[29 Pa.B. 2779]
[Continued from previous Web Page] This offer to place a ''flag'' or ''freeze'' on the account is not new--this option has been available for several years. Furthermore, the Interim Guidelines ensure that a customer is informed that the charges that are removed by the LEC from the LEC bill are not necessarily eliminated or forgiven by the service. The IXC retains its rights to pursue collection of these charges, and the customer, in turn, may pursue any dispute over these charges.
The Interim Guidelines are not standards governing changing IXCs since the procedures are applied after a switch has occurred. Therefore, the intent behind the Interim Guidelines cannot be to prevent slamming, but to regulate the LECs' reaction to the slamming occurrence. In other words, the Interim Guidelines do not replace the FCC verification rules or any additional Federal regulations designed to govern PIC switches. Thus, we believe the effect of these Interim Guidelines on IXCs that currently implement reasonable marketing and switching practices should be minimal.
Given our position on the impact that our Interim Guidelines will have on PIC switches, we shall not follow the IXCs' recommendation to evaluate the new FCC regulations on slamming before moving forward on additional rules. We do, however, welcome the tougher rules being adopted by the FCC to reduce slamming. Implementation of the Subscriber Carrier Selection Changes Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996; Policies and Rules Concerning Unauthorized Changes of Consumers' Long Distance Carriers, Second Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, CC Docket No. 94-129 (Released December 23, 1998). Under the new rules, customers who have had their telephone service provider changed without their consent are relieved from paying charges imposed for up to 30 days after such a slamming incident. The FCC also strengthened carrier switch verification procedures and broadened the scope of its anti-slamming procedures by extending the rules to LECs and local phone service. The verification procedures were strengthened by requiring companies to obtain either a written letter authorizing the change, third-party verification of the request, or have customers call a toll-free number on their own. As can be clearly seen, these new rules will have no impact on our Interim Guidelines.
Also, since the Interim Guidelines are not standards for changing or switching carriers, we do not agree with the OCA that the Interim Guidelines should include a reference to alleged unauthorized changes in a customer's local exchange carrier. We view this type of complaint as falling under the dispute provisions of Chapter 64. Unauthorized local exchange carrier switches, while included in the definition of ''slamming,'' need not be included in the instant voluntary Interim Guidelines since the instant guidelines are designed to restore account billing to its prior status and remove allegedly unauthorized charges billed on a contractual basis for IXCs. In the case of alleged local exchange carrier slamming, the affected customer's grievance about the unauthorized switch in the provision of residential telephone service falls under the scope of Chapter 64. Therefore, these types of complaints are properly viewed as Chapter 64 disputes and resolved through application of the appropriate Chapter 64 provisions.
The issue of the inclusion of intraLATA toll service and charges in the application of the instant Interim Guidelines is more complex. As noted by the PTA in its comments, the recent revisions of the Chapter 64 included amendment of the definition of ''dispute'' to exclude IXC charges on the LEC bill. Some IXC charges are for intraLATA toll usage, and therefore, some customers who alleged unauthorized switching by an IXC will need to have IXC charges for intraLATA toll service removed from the LEC bill as part of the application of the Interim Guidelines. However, where the LEC provides intraLATA toll service, any disagreement over the billing of these charges require application of the Chapter 64 provisions since the revision in § 64.2 in the definition of the term ''dispute'' does not exclude as disputable subject matter intraLATA toll service provided by the LEC.
Accordingly, we will continue to define the term ''slamming'' to include the unauthorized changing of a customer's local exchange carrier and intraLATA toll carrier, but will not require application of the instant voluntary Interim Guidelines to either (1) local exchange charges or (2) intraLATA toll charges provided by the customer's LEC.
19. Comments on Definitions
MCI notes that the proposed definition of ''slamming'' refers to the customer not having authorized a transaction, or to there having been an unauthorized transaction. MCI expresses concern that this language would not permit one spouse or another member of a household to change the telecommunication service of the household. If the customer is the person responsible for the telephone bill and is thereby the only person who may authorize a change in carrier, MCI submits that the definitions are contrary to the way many households conduct business today and would impose a burden on consumers. (MCI Comments, p. 13). MCI argues that carriers should not be punished if the billed ''customer'' later claims that an adult member of the household lacked ''authority'' to make a PIC change if that member is a decision-maker and over 18 years old. (MCI Comments, p. 14). Therefore, MCI recommends that if the Interim Guidelines are to address authorization or what one may or may not authorize, the LECs should recognize the FCC's verification rules as providing a safe harbor for IXCs with respect to slamming. (MCI Comments, p. 13).
AT&T recommends that the Interim Guidelines should include the failure to switch carriers in the definition of ''slamming'' to address those complaints where a customer has not had their request for change in carrier implemented timely. (AT&T Comments, p. 6).
20. Response to Comments on Definitions
We disagree with MCI's argument that carriers are being unfairly treated by allowing the ratepayer of record for a residential account to allege that an adult member of the household lacked ''authority'' to make a PIC change. We believe that a ratepayer of record clearly has the right to contact the LEC about the bill for which he or she is liable and allege that changes to the account were not authorized by the ratepayer of record and, therefore, should be reversed. IXCs should be reminded that once the action is reversed, the carrier may pursue any claim of liability that it wishes to make before an appropriate legal forum. However, in this Commonwealth, this Commission will continue to place considerable weight and importance on arguments from ratepayers of record who complain that actions affecting their accounts were taken without their permission.
With respect to AT&T's recommendation concerning the definition of ''slamming,'' we decline to include the phrase ''failure to switch carriers'' in this definition since, as stated previously, we are not attempting to design rules for changing carriers, or for addressing disputes about timely changes. We are designing standards which address the hundreds of complaints we have received about changes in LEC intrastate billings due to alleged unauthorized switching of a customer's PIC.
21. Comments on Subsection (b)(1) and (3)--Identifying the Name of the IXC and Isolating the Charges
MCI recommends that the Commission clarify subsection (b)(1) and (3) so as to insure that only those charges related to the alleged slam be ''protected'' from collection action while the PIC switch is being investigated. MCI contends that consumers should pay current bills as due. MCI also questions how the LEC would ''clarify'' that the customer did not authorize the switch, and also questions whether LECs can be depended upon to give neutral information. Finally, MCI expresses concern about the type of investigation the LECs, armed with these provisions, would engage in before ''removing'' charges and ''instructing'' an IXC as to how it may proceed with respect to the IXC's customers. (MCI Comments, pp. 20-21). As a result of these concerns, MCI believes the Commission should ''leave the existing 'no fault' PIC dispute process in place and implement the FCC's verification rules with respect to unauthorized changes in carriers; and issue interim rules, if at all, with respect to unauthorized charges from non-telecommunications companies.'' (MCI Comments, pp. 20-21).
22. Response to Comments and Subsection (b)(1) and (3)
We will adopt MCI's suggestion and modify subsection (b)(3) of the Interim Guideline to clarify that the isolated charges are the only charges that will be removed from the LEC bill. In regard to MCI's concerns over the actions of the LEC, the intent of the rules is not to require the LEC to conduct any type of investigation of the customer's allegation of slamming. Subsection (b)(4) clarifies this point by providing that the LEC inform the customer that it does not intend to investigate the matter, or make a determination regarding the validity of the customer's allegation of slamming. The LEC is merely restoring the customer's bill to its status prior to the alleged slamming. The IXC may decide to pursue its claim of liability through other collection remedies, and the LEC will inform the customer of this possibility. Given this possibility of further collection action on the part of the service provider or billing agent, the LEC will also provide the customer with general information about how the customer may pursue a complaint alleging slamming.
23. Comments on Subsection (b)(2)--Waiving PIC Charge
The PTA endorses the proposed procedure whereby the LECs would reconnect the customer to their ''chosen'' long-distance company prior to slamming and remove the PIC change charge from the customer's account. The PTA notes that LECs have a tariff in place to recoup waived PIC change charges. (PTA Comments, p. 4).
GTE's position is that LECs should not have to restore the customer's account to its pre-slammed PIC designation without charge, since that would violate GTE North's approved tariffs. Given that there is a cost incurred by the LEC to make such changes, GTE believes that the offending carriers should pay for the charges. (GTE Comments, p. 7).
24. Response to Comments on Subsection (b)(2)
We will not modify the language at subsection (b)(2) which provides that the LEC offer to restore the customer's account, at no charge, to the IXC the customer received service from prior to the alleged unauthorized switch. As MCI recognized in its comments, the major carriers subscribe to a no fault policy for consumer PIC changes whereby a customer who wants to switch back to their prior carrier for any reason may do so at no charge. We agree with MCI that this no fault policy is consumer friendly and, therefore, will retain language that ensures that a customer does not incur this expense in cases where the customer alleges slamming has occurred. While this admittedly limits the manner by which GTE may apply its tariff rule in cases of alleged slamming, it does not prevent GTE from applying its tariff rule. In this regard, we direct GTE's attention to the PTA's comment that ''LECs have tariffs in place to recoup the waived PIC change charge from the unauthorized IXC.''
25. Comments on Subsection (b)(2)--''Flagging'' the Account
Numerous comments were made regarding the Interim Guideline procedures that direct the LEC to offer to place a safeguard on the customer's account to prevent further switches without express authorization from the customer. The PTA agrees with offering the customer the option of having his account flagged with a ''Don't Touch'' (DT) indicator, as opposed to the Commission ordering LEC's to impose a DT on every account that has been slammed. The PTA believes customers should know about the DT options, but the LEC should place it on a customer's account only upon customer request since (1) customers having the DT on their account must notify the LEC orally or in writing before the LEC changes their carrier, and (2) once the DT indicator is on the account, the customer will not be able to call the carrier and have a Letter of Agency sent to the LEC to change carriers. The PTA opines that the DT indicator is not anti-competitive provided the customer, not the LEC, has made the choice about whether to put the indicator on the account. (PTA Comments, p. 5).
The BA-PA and GTE argue that the Commission does not have the authority to order LECs to flag all slammed residential accounts and require verbal or written customer authorization before making any subsequent PIC change. These parties point out that a blanket flag on all slammed accounts might conflict with the wishes of many slammed customers. This in turn could result in claims by IXCs that this restriction constitutes an unlawful barrier to entry to this this Commonwealth's toll market in violation of TA-96. (BA-PA Comments, p. 7; GTE Comments, p. 6).
While GTE opposes a blanket requirement to flag all slammed accounts, it is not opposed to a PIC freeze upon customer request given that, in GTE's opinion, ''PIC freezes are the best customer safeguard against slamming.'' GTE contends that the Commission may allow LECs to offer PIC freezes after the customer has been slammed so as to ensure that it does not happen again. GTE explains further that it currently offers a PIC freeze but only after the customer has requested one, and signed and returned a numbered form. GTE cautions that allowing verbal authorization from the customer would weaken an effective GTE practice and would not be in the best interest of the consumer or the industry. (GTE Comments, p. 6).
AT&T points out that the Commission's proposal does not contain administrative rules that would be necessary to prevent anticompetitive practices while advancing the proconsumer intent of the PIC freeze. (AT&T Comments, p. 4-5). Specifically, AT&T recommends that the LEC be required to provide written notification to customers when they implement a PIC freeze, and that the notification include an explanation of the procedures necessary to lift the freeze. Additionally, AT&T recommends that if a PIC freeze rule is to be adopted, it should be modified to establish a separate freeze for both interLATA and intraLATA PIC selections. AT&T asserts that the Commission needs to define the phrase ''express authorization'' since this phrase allows too much room for a LEC to engage in anticompetitive behavior by interpreting the phrase in whatever manner it deems appropriate. In this regard, AT&T suggests that a customer with a PIC freeze should be allowed to change their presubscribed carrier through proper third party verification procedures. Finally, AT&T argues that there should be a mechanism in place for a carrier to determine that a potential customer has a PIC freeze in place. (AT&T Comments, p. 4-5).
In expressing concerns similar to AT&T's, MCI contends that it is anticompetitive for an ILEC to be in competition with an IXC or CLEC and to place PIC ''freezes'' on customer accounts. In MCI's view, this practice denies the IXC and/or the CLEC the opportunity to fairly compete for that customer. (MCI Comments, p. 4). MCI further contends that PIC freezes can be anticompetitive because the freeze locks customers into their existing provider, which in most cases is the incumbent LEC.5 With a PIC freeze in place, MCI submits that a soliciting carrier has no way of knowing whether a consumer has a PIC freeze until they submit the order to the LEC and the LEC rejects it. MCI explains that many customers who have requested a PIC freeze do not recall that they made this request, or assume that their new choice will override the freeze. MCI argues that since the consumer would have to advise his or her carrier to lift the freeze before he or she makes a change, this step would be an additional hurdle that creates consumer frustration. In light of these concerns, MCI believes it is essential that our procedures recognize that a PIC freeze can be overridden by the customer's choice as evidenced by a properly conducted third party verification process. (MCI Comments, pp. 10-19).
The OCA believes it is appropriate for the consumer that has been slammed to be offered, at no charge, the opportunity to safeguard the account from future slamming. The OCA, however, cautions that a PIC freeze should not be abused for anticompetitive purposes and should only be applied when the consumer requests it, since the account belongs to the consumer, not to the LEC or any IXC. The OCA opines that the use of a PIC freeze should not be considered anticompetitive so long as such a safeguard is, in fact, what the consumer desires and has specifically requested in order to be protected against further unauthorized switches. Given that the OCA perceives that slamming the consumer's local exchange or basic service is likely to prove even more problematic than unauthorized switching of the consumer's toll service, the OCA encourages the Commission to apply similar rules for local service slamming as well. (OCA Comments, p. 3).
26. Response to Comments of Subparagraph (b)(2)
We agree with the OCA's observation that a customer may wish to place a freeze or safeguard on local exchange and intraLATA services as well as interLATA service. However, we have not modified the language in the rules since, as stated previously, our intent is to address LEC billing charges that result from outside parties who use the LEC as a billing vehicle.
We also agree that any freeze must not be mandatory, but instead made in response to a specific customer request. Accordingly, we have modified the language at subsection (b)(2) so as to clarify that the LEC will inform the customer that, at the customer's request, the LEC will place a freeze on the portion of the service that the customer designates.
However, we shall decline to impose additional administrative rules designed to prevent anticompetitive practices at this time. We do not believe consumer interests will be advanced through the creation of additional administrative rules. Pending the promulgation of formal regulations to standardize LEC responses to customer contacts about changes to their LEC bill due to alleged IXC slamming, we will allow each LEC to continue to implement its current administrative practices to determine how the freeze process will be implemented. GTE, for example, states that it offers a PIC freeze but only after the customer has requested one, and signed and returned a numbered form. GTE believes that allowing verbal authorization from the customer would weaken an effective GTE practice and would not be in the best interest of the consumer or the industry. We have no objection to GTE's continuation of this administrative process. In the same way, other LECs may wish to honor verbal requests and follow up such requests with written notification to customers which includes in the notification an explanation of the procedures necessary to lift the freeze. We similarly have no objection to this procedure.
As indicated by our decision, we do not share the concerns expressed by MCI with respect to anticompetitive behavior. Given the purpose of the Interim Guidelines, which is to safeguard the rights of customers after a slam, we cannot overly concern ourselves as to what procedures in place provide an optimum setting for competition. While we are sensitive to any claims that our Interim Guidelines will have the effect of prohibiting or negatively impacting a telecommunications carrier's ability to provide a service, we do not believe the action we are taking could be viewed as anticompetitive. We have not made the freeze mandatory, but only at the customer's request, and the customer is being frozen to the preslammed IXC service to which the customer subscribed. Furthermore, we submit that this procedure does not change practices that are already followed by many LECs. Since the Interim Guidelines do not affect freeze procedures already in place, such as GTE's, we cannot see how anything changes for MCI in GTE's territory. Moreover, other LECs might very well allow an oral third party verification process to override the PIC freeze. To the extent that a customer might not want to endure any inconvenience in having the freeze lifted, which he requested, we submit that the expression of consumer frustration would not be reasonable under the circumstances and we cannot set procedure under this premise.
27. Comments on Subparagraph (b)(3)--Removing Charges from LEC Bill and Recoursing to IXC or Billing Agent
The Tentative Order specifically requested comments about the rebilling by the LEC of the unauthorized charges based on the rates charged by the customer's presubscribed carrier. As expected, parties responded with diverse comments.
The PTA objects strongly to the idea of the LEC being responsible for re-billing the unauthorized charges based on rates that the customer's pre-subscribed carrier would have charged. The PTA cites three reasons why the Commission would be remiss to assign additional administrative burdens related to slamming to LEC's. First, IXCs are subject to the jurisdiction of the FCC and it must determine the most appropriate penalty for slamming. Second, the FCC has already placed the recalculation burden on the IXC. In its June 14, 1995 Report and Order (CC Docket No. 94-129) at paragraph 37, the FCC left it to the unauthorized carrier, in cooperation with the affected consumer, to arrive at a settlement that calculates the proper amount of charges that the consumer would have paid had the consumer's PIC never been changed. Third, rebilling by the LEC would be tantamount to changing the tariffed rates that the IXC carriers charge. (PTA Comments, p. 7)
The BA-PA and GTE agree with PTA in objecting to the LEC re-billing charges. GTE argues that the Commission does not have the authority to order the LEC to rebill, and adds the concern that such rebilling may violate current contracts between the LEC and IXC. (GTE Comments, p. 5). GTE further states it would be a severe administrative burden and require major modification of LEC billing systems to perform a rebilling and present a corrected version of the unauthorized charges. GTE believes that in those cases where the IXC alleges that the customer authorized the change consistent with the FCC's verification rules, the dispute would be between the IXC and the customer with the LEC not being involved in any manner. GTE advocates that LECs should not remove charges from the bill unless recourse is available from the carrier. Customers should pay for the costs of the calls that they would have received from their authorized carrier. (GTE Comments, pp. 5-8).
The BA-PA argues that neither BA-PA nor other LECs have the ability to rerate another carrier's charges based on a third carrier's charges, which rerating would be a prerequisite for the rebilling apparently contemplated by the Commission. The BA-PA asserts that only the customer's presubscribed carrier could do the rerating since only that carrier would be conversant with the rates charged by it to the customer. (BA-PA Comments, pp. 6-7). The BA-PA recommends that the words ''or the portion of the charge(s) that the customer is unwilling to pay'' be added after the word ''charge(s)'' in this guideline. This would permit the BA-PA and other LECs flexibility in situations where slammed customers are willing to pay some or even all of their bills from the unauthorized carrier. (BA-PA Comments, p. 8).
AT&T argues that since a slammed customer does receive a service, rather than permitting the customer to escape payment, a better alternative would be to require the unauthorized carrier to rerate the bill to the level that the authorized carrier would charge. (AT&T Comments, p. 4).
MCI notes that LECs by contract must bill long distance and related charges, and expresses the concern that LECs would find a safe harbor to remove and return legitimate long distance charges to IXCs. (MCI Comments, p. 4). MCI contends that the IXCs would not have feasible means of collecting for authorized services. MCI expects that some fraction of consumers will discover that, by claiming their carrier was changed without their consent, they can receive free service, increasing bad debt and other collection costs. MCI argues that the better remedy is to recognize and enforce the FCC's verification rules. (MCI Comments, p. 4).
Sprint opposes any regulations that would relieve customers who claim they were slammed from the duty to pay any charges for calls made during the time that they were assigned to an allegedly unauthorized carrier. (Sprint Comments, p. 10).
The OCA believes the Commission should not authorize LEC rebilling of charges after a consumer has been slammed. The OCA argues that it may be very difficult for the LEC to determine what the appropriate bill would have been had the PIC actually provided the service. Furthermore, the OCA contends this proposal would seem to go beyond the federal law which addresses a related point. The OCA states that TA-96 requires the slamming carrier to pay the PIC when and if the consumer pays charges billed by the slamming carrier. The OCA submits that the act does not suggest any authority on the part of the LEC to re-bill the customer for a service that was not even provided by the PIC, as the Tentative Order suggests.
28. Response to Comments on Subsection (b)(3)
We believe there is merit to the numerous arguments raised by parties opposed to the idea of a LEC rebilling unauthorized charges based on the rates charged by the customer's presubscribed carrier. Therefore, we will not attempt to encourage this action in the Interim Guidelines or impose a requirement in the proposed rulemaking.
29. Comments on Subparagraph (b)(4)--LEC Informs IXC to Cease Further Billing
GTE believes that restoring a customer to their authorized PIC will effectively remove any further billing from the incorrect carrier and, therefore, no specific mention of billing treatment is necessary. (GTE Comments, p. 4).
30. Response to Comments on Subparagraph (b)(4)
We do not agree that restoring a customer to their authorized PIC will automatically remove any further billing from the incorrect carrier. Customers have filed informal complaints with the Commission's Bureau of Consumer Services because of further billing from the incorrect carrier subsequent to restoration to their authorized carrier. Therefore, we will retain the provision in the Interim Guidelines that the LEC should provide this information to the customer.
31. Comments on Subsection (b)(5)--LEC Informs Customer of Other Collection Action; Subsection (b)(6)--Provide Customer with Right to Contact FCC, FTC, or PA OAG
The PTA objects to informing the customer of the right to pursue a ''slamming'' complaint against the provider of the service or the billing agent by contacting the OAG, the FCC or the FTC. A regulation would require the LEC to make judgment calls on the nature of the complaint and the service or charge at issue. In addition, the PTA submits that the Commission recently revised its regulations regarding the resolution of ''disputes'' by LECs. According to the PTA, the regulations exclude from the definition of dispute: ''matters outside the scope of this chapter, or failure to negotiate a mutually satisfactory payment agreement regarding undisputed amounts, or a disagreement over billing data provided to the local exchange carrier by an interexchange carrier.'' See Rulemaking to Rescind Obsolete Regulations Regarding Telephone and Residential Telephone Service, 52 PA Code Chapters 63 and 64, Docket No. L-00960113 (adopted April 9, 1998). (PTA Comments, p. 4).
The BA-PA suggests limiting LEC complaint disclosures to only those customers who seek information about filing a complaint with a regulatory agency. (BA-PA comments, p. 8). MCI agrees that carriers should, when asked, advise consumers to contact the appropriate agency should the consumer not be satisfied with the results of an investigation. (MCI Comments, p. 3).
32. Response to Comments to Subparagraphs (b)(5) and (b)(6)
The Interim Guidelines do not set forth a dispute process for resolution of customer allegations of slamming. The Interim Guidelines merely provide a customer with immediate restoral and billing of authorized services only. The alleged IXC slammer may in fact pursue a claim that the PIC switch was indeed properly authorized and argue that the charges taken off the LEC bill are legitimate. Since the Interim Guidelines will not necessarily result in a complete resolution of a customer's slamming complaint, some customers will naturally ask the LEC for information about the appropriate agency to approach in order to pursue their complaint. We realize that the LEC representative may not always make the correct assessment of which agency has jurisdiction, but experience tells us that, in instances where a customer is referred to the wrong place, the customer generally is redirected with a proper referral. In light of the comments, however, we have modified subsection (b)(6) so as to provide complaint disclosure information only to customers who indicate a desire to receive additional information for filing a complaint with a regulatory agency or government office. Accordingly, there is no burden placed on the LEC to ask the customer if he or she desires to receive this information.
33. Comments on Subsection (b)(7)--Record Maintenance
GTE states that the 2-year record maintenance period of informal and formal Commission written customer complaints is reasonable, but opposes the apparent Commission attempt to place the responsibility for enforcement on the LECs through cancellation of the billing contract. (GTE Comments, pp. 8-9).
The BA-PA offers that it will continue to maintain records of customer slamming complaints, but does not do this to monitor IXC's compliance with the billing and collection contracts or to provide a basis for cancellation of any contracts for excessive slamming complaints. The BA-PA contends that, unlike cramming, there is no linkage between slamming and the BA-PA's billing and collection contracts. Because of this, the BA-PA recommends that the Commission completely eliminate this guideline, or at least delete all language in the guideline from ''in order to . . .'' onward. (BA-PA Comments, pp. 8-9).
MCI argues that the requirement to maintain the records of the slamming complaints filed with the Commission will not result in a complete record. MCI notes that LECs may not be aware of all ''slamming'' complaints in Pennsylvania because of the no-fault PIC change process, in which a customer may ask the LEC to change his PIC back to the previous carrier for a myriad of reasons which could include an unauthorized PIC change. Moreover, MCI believes that this subparagraph, to the extent it suggests LECs unilaterally decide what is ''excessive'' and when a contract should be canceled, provides the potential for anticompetitive behavior. (MCI Comments, p. 15-16).
Sprint advocates, in the interest of jurisdictional consistency, that the Commission adopt the FCC's guideline of maintaining complaint records for a 12-month period. Sprint also informs us that it already has internal policies and billing and collection contracts to allow cancellation of billing service for service providers that knowingly and purposefully slam or cram customers. (Sprint Comments, p. 4).
34. Response to Comments on Subparagraph (b)(7)
As with respect to cramming, we have also modified the time frame for record maintenance for slamming by increasing it from 2 years to 3 years to be consistent with 66 Pa.C.S. § 3314, which sets 3 years as the time frame within which the Commission can bring an action or prosecution for violations of our regulations. If it becomes necessary to initiate some type of enforcement action to assess penalties, the 3-year record retention will provide the opportunity to review instances that may be part of the action.
III. Conclusion
We believe that the Interim Guidelines established in this Order are critically important to protecting consumers from cramming and slamming and safeguarding their rights after a cramming or slamming, or both, has occurred. As all interested parties have already had an opportunity to provide public comment on the Interim Guidelines as proposed, we hereby adopt the Interim Guidelines, as modified per the discussion in this order, and offer them on an optional basis to jurisdictional utilities to provide guidance on standardizing LEC responses to customer contacts alleging unauthorized changes to the customer's telecommunications service provider and unauthorized charges added to the customer's bill, until the proposed regulations receive final approval. We note that this approach of adopting Interim Guidelines until final regulations have been promulgated has previously been used by this Commission in a number of other instances to implement telephone and electric reform legislation. See, e.g., Interim Guidelines for Standardizing Local Exchange Company Responses to Customer Contacts Alleging Unauthorized Changes to the Customer's Telecommunications Service Provider and Unauthorized Charges Added to the Customer's Bill, Docket No. M-00981063 (Tentative Order entered June 5, 1998); Chapter 28 Electric Generation Customer Choice and Competition Act--Customer Information--Interim Requirements, Docket No. M-00960890.F0008 (Order entered July 11, 1997); Re: Licensing Requirements for Electric Generation Suppliers--Interim Licensing Procedures, M-00960890.F0004 (Order entered February 13, 1997).
Nevertheless, it is also our intention to establish mandatory final-form regulations that will govern LEC responses to customer contacts alleging unauthorized changes in telecommunications service providers and unauthorized billing charges. As is the normal procedure for promulgating regulations under the Regulatory Review Act (71 P. S. §§ 745.1--745.7), we shall be informed by and carefully consider comments to the proposed-form regulations set forth as Annex A, the industry and consumer experience with the voluntary Interim Guidelines adopted herein, and any future developments at the Federal level before we issue mandatory final-form regulations for approval by the Independent Regulatory Review Commission (IRRC).
Accordingly, this proposal is promulgated under sections 501 and 1501 of the Public Utility Code, 66 Pa.C.S. §§ 501 and 1501; sections 201 and 202 of the act of July 31, 1968 (P. L. 769 No. 240) (45 P. S. §§ 1201 and 1202) and the regulations promulgated thereunder at 1 Pa. Code §§ 7.1, 7.2 and 7.5; section 204(b) of the Commonwealth Attorneys Act (71 P. S. § 732.204(b)); section 745.5 of the Regulatory Review Act (71 P. S. § 745.5); and section 612 of The Administrative Code of 1929 (71 P. S. § 232), and the regulations promulgated thereunder in 4 Pa. Code §§ 7.251--7.235. Therefore,
It is Ordered That:
1. The proposed rulemaking at Docket No. L-00990140 be granted to consider the regulations set forth in Annex A.
2. The Secretary shall submit this order and Annex A to the Office of Attorney General for review as to form and legality and to the Governor's Budget Office for review of fiscal impact.
3. The Secretary shall submit this order and Annex A for review and comment to IRRC and the Legislative standing committees.
4. The Secretary shall certify this order and Annex A, and deposit them with the Legislative Reference Bureau to be published in the Pennsylvania Bulletin. An original and 15 copies of any comments referencing the docket number of the proposed amendments be submitted within 30 days of publication in the Pennsylvania Bulletin to the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, Attn: Secretary, P. O. Box 3265, Harrisburg, PA 17105-3265. The Secretary shall specify publication of the Order in accordance with 45 Pa.C.S. § 727.
5. The proposed Annex A regulations are hereby adopted as final Interim Guidelines at Docket No. M-00981063, and can be used by jurisdictional utilities, on a voluntary basis, to provide guidance until such time as final regulations are approved at Docket No. L-00990140.
6. The contact persons for this rulemaking are Terrence J. Buda, Law Bureau, (717) 787-5755 (legal), Louis Sauers (717) 783-6688, Janice Ragonese (717) 772-4835, and Peggy Hartman (717) 772-0806, Bureau of Consumer Services (technical).
7. A copy of this order and Annex A shall be served upon the commentators, all jurisdictional telecommunication utilities, the Office of Trial Staff, the Office of Consumer Advocate, and the Small Business Advocate.
By the Commission
JAMES J. MCNULTY,
SecretaryFiscal Note: 57-204. No fiscal impact; (8) recommends adoption.
Annex A
TITLE 52. PUBLIC UTILITIES
PART I. PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION
Subpart C. FIXED SERVICE UTILITIES
CHAPTER 64. STANDARDS AND BILLING PRACTICES FOR RESIDENTIAL TELEPHONE SERVICE
Subchapter A. PRELIMINARY PROVISIONS § 64.2. Definitions.
The following words and terms, when used in this chapter, have the following meanings, unless the content clearly indicates otherwise:
Cramming--The submission or inclusion of unauthorized, misleading or deceptive charges for products or services on end-user customers' local telephone bills.
* * * * * Service provider--Facilities-based interexchange carrier or interexchange reseller or information service provider initiating the service or charges.
Slamming--The unauthorized changing of a customer's telecommunications provider, whether for local exchange service, intraLATA toll or interLATA toll.
* * * * *
Subpart B. PAYMENT AND BILLING STANDARDS § 64.23 Standardizing LEC responses to customer contacts alleging unauthorized changes to the customer's long distance carrier and unauthorized charges added to the customer's bill.
(a) Cramming. Upon contact from the customer alleging that cramming has occurred on the bill rendered to the customer by the LEC, the LEC shall do the following:
(1) Identify the charges, and clarify that the customer's complaint is that the customer did not authorize the charges or order or use the services or products associated with the charges.
(2) Inform the customer that the charges will be removed from the LEC bill and recoursed to the service provider or its billing agent.
(3) Inform the customer that the LEC will instruct the billing agent or service provider, or both, to take the steps necessary to prevent further billing of those charges or types of charges to the customer's account.
(4) Inform the customer that removal of the charges from the LEC bill does not guarantee that the service provider or its billing agent will not use other collection remedies, including direct billing of the recoursed charges or use of a collection agency.
(5) Provide to customers who indicate a desire to receive complaint disclosure information adequate information about how to pursue the complaint against the service provider or billing agent by contacting the Bureau of Consumer Protection, (800) 441-2555 of the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General, the Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Trade Commission.
(6) Maintain for a minimum of 3 years records of the customer complaints of cramming to monitor adherence to the terms of the billing contract the LEC has with the service provider or billing agent, or both, relating to cancellation of the contract for excessive cramming complaints.
(b) Slamming. Upon contact from the customer alleging that slamming has occurred on one or both of the past two bills rendered to the customer by the LEC, regardless of dates of calls, the LEC shall do the following:
(1) Identify the name of the alleged unauthorized IXC, isolate the charge, and clarify that the customer's complaint is that the customer did not authorize the switch to this IXC.
(2) Offer to restore the customer's account, at no charge, to the IXC the customer had received service from prior to the unauthorized switch, and, at the request of the customer, to place a safeguard on the customer's account to prevent the LEC from processing an IXC request for a switch without the LEC obtaining express authorization from the customer.
(3) Inform the customer that the isolated charges will be removed from the LEC bill and returned to the IXC or its billing agent.
(4) Inform the customer that the LEC will instruct the IXC or billing agent, or both, to take the steps necessary to prevent further billing to the customer's account.
(5) Inform the customer that removal of the charges from the LEC bill does not guarantee that the IXC or its billing agent will not use other collection remedies, including direct billing of the recoursed charges or use of a collection agency.
(6) Provide to customers who indicate a desire to receive complaint disclosure information adequate information about how to pursue a complaint against the IXC or billing agent, or both, by contacting the Federal Communications Commission or the Bureau of Consumer Protection, (800) 441-2555 of the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General.
(7) Maintain for a minimum of 3 years records of the customer allegations of slamming.
______
5We assume MCI is referring to the intraLATA traffic.
[Pa.B. Doc. No. 99-855. Filed for public inspection May 28, 1999, 9:00 a.m.]
No part of the information on this site may be reproduced for profit or sold for profit.This material has been drawn directly from the official Pennsylvania Bulletin full text database. Due to the limitations of HTML or differences in display capabilities of different browsers, this version may differ slightly from the official printed version.
