20040621_871.pdf

t.~&~ Nu
DECISION MEMORANDUM
TO:COMMISSIONER KJELLANDER
COMMISSIONER SMITH
CO MMISSI 0 NER HANSEN
COMMISSION SECRETARY
WORKING FILE
FROM:WAYNE HART AND DANIEL KLEIN
DATE:JUNE 16, 2004
RE:FORMAL COMPLAINT OF GREG BEAL
On June 14 2004, the Commission received a request to file a formal complaint
(attached) from Greg Beal against Verizon Northwest, Inc. Mr. Beal is requesting that Verizon
run a single service line (buried drop) instead of the 25 pair cable as proposed by Verizon.
would also like the option of installing the drop himself since he has utility work experience.
BACKGROUND
Mr. Beal has been trying to obtain service to his residence over the past year and two
months. The initial obstacle was his inability to obtain an easement along the private road
leading to his residence. The road leading to Mr. Beal's property does not have a utility
easement, and Verizon was requiring one to be obtained and recorded with the county. Mr. Beal
was unable to obtain an easement from Stimson Lumber, the owner of the first 600 feet of the
road. After exploring a number of alternative options with Staff, Verizon has since obtained an
easement from Stimson Lumber, and Mr. Beal indicates he has obtained, but still needs to
record, the rest of the easement with the county. Verizon wants to place a 25 pair cable in the
easement, so that it might have spare capacity for future development. Verizon would then place
a new serving terminal at the start of Mr. Beal's driveway, and run a drop from there to where it
would place the NID on the house.
Mr. Beal is against the idea ofVerizon using a 25 pair cable to service his address since
he would bear an increased construction cost. By using the 25 pair cable, Mr. Beal will be
unable to do the majority of the installation himself, thus incurring greater cost. Beal indicated
DECISION MEMORANDUM JUNE 16, 2004
he had utility construction experience and was familiar with and agreed to comply with
Verizon s specifications for the trenching. He claims Verizon s policies are effectively requiring
him to bear the cost of spare capacity that he does not believe is likely to be needed.
maintains the land beyond his address is unsuitable for future building and is unlikely to be
developed. He also does not wish to bear a greater cost by paying for the speculative need for
the 25 pair cable. Mr. Beal also indicated that the Company s facilities from which this line
extension would begin are all in use and would need to be upgraded before the spare capacity he
is being asked to pay for could be used.
Mr. Beal also thinks he is being treated differently than a neighbor that recently received
service from Verizon because that line extension was done via a service drop only, and that
service drop crossed property not owned by the neighbor. Verizon maintains the neighbor was
within the existing cable route that passed by their home site and only required a service drop
from the existing terminal, which is not the case for Mr. Beal.
STAFF ANALYSIS
Commission Staff contacted both Mr. Beal and Verizon. The problems with obtaining
and recording the needed easements should be resolved in the near future. The dispute now is
about the type of facilities used to provide the service, and who may provide the trench. Pages
67 through 69 of Section IV of V erizon' s tariff clearly provides it with the authority to make
decisions regarding the routing and facilities used to provide service. The Tariff also limits the
option of a customer providing a trench to the service drop portion of an extension.
Verizon wants to use the 25 pair cable to the edge of Mr. Beal's property, and not allow
Mr. Beal to provide a trench for this portion of the line extension. The net cost to Mr. Beal for
Verizon s proposal is $2 344.93. Mr. Beal wants a service drop to be used for the entire
extension, including the portion on land not owned by him. He would then be able to provide the
trench, which would reduce the cost of the project to below Verizon' s allowance, essentially
eliminating any line extension costs for this customer. This would also not provide any capacity
for future growth. Verizon indicates it does not allow a service drop to be used on property not
owned by the customer.
Staff has been unsuccessful in working out a compromise between the two parties. Staff
proposed a compromise of allowing the Customer to provide the trench for the entire extension
DECISION MEMORANDUM JUNE 16 2004
including the section where the Company wants to install 25 pair cable, in exchange for an
easement across his property that will be required to service future growth. This would eliminate
the additional cost to the customer, but also provide the spare capacity and easements for future
growth. The Company refused this compromise.
If the Commission decides to accept this complaint, Staff recommends the minimum
response periods so that this issue may be resolved during this construction season.
COMMISSION DECISION
Does the Commission wish to accept Mr. Beal's formal complaint?
Should Verizon be asked to respond to this Complaint within 21 days?
Daniel Klein
i:udmemos/beal hart de IDem
DECISION MEMORANDUM JUNE 16, 2004
JUN-14-04 08: 18 PM GREG BEAL
To d,GA,v ~E 4JE// ()1 P~A//L/208 7725876
6/14/04
A TTN: Public Utility Commission,
I have been desperately trying to get a phone line to my borne for the Jast 10
months with no success. The problem I am having is with Verizon Northwest. It seems
Verizon has been going out of their way to make this very difficult and expensive for me.
I've finally got the necessary easements to nm through my neighbor s properties; but now
Verizon wants to charge me a lot of construction cost ($2 300.00) for something I believe
is wmecessary. They want me to pay for a 2S pair line ext. cable to go 1100 feet. The
problem is, that where this cable will start from there is a pedesta1 with only three lines
going to it which are all being used. Venzon has asked my good neighbor to give up one
of her lines so I can have it, and she agreed. Where the cable win end is on my property,
which is the last home on the road. The rest of the road beyond me goes up a narrow
canyon and is not suitable for any other home to be built, and it goes into state land.
All I am asking for is a drop (service) line to go ftom the last pedestal at my
neighbors~ up to my home. , would also like to have the option of installing it in the
ground myself as I have utility work experiencep I asked Verizon (Bob Cardinel) to do
this, and he was very short and negative with me. Bob Cardine1 to1d me that Verizon
could not do this because the drop line wouJd not be completely on my property and it
was against their policy. Yet a couple of weeks ago~ Verizon put in a new service just
down the road from me at 18924 Blackrock Rd. for somebody else. They ran over 1000
feet of drop line over another neighbors property ~.Qjlj an easement. Why did they
not charge him for a line extension to go down the road? Verizon obviously broke their
policy for him and lied to me. I feel this is a personal conflict between Bob Cardinel and
myself and I honestly don t know why.
I feel Verizon is trying to over charge me for sometlUng that is unnecessary and
useless. I feel I have been wronged and would like to be treated fairly. Please help me to
resolve this issue as I have a smal1 chUd in the home and would like to have phone
service.
Thank you,
Greg Bea1
JUN 14 04 0 8: 18 GREG BEAL 208 7725876
Veli7.0n Northwest. Inc.
Nc\work Engineering & Planning
Verla
May 19. 2004
k1fv
2115 Government Way
O. Box 6000
Co~ur d'Alene, ID 83816-1924
File:17081119
Greg Beal
.,..~)~~.
Bo~Rd.Cata~83810
Dear Mr. Beal:
We have taken the preliminary steps to provide you with telephone seNice to 19561 S.
Black Rock Road , Cataldo, 10; however, approximately 1 100 feet of buried cable and
425 feet of buried service wire must be placed from our nearest working facility to your
home. The total amount for construction is $5,344.93 of which Verizon Northwest Inc.
would pay the first $3.000.00. Your portion of the construction cost win be $2,344.93.
Easement forms will be sent to you under separate cover. It will be your responsibility
to obtain the proper legal description(s), have the signature (5) notarized and return the
original document(s) to Verizon, retaining a copy for your records.
Please send your check to this office in the enclosed envelope within thirty (30) days.
We wilt then process your order and you will be notified of your approximate service
date, which will be subject to our construction schedule at that time. If we do not
receive your check, we win assume you do not want service at this time and the order
will be canceled.
If you have any questions concerning this information, please contact our OSP~
Engineering Department at 877/483-4737 (toll free).
Sincerely,
~.w
Robert Britsch
Section Manager-Network Engineering
RB:ps