only listed one action
, "
pay the bill." It did not tell the customer that paying
the bill would prevent disconnection. In this case, there are more actions that could have
been taken. These include filing a Formal Complaint with PUC, making payment
arrangements (See Rule 312 and 306.06), etc. So Rural's notice was deficient.
Please see pages 5-6 of Rural's Response to Order 30232.
Note: even in Rural's Response , they used the word "terminated" instead of the word
used on their notice "discontinued." Rural thereby admitted they were using the wrong
word.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we respectfully request that the PUC find:
Shimoda account customers acted according to the information that was provided
them by Rural before signing up for phone service.
Page
Response to Rural Telephone
Response Order 30232
Rural discriminated against Shimoda account customers by changing their
classification from residential to business on the heels of the customers filing a
Formal Complaint with PUC
Rural also discriminated against Shimoda account customers by not reclassifying
every small business in Atlanta and across Rural's entire service region who uses
a residential phone for business calls. In addition, even though Rural has had
information for over a year about small business in Atlanta who are truly
conducting businesses out of their homes (some have retail sales signs in their
yard), Rural has not reclassified other accounts. As evidence, see photos emailed
separately.
Rural did not provide the Shimoda account an opportunity to "correct Rural's
mistake of nine years ago.
Rural's "termination notice" was deficient and contrary to PUC Rules in the ways
detailed above.
Rural has not proven its contention that the Shimoda account has "primary use
for business.
Rural included pages and pages of "evidence" that supposedly proved "primary
business use." Howver, most of the pages they provided have nothing to do with
the Shimoda account. Wouldn't an objective reader wonder if the attorney was
padding the Rural Response with sheer bulk because Rural has no true evidence?
Rural cannot prove "primarily" (primary business use).
Shimoda customers are not at fault if "Rural made a mistake nine years ago.
PLEASE NOTE:
WE RESERVE THE RIGHT TO AMEND AND PLEA FURTHER