20060124_1441.pdf

DECISION MEMORANDUM
TO:COMMISSIONER KJELLANDER
CO MMISSI 0 NER SMITH
COMMISSIONER HANSEN
COMMISSION SECRETARY
LEGAL
WORKING FILE
FROM:NANCY HYLTON
DATE:JANUARY 19, 2006
RE:MERLIN AND JUDITH LORDS' COMPLAINT AGAINST RURAL
TELEPHONE COMPANY.
BACKGROUND
Beginning November 28 2005, Rural Telephone s customers in Atlanta experienced
several outages of both toll and local exchange service. Local service was briefly restored on
December 5, 2005, for about two hours but then went out again. Full service was restored on
December 7 2005. There was another outage from December 21 to December 23 2005. An
additional extended outage lasted from December 28 2005 until January 4 2006. Rural
attributed the delays to several factors, including an inability to reach Company facilities on
J ames Creek and Trinity Mountain due to weather and terrain conditions. The outages and
Rural's response to customers raised questions for customers concerning the Company
maintenance of its equipment and its customer service.
A formal complaint was received from Merlin and Judith Lords on December 13 2005
(Attachment 1); an additional complaint was filed on January 10, 2006 (Attachment 2). This
additional complaint included a document titled "Formal Complaint from [phone]
Customers Uhl and Helge Concerning Rural Telephone Co." The "Uhl and Helge" complaint
attached to the Lords ' second complaint mentions several issues that are not relevant to the
Lords' complaints , and so are not addressed in this memo. The e-mails referred to in both formal
complaints filed by the Lords are not attached since these e-mails were sent to the PUC by
parties other than the Lords.
DECISION MEMORANDUM - 1 -DECEMBER 19, 2006
Many issues were raised by the Lords. In general, the Lords allege that Rural Telephone
has failed to: (1) comply with several PUC Telephone Customer Relations Rules (401-Complaint
Procedure, SOl-Quality of Service, 502-Response to Service Outage, 503-Repair Service
Standards, 601-Directories and Customer Listings, 602-Summary of Rules, 603-Access to
Emergency Services); (2) adequately respond to outages; (3) take reasonable steps to provide
reliable and adequate service; and (4) provide good customer service.
RELIEF DESIRED BY COMPLAINANT
The Complainants request:
A formal apology from Rural to all Atlanta telephone customers for ignoring the needs
and rights of customers without any diagnosis of the problem.
Action by the PUC to let Rural know its behavior was unacceptable and violated
Commission Telephone Customer Relations Rules. The Company should be fined or
sanctioned in some way. The matter should be a part of the permanent record for Rural.
Refund of December bill since customers were unable to use telephone.
Reimbursement for lost income to Merlin Lords because of lost wages.
Refund of January bill due to violations of Rules 501-503, Telephone Customer Relation
Rules.
Require Rural to provide more reliable service and eliminate network congestion ("all
circuits are busy" problems).
Provide customer service training to Rural staff.
Training Rural technicians regarding the proper use of snowmobiles so problems at
James Creek and the Trinity sites may be assessed and/or accessed in winter weather.
Requiring Rural Telephone to ensure that its Atlanta representative stop calling customers
to discuss Atlanta phone business when the representative is drunk.
STAFF ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION
According to Rural, service is provided to 53 telephone customers in Atlanta. During the
recent outages, Staff was in frequent contact with the Company regarding actions the Company
was taking to restore service. Staff also contacted Rural Telephone regarding issues raised by
the Lords ' complaints.
DECISION MEMORANDUM - 2 -DECEMBER 19 2006
Rural Telephone sent a letter (Attachment 3) to the Atlanta customers on December 15
2005, outlining the measures the Company took to restore service. The Company apologized for
the delay, but believed the conditions in the situation were beyond the Company s control.
Nevertheless, the Company waived the next month's local service fee (Residential $21.
Business $40.68).
In their complaints, Mr. Lords asked Rural to compensate him for "lost income." As the
Commission is aware, it does not have the authority to award damages for lost wages. Idaho
Code ~ 61-702.
Based upon Staff s preliminary investigation, it appears that Rural may be out of
compliance with several PUC Telephone Customer Relations Rules, including Rules 401 and
602. Questions have also arisen with respect to Rural's response to recent outages and its
maintenance of equipment necessary to service its Atlanta customers. Staff recommends that the
Commission initiate an investigation into the complaints filed by the Lords. Initiating a formal
investigation will allow the Commission to develop a record on which it can base its decision
regarding issues raised by the Lords.
COMMISSION DECISION
Does the Commission wish to open a proceeding to examine issues raised in the
complaints? If so, does the Commission wish to simply issue a summons to Rural or issue an
order initiating an investigation and compel Rural to address identified issues
Something else?
c/J '-1v
Nancy Hylto
3 Attachments
i:udmemos/dec memo lords rural
DECISION MEMORANDUM - 3 -DECEMBER 19 2006
~7ttV
:ECEiVEO
FORMAL COMPLAINT
FROM MERLIN AND JUDITH LORDS
CONCERNING
RURAL TELEPHONE CO.
I 3 Pi"1 2:; 8
J riL;,~V~:)c!;~"~fi ~SION
Ms. Nancy Hylton
pue
Fax [phone]
mail Nancy.Hylton~puc.idaho.gov
December 12 , 2005
Dear Ms. Hylton:
As per pue regulation 054 Rule 54, this is a FORMAL COMPLAINT placed by Merlin
and Judith Lords concerning Rural Telephone service.
Respondent Rural Telephone company
Time Period Concerned: 11-28-05 to 12-05.
Acts We Are Complaining About and Related Statutes , Rules , Orders or Other
Controlling Law Involved:
Our primary reasons for the complaint include the following.
Because Rural Telephone Co. has in the past occasionally said it had no way of
knowing when phone service was out in Atlanta, our name and satellite email address
was one of several given to Rural Telephone so that said customers could email -
information to Rural concerning phone outages. The customers' goal was to receive
prompt service so that any phone outages were as brief as possible. In the process, we .
compiled a written track record of complaints to the company and its responses-and
lack of-to customers.
According to PUC Rule 401., regarding "record of complaints " customers who
complained were to have received notification from Rural that the customers could
req\Jest the Commission to review the phone company s proposed disposition of the
complaint. To daJe, we are unaware of anyone here being advised of these and
other rights described below. We only discovered these rights after reviewing
IDAPA 31.41.01.
According to Rule 601.01 c, Rural's phone directory is supposed to include instructions
telling customers how to contact PUC about disputes and tell us how to file a complaint
Decision Memorandum
Attachment 1
1/19/06 Page 1 of7
Page 2
Formal Complaint Re: Rural Telephone
Dec. 12, 2005
with PUC. Since this information is not provided to us , we had to hunt for the process of
filing a complaint. Rural's lack of following the PUC rule made the complaint process
difficult. Rural's phone directory also does not provide customer addresses as required
in Rule 601.01. The directory displays an extraordinary lack of user friendliness. We
bring this up because it is evedence of a lack of customer service. Instead
alphabetizing customers , which customers have repeatedly asked Rural to do, the
directory is organized chronologically by phone number. If we knew someone
telephone number, we wouldn t be looking it up. Have you ever tried to find a phone
number by looking at phone numbers?
As per Rule 602., Rural is required to provide customers a summary of rules
approved by the PUC "at least once a year as well as providirlg them to each new
customer upon commencement of service." Neither is done. Nor are the rules provided
in the phone directory as specified
, "
giving the customer the directory and calling the
customer s attention to the summary of the rules contained in the directory.
Instead of providing the information required by the rules, please note the December 7
email you have from Rural to doris(a).jovontheiob.info. Although Rural made it clear they
knew the customer was dissatisfied with Rural's response to our concerns, Rural's staff
member said she would pass the complaint on to her supervisor. The supervisor t:1~ver
contacted the customer to try to resolve the issue, yet neither the supervisor or the
referring Rural staff member advised the dissatisfied customer that she could contact
PUG and how to do so , as required by PUG rules.
II.
During the recent very extensive phone outage , emails sent from
doris(a).jovontheiob.info seminars(a).emotionalstrenqth.com and
mtelkwood(a).earthlink.net were sometimes ignored until Rural was prodded by repeat
emails to respond. Rural was also reminded by email that the system of em ailing Rural
via satellite about outages was specifically designed so customers could let Rural know
about outages. According to Rule 502., ignoring customer pleas for assistance was a
violation of Rule 503 on the part of Rural. Rule 502.02 says
, "
Commitments to
customers for repair service shall be set in accordance with Rule 503. Each telephone
company shall make every reasonable attempt to fulfill repair commitments to
customers. Customers shall be timely notified of unavoidable changes. Failure to- meet
a repair commitment does not relieve the telephone company. . ." Furthermore , Rule
503.01 "restoration of service" reads "When a telephone company providing local
exchange service . . . is informed by a customer of a service outage. . . the company
must restore service within sixteen hours after the report of the outage if the customer
notifies the company that the service outage creates an emergency for the customer or
restore service within 24 hours after the report of the outage if no emergency exists. .
Decision Memorandum
Attachment 1
1/19/06 Page 2 of7
Page 3
Formal Complaint Re: Rural Telephone
Dec. 12, 2005
If the telephone company does not restore service within the times required by this
subsection the telephone company must credit the customer s account for an amount
equal to the monthly rate for one month of basic local exchange service.
Rural seemed to be satisfied that customers periodically had access to local service.
Rule 603 is very clear. "In counties where consolidated emergency communications
systems, as defined by Section 31-4802 , Idaho Code , are established , the local
exchange company shall provide access to those services to all its customers." You
have emails to Rural from doris(Ci).iovontheiob.info and
seminars(Ci).emotionalstrenqth.com that make it clear that Rural was aware that
customers had no access to 911 services or any other long distance related to
emergency needs, in spite of the fact that Rural was notified that the customer base
includes ill and elderly citizens. In addition , customers had no way to contact the
- -
srerriffs office or any other law enforcement personnel.
According to Idaho law and PUC rules, Rural is not allowed to discriminate. Rural is
aware that Atlanta customers have no basic services including medical , pharmacy, and
other emergency when there is no long distance. In view of Rule 603 and the fact that
Atlanta customers could only call each other (fewer than 50 local people) without
access to long distance for well over a week , Rural and PUC cannot discriminate by
saying "any local service was sufficient." Please also review rules 501 to 5Q4 when you -
. -
consider this claim against discrimination. ('-) L7C\ - boD ~'vv'L(
Rural also seemed to think that intermittent local service was sufficient. How did they
determine that customers had intermittent local service? If this existed, how would
customers have been notified by Rural that such intermittent service existed?
I" .
Rural did not even send anyone to diagnose the problem for at least a week after
they knew that Atlanta phones weren t working. You have in your possession a copy
of emails from doris(Ci).iovontheiob.info d to mtelkwood(Ci).earthlink.net and from Rural
to doris(Ci).iovontheiob.info. Rural clearly stated that it had not even attempted to
diagnose the problem , writing "We don t even know if the problem is at Trinity or James
er . . . " even after outages had been reported to Rural for a week. Rural also never
countered the email report of the claim of its field staff member, Sandy Nye, that Rural
wouldn t be sending anyone to diagnose the problem until its team members returned
from out of state.
Decision Memorandum
Attachment 1
1/19/06 Page 3 of7
Page 4
Formal Complaint Re: Rural Telephone
Dec. 12, 2005
IV.
Eventually, after repeated emails , Rural used the excuse that its technicians would have
been endangered if they had traveled to the area by snowmobile. Please note why we
feel this excuse is unacceptable.
. As reported above, the original Rural excuse was that their teams were out of
state.
. You have in your possession a copy of emails from doris~ioyontheiob.info 9 tomtelkwood~earthlink.net informing Rural that recreational snowmobilers were
traveling James Cr. in and out of Atlanta frequently during the time period of the
outage.' I.e., snowmobile travel was safe and customers informed Rural of this
fact.
. A proposal was made for Bill Uhl, who has repeatedly trained remote rural phone
service technicians for T-Mobile, to help as a private contractor. Rural declined
to accept assistance even though the proposed contractor would have been
operating at his own risk, and as email to Rural indicated , there would have. been
no potential health or well-being liability for Rural. In fact , Atlanta phone service
might have been returned much faster.
Please tell us:
How was it determined that it was unsafe for Rural staff to travel to the area since
a team wasn t send to the area to investigate? Snow patterns vary across the
state. The fact that recreational riders were coming and going with regularity
during the time period of the phone outage and were traversing the James Cr.
area indicates that the claim that the conditions were too dangerous to traverse is
questionable. The snow would have stabilized at least one day earlier than in
James Cr. canyon. It was safe to travel at least by December 2.
. Did anyone at Rural actually look at the area involved before claiming that it was
too dangerous to travel? Did anyone fly over the area?
. What is PUC's official criteria for determining when it is unsafe for Rural staff to
travel in snow to do their job?
. Are the Rural technicians trained to travel in snow? Avalanche country?
. If Rural staff are ill-trained , will PUC and Rural take steps to get them training as
other phone companies have done? This would mean that Rural staff would be
able to be sent to travel in winter conditions , which should be anticipated in this
part of the U.
Rural misinformed the public. As noted in the Rural email to doris~ioyontheiob.info
that you have , after a week of delaying diagnosing the problem , Rural staff PROMISED
Decision Memorandum
Attachment 1
1/19/06 Page 4 of7
Page 5
Formal Complaint Re: Rural Telephone
Dec. 12 , 2005
IN WRITING on Dec. 2 that a team would finally be sent to fix the problem on the
weekend of December 3-4. Instead , Rural callously violated its commitment and
. -
delayed diagnosis or correction even longer. The team wasn t even sent until Monday
December 5. According to Rule 502., this was a violation of Rule 503. Rule 502.
says
, "
Commitments to customers for repair service shall be set in accordance with
Rule 503. Each telephone company shall make every reasonable attempt to fulfill repair
commitments to customers. Customers shall be timely notified of unavoidable changes.
Failure to meet a repair commitment does not relieve the telephone company. . .
addition to making a promise for service it didn t keep, Rural did not inform
customers who had been sending emails that it would not keep the commitment.
Instead , Rural staff waited until repeated additional emails were sent. You have copies
of these. Customers continued to plea for assistance and continued to explain
that customers had medical and other needs and that Rural's delay was
negatively affecting our lives. In our case , as the email in your possession from
doris((V.jovontheiob.info d to mtelkwood~earthlink.net indicates , we could not order
thyroid medicine we desperately needed by telephone and we live 3 Y2 hours from a
pharmacy.
Rural also appears to have misinformed PUC. Please see your emails to and from
doris((V.jovontheiob.info when you questioned when phone service was actually resumed
versus when Rural said it was. Apparently, you were told that service was back on line
the night before (December 6) service was actually resumed (8:45 am the next
morning).
VI.
According to Rule 501.
, "
quality of service-service standards " Rural is required to
employ prudent management and engineering practices to ensure that customers
receive the best quality of service practicable. . . to render safe, adequate and
uninterrupted service. Broken , damaged or deteriorated equipment must be promptly
repaired or replaced and transmission problems must be promptly corrected.
Uncorrected service outages, according to Rule 501.02 must be promptly corrected or
customer s bills must be appropriately and automatically credited. Regarding
equipment , Rural knew in advance of when they FINALLY acted to send their
employees to diagnose the problem that the batteries would take at least a day to
recharge. Instead of caring about their customers and sending the guys who
would fix the problem with freshly-charged battery(ies)-the size and weight of
which makes them easy to carry on snowmobiles-Rural planned in advance for
an even longer delay in the phone outage. Rural knew in advance that the
batteries would have to be recharged by sunlight. They were also aware that, at
the time, the conditions were snowy and cloudy.
Decision Memorandum
Attachment 1
1/19/06 Page 5 of7
Page 6
Formal Complaint Re: Rural Telephone
Dec. 12, 2005
VII.
Rural staff were rude to our family and friends who called them because they
were concerned about us and trying to learn when we would have service.
VIII.
It was questioned whether some Rural customers could actually file a complaint even
though the customers have a power of attorney to handle all phone business in the
account and have been paying the bill (Rural has been accepting the money) for over
ten years. Therefore, please answer the following
. Couldn t any citizen who had been in Atlanta at the time of the extensive phone
outage have filed a complaint with PUC? If the answer is no, is there a right to
discriminate against a visitor or renter? Let's say that a citizen tried to use the
pay phone for over a week or was renting an Atlanta dwelling for a month and
couldn t make emergency long distance calls for over a week. Is there a right to
discriminate against such a person being able to file a complaint with PUG?
not, how would they file a complaint with PUC?
Relief Desired:
. A formal apology to Atlanta phone customers whose needs and rights were
' -
ignored for a week without any diagnosis of the problem. These same customers
were told the problem would FINALLY be solved on the weekend of Dec 3-4-a
week after Rural had been told of the problem. Then Rural chose not to even
send a diagnostic or repair team until Dec 5. To add insult to a series of injuries
service did not resume until well over 24 hours later. This was partly because
Rural did not even care enough to send charged batteries with the problem
resolution team even though Rural staff admitted in the em ail you have thaU!1ey
knew in advance that the batteries would take at least 24 hours to charge and
that weather conditions for recharging batteries were poor at best.
. Action by PUC letting Rural know that its behaviors were unacceptable and
violated PUC Rules. Rural Telephone should be fined or sanctioned in some way.
Definitely, this matter should become part of the permanent record of Rural
Telephone.
. Refund of our December phone bill because we could not use the phone to get
essential medications , pay bills, or transfer money from one account to another.
Actually, all Atlanta customers should have the amount of their monthly phone bill
refunded.
Decision Memorandum
Attachment 1
1/19/06 Page 6 of 7
Page 7
Formal Complaint Re: Rural Telephone
Dec. 12, 2005
Reimbursement for lost income to Merlin Lords. Dr. Earl Nauman, Merlin s bossdocumented the time the phones were out and that Merlin couldn t do his phonework and therefore lost wages. You are aware of Dr. Nauman s distress aboutthis matter because he also called pue and complained.
We look forward to hearing what action PUC is taking concerning this FORMAL
COMPLAINT.
Thank you
Merlin and Judith Lords
Rural Telephone customers
O. Box 37
Atlanta, Idaho 83601
[phone]
Decision Memorandum
Attachment 1
1/19/06 Page 7 of7
JAN. 10. 2006 2: 31PM P 1
FROM : Panasoni c PPF
' ~
) S ex....
9~~
'?
Lt. S e-C"~Y'
Decision Memorandum
Attachment 2
1/19/06 Page 1 of 13
JAN. 10. 2006 2:32PM P 2
FROM : Panasoni c PPF
SECOND FORMAL COMPLAINT
FROM MERLIN AND JUDITH LORDS
CONCERNING
RURAL TELEPHONE CO.
PUC Commission Secretary
Cc:
front~PUC. idaho.gov
.or Fax 208-334~4045
E-mail Nancy. Hylton(gJpuc.idah.o.gov
January 9, 2006
Dear PUC Staff:
Respondent: Rural Telephone c.ompany
Time Period Concerned: 11-28-05 t.o 1-
Acts We Are Complaining About and Related Statutes, Rules, Orders or
Other Controlling Law Involved:
PLEASE NOTE:
Please add this document to our previous FORMAL
complaint concerning Rural Telephone.
Alth.ough some of the pue Rules and Regulations broken
by Rural Telephone are mentioned again in this document
we are nat dr.opping .our previous complaint.
In addition, we have permission from Doris Helge and Bill
UhJ t.o include all of their emails to Rural Telephone and
t.o PUG as part of this camplaint. This includes all .of their
new emails since .our last complaint. These have already been
sent to the fallowing pue addresses:
front(W,puc.idaho.aav
nancy. hvlton~puc.idaho .QOVsecretary~puc.jdaho.gov
Decision Memorandum
Attachment 2
1/19/06 Page 2 of
JAN. 10. 2006 2:32PM P 3
FROM : Panasoni c PPF
Page 2
Formal complaint re: Rural Telephone
By Merlin & Judith Lords
It is important for you to incorporate these emails into this
formal complaint and it will be easy for you to do so. The
emails and the pictures they include document our concerns.
We are hereby including a copy of a 1-06 emaH from Helge
and Uhl to PUG , with their permission , in this document. It is
unconstitutional and inexcusable that they are being harassed
for standing up for their rights to receive the service they are
paying for. If Uhl hadn t volunteered to clear the solar panels
with Rural Telephone s permission , Atlanta customers would
have had an even longer phone outage. His volunteer effort
should have been appreciated by Rural Telephone.
Rural Telephone has a monopoly to provide phone service to Atlanta. It is our
only option for local phone access unless we buy a satellite phone.
desperately need the assistance of pue to ensure that we have reliable access
to 911 , sheriff's office, and other services. Nowhere else in the U.S. do
customers wait week after week, time and again, for phone problems to be
corrected. People in Atlanta have medical, emergency, and other needs that
make it essential that phone service be reliable.
When I (Judith) spoke to a Rural technician from a Boise phone on December
, he confirmed that Rural is aware that they have an equipment problem that
they are not really fixing. This is contrary to pue Rules 501-503.
Atlanta phone customers deserve the quality we pay for. We pay first-class rates
but we receive poor and unreliable service.
The Rural technician I spoke with on December 30 stated that Rural would be
making no attempts to fix the phone problems until January 4. This is contrary to
PUG Rules 501-503-
Rural Telephone appears to exaggerate the seriousness of weather conditions
that "prevent them from trying to fix the phone system." Here s a recent example.
On December 23, Rural was saying they couldn t attempt to fix the Atlanta
phones "because they were told by the Elmore County sheriffs office that the
road to Atlanta was closed." However, the Elmore County dispatcher recorded a
different story. According to the dispatcher
, "
someone named Bill from Rural
Telephone called the Elmore County sheriff's office at 8:43 a.m. on December
23," According to the dispatcher s ledger, the Rural Telephone representative
was NOT told by the dispatcher that the road to Atlanta was closed. Even if it
Decision Memorandum
Attachment 2
1/19/06 Page 3 of
JAN. 10. 2006 2:33PM P 4
FROM : Panason i c PPF
Page 3
Formal complaint re: Rural Telephone
By Merlin & Judith Lords
1.9~
had been closed, Rural technicians could have snowmobiled into James Cr.
instead of driving to the area to fix the phones,
Instead of working WITH the weather to fix the phones-planning around today
readily available satellite weather reports-Rural seems to adopt a strategy of
convenience. Otherwise, why would they generally wait to try to helicopter into
the relevant sites until mid-morning? Why would they tell me on Friday
December 30 that they would not be trying to fix the phones again until
Wednesday, January 4? This is pre-planned irresponsibility. It unduly
inconveniences customers. This is contrary to PUC regulations, such as Rules
501-503. Often, it seems that Rural just waits until the weather clears and melts
the snow off of the solar panels.
After all of the hullabaloo regarding not being able to get into the Trinity's to fix
the phones, when the phones finally came back on after noon on 1-
according to the 1-06 email from Rural to Bill Uhf that was cc d to PUG, Rural
still hadn t even gotten to the Trinity site. Since the phones stayed on before
Rural ever got to the Trinity site, even a small child can figure out that the 1-4-
trip to James Cr. was all that was required to fix the outage of several weeks.
We should never have had to wait weeks for phones due to violations of Rules
501-503!
Rural Telephone seems to ignore that having the phone service we pay for can
actually be life-saving. During our most recent time traveling out from Atlanta, we
couldn t call into Atlanta to get an accurate road report. Therefore, we were
stuck in Boise instead of being able to return home when we needed to.
Traveling to and from Atlanta is different than traveling to and from Caldwell and
Boise. One doesn t just get on the road and pull into a motel if road conditions
are bad. The citizens of Atlanta deserve phone service that will allow us to get
accurate road reports and call for emergency services.
RELIEF DESIRED
Since the phones were not fixed until January 4 and had been out for weeks, we
plea for the PUC to do the following.
(1 )
Require Rural Telephone to refund the base service charge for Atlanta phone
customers for the month of January due to violations of Rules 501-503, etc.
Decision Memorandum
Attachment 2
1/19/06 Page 4 of
JAN. 10. 2006 2:33PM P 5
FROM : Panason i c PPF
Page 4
Formal complaint re: Rural Telephone
By Merlin & Judith lords
(2)
Require Rural to upgrade their equipment and service. Put in more lines. Evenwhen the phones work, it is much too frequent that callers to and from Atlanta
hear "All circuits are busy." This is the modem era. People have computers andfaxes. Customers use the phone more, not less. Other phone companies take
that into consideration. The traffic into Atlanta also continues to increase , and
visitors are shocked and appalled when they consistently can t make calls from
here.
Rural Telephone should be required to get better batteries and a better backup
power system. This can be done. At the James Cr. site, the police system will
last 14 days without sun. There is no reason that Rural can t do something
similar. This would be more cost effective, as well as more efficient and reliable
than waiting until a helicopter can get into the area. There are ways to design asystem with frequent snowstorms in mind instead of trying to wait until the sun
comes out and saves the day for the phone company (violations of Rules 501-503).
(3)
Provide customer service training to Rural Telephone staff. I (Judith) worked in
retail for many years before moving to Atlanta. Other companies educate their
employees regarding how to respectfUlly deal with the public. This is a publicutility company. The staff are frequently rude and disrespectful , including whenour friends and family call them because they cannot reach us. People only callthem because they are anxiously trying to get an update re: when our phones
will be fixed.
(4)
Train Rural Telephone technicians re: the proper use of snowmobiles so they
can assess problems at the James Cr. and Trinity sites in winter weather
conditions. At this point, Rural just says the technicians are unable to deal with
the snow conditions so "the problem can t be fixed." Since other companiessuch as T-Mobile, train their remote tower technicians to travel in a variety of
snow conditions, it is clear that Rural Telephone could do so , withoutcompromising employee safety or efficiency. Recreational riders routinely travel
to and through the very areas Rural says their employees can t travel to at thevery times Rural says it can t be done. Proper training can correct this situation.
Decision Memorandum
Attachment 2
1/19/06 Page 5 of 13
JRN. 10. 2006 2:34PM P 6
FROM : Panasoni c PPF
Page 5
Formal complaint re: Rural Telephone
By Merlin & Judith Lords
Otherwise, it will continue to be true that Rural doesn t even assess the snow
conditions before saying the problem can t be fixed , further violation of Rules
501-503.
(5)
Require Rural Telephone to ensure that its Atlanta representative stop calling
customers to discuss Atlanta phone business when the representative is drunk.
We look forward to hearing from you soon re: how PUG will address our
concerns. We request a written response indicating that you have receivedthis formal complaint.
Thank you.~"4-~/ sr;';;"IY, ~~J
Memn and Judith Lords
Rural Telephone customers
O. Box 37
Atlanta, Idaho 83601
(208) 864~2122
Decision Memorandum
Attachment 2
1/19/06 Page 6 of 13
JAN. 10.2006 2:34PM P 7
FROM : Panason i c PPF
FORMAL COMPLAINT
FROM [phone] CUSTOMERS
UHL AND HELGE CONCERNING
RURAL TELEPHONE CO.
PUC Commission Secretary
Cc:
front~PUC.idaho.gov
or Fax [phone]
E-mail Nancy.Hylton~puc.idaho.gov
January 9, 2006
Dear PUG Staff:
Respondent: Rural Telephone company
Time Period Concerned: 11-28-05 to 1-
Acts We Are Complaining About and Related Statutes, Rules, Orders or
Other Controlling Laws Involved:
NOTE:
Since Rural Telephone is now sending mail concerning the [phone]
account to our personal names and is leaving off the word "Shimoda !! it is
clear that they DO consider us the customers of record. We ARE entitled to
file a formal complaint, not just an informal complaint. If you need to see
these envelopes, we have saved them as proof that Rural considers us
customers of record.
I. STATEMENT OF FACTS RE: RURAL TELEPHONE CO. HARRASSING
CUSTOMERS AND DISCRIMINATING AGAINST CUSTOMERS WHO
COMPLAIN ABOUT POOR SERVICE
As per pue RULE 402, customers have the right to complain about poor phone
service and lack of phone service.
Atlanta phone customers have been without phone service for weeks. The only
reason there was any service during at least one of those weeks during the
recent extensive outage was because Bill Uhl volunteered to clean the James Cr.
solar panels at no cost to Rural Telephone,
Mr. Uhl did so, with Rural Telephone s knowledge and approval. He was also
gracious enough to email Rural a report and pictures. This depicted what he did
Decision Memorandum
Attachment 2
1/19/06 Page 7 of 13
JAN. 10. 2006 2:35PM P 8
FROM : Panason i c PPF
..--'
Page 2
Formal complaint re: Rural Telephone
1 ~
to fix the problem. His pictures showed how easy it was to get to the phone
tower that Rural had been saying it was "impossible" to traverse to. Uhl also told
the CEO , Mark Martell, in writing that Uhl had discovered how the problem could
be fixed in the long term. Martell has never expressed an interest in hearing
Uhl's idea for a solution.
The CEO had promised to personally check emails during the upcoming period
of time including holiday periods so that Atlantans could tell Rural by satellite
internet what the status of Atlanta phones were and report on weather conditions
that might influence fixing the phones. All of these facts were documented in
emails that were received by both PUC and Rural Telephone.
After Uhl's volunteer effort, Atlanta customers were thrilled-after weeks of
phone problems-to have dependable phone service for even a short time.
They were grateful to Uhl for his volunteer efforts.
Instead of expressing appreciation to Uhl or asking what he discovered that could
solve problems of the Rural Telephone system , the CEO of Rural Telephone took
an unfortunate and astonishing approach.
(1 )
Rural did not follow through on the CEO's promise to personally read and
respond to Atlanta customer emails during holiday periods. As previous
correspondence to PUC that was cc d to Rural has documented, neither Rural
nor the CEO looked at Atlanta customer emails regarding this matter. In fact
Rural's email box was so stuffed with unopened mail that the customer email
came back "undeliverable because the mailbox was full." As the Rural
Telephone technician told the Lords when they called from Boise trying to find
out when the phones would be fixed so they could plan their journey into Atlanta,
Rural never intended to fix the phones until January 4, even though the phones
had been out for weeks and there was pettect weather to fix the problem way
before that time. These excellent weather conditions were documented in day-
by-day pictures emailed to Rural. Delaying attempting to fix Atlanta phones
violated Rules 501-503.
(2)
Rural is now harassing [phone] customers Uhl and Helge because they
complained about service problems, Please see the details below.
Decision Memorandum
Attachment 2
1/19/06 Page 8 of
JAN. 10. 2006 2: 35PM P
FROM : Panasonic PPF
Page 3
Formal complaint re: Rural Telephone
On January 4 , Mark Martell wrote Uhl saying that [phone] will now
arbitrarily be considered a business, instead of a residential , number.
Martell provided the excuse because of an inaccurate "business listing
from something called DexOn-Line.
Since 864-2158 is a residential, not a business, listing, where did the
DexOn-Line listing come from? Who submitted it? When? Again,
remember that the information is inaccurate. By the way, we were unable
to duplicate the search result that Martell sent in his letter when doing a
computer search.
In addition , it cannot be overemphasized how discriminatory Martell's
actions are. Attacking the customers of 864-2158 because they have
complained about poor phone service constitutes blatant discrimination
against selected customers. Discrimination is prohibited by the U.
Constitution , Idaho State Statutes, and by pue regulations.
If Martell is trying to discover Atlanta customers with residential accounts
who really are running commercial businesses, he might first approach
retail businesses in Atlanta where customers walk in, pay money, and
receive goods and services. For example, check out the following. The
Atlanta Post Office uses the same phone number as the Gills private
number, 864-2137. During post office business hours, the phone is
routinely answered IIAtlanta Post Office." This is also the number for Gill'
Atlanta Highway District business calls and his construction business.
Another retail outlet is the Atlanta Sports Centerj 864-2133 (Applegates).
There is also cabin rental run by Gerri Perkins at 864-2213. For building
contractor Bob Bartemoccia, call 864-2119. A guide business is run by
Ron Sherer 864-2140. Is the home phone that rings from Beaver Lodge
into Beaver s home when the Lodge, is closed listed as residential or
business? What about all of the Atlantans who sell firewood retail and
provide other retail sales when people call their home phones?
Saying that the customers of 864-2158 are running a retail business out of
their home is inaccurate and unfair. Arbitrarily classifying 864-2158 as a
business listing is contrary to PUG rules. See Rules 005-09 and 005-10.
Decision Memorandum
Attachment 2
1/19/06 Page 9 of 13
JRN. 10. 2006 2: 36PM P10
FROM : Panason i c PPF
.--
Page 4
Formal complaint re: Rural Telephone
On January 5) Stacy Dickinson called 864-2158 and spoke with Helge
telling her she was required to pay a charge Rural put on the November
bill that merely said, "S. billing charge.Helge replied that she would
pay the charge if Rural could prove the amount was owed. Dickinson was
very unprofessional and expressed her belief that Helge and Uhl should
not have been communicating with PUC concerning dissatisfaction with
Rural phone service. This is contrary to PUC Rules, including Rule 403
which states that Rural Telephone is responsible for telling dissatisfied
customers exactly how to contact PUG with their concerns. Dickinson
actually hung up on the Rural Telephone customer! Since that call, Uhl
and Helge confirmed by calling the number on the Rural Telephone phone
bill, a awest phone number, that the charge should not be paid by the
864~2158 customers. Apparently, since Helge and Uhl never gave Rural
permission to be their long-distance service provider and specifically
notified Rural years ago who their long-distance carrier is, Rural has
absolutely no right to act as the long-distance carrier for 864-2158. In
addition, awest verified that, when Rural's equipment fails to pic to a
customer s true long-distance provider, it is not the customer s fault. As
per PUG Rules, customers are not liable for any related charges incurred
by Rural Telephone.
II. PLEA FOR PUG ASSISTANCE TO CUSTOMERS. . . RELIEF DESIRED
The aforementioned Atlanta phone customers seek pue intervention including
the following.
ITEMA.
As per PUG Rules 501 - 503, a written apology and refund/reversal of the
January monthly base local service fee to all Rural Telephone Atlanta customers
for the following reasons.(1)
Rural Telephone failed to fix the Atlanta phones until January 5 even
though the problem had existed for weeks and customers had
documented expressions of their concerns and complaints to Rural by
email.(2)
The Rural CEO broke his promise to review emaHs from customers.
Decision Memorandum
Attachment 2
1/19/06 Page 10 of
JRN. 10.2006 2:36PM PH
FROM : Panasonic PPF
Page 5
Formal complaint re: Rural Telephone
(3)
Rural ignored excellent weather conditions documented by photos
emailed to Rural and cc d to PUC. The photos documented that the
phones could have been fixed earlier. Instead Rural kept its original
convenience" time line of January 4. This timeline was expressed to
Judith Lords on December 30 when she called Rural from the Boise area.
Mr- and Mrs. Lords previously filed a formal complaint about Rural
Telephone s irresponsibility during phone outages. Further documentation
that the phones could have been fixed much sooner includes the
following.
. When the phones finally came back on after noon on January 4,
they stayed on! Why is this important? According to an email from
Rural that was cc d to PUC1 this was before Rural ever went to the
Trinity site, so James Cr. appears to have always been the
problem.
Recreational riders and a local trapper continued to traverse into
and through the James Cr. area without difficulty during the long
phone outage.
Regarding ITEM "A" above, we request the following a$ per PUG Rules 501
503.
(1) A written apology and refund/reversal of the January monthly base
local service fee to all Rural Telephone Atlanta customers
(2) That PUC require Rural Telephone to regularly check for email from
Atlanta customers and answer such email. This system was established
so that customers with satellite internet could alert Rural Telephone about
problems. Even though this system was agreed to by both Atlanta
customers and Rural Telephone, the phone company sometimes fails to
check for messages or respond. For proof that Rural sometimes fails
check for emails as promised, see the emails previously sent to 3 PUG
addresses. These emaits substantiate Martell's personal promise to
check such emaHs and Martell's failure to do SO.
(3) PUC require Rural Telephone follow the timelines established for
repairs in Rules 501-503.
Decision Memorandum
Attachment 2
1/19/06 Page 11 of13
JRN. 10. 2006 2: 37PM P12
FROM : Panason i c PPF
Page 6
Formal complaint re: Rural Telephone
1-9-
(4) PUG establish a system to determine acceptable weather conditions
for repairs to occur. Such a system will prevent Rural Telephone from
conveniently saying that weather conditions prohibit them from attempting
to repair the phone system-even though they don t travel to the
transmitter site to determine weather conditions.
ITEM B
Reversal of inappropriate charges ("S. billing ) on the phone bill for the account
of 864-2158.
ITEMC
Ensure that Rural Telephone staff receive training in customer service skills and
an understanding of customer rights as well as Rural Telephone
responsibilities.
ITEM D
Train Rural Telephone technicians re; the proper use of snowmobiles so they
can assess problems at the James Cr. and Trinity sites in winter conditions.
this point, Rural uses their technician s alleged lack of competence as an excuse
not to make efforts to fix phone outages. We know that other companies, such
as T-Mobile, train their remote tower technicians to travel in a variety of snow
conditions. which ensures continuous service. It is clear that Rural Telephone
could do so without compromising employee safety or efficiency. Again
recreational riders and the local trapper travel to and through the very areas
Rural says their employees can t travel to at the very times Rural says "it can t bedone." Something is very strange about this picture, and proper training cancorrect the problem. Otherwise, it will continue to be true that Rural doesn t evenassess the snow conditions before saying "the problem can t be fixed until theweather is better." The Atlanta area will have severe winters in the foreseeable
future. A responsible company will plan for bad weather and meet associated
challenges instead of consistently violating Rules 501-503.
ITEME
Educate Rural Telephone that it cannot discriminate against customers who
complain about their service by attempting to slap a business rate on a
residential account (the 864-2158 Uhl-Helge account). Require Rural Telephone
Decision Memorandum
Attachment 2
1/19/06 Page 12 of
JRN. 10. 2006 2: 37PM P13
FROM : Panasoni c PPF
Page 7
FormaJ complaint re: Rural Telephone
1.9.06
to reverse any charges related to its punitive and arbitrary re-designation of the864-2158 account as a business account.
Sanction Rural Telephone for discriminating against customers Uhl and Helge
because they complained to the PUG about poor service.
ITEM F
As per Rules 501-503, require Rural Telephone to upgrade the phone system.
Rural should be required to get better batteries and a better backup power
system. This can be done. At the James Cr. site, the police system will last 14days without sun, There is no reason that Rural can t do something similar. Thiswould be more cost effective, as well as more efficient and reliable than waiting
until a helicopter can get into the area. There are ways to design a system withfrequent snowstorms in mind instead of trying to wait until the sun comes out and
saves the day for the phone company (violations of Rules 501-503).
Put in more phone lines so that we 'are not repeatedly told by callers that they
receive the "All circuits are busy" signal even though we have call waiting.
ITEM G
Require Rural Telephone to ensure that its Atlanta representative stop calling
customers to discuss Atlanta phone business when the representative is drunk.
Finally, to PUC staff, thank you in advance for your assistance in ending
harassment and discrimination as well as in improving Atlanta phone service.
We hereby request a written response from PUC indicating: (a) that youhave received this formal complaint, and (b) then how these matters will bepromptly and fairly dealt with.
Decision Memorandum
Attachment 2
1/19/06 Page 13 of
1U'10/":UUO 10;'10 1'A..-\.--.141001
892 W. MadIson
Glerms Ferry, ID 83623
(208)366~2614 Phone
[phone] Fax
,/ .
~-A TELEF"HONF COMPANY
Fax
C\OA\~ fJA
Tal
~j
/h-.((J - From:&tU1 d-U
(including COVet sheet)
/;Z -
/')"-
6.5
Fax:3LJ - LlD4 Pages~
Phone:Date:
"'" Qj I a AlTh. Ct ~ f-a Urgent For Review
, ,
:CC:
0 Please Comment 0 Please Reply
Comments:
Decision Memorandum
Attachment 3
1/19/06 Page 1 of2
12/15/2005 16; 45 FAX---. - -' -- ,-, --. -, --. 14! 002
.. "~~~~"~~:
:r~.
892 W. MADISON AVENUE
r\.. I"'\. GLENNS FERRY. IDAHO 83623
TEL E P H 0 NEe 0 M PAN Y [phone]. FAX [phone]
December 15 , 2005
RE:Service Outage
AtJanta Subscribers
Dear Rural Telephone Company Subscriber;
The purpose of this letter is to inform you regarding the resolution measures Rural relephone
Company undertook to restore service to the Atlanta area during the recent outage- First, we
apologize for the inconvenience. We understand how important phone service is , especially to
remote locations.
The phone service went down on November 30 . Due to heavy snows and the threat of
avalanche we were unable to reach the area until Monday December 5 . Although attempts
were made, the area was simply impassable even by snowmobile.
On December 5 , engineers and technicians went to James Creek and cleared off the solar
panels and checked' the battery- Service came up briefly then went down again. There were
no open trails so the technicians had to blaze their own trails; which was an all-da)! process.
On Tuesday, December 6 ", arrangements were made to fly to Trinity to clear the S ::lIar panels
there , however for safety reasons , the pilot refused to fly to due heavy fog.
On Wednesday, December 7th, our technicians flew by helicopter to Trinity and clei;!red the
solar panels. Service was up before noon on this date and has been up since.
We earnestly ap,ologize for the delay in restoring service, however the severe weal her
conditions made the situation beyond our control. Rural Telephone Company will be waiving
your next month's local service exchange fee (Residential $21.63 Business $40.68) as an
extension of our sincere regrets.
We appreciate and value your business.
Sincerely,
Ir /frMark R. Martell
Administrative Manager
MRM/sec
Decision Memorandum
Attachment 3
1/19/06 Page 2 of2