20220914Agency Record on Appeal.pdf

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO
)
APPEAL FROM THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION ______________________________________________
Appeal from Idaho Public Utilities Commission Commissioner Eric Anderson, Presiding ________________________________________
Attorney for Respondent Idaho PUC
LAWRENCE WASDEN Idaho Attorney General
Chris Burdin, ISB #9810 Idaho Public Utilities Commission 11331 W. Chinden Blvd. Building 8, Suite 201-A Boise, ID 83704
Appellant, pro se
Richard Keavy 11282 W. Glen Ellyn Dr. Boise, ID 83713
Attorneys for Respondent Qwest Corporation d/b/a CenturyLink Communications, LLC
Stephen R. Thomas Hawley Troxell Ennis & Hawley LLP 877 W. Main St., Ste. 1000 Boise, ID 83702
William “Tre” Hendricks
Lumen Technologies
902 Wasco Street, Floor 1
Hood River, OR 87031
IN THE MATTER OF RICHARD KEAVY’S
FORMAL COMPLAINT AGAINST QWEST
CORPORATION D/B/A CENTURYLINK
)
)
)
)
)
)
Supreme Court
Docket No. 49844-2022
RICHARD KEAVY,
Appellant.
v.
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
and QWEST CORPORATION d/b/a
CENTURY LINK COMMUNICATIONS, LLC,
Respondents.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
No. QWE-T-21-14
AGENCY RECORD ON APPEAL
Electronically Filed9/14/2022 4:00 PMIdaho Supreme CourtMelanie Gagnepain, Clerk of the CourtBy: Brad Thies, Clerk
Table of Contents
(Chronological Index) i
1
DOCKET NO. 49844
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Chronological Index)
KEAVY COMPLAINT
dated October 20, 2021 .....................................................................................................5
KEAVY FORMAL COMPLAINT
dated December 2, 2021 ...................................................................................................8
IPUC STAFF DECISION MEMORANDUM
dated December 16, 2021 ...............................................................................................12
KEAVY ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS TO FORMAL COMPLAINT
dated December 22, 2021 ...............................................................................................18
IPUC STAFF DECISION MEMORANDUM
dated January 5, 2022 ..................................................................................................... 26
IPUC SUMMONS TO CENTURYLINK COMMUNICATIONS, LLC
dated January 12, 2022 ................................................................................................... 27
KEAVY COMMENT – CEASE AND DESIST DEMAND
dated January 18, 2022 ...................................................................................................41
COUNSEL CORRESPONDENCE
dated February 10, 2022 .................................................................................................45
CENTURYLINK REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
dated February 14, 2022 .................................................................................................49
IPUC STAFF DECISION MEMORANDUM
dated February 16, 2022 .................................................................................................53
KEAVY COMMENT
dated February 24, 2022 .................................................................................................55
CENTURYLINK RESPONSE TO COMPLAINT
dated February 28, 2022 .................................................................................................57
IPUC ORDER NO. 35329 – NOTICE OF EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND
dated March 1, 2022 .......................................................................................................70
Table of Contents
(Chronological Index) i
2
KEAVY COMMENT – REPLY TO CETURYLINK RESPONSE TO COMPLAINT
dated March 8, 2022 .......................................................................................................73
IPUC FINAL ORDER NO. 35351
dated March 22, 2022 .....................................................................................................76
KEAVY MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
dated April 12, 2022………………………………………………………………… 80
IPUC FINAL ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION NO. 35396
dated May 4, 2022……………………………………………………………………. 82
KEAVY NOTICE OF APPEAL
dated June 14, 2022 ................................................................................................... …85
IPUC STAFF DECISION MEMORANDUM
dated June 21, 2022 ........................................................................................................ 89
CLERK’S CERTIFICATE OF APPEAL
dated June 24, 2022 ................................................................................................... …90
NOTICE OF PARTIES
dated July 8, 2022 ...................................................................................................... ..105
IPUC ORDER NO. 35459
dated July 12, 2022 ....................................................................................................... 107
CLERK’S CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE OF PROPOSED AGENCY RECORD
dated August 11, 2022 ............................................................................................... ..109
Table of Contents
(Alphabetical Index) ii
3
DOCKET NO. 49844
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Alphabetical Index)
CENTURYLINK REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
dated February 14, 2022 .................................................................................................49
CENTURYLINK RESPONSE TO COMPLAINT
dated February 28, 2022 .................................................................................................57
CLERK’S CERTIFICATE OF APPEAL
dated June 24, 2022 ................................................................................................... 90
CLERK’S CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE OF PROPOSED AGENCY RECORD
dated August 11, 2022 ............................................................................................... 109
COUNSEL CORRESPONDENCE
dated February 10, 2022 ................................................................................................ 45
IPUC ORDER NO. 35329 _NOTICE OF EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND
dated March 1, 2022 .......................................................................................................70
IPUC ORDER NO. 35351_FINAL
dated March 22, 2022 .....................................................................................................76
IPUC ORDER NO. 35396_FINAL ON RECONSIDERATION
dated May 4, 2022 ..................................................................................................... .. 82
IPUC ORDER NO. 35459
dated July 12, 2022 …………………………………………………………………..107
IPUC STAFF DECISION MEMORANDUM
dated June 21, 2022 ........................................................................................................ 89
IPUC STAFF DECISION MEMORANDUM
dated December 16, 2021 ...............................................................................................12
IPUC STAFF DECISION MEMORANDUM
dated January 5, 2022 ..................................................................................................... 26
Table of Contents
(Alphabetical Index) ii
4
IPUC STAFF DECISION MEMORANDUM
dated February 16, 2022 .................................................................................................53
IPUC SUMMONS TO CENTURYLINK COMMUNICATIONS, LLC
dated January 12, 2022 ................................................................................................... 27
KEAVY ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS TO FORMAL COMPLAINT
dated December 22, 2021 ...............................................................................................18
KEAVY COMMENT
dated February 24, 2022 .................................................................................................55
KEAVY COMMENT – CEASE AND DESIST DEMAND
dated January 18, 2022 ...................................................................................................41
KEAVY COMMENT – REPLY TO CETURYLINK RESPONSE TO COMPLAINT
dated March 8, 2022 .......................................................................................................73
KEAVY COMPLAINT
dated October 20, 2021 .....................................................................................................5
KEAVY FORMAL COMPLAINT
dated December 2, 2021 ...................................................................................................8
KEAVY MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
dated April 12, 2022 .................................................................................................... 80
KEAVY NOTICE OF APPEAL
dated June 14, 2022 ................................................................................................... …85
NOTICE OF PARTIES
dated July 8, 2022 .................................................................................................... 105
.. I /' i> I/• f3"-0(��ru C, p_p.t e
. p � �N'-1) 1:;ztJ;�, ,-prlll',nanoJandConfuimtW w��.�� I0/181'.!I Page I 07,'. t,'lt! Public Utilities Commission -General Manager / � 3
Part two (2) on the matter of the *57 ·Call Trace· ruse ... refusing to 'Initiate Deterrent Action·
The attached recent billing record from USWest/Century Link (CLink) shows I had 'traced· (via their *57 dishonesty) fifty seven (57) calls to my DoNotCall. unpublished. unlisted land line I have had with USWest for thirty-eight (38) years. Clink and others should be ashamed?
The CLink product includes use of the above words/promises that are part of hundreds of
contracts CLink constructs when their customer hangs up on unwanted calls and dials *57. What
follows are a series of CLink promises, instructions and directions that lead to contradictions.
denials and flat out refusals of Clink to follow through and complete the contract objectives ... including to 'Initiate· and to affect 'Deterrent Action: More promises detailed at the time of each contract assures that after alerting CLink that three "traces' (of the same number have been accounted to CL ink (at 800-582-0655) they would return my call "'ithin 24 to 48 hours ... with advice having to do \\-ith promised and expected "deterrent action.· Not one of the five (5) call back assurances CLink said they would make to me. during the past several weeks, was returned
or completed by CLink through today. This CLink abuse. form, format, neglect, indifference
and dishonesty has been ongoing, consistent and unchanging, for more than five years. CLink
has initiated, made and then broken hundreds of in force individual contracts \\'1th me (and
countless others?) and defaulted on all of them? ... given that CLink refuses to report, clarify or follow, in any form, as to what they accomplished, ignored, dismissed or just tossed. Public Utilities Commission's (PUC) Chris Hecht (always polite and seemingly caring) was familiar with this history for years and responded to some of my calls for clarity; including my expectation of either action against CLink conduct or a statement of support for it and why. The
last time the matter was laid out again for PUC action/enforcement Chris made it clear again that
a superior colleague of his (a PUC la\\-yer?) made the decision to let the matter drop and do
nothing, again, �ith no v.,Titten opinion or detail as to why the negligent/harassing conduct must continue while being tacitly encouraged by CLink, the PUC and others.
The Boise Police Department (1 spoke with a Captain and his Lieutenant...the latter, a cordial listener -for 90 minutes) recently concluded in ·writing it was not their (Boise City) preferred kind of policing and had refused (to my knowledge) to consider securing a subpoena for CLink records (on/as to reckless behavior) which I had outlined to/sought from Rick Niehlsen (Boise/BPD) three times over recent years. The Lt evidently concluded their prosecutors** need not be informed and added I would be heard from again! :) CLink, in the course of each of their contract producing episodes. posits that sometimes the police are needed to assure and uphold
good order. BPD/Boisc City by not referring the load of CLink negligence·s to their respective
prosecutors** ... even though perhaps hundreds or thousands of intra/interstate citizens arc indeed
subject to similar assaults ... may be suborning and encouraging the circular. play dumb. callous ridicule that IS Clink. Multiple hundreds of individual *57 actions by me resulted in doLens of recommended (contract required) follow through phone calls to and from CLink. The rules require that after a number has been ·traced· at least three (3) times, the injured party must (according to contract
rules) call CLink at 800-562-0655. The last five call back requests to that number (over 3 weeks) have not been returned in the 24-48 hours promised/contracted b} CLink. Please engage/ad\'ise.
Richard Keavy 11282 Glen Ellyn Boise. ID 83713
5
.. � Centurylink �
Details of Your Internet and Home Phone Charges
Usage Charges
C::ill Tr:ice rsn�
,C•
�, -�-'21 � �· .: --5 �
1661 ( :651 (
--------{ 5-;-;...:t .:!Lon:. �! S1 2:? e.::'=h v .... _ T11nc N Dtit& Ttntf' No Dar<! Trmt· ----------------
7 10 13 113
25
Se□ 10 Snp 13 &Ip 13 S&p 14 St1p 15 $3.:, 1i s-.� ,e Sap:?O Sap20 S:p 21
2-=� :1 Sep24 Ser, 27 20L.i �9 S&p29 Sep30 Oc:04
6.0iP 2 gt!-.� 5 1'.2 23P 5 6:14P 11. :?·38P 14 3 31P 17 11.<:3A 20 9:5:-A 23 2:57P 26 ; ,:, .'.lil.\ ::g
-.4gA 35 4·16P 38. 12:16P 41 9·5jA 4� 11:51A 4i 9:57A 50 9:-4-IA 53
Usage Charges Total
Sep 1.2 $-;ol3 5':p 1� Sep 14 Sep 17 Sep'IS Sep 15 Sep 20 Sep21 Sec2! 2srZ Sep24 Sep 2i Sep27 Sep29 s�p2e Sep30 Oc:04
4 28P 3 Sep 13 g .J9. � '2$!=, . .:l I}t5Jl. 9 �EC, ':! 911P 12 10·44A 15 9 4a.e_ 18 1 11F 2i.1039A 24 10:38A 27•'.)·.1QA :.:i12 :251= J:10:J7A 359:04A 39.2 43P ·12 10 07A .1:j 5 21P 45 9.56A 51. 3 31P 5,:
Sep 15 Sep 17 $;.>p 18 Sep 1£ Sep 20 Sep21 �e;:. :?� 3:a2 Se;; 2� Sep27 8�p2S S!!p 29 Sat. JO oc·101 Oc:C.1 C,,;-�-
at S0.25 per line
• r
� 1) -83JA 12 56P 9 51A _ 34F 250P 1039A a :e� : 4l� ;: �9F
• 1 }:?"' � 55.� 2 58P3 3:?0
,v:a;y Fee at $1 OD per acc:sss line
6
,-..., ' '
:..:
7
From: Cheap Advice <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, December 2, 20214:18 PM
To: Daniel Klein <[e-mail]>
Cc: Jan Noriyuki <[e-mail]>; Jan Noriyuki <[e-mail]>
Subject: Idaho PUC. Formal Complaint -( Assistance and Guidance Requested )
against USWest/Century Link and others. Fifth (5th) Request ... same subject. 12/1/2021
-#2 to follow
Revised Part 1
Having spoken with PUC Manager Mr Daniel Klein and ha\'ing received an email from him I wish for my P-rcvious, fully detailed contacts with/to the PUC. about Century Link intra and interstate activities involving gross negligence
and abuse, lo be gathered, internally by the PUC and fonnallY. put before its senior management Committee (and/or
others appropriate) for review and the taking of affinnative action to ston the continual aggravating abuse that
Century Link ct al does intentionally encourage, suborn and facilitate ... while the PUC has, year after year, essentially
looked the other way. I will not detail the long list of C'Link offences the PUC may be thought to regulate but rather
expect that kind of assessment will be better undertaken by PUC leadership and the long-standing history that is and
hasw been part of PUC office staff for years. After having been advised of the required non-confidential nature of
PUC information processing, and after having posited my general objection to wholesale sharing of all details
and all aspects of Century Link breaches; I consent to the PUC and State insistence of no confidentiality in order for
them to examine their substantial existing case history, rule on my complaints and make its recommendations as to
status and corrective actions. I thank the parties for their attention.
My concerns about general, safe privacy cautions may be obvious and useful to the Commission+ hy adding this
acknowledgement of how the �r.ondents have comported. to wit: ... without my permission. and for a long time
without my knowledge they did/do r.rovide names, numbers, dates, time of day and other information about callers to mx private, unlisted, unpublished. DoNotCa/l land line. of 3 8 years with US West, to Direct TV (and others?) so they
could do, whatever they may do, with that data before others, unknown and perhaps unworthy. The presumed
objective of Century Link. by those associations, was ultimately to share private infomation, increase exposure of my
privacy (for their financial gain by their solely, proprietary, illegal?. inappropriate, manipulated and mismanaged
contracts) ... details the PUC may/should conclude/resolve along with other abuses and negligence's. My interest.
going forward, is to work with the Commission to identify and arrest abuses put on my family, potentially thousands
of my Idaho neighbors and others.
Clink provides a contracted 'service' (in force for the past 7+/-years ... put in force by entering an instrumental
*57 advisory. action and alert to Clink) whereby the last harassing+/-call/number IS promptly 'identified' by Clink
(the calling number is said by Clink to have immeditelx been 'traced', and during Clinks connected, commission and
creation of both individual and a series of contracts, organized and simultaneously put in force by/through the
company. forced 'agreed lo' and paid for (as required for their continuing offer and in support of the contract that was
made) by their customers (including me) whereby the offending phone number (the calling party) is said to have
been identified ('traced') by Clink. Having been 'traced' is an important word/concept that assists to make the
contract operative.
The completed Clink contract introduction goes on to require (as part of each individual contract transaction that
is required and forced) that after three Cl> 'traces' in total (the original 'tracc'/contract plus t,vo (2) more
required contract initiations of the same phone number that is calling) that the offended land line owner must then
call a specific CL ink phone number (800-562-6055) for the express and said purpose of having Clink then "initiate deterrent action" ... another critical feature of the contract process. That activity description, like 'traced,'
is n.Q1 intended to be vague or difficult to understand. It is a careless, reckless, ill-intended pre-broken promise. n
P-retense inside each of three engineered contract configurations to take action against the identified/'traced' harassing
caller. Going forward. no other expectation or activity by Century Link. for them to change the subject. can be or
should be tolerated. That position must be the stand, among others, of the PUC investigation that should ha\'c been conducted years ago.
8
Contract language also includes/provides. when the CLink 800# is called, they r.romisc that their/an agent 'will return the call.' to their customer/contracted partner. within 24 to 48 hours. Four (4) times in the past 5+/-weeks I
have placed the required 800# call, left detail about having met the 3 call requirement for escalation, including my
expectation of a call back from appropriate CL ink staff. that did not once result in the call back J;!romised by
CLink. * CLink has made roughly 400+ separate contracts with me {perhaps thousands of their other customers) and has broken an ovenvhclming..IruJjori!): of their promises to 'initiate deterrent action.' They
have made a mockery of contract expectations in Idaho (including mischief laden interstate traffic) while bringing ridicule to *57 participants including all familiar regulators and Federal DoNotCall expectations.
Here is another example of CLink hubris,* pride and foul behavior: A collection company called Radius Global Solutions (RGS) in Illinois phoned my private. unlisted number !!ll!l!iple dozens of times over a period of 5+/­
months for the express, sole and fil!!gular purpose of ringing and hanging up ... without leaving a message ... without
any reasonable. �uired effort to identify themselves or actually conduct business. Their sole Jlli._rpose and function
was to have the phone ringJmQ.l!glL.m.engi!ge the answer machine so they could then hang up. Their result and 'best'
function was/is to wake children and annoy dogs. That type of trespass is provable and RGS admitted to it in
principle. They actually offered to compensate ... which makes Centun•Link indifference and refusal to
make fill)'.�i!..rl):. contracts required attempts to 'initiate deterrent action' (or other promises in multiple contracts) even
more egregious.
CLink suborned and covered for RGS which should be all about abuse that PUC can regulate and enforce! The
RGS full lli!.!ll£ appeared/identified periodically ('courtesy' of Direct TV!) and was also routinely, modified to
trick/disguise. be obscured or missing. The multiple, different. visible phone numbcrs..RQS used appeared to have
been a numosed disguise of identit�'. that both they and Clink sought and arranged to nrotect each other ... against my
specific requests for RGS to identify. IF CLink was doing the job they contracted and promised for, to 'trace' and
then 'initiate deterrent action' my protection would have been better affected. Instead CLink did nothing ... including
and after I alerted them repeatedly (via * 57 and other means) of what was going on. All this intentional. measured.
Clink suborned abuse and cover up was conducted under protection and administration of the • 57 banner. Clink
made it clear. time and again. to me and countless others (?) they did not give a hoot about my rest. privacy or my
family, about their steady broken contracts, the lies that arc the contracts or about insecurity of all Idahoans. There is
NO known or intended exaggeration or embellishment about this. my accounting. CLink is outrageous. unrepetitive
and lacks any contrition.
In the end thc_P-ri\'atc data about my private phone utilization and practice. which Clink published (sold to?)
for DirectTVs indiscriminate (?) utilization, DID allow some indirect. deliberately arm's length infomrntion to locate
and communicate with RGS but only after RGS and CLink had jgnorcd {for three more months) allmy efforts to
stop the traffic including my certified letter for RGS to cease. desist and answer four pertinent informational
questions. Clink continued to encourage and allow easy access for the renegade bill collector access my private line.
in my home. Eventually 'ROS' admitted to 'mistaken identity,' apologized for 'errors' yet while refusing to tell
me WHO put them uP-,..!Q the uninitiated and sustained harassment of me. I ask the PUC to find right ways/means to
confront the same RGS that CLink sunnorted, enabled and r.rotccted ... for their collecti\'e,joint, express purpose
of abusing this long-standing customer and other(?) Idahoans. It would be unreasonable to expect I was the 2n.h: target of such a wcll�organized, disguised, celebrated and denied contempt.
To be sure the task ('initiate deterrent action') was too much of a I ie for Clink to take seriously. address or complete
in spite of their outrageous, deceptive 'traced' dishonesty and hundreds of bogus, phony and FORCED upon me
contract provisions. The very, CenturyLink that the State ofidaho._f!K;. and Attorney General have
ls!£ill)'., unwitting]):(?) protected and encourag�)m may be serving i1tjury on thousands of Idahoans and other,
out of state. still and this week. Enough is enough.
As for compensation (or means to that end you asked about) I want (some of the discoven: I asked of them which
they dismissed without comment) including a list of fill details and actions that CL ink performed and pretended
from all the *57 calls I judiciously put to them at their direction (particularly and especially all those identities they
claimed to hal'e 'traced' .. ,including..mYlliple dozens more 'traced' allegations they have made over the 1-wst few
weeks. [Please find more specific detail on that provided after and separately to this account...to the PUC ... Mr Klein will be familiar] Since it is/was 'OK' for CLink to give my 'private' activity/information, without permission, to
DirectTV (and others?) they can/should give all the 'contract' generated detail they collected frorn/br./through 9
ID£, via their *57 tool (most of which was inannmnriately_(,Z) shared with DircctTV?) ... without delaY.••·to/through the PUC to mc, .. IEY.ou will caj) for that ! They flatly refused my multiple requests for that data they have collected ... NOT because of the law they proudly condition ... but because doing the right thing for me is "9gainst lhejr P�Y." ... their words, CLink and their MARY last week .. JN the account mentioned above, Mr Klein will have. I will be looking eventually for roughly $400k of damages and other compensation for their years of organized, celebrated abuse, lying, 400+ deliberately, systematically broken contracts that PUC and others (BPD, Boise City, Ada county prosecutors, AG ... all ?) dismissed, denied, ignored and/or encourag�. Some of the trespasses enjoined and upheld include: FRAUD (Intentional Misrepresentation) NEGLIGENT Misrepresentation, VIOLATION of RACKETEER Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, BREACH of Written Contract, BREACH of Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, DECLARATORY Relief ... and more. No legal action is planned. None is preferred. Please, stay mi..RQill.1 ... DO the good business of the PUC oversight for benefit of citizens and the state ... no matter ,,·hat you learn or hear ... not matter how much money Clink may contribute to their favored various political interests. I ask for a full report of your findings, as definitively as PUC required public sharing of these trespasses ... which should have been attended years ago. Before today the PUC was given very much information and evidence of very much misconduct. I wrote twice, weeks ago, and carried to your staffer in the PUC front lobby data asking for attention of the 'General Manager.' That too was ignored until I wrote a second time, left two call back requests ... which Mr Klein graciously responded to. From my viewpoint getting the PUC's attention has been a crime of its own. The AG and others confidently and dismissively look the other way. I have wanted and tried to work within your difficult to decipher rules of order. I did not get the courtesy of a reply, from PUC. about each of my attempts, to get a hand, for many years. Please locate and collect all the written and recorded .lli.fil.QO� I provided to your staff in the past...through the years and including to Chris Hecht...all of which the system seemingly turned its back on ... and get familiar JF the detail would be useful to y,our assignments and dutY.. � let me know if any questions. if anything is not clear or if you want more detail on certain matters. Thank you for your patience and hopefully ... good attention. Sincerely Richard Keavy PS -Century Link has cut off my_P-hone service and separately my internet service multiple times in past. recent months ... as recently as this week and ... along with several other service interfere/stop threats. I dont think the activity is in any form centrallY. material about me refusing to pay the bill. It is not my�ylc to not JlaY. as their records over 4 decades would indicate. Btw -you (regulators) may check with all my utilitiy providers and find that I have not had IDJY kind of problem with others that is in any�y similar to what Century Link has done and IS doing. Maybe something is going on that I cannot discern. It may be about careless accounting and/or organized poor communication? I do recall getting bills from CLink with regularity. in the mail. that were due in several �y� leaving no realistic usps mail time to work with. I have paid IllilllY. dozens of 'late fees' during the managed confusion that has been played. While retaliation against me should not part of their game plan I would not, any longer, put that past them. Also, as for centrifuge .. .! am and was stunned at the treatment by staff at the 800# I was reRuired to call...as part of the 'contracts.' They are the people in charge of pretending to actualy make the call back in 24-48 hours ... that they violated knowjng�y�. They are of a mind that they 'know it all' .. have done and heard mthing ... while they dismiss, out of hand, anything and everything that might interfere with what they 'know' and want to be. They and 'Mary' pretty much rely on the same kind of companyscript...loaded with mystery and folly. She, Mary, I am confident learned a good deal she did not know, was called to endure something she was roundly not prepared for ... about her company... She and the 800# guys are all too confident and deficient. 10
Call Trace
Telephone harassment is a crime. II you receive a harassing, obscene or threatening phone call and want to take action,
Call Trace will help you get assistance. It traces the phone number or the caller and turns that number over to the Centurylink Call Identification Center. If requested, deterrent action may be taken by Centurylink or your local law enforcement agency.
How to use Call Trace
•Han!J llll nn the r.aller
•Lill the recmver. hs1en forth!! d1altone. and press� sJ.!] or ©CD@© from
a ro1mv phone
•Follow the recorded mstrnctions The recording al�o Quotes the charge 11
the trar.c rs :;ucccss1ul
• Thi! number will b!! fmwarded and recorded at the Centurylmk Call
lden11f1ca1 on Center Under normal ci,r.umstancl!s, three successful
traca� are renu11cd before any detenent actmn •s ta�en by Centmylink
or your local law cnforcl!ml!nt a!)r.ncv
•Under no c1rcumstances will yuu be 91ven thr. name or number of
the caller
1 800-244-1111 for customer assIs1ance
centurylink.com/wolcome
Call 911 Immediately if the situation becomes
life-threatening.
•�i',J 11 C.,,..:.r,t,.,., In.:. All P.'!)t.1: P.,,�,-,1:1.c rJ11
�,,� ���� Centurylink•u
11
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
DECISION MEMORANDUM
COMMISSIONER KJELLANDER COMMISSIONER RAPER COMMISSION ANDERSON COMMISSION SECRETARY LEGAL
CHRIS HECHT DANIEL KLEIN TAYLOR BROOKS
DECEMBER 16, 2021
SUBJECT: IN THE MATTER OF A FORMAL COMPLAINT BY RICHARD KEA VY
On December 2. 2021. the Commission received a request for a formal complaint against
Century Link (QWE). Richard Kcavy was unsatisfied with the outcome of the informal
procedures to resolve his complaint and sent the attached email requesting the Commission to
open a formal complaint against Century Link. Mr. Keavy contends that the Company has failed
in its contractual obligation to him when he requests a Call Trace ("'57) as offered by the
Company to its customers.
THE COMPLAINT
Commission Rule 22 '·encourages the use of informal proceedings to settle or determine
cases.·'
IDAPA 31.01 .01 .022. See also IDAPA 31.01 .01 .054.05 r·ltJhe Commission encourages
the use of informal proceeding (see Rules 21 through 26) to resolve or settle formal
complaints.") ··The Commission shall determine how a formal complaint should be processed.
e.g .. issuance of a summons, open an in\"estigation. informal procedure with Staff." IDAPA
31.01.01.054.05.
The Complainant alleges the following in the Complaint:
I.Complainant has entered into a contract with CcnturyLink based on its optional customer
service offerings. CenturyLink offers customers, who subscribe to its phone service, the
option to have a Call Trace completed on long distance phone calls made to them.
DECISION MEMORANDUM DECEMBER 16, 2021
12
Immediately after hanging up on a call the customer can punch • 57 to activate a call trace. When the customer follows the prompts the Company will attempt to trace the call. 2.Complainant states that according to the process, when the call trace is successful theCompany charges the customer $1.25. Successful call traces are turned over to theCompany's Annoyance Call Bureau for further action by the Company.3.Complainant alleges that if the Call Trace option is successful and the customer is levied$1.25 charge on their phone bill, then a contract is established between the Company andthe customer.4.Complainant believes that the performance of contract should include the release of theinformation obtained by the Company to the customer. Over time the customer has mademore than 400 call trace contracts with the Company, and that it had not followedthrough on its contractual obligations.5.Complainant believes he is owed damages in excess of $400,000.6.Complainant has sought relief from other agencies and now looks to the Commission forassistance.STAFF RECOMMENDATION Richard Kcavy was not satisfied with the outcome of the informal complaint. Under Section 62-602 of The Telecommunications Act of 1988, the Commission has the authority to resolve subscriber complaints. Staff recommends that the Commission review the customer's complaint and determine appropriate action. COMMISSION DECISION Does the Commission wish to accept Richard Keavy's fonnal complaint? Daniel Klein DECISION MEMORANDUM DECEMBER 16, 2021 13
From: Cheap Advice <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, December 2, 20214:18 PM
To: Daniel Klein <[e-mail]>
Cc: Jan Noriyuki <[e-mail]>; Jan Noriyuki <[e-mail]>
Subject: Idaho PUC. Formal Complaint - ( Assistance and Guidance Requested )
against USWest/Century Link and others. Fifth (5th) Request ... same subject. 12/1/2021
- #2 to follow
Revised Pa rt 1
Having spoken with PUC Manager Mr Daniel Klein and having received an email from him I wish for my P-cevious
fully detailed contacts with/to the PUC, about Century Link intra and interstate activities involving gross negligence
and abuse. to be gathered, internally by the PUC and fonnallx put before its senior management Committee (and/or
others appropriate) for review and the taking of affinnative action to fil.QR the continual aggravating abuse that
CentUI)' Link et al docs intentionally encourage, suborn and facilitale ... while the PUC has, year after year, essentially
looked the other way. I will not detail the long list of CLink offences the PUC may be thought to regulate but rather
expect that kind of assessment will be better undertaken by PUC leadership and the long-standing history that is and
hasw been part of PUC' office staff for years. After having been advised of the required non-confidential nature of
PUC infonnation processing, and after having posited my general objection to wholesale sharing of all details
and all aspects of CentUI)' Link breaches; I consent to the PUC and State insistence of no confidentiality in order for
them to examine their substantial existing case history, rule on my complaints and make its recommendations as to
status and corrective actions. I thank the parties for their attention.
My concerns about general, safe privacy cautions may be obvious and useful to the Commission+ by adding this
acknowledgement of how the illP-Qndents have comported. to wit: ... without my pennission, and for a long time
without my knowledge they did/do nrovide names, numbers, dates, time of day and other information about callers to mx private. unlisted, unpublished. DoNotCall land line. of 38 years with US West, to Direct TV (and others?) so they
could do, whatever they may do, with that data before others. unknown and perhaps unworthy. The presumed
objective of Century Link. by those associations, was ultimately to share private infomation, increase exposure of my
privacy (for their financial gain by their solely, proprietary, illegal?. inappropriate, manipulated and mismanaged
contracts) ... details the PUC may/should conclude/resolve along with other abuses and negligence's. My interest.
going forward, is to work with the Commission to identify and arrest abuses put on my family, potentially thousands
of my Idaho neighbors and others.
Clink provides a contracted 'service' (in force for the past 7+/-years ... put in force by entering an instrumental
* 57 advisory. action and alert to CLink) whereby the last harassing+/-call/number IS promptly 'identified' by Clink
(the calling number is said by Clink to have immeditel)� been 'traced', and during Clinks connected, commission and
creation of both individual and a series of contracts, organized and simultaneously put jn force by/through the
company. forced 'agreed to' and paid for (as required for their continuing offer and in support of the contract that was
made) by their customers (including me) whereby the offending phone number (the calling party) is said to have
been identified ('traced') by Clink. Hfildng been 'traced' is an important word/concept that assists to make the
contract operative.
The completed Clink contract introduction goes on to require (as part of each individual contract transaction that
is required and forced) that after three CD 'traces' in total (the original •�•/contract plus two (2) more
required contract initiations of the same phone number that is calling) that the offended land line owner must then
call a specific CLink phone number (800-562-6055) for the express and said purpose of having Clink then "initiate deterrent action" ... another critical feature of the contract process. Thal activity description, like 'traced,'
is fill! intended to be vague or difficult to understand. It is a careless. reckless, ill-intended pre-broken promise. i!
P.retense inside each of three engineered contract configurations to take action against the identified/'traced' harassing
caller. Going forward. no other e�pectation or acti\'ity by Century Link. for them to change the subject, can be or
should be tolerated. That position must be the stand, among others, of the PUC innstigation that should ha\'e been conducted years ago.
14
Contract language also includes/provides, when the CLink 800# is called, they nromise that their/an agent 'will return the call.' to their customer/contracted partner. within 24 to 48 hours. Four (4) times in the past 5-+/-weeks I
have placed the required 800# call. left detail about having met the 3 call requirement for escalation, including my
expectation of a call back from appropriate Clink staff, that did not once result in the call back promised by
CL ink.* CLink has made roughly 400+ separate contracts with me (perhaps thousands of their other customers) and has broken an oven,·helming majoril): of their promises to 'initiate deterrent action.' They
have made a mockery of contract expectations in Idaho (including mischief laden interstate traffic) while bringing ridicule to *57 participants including all familiar regulators and Federal DoNotCall expectations.
Here is another example of CL ink hubris,* pride and foul behavior: A collection company called Radius Global Solutions (RGS) in Illinois phoned my private. unlisted number multinle dozens of times over a period of 5+/­
months for the express, sole and .filllgular purpose of ringing and hanging up ... without leaving a message ... without
any reasonable. r�.m!.ir� effort to identify themsel\'es or actually conduct business. Their sole P-Urpose and function was to have the phone ring enough..!Q..£.og§!ge the answer machine so they could then hang_yn. Their result and 'best'
function was/is to wake children and annoy dogs. That type of trespass is provable and RGS admitted to it in
principle. They actually offered to compensate ... which makes CenturyLink indiff crence and refusal lo
make illlY. �rb:. contracts required attempts to 'initiate deterrent action' ( or other promises in multiple contracts) even
more egregious.
CLink suborned and covered for ROS which should be all about abuse that PUC can regulate and enforce! The
ROS full� appeared/identified periodically ('courtesy' of Direct TV!) and was also routinely, modified to
trick/disguise. be obscured or missing. The multip-1£, different. visible phone numbcrs.RQS used appeared to have
been a P.Urposed disguise of identit�: that both they and CL ink sought and arranged to P.rotect each other ... against my
specific requests for ROS to identify. IF Clink was doing the job they contracted and promised for, to 'trace' and
then 'initiate deterrent action' my protection would have been better affected. Instead CLink di9 nothing ... including
and after I alerted them repeatedly (\'ia * 57 and other means) of what was going on. All this intentional, measured.
Clink suborned abuse and co\'cr up was conducted under protection and administration of the * 57 banner. Clink
made it clear. time and again. to me and. countless others (?) they did not give a hoot about my rest. privacy or my
family, about their steady broken contracts, the lies that arc the contracts or about insecurity of al/ Idahoans. There is
NO known or intended exaggerntion or embellishment about this. my accounting. Clink is outrageous. unrepetiliw
and lacks any contrition.
In the end thc.r.rivatc data about my P-rivate phone utilization and practice. which Clink published (sold to?)
for DirectTVs indiscriminate(?) utilization, DID allow some indirect. deliberately arm's length infomrntion to locate
and communicate with ROS but only after ROS and Cl.ink had jgnored (for three more months) allmy efforts to
stop the traffic including my certified letter for ROS to cease. desist and answer four pertinent informational
questions. CLink continued to encourage and allow easy access for the renegade bill collector access my private line.
in my home. Eventually 'RGS' admitted to 'mistaken identity,' apologized for 'errors' yet while refusing to tell
me WHO put them UP-to the uninitiated and sustained harassment of me. I ask the PUC to find right ways/means to
confront the same RGS that CLink sunported, enabled and nrotceted .. .for their collective,joint, express purpose
of abusing this long-standing customer and other(?) Idahoans. It would be unreasonable to expect J was the Jm..!�: target of such a well-organized, disguised, celebrated and denied contempt.
To be sure the task ('initiate deterrent action') was too much of a lie for Clink to take seriously. address or complett:
in spite of their outrageous, deceptive 'traced' dishonesty and hundreds of bogus, phony and FORCED upon me
contract provisions. The ven-Century Link that the State of Idaho . .f.U.C. and Attorney General have
tacitly. unwittingb: (?) nrotected and encouraged for )m may be serving injury on thousands of Idahoans and other, out of state. still and this week. Enough is enough,.
As for compensation (or means to that end you asked about) I want (some of the discover): I asked of them which
they dismissed without comment) including a list of fill details and actions that Clink performed and pretended
from fill the *57 calls I judiciously put to them at their direction (particularly and especially all those identities they
claimed to have 'traced' .. .including.m.JJl!iple dozens more 'traced' allegations they have made over the P-ast few
weeks. [Please find mort! specific detail on that provided after and separately to this account...lo the PUC ... Mr Klein
will be familiar] Since it is/was 'OK' for CLink to gi\'e my 'private' activity/information, without permission, to
DirectTV (and others?) they can/should give all the 'contract' generated detail they collected from/b}'./through 15
ID£, via their *57 tool (most of which was inapnronriatclJ:..(1) shared with Direct TV?) ... without
�Y. ... to/through the PUC to mc ... lEyou will call for that ! They flatly ref used my multiple requests for that data
they have collected ... NOT because of the law they proudly condition ... but because doing the right thing for me is
"!!gainst their P.OlicY-" ... their words, CLink and their MARY last week .. .JN the account mentioned above, Mr Klein will have. I will be looking eventually for roughly $400k of damages and other compensation for their years of
organized. celebrated abuse, lying, 400+ deliberately, systematically broken contracts that PUC and others (BPD.
Boise City, Ada county prosecutors, AG ... all ?) dismissed, denied, ignored and/or encourag�. Some of the
trespasses enjoined and upheld include: FRAUD (Intentional Misrepresentation) NEGLIGENT Misrepresentation,
VIOLATION of RACKETEER Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, BREACH of Written Contract, BREACH
of Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing. DECLARATORY Relief ... and more. No legal action is planned. None
is preferred.
Please, stay illl..P..ill!11---DO the good business of the PUC oversighl for benefit of citizens and the state ... no matter
what you learn or hear ... not matter how much money Clink may contribute to their favored various political
interests. I ask for a full report of your findings, as definitively as PUC required public sharing of these
trespasses ... which should have been attended years ago. Before today the PUC was given very much infonnation
and evidence of very much misconduct. I wrote twice, weeks ago, and carried to your staffer in the PUC front lobby
data asking for attention of the 'General Manager.' That too was ignored until 1 wrote a second time, left two call
back requests ... which Mr Klein graciously responded to. From my viewpoint gctling the PUC's attention has been
a crime of its own. The AG and others confidently and dismissively look the other way. I have wanted and tried to
work within your difficult to decipher rules of order. I did not get the courtesy of a reply, from PUC. about each of
my attempts, to get a hand, for many years.
Please locate and collect all the written and recorded histon: I provided to your staff in the past...through the years
and including to Chris Hccht...all of which the system seemingly turned its back on ... and get familiar IE the detail
would be useful to your assignments and duty. � let me know if any questions. if anything is not clear or if you
wanl more detail on certain matters.
Thank you for your patience and hopefully ... good attention.
Sincerely
Richard Keavy
PS -Century Link has cut olT my_Jlli.Qn£ service and separately my internet service multiple times in pnst. recent
months ... as recently as this week and ... along with several other service interfere/stop threats. I dont think the activity
is in any form centrallY. material about me refusing to pay the bill. It is IlQl...DJY ... �trlc to not PJJY. as their records 0\'er 4
decades would indicate. Btw -you (regulators) may check with all my utilitiy providers and find that J have not had
illlY. kind of problem with others that is in anyway similar to what Century Link has done and IS doing. Maybe
something is going on that I cannot discern. It may be about careless accounting and/or organized poor
communication? I do recall getting bills from CLink with regularity. in the mail. that were due in several �):S leaving no realistic usps mail time to work with. I have paid ™Y dozens of 'late fees' during the managed
confusion that has been played. While retaliation against me should not part of their game plan I would not, any
longer, put that past them.
Also, as for centrifuge ... } am and was stunned at the treatment by staff at the 800# I was re..quired to call...as part of
the 'contracts.' They are the people in charge of pretending to actualy make the call back in 24-48 hours ... that they
violated knowing�Y. could. They are of a mind that they 'know it all' .. have done and heard everY.thing ... while
they dismiss, out of hand, anything and everything that might interfere with what they 'know' and want to be. They
and 'Mary' pretty much rely on the same kind of companyscript...loaded with mystery and folly. She, Mary, I am
confident learned a good deal she did not know, was called to endure something she was roundly not prepared
for ... about her company... She and the 800# guys are all too confident and deficient.
16
Call Trace
Telephone harassment is a crime, If you receive a harassing, obscene or threatening phone catl and want to take action,
Call Trace will help you get assistance. ll traces the phone number of the caller and turns that number over to the Centurylink
Call Identification Center. If requeslccl. deterrent actmn may be taken by Centurylink or your local law enforcement agency.
How to use Call Trace
•Han!J uo nn the r.aller.
•l11t therecciver. li5tcn for the dial lone. and ores� ..!.I.HI.I or ©<D<!i>cr> froma rotary phorm.
•Follow the recorded inshuclions. Tim recording also quotes the charge 11
thC! trar.n i� sucr.cs�h1I.
•The number will :m forwarded and recorded at the Ccmturylmk Call
ldcnh1icat on Ccntm Under normal circumstances. three successfultraces are H!Quircd before any dctcrrcrt action •� lil�cn by Ceniurylmkor your local l.iw enlnrccment agency
•Under no c1rcum5tancc� will you be given the name or number ofth[) callm
1 800-244-1111 for customer assistance
centurylin k.co m/welcome
Call 911 Immediately if the situation becomes
life-threatening
. ,,101 I C""t:..r�l•n� I" •\11 R9.t-; flt>\F,._'11
1:l_C 0/11
sr� �,�� Centurylink··
17
Mr Daniel Klein Hand Carry 12/22n. t Public Utilities Commission
·1--,.-.., P!c!3'>8••pij}f&s n ; v
Re: Formal Complaint by Richard Keavy invoh-ing USWcst/CenturyLink.
Attached are several things that might be useful for those PUC pc.-ople that carry on \\ith the examination of the Century Link complaint.
I - A copy of my Certified Mail letter addressed to Century Link Executive Offices in Omaha
about a verbal and then \\Titten communkaJ..ion. a moo1h ago, bel"een thdr 'Mar)' and me. I
asked for a follow up. three weeks ago, and have not heard an� thing.
2 - Attached are four ( 4} pages of partiaJ Centw) I.ink phone bills for the months of September,
November and December. The pages show admi�ions fmm Century Link, after the)' said during
each of their *57 r�oC'lkd direclivei lo the contructing part}. that lhe) hat.I •tracoo· not less than 113 calls (20. 56, 37) in total. A billing for the month ofO\.-toher is not available hut there were
more •traces· during that month as weU. PUC examination will find lha1 th� admit (as did Mat)') that they do nol ·t�• calls even
though the) claim tll do Sl' and charged a fee for each trace ... as tht! billing notices shflw.
While many years of these trespasses and deceptions are of record they continue to be silent
about the breaches, uncooperati\e and a"erse lo making amends.
Please encourage those "ho look into this case lo caU on me if I can help to correct a
misunder.itanding or prevent time �asted by o.,.erJooked. misstated positions.
Thank you again,
Richard Keavy
PS: the pages arc marked up to so expunge my in jeopardy/formerly 'protected' •private' phone
number and the nwnbers of other parti� not known to be related lo this case.
18
Pnsonal lllld Confulmti.al Certified Mail 702018l0000129605277 President and/or Exc:cutive Secrc:taf)
Century I.ink Encutin Offices POBox 2618
Omaha, NE 68103
The follO\"ing message was texted to the num bcr given to me b)' Ccntur)' Link· s
'MW)·-in Omaha, NE. She called ml! on 111.23 to sa} .. Doug' (of Clink in Boise) had asl,..cd
her to '-"'Ontacl me:. She!"� w1surc* \\hy anJ "� nol cum:nt• on histot) or documc!nlation.
"Hello l\bu-). \'ou phoned on TUL'SWI) clnce d.a}s ago. \Ve spok� fur 93 min11tt.-s. You ,..en not modrnstel) prepand or .nn1rr •>f CeotnrJ Lin� n�s, not a1ttndtt1 abuse tom.) bou.scbotd going b�ck w.an} _,.esn ... ki .afoot: -.th2l CL"nluf) Link h�s DO�E TO us
throoghout the b�t 90 WIJs! An .)<,u, �Doug• or �omeone �oing fo �• bxk to me about
rcpanitions/remc-die:,; ao)timc �oon? Plea,;«:. Rkbiud Kr-.l\) 12/4121 �
Tme 10 fonn, for C�nfur) J .inl../l r5\\'e51, oo repl) • futm ·Mal)· thmugh I 1'13'21. Jt i, mutim: for Ct:nlUf) Link �tall \lthi;:n'iflht:) J\I uuu.c -.:,,nlacl,. lo n .. -cik ililu. c.1lr�) known. Jata nul
rdc,·ant to thdr n:pn:henstbk cn11duct umJ data that ,.1'�. Ot.�thi� 1n correct or audrt-ss thdr \\t.'11 oikJ. pe�nnial. mbconducl. •
Please do nol continue to ignore this ongoing nl!gligcncc.
Richard Kean·
PS - I'm not including my US West land line numtx--r provided to me thirty-eigh1 (1R) years ngt, paid a fee, C\l!Q month, }'--.tr ufl\!r )�. fuc mullipk Jcca�ks. to J...�-cp l11al lim: pri\al( and not
publis™--d. It has �-en in the frJcml Oo Nol Call system since it-.; start up. Some) ears .igo
tTSW�t/ Ct:nl!H) Lim: pubJ�h�l.liut/mJ nwn�r in th� local Jin.'\:lOQ lo sl.'n 1..' \\hatt:,�r ln!IIJ) prulit m::Sl..ing 1USt! of 1h:il time. I g, .. 1 i:ulls ln>m fumhun: �Ii: c"mpani1......,, la\\ 11 compm1i1.� unll
donut �hops ... \\l!koming me h, the ncighborhoo<l! No .ipolog) from C\•ntul") l ink. Nl1 conlriliou* \\lUiL-...ic\t:r. 1111! onl� lhing the!) <liJ sa} \\ib :.omc:: dc::ci... pmhabl! maJI! a •mista1'£
and tl1en the� prompt!}, duiijulf) chan�c-d r.b� �uh.j::ct. The continual relah:d aht1� I �ct n,)w. th�
<luubh: tuHv'dumh ph:}ing e�ntut} 1-iuk :,c;n"� � uu:um.muJ.1t�::-. i.s about hubri:,,* anJ uf
prnclil"t.."U duhil1us. purpt1��-.'\f,o, ifl di�rl::ly t!1at phNl� numhcr here. Ci:ntut) rink \\ill likd� claim .tll inapprttpriah: Jistributiun uf ii jy \�� 111.> fauil. I'n:;.n: i� v11l) un� uf m�, b) name::, in .111
<lf ldahl1. ·(\lmpdi:nt" C't:n!UI) Link ,tH.ff uiH hu,t: no ln.,uhk linJin); !hi: �uhjt.,.-1 num°tx"f.
19
0-
. . . ,· �-� -;; .;� - .. c:i! ... t._: t'LHJ�
!:.:u� ... '!J.l!-. �.;....;, �: afire.
;·.,f i. t ;--t· t., __ ,-1, ... ,
. , ';. ..
,,,;�iiiH. rrii..-r�.:.,c.s�!. ..
� 5 r:.��.c.;.�
If • ' 0c:,.-;.r. ri
\. ._ :-;,,, .'. r f ·-1'. .; . • ' ••.•... r Ii-.�·· t :<! h -L ;!J t'r! Lhc"l!jH'.'d tr�dE
--,.
f l •• , .l , -·. ·----
r � Ir i•J• j. �l!JH .. ss•
•lhe e-ma:1 �� Y"" r,n-,ii'!rl fo, II� In ,,.,vt, 1-n.1 __, ,,. .. : ,..,�:.;;-t)\V' � Tr.fffl' .. "'.....,, P \ ,.. I, I I _-i
kw�-��'�
1 , : �• 1vu1n1
........
20
\
!ntemet and Home Phone Charges
?.J :ja:-. :J:: !:'eC'O'T :-,,. Y.
T;r:p ,•,1,.,.
�.�'i.; !.J ?:fCIP �5 ,:i�
Local Phone Sr.rv�e
ti::,\•:; �.S:P li. 1-Jo '?" i�if. ,.,..:
·,,r
J�,: :"fl . UP.c fJT 3 rnp :;.:;
\6000
: �e,p ,, .... ,,,.,-•;.j� • l
:...
.... ! • -
AutoPay
forJet rt.
Twoe8S'(warstu !;B!ect P.utoPay:
Ctnlll:-,li:1t11::,;; d1�,:J�.r..1:..:..�t .-.. ,.,:-,.i.: tH.n iNHI �.i; • 11ar11 i-.,,,.&,,$1111K• u: .. �; ,: -.:.!.-:li ... t:-<"1i'..t1 'J.,;!.�nu, nnru;�. Se� r:H,� •; .• '!t .L; -:: tnt..:rtiink.:ur·i/aboutui.♦le:1.it !, : : ,, �!..� , •..• j:.. ,�t? a .. r:h1 J'c:11.mrnt Terms t•d Coudi:ions, •:· :im •-��ti�;.·r� : ' ': J�t,
21
'f
� Oeta1rs ct Y .:1ur Internet and Home Phone Che'9!lS
1,.c.:;• :""11,.tt
t.:"'\w ::.·==-:� \,..C.;I,? • • ,• 11 ,-Jlj�·••-•,n11 :-, .. .,,., r,. •,.• -w:.�,---� -.§ii>•• --•v; I,. :;. : • -·..: J;• .••• ,. ,,,,....,.u.. ............. �U,...._.,._ ..... ��,U'--�Nrs. �r.-...,11 ---.... ,, .•.........,­.:-.•I J i � ::"" . ., :.: 1# '-.i:: :, .__.,.,.� ...... !.!...__n.:__!!
.. :� -i.�_.. �-"�-. :,., "'tff-1, : - :.J ,� �:-, I -. 'I 1')4 ._.. I .._., r-. • ....... 11 ..... �.,, .. 'I! ,:,p. ,. .... .. 1 .... ,, •.,•� I" "-t-,fi, 1;1�.:. tf i.; n, :: ·- n ut,i ! � :: !l-= ��,. :.:"':'� ee -� ,,-:,-, . ..,,., it ,._a-: .... jC .,.., L -� ...... :.; ..... ,... ,_.,. ._._. ..�--
,��.::t$.,1•*�•-· .___
·,o:r �•f�•Cj:A; �T!· ....... ·•·••·f•t:.t-•1.�--:...
:.. �· '" ■ •• • =� ,. �.;.c" , • • ..:.-;.;:. - f,1r-.:.1.:., ,._
_,., ... � ..... r .-�·,•- :;. {qr-....... '"":11:■•w ,a,
_.!::?,!tl,..i.f"'••"i:•'..,•n1••
T.,a.,c,;,�.1,�:-.z ...... .!..: .. ...,..
p7
,,_., [c� it 8(1Gforget it.
I
22
\
......
,..,..,,.--.... , \ .i.Jc;u;: =--::--:.. :;·--.,,
--= -� ..,',- � ': ·-; .;�;-
i-,11'-:J-, I ('�•p,t� .• ��iy.:,C1,",,r,-..t•,.i14,,_ .. ._
T
,-,
•• I
�2!• .­' �'iCJ '.?O
_;
,,,. _, .. '
Otl�
� ..·i; to �•11 2,-· -� ii-J,) ?.�'?.� �
. '� '-"-• ...�···
': ·�<:►.t ,�
-.. -�, � . ,_, ���
• I --· .
- ,,
\ l
-. .,:
,,.
''.? J'>P " 'l = _.:4 1;:t .rJ/\
� il.'i\6-
•
Aut1JPav
Two easy wayJ; iii :;elP.ct AutoPay:
-·•1'" r 'r I' 'I �,r1 )!\
�,� Ce11!t_1r,;Un\l: ':/1 .-::-
... ,!,, " ,· t-. � '· --:� ,_ uli� • ...: �r,.:.; • ..._ vi,.:.; liJ.,.J Ii; J<1r,,,,., '! _ � ! � � · ... , i'.:/�Lk: �-:r;c1". S1e t '�f/ .... _ .. 1, • 'i;•t f'I,� 11\iJ,·.!l�llU",11,Cl].:\1 -�·· r .. r •• .:: ;,,�,L•jlf#PfU1
,,,I .... 't:J!"t'".j 1. 1 I 1 1" t ., ,-.,,� •, ��-� .....,.ll!llfll
23
;{
CenturyUnk
08faifs of Your rn+ernet and Home Phone Charoes
�
�·
._� ..
'.! ....
52 � !:) �-! � T 2., 5� �s •tt,-.c�... ,.3:A ss
.;t: =-1;. 1. 1 �--.1 :-
Dal&
/ , ...•.• _,_ r•-,. K:i·. C-3 No'IM
il1[:,/1cl Lata ?aymar,: Cna,ge ✓-
') "�' f::.--.�_;y
, .. -,.,�, F� 8. Sure.he,{�� ,oti,,\
Time
:I\ •
' -1c1: 02P
No. -a -.·-
: i.00 . .. ······-----
L •
24
\
.. '·�'· .� ·'1, .. 2at
Long t>'rmi!n�e· ! l"Jag,>
,.
... :/ ,!, .c.,,CJ 7.:
-..,.J:t,t-'•'..,. �.;�Cl
� J:V -�. 1:, 1r,r-
;, ...... ' � ·1!'! 4.,!
·····
�-'-':) ,� ,r, r.-:-:i 5·1�2C �:··.·."� :, :·,.; :°! I ':J•-=
::iai; i.:7 ,�-� ro:
':'1 ·r; ,��
♦ .. ·:.; -,. I. .. 5e,:,07 �--;.,.)'::
-::: 2�? l � •..;
� ... �.1 ,.:4eP q !;::.
1 iJ.Ov
S3S.OO
Q
A1uoP�y r ,·· -�·• • l i_. l-;,
fnrr1ot_ itI t_, t I ' I : • ' .
���:-s� .. l�s�i�.\�•::�:�.:: ·: --�
·;·,..rr-•· =:?-�,:.;'""'; .. :t !,;.,�"';�T_;,'! ·�..... "" -��. '-
., ..... ��il -· · .. �.· .
'.}�.!'�·1• = , •. :.-.. �:--A�;t;i.::J;::.;;t:�t: ' -
Two easy wavs to :,t!ie,�i i"uhiPay:
.,
I •, ;r,1•,, ·If• 4,, ••.:.;•.• ··.::·: .. ·•�• • _ _:1.t �! i_, :)i;:..:, �..uu � .• :�.::;. ,t,· �.�, r�u :�, �;ii..; .-.·'· ' ... ·, ::;..:l .���.�! a"::�':.See ... 'r--,. • •-:� ·,_,, •; t, l. .•i•f;1,:::uh.,::ff�!,!ili
; � ,,:.1: �--�:,·· � ... ;.:-tr:t;• iilr:'1" ,•· I i°c:�J1f;t•11 P�•""'� /J • • .. ,.::..1!�t ,1 ... *: h-.:f,t;
25
TO: FROM: DATE:
RE: DECISION MEMORANDUM COMMISSIONER ANDERSON COMMISSIONER RAPER COMMISSIONER CHA TBURN COMMISSION SECRETARY COMMISSION STAFF LEGAL TAYLOR BROOKS JANUARY 5, 2022 IN THE MATTER OF THE FORMAL COMPLAINT AGAINST CENTURYLINK BY RICHARD KEA VY; CASE NO. QWE-T-21-14 On December 2, 2021, the Commission received a request for a formal complaint against CenturyLink (QWE) ("the Company"). Richard Keavy was unsatisfied with the outcome of the informal procedures to resolve his complaint and sent an email requesting the Commission to open a formal complaint against Century Link. Mr. Keavy contends that the Company has failed in its contractual obligation to him when he requests a Call Trace (*57) as offered by the Company to its customers. On December 22, 2021, the Commission received additional documents in support of Mr. Keavy's Complaint. Mr. Keavy wishes these documents to be entered into the record. The additional documents provide support to Mr. Keavy's Formal Complaint and provide more testimony regarding his communications with the Company. RECOMMENDATION Legal recommends the Commission enter the additional documents into the record. Under the IPUC Rule of Procedure, "the Commission may allow any pleading to be amended or corrected or any omission to be supplied. Pleadings will be liberally construed, and defects that do not affect substantial rights of the parties will be disregarded." IPUC R. Proc. 066. COMMISSION DECISION Does the Commission wish to accept the additional documents from Mr. Keavy into the record? l:\Lcgal\TELECOM\QWE•T•21·14 Keavy\memos\QWml l4_dec_tb.docx DECISION MEMORANDUM 1 Taylor R. Brooks Deputy Attorney General 26
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
RICHARD KEA VY,
COMPLAINANT,
vs.
QWEST CORPORATION D/B/A/
CENTURYLINK COMMUNICATIONS, LLC
RESPONDENT.
) )
) SUMMONS
)
) ) CASE NO. QWE-T-21-14
)
) )
) ________________)
William Hendricks
Associate General Counsel
Lwnen Technologies
902 Wasco St, Floor I
Hood River, OR 87031
[e-mail]
THE STATE OF IDAHO SENDS GREETINGS TO THE ABOVE-NAMED RESPONDENT.
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that a Complaint has been filed with the Idaho
PubJic Utilities Commission by the above-named Complainant; and
YOU ARE HEREBY DIRECTED to file a written answer or written motion in
defense of the Complaint within twenty-one (21) days of the service date of this Summons; the
answer or motion in defense should also respond to the fol1owing areas of inquiry in addition to
the alJegations raised by the Complaint:
I.An explanation, to include documentation, of how Respondent's Call Trace service
operates. Additionally, please include a thorough description of what constitutes a
"successful" and "unsuccessful'' trace call.
2.A copy of Respondent's contract with customers describing the Call Trace service.
3.An explanation, to include any documentation of Complainant's attempts to utilize
the Call Trace system. 1
1 Complainant states that over time, he has made over 400 call trace contracts with Respondent.
SUMMONS
27
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
P.O. Box 83720, Boise, ID 83720.0074
January 12, 2022
Via Certified Mail
Qwest Corporation d/b/a CenturyLink Communications, LLC
A TIN: William Hendricks
Lumen Technologies
902 Wasco St, Floor 1
Hood River, OR 87031
[e-mail]
Re: Case No. QWE-T-21-14
Dear Mr. Hendricks,
Brad Little, Governor
Eric Anderson, Commissioner Kris Raper, Commissioner
Enclosed, please find a Summons and Formal Complaint (which includes the Formal Complaint and
Additional Information filed by Richard Keavy ("the Complainant")) issued against CenturyLink in
the above-mentioned case number. As directed in the Summons, you are to file a written answer or
motion in defense of said Complaint with this Commission within 21 days of the service date of the
Summons.
The Company should respond to Mr. Keavy's Formal Complaint and all claims made therein.
Additionally, please provide any necessary information and documentation to the Commission.
Further, the Company should specifically address the three points of inquiry as set forth in the
Summons.
Sincerely,
JM��•
Commission Secretary
Enclosure(s} l'\Lcpf\TELECOM\QWE-T-21 •14 Kmy\QWET2114.Summon1.cb doc
11331 W. Chinden Blvd. Ste 201-A Boise ID 83714 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone]
28
YOU ARE FURTHER NOTIFIED that unless you do so within the time hereinspecified, the Idaho Public Utilities Commission may take such action against you as is prayedfor in the Complaint or as it deems appropriate under Title 61 of the Idaho Code.YOU ARE FURTHER NOTIFIED that the Complainant and the Commission Staffshall have 14 days from the filing of Respondent's Answer to file any reply comments.YOU ARE FURTHER NOTIFIED that all persons and parties shall comply withthe Commission Rules of Procedure, ID APA 31.01.01.000 et seq, and specifically Rules 41through 43, IDAPA 31.01.01.041-.043.WITNESS my hand and the seal of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission this �day of January 2022.Commission Secretary(SEAL)I ll.c91hllil.ECO�I\OWE•T-21°H KuvylQWET2114_S..mmOlll_tb doo SUMMONS229
�I ,,,.k> . / (3R.Olf..fru c_��fl-' e
• P � twr, 1tJplt 1 �prll ,.,_,, _, c--M R '.ic�Jo) Ulfl&/21 Pap I .ir/4 '(: '! Public Utilities C.nmmissioo - Genera) Manager / � 3
Part two (2) on the matter of the •57 �Call Trace' ruse ... refusing to 'Initiate Deterrent Action'
The attached recent billing reconf from USWcst/Century Link (CLink) shows I had �, (via their •57 disboorsty) fifty seven (57) calls to my DoNotCall, unpublished, unlisted land line I have bad with USWest for thirty-eight (38) years. Clink and otbm sboold be asbamc:d? The CLink product includes use of the above� that are part ofhundn:ds of contracts CLink constructs when their customer haog.1 up on UDWBDlcd calls and dials *57. Whal follows are a series of Cl.ink promises, instructions and directions that lead to coatndictions, denials and flat out refusals of CLink to follow through and complete the contaa::t oijectivcs ... including to 'Initiate, and to affect 'Deterrent Action.' More promises detailed at the time of each coo1ract assures 1hat after alatinr QJnlc that three�• (of the same numba have been accouuted to CLink (at 800-582-0655) they would return my call within 24 to 41 hours .•• with advice having to do with promised and expected 'dctl:m:ot action., Not one of tbc five (S) call back ammmccs CI.ink said they would make to me,. during the past several wcc:ks. wm ldm.ocd or completed by CLink through today. This CLink abuse, form, format, � indifl'ac:nce and dishonesty bas been ongoing, consistent and unchanging. for more than five years. Clink has initiated, made and then broken hundrals of in fm-.e individual contracts with me (and count)� others?) and defiwJtcd on all of them? ... given that CLink refuses to report, clarify or follow, in any form, as to what they accomp1l:sbed, lgoored, dismissed or just tossed. Public Utilities Commission's (PUC) Chris Hecht (always polite aml seemingly caring) was familiar with this bistmy for years and respmdrd to some of my calls for clarity; including my cxpectatiun of either actio11 agajm;t Cl.ink cooduct or a sbrtr:rocof of support for it and why. The last time tht; matter was laid out again for PUC actionfenforoc:ment Chris made it clear again that a superior collcaguc of his (a PUC lawyer?} made the decision to let the matter drop and do nothing, again, with no written opinion or ddail as to why the negligent/harassing conduct !DYil continue while being tacitly encouraged by CLink, the PUC and others. The Boise Police Dcpertmmt (I spoke with a Olptain and his Lieutenant ..• the laUa, a cordial listener -for 90 minutes) recently concluded in writing it was not their (Boise City) paefcu¢ kind of policing .and bad refused (to my knowledge) to consider securing a subpoena for CLiuk records (onlas to reckless behavior) which I bad outlined to/sought fiom Rick Niehlsen (Boisc/BPD) three times over recent years. The Lt evidently concluded their prosecutors•• need not be informed and added I would be heard from again! :) c� in the course of each of their contract producing episodes, posits that sometimes the police� needed to 8SSID'e and uphold good order. BPD/Boisc City by not referring the load of CLinJc ocgligeoa:,<& to their respective prosecutors** ... even though pemaps hundn:ds or thousands of intrafmtcrsblte citizens are indeed subject to similar assaults ... may be suborning and encouraging the circular, play dum� callous ridicule that IS Clink. Multiple huodreds of individual •57 actions by me resulted in dozens of recommended ( contract .required) follow through phone calls to and from CLink. The rules require that after a nmnber bas been •traced� at least three (3) tunes, the iajured party must (according to contract rules) call CLiak at 800-562--06S5. The last five call back requests to that number (over 3 weeks) have not been returned in the 24-48 hours promised/contracted by Clink. Please engage/advise.
Richanl Keavy 11282 Glen Ellyn Boise, ID 83713
30
! :r
t, f ! :
i. ! . -.. -
' :.:,�:: Centurylink
Detafls of Your fnternet and Home Phone Charges ,.,..-.,r ,,_ ......
Usage Charges .. � ------
,c, ;9nv,1.
N!f L
22 ( '21 f i4t l 661 C ,T45 � -1881 C -Seo 2J 1:c .. :11,.-1661,ot:i Coil3 ":"�uil Min Se:
Pay Per U=-e
Tr,1 po,:icr, of y::..1 1:l ,,,�z .:s.is tened /;,) � C.:,;:,...,,,t<:,. CSA;;..::-.,, )Ull> � c.11�r57J -206-322-1
No, JJ.u,
1 Sep 10
$&p 13Sep 1310 Sep1413.Sep1616 Sep17�9 Sep 18.... $ep20 "25 Sep20:::� Sep2t::r 5Qp22. . .:-Sep23 37 Sep24.:o Sap27�J Sep2941; Sep29�9. Sep3052 Oct04 75 Oct04
� Q, Al:���3 at �.25 each
Tmc, N::;. Dltht ,.me
6:O7P 2.Sep 12 4:28P9·•7A 5 SeplS 9:� 12:23P 8 Sep 14 9;16A B:t4P 11.Sept4 9:11P2:96P 14.Sep17 10:44A 3:31P 17.Sep'IB 9'48A 11:43A 20 S.p18 1:11P9.57A 23. Sep20 1O.S9A2:157P 26.8ep21 10:38,\1Cl39A 29 Sep21 1Q:4QA 95,A 32 Sep22 12:2:SP 7;4iA 35. Sep24 10:47A4:1SP 38. Sep27 9:04A 12:16P 41 Sep27 2·43p9·54A 44. Sep29 10.O7A11:51A 47 Sep29 5:27P g:57A 50. Sep30 g:58A9:«A 53. Oct04 3:31P 3'36P sa O:t05 12:lOP
I,/
No.
3 6 912..15.18 212'4 27,30 3:i3S39. 42.45.48 51-54 Si
Usage Charges Total
i line
at $0.25 per line
at 29 .. 1 h
DIiie T.i'M
S.p 13 9·48A Sep ll 12:0iPSep 14 2'11P
Sep 15 8.34A Sep 17 12:56PSep 18 9.51ASep 18 2:34P Sep20 2;50PSep21 10:391' Sep22 858ASap22 2A6P
SeJ;24 12:39P Sep27 10:40ASep28 8·02A Sep29 11·32ASep3D 9:55A Oct01 2.58P Oct04 3 32P Oct07 11 041,
,very Fee at $1.00 per access hne
://7125 ./
31
32
Mr Daniel Klein Hand Carry I 2/22/2 I Public Utilities Commission
Re: Fonnal Complaint hy Richard Keavy involving USWesl/CenturyLink.
. ,. I '· • • I .. J .:iJ:4� .' :SS!(JN
Attached are se,eral things that might be usefuJ for those PUC JX.'<>ple that carry on with the: examination of the Century Link complaint.
I - A copy of my Certified Mail leuer addressed to Century I.ink Executive Offices in Omaha about a verbal and then \\Tilt.en communicalion, a month ago, between lhi:ir ·rvtar) · and me. I
askoo for a folio" up, ahr� wed.:s agu, and ha\-e not heard anythlng.
2 -Attached are four (4) pages of partial Century I.ink phone bills for the months of September.
November and Decemher. The pages show admissions from Century I.ink, after they said during
etJdJ of thc:ir •57 r1.'\.'\l� din.'\:U\-o to 1.1� oontructi� part), that lhs::} haJ 'lraced" not I� than 113 calls (20, 56. 37) in total. A billing for th� month of °'-.-tober is not available hut there were
more 'traces· during that month as "'elf. PUC examination \l,ill finJ that thi:y admit (as diJ Mary) that l�) Jo not ·traC4:· calls e"en
though they claim to do Sl' and c��d a f« for t'aeh tmce .. as the billing notices show.
While many years of these �J'ilSSes and deceptions are of record they continue to be silenl about th� breadlt.'S, uncoo�rali\-� and a�e� lo rn.iking amends.
Please encourage those \\ho look into this case: to call on me if I can help to correct a misunderstanding ur prc"�nl time wasted hy o�erlooked, misstated positions.
Thank you again.
Richard Keavy
PS: the pages are marked up to so expunge my in jeopardy/fonnerl} •protected' •private' phone
number and the numhl!rs of other parties not known to he relat�d to this case.
33
Pt!nonlll tord Confula,tial Certified Mail 70201810000 l 29605277 President and/or Executive Secretary Century Link Executivr Offica POBox 2618 Omaha, NE 68103 The following message was tcxted to the number given to me (531-213-4768) by Century Link's 'Mary•-in Omaha., NE. She t.-alled me on 11/13 to say "'Doug' (of Clink in Boise} had asked her lo contact me. She was unstm:* why and was not current* on history or documentation. .. HeHo Mary. \'ou phoned en Tuesda) anen da)S age. We spek2 for93 aiallta. V0&& ,..t'l"C net modttatef:r pnpand or 1ffl IIR of Cmtury Links nttlns, no1 attended abu� to DI) bomdlold going lw:k many )t'.ars ••• let alone -..hat Centul')·Liok lib D01'.'E TO usthroaghoat 1M btst 90 Ila} s! An )'OU, �Doeg' or� ,:oiJtg to grt back lo me aboutrtparations!nmtdies an)'lime soon'! Plca5e. RicLud Kf:.lV) 12/�fll [phone] ..True to fonn. for Century Link/US\\'�t. no repty• from 'Mary· through I 2/13/21. lt is routine for Century Link �tan: "l�/iflh�y Jo m.al..: �(111�� to reciu: data alt�oily l..11'lWtl, Ja.la not rele\'ant to their reprehensible conduct and data that dl"leS nothing to correct or address thcir wdl oiled. perennial, misconduct* Please do not continue to ignore this ongoing negligence. Richard Keavy 11282 Glen Ellyn Boise, ID 83713 PS -rm not including my USWest land line number provided to me lhirty-eighl (38) years ago. I paid a fee, even month, year after YCdl', for multiple decad� to keep that line pri,·ate and !!Q! published. It has been in the f cderal Do Not Call system since its start up. Some years ago USWcst/ Cc:ntun Link I™blishoo tha1/m_)J1UD1�r in tbc local Jin.·dory to serve whalc,,er trendy profit making ruse of that time. I got calls from fumitun: sale C\llnfYanin, la" o �ompanil."S and donut shops ... wdcoming me to the ndgbborhood! No apology fmm Century Link. No contrition* whatSlk!,cr. llk: onlj thing tJ�� diJ �) "� some: dc,k pruhabl} made a •mistake· and then they promptly. Jutifiuly changed rhc subject The continual ref aleJ abuse J get now, the <k>ubl� tall/dumb pla)ing CenlW) Li1"-. Ser-... .. � anJ :u:commoJat� is abuul hubris• and uf practiet!'d dubious purposes. Ahm. if I display that phooe numh<..,-here, Century I .ink '"ill likely claim a.JI in:ipprupriale di:>tribu.tion of it is/\,a.:, Ill) fault TI1c:1l: i.) onf} un� of m.:, b) name, in all of ldalkl. ·Competc:nl' Century Linl staff �m ha, C no lnrubk findntg th¢ subject numM. PPS -Please rewrse/remo-.e lh� 1..-mwl addilion s« attached. � is no such reliable service. 34
~-----,.,.�---.
,.;:.: ... ::._:,��-� :-:• .. ti•.:i::-: t.11::�-� ii:-��our
.C.:i�l..i lj!J.11,.• �-IJ:>IJ•&;,4U �:�file.
�rof1le. ei\t,eJ l:} '::'.J":ci:Wl!J :! (u,un;t �, i": '
, • , r•1 : •• t :-;•:� � ,. .... rr
�nttt;,;:, r mn� At:drtss• • lhe IHna,l � "fl'' r,tnvitlM tn, .. � In rl!;W'h �· Ft,r�-��·• . :!. , : ·•. 1!�,t· l1/11U21
l'IUIJRT�f
,111;1 lAl!IJ t:EJNY l 1182 W LiLEN ill YN DRsorsE m 1:.rn J.6G23
ill111f,1!l:.1llll•!}: .. :n•1: ...•.. • !!.! !'.'!'. \' I I I II 11 11 I 1 111 11 tit II I
m�� rJASS WJ. 11S POSl.t.G: ' a ' 'l'I
: 1 ,..._ • , l- • , ..... t t� l .t 1.L ,ht• t''J u1' Evmtr� mfnw id1r,o rind ate.�: :1: �. 1!.i:; i�fi� .. l:::. .. �.._.r:fnm.:1llmt As. lw,u � IJ1i! c:f1ange was made irte.1(io, -irly n.1 � h't1 ; ... t:� ....... ' :.-H,H/J,· ... � :• �1\ , ...:=. oL •• ! ... .: ·� J • ·,
""� •· 11, • I · r" ,._. -�::::•---:---
• : ,. � ttr� .. � r.c. U1"!!fr • .-,, l .: Ii ,4 • ... � • .,i: 1 :n 16,t r1,,:,1?,1� ti . �.,-j ':J,r-f-4,/i\.J L -� I JI
35
�
\
::
.,_
�('()7 c� �. nr:
:,
!.C:ii:J D��:;:1k.t, ':!. �,, ,:
,�!,., . . :. t-rJ-: ..,� - ,...,,. f"J:
I •,•:••• •:.t:.li :e .. ,,, 1t?t:
:..
�.. ... :. �:»� r,. ... .,.... 7 �-,II!
16000
Auto Pay
i • �
... A
Ttw eEISf( ways to
'"'L! AutoPav:
lra1-4r,'"", t'• �\ • f· �•j:; ,.._. • oH«s Mfl-. Wl'.W)' llolf!J..,. �r,;u:• � • 'i � .... , · •r •:;r�nut :-n•i:-P. Sl!e _._, 1 ,h,,�-c,-1;"'�1,Luu1u: h�·l·,1f 'I)�! ,. r., 11e11; Ttr.n,
'iMtl c�u:Htr.u:. .i•_ I ·--,fr I 11! !... I F"-,·t ..
•
36
Detail! ct Your Internet and Home Phone Charges
'-Ul;t :"..-i,T1.
.r; :.1.T. :, :..:..,.:,
' . I.,_ .. • • .., ·•6-: ,,·-... ,;.,,... _ _.� <!ii>r . -\;.: :, '.... ,,.:; ... ,,.,111o
... __, ._, ... ....,.,..__..,_.,...,_...,.__,,..� ... -T �.!!!9.-�
•c.:,!I hi .. .! .& ,.., 'I :n I tall I- a ''I T"' 1�11 ',t .;,tao � '' I i •I.I r �� ; J ;;; ;: "t1 � :•,r � l• �),J .�;.1 t.114� ... , .. :a.-,... �- -!.:.�! ''..!!
u....c,.:-'"""7-" • .,.
, .................---.. ,..-.f•t�-=· .,,.
.., ,1' fD,­._.., .,,., ._., ttM. I ..... t':t• " .... , . ... tt ..... > 1)11.1, ,, .... ,, , ....... tt-:: z:•& :: . , � .,,� r-.ti 1114 iii, '-"* ..... -� ...
�--��--­
-�,!U � !"• t •-:• , ........ '--�� ,_.., ..
. , ., .... ... ,.....11 ... .. ..,., -­,...,. ......... ,t , • .... •1 :.1 •a;o --:'l i;;p u..:: 'I.I,,& ., :,. ....o-:, 1.a» la'-' •••• --....,.
tOl ',,
....,.
......, �::ti[ a.K; forget it.
,€:_j r..,,.,, .ryUnk
r,-:.1-,��= I ...... .___...,_.. .. '\• ----■ .............. .!q.l ..... ....._. .... ...,.__..,._""-.. _ ....
37
r!i
\
'
.,
':: s / � I , �:::: e I'\ f,'T.T' f")r• "I� 1n Nf'I\' 7
-�-
IJ,;,-;;:; -:--.:: .]t-.....
\ Od� t>'.!IP ,-. : ... � � �;:; .. -...... -lob!C�. � .I" z
� �1.::. .uJ $1 2,:, �;r.
7
43
r �·�· ,,._
C --
.. -.i�;.
I• .2.�..-, � 95,;. e
:,_ 1 : • I 1 <''J ,:_ 1 �
C1ci f!'i 1 .!5P '.!O ! • '! r ,; � ... l i � --i:.7. ;-�; -, , ' ; ... PA �"'►J °'-l'2!> 'H,W �'.? •·i ;: � -1 1"\P --:.;
.J -l�ovOJ 3.llP 44
--.... c,.,� �� Ct:• 1�
1)-::, • .:; Cl-=1 ,e (I\,,:,) -.. :--
Oc:l '25
fl'"'� .... :!:,;., 11 '"!\
, .. J j_ :t rn:,,A r: '.
:;;.,t.
I �-;;. '2.'!."l�
J
LJ
']
Ji' 21 -.
:1:) 3'3
;a
4
·-·v. . -l '.:;, Cle! 19 1245P t); t �t: I! '/\ -.. � -,I:'_:/, , ,._ t: !) WliSA Ocl 2.f, q-1.�,i.
I I
Auto Pav
�.!,.,,, • +
-:. .. ,.. .,,_ -· : L .; --.,.._
' '!'J'�f:�· 1:�}fu;; =:·-�; ::Z\4� .. !t t \�'�",:f
.. � ....
. . . 1·: .. {. •t 1i.,?, � �n'h r ,,..,� • .,_,.,.-;-♦
Two easr wav& i.u
:;elect J.\utoPay:
�, -•,• l J·.•j • -.. .:. .. . "=e.:i •w! illr.is.:.� c. ,·�•, � �t .a,sr.,..,.c-·•• ' :-, �·; •.• ·i:l,G.;1nntlcl'.!.See • · ... , � • /i,,t .. • .... , tfil!i�urJ,;'lcgol : -1 ' r1 : •• r -�· !1 : ,;. r�;••l�ii� Ttm1, r1) ,;,11·•••1ons IJ.:.1 : , l,11 ;1 i•➔ J.I h�,h�� lle�erv� ll"ll'lrmN
38
,
Centurylink
08taifs of Your fn1ernef and Home Phone Charges
� -"'· ...
Ho
5.; 55
Dale
!1c: C-l 1-!o· .. os
T,mi, Na,
,l • •,.:
O..te
1-lo\'OS
N,;:vC\8
• •• • �• • :-�••• h • -� �.,•=
1nterr1el Lala ?ayma;11 CliaJiJd '·/'
;. ·,,·•�···,: c.:-:�r�:;-G Tolar
Tox!?s, Fees 8 Surchiirg�r.
l .---�l � -:-� ..
rcd,;:�i C11iv::J:.-�.: i=.,: j . 1 :\ \#_, I
� -·· ·; �! 'I , .. r· = 11! t.�::."\• :.� t"!!? .d
••· • I ' , ) <' '• : ,., : • � ,.r'J
, .. -..�, f� &. SU'lchl!l'fge-s l'o\�\
T,n,e tfo
r• I
r...,,,
17.GC
. ..
I
& EL
39
\
-.. . .. ..-·--.. ..
r If':
-.; I i l
. ,,
-....... -· z:,:!.• ' - �-·
,II, .:!. ,r �.! •• \Ot"
1· ., .. � tJ, ,_ .. �; �.. ..,_ . � ..
IOuil
--
,,_.
E I!] QJIJ&
,\u1uPc1y
r-,
... ,•,;j .r:t
'
.... ..
. ..,..,.,. � . . �Til!U,l'I • r
'j.\Jjt;� •
l"wo easy WoVS iO , h-,.1 ;,1::uPay:
:.. .• .:1-........... ---- .. . . •·., ;L�., i' ·-• . ·• •• � u!;,.. •: rf:r :l i 'I,. !! "' 4 �
fl•,
40
Public Utilities Commission Ms Jan Noriyuiki -Commission Secretary 11331 W. Chinden BJdg 8 Suite 20 I-A Meridia� ID
,, . \'-D,.,-,. ,'-...... \ I l-
I 15/22 is Mi 8: 54
. ., .� �-:t�, ::at,'Re: FonnaJ Complaint by Richard Kcavy agains1 CenturyLink.
HandC�
Page I of 3
Certified Mail "Cease aud Desist' demand(?) made by Century Link (M) interpretation)
Cemun·Link has directed me to Si.up using thdr *57 tool� m� attention to my contractual responsibilities is now report1..--dly -.•. tying up CenUil) Link resources:· If I quit doing my part of the •57 instruction and do not completl! an) :.econd anJ third ·trac�·
activity ... Centuryl.inks offer tl) •initiau: deterrent action· will not begin or complete. In truth lhL'Te is no "lfau:'. going on, Uk."TC' is no \!�ieirenl at.iion· going on and lhi:?;r promise tv n:lum m)
calls in 24 to 48 lwurs are knt.m--ingly not �r,!)l.--ning eitl,er. TheJ Sl.--om the �,mirads t�y rL-quire.
In Doug il.forgans attached letta (and my n.'Sfl\lOSC lu il) he claims Centu� Link h.is ·" ... ref}t'atedly oflered optional S\.� icn th.al bc'ua �!, �our nn'\Js.-ThoSe only alleged'Scn'i..:es · ufTl!rl.-J ha\'1.! n,>thinc al. a.H tu <lu \\ ith �,mi.r2Cl inlcnUpurpo�,6 ihat Cl!nluryLinkorchestratt.-d and demanded thal w� enter inlo and p,ocess together.
'Jbis morning I got a call from {708-578-4034) a1 7;28 and again at 7:30am. Nt.1 rm..-ssag.i: ... just rings and a hang up wh�n lhe an5wer machine eng..'lg�. r thin�, at ihai hour, hurassing:+· calls are illegal by F"-<lcral standanis .. .-�ct su�·,mli:J and cncourag� (?) b� C �nturyLink. Each call \',,"35 said (hy Centu�·Link) to hav� �'Tl ·rrai.:ed• (pa:,:t h!nse) hc.."t-2U:,c I haJ pmmpil� utiliz� !he •57 n.,�pon.5t: as I \\as onlctL"tl i.u ,fo after 1:ut·h wJL llli! third {3ri.1) i�k-gal �I,, from the sam�
numtx.-r. took place at C):29am and it ,\as sa.iJ 1-i� Centnr� I ink to ha,e l'ieen ·lraced· as ,.,ell -\ccoriling lo conir'c1ct itlSinl4:tit>n and C1..-ni1ll) Link u!id I phonnl CenlW)LillA ai 800-582-0655. upon their third ·1race_· or the samr cal Irr.:; nwnbcr and ld1 \,orJ tha! ·c.J�h!'rreol action· must� becun and that I wiH look for the prmni�-d \..tli rud� in 24 - -t8 hulli!, ll is nol \.llli� LOntnu.tualh
rc;guin.-d ur me. i.O i:hihct'c h:, uur mui.t1aHy agrt."l!d tu ti.,=nns and thi: lung statL-J rule.. ii is the right
thing to do ... so to enable C entu.f: Link to heU.:r atldrf!H the burden5 f'n oiher members or m) crnnmw1ity ... ac�onling 10 ,1.a1i:u c�ntuJ) Lin}. a. .. �uranc(:S. lkm.dn� ami hopdul Cl1mpch:m.�
Pl� get this ailililion of infomJ.1,ion an.J C t.'1'1£W} Lia]...:, cknial of du£) and r,:3ponsibilil) lPthose who may benefit fmm it 1 am twl copying thi� ll'.1 the' fk.,mt; AG. who reccntl: \\eighL"C.1 in. beca� I d\l not knO\\ if duing � \\\.lU.hl be a.ppropri.ik.
Pk� continue to kno.\ ilia! if I can h." pai-t of cl.lrit: and a go,od meraJI understanding of detail• and hi�tury 1 \,ill if) l1) make m�:.df .i;.ail&bk at �lhJT h:isun: anJ u1n\cnicn�c. n,ill1ks again_
Sincerd).
Richard Keav)
Attachments: (2)
41
January 3, 2022 Richard Keavy 11282 W Glen Ellyn Dr.
Boise ID 83713
Dear Richard Keavy,
�, �� Centurylink ...
CenturyLink strives to maintain good relationships with its customers. During the past
several years you have contacted CenturyLink regarding unwanted ca11s that you have
received. Over the years we continue to clarify the purpose of Call Trace is to assist with
abusive or threatening callers. CenturyLink has continued to clarify, based on the calls
you are receiving, that call trace will not block or identify the calls you want to prevent.
We have repeatedly offered optional services that better address your needs.
We have made various attempts over several years to address your concerns, however the
repeated cans regarding this matter are tying up CenturyLink resources. As a result, all
non-out of service communication regarding your account and/or services including Call
Trace must be done in writing:
CenturyLink Customer Advocacy 931 14th St 10th Fl Denver Co, 80202 Regards,
Douglas Morgan
CenturyLink Customer Advocacy
Customer Advocacy 000A93, ,4th Street, Ste 1
Denver, CO 80202
Richard Keavv
11282 W Glen Ellyn Dr.
Boise ID 83713
42
Personal and Confidential CcrtifiedMail 70203I6000012294095 J Douglas Morgan, Century Link • Advocacy· 931 14th #IOOOA Denver, CO 80202
Dear Mr Morgan,
1/13/22 Page 1 of2
Received )'Our "importanf letter� by Certified !\·tail, dated 1/3/22 (that took )our company four (4)\\oorking days to postmark) that included this WlDt'Cc!'SSafY and out or order boast? ...
··CenturyLink strives (oddly) to maintain good relationships v.ith (some of) its customers:·cannot ascertain, without your help, IF the mi!Ssages in )Our k:tter \�ere purpo�d to be tak.�n
seriously OR if they were more ahoutjo\iaJ. humomus and genuine good will. You can help.*
But first... thi�: I tlrink the Idaho Public Utilities Commission attcmpled to learn about our dilT�rem:c. by a dire�lion the)' refer to as "infom\al.· I think Centur) Link (CLinL) muy lia\e
made it clear they did not want lo play et.tuilahly or candidly Someone reportedly named ·Doug·
(at Clink in Denver) got ·.Mary· (at Clink in Omaha) to phon� m�. Mal} claimed to be a Supervisor al Cl.ink for a lol of years of scr. k·� and an original party lo earl) mt.-eling.-. on hovv and ,, hat *57 was going to do for the company L111d its customers. Ma!} and I talked for more than an hour. ft �'4iue dear to me (and Mar:?) she "'as not up to s� \\ollh historic!worl-..ing facts in history; she said CLink does not routindy/regularl) (as Clink claims to do fIT!!: da�') ·trace· calls and sh� addi!d other revelations mosl Clink people \\:OlUd � admit
tC\ ••• including how •initiate deterrent action' is only a ,;aid c,cpectation ... follov.ed by purposedddau.Ils, denials and con!i!mpl Mary ga\.e the impression she noufd get back to me ... withanswers and com.'Ctions. She did not do so. I wrote to hcT (by Certified !\faiL Personal andConfidential man) \\t."!l..s ago) and ibke<l h�r to �pond lo questions put to her. To date, true toform for CLink.. silc-nce and da:q,tion u\\Il!) the day. Do �ou and Ma� know-E:11cb other and
are you working a grandiose pmarication tugdhu? Aru,"\\er thaL please.N'ov.. as for the CLink prndi\it) lo furu!l'makc i:onlrclCL� for the C::\pn.-ss purpose of prnmptl)break in£ them ... your latest parmenhip · 5'.)lution,' it appears. is to continue to break all the pending (not ddiu:reJ on or inkndt:<l to ddi � er) string of conirai.:b (by ignoring pt:nding * 57
protocols) while preventing all future cnntracls from \'iabilit) b) disallowing me (only me'!}
from utilizing/follov1oing the *57 '\eh.iclc and its rdated "deterrent action· deceptions? E"identl1 follov.ing through v.ith cmrent contract rules of order (induding. thoSc thai promise me a call hack in 24 to 48 hours which does not happen) \\ill continue lt> be the Clink plan to defeat both
the old and new rule *57 contract� and pretences. As for -Call Tr.ice· compatibilit) and ·rep�Led ca11s· o1Telbo )OU !lcl) I brnught to CLinl .. .l
am again at a loss.* I have done preci"-Ch Y.hat Cl.ink orden:d me to do. paid the cost/ price �manded of me. l!tldured the headaclk.�. modJng. ridicule and broil.cm pmmiSeS Clink made at me. And now ... having received notice that my ·several years· of misheharior against *57+
protocols CLink is demanding another le'\el of �ontempt ihat I cannol abide\\ ith u hile doing what Y.l! agreed lo do •togcther·. What �ou a!)k_ how �ou consufL Vvhat �uu <lo and fail to do is hcjon.d my understanding. You can hdp to g�t this shamdess mos correded .. b} bdng honest.
You can do better than � ou have done. Richard Kea,·�
43
CJ
LU !,--' rr
Ci
D r::· :::; �-' ru n.J -'l
��­....... __
.;::; -==
Cl
a:===--=!-e:1m:www. _,. ........ -.....
■ � -
.. r ...
it
. --·------------
44
From: Taylor Brooks Sent
To:
Thursday, February 10, 2022 2:13 PM
Hendricks, Tre E
Cc:
Subject
Attachments:
Mr. Hendricks,
Daniel Klein; Dayn Hardie
RE: QWE-T-21-14
Certified Mail Receiptpdf
Thank you for your response. Attached, you will find the certified mail receipt showing that the Summons was officially served on January 24, 2022. As you know, this is legal standard by which process of service is reviewed. The PUC will forward a copy of the summons to Stephen Thomas at Hawley Troxell, but the Company will need to file a request for an extension to respond that the Commission will review. Our next Decision meeting by which that process could occur is February 22, 2022.
From: Hendricks, Tre E <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, February 10, 202212:05 PM To: Taylor Brooks <[e-mail]>
Cc: Daniel Klein <[e-mail]>; Dayn Hardie <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: QWE-T-21-14
I am in-house counsel for Qwest, but due to COVID have not been in-office. In addition, we have staffing issues in
support of office operations and I have not received this notice. Our attorney of record in Idaho is Stephen Thomas, at
Hawley Troxell in Boise.
We would certainly be able to respond and would like the opportunity to do so. Please advise how we should
proceed. Thank you I
From: Taylor Brooks <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2022 10:52 AM
To: Hendricks, Tre E <[e-mail]>
Cc: Daniel Klein <[e-mail]>; Dayn Hardie <[e-mail]>
Subject: QWE-T-21-14
Dear Mr. Hendricks,
On January 13, 2022, the Idaho Public Utilities Commission mailed-via certified mail-a summons regarding the above-mentioned case which is herein attached. That Summons directed Qwest Corporation d/b/a CenturyLink Communications, LLC to respond to a Formal Complaint within 21-days. The 21-day mark occurred on February 3, 2022. To date, no R�ponse has been received. It is our understanding that you currently represent the Company as its attorney. If this is not correct, please notify me immediately.
Please e-mail me as soon as possible to discuss this matter.
Respectfully,
Taylor R. Brooks I Office of the Attorney General, State of Idaho Deputy Attorney General
1 45
ldnho Public Utilities CommiM,ion 11331 W. Chinden Blvd. Boise, Idaho 83714 Direct: [phone]
Notice: this e-mail may be confidential, privileged, and exempt from public disclosure. The sender intends that it be used only by the individual or entity nambed above. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you may not use, disclose, copy, or distribute the e-mail or its contents. If you believe you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender and delete the copy you received.
This communication is the property of Lumen Technologies and may contain confidential or privileged information.
Unauthorized use of this communication is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this
communication In error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the
communication and any attachments.
2 46
From: Sent To: Cc:
Subject
Attachments:
Good afternoon Mr. Thomas,
Taylor Brooks
Thursday, February 10, 2022 2:34 PM [e-mail]
Dayn Hardie; Daniel Klein; Terri Carlock
Case No. QWE-T-21-14
20220112Summons to Qwest Corporation.pdf, Certified Mail Receipt.pdf
On January 13, 2022, the Idaho Public Utilities Commission served-via certified mail-a summons and formal complaint regarding the above-mentioned case which is herein attached. That Summons directed Qwest Corporation d/b/a CenturyLink-Communications, LLC to respond within 21-days. The 21-day mark occurred on February 3, 2022, but the PUC did not receive any response from the Company.
The PUC's understanding was that Mr. Hendricks represented the Company. On February 10, 2022, Mr. Hendricks communicated via e-mail that he represents Qwest as its in-house counsel-but that you were the attorney of record in Idaho for CenturyLlnk. Could you please confirm that? If so, we will update our records to ensure that future communications with the Company are directed to you.
Regardless, the Company does need to respond to the Complaint. The next step forward is to file a request for an extension to respond to Mr. Keavy with the Commission which it will review. Our next decision meeting is on February 22, 2022 and all items need to be submitted by the Friday prior by 12 p.m. Thus, your request would need to be submitted by February 18, 2022. If you are able to compile a response in that short time, you are welcome to submit that as well.
If you have any questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please feel free to call me at my direct line or send an e-mail. Thank you very much.
Respectfully,
Taylor R. Brooks I Office of the Attorney General, State of Idaho Deputy Attorney General lc..lulw Puhlic lltililics < ommi.,.,ion 11331 W. Chinden Blvd. Boise, Idaho 83714 Direct: [phone]
Notice: this e-mail may be confidential, privileged, and exempt from public disclosure. The sender intends that it be used only by the individual or entity nambed above. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you may not use, disclose, copy, or distribute the e-mail or its contents. If you believe you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender and delete the copy you received.
1 47
From:
Sent
To:
Cc:
Subject
Attachments:
Dear Mr. Hendricks,
Taylor Brooks
Thursday, February 10, 2022 11:52 AM
[e-mail] Daniel Klein; Dayn Hardie
QWE-T-21-14
20220112Summons to Qwest Corporation.pdf
On January 13, 2022, the Idaho Public Utilities Commission mailed-via certified mail-a summons regarding the above-mentioned case which is herein attached. That Summons directed Qwest Corporation d/b/a CenturyLink Communications, LLC to respond to a Formal Complaint within 21-days. The 21-day mark occurred on February 3, 2022. To date, no Response has been received. It is our understanding that you currently represent the Company as its attorney. If this is not correct, please notify me immediately.
Please e-mail me as soon as possible to discuss this matter.
Respectfully,
Taylor R. Brooks I Office of the Attorney General, State of Idaho Deputy Attorney General Idaho PuhJic Utilities Commission 11331 W. Chinden Blvd. Boise, Idaho 83714 Direct: {208) 334-0320
Notice: this e-mail may be confidential, privileged, and exempt from public disclosure. The sender intends that it be used only by the individual or entity nambed above. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you may not use, disclose, copy, or distribute the e-mail or its contents. If you believe you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender and delete the copy you received.
1 48
Stephen R. Thomas, ISB No. 2326 Hawley Troxell Ennis & Hawley LLP 877 Main Street, Suite I 000 P.O. Box 1617 Boise, ID 83701-1617 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: 208.954.5950 RECEIVED
2022 FEB 14 PM 4:54
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTITLIES COMMISSION RICHARD KEA VY, COMPLAINANT,
V. QWEST CORPORATION DBA CENTURY LINK COMMUNICATIONS LLC, RESPONDENT. QWE - T -21 -14 REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME COMES NOW Respondent Qwest Corporation dba CenturyLink Communications, LLC, ("CenturyLink") and, hereby designates Party Representatives under Rule 41 and also requests an extension of time in which to respond to the Formal Complaint filed by Mr. Keavy on or about January 13, 2022. I.FACTSComplainant Richard Keavy of Boise, Idaho filed a Formal Complaint in or about early January 2022, alleging problems involve "trace calls," and allegedly unsuccessful efforts to resolve the problem through Respondent's Customer Service Representatives. REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME - I 82002.0003.14511326.l 49
The Fonnal Complaint was served via U.S. Mail (Certified) to an office in Hood River,
Oregon, on or about January 13, 2022, which was received and "signed for" by one Alisa
Mooney on January 21, 2022. The Hood River addressee of the envelope containing the Formal
Complaint was one Tre Hendricks, Associate General Counsel of Lumen Technologies, an
affiliate of Respondent.
Due to COVID protocols within the Respondents' family of companies, including Lumen
Technologies, Mr. Hendricks worked from home throughout January, 2022, and never received
the envelope for which Ms. Mooney signed on January 21. Late last week was his first actual
notice of the Fonnal Complaint with Idaho Deputy Attorney Generals forwarded a copy of said
pleading via email.
Mr. Hendricks was unaware of any underlying dispute between CenturyLink and
Complainant. However, Mr. Hendricks and CenturyLink take this matter seriously and intend to
investigate the Fonnal Complaint and respond to it. The additional time will also provide
CenturyLink representatives a better opportunity to understand Complainant's issues and
hopefully address them without having to resort to litigation. The facts alleged in the complaint
are confusing and it does not appear to seek any relief for which it appears the Commission can
grant relief. CenturyLink therefore requests a 14 extension to respond, i.e, to and through
February 28, 2022. If possible, it is CenturyLink's hope to resolve this dispute with the customer
complainant informally.
II.RELIEF REQUESTED
Wherefore, in light of the above, Respondent hereby requests an extension of time to and
including February 28, 2022, in which to file a response to the Formal Complaint.
REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME - 2 82002.0003.14511326.1 50
ill. PARTYDESIGNATION Pursuant to Rule 41, Respondent hereby designates: William "Tre" Hendricks, Esq. Associate General Counsel Lumen Technologies 902 WASCO Street, Floor 1 Hood River, OR 87031 5413879439 [e-mail] -and-Stephen R. Thomas, Esq. HAWLEY TROXELL ENNIS & HAWLEY LLP 877 W. Main Street, Suite 1000 Boise, ID 83 702 208 344 6000 [e-mail] IV.CONCLUSIONRespondent respectfully requests additional time through 28 February 2022 in which to respond to the Formal Complaint, due to lack of actual prior notice arising out ofCOVID protocols and Mr. Hendricks' prolonged absence from his physical office. Respectfully submitted, HAWLEY TROXELL ENNIS & HAWLEY, LLP �� By Stephen R. Thomas REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME -3 82002.0003.14511326.1 51
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have this 14th day of February, 2022, served the foregoing REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME, in Case QWE-T-21-14, by forwarding a copy thereof, to the following: Mr. Richard Keavy 11282 Glen Ellyn Boise, Idaho 83713 (via U.S. Mail) Taylor R. Brooks Office of the Attorney General, State of Idaho Deputy Attorney General Idaho Public Utilities Commission 11331 W. Chinden Blvd. Boise, Idaho 83714 (via email: [e-mail]) Jan Noriyuki Commission Secretary Idaho Public Utilities Commission 11331 W. Chinden Blvd., Bldg. 8, Ste. 201-A Boise, Idaho 83714 (via email: [e-mail] ) REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME - 4 Stephen R. Thomas 82002.0003.14511326.I 52
TO: FROM: DATE: RE: DECISION MEMORANDUM COMMISSIONER ANDERSON COMMISSIONER CHATBURN COMMISSIONER HAMMOND COMMISSION SECRET ARY COMMISSION STAFF LEGAL TAYLOR BROOKS DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL FEBRUARY 16, 2022 IN THE MA TIER OF THE FORMAL COMPLAINT AGAINST CENTURYLINK BY RICHARD KEA VY; CASE NO. QWE-T-21-14 On December 2, 2021, Richard Keavy filed a Formal Complaint against Qwest Corporation d/b/a/ CenturyLink (QWE) ("the Company"). Mr. Keavy was unsatisfied with the outcome of the informal procedures to resolve his complaint and requested that the Commission open a formal complaint against the Company. Mr. Keavy contends that the Company has failed in its contractual obligation to him when he requests a Call Trace (*57)-a service offered by the Company to its customers. At the December 20, 2022 Decision Meeting, the Commission accepted Mr. Keavy's Formal Complaint. On January 12, 2022, the Commission mailed a Summons and copy of Mr. Keavy's formal complaint to the Company via certified mail. The Summons directed the Company to respond to Mr. Keavy's allegations within 21 days-requiring a timely response by February 2, 2022. No response was received. Staff contacted the Company's counsel to inquire why no response was filed on February 10, 2022. See Staff's Counsel Correspondence. On February 14, 2022, the Company requested an extension of time to respond to Mr. Keavy's fonnal complaint, stating that-due to COVID-19 protocols-the Company's attorney of record never received the Formal Complaint. See Company's Request for Extension o/Time at 2. However, the Company admitted it accepted service of the Formal Complaint and Summons at an office in Hood River, Oregon by and through Alisa Mooney on January 21, 2022. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Commission grant the Company's request for an extension of time to respond to Mr. Keavy's formal complaint but recommends the Commission fine the DECISION MEMORANDUM 1 53
Company for failing to timely respond to the Formal Complaint. Under Idaho Code§ 61-706, "any public utility which ... fails to comply with ... or neglects to obey, observe or comply with any . . . direction, demand or requirement ... of the commission ... such public utility is subject to a penalty of not more than $2,000 for each and every offense." Accordingly, Staff recommends that the Commission fine the Company $2,000 for failing to respond timely to a Commission directive. COMMISSION DECISION 1.Does the Commission wish to accept the Company's request for an extension of time torespond to Mr. Keavy's formal Complaint?2.Does the Commission wish to fine the Company for failing to respond timely in accordancewith the Summons?a.If so, does the Commission wish to accept Staffs recommendation of$2,000.00 ordoes the Commission wish to impose a different fine?I \Lcgal\TELECOM\QWE-T-21•14 !Ccavy\mcmos\QWEnl l4_dcc.1b.docx DECISION MEMORANDUM 2
� _/, :::% � -�--=iJ Taylor R. Bro�Deputy Attorney General 54
From:
Sent
To:
Cc:
Subject
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
Jan Noriyuki
Thursday, February 24, 2022 5:02 PM
Terri Carlock; Dayn Hardie; Taylor Brooks Naomi Carr; Keri Hawker
FW: Formal Complaint of Richard Keavy 2/24/22
Follow up Flagged
From: Cheap Advice <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2022 4:55 PM
To: Jan Noriyuki <[e-mail]>
Subject: Formal Complaint of Richard Keavy 2/24/22
Personal and Confidential Commission Secretary
Public Utilities Commission
RE: Fonnal Complaint of Richard Keavy
I have taken the liberty of asking Mr Daniel Klein an occasional question, periodically, as to PUC protocol and
expectations. He has been very helpful. I learned this morning he will be unavailable (for an on line exchange)
until March 8. While the couple of items below may be inconsequential I will feel better about bringing them
up ... respectfully:
#1-The latest PUC moves involving Qwest/CentwyLink (and enjoining the Hawley Troxell finn in Boise)
were both interesting and fitting. I was reminded of some detail mentioned on your web site about a 14 day
time allotment, after your receipt of a reply to the Summons answer and had to do with your ability to
respond to that answser. IF/when the respondents get around to doing what is expected of them maybe I could
provide a list, to the Secretary, of matters I would like them to answer? I have asked Century Link multiple
times and for years for data they may routinely gather and store. I have asked them also to save and secure
information for access at a hopeful later date ... which may apply to their late and next responsibility?
If such an opportunity comes up I would like to make some infonnation requests, ofCentwyLink through
(and or silently?) the PUC(?) that will hopefully be complimentary to your information gathering routines.
If what I seek doesn't square with your good attending, to PUC business, my request can be declined or just
put away ... without a reply from PUC.
In the past Clink has simply ignored my requests for information/data which I believe they had in their
possession. On occasion they admitted the infonnation they kept to from me was not done for legal or privacy
reasons. It was done according to what they rested on to be 'policy' ... as in like it or lump it...run up the
road. : )
2 - I saw the latest PUC/CentwyLink activity and exchanges on your web site this week. The at your web site communication from Hawley Troxell indicates that I was copied on the 14th. Today is the 24th and I did not receive anything from them. As you know overnight delivery of first class mail, in city, is not unheard of.
It is unlikely they copied me ten days ago.
I know of that law finn. It would not surprise me to learn that/ IF they bailed out of the project completely
and may eventually get around to stating so to your folks. That is totally guesswork on my part and may not be
in the mix at all.
1 55
I am very much looking forward to how CenturyLink will respond to their responsibility to the State of Idaho and/or the fine that was rightly put to them. Thanks to you and the Public Utilities Commission for being there. No response to this necessary. Richard Keavy 208-322-1383 2 56
Stephen R. Thomas, JSB No. 2326
Hawley Troxell Ennis & Hawley LLP
877 Main Street, Suite I 000
P.O. Box 1617
Boise, ID 83701-1617
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 208.954.5950
[e-mail]
•C· ·i::1\IEDI '-\...V"-
2.1 FEB 28 P�I 3: 34
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MA TIER OF
RICHARD KEA VY,
COMPLAINANT
v.
QWEST CORPORATION D/e/ A
CENTURYLJNK QC,
REsPONDENT
CASE NO. QWE-T-21-14
RESPONSE OF QWEST CORPORATION D/B/A CENTURYLINK QC TO COMPLAINT
RESPONSE TO COMPLAINT
1.Qwest Corporation d/b/a CenturyLink QC ("Century Link" or "Company")
provides this Response to the Complaint by Richard Keavy ("Complainant" or "Mr. Keavy") as
set forth in the January 12 Summons by the Commission. CenturyLink provides this Response
in accordance with the Commission's January 22, 2022 ruling granting CenturyLink's request
for an extension.
I.BACKGROUND
2.The Complainant has a long history of making unsupported claims regarding his
service, and he has done so in an aggressive and repetitive, if not harassing, manner. For this
reason, CenturyLink wishes to discontinue providing to Complainant the service at issue. ln
RESPONSE OF QWEST CORPORATION D/B/A CENTURYLINK QC TO COMPLAINT - 1
40619.0029.1455S853. I
57
fact, a recent small claims court decision in Ada County rejected a complaint that appears to
involve the same service issues he avers in this matter, although it still remains unclear what the
Complainant's allegations in this matter are precisely .1
3.The Complainant subscribes to a service called "Call Trace" which allows a
customer to dial on their phone *57 so that the Company can record the incoming call number
and, if available, the identity of the caller. The service is provided subject to the terms of
CenturyLink's Idaho service catalog, which defines the service:
Call Trace. Allows a called party to initiate an automatic trace of the last call received.
Call Trace is available on a pay per use basis only. After receiving the call which is to be
traced, the customer dials a code and the traced telephone number is automatically sent to
the Company for further action. The customer originating the trace will not receive the
traced telephone number. The results of a trace will be furnished only to legally
constituted law enforcement agencies or authorities upon proper request by them.
Manual Trap and Trace is available where facilities permit.2
The Company's website outlines how the Company implements the terms of service. It states
that call information that the Company collects is not provided to customers. Rather, it is
provided only to law enforcement officials in response to a subpoena:
To trace a call, hang up from the call. Pick the phone back up and be sure to obtain a
clear dial tone. Dial *57 and listen to the recorded information provided. The recording
will not provide the calling party's phone number; it will only indicate whether or not
you've had a successful trace ... Once you have traced the call, contact your local Law
Enforcement Agency. The trace results will only be released to a Law Enforcement
Agency with a subpoena or court order."3
It does not appear based on review of Company records that Mr. Keavy has ever contacted local
law enforcement to seek to have the data from the call traces subpoenaed, or if he did those
requests were rejected. It would not surprise the company if the latter were the case. Call Trace
1 Sec Exhibit 1. 2 CenturyLink Idaho Catalog, Section S.4.3.A (emphasis addetl). See, https://www .ccnturylink.com/tariffs/sid _ qc _ c:ns _ c _no_ 1.pdf 3 Sc:c:, https://www .lumcn.com/cn-us/about/lcgaUtrust-center/trust-and-safcty-customer-faqs.html
RESPONSE OF QWEST CORPORATION D/B/ A CENTURYLINK QC TO COMPLAINT - 2 40619.0029.14555853. I
58
is not intended to stop untoward telemarketers from making calls to a number that has been
placed on the national no-call list, even if it is a non-published number. Rather, it is intended to
provide law enforcement with a tool to address crimes against persons and property, such as
personal threats, theft, domestic violence, and the like. To Respondent's knowledge, Mr. Keavy
has not alleged that any such actual crimes have been committed in association with the
unwanted calls he is receiving on his CenturyLink telephone line. And even ifCenturyLink had
provided call infonnation gathered from a call trace by the Complainant to law enforcement,
pursuant to a subpoena, CenturyLink's obligation would be fulfilled at that point-any further
action, enforcement or otherwise, would have had to be conducted by law enforcement.
D.ARGUMENT
4.The only violation oflaw that Mr. Keavy appears to allege would be one
involving contract Jaw, although Respondent notes that there is not sufficient detail in the written
complaint to establish a cognizable claim related to contract law or of any kind -no law or facts
related to an enforceable law are cited. And the Commission does not adjudicate contract
disputes unrelated to its primary jurisdiction. For that reason alone, the Complaint should be
dismissed. But there are other grounds for dismissal.
5.The Commission only addresses disputes between consumers and the companies
it regulates based on filed tariffs for Title 61 companies, or the terms set forth in price lists or
service catalogs in the case of telecommunications companies regulated under Idaho Code,
Chapter 6, Title 62 (the "Telecommunications Act of 1988" or the "Act"). The Act substantially
narrows the scope of the Commission's regulation of telecommunications, limiting regulation to
matters related to the implementation of the federal telecommunications act of 1996 and, as it
pertains to retail service, basic telephone service:
RESPONSE OF QWEST CORPORATION D/B/A CENTURYLINK QC TO COMPLAINT- 3
40619.0029.14555853. I
59
The commission shall have the continuing authority to determine the noneconomic
regulatory requirements relating to basic local exchange service for all telephone
c01porations providing basic local exchange service including, but not limited to, such
matters as service quality standards, provision of access to carriers providing message
telecommunication service, filing of price lists, customer notice and customer relation
rules, and billing practices and procedures, which requirements shall be technologically
and competitively neutral.4
6.Call Trace service is a discretionary service that is not subject to the provisions of
the Act. And the Complaint does not allege that CenturyLink has in any way been derelict in
providing basic local exchange service. In addition, the Complaint does not allege that
CenturyLink has engaged in any prohibited billing practices, whether for basic local exchange
service or the Call Trace service that appears to be Complainant's main, if not only, concem.5
Therefore, the Complainant makes no claim for which the Commission can grant relief.
7.Furthermore, Rule 401, consistent with the Section 62.605(5)(b) of the Idaho
Code, does not appear to contemplate review of claims unrelated to local to exchange service:
The Commission has authority to investigate and resolve complaints made by subscribers
to telecommunication services that concern the quality and availability of local exchange
service, or whether price and conditions of service are in conformance with filed tariffs or
price lists, deposit requirements for such service or disconnection of such service. If a
customer who has complained to a telephone company is dissatisfied with a telephone
company's proposed disposition of the complaint, the customer may request the
Commission to review informally the disputed issue and the telephone company's
proposed disposition of the complaint. The Commission may consider complaints
regarding any telephone services over which the Commission has authority. (Emphasis
added).
Again, the Complaint makes allegations only regarding a non-regulated service which the
Company offers at its discretion, and which is not contemplated for review under Rule 401.
However, even if the Complainant were to argue that the Commission should assert jurisdiction
over a complaint related to the billing of a non-regulated service, he does not allege that
4 Idaho Code� 62-605(5)(b). 5 CenturyLink notes that Rule 201.01 appears to address billing disputes regarding "other services".
RESPONSE OF QWEST CORPORATION D/B/A CENTURYLINK QC TO COMPLAINT- 4 40619.0029.14SSS853.I
60
Century Link mis-billed for Call Trace. CenturyLink has appropriately billed for the
Complainant for those services.
8.Even if the Commission was detennined to consider the Complainant's assertions
regarding Century Link's provision of Call Trace service, the Company has provided the service
consistent with the tenns of service set forth in the catalog, which govern the Company-customer
relationship and the provision of service. And CenturyLink advised Mr. Keavy of those terms.
9.CenturyLink has not violated any statute or rule in providing service to the
Complainant, who has been making claims regarding Call Trace service since at least 2017,
when the Ada County Small Claims Court rejected similar allegations as those made in this
matter. The continuous, already rejected claims have bordered on harassment and are
groundless. The Company's employees should not be subjected to the barrage of emails and
phone calls, some of which are aggressive and insulting, especially given that there is no basis
for the claims.
III.COMMUNICATIONS AND CORRESPONDENCE
Pleadings, orders, notices or other correspondence and communications regarding
this Petition should be provided to:
Stephen R. Thomas
HAWLEY TROXELL ENNIS HAWLEY LLP
P.O. Box 1617
877 Main Street, Suite 1000
Boise, Idaho 83701
Phone: [phone]
[e-mail]
And
William Hendricks
Associate General Counsel
Lumen Technologies
902 Wasco St, Floor 1
RESPONSE OF QWEST CORPORATION D/B/ A CENTURYLINK QC TO COMPLAINT -540619.0029.14SSS8S3. l
61
Hood River, OR 97031
Phone: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
REQUEST FOR RELIEF
The Complainant has failed to bring any claims that are justiciable under Idaho Code,
Chapter 6, Title 62 and Commission Rule 401.01. Century Link has billed for the Call Trace
service appropriately, and the Complaint does not allege otherwise. The Company has provided
the service consistent with the tenns of service set forth in its catalog. Therefore, CenturyLink
requests that the Commission:
( 1)Find that Century Link has not violated any statute or Commission rule;
(2)Dismiss the Complaint with prejudice on the grounds that (a) the Complainant has
not stated a claim for which the Commission can grant relief, and/or (b) the
Complaint is barred by the doctrine of Res Judicata; and
(3)Find that Call Trace is a discretionary service that the Company is not required to
continue to provide, or in the alternative, authorize CenturyLink to discontinue
providing the CaU Trace service to Complainant.
Respectfully submitted,
HAWLEY TROXELL ENNIS & HAWLEY, LLP
ls/Stephen R. Thomas
By Stephen R. Thomas
RESPONSE OF QWEST CORPORATION D/B/ A CENTURYLINK QC TO COMPLAINT - 6
40619.0029.14555853. I
62
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I have this 28th day of February, 2022, served the foregoing
RESPONSE OF QWEST CORPORATION D/B/A CENTURYLINK QC TO COMPLAINT, in
Case QWE-T-21-14, by forwarding a copy thereof, to the following:
Mr. Richard Keavy
11282 Glen Ellyn Boise, Idaho 83713
(via U.S. Mail AND courtesy copy by email to: [e-mail])
Taylor R Brooks
Office of the Attorney General, State of Idaho
Deputy Attorney General
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
11331 W. Chinden Blvd.
Boise, Idaho 83714
(via em ail: [e-mail])
Jan Noriyuki
Commission Secretary
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
11331 W. Chinden Blvd., Bldg. 8, Ste. 201-A
Boise, Idaho 83 714
(via email: [e-mail])
William Hendricks
Associate General Counsel
Lumen Technologies
902 Wasco St, Floor 1
Hood River, OR 97031
(via email: [e-mail] )
ls/Stephen R. Thomas
Stephen R. Thomas
RESPONSE OF QWEST CORPORATION D/B/A CENTURYLINK QC TO COMPLAINT- 7
40619.0029.14555853.1
63
EXHIBIT 1
- l -64
2127122., 1U1 AM Details
Case Information
CV01-17-00230 I Richard Keavy Plaintiff, vs Century Link Corporation Defendant
Case Number
CV01-17-00230
FHe Date
01/06/2017
Party
Plaintiff
Keavy, Richard
Defendant
Century Unk Corporation
Disposition Events
03/31/2017 Judgment•
Court
Ada County Magistrate Court
Case Type
C -Small Claims
httpsJ/mycourts.ldaho.gov/odysseyportal/HomeM'orkapaceMode?paO
Judicial Officer
Manwefler, David D.
Case Status
Closed
Active Attorneys•
Lead Attorney
Risch, Jason Steven
Retained
115 65
2127122, 11:4'1 AM
Judicial Officer
CockeriHe, Roger E.
Judgment Type
Claim Denied
08/08/2017 Judgment•
Judicial Officer
Manweiler, David D.
Judgment Type
Claim Denied
Comment
Comment (On Trial De Novo)
Events and Hearings
01/06/2017 New Case• Small Claims
01/06/2017 SC Small Claims form CAO SC 1-2
01/06/2017 SC Summons Issued •
Comment
and filed
Details
01/06/2017 SC Affidavit of Competence, Non-Military Service and Amt Due
01/06/2017 Summons•
Served
01/25/2017
https://mycour1&.ldaho.gov/odyueyportal/HomeJWorkspaceMode?p•O 2/5 66
2127122, 11:41 AM
01/1312017 SC Summons Return of Service Served
01/25/2017 SC Answer
01/27/2017 Civil Notice of Hearing •
Comment
Contested Hearing 3/16/17 @ 9:00 am
03/30/2017 Small Claims Contested Hearing •
Judicial Officer
Cockerille, Roger E.
Hearing Time
10:30AM
Result
Hearing Held
03/31/2017 SC Small Claims Judgment•
Comment
In Favor of the Del'endant Plaintiff's Claim Is Denied
03/31/2017 Certificate of Mailing
03/31/2017 Civil Disposition Entered
04/28/2017 Notice of Appeal
04/28/2017 Notice •
Comment
of Reassignment (to Judge Manweiler)
05/15/2017 Order•
Comment
Setting Trial De Novo and Pre-Trial Order 8/8/17 at 2PM
07/21/2017 Motion •
Comment
to Amend Date and lime Allotted for Trial
07/25/2017 Notice of Appearance
07/25/2017 Notice •
https'l/rrrtcourts.ldaho.gov/odysseyportal/HomeM'orlcspaceMode?paD
Delalls
67
2127122, 11:<41 NA
..
Comment
of Non-Objection
07/31/2017 Motion •
Comment
Seeking Permission to Enter Into Discovery
08/01/2017 Order •
Comment
Setting Trial Date -DENIED
08/03/2017 SC Amended Complaint Small Claims
08/03/2017 Memorandum
08/08/2017 Small Claims Trial De Novo •
Judicial Officer
Manweiler, David 0.
Hearing Time
2:00 PM
Result
Hearing Held
08/08/2017 Court Minutes
08/08/2017 Judgment •
Comment
Details
on Trial De Novo -In favor of the Defendant -Plaintiff's Claim Is Denied
08/08/2017 Civil Disposition Entered
08/08/2017 Exhibit List/log
08/08/2017 Civil Disposition Entered
07/09/2018 Notice of Intent lo Destroy Exhibits •
Comment
Clerk's Notice
https;J/mya,uru.ldaho.gov/odyaseyportal/HomeMlort<spaceMode?paO 68
2127/22, 11:41 AM
Financial
Keavy, Richard Total Financial Assessment
Total Payments and Credits
1/5/2017 Transaction Assessment
1/5/2017 Transaction Assessment
1/5/2017 Case Payment
4/27/2017 Transaction Assessment
4/27/2017 Case Payment
7/23/2017 Transaction Assessment
7/23/2017 Mall Payment
Details
$154.25
$154.25
$69,00
$3.00
Receipt# 01425-2017-R0l Keavy, Richard ($72.00)
$81.00
Receipt# 45619-2017-R0l Keavy, Richard ($81.00}
Receipt# 78417-2017-R0l Keavy, Richard
$1.25
($1.25)
https://myarurts.ldaho.gov/odysseypottaL'HomeM'orkapaceMode?p•O 69
Office of the Secretary Service Date March 1, 2022 BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF A FORMAL COMPLAINT BY RICHARD KEA VY AGAINST QWEST CORPORATION D/B/A/ CENTURYLINK
) CASE NO. QWE-T-21-14
) ) NOTICE OF EXTENSION OF
) TIME TO RESPOND
) ) ORDER NO. 35329 _________________) On December 2, 2021, Richard Keavy filed a fonnal complaint against Qwest Corporation d/b/a/ CenturyLink ("Company.,). Mr. Keavy was unsatisfied with the outcome of the infonnal procedures to resolve his complaint and requested that the Commission open a fonnal complaint against the Company. Mr. Keavy contends that the Company has failed in its contractual obligation to him when he requests a Call Trace (*57)-a service offered by the Company to its customers. At the December 20, 2021, Decision Meeting, the Commission accepted Mr. Keavy's Fonnal Complaint. On January 12, 2022, the Commission mailed a Summons and copy of the Fonnal Complaint to the Company via certified mail. The Summons directed the Company to respond to Mr. Keavy's allegations within 21 days-requiring a timely response by February 2, 2022. No response was received. On February 10, 2022, Staff contacted the Company's counsel to inquire why no response was filed. Staffs Counsel Correspondence at I . On February 14, 2022, the Company requested an extension of time to respond to the Fonnal Complaint, stating that-due to COVID-19 protocols-the Company's attorney of record never received the Fonnal Complaint. Company's Request for Extension of Time at 2. However, the Company admitted it accepted service of the Fonnal Complaint and Summons at an office in Hood River, Oregon by and through Alisa Mooney on January 21, 2022. The Commission now issues this Notice of Extension of Time to Respond, thereby approving the Company's request. DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS The Commission has authority under Rules 41, 51, 53, and 66 to grant a Company's request for an extension of time so long as the Company complies with Rule 53 of the IPUC Rules of Procedure. See IDAPA 31.01.01.41, -51, -53, and-66. NOTICE OF EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND ORDER NO. 35329 1 70
We find that the Company sufficiently stated fully the facts upon which the Petition
was based; the Company referred to the controlling legal authority; and properly prayed for
appropriate relief. We also find that allowing the extension of time does not affect the substantial
rights of Mr. Keavy.
The Commission finds that a misunderstanding may have occurred during process of
service by which the wrong representative of the Company was served through no fault of any
party. Accordingly, we find the proposed penalty for not timely responding to the summons is
not warranted in this case. The Commission finds that no prejudice or substantial harm will
likely come to Mr. Keavy because of a delayed response from the Company.
The Commission takes matters like this seriously. It is imperative that regulated
entities respond to the Commission in the manner prescribed. The Commission appreciates the
Company's diligence to set procedures that will ensure an instance like this will not occur again. ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Company's request for an extension of time to
respond to Mr. Keavy's Formal Complaint is granted. The Company is required to respond to
Mr. Keavy by 5:00 p.m. Mountain Standard Time on February 28, 2022.
THIS IS AN INTERLOCUTORY ORDER, not a final and appealable Order of the
Commission. The period of reconsideration will not begin until the final order is issued.
Ill
NOTICE OF EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND ORDER NO. 35329 2
71
DONE by Order of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission at Boise, Idaho this 151 day of March 2022. ERIC ANDERSON, PRESIDENT JOHN CHATBURN, COMMISSIONER HN R. HAMMOND, JR., COMMISSIONER ATTEST: Commission Secretary I \Lcpl\TELECOMIQWE-T-21· 1◄ Kavylordcrl,QWET2I I◄ _Nu:E.11,.,,.,_!b.doc NOTICE OF EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND ORDER NO. 35329 3 72
From: Cheap Advice <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 8, 2022 1:30 PM
To: Taylor Brooks <[e-mail]>; Jan Noriyuki <[e-mail]>
Cc: Stephen Thomas <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Subject: Case #QWE-T-21-14 Keavy vs Qwest/CUnk Reply to Respondents production of 2/28/22
First, regrets, I am unable to work the regular order formaVstyle as my internet coMection is
wobbly; stalls, cuts out, data is eliminated and recovery requires long wait times. The printer
facility and other instruments respond badly to the hiccups. CenturyLink has provided three (3)
modems since September and been on site twice.
Respondent contends in its 'Background' assertions " ... a long history of making unsupported
claims regarding his service ... " Not true. Utilization of the *57 function IS history of the
Century Link (CLink) record of negligence.
More on Page 1 item 2: Respondent cites ' ... court decision ... unclear ... allegations .. .' The history
questioned is/was not about events of today, or/ including even the last two months ... during
which 75+/-calls were reported by CLink to have been (past tense) 'traced' and not one of those
contracts is reported or suspected to have enjoyed that or any resolution. From my memory
CLink was asked specifically what a 'successful trace' consists of and I caMot determine IF that
question and objective was ever proportionally addressed. Neither does 'initiate deterrent action'
(part of the *57 direction) get identified as a satisfied objective.
The courtesy of a 'return call in 24-48 hours' as indicated was routinely not fulfilled or
attempted by Clink. The former subject history was limited to specific details and events, at that
time, and involved only from 4 to 6 targeted numbers ... allegedly 'traced' as part of the *57
initiation. 'Contract' is an important and useful classification for what IS going on but is not the
totality of overall negligence that the PUC is properly and dutifully looking into. I have asked
the AG, SOS, Bar staff and others, joint and severable, about additional needy matters deserving
a more thorough review. The events are inquiry related, not litigation intended and not offensive
to diligence and propriety.
Page 2 item 3 talks about 'Call Trace' the allegation is made ' ... for further action,' while the
company admits getting that done is uncommon, unrecognizable, actually rare if happens at
all. The word 'only' is used multiple times on page 3 to falsely claim 'The results of a trace will
be furnished only to .. .law enforcement. . .' Not True. Clink has provided me with such
documented results in the past and ' ... without a subpoena or court order .. .' CLink has provided
AT&T/DirectTV with detailed 'trace' results roughly 700* times ... without subpoena or court
order. CLink has those records of each trespass in part because I wrote/asked them previously to
save and secure the information from loss. CLink has indiscriminately published ('without
subpoena or court order') virtually all that said, privileged/restricted information to the TV
people so the latter could do with it as they will(?) ... while stating vociferously that I was not
eligible to have the same squandered data that was casually given to others. Clink added that my
NO ACCESS to the data was not about the law but about their 'policy' directed at, to and against
me. They have complained to me (boasted) about my squandering/wasting of their time and
company resources.
These practices of discrimination and singled out persecution have been a constant source of
pain on top of the harassing calls that were being suborned and subsidized by Clinks
indifference to good faith and fair dealing.
73
By the way ... the PUC application called for a dollar estimate of my claim and I
conservatively calculated 400 independent *57 'traces (and other compliances) initiated,
according to stated requirements of CLink, had been accommodated to that date. That number is
closer to roughly 700 today and may equate to qualify for federal (and other) provisions of $1000
per incident...having to do with acts of complicity and subornation.
CLink has called on the PUC to prevent me from partaking further in the CLink *57 'service'
along with some other pleas. More on that, hopefully, at a later time ... when/if we return to the
offer Mr Thomas recently made, to the Commission, in writing, on behalf of Mr Hendricks, that
our mutual focus would be on 'informal' work together purposed, in his words, to communicate
with one another (for a change?) and to avoid 'litigation.'
Another, Page 2, stunning and even more egregious persuasion tool: "It does not appear ... that
Mr Keayy has ever contacted local law enforcement...' Not True. I contacted a specific Boise
City operative multiple times, a Boise City Captain briefly and his Lieutenant at length. On
occasion of the latters last phone call to me we talked on for 90 +/-minutes before the
Lieutenant asked me for detail about a particular harassing, extensively documented, dozens of
times as a *57 offender; who ignored cease and desist orders by certified mail, and continued
calling while Clink did nothing it had promised to do, multiple hundreds of times, having to do
with their promise to 'initiate deterrent action.' For the record I recently petitioned that
Lieutenant asking him to acknowledge our actual extensive history ... so we can document wrong­
headed accusations made by two (2) CLink attorneys focused misleading the Commission while
tossing good faith and fair dealing credulity.
In 'Argument' (Page 3 item 4) Respondent uses a� term, to my experience, to our
history/relationship ... namely 'catalog' and 'service catalog' are something new to me. They
compound a conclusion by falsely adding (Page 5 #8) 'And, CenturyLink advised Mr Keavy of
those terms.' Not True. Third party observers may ask when will CLink begin to tell their
average customers about the 'importance' of those terms (?) having signigicant (?) influence over
their own lives and living? Respondent adds there is ' ... only (one) violation' in play, to be
considered. They may be alone in that/their wishful thinking.
'The Call Trace service' as it is alleged to be (Page 5 item 9) for an average, careful and
attentive person is not nearly as complicated and difficult to understand as the Respondent
contends. What the Respondent denies and seeks to avoid is what happens when one dials •57
and then engages in actual listening to eventual 'deterrent action' speculation that is not remotely
part of actual contract delivery that Century Link promises in spades.
Actual listening to hopeful adjudication/protection, clearly stated in the • 57 delivery over and
again ... turns out to be roundly Not True in actual practice. It is also not ethically purposed in
actual practice. Charging a fee, solely to complete a contract that is intended to be disrespected
and operationally incomplete, as to its stated expectations, IS in play. The CenturyLink follow
through, absent of its initial promises, is altered deliberately and was put on me (and thousands
of others?) roughly seven hundred times ... without any contrition or move to make corrections
whatsoever. How can the negligence be missed and so substantially be celebrated?
I cannot over emphasize the importance of this appeal to all observers ... to LISTEN to the
'solutions' dialog used when one responds to the *57 invitation. LISTEN again to what happens
when one calls that 800# that is offered as part of the Century Link contract mechanism and their
explicit instruction through the CenturyLink initiative/promise to 'initiate deterrent action.' Their
own contractual language recordings, run over and over again, with enonnous determination
while defeating the daylights out of honesty and credulity.
74
We should get reacquainted, hopefully soon, with the tenn 'informal' that both Counselors asked the PUC to abide with ... and not risk 'wasting time' of the PUC. Hopefully.
Respectfully, indeed,
Richard Keavy
75
Office of the Secretary Service Date March 22, 2022 BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF RICHARD KEA VY'S FORMAL COMPLAINT AGAINST QWEST CORPORATION ) CASE NO. QWE-T-21-14 ) ) ORDER NO. 35351 ) __________________) On December 2, 2021, Richard Keavy filed a Formal Complaint ("Complaint") against Qwest Corporation d/b/a/ Century Link {QWE) ("Company"). Mr. Keavy was unsatisfied with the outcome of the informal procedures to resolve his informal complaint and requested that the Commission open a formal complaint against the Company. At the December 20, 2021, Decision Meeting, the Commission accepted Mr. Keavy's Complaint. On January 12, 2022, the Commission mailed a Summons and copy of Mr. Keavy's Complaint to the Company via certified mail. See Certified Mail Receipt. On February 28, 2022, after the Commission allowed additional time for the Company to respond, 1 a response was filed to Mr. Keavy's Complaint. See Response to Complaint. Having reviewed the record in this case, the Commission now issues this final Order dismissing the Formal Complaint for reasons explained below. FACTUAL SUMMARY J.The ComplaintMr. Keavy complained that the Company failed to follow through on providing a quality form of service related to "Call-Trace."2 Mr. Keavy alleged that through utilizing the Call Trace system, he formed a contract with the Company wherein the Company was obligated to provide him with the results of each *57 attempt that Mr. Keavy performed. See generally Keavy Complaint at 1. Mr. Keavy alleged that the Company failed to perform its obligations in an acceptable manner. Id. 2.The Company's ResponseThe Company defines the "Call Trace" system as follows: 1 See Order No. 35329 2 Call Trace is a system which allows a customer to dial *57 so that the called party can initiate an automatic trace of the last call received. See Company Response at 2. ORDER NO. 35351 1 76
Call Trace. Allows a called party to initiate an automatic trace of the last call received. Call Trace is available on a pay per use basis only. After receiving the call which is to be traced, the customer dials a code and the traced telephone number is automatically sent to the Company for further action. The customer originating the trace will not receive the traced telephone number. The results of a trace will be furnished only to legally constituted law enforcement agencies or authorities upon proper request by them. Manual Trap and Trace is available where facilities permit. 3
Company Response at 2. The Company stated that Call Trace was not intended to stop untoward telemarketers from making calls, but rather, to provide law enforcement with an ability to address crimes against persons and property. Id. at 2-3. The Company stated that its contractual obligation is to provide the call information gathered from the call trace to law enforcement pursuant to a subpoena-not by Mr. Keavy's request. Id. at 3. The Company argued that the Commission "does not adjudicate contract disputes unrelated to its primary jurisdiction." Id. The Company stated that Call Trace is a discretionary service; it is not a basic local exchange service as governed by Idaho Code § 62-605. ld. at 4. The Company stated that discretionary services are non-regulated services; thus, Mr. Keavy failed to state a claim by which the Commission could grant relief. Id. The Company asserted that it provided the service consistent with its contractual terms of service, it did not violate any statute or rule in providing that service, and it properly advised Mr. Keavy of those terms. Id. The Company requested that the Commission (I) find that the Company has not violated any statute or Commission Rule; (2) dismiss the Complaint; and (3) find that the Call Trace service is discretionary that the Company is not required to continue providing-or-in the alternative, authorize the Company to discontinue providing the service to Mr. Keavy. Jd. at 6. COMl\fiSSION FINDINGS AND DECISION The Idaho Public Utilities Commission exercises limited jurisdiction and has no authority other than that expressly granted to it by the legislature. Washington Water Power Co. v. Kootenai, 99 Idaho 875, 591 P.2d 122 (1979). This Commission has no authority under Idaho law to adjudicate the dispute between Mr. Keavy and the Company. The Company is a telephone corporation as defined in Idaho Code § 61-121 but is exempt from the requirements of Title 61 3 CenturyLink Idaho Catalog, Section 5.4.3.A. (https://www.centurylink.com/tariflVsid gc ens c no l.pdt). ORDER NO. 35351 2 77
public utilities laws.4 See generally Idaho Code§§ 62-604 and 62-605. For telephone corporations under the jurisdiction of Title 62 Idaho Code § 62-605(b) provides: The commission shall have the continuing authority to determine the noneconomic regulatory requirements relating to basic local exchange service for all telephone corporations providing basic local exchange service including, but not limited to, such matters as service quality standards, provision of access to carriers providing message telecommunication service, filing of price lists, customer notice and customer relation rules, and billing practices and procedures, which requirements shall be technologically and competitively neutral. Idaho Code§ 62-603(1) defines basic local exchange service as: [T]he provision of access lines to residential and small business customers withthe associated transmission of two-way interactive switched voicecommunication within a local exchange calling area. 5The Commission finds that "Call Trace" does not constitute a basic local exchange service; therefore, the Commission has no regulatory authority over such service. Accordingly, the Commission declines to adjudicate the dispute between Mr. Keavy and the Company. ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Mr. Keavy's Complaint is dismissed. 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 with regard to any matter decided in 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. 4 The Company removed its basic local exchange service from Title 61 regulation in July 2005. Notice of Election, Case No. QWE-T-05-13 (July 14, 2005). 5 See also Idaho Code§ 62-603(13) ("'Telecommunication service' means the transmission of two-way interactive switched signs, signals ... " ORDER NO. 35351 3 78
DONE by Order of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission at Boise, Idaho this 22ndday of March 2022.
ATTEST:
Jan yuki Commission Secre
ERlC ANDERSON, PRESIDENT
JOHN CHATBURN, COMMISSIONER
. HAMMOND JR., COMMISSIONER
l:\Lcpl\TELECOMIQWE-T-21-14 Kcavy\onlcn\QWml l4_final_tb docx
ORDER NO. 35351 4 79
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Cheap Advice JayJor Brpofss; Jan Nortwkl Motion For Reconsideration of "dosed" Case #QWE-T-21-14 on 4/12/2022
Tuesday, April 12, 2022 4:23:46 PM
Motion For Reconsideration of 'closed' Case #QWE-T-21-14 on 4/12/2022
Attention Please ALSO of each of the Com.missioners of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission (PUC).
Reference most recent email ( 4/7 /22) from Deputy Brooks related to his first paragraph account n ... to file any reply comments.11 Information presented by me was often NOT io 'reply to comments' but rather intended overall to be additional information having to do with contacts b�tween myself (and others) and the Respondents who s�ed light on the deceptions they were working. My interest (and what should(?) have been of interest to the Commission and its handlers) was to inform PUC decision makers of information that illustrated and showed proof that Respondent actors were not being honest, candid or accurate in the too many claims it freely made.
The Respondent, as was pointed out repeatedly, in communication between Clink and me (forwarded TO the PUU) deliberately stated things over and again that were not true, The net result should be interpreted by representatives of the Idaho Attorney General's Office as
obstruction ofjustice and other related crimes ... targeting to PUC, approximately five (5) AG Deputies and others. While some of what CLink has done, failed to do, said and implied may not be entirely in line with Deputy Brooks understanding of those Codes that are of professional interest to
him. ,the Jaeger wrongdoing by CenturyLiok is sienificant, material and dese['/es a more appropriate attending, Important information useful to each decision-making Commissioner was kept from them (?) or altered (?) that should have been presented to OTHER home office AG Deputies who deal in many matters of law in addition to what interests the PUC contingent. The PUC should have asked AG Wasden's office to get involved in those extracurricular crimes that waste the time of the AG Deputies assigned to the PUC and the PUC staff as well ... with focus on intentional obstruction, Misleading (repeatedly in writing) claims and deceptions put to the PUC should have been taken more seriously, There IS still time and reversing the case closure
(so to modify its findings and status more appropriately) would be corageous and a more fitting stance for the PUC and Idaho to assume. Please copy me (all that you can) with whatever moves the AG may bring against Respondents and until the AG has had time to do a deserved case reevaluation that should have begun months ago. The PUC process and formula appears to be antiquated. It published data for the public and I, to learn from, and then quietly removed that data without notice and refused to respond to my questions about that easy/awkward PUC proclivity. I wanted, intended and expected my communications to be fully before the Commissioners before they made a final decision to cancel my complaint. Important matters were put to the PUC before their final decision yet it is evident (?) that the Commissioners did not see (?) that which may well have interested them and had influence on their decisions. The PUC Secretary and the lead AG Deputy (and others) do not comment or justify why and how missing information IS 'constructive' ... for whom and exactly what.
Deputy Brooks affords me the opportunity (in his 4/7/22 advisory) that I may duplicate infonnation already given to the PUC (on 2/15 and 3/4) IN this ... my Motion for
80
Reconsideration ... IF I want the information to be read ('timely'?) by the general public ... as opposed to not letting the public know what IS going on. Keeping that information/rom the public and the Commissioners WAS desirable (?) because a 'misaligned' Code wants things done its way? regardless of good and common sense? I would like to learn if/how often do the AG Deputys join the Commissioners to approach the Legislature about doing a better job with language and intent. I copied the Legislators of my District in my last correspondence to the PUC Secretary so that they would know there IS some unnecessary/duplication of records being advocated because the Code requires it!? That cannot be a good reason for unnecessary waste. Sometimes when people see a building on fire, they need to speak up ... and not vacillate because their job description does not include firefighting. Please recommend the Commissioners reopen the case, include an of our joint correspondence to/from the Commission, its staff and the half dozen+/-AG staff members assigned to the PUC who participated in this case under the rubric column 'Complainant Comments and related data.' The PUC and AG deputies who read the history of my/this complaint will recall that I have internet, data recover/access and printing handicaps ... and have had to resort to hard copy data to be hand carried to OUC offices and sent USPS by certified mail...so to be sure important information got where it was needed in order to be attended. IF the PUC will put data I provided to where it can be accessed and utilized timely .. .! will be grateful, again. Also, having information where it should have been and can be made use of with the least amount of disorganization ... will be helpful in the event of need for a tort claim. The joint effort of Counsel in Oregon and Idaho who may have 'mistakenly' taken 'evidence' (actually grandiose, nonsense and deliberate bungling) by Clink for the previous to bathe in and broadcast with enthusiasm ... IS a mixture of shame and contempt that deserves a focus on their obstruction. The 'trace' ruse is an item the AG/PUC allowed to be squandered while CenturyLink is a vulgar institution ... proud of abuse and justified by wrong doing. The Respondent company in need of a more just reconning. I respectfully call for a reversal of the case closure, by the PUC, and ask that a more punitive posture be taken against Century Link by appropriate members of AG Wasden's office and others. The PUC activity and responsibility needs to be better addressed ... and the PUC IS now, finally, after nearly five years of full and part time negligence, needs to call a spade a spade for reasons inside and accountable to its significant authority. There is very much wrong with how big business, big money and big political influence has brough ridicule on Idaho state govemrnent. .. while the latter moves to distance itself(?) from honesty, integrity and bonafide efficiency .. .leaving myself and a thousand neighbors to despair and suffer (in my case) on a literal daily basis,.. due to bad actors who are continually and substantially supported and defended by Century Link. The PUC's people have been tacitly ridiculed by CenturyLink operatives. That should not stand in its entirety, either ... regardless of the 'but out' challenge CLink boldly tossed at the AG's deputies. The PUC, its staff and the AG's deputies have yet a good deal to work with,..for bringing justice to a noisy, proud and wayward operator. Sincerely, Richard Keavy 81
Office of the Secretary Service Date May4,2022 BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF RICHARD KEA VY'S ) CASE NO. QWE-T-21-14 FORMAL COMPLAINT AGAINST QWEST )CORPORATION D/8/A/ CENTURYLINK )
) ORDER NO. 35396 ) ________________) On December 2, 2021, Richard Keavy filed a Fonnal Complaint against Qwest Corporation d/b/a/ CenturyLink QC (:'Company"). Mr. Keavy claimed that the Company failed in its contractual obligations to him when he used the Company's Call Trace1 (*57) system. Following fonnal proceedings, on March 22, 2022, the Commission entered its Final Order No. 35351 ("Final Order") dismissing the Complaint for lack of jurisdiction. The Final Order provides: The Idaho Public Utilities Commission exercises limited jurisdiction and has no authority other than that expressly granted to it by the legislature. Washington Water Power Co. v. Kootenai, 99 Idaho 875, 591 P.2d 122 (1979). This Commission has no authority under Idaho law to adjudicate the dispute between Mr. Keavy and the Company. The Company is a telephone corporation as defined in Idaho Code § 61-121 but is exempt from the requirements of Title 61 public utilities laws. See generally Idaho Code §§ 62-604 and 62-605. For telephone corporations under the jurisdiction of Title 62 Idaho Code§ 62-605(b) provides: The commission shall have the continuing authority to determine the noneconomic regulatory requirements relating to basic local exchange service for all telephone corporations providing basic local exchange service including, but not Ii mited to, such matters as service quality standards, provision of access to carriers providing message telecommunication service, filing of price lists, customer notice and customer relation rules, and billing practices and procedures, which requirements shall be technologically and competitively neutral. Idaho Code§ 62-603(1) defines basic local exchange service as: [T]he provision of access lines to residential and small businesscustomers with the associated transmission of two-wayinteractive switched voice communication within a localexchange calling area.1 Call Trace allows a customer to dial *57 to initiate an automatic trace of the last call received. See Company
Response at 2. ORDER NO. 35396 1 82
The Commission finds that "Call Trace" does not constitute a basic local exchange service; therefore, the Commission has no regulatory authority over such service. Accordingly, the Commission declines to adjudicate the dispute between Mr. Keavy and the Company. Order No. 35351 (footnotes omitted). Pursuant to Idaho Code § 61-626 and Rule 331, IDAPA 31.01.01.331, interested persons were given twenty-one (21) days following entry of the Final Order in which to petition for clarification and/or reconsideration. On April 12, 2022, Mr. Keavy emailed the Commission Secretary and Commission counsel a correspondence titled: "Motion for Reconsideration of 'closed' Case #QWE-T-21-14 on 4/12/2022." The Company was not included as a recipient of the email. Having reviewed the record, the arguments of the parties, and all submitted materials, the Commission denies Mr. Keavy's "Motion for Reconsideration" ("Petition"). COMMISSION FINDINGS AND DECISION The Commission finds that Mr. Keavy's Petition does not meet the substantive nor procedural requirements for a petition for reconsideration. Rule 331.01 provides: Petitions for reconsideration must set forth specifically the ground or grounds why the petitioner contends that the order or any issue decided in the order is unreasonable, unlawful, erroneous or not in conformity with the law, and a statement of the nature and quantity of evidence or argument the petitioner will offer if reconsideration is granted. IDAPA 31.01.01.331.01 (emphasis added). In the Petition, Mr. Keavy does not set forth any specific grounds for reconsideration concerning the Commission's jurisdiction, nor does he indicate the nature and quantity of evidence he would offer to show the Commission's Final Order was "unreasonable, unlawful, erroneous(,] or not in conformity with the law." Id. Rule 331.03 provides that "the petition . . . must state whether the petitioner . . . requests reconsideration by evidentiary hearing, written briefs, comments, or interrogatories." IDAPA 31.01.01.331.03. The Petition does not contain a request for an evidentiary hearing, written briefing, additional comments, nor a request for interrogatories. Additionally, the Commission finds that the Petition was not properly served on all parties. Pursuant to Rule 63, "[a]ll [petitions] . .. must be served upon the representatives of every party of record concurrently with filing with the Commission Secretary." IDAPA 31.01.01.063.01. Similarly, Rule 64 provides that "[e]very document that is filed with the Commission and intended to be part of the record for decision must be attached to or ORDER NO. 35396 2 83
accompanied by proof of service .... " IDAPA 31.01.01.064. The Commission finds that Mr. Keavy failed to serve his Petition on all parties or provide the Commission with proof of service. Pursuant to Rule 332, "[g]rounds for reconsideration or issues on reconsideration that are not supported by specific explanation may be dismissed." IDAPA 31.01.01.332. Further, Rule 65 provides that "[ d]efective, insufficient or late pleadings may be returned or dismissed .. .. " IDAPA 31.01.01.065. Based upon the Petition's lack of specific grounds for reconsideration, supporting argument, and proper service, the Commission denies the Petition. ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Petition for Reconsideration is denied. THIS IS A FINAL ORDER DENYING RECONSIDERATION. Any party aggrieved by this Order or other final or interlocutory Orders previously issued in this case may appeal to the Supreme Court of Idaho pursuant to the Public Utilities Law and the Idaho Appellate Rules. See Idaho Code§ 61-627. DONE by Order of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission at Boise, Idaho this 4th day of May 2022. £-{L ERIC ANDERSON, PRESIDENT JOHN CHATBURN, COMMISSIONER HN R. HAMMOND JR., COMMISSIONER ATTEST: Commission Secretary I \Lcpl\TELECOM\QWE-T-21 •14 K .. vylonlcn\QWEn I •!4 _FO _R..,,.,.idrnlioo_cb doc ORDER NO. 35396 3 84
Richard Keavy Prose•
11282 W. Glen Ellyn Drive
Boise, ID 83713
208-322-1383
. ,... j•J',!, .·Jtl,v •. ·t ·r11--· "•f)i,1tJC•,IONIt,_ i _ ., • , ,tr ,()..,
IN THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF IDAHO
Appellant
Richard Keavy vs
Respondents: Idaho Public Utilities
Commission, Idaho Attorney
General, Idaho Secretary of
State, City of Boise, Boise City Police Department,
Idaho State Bar,•
Lumen Technologies aka
CentmyLink/USWest/etal.
CASE NO. QWE-T-21-14
NOTICE OF APPEAL
Appellant requests in addition a tort
fonn/means so to include those parties who knowingly suborned,
encouraged and provided the
vehicles by which the principal
party, Lumen, did intentionally break
promises and contracts while
misleading willing law enforcement
authorities and others who purposely
ridiculed, jeopardized and obliged
against consbllctive civil discord.
TO: THE ABOVE NAMED RESPONDENTS INCLUDING THE IDAHO PUC, IDAHO
ATTORNEY GENERAL, IDAHO SECRETARY OF STATE, CITY OF BOISE, BOISE CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, PARTY ATTORNEYS MESSRS THOMAS OF HAWLEY
TROXELL AND HENDRICKS OF LUMEN, IDAHO STATE BAR, THE CLERK (MS JAN
NORIYUKI) AND OTHERS OF THE ABOVE-ENTI TLED ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT:
1.The above named appellant, Richard Keavy, does appeal against the above-named
respondents to the Idaho Supreme Court due to the Idaho Public Utilities Commission final
Order #35396 (and other orders/causes) signed the above-entitled proceeding on the 4th day of
May 2022, by Honorable three Commissioners presiding at that time. Notice was posted 5/5/22.
2.Appellant has a right to appeal to the Idaho Supreme Court, and the judgments or orders
described in paragraph 1 above are appealable orders under and pursuant to Rule [e.g. (11(a)(2))
or (12(a))] I.A.R.
85
3.A preliminary statement of the issues on appeal which the appellant has outlined above
under the title NOTICE OF APPEAL intends to assen in the appeal; provided, any such list of issues on appeal shall not prevent the appellant from asserting other issues on appeal.
4.I certify that
(5)Appellant will pay appellate filing fee promptly upon advice that it is due.
(6)Service is under way to all parties required to be served pursuant to Rule 20 Idaho Code and §
67-1401(1).
(7)Appellant has been and continues the process of attempting to s��H�• legal counsel to manage
the detail appropriately and respectfully before the Court.
(8)Appellant was generally instructed by the PUC Secretary system that it would determine what
information it wants the Court to see and would provide that information directly to the court upon
receipt of this initial appeal endeavor.
DATED THIS 14lh day of June, 2022.
State of Idaho )
County of ADA )
I Richard Keavy, being sworn, deposes and says: I am the appellant in the above-entitled appeal
and that all statements in this notice of appeal are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and
belief.
I.IAJ�-1/ �-----•
Signature of Appellant
Subscribed and Sworn to before me this 14th day of June, 2022.
86
6/13/22, 8 05 PM Supreme Court Appeal of PUC 6-14•23
CERTrFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that I served true and accurate copies of the foregoing Appeal to the Idaho
Supreme Court of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission Case #QWE-T-21-14 on the
following persons, as indicated below:
Name: Jan Noriyuki, Commission Secretary, Idaho Public Utilities Commission
Served by:
[ x]Hand-deliveiy to 11331 W. Chinden Blvd, Bldg 8, Boise, ID 83714 on 6/14/22
[ ] Deposit in the designated courthouse mailbox
[ ] By deposit in the U.S. Mail addressed as follows:
Name: Clerk of the Idaho Supreme Court of Appeals
Served by:
[ x]Hand-Delivecy to 451 W. State, Boise, ID 83702 on 6/14/22
[ ] Deposit in the designated courthouse mailbox
[ ] By deposit in the U.S. Mail addressed as follows:
Name: William "Tre" Hendricks, Lumen Technologies/CenturyLink
Served by:
[ ] Hand-delivezy
[ ] Deposit in the designated courthouse mailbox
[ x]By deposit in the U.S. Mail 6/15/22 addressed as follows: William Hendricks,
Lumen Technologies/Cenllll}'Link 902 WASCO Street. Floor 1, Hood River, OR 87031
Name: Steven R. Thomas, Hawley Troxell Ennis & Hawley, LLP
Served by:
[ ] Hand-delivery
[ ] Deposit in the designated courthouse mailbox
[ x]By deposit in the U.S. Mail 6/15/22 addressed as follows: 877 W. Main Street,
Suite 1000, Boise, ID 83702
Richard Keavy
87
6/13/22, 9:09 PM Supreme Court Appeal of PUC 6-14-25 docx
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that I served true and accurate copies of the foregoing Appeal to the Idaho
Supreme Court of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission Case #QWE-T-21-14 on the
following persons, as indicated below:
Name: Lawrence Wasden
Served by:
[ ] Hand--delivery
[ ] Deposit in the designated courthouse mailbox
[ x ] By deposit in the U.S. Mail 6/15/22 addressed as follows: Auomey General
Lawrence Wasden, 700 W. Jefferson, Boise, Id 83702
Name: Lawerence Denney
Served by:
[ ] Hand-Delivery to
[ ] Deposit in the designated courthouse mailbox
[ x]By deposit in the U.S. Mail 6/15/22 addressed as follows: Secretary of State, 450
N.4th, Boise, ID 83702
Name: Bradley Andrews
Served by:
[ x]By deposit in the U.S. Mail 6/15/22 addressed as follows: Bar Counsel, 525 W.
Jefferson, Boise, ID 83702
Name: Lauren McLean
Seived by:
[ x]By deposit in the U.S. Mail 6/15/22 addressed as follows: Mayor McLean, 150 N.Main, Boise ID 83702
Name: Ryan Lee
Served by:
[x]By deposit in the U.S. Mail 6/15/22 addressed as follows: Boise Chief of
Police, 333 N. Mark Stall Place, Boise, ID 83704
88
DECISION :MEMORANDUM
TO: COMMISSIONER ANDERSON COMMISSIONER CHATBURN COMMISSIONER HAMMOND COMMISSION SECRETARY COMMISSION STAFF LEGAL
FROM: CHRIS BURDIN DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL
DATE: JUNE 21, 2022
SUBJECT: RICHARD KEA VY'S APPEAL OF ORDER NO. 35396 TO THE IDAHO SUPREME COURT; IPUC CASE NO. SUP-T-22-01. On June 14, 2022, Richard Keavy filed a Notice of Appeal from Order No. 35396 in Case No. QWE-T-21-13. The appeal is currently titled "Appellant: Richard Keavy vs. Respondents: Idaho Public Utilities Commission, Idaho Attorney General, Idaho Secretary of State, City of Boise, Boise City Police Department, Idaho State Bar, Lumen Technologies aka CenturyLink/USWest/etal." Per Idaho Appellate Rule 6, and Idaho Public Utilities Commission Rules of Procedure 343, the agency may, by order, correct the title of an appeal at any time before the agency's record is lodged with the Idaho Supreme Court. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Commission issue an order correcting the title of the appeal to "Richard Keavy v. Idaho Public Utilities Commission and Qwest Corporation d/b/a Century Link QC" to more appropriately reflect the parties' positions on appeal, and to direct the Commission Secretary to file a copy of the order with the Idaho Supreme Court. COMMISSION DECISION Does the Commission wish to issue an order correcting the title of the appeal as recommended by Staff, and directing the Commission Secretary to file a copy of the order with the Idaho Supreme Court? l:llqal\TELECOMISUl'-T-22�1 Kavy Appca]\SUPT2201 _da:_cb.doa DECISION MEMORANDUM Chris Burdin -Deputy Attorney General 1
89
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
P.O. Box 83720, Boise, ID 83720.0074
June 24, 2022
Via E-Mail and lnteragency Mail
[e-mail]
Melanie Gagnepain
Clerk of the Courts
Supreme Court
451 W. State Street
Boise, Idaho 83 720-0 IO I
Re: PUC Clerk's Certificate of Appeal
Supreme Court Docket No.: ______ -2022
Dear Ms. Gagnepain,
Brad Uttle, Governor
Eric Anderson, President John Chatbum, Commissioner John R. Hammond, Jr., Commissioner
Enclosed for your information and action is the Clerk's Certificate of Appeal from the
Idaho Public Utilities Commission. Also enclosed is the Notice of Appeal filed by Richard
Keavy on June 14, 2022, and the $94 filing fee.
I have also enclosed copies of the two PUC Orders appealed from: Final Order No. 35351
and Reconsideration Order No. 35396. I anticipate that the Commission will issue and
Order shortening the title on appeal pursuant to Appellate Rule 6.
If you have any questions, please contact me at 334-0338.
Sincerely, Q,.
�y:;5 Commission Secretary
Enclosures
cc: Chris Burdin, Deputy Attorney General
I ll.epl',TELEC'Ot.rSUP•T•2NII Kra,y Appc,IISC_Cnltr.20220624 doc,r,
P.O. Box 83720, Boise, Idaho 83720-0074 Telephone: [phone], Fax: [phone]
11331 W. Chinden Blvd., Bldg. 8, Suite 201·A, Boise, Idaho 83714
90
IN THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF IDAHO
IN THE MA TIER OF RICHARD KEA VY'S FORMAL COMPLAINT AGAINST QWEST CORPORATION D/B/A CENTURYLINK
RICHARD KEA VY,
Appellant
v.
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION, IDAHO ATTORNEY GENERAL, IDAHO SECRETARY OF STATE, CITY OF BOISE, BOISE CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, IDAHO STATE BAR, LUMEN TECHNOLOGIES AKA CENTURYLINK/USWEST/ET AL
Respondents
)
) Supreme Court Docket No. ____ -2022
) ) Idaho Public Utilities Commission No. ) QWE-T-21-14
)
) ) )
) )
)
)
)
) )
) )
) )
)
---------------)
Appeal from the Idaho Public Utilities Commission, The Honorable Eric Anderson presiding.
Case Number from Idaho Public Utilities Commission: QWE-T-21-14
Order or Judgment Appealed from: Final Order No. 35351 and Final Reconsideration Order
No. 35396
Attorney(s) for Appellant: NIA-Appellant Richard Keavy,pro se, I 1282 W. Glen Ellyn
Drive, Boise, Idaho 83713
Attorney for Respondent: Chris Burdin, Deputy Attorney General, Idaho Public Utilities
Commission, P. 0. Box 83720, Boise, Idaho 83720-0074
Appealed by: Richard Keavy
Appealed against: Idaho Public Utilities Commission
Notice of Appeal Filed: June 14, 2022
Amended Notice of Appeal filed: NIA
CLERK'S CERTIFICATE OF APPEAL -I
91
Notice of Cross-appeal Filed: NIA
Amended Notice of Cross-appeal Filed: NIA
Appellate Fee Paid: $94.00 (June 15, 2022)
Respondent or Cross-Respondent's Appeal Request for Additional Record Filed: NIA
Respondent or Cross-Respondent's Request for Additional Reporter's Transcript Filed: NIA
Was Agency Reporter's Transcript Requested: No
Estimated Number of Pages: NIA
If so, name of each reporter of whom a transcript has been requested as named below at the address set out below: NIA
Dated this 241h day of June 2022.
•
(SEAL) of the Pu
CLERK'S CERTIFICATE OF APPEAL-2
92
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE THIS 24th DAY OF JUNE 2022, SERVED THE FOREGOING Clerk's Certificate of Appeal, in IPUC Case No. QWE-T-21-14, ON THE FOLLOWING PERSONS, AS INDICATED BELOW:
Richard Keavy
I 1282 W. Glen Ellyn Drive Boise, ID 83713
William "Tre" Hendricks Lumen Technologies/CenturyLink 902 Wasco St., Floor 1 Hood River, OR 87031
Steven R. Thomas Hawley Troxell 877 W. Main St., Suite I 000 Boise, ID 83702
ffi) US Mail, postage prepaid, June 27, 2022 [E] E-Mail to cheapadviceiamsn.com
ffi) US Mail, postage prepaid, June 27, 2022
IB:] US Mail, postage prepaid, June 27, 2022 ffi) E-Mail to sthomas@.hawlcytroxcll.com
CLERK'S CERTIFICATE OF APPEAL -3
93
\
Richard Keavy Prose•
11282 W. Glen Ellyn Drive
Boise, ID 83713
208-322-1383
' ..
I • !�:.�i('i•IN THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF IDAHO
Appellant:
Richard Keavy VS
Respondents: Idaho Public Utilities
Commission, Idaho Attorney
General, Idaho Secretacy or State, City of Boise,
Boise Cir;y Police Depanrnent,
Idaho State Bar,•
Lumen Technologies aka CenturyLink/USWest/etal.
CASE NO. QWE-T-21-14
NOTICE OF APPEAL
Appellant requests in addition a tort form/means so to include those
parties who knowingly suborned,
encouraged and provided the
vehicles by which the principal party, Lumen, did intentionally break promises and contracts while misleading willing law enforcement
authorities and others who pmposely
ridiculed, jeopardized and obliged against consauctive civil discord.
TO: THE ABOVE NAMED RESPONDENTS INCLUDING THE IDAHO PUC, IDAHO
ATTORNEY GENERAL, IDAHO SECRETARY OF STATE, CITY OF BOISE, BOISE CITY
POLICE DEPARTMENT, PARTY ATTORNEY S MESSRS THOMAS OF HAWLEY
TROXELL AND HENDRICKS OF LUMEN, IDAHO STATE BAR, THE CLERK (MS JAN NORIYUKI) AND OTHERS OF THE ABOVE-ENTITLED ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT:
1.The above named appellant, Richard Keavy, does appeal against the above-named
respondents to the Idaho Supreme Court due to the Idaho Public Utilities Commission final
Order #35396 (and other orders/causes) signed the above-entitled proceeding on the 4th day of
May 2022, by Honorable three Commissioners presiding at that time. Notice was posted 5/5122.
2.Appellant has a right to appeal to the Idaho Supreme Coun, and the judgments or orders
desaibed in paragraph 1 above are appealable orders under and pursuant to Rule [e.g. (ll(a)(2))
or (12(a))] I.A.R.
94
3.A preliminary statement of the issues on appeal which the appellant has outlined aboveunder the title NOTICE OF APPEAL intends to assert in the appeal; provided, any such list of issues on appeal shall not prevent the appellant from asserting other issues on appeal.
4.I certify that
(SJ Appellant will pay appellate filing fee promptly upon advice that it is due.
(6)Service is under way to all parties required to be served pursuant to Rule 20 Idaho Code and §
67-1401(1).
(7)Appellant bas been and continues the process of attempting to secure• legal counsel to managethe detail appropriately and respectfully before the Coun.
(8) Appellant was generally insaucted by the PUC Secretary system that it would detennine what information it wants the Court to see and would provide that information directly to the coun upon receipt of this initial appeal endeavor.
DATED THIS 14th day of June, 2022.
State of Idaho }
County of ADA )
AppellantSlgnaw��y
.�
I Richard Keavy, being sworn, deposes and says: I am the appellant in the above-entitled appeal and that all staternems in this notice of appeal are aue and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
�/�.---, Signature of Appellant
Subscribed and Sworn to before me this 14th day of June, 2022.
95
I 6/13/22, 8.05 PM
-------------------------------
Supreme Court Appeal of PUC 6-14-23
CERTIFlCATE OF SERVICE
I certify that I served true and accurate copies of lhe foregoing Appeal to the Idaho
Supreme Court of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission Case #QWE-T-21-14 on the
following persons, as indicated below:
Name: Jan Noriyuki, Commission Secretary, Idaho Public Utilities Commission
Served by:
[ x]Hand--delivery to 11331 W. Chinden Blvd, Bldg 8, Boise, ID 83714 on 6/14/22
[ J Deposit in the designated counhouse mailbox
[ ] By deposit in the U.S. Mail addressed as follows:
Name: Clerk of the Idaho Supreme Court of Appeals
Served by:
[ x]Hand-Delivery to 451 W, State, Boise, ID 83702 on 6/14/22
[ ] Deposit in the designated counhouse mailbox
[ ] By deposit in the U.S. Mail addressed as follows:
Name: William "Tre" Hendricks, Lumen Technologies/CenturyLink
Served by:
[ ] Hand-delivery
l ]Deposit in the designated courthouse mailbox
[ x]By deposit in the U.S. Man 6115/22 addressed as follows: William Hendricks,Lumen Technologies/CemwyLink 902 WASCO Street. Floor 1, Hood River, OR 87031
Name: Steven R. Thomas, Hawley Troxell Ennis & Hawley, LLP
Served by:
[ ] Hand-delivery
[ ] Deposit in the designated counhouse mailbox
[ x J By deposit in the U.S. Mail 6/15/22 addressed as follows: 877 W. Main Stteet,
Suite 1000, Boise, ID 83702
96
6/13/22, 9 09 PM Supreme Coort Appeal ol PUC 6•14•25.docx
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I cenify that I served hlle and accurate copies of the foregoing Appeal to the Idaho
Supreme Court of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission Case #QWE-T-21-14 on the
following persons, as indicated below:
Name: Lawrence Wasden
Served by:
[ ] Hand-delivery
[ ] Deposit in the designated courthouse mailbox
[ x]By deposit in the U.S. Mail 6/15/22 addressed as follows: Attorney General
Lawrence Wasden, 700 W. Jefferson, Boise, Id 83702
Name: Lawerence Denney
Served by:
[ ] Hand-Delivery to
[ ] Deposit in the designated courthouse mailbox
[ x]By deposit in the U.S. Mail 6/15/22 addressed as follows: Secretal)' of State, 450N.4th, Boise, ID 83702
Name: Bradley Andrews
Served by:
[ x]By deposit in the U.S. Mail 6/15/22 addressed as follows: Bar Counsel, 525 W.Jefferson, Boise, ID 83702
Name: Lauren McLean
Served by:
[ x ] By deposit in the U.S. Mail 6/15/22 addressed as follows: Mayor McLean, 150 N. Main, Boise ID 83702
Name: Ryan Lee
Served by:
[x]By deposit in the U.S. Mail 6/15/22 addressed as follows: Boise Chief of
Police, 333 N. Mark Stall Place, Boise, ID 83704
97
Office of the Secretary
Service Date
March 22, 2022
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF RICHARD KEA VY'S FORMAL COMPLAINT AGAINST QWEST CORPORATION
) CASE NO. QWE-T-21-14
)
) ) ORDER NO. 35351
) ________________)
On December 2, 2021, Richard Keavy filed a Formal Complaint ("Complaint") against
Qwest Corporation d/b/a/ CenturyLink (QWE) ("Company"). Mr. Keavy was unsatisfied with the
outcome of the infonnal procedures to resolve his informal complaint and requested that the
Commission open a formal complaint against the Company.
At the December 20, 2021, Decision Meeting, the Commission accepted Mr. Keavy's
Complaint. On January 12, 2022, the Commission mailed a Summons and copy of Mr. Keavy's
Complaint to the Company via certified mail. See Certified Mail Receipt. On February 28, 2022,
after the Commission allowed additional time for the Company to respond, 1 a response was filed
to Mr. Keavy's Complaint. See Response to Complaint.
Having reviewed the record in this case, the Commission now issues this final Order
dismissing the Formal Complaint for reasons explained below.
FACTUAL SUMMARY
J.The Complaint
Mr. Keavy complained that the Company failed to follow through on providing a
quality form of service related to "Call-Trace."2 Mr. Keavy alleged that through utilizing the Call
Trace system, he fonned a contract with the Company wherein the Company was obligated to
provide him with the results of each •57 attempt that Mr. Keavy performed. See generally Keavy
Complain/ at I. Mr. Keavy alleged that the Company failed to perform its obligations in an
acceptable manner. Id.
2.The Company's Response
The Company defines the "Call Trace" system as follows:
1 See Order No. 35329 2 Call Trace is a system which allows a customer to dial •57 so that the called party can initiate an automatic trace of
the last call received. See Company Response at 2.
ORDER NO. 35351 1
98
Call Trace. Allows a called party to initiate an automatic trace of the last call received. Call Trace is available on a pay per use basis only. After receiving the call which is to be tracedt the customer dials a code and the traced telephone number is automatically sent to the Company for further action. The customer originating the trace will not receive the traced telephone number. The results of a trace will he furnished only to legally
constituted law enforcement agencies or authorities upon proper request by them. Manual Trap and Trace is available where facilities permit.3
Company Response at 2. The Company stated that Call Trace was not intended to stop untoward telemarketers from making calls, but rathert to provide Jaw enforcement with an ability to address crimes against persons and property. Id. at 2-3. The Company stated that its contractual obligation is to provide the call information gathered from the call trace to law enforcement pursuant to a subpoena-not by Mr. Keavy's request. Id. at 3. The Company argued that the Commission "does not adjudicate contract disputes unrelated to its primary jurisdiction." Id. The Company stated that Call Trace is a discretionary service; it is not a basic local exchange service as governed by Idaho Code § 62-605. Id. at 4. The Company stated that discretionary services are non-regulated services; thust Mr. Keavy failed to state a claim by which the Commission could grant relief. Id. The Company asserted that it provided the service consistent with its contractual terms of service, it did not violate any statute or rule in providing that service, and it properly advised Mr. Keavy of those terms. Id. The Company requested that the Commission ( 1) find that the Company has not violated any statute or Commission Rule; (2) dismiss the Complaint; and (3) find that the Call Trace service is discretionary that the Company is not required to continue providing-or-in the alternative, authorize the Company to discontinue providing the service to Mr. Keavy. Id. at 6. COMMISSION FINDINGS AND DECISION The ldaho Public Utilities Commission exercises limited jurisdiction and has no authority other than that expressly granted to it by the legislature. Washington Water Power Co. v. Kootenai, 99 Idaho 875, 591 P.2d 122 (1979). This Commission has no authority under Idaho Jaw to adjudicate the dispute between Mr. Keavy and the Company. The Company is a telephone corporation as defined in Idaho Code§ 61-121 but is exempt from the requirements of Title 61 1 CcnturyLink Idaho Catalog, Section 5.4.3.A. (hllps:ll"·ww.centurvlink.com/1.1riftvsid gc ens c no l.pdO. ORDER NO. 35351 2 99
public utilities laws.4 See generally Idaho Code§§ 62-604 and 62-605. For telephone corporations
under the jurisdiction of Title 62 Idaho Code§ 62-605(b) provides:
The commission shall have the continuing authority to determine the
noneconomic regulatory requirements relating to basic local exchange service
for all telephone corporations providing basic local exchange service including,
but not limited to, such matters as service quality standards, provision of access
to carriers providing message telecommunication service, filing of price lists,
customer notice and customer relation rules, and billing practices and
procedures, which requirements shall be technologically and competitively
neutral.
Idaho Code § 62-603( 1) defines basic local exchange service as:
[T]hc provision of access lines to residential and small business customers with
the associated transmission of two-way interactive switched voice
communication within a local exchange calling area. 5
The Commission finds that "Call Trace" docs not constitute a basic local exchange service;
therefore, the Commission has no regulatory authority over such service. Accordingly, th<;
Commission declines to adjudicate the dispute between Mr. Keavy and the Company.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Mr. Keavy's Complaint is dismissed.
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 with regard to any
matter decided in 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.
4 The Company removed its basic local exchange service from Title 61 regulation in July 2005. Notice of Election, Case No. QWE-T-05-13 (July 14, 2005). 5 See also Idaho Code§ 62-603(13) ('"Telecommunication service' means the transmission of two-way interactive switched signs, signals ... "
ORDER NO. 35351 3
100
DONE by Order of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission at Boise, Idaho this 22ndday of March 2022. ERIC ANDERSON, PRESIDENT JOHN CHATBURN, COMMISSIONER ATTEST: Jan Commission Secreta I \Lcg:al\TELECOMIQWE•T-21-14 Keavy\crdcn'QWIIT2114_1inal_lb.doc1 ORDER NO. 35351 4
101
Office of the Secretary
Service Date
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF RICHARD KEA VY'S ) CASE NO. QWE-T-21-14 FORMAL COMPLAINT AGAINST QWEST ) CORPORATION D/B/A/ CENTURYLINK ) ) ORDER NO. 35396 ) -�---------------)
May 4, 2022 On December 2, 2021, Richard Keavy filed a Formal Complaint against Qwest Corporation d/b/a/ CenturyLink QC ("Company"). Mr. Keavy claimed that the Company failed in its contractual obligations to him when he used the Company's Call Trace1 (*57) system. Following fonnal proceedings, on March 22, 2022, the Commission entered its Final Order No. 35351 ("Final Order") dismissing the Complaint for lack of jurisdiction. The Final Order provides: The Idaho Public Utilities Commission exercises limited jurisdiction and has no authority other than that expressly granted to it by the legislature. Washington Water Power Co. v. Kootenai, 99 Idaho 875, 591 P.2d 122 (1979). This Commission has no authority under Idaho law to adjudicate the dispute between Mr. Keavy and the Company. The Company is a telephone corporation as defined in Idaho Code § 61-121 but is exempt from the requirements of Title 61 public utilities laws. See generally Idaho Code §§ 62-604 and 62-605. For telephone corporations under the jurisdiction of Title 62 Idaho Code§ 62-605{b) provides: The commission shall have the continuing authority to detennine the noneconomic regulatory requirements relating to basic local exchange service for all telephone corporations providing basic local exchange service including, but not limited to, such matters as service quality standards, provision of access to carriers providing message telecommunication service, filing of price lists. customer notice and customer relation rules, and billing practices and procedures, which requirements shall be technologically and competitively neutral. Idaho Code § 62-603( 1) defines basic local exchange service as: [T]he provision of access lines to residential and small businesscustomers with the associated transmission of two-wayinteractive switched voice communication within a localexchange calling area.1 Call Trace allows a customer to dial •57 to initiate an automatic trace of the last call received. See Company
Response et 2. ORDER NO. 35396 102
The Commission finds that "Call Trace" does not constitute a basic local exchange service; therefore, the Commission has no regulatory authority over such service. Accordingly, the Commission declines to adjudicate the dispute between Mr. Keavy and the Company. Order No. 35351 (footnotes omitted). Pursuant to Idaho Code § 61-626 and Rule 331, IDAPA 31.01.01.331, interested persons were given twenty-one (21) days following entry of the Final Order in which to petition for clarification and/or reconsideration. On April 12, 2022, Mr. Keavy emailed the Commission Secretary and Commission counsel a correspondence titled: "Motion for Reconsideration of •closed' Case #QWE-T-21-14 on 4/12/2022." The Company was not included as a recipient ofthe email. Having reviewed the record, the argwnents of the parties, and all submitted materials, the Commission denies Mr. Keavy's "Motion for Reconsideration" ("Petition"). COMMISSION FINDINGS AND DECISION The Commission finds that Mr. Keavy's Petition docs not meet the substantive nor procedural requirements for a petition for reconsideration. Rule 331.01 provides: Petitions for reconsideration must set forth specifically the ground or grounds why the petitioner contends that the order or any issue decided in the order is unreasonable, unlawful, erroneous or not in conformity with the law, and a statement of the nature and quantity of evidence or argument the petitioner will offer if reconsideration is granted. IDAPA 31.01.01.331.0 l ( emphasis added). In the Petition, Mr. Keavy does not set forth any specific grounds for reconsideration concerning the Commission's jurisdiction, nor does he indicate the nature and quantity of evidence he would offer to show the Commission's Final Order was ••unreasonable, unlawful, erroneous[,] or not in conformity with the law." Id. Rule 331.03 provides that "the petition . . . must state whether the petitioner . . . requests reconsideration by evidentiary hearing, written briefs, comments, or interrogatories." IDAPA 31.01.01.331.03. The Petition does not contain a request for an evidentiary hearing, written briefing, additional comments, nor a request for interrogatories. Additionally, the Commission finds that the Petition was not properly served on all parties. Pursuant to Rule 63, "[a]ll [petitions] ... must be served upon the representatives of every party of record concurrently with filing with the Commission Secretary." IDAPA 31.01.01.063.01. Similarly, Rule 64 provides that "[e]very document that is filed with the Commission and intended to be part of the record for decision must be attached to or ORDER NO. 35396 2
103
accompanied by proof of service .... " IDAPA 31.01.01.064. The Commission finds that Mr.
Keavy failed to serve his Petition on all parties or provide the Commission with proof of service.
Pursuant to Rule 332, "[gJrounds for reconsideration or issues on reconsideration that
are not supported by specific explanation may be dismissed." IDAPA 31.01.01.332. Further,
Rule 65 provides that "[ d]ef ective, insufficient or late pleadings may be returned or dismissed ..
.. " IDAPA 31.01.01.065. Based upon the Petition's lack of specific grounds for reconsideration,
supporting argument, and proper service, the Commission denies the Petition.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Petition for Reconsideration is denied.
THIS IS A FINAL ORDER DENYING RECONSIDERATION. Any party aggrieved
by this Order or other final or interlocutory Orders previously issued in this case may appeal to
the Supreme Court of Idaho pursuant to the Public Utilities Law and the Idaho Appellate Rules.
See Idaho Code§ 61-627.
DONE by Order of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission at Boise, Idaho this 4th day
of May 2022.
ERIC ANDERSON, PRESIDENT
JOHN CHA TBURN, COMMISSIONER
HN R. HAMMOND JR., COMMISSIONER
ATTEST:
Commission Secretary
l ll.cpl\taECOM>QWE-T-ll-14 Kca�QWETI l014_FO_�acb.doc:
ORDER NO. 35396 3
104
Office of the Secretary
Service Date July 8, 2022 BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION IN THE MA TIER OF RICHARD KEA VY'S FORMAL COMPLAINT AGAINST QWEST CORPORATION D/B/A/ CENTURYLINK ) ) CASE NO. QWE-T-21-14 ) ) NOTICE OF PARTIES )
-----------------) YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that the following are parties to this proceeding. Unless otherwise notified, service in this matter need be made only upon and to the following parties and their representatives at the addresses given below: RICHARD KEA VY: (Exhibit Nos. 1-100) QWEST CORPORATION DBA CENTURYLINK COMMUNICATIONS, LLC: (Exhibit Nos. 101-200) NOTICE OF PARTIES 1 Mr. Richard Keavy 11282 Glen EllynBoise, ID 83 713E-mail: [e-mail] "Tre" Hendricks, Esq. Associate General Counsel Lumen Technologies 902 WASCO Street, Floor 1 Hood River, OR 87031 E-mail: [e-mail] R. Thomas, Esq. Hawley Troxell Ennis & Hawley LLP 877 W. Main St., Suite 1000 Boise, ID 83 702 E-mail: [e-mail]105
COMMISSION STAFF: (Exhibit Nos. 201-300) Chris Burdin Deputy Attorney General Idaho Public Utilities Commission 11331 W. Chinden Blvd., Bldg. No. 8, Suite 201-A (83714) PO Box 83720 Boise, ID 83720-0074 E-mail: [e-mail] ARE FURTHER NOTIFIED that all testimony and exhibits in Case No. QWE-T-21-14 must comport with the requirements of Rule 231 and 267 of the Commission's Rules of Procedure. IDAPA 31.01.01.231 and 267. YOU ARE FURTHER NOTIFIED that service of discovery, testimony, and exhibits among the parties is to be accomplished by electronic mail to the email addresses reflected above pursuant to Rule 63. IDAPA 31.01.01.063. YOU ARE FURTHER NOTIFIED that when filing discovery with the Commission, the parties shall provide either an original and three copies, or an electronic copy to the Commission Secretary per Rule 61. IDAPA 31.01.01.061.02. DATED at Boise, Idaho this 8th day of July, 2022. NOTICE OF PARTIES �­J?fforiyuidCommission !Secretary 2
106
Office of the Secretary Service Date July 12, 2022 BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION RICHARD KEA VY
Appellant.
v.
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMl\fiSSION and QWEST CORPORATION d/b/a CENTURY LINK COMMUNICATIONS LLC
Respondents on Appeal.
)
) Idaho Supreme Court
) Docket No. 49844-2022
) ) IPUC CASE NOS. QWE-T-21-14
) SUP-T-22-01
) )
) IPUC ORDER NO. 35459
) ) On June 14, 2022, Richard Keavy filed a Notice of Appeal from Order No. 35396 in Case No. QWE-T-21-14. The appeal was titled "Appellant: Richard Keavy vs. Respondents: Idaho Public Utilities Commission, Idaho Attorney General, Idaho Secretary of State, City of Boise, Boise City Police Department, Idaho State Bar, Lumen Techno]ogies aka CenturyLink/USWest/etal." Pursuant to Idaho Appellate Rule 6, and Idaho Public Utilities Commission Rules of Procedure 343, the agency may, by order, correct the title of an appeal at any time before the agency's record is lodged with the Idaho Supreme Court. Having considered the record in this case, the Commission finds that an amendment to the title is necessary to appropriately reflect the positions of the parties on appeal. ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the title of the appeal in this matter shall be corrected as reflected above to show Richard Keavy as Appellant, and the Idaho Public Utilities Commission and Qwest Corporation d/b/a Century Link Communications LLC as Respondents on Appeal. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission Secretary shall file a copy of this Order changing the title of the appeal with the Idaho Supreme Court. ORDER NO. 35459 107
DONE by Order of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission at Boise, Idaho this 12th day of July 2022. ERIC ANDERSON, PRESIDENT JOHN CHA TBURN, COMMISSIONER HN R. HAMMOND JR., COMMISSIONER ATTEST: Commission Secretary I \lqal\TELECOMIQWE-T-21-14 �vylcmlcn\QWET2114_Slll'T2201_0nlc:_<b.doc ORDER NO. 35459 2 108
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
OF PROPOSED AGENCY RECORD ON APPEAL

I HEREBY CERTIFY that I served the foregoing Proposed Agency Record on Appeal, in
Supreme Court Docket No. 49844-2022, by forwarding a copy thereof, to the following, on the
date indicated via the manner indicated:
Appellant,

Richard Keavy
11282 W. Glen Ellyn Dr.
Boise, ID 83713
✓ 8/15/2022 via Hand Delivery –
Appellant picked up a preprinted hard
copy from the IPUC

Attorneys for Respondent on Appeal
Qwest Corporation d/b/a CenturyLink
Communications, LLC

Stephen R. Thomas
Hawley Troxell Ennis & Hawley LLP
877 W. Main St., Suite 1000
P.O. Box 1617
Boise, ID 83701-1617

✓ 8/16/2022 via email [e-mail]

William “Tre” Hendricks
Associate General Counsel
Lumen Technologies
902 Wasco Street, Floor 1
Hood River, OR 87031

✓ 8/16/2022 via email [e-mail]
Attorney for Respondent on Appeal
Idaho Public Utilities Commission

Chris Burdin
Deputy Attorney General
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
11331 W. Chinden Blvd.
Building 8, Suite 201-A
Boise, Idaho 83714

✓ 8/16/2022 via email

_________________________________
Jan Noriyuki
Commission Secretary