20070509Reconsideration petition.pdf

MAY. 9.2007 3:22PM P 2
FROM : Panasoni c PPF
., ~ '
., "1 :Ji(.j h,
Page I
Fonnal Petition for Reconsideration
of PUC's Response. Order 30306
~:;i~~'Ul!~.i' -
Rv~-t- of(-
PLEASE SEND A RETURN EMAIL to seminars~emotionalstrength.com
VERIFYING THAT YOU HAVE RECEIVED TIllS DOCUMENT.
Thank you.
To:
PUC Secretary via secretary~puc.idaho.gov
PUC Attorney Weldon Stutzman Weldon.stutzman~)Duc.idaho.gov
Daniel.k.lein~puc. idaho.gov
Dear PUC Staff:
We are hereby submitting our "Formal Petition for Reconsideration to PUC's Response
Order # 30306" regarding the m.atter of Rural Telephone.
FORMAL PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
OF PUC'S RESPONSE, ORDER 30306
Submitted on April 9, 2007
By Bill Uhl and Doris Helge [phone]tJ$l1#l
We hereby respectfully and formally disagree with the following.
. PUC's position that "Rnral Telephone did not improperly reclassify 864~2158 as a
business phone line.
. PUC is dismissing the complainant' 5 fonnal complaint.
. PUC is not following its own Rules and Regulations.
. PUC is allowing Rural to violate PUC Rules and Regulations.
The complainants have not been given a chance to fix Rural's alleged "oversight"
of 9 years ag(,).
Relevant pue Rules related to this response, including those violated by PUC and by
Rural, are quoted throughout the body of this document.
As you reconsider Order 30306, please note the following.
MAY. 9.2007 3:22PM P 3
FROM : Panasoni c PPF
",.- .
Page 2
Fonnal Petition for Reconsideration
ofPUC's Response, Order 30306
Rural did not provide a summary of their rules when we signed up for phone
service, even though they are required to do so by pue Rules and Regulations.
Rural violated Rule 602., which says customers are supposed to receive this
information. Therefore, we were misinformed concerning how Rural classifies
phone accounts. We assumed the company would classify phones the same way
our phone was classified in Texas and in Georgia. We were never given the
opportunity to select service classification with the benefit of full information.
Note: We only received "Application for telephone service/' which is enclosed. It is
not the customer s responsibility to guess what is appropriate sim:e Rural never
provided the rules and setting up the account in the trust's name (Shimoda) was
perfectly okay in two other states.
Rural continues to be in violation of Rule 602.01. We still do not receive the
annual summary of the R\.Jles,'j as required by PUC Rules. Rural has never provided
us with this information.
We respectfully request an explanation regarding how our situation is different than
that faced by the AVON saleswoman with her phone number on her business card
and flyers. See the precedent in PUC 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
poe ruled that having her phone number on her business card and flyers was okay.
(Our primary communic,\tion is satellite intemetj not connected in any way to Rural
Telephone. Because everything outside of the tiny town site of Atlanta is long
distance, we use the phone as little as possible.
More likely than not, other PUC rulings support our position. One would assume
pue would rule in a consistent manner when two cases are similar. Because pue
ruled in the Avon salesperson s favor and the circumstances are the same as
what we are experiencing, it is unfair to rule against us. When PUC rules
against us, PUC contradicts its previous case decision.
Please see IDAP A 31.41.01 011 "Conflict with telephone tariffs or price lists
(Rule 11) regarding how pue ruled in #3 above. According to Rule 11, Rural
MAY. 9.2007 3:23PM P 4
FROM : Panasoni c PPF
Page 3
Formal Petition for Reconsideration
ofPUC's Response, Order 30306
cannot create a rule that conflicts with the case decision above because Rural
cannot create a rule that denies or restricts customers~ rights protected by any POe
rules. PUC rules supercede any conflicting tariff practices, or price list used by
. Rural that deny or restrict any of those rights.
It is unfair and discriminatory for PUC to allow Rural time to correct their
improperly designed "'disconnect notice!' used to notify us that our service would
be terminated. PUe is not penalizing or reprimanding Rural even though PUC has
admitted that the disconnection notice we received violated PUC Rules.
If PUC is allowing number 5 above, why does pue not allow us the same
courtesy to correct the type of phone service we have? (Although we disageree
that our original phone classification was improper allowing us to correct Rural's
alleged "oversight" 9 years ago would be fair instead of discriminatory. See Rule
601.01C. Once again, PUCs actions are discriminatory and unfair and in
violation ofPUC's OWn Rules.
It WAS discriminatory for Rural to look at our account right after we filed a formal
complaint. Please note on page 3 ofPUC Order # 30306.
The Company did concede that reclassification occurred after
the Cornplaio.ants had drawn the Company s attention to their
accmmt with their communications with the Company and the
Commission Staff"
Any reasonable person or judge would conclude that Rural's account review of 864-
2158 was discriminatory. It WAS conducted because we complained about 5 weeks
of outages. A reasonable person or judge would also agree that 5 weeks of outages
are not a small matter! There was NO reason to look at our account just because we
complained, especially since Rural had never found it necessary to review the account
during the previous 8 years. There were, however many reasons for Rural to work to
solve problems creating phone outages. Rural went over the Shimada account with a
fine-tooth comb, trying to find a way to retaliate, even though our account was in
good standing and payment had always been made on time.
MAY. 9.2007 3:23PM P 5
FROM : Panasonic PPF
",.,.
Page 4
formal Petition for Reconsideration
ofPUC's Response, Order 30306
Since PUC allowed Rural to review the 864~2158 account and reclassify our service, it IS
discriminatory for pue not to require Rural to survey ALL Rural customers to
review their current phone usage. If we are to be governed by an internet search, Rural
should be required to do an internet search of ALL of its residential customers. Rural
should also be required to determine how many residential customers are using their
phones to conduct business. And, Rural should be required to investigate and reclassify
all Atlanta accounts doing business on a residential phone. In Atlanta, the Atlanta Post
Office; consulting, management, cleaning, food preparation, and other work for Pinnacle
Peaks Resort; property sales; work for the bar and Lodge; work for the Atlanta Highway
District; Boise rental homes; firewood sales; Atlanta cabin rentals; craft sales; cleaning
services; laWldry services; guiding businesses for hunters; work for the Atlanta water
district; eBay sales; Atlanta Sports Center sales business, etc. should all be investigated.
Over 80% of the Atlanta citb;ens do business out of their homes, but PUC has totally
sidestepped the issue of det'ining how much business use constitutes "primarily" and
how this can be proven (certainly not by an internet search).
pue has allowed Rural to dream up its own method of gaining information
regarding customer classification and reclassification. . . and PUC has allowed them
to dream up this method AFTER THE FACT.
Plus, the method Rural has devised contradicts PUC Rules. It also contradicts Case
# U~lO38-9 Order No. 18102.
Rural's method is also discriminatory because it differs from what is used by other
Idaho phone companies that DO follow PUC Rules.
Once again, as per the Idaho Public Records Act and/or the Freedom of Information
Act, we respectfully request pue to provide any Rule or Regulation describing the
process to determine what is "primarily.
PUC has not responded to our past requests. By law, PUC should provide
information requested as per the Idaho Public Records Act.
Discrimination is a serious offense. It is prohibited by the Idaho Constitution and
the U.S. Constitution.
MAY. 9.2007 3:24PM P 6
FROM: Panason i c PPF
Page 5
Formal Petition for Reconsideration
ofPUC's Response, Order 30306
Internet search listings do 110t prove how much business use is occurring on the 864-2158line. There is no way that having a phone number on the internet necessarily means
that phone number receives even a single business caU! It definitely doesn t prove
that a phone is used "primarily" for business vs. residential use. An internet phone
listing only shows that someone, somewhere entered information with that phone
number, not necessarily the person with that phone number. PUC's ruling contradicts
its own categorization, "PRIMARILY.
10.
Since PUC does not have a standard that determines how to determine "primarily,
its Rules and Regulations are discriminatory and should be eliminated or revised.
All customers should be compensated for any and all discrimination that has been forced
on them by PUC and Rural.
11.
It is very clear that Rural is not treating all customers equally regarding type of
phone use. How many extensive internet searches has Rural done on other customers?
If Rural really did change one other telephone account when it changed ours, was the
account in Atlanta? If so, why does no one in this 37-person area know whose service
was allegedly changed?
Which one of the Atlanta customers that are blatantly doing business with their
residential accounts and have a business sign on their building was changed? The people
here say they are still classified as residential. . . even though Rural received data over a
year ago and recently received pictorial evidence depicting business use of a residentialaccount for business.
Does Rural do an extensive search on new customers (using their previous phone
numbers, for example) to determine what type of use they will need?
Has Rural done any internet search at all on any other customers. . . other than us?
certainly appears this does not happen. Any reasonable person would conclude that
doing an extensive search 011 ONE customer right after they complain about
outages for 5 weeks IS discriminatory. Again, see page 3 of PUC Order #30306.
MAY. 9. 2007 3:24PM P 7
FROM: Panason i c PPF
.." ~
Page 6
Formal Petition for Reconsidcn1Lion
ofPUC's Response, Order 30306
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."
Also, please explain how PU C can interpret Rule 11.008 "Exercise of right by customer.
. . . No telephone company shall discriminate against or penalize a customer for
exercising any right granted by these Rules.
As per Rules 401 through 500, customers have the right to complain about poor service
(especially when it lasts 5 weeks). However, the ftrst time we fonnally complaffied, we
were penalized and Rural examined our account in a way they had not done in the
previous 8 years.
Retaliation did not solve the phone problems caused at the James Cr. Repeater. It served
no purpose. Rural was clearly trying to shut us up regarding our willingness to speak out
in the future. They were clearly trying to get us to stop calling attention to the fact the
problem drug on for 5 weeks. Rural should know we had the right, under Rules 008 and
401 through 500 to comment that the phone problems weren t being resolved in a timely
manner. They only went over our account with a fine~toothed comb for the purpose of
retaliation, penalizing us, and discriminating.
Please note: Any company that asks a phone applicant to state their nationality on the
application would make a reasonable person suspect that the company may feel
comfortable discriminating against some customers. Nationality should have nothing to
do with whether or not someone can gain access to phone service. It's our understanding
that this type of questioning / discrimination became illegal in the 60s.
It should be obvious to pue that Rural's actions of going over our account and NOT
other phone accounts at the time we complained. . . or since then, for other Atlanta
customers. . . constitutes blatant discrimination.
12.
As proven to PUC staff by presenting Shimoda paperwork to office staff (to their
satisfaction), Shimoda is a legul paper person. It is a legal family trust. A paper person
has been recognized by the courts as a legal person. According to the courts, a
trust/paper person cannot be di scriminated against.
If we are to be treated fairly, since Rural took over 8 years (until after we placed a
Formal Complaint) for Ruml to determine they didn t like the phone listed in the
name of the trust, we should be given the chance to put the account into one of our
MAY. 9.2007 3:25PM P 8
FROM: Panasonic PPF
,.".
Page 7
Formal Petition for Reconsideration
ofPUC's Response, Order 30306
names. It is unfair and discriminatory that we are not being given the opportunity
to put the phone into one of our names $0 we can ~correct Rural's oversight of 9years ago" (even though we disagree that onr original phone classification was
iDlproper).
Again, if Rural had: (1) given any feedback and if they had (2) provided the
paperwork they are required by PUC Rule 602.01 to provide when we signed up for
service and if Rural had (3) stated they would be initiating their new rnethod of
account classification if we complained about poor service, we could have elected to
put the phone in one of OUI' names. Again, Georgia and Texas had no problem with
listing the residential account in the name otthe trust.
As per the Freedom of Information Act and/or the Idaho Public Records Act, we
respectfully request a copy of any PUC Rule or Regulation that says that listing a
residential account in the name of the trust is "wrong" or violates any Rule or
Regulation. Please provide any Rule or Regulation that says that a paper person (atrust) can be discriminated against Or treated any differently than another entity.. .
if you can.
13.
PUC apparently has not even reprimanded Rural for using the wrong procedure when
threatening to disconnect phone service. Since PUC allows Rural to commit such
egregious error, why arc we not even given an opportunity to correct Rural's alleged
mistake" of9 years ago WheI1 it is Rural's fault that it did not provide us with the
information PUC requires?
Note: We are being penalized because Rural violated Rule 602.01.
14.
Again, some of the internet search listings provided by Rural are far off-base but PUC
took them at face value. Just one example: The Billy Uhl Riding School doesn t exist.
15.
Shimoda has never had a Yellow Pages listing as a business in Rural's phone book. We
have always told the Dex directory person who called annually, "This is a residence, not
a business. We wanted an unlisted phone number but it would have cost an additional
monthly fee. Please do not call us again." Yet, each year, they call again. It's annoying.
MAY. 9.2007 3:25PM P 9
FROM : Panasoni c PPF
Page 8
Formal Petition for Reconsideration
ofPUC's Response, Order 30306
Thank you in advance for reconsidering rue's order. We hope you will decide to make
the final outcome fair instead of discriminatory. Citizens should be protected from unfair
practices of utility companies. PUC should not allow customers to be harassed by utility
companies or discriminated against. Discrimination is a serious offense. It is prohibited
by PUC Rules and Regulations, the u.s. Constitution, and the Idaho Constitution.
Attachment:
The "application for service" mentioned in this document is being faxed to you so we can
keep the original in our files.
PLEASE NOTE:
WE RESERVE THE RIGHT TO AMEND AND PLEA FURTHER
MAY. 9. 2007 3: 26PM P10
FROM: Panasonic PPF
011-/29/96 TBU 10: IH FAX 20& 366 2615 RURAL TBLPPHONE ~JJ ~ 003
J--9Y r
, .
, APPLICATION FOR TELEPHONESERVIC
SECTION 1 - BILLING 'INFORMATION
~h,'~Jq'
..,, ,,:,
(Last): ,
" '
(YuiI)., (IaiIi8I)
ADP)~f..~ 3 :i~
- .
13 (;0 (City) cs.o) (Zip Code)
can ":'~aI:~ll/~ 970 '0
:,,
SBCTION2~,BMPWYM.ENT
' .' :', "~,,
~;~::;;&L 7- i~-u,-
", , "
SpoutMIName;
, ,
Social'SecurityNulDbet:
..
ow ' SPOUIO EmpIOYcr~ ---...-...
y~
with Company:'::::: Wk. Phone:
--..:
,;f.~OD~i~
' '" ,
iJ..f,~i ~~VrOtJS ~l'lES ~VICE ,
~ ~
~hone ~any;~~_. p ~umbOr; ;i 1-17t:J -CJ'f ,fo.P:thly Cbargea; CLocI111~.. 7':. I'dO~
j Id
~~. =-~
4 - D.IlU!CTOR YLISTINO INiORMA nON
. . . .
"1~ ~'-'\.
PI~, ""d tb,o foJl~ c;hoices ~UYI1his will determine how and it1iour name(a) 'wtU bo
~'i
" ,;, ~ ;;
I '
'" '- .. , ' , ~,
0 '
, "
" , o
.! ', ,
NONPUBLI~~Rq NUMaBR:The directoxy auiJtan~ operator DOES NOT provide younumber,to IIDYonc. nor is it Iistad. in any tel'PbOQO cUrec:tory,
, ,
N AM:E :
UNUSTHD Nr JMR~'Ih. directory usismac:e openrtor DOES provide your number to at1dugp,it.ies. but it is not liJl)cjd in ...y ,.Icphono d1rCory.
, :', :,' ,
ImCiULAR. ~IS:TBQN~~g&Ead1 customer is aUowOO. me of charge, un8 liBtinS in theRun" Tel'J)hM& Company Diroeto~. The telcsphone number is provided to the cIiraetorya..iatauco UPIQtor tbr distribution to .-ki4a parties.
Which fOrm of Directory Lilting do you 4 ~ ~~r?-1 it..J aJJ..
How do YO" wish the listing to appear? 5~ lJ J'L-
;' ,.."'", " ~';" , ,:\ "~ "... "':"
, i'
: ' '"~"
MAY. 9. 2007 3: 26PM PHFROM: Panasoni c PPF
~ml1~/98 TBU 10: lS2 PAt 208 366 281~RURAL TELFPBONE ~OO4
SBCTION 5 - BUILDING TYPE
Houle already built Menufltdured hOIII8 j.e : A..~ V\.~ e-R,\t , ~ clio\ihUDdetCOJlltrDCtion _R.V.tndler '5 &t ('~d "1-0 1f~Sbap CD' 0Irega Other
fir; \,J" '" II\.
#..
SId
SECTION 6 - PH\"SICAL LOCATION
Please pRMdit . brief deloripticm of1he where 111. a.rvioe i8 to be prcwid.t.TetephOne service WILL NOT BE PItOVlDED unI.. thi8 -=aa it filled out COMPLBTBL Y.
LOT * B~
##
SVBDIVISION NAMB:
d:fi4 I'\..
/'
A/$iSTREBT WAME: ~~. 4JLi .1., . S"I'RDT ADDDSs:NBAREST CR.OS$Jl()AD; DSsawrnON I; COLOR. OF Hi USS. ANY SPECIAL DIRECTIONS TO HaUS
NAME (it any) OF' PlUMous CUSTOMER. AT THISCLoSEST TBLEPRONE COMPANY PBD28T AI. #:
NUMBBR. OF LINI:i$ :L. QVESTBD (\IDioe
1tIde): NUMDBR. OF SPBCIAL L1NBS QQ'UBST'BD (data, fa)E, ect.)~
SECTION 7 - (.;USTOM CALLJNG FEATl1RBS
...
matk my tbduntI YOU wou1d lib tD bit" Idd8d tc) )'all' ODe. Depeu.diDa GO. ttw areatb8t you are in. SQ.Q8C 01'111.",8 featwas may!lUt be aVlilab1e at tbiI... It ycIQ would like toImow the mODthly lICe!; on then feature8 pleaao aoatact the b.iDiq cIopartnwnt.
.lL Call WIidDg Oill F~ Lut Number RedialWake up Can Sp88d J)jal CaUl&' 1Mnti~1tI.ADonymoua Call lWjactioo Reltrictiva DilliDa
11M IUblCriber is fbr their Qwn bide wtMa. =anectWg jades, IGd OIIID
"""
eqqmaeQt. I'f'fClqQnted. Ituxa1 Telephone COmpanYWil1ac.11theHiteInI
,,~.... "
applieeble u.n. ad III8MriatI wUl be biUecI to 1ha cU8tomor.lo.staDer tees ID'8 $35.00 par"" forall iDlido work.
IA""'"
1M a.aI TGitphone Campay is HfIJIired tD &miIh tho appUcaor. . aceordIDGe with ItI qpItti(m,B &lad rules -lie with the State PubIiQ UtUitieJ eom...i_;cp\1orvic:4111 and. &cWd. ..detIill.-t berein and 18 may be onI4nd.
Tho ~Jieant cmti88. that the UlformaUon,
..
ahown beroiQ. .is CXJaeCt
- ....
co pay aU
~..
t4U IUJd other IVYice
..... ..
thi8 8OIViCo n18de iL. with the9rovisiGA Ofb Tarim. uoDll1Mlb time as the 1pplUmm: nottflea1he Rural Tatllphone Co:mplQy
~ :::::::
Date: S-- :J-f
Nd~;
.(;
I(7t:?(Jt.J
;$
bei ful'n ;$h ~6 1- "I.
D~ 1CJ h~ (e f~Vl.Je.d ~/fA.S frt.ire~'f 414
eo n.,d 1- fi f\s1 0 .
tdw- ;t;:J /'f 'f :f
MAY. 9.2007 3: 27PM P12
FROM : Panasonic PPF
,.1'. TIm 10: 50 FAX [phone] lU.1RAL TELFPHONE 41 002
URA L TELEPHONE COMPANY
. '. "
704 WEST MADISON AVENUE
, '
. P.O. BOX 969 . GLENNS FERRY. IDAHO 83623(208) 366-2614 FAX [phone]
Dear frQ.pe~tiv~ Sub~cribe..
Enclo~Qg ~lQQ8Q find an appllc~Llon lor tele~bone se~ice. I~ 11 .~tremel~important that this application be filled out completely. Return thecompleted applIcation along with you~ $100.00 deposit to Our buainess office.If sa~~8facto~ c~8d1t has been established wi~hin s1x months follo~ing
CommenQement of service. your depos~t w!ll be ~Qturned to you, plus !uCerest.
We ancoura~e you to call our office at any time if you should n~ed
aSS18tanna in completin! this applica~ion. You eaR ~ontact OUr offieeby dialing the first three (3) prefixes in your ex~han$. and then 2614.Ou~ customer service repr~sen~atIv.a will be happy to answ~r any q~st1gnsYOU have and to provide YOU with any ~s1Stance you require.
Our business office is op~n fro~ 8;00 am to 5:00 pm. Mountain TimeMonday through Friday. After hours C841s are ~outed to an an$we~1U8
machine, so please leave a message and your call ~11 be returned as&oon as po~8ible.
PEES:
Line Connection:
Service Order Charge:
Pre-mise Vis;i.t:
$1.).
10.
40.
~.Som~ cu~tom.ra may be &ligible for the Idaho Link Up A=e~ica Pro~ramThis program is a 50% reduet1~n of the Local Connec~ion Cha~ge, aQ4 is
apP4icable to those customers who meet ~hB eligibility ~equ1rements.
Contaet our buBiness off~~~ fer deta~ls.
MONTHLy SERVtc:t:
ql/ Residence ervice:
Busine8~ Service:
FCC AQce$$ Charge:
Idaho USF Charge:..s~ iPr'f-
Inside Wir1na Ins~al1ation:
material and ~ravel. Please
$14.80 -
20.
07/ Res. $~/)..f
."3 TiJ.;c$36.00 pe~ hQ~r. This 1ncludes labor
provide five (5) work1ns days prior notice.
Bus.
We look forward to prov1dinz yo~ with ~he best poss~ble t$1~pbQn8 serviQe.
Uelcome to the Rural Telephona Company System.
S1.neC!:rely J
Customer 8erV1~~ Repr&8ent.t~v.