20211216Decision Memo.pdf

DECISION MEMORANDUM
TO:COMMISSIONER KJELLANDER
COMMISSIONER RAPER
COMMISSION ANDERSON
COMMISSION SECRETARY
LEGAL
FROM:CHRIS HECHT
DANIEL KLEIN
TAYLOR BROOKS
DATE: DECEMBER 16,2021 &r! E- r' 9t- t I
SUBJECT: IN THE MATTER OF A FORMAL COMPLAINT BY RICHARD KEAVY
On December 2,2021, the Commission received a request for a formal complaint against
CenturyLink (QWE). Richard Keavy 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 CenturyLink. 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 a/so IDAPA 31.01.01.054.05 ("[t]he Commission encourages
the use of informal proceeding (see Rules 2l through 26) to resolve or settle formal
complaints.") "The Commission shall determine how a formal complaint should be processed,
e.g., issuance of a su[unons, open an investigation, informal procedure with Staff." IDAPA
3 r.01.01.054.05.
The Complainant alleges the following in the Complaint:
l. Complainant has entered into a contract with CenturyLink 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 DECEMBERI6,2O2I
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 the
Company charges the customer $1.25. Successful call traces are turned over to the
Company'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 and
the customer.
4. Complainant believes that the performance of contract should include the release of the
information obtained by the Company to the customer. Over time the customer has made
more than 400 call trace contracts with the Company, and that it had not followed
through 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 for
assistance.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Richard Keavy 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 formal complaint?
DECISION MEMORANDUM
Daniel Klein
DECEMBER 16, 2O2I
tJtr!-J
l-)
Co()
N7a
TrrY
?:
z,9
e
?
=ooEj
l,o
Eo(,olt
Eo
6
6o'
o
ottoocECEO
FO;ns
EEC'=
q,(JG(E
.9ao(E
o)Eo4o:OEgOOo
o)F=-)-E-Oa(,tr\ltrN=rrio=oio5
rF(J
Cbs P ==56 € 8EE Eo c :35 bI A 3H' €o E ;ei
=Et = ag)cEJ & 6FO H6 ; .;Efi ;rn * Es.*" E2 o I8c -ocG600a € z6'= c;. E EEH ZE q) = =P oe' ; E'EgB -€ i EE€F:
H € E €Ese;i, E E= E;EE *EE=-..88:5EHEe5==ts;5cRIF: 3 e== e; € E E: Eg
;F€:gEEEeSeEIoa..a
-)z.C
.?acioDoco)'E(l)(o(JC-)-
Ee E!PFssEoL=P o) ..1:EB5
=6B--o (E
c E-(E=(E
-CCJ!q td:"-c =o)r<t"7
==o v!:,r, c5:E6eEe)= Ets u,ol: e;O i= -cl(l)! cceo)O) L .!Zoq)(E'.r2 -Q P€EE
dc >
6u-
E =r€
-!IgEE3sbi:-o)
=O o)-':EE
-lljooiAE.En*E(o-(o iD-o O)tj.- _ oi,ts d-c.6i >(DE o-c)ar) a C,
6-=.EEE,E9 q:EEH6-o-E E9::cr(!(DI- (-) (J
ooGLF
--o
C)
From: Cheap Advice <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, December 2,2027 4:18 PM
To: Daniel Klein <[e-mail]>
Cc: Jan [e-mail]>; Jan [e-mail]>
Subject: ldaho PUC. FormalComplaint - (Assistance and Guidance Requested )
against USWest/Century Link and others. Fifth (5th) Request ... same subject. L2/tl2O21 Revised Part 1
- #2to follow
Having spoken with PUC Manager Mr Daniel Klein and having received an email from him I wish for my previ-ous,
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 formally- put before its senior management Committee (and/or
others appropriate) for review and the taking of affirmative action to g[gp the continual aggravating abuse that
Century Link et al does intentionally encourage, subom and facilitate...while the PUC has, year after year, essentially
looked the other way. I will not detail the long list of Clink oflences 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 a// 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 concems about general, safe privacy cautions may be obvious and useful to the Commission+ by adding this
acknowledgement of how the resppldents have comported, to wit: ...without my permission, and for a long time
without my knowledge they did/do provkle names, numbers, dates, time of day and other information about callers to
my- private, unlisted. unpublished. DoNotCal/ land line. of 38 years with LISWest, 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 identiff and arrest abuses put on my family, potentially thousands
of my Idaho neighbors and others.
Clink provides a contracted'service'(in force for the pastT+/- years...put in force by entering an instrumental
*57 advisory, action and alert to Clink) whereby the Iast harassing+/- call/number IS promptly 'identified' by Clink
(the calling number is said by Clink to have immeditely- been 'td', and during Clinks connected, commission and
creation of both individual and a series of contracts, organized and simultaneously put i! Jatqg 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_e[nk. 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 (3) 'traceS' in total (the original 'trace'/e@1@[ 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. That activity description, like 'traced,'
is gal intended to be vague or difficult to understand. It is a careless, reckless, ill-intended pre-broken ptqnise, a
pretense inside each of three engineered contract configurations to take action against the identified/'traced'harassing
caller. Going forward, no other expectation or activity by Centurylink. 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 have
been conducted years ago.
Contract language also includes/provides, when the Clink 800# is called, they p_fqnl:Se that their/an agent'g!!!
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 frorn appropriate Clink staff, that did not once result in the call back pron11sgd by
Clink.* Clink has made roughly 400* separate contracts with me (perhaps thousands of their other
customers) and has broken an overwhelming@jortfy- of their pro4!!s,9s_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 multiple.dozens_qfjmes over a period of 5+l-
months for the express, sole and singular purpose of ringing and hanging up...without leaving a message ...without
any reasonable. required effort to identifu themselves or actually conduct business. Their sole pgpose and function
was to have the pharcjing enough to enggge the answer machine so they couldlhen hang uB. 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 CenturvLink indifference and refusal to
make any- early-, contracts required attempts to 'initiate deterrent action' (or other prornises 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 name appeared/identified periodically ('courtesy'of Direct TV!) and was also routinely, modified to
trick/disguise, be obscured or missing. The rnultiplg, different. visible phone nurnbers-RQ$ used appeared to have
been a pupised disguise of identity_ that both they and Clink sought and arranged to pro.lLect each other...against my
specific requests for RGS to identiff. 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 admi 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 are the contracts or about insecurity of a// 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 the-priva.:te data about my pnvate phone utilization and practice, which Clink published (sold to?)
for DirectTVs indiscriminate (?) utilization, DID allow some indirect, deliberately arm's length information to locate
and communicate with RGS but only after RGS and Clink had ignored (for tluee 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'RGS' admined to'mistaken identity,'apologized for'errors'yet while refusing to tell
me WHO p:Jtjhem upjs the uninitiated and sustained harassment of rtre. I ask the PUC to find right ways/meaug-to
confront the same RGS that Clink suBpltcd, enabled and protected .for their collective, joint, express purpose
of abusing this long-standing custolller and other (?) Idahoans. It would be unreasonable to expect I was
the only- 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 complete
in spite of their olttrageous, deceptive'traced'dishonesty and hundreds of bogus, phony and FORCED upon me
contract provisions. The very CenturyLink that the State of ldaho, PUC, and Attorney General have
tacitly, unwittingly. (?) protected and encoumged for years may be serving injury on thousands of Idahoans and other,
out of state, still and this week. Enough is enoug[.
As for compensation (or means to that end you asked about) I want (some of the discovery- l asked of thern which
they dismissed without comment) including a list of all details and actions that CLink performed and pretended
from all the *57 calls I judiciously put to thern at their direction (particularly and especially all those identities they
claimed to have'traced'...including multiple dozens more 'tra gations they have made over the p
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 isiwas'OK' for-.leLti4k to give my 'private' activity/information, without permission, to
DirectTV (and others?) they can/should give a// the 'contract' generated detail they eollcetcilfrou&y/through
4qs, via their *57 tool (most of which was inaBpppriately-(?) snare0 witn OirectlW)-aUilbl
delay,..tolthrough the PUC to me...lF ypu:urll-call-for thA! ! 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
"agalost their policy-" ...their words, Clink and their MARY last week...lN 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 encouraged. Some of the
trespasses enjoined and upheld include: FRAUD (lntentional 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 on ppint...DO the good business of the PUC oversight 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 repon 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 rny viewpoint getting the PUC's attention has been
a crinte of its own. The AG and others confidently and dismissively look the other way. I have wanted and tried to
work withir? 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 hislqry_ I provided to your staffin the past...through the years
and including to Chris Hecht...all of which the system seemingly tumed its back on...and get familiar IF the detail
would be useful to your ass:igrunents and duty.. Please 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 Keary
PS - Century Link has cut off my-p-hone service and separately my internet service rnultiple 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-tnaterial about me refusing to pay the bill. It is not mySltyle tto nolpy- 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
a[y kind-af. yway similar to what Ce g. Maybe
something is going on that I cannot discem. 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
fuy5leaving no realistic usps mail time to work with. I have paid 11ta1y dozens of 'late fees'during the managed
confusion that has been played. While retaliation against rne should not part of their game plan I would not, any
longer, put that past them.
Also, as for centrifuge...l am and was stunned at the treatment by staffat the 800# I was required 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.lhgy could They are of a rnind that they 'know it all' ..have done and heard @ything...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 cornpany... She and the 800# guys are all too confident and deficient.