20030603Order No 29255.pdf

Office of the Secretary
Service Date
June 2, 2003
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE INVESTIGATION
REGARDING VERIZON'S CALL
COMPLETION SERVICE IN IDAHO.
CASE NO. VZN- T -03-
ORDER NO. 29255
This case originated as an informal complaint from a Verizon customer in Sandpoint
Idaho. The customer complained to our Consumer Assistance Staff that Verizon had
discontinued a service called "Call Completion" aka Complete-a-Call. When a customer
requests a telephone number from a Verizon Directory Services Operator by dialing 411 , the
customer is given the option of being connected to the requested telephone number automatically
by pressing " I" on his telephone keypad. In this particular case, the customer reported that once
directory information had provided him with the requested telephone number, he then heard a
recorded message that his call to the requested number could be "completed" for $.75.
The Complainant advised the Staff that he is visually impaired. He told Staff that he
had used the service since the beginning of the year and relies heavily upon this service. When
this service was abruptly discontinued, he filed his complaint.
In investigating the complaint, Staff determined that Call Completion Service had
been available to Idaho customers without charge for several months.Although the Call
Completion prompt noted that there would be a charge for completing the call, the Complainant
in this case assumed that the charges for Call Completion did not appear on his telephone bill
because he had advised the Company of his visual impairment. 1 Staff learned that the service
was inadvertently offered to Idaho customers but there was no billing mechanism to assess the
charges. Staff determined that Verizon had not submitted a tariff for this service. Verizon also
advised the Staff that it would take two or three months to perform the requisite cost studies and
file a tariff before this service could be offered in Idaho.
Staff recommended that Verizon be directed immediately to reinstate Call
Completion Service to Idaho customers. Staff pointed out that Verizon customers in Oregon and
Washington have access to this service for a charge of $.75 per call. If Verizon insisted on
1 For example, Qwest Corporation provides a similar service without charge to customers that are visually impaired.
ORDER NO. 29255
conducting lengthy cost studies, Staff recommended that this servIce initially be provided
without charge until such time as the Company completes its cost study.
VERIZON'S RESPONSE
After this item was placed on our public meeting agenda for May 28, Verizon
submitted a letter in response to the Staff s recommendation. Verizon urged the Commission not
to adopt the Staff s recommendation to reinstate Call Completion Service "prior to final approval
of a tariff." Response Letter at 1. Verizon explained that it discovered that it was providing
Completion Service "by accident to Idaho customers without a tariff in April of 2003." Upon
discovering that Idaho s customers were inadvertently being offered this service, the Company
instituted a change on May 1 , 2003 , that blocks access to this service by Idaho customers.
Verizon noted that it had never advertised the availability of this service to Idaho
customers.Although the Company acknowledges that customers dialing 411 Directory
Assistance would have heard a recorded message indicating that the call completion would cost
75 per call, Verizon did not charge customers for this service because "there was no approved
Idaho tariff or billing mechanism for call completion service.Id.
In its Response, Verizon indicated that it is "committed to filing the (Call Completion
Service J tariff as soon as it possibly can, hopefully within a four-week time(. HJowever, Verizon
must complete a cost study for this service before the filing can be made.Id. at 2. Rather than
adopt the Staffs recommendation to re-institute this service without charge until such time as
Verizon can complete its cost study and file the tariff, the Company urged the Commission to
reject the Staffs recommendation. Verizon argued that reinstating the service without charge
would cause customer confusion if the service were re-instituted without charge and then a
subsequent charge was imposed. The Company also complained that reinstating the service
without charge would be inequitable. Allowing Verizon to complete its cost study and file the
appropriate tariff would permit "the Company to offer, provision and bill the service the correct
way.Id.
DISCUSSION
This case demonstrates the complexities involved when a telephone company offers a
particular service on a regionalized basis. In this case, an Idaho customer dialed Verizon' s 411
Directory Information Services and heard the Call Completion Service message. Although the
message indicated that there was a $.75 charge for completing the call, the customer assumed
ORDER NO. 29255
that the charges were waived and did not appear on his monthly telephone statement because he
had advised the Company of his visual impairment. In fact, all Idaho customers utilizing this
service were not charged because the Company had neither a billing mechanism nor an approved
tariff for Idaho customers.
We find it appropriate to order the Company to reinstate this servIce for Idaho
customers. Consequently, we shall order the Company to file conforming tariffs for our review
no later than June 9, 2003. While we understand the Company s desire to complete a cost study,
we do not perceive that calculating the "appropriate charge" for this service should require a
four-week delay. As the Staff pointed out, this service is currently offered to Verizon s Oregon
and Washington customers at a uniform rate of $.75. Obviously, the Company has already
performed cost studies to justify the rates in these two states. Moreover, we do not find that re-
instituting this service without charge would cause customer confusion. It was the Company that
indicated there was a charge for the use of this service, yet did not bill Idaho customers for the
charge. What causes customer confusion is offering a non-tariffed service and then abruptly
discontinuing it. Use of the recorded message may adequately advise customers that there is a
charge for this service and customers may choose not to avail themselves of the service.
ORDER
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Verizon reinstate its Call Completion Service
and submit a tariff for our review no later than June 9, 2003.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that given the expedited nature of this case, that the
Commission Secretary electronically serve this Order upon the Company.
ORDER NO. 29255
DONE by Order of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission at Boise, Idaho this :l A.J!
day of June 2003.
~JL tJ&u~
MARSHA H. SMITH, COMMISSIONER
ENNIS S. HANS N, COMMISSIONER
ATTEST:
vld/O:
ORDER NO. 29255