16 TAC §26.130
The Public Utility Commission of Texas (the commission) adopts
an amendment to §26.130 (relating to Selection of Telecommunications
Utilities) with changes to the proposed text as published in the February
18, 2000
Texas Register
(25 TexReg 1231).
The amendment is necessary to implement the provisions of Public Utility Regulatory
Act (PURA), Texas Utilities Code Annotated §§55.301 - 55.308 (Vernon
1998, Supplement 2000). These provisions: (1) eliminate the distinction between
carrier-initiated and customer-initiated changes, (2) eliminate the information
package mailing (negative option) as a verification method, (3) absolve the
customer of any liability for charges incurred during the first 30 days after
an unauthorized telecommunications utility change, (4) prohibit deceptive
or fraudulent practice, and (5) require consistency with applicable federal
laws and rules. This amendment also addresses the related issue of preferred
telecommunications utility freezes. This amendment was adopted under Project
Number 21419.
The amendment:
1. Eliminates the distinction between customer-initiated and carrier-initiated
for change orders submitted by the prospective telecommunications utility
to the local exchange company (LEC).
2. Requires tape recording third party verification for a change order.
3. Requires as part of third party verification, clear confirmation by
the customer for authorization to change service provider.
4. Requires that an independent third party verifier not be owned or directly
controlled by the telecommunications utility or its marketing agent, and have
no financial incentive to affirmatively confirm change orders.
5. Eliminates the information package (negative option) as a verification
method.
6. Provides flexibility in meeting the Letter of Agency (LOA) language
requirements.
7. Absolves the customer of liability for charges from an unauthorized
carrier incurred during the first 30 days after an unauthorized change.
8. Adds information about freezes to the customer notice.
9. Eliminates the 30-day cure period to avoid an administrative penalty.
10. Requires that freezes be offered on a nondiscriminatory basis.
11. Requires separate freeze authorization for each type of service (intraLATA
and interLATA).
12. Establishes requirements for freeze information provided to customers
by telecommunications utilities.
13. Requires LEC verification of a freeze request by one of three methods:
written and signed authorization; electronic authorization; or third party
verification.
14. Establishes requirements for each verification method related to a
freeze request.
15. Establishes requirements for lifting a freeze.
16. Prohibits charging customers to impose or lift a freeze.
17. Prohibits freezes for local telephone service.
18. Prohibits initiating marketing by the LEC during the process of imposing
or lifting a freeze.
19. Provides suggested language for freeze information, freeze authorization
form, and freeze lift form.
20. Establishes notice requirements when acquiring customers from another
telecommunications utility that will no longer provide service.
21. Includes many changes to the current rule to enhance clarity and readability.
The changes to §26.130 are based on the following considerations:
ensuring customer protection while fostering competition in providing telecommunications
services; minimizing administrative requirements and cost; ensuring compliance
with all PURA requirements; and ensuring consistency with current applicable
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) rules.
Several issues surfaced during this rulemaking and are discussed below.
Informing customers about freezes
Slamming victims often indicate they wish they had been aware of the availability
of freeze protection before being slammed. Customers should not have to wait
until they are slammed before being informed about freezes. The amendment
allows telecommunications utilities to inform customers about freezes, but
prescribes the content of the information. The amendment allows for "education,"
but not "marketing." The distinction between the two is that "marketing" is
aimed at inducing behavior, whereas "education" is aimed at providing information
in a neutral way so that customers can make informed decisions.
Prohibition on local telephone service freezes
Recent events have shown that local telephone service competition in Texas
has great promise. However, local competition is still in its early stages,
particularly for residential customers, and far behind the level of competition
in the intraLATA and interLATA markets. Furthermore, local service slamming
is considerably more difficult, more expensive, and more easily discovered
by customers than long distance service slamming. Due to the limited value
of a local service freeze and the potential for anticompetitive use, the amendment
prohibits freezes on local telephone service.
No customer charge for freezes
Several parties recommended that LECs be allowed to charge for implementing
a freeze based on related cost. It appears that under current practice, LECs
implement freezes without charge. A freeze is a basic customer protection
that should be made available to customers at no charge. The amendment prohibits
charging customers to impose or lift a freeze.
Prohibition on marketing during freeze processing
Some parties expressed concern about incumbent local exchange companies
(ILECs) marketing their services when a customer contacts the ILEC to request
imposing or lifting a freeze. The LEC function of administering freezes must
be completely separated from any marketing efforts to prevent anticompetitive
behavior. The amendment prohibits the initiating of any marketing by the LEC
during the processing of a request to impose or lift a freeze.
Consistency with FCC rule changes
On December 23, 1998, the FCC issued a Second Report and Order, CC Docket
Number 94- 129, 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. In this order,
the FCC adopted new rules related to verification, liability, and preferred
carrier freezes. On May 18, 1999, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals ordered
a stay of the FCC liability rules pending further order of the court. Also,
the FCC has received several Petitions for Reconsideration of the rules released
in the December 1998 order.
On May 3, 2000, the FCC released a First Order on Reconsideration, CC Docket
Number 94- 129, 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. This order: (1)
rejects the industry proposal for a third party administrator (TPA) to process
slamming complaints, (2) allows a state the option to adjudicate slamming
complaints instead of the FCC, and (3) revises liability provisions currently
stayed by the court. However, it is uncertain when these amended provisions
will become effective. The revised rules will not be in effect until the court
lifts the current stay. Furthermore, the revised liability provisions may
also be challenged in court.
The amendment is consistent with FCC rules that are currently in effect.
It is essential that changes to the current §26.130 resulting from Senate
Bill 86 (SB86) and Senate Bill (SB560), 76th Legislative Session, be implemented
as soon as possible and that this rulemaking not be delayed pending the final
outcome of court and FCC actions. Should subsequent federal regulatory or
judicial action require further revision to §26.130, the rule can be
modified at that time.
Carrier submission of freeze forms to LECs
The current FCC preferred carrier freeze rules are based on customers submitting
freeze requests to the LECs and the LECs verifying the requests. The current
FCC rules do not specifically address the issue of preferred carriers submitting
customer freeze requests to the LECs. Several carriers have requested guidance
from the FCC on this issue. The amendment reflects the current FCC rules on
freezes. If necessary, the amendment will be revised to accommodate a final
FCC ruling on this issue.
Suggested language for freeze information and
forms
The FCC rules and the amendment establish requirements for the content
of freeze information provided to customers and for the content of freeze
requests. Some parties requested that the commission develop specific language
for use by carriers so that they can be assured that they comply with these
requirements. National carriers expressed concern about requiring specific
language since this may hinder development of nationwide standard information
and forms. The amendment addresses both views by including suggested language
for freeze information and forms, but allows other versions as long as they
comply with the requirements in the rule.
The commission received comments on the proposed amendment from Sprint
Communications Company L.P., United Telephone Company of Texas, Inc., and
Central Telephone Company of Texas (jointly referred to as Sprint), MCI WORLDCOM,
Inc. (MCIW), Telecommunications Resellers Association (TRA), TEXALTEL, and
Competitive Telecommunications Association (CompTel) (jointly referred to
as Associations), Billing Concepts, Inc. (BCI), Texas Telephone Association
(TTA), AT&T Communications of Texas, L.P. (AT&T), Texas Statewide
Telephone Cooperative, Inc. (TSTCI), GTE Southwest Incorporated (GTE), TXU
Communications Telephone Company (TXU Telephone), Southwestern Bell Telephone
Company (SWBT), and The Office of the Attorney General of Texas (OAG). The
commission also received reply comments from GTE, SWBT, and AT&T.
A public hearing on the proposed amendments was held at the commission
offices on April 11, 2000, at 9:30 a.m. Representatives from BCI, MCIW, John
Staurulakis, Inc., Consumers Union, TTA, TXU Telephone, Sprint, Casey, Gentz,
and Sifuentes, L.L.P., SWBT, Global Crossing, Inc., and TSTCI participated
in the public hearing.
Subsection (b), Application
AT&T suggested that this proposed rule be cross-referenced to the commission's
rule, §26.32 (relating to Protection Against Unauthorized Billing Charges
("Cramming")), to avoid any potential confusion between the two sections.
AT&T recommended a specific exception to the application of this proposed
rule similar to that found at §26.32(b)(1).
The commission agrees that clarifying language is needed to distinguish
between the application of this slamming rule, §26.130, and the application
of the cramming rule, 26.32. Accordingly, the commission revises proposed
(b) to add that §26.130 does not apply to an unauthorized charge unrelated
to a change in preferred telecommunications utility which is addressed in
§26.32.
Section (c), Definitions
Sprint recommended expanding the definition of "customer" to include any
person authorized to make changes in providers of telephone service. BCI supported
Sprint's comments. MCIW strongly urged the commission to expand the definition
of "customer" to include "decision maker or person authorized to make a carrier
change." MCIW cited two reasons for the recommended change, limited access
to LEC account-holder records and customer convenience. AT&T also recommended
expanding the "customer" definition to include "any person authorized to act
on behalf of the customer listed on the bill." AT&T indicated this change
would prevent customer confusion and anger over the inability of a spouse,
roommate, or other authorized person to make changes in their shared telephone
service. In its reply comments, GTE agreed that the definition of "customer"
was too narrow and concurred with AT&T's recommended change. SWBT proposed
an added definition for "change" to make clear that changes covered by this
rule are changes in a customer's local or long distance telecommunications
utility and not other changes or change orders, which may be covered by the
cramming rule, §26.32.
The commission does not agree with expanding the definition of "customer."
The definition in proposed (c) already includes a spouse, is consistent with
the definition used by the commission since it was granted jurisdiction over
slamming in 1997, and is consistent with the definition used for cramming
in §26.32. Nevertheless, the commission revises proposed (c) to specifically
indicate that spouses are included in the definition. The commission agrees
with SWBT on the need to distinguish between the application of the slamming
and cramming rules and believes that the revision made to proposed (b) provides
the required clarity.
Subsection (d), Changes by a telecommunications
utility
TTA expressed concern that the proposed amendment to subsection (d) would
not allow a customer to contact the LEC directly to request a change in preferred
carrier. TTA indicated that this is inconsistent with the FCC's position in
FCC 98-334, Second Report and Order CC Docket Number 94-129. TTA recommended
including language to allow a customer to change long distance service by
contacting the LEC. TXU Telephone supported TTA's comments. SWBT expressed
similar concern about subsection (d) and sought clarification that the proposed
amendment does not require verification where the customer calls the LEC to
initiate a change in intraLATA or interLATA toll service to a provider other
than the LEC. AT&T agreed with these comments, but proposed a change to
TTA's recommended language to require verification if the chosen carrier is
the LEC or an affiliate of the LEC.
At the public hearing, SWBT disagreed with AT&T's recommendation that
the LEC should be required to verify a request by the customer to the LEC
to switch to a service provider that is an affiliate of the LEC. Sprint supported
AT&T's position and indicated that Sprint performs verification if a customer
calling Sprint requests a switch to either Sprint's local or long distance
service. Global Crossing supported SWBT and took the position that there should
be no requirement to verify any customer-initiated request and that there
should be no exception to this.
Proposed (d) applies only to a switch in service submitted by the prospective
carrier to the LEC whether the request for a change was initiated by the prospective
carrier contacting the customer or by the customer contacting the prospective
carrier. In either case, verification by the prospective carrier, including
the LEC or its affiliate, must follow one of the prescribed methods in proposed
(d). Proposed (d) does not apply to a switch in service as a result of a customer
request directly to the LEC when the LEC is not the prospective carrier or
an affiliate of the prospective carrier. The commission revises proposed (d)
to clarify this point.
TTA recommended deleting the requirement in proposed (d)(3) to electronically
record on tape third party verification. TTA stated that this requirement
would add significantly to the cost of the third party verification method.
TXU Telephone agreed with TTA's comments.
The commission does not agree with TTA's recommendation. The commission
proposed adding the requirement to electronically record verification based
on over two years experience in investigating slamming complaints. Most carriers
using the third party verification method already electronically record the
verification. However, the commission has experienced significant difficulty
in determining the validity of customer switches involving carriers that indicate
they use the third party verification method but do not electronically record
the customer's consent.
Proposed (d)(3)(B) states that the independent third party shall not have
financial incentive to confirm change orders. AT&T commented that the
language in the proposed amendment is too broad since the independent third
party is paid to verify orders. AT&T recommended revising the proposed
amendment to indicate that the independent third party shall not have financial
incentive to affirmatively confirm change orders.
The commission does not agree with the recommended change to proposed (d)(3)(B),
now (d)(1)(C)(ii). The term "affirmatively confirm" is a redundancy.
Subsection (e), Letters of Agency (LOA)
Sprint commented that adding state-specific information to Sprint's LOA
would increase operating cost and that identification of the current telecommunications
utility is not available to Sprint. Sprint recommended deleting from proposed
(e)(3)(A), "relationship to customer, telephone number of individual authorized
to act for customer," identification of the current telecommunications utility,
and directing the current telecommunications utility to work with the new
provider to make the change. BCI supported Sprint's comments. SWBT did not
concur with deleting the requirement for the current provider to cooperate
with the new one to make the change, pointing out that such cooperation is
necessary to complete the change expeditiously.
The Associations recommended that proposed (e)(3)(A) be revised to set
forth minimum LOA content guidelines such as those of the FCC appearing in
47 C.F.R. §64.1160(e), rather than prescribing specific language. The
Associations pointed out that this would adequately protect the public without
unnecessarily burdening new market entrants. The Associations further commented
that the commission is already considering such an approach in the proposed
freeze subsection of the rule, (j)(6). AT&T also recommended using suggested
instead of required language for LOAs as proposed by the commission in the
new freeze subsection of the rule. AT&T further commented that if a revised
LOA form is required, the rule should expressly allow use of the existing
forms until the supply on hand is exhausted.
TTA recommended minor wording and placement changes to proposed (e)(3)(A).
TTA's recommendations included listing all customer-specific information together,
deleting the name of the carrier being replaced, changing "must" to "may"
regarding paying a carrier change charge, and replacing "telephone company"
with "telecommunications utility." TXU Telephone agreed with TTA's recommendations.
SWBT disagreed with the recommendation to delete the name of the former provider
stating that this information provides an added measure of customer protection.
TSTCI commented that two changes should be made to proposed (e)(3)(A) to
ensure consistency with FCC in 47 C.F.R. §64.1160(e)(4). First, TSTCI
noted that the FCC requires LOAs to state that only one telecommunications
carrier may be designated as the subscriber's preferred carrier for each line
for each type of service and proposed (e)(3)(A) does not include this statement.
Second, TSTCI indicated that the FCC requires separate verification of each
type of service, which may be on one LOA, and that proposed (e)(3)(A) does
not allow a separate authorization statement for each service. TSTCI recommended
revisions to proposed (e)(3)(A) to reflect the FCC requirements.
SWBT and GTE, like the Associations and AT&T, also commented that some
flexibility in the LOA language should be allowed. SWBT recommended revising
proposed (e)(3)(A) to replace "use only the following language" with "use
the following language or its substantial equivalent." GTE proposed replacing
the word "required" with the word "suggested." SWBT also recommended several
changes to the proposed LOA format including alternatives to the listing of
each telephone number by stating "all telephone numbers billed under account
(account number)" and providing a check-off option that would authorize providing
service to future telephone numbers associated with a billing telephone number
unless otherwise specified at the time the request for service was submitted.
SWBT indicated that this would save business customers from having to sign
a separate verification each and every time it wishes to add or change services.
The commission agrees with the majority of the commenters to allow some
flexibility regarding the LOA format. The commission also concurs with the
two proposed changes by TSTCI to provide consistency with FCC requirements.
The commission does not agree with SWBT's recommended changes to provide alternatives
to listing each telephone number because they would reduce the level of customer
protection. The commission revises proposed (e) to: 1) identify minimum LOA
format requirements consistent with those prescribed by the FCC; 2) make changes
to the LOA language based on TSTCI's comments; and 3) state that the LOA language
is recommended, but other versions may be used as long as all of the requirements
of subsection (e) are met.
Subsection (f), Unauthorized charges
SWBT recommended adding a new paragraph to proposed (f)(1) that requires
the unauthorized telecommunications utility to take all actions within its
control to facilitate the customer's prompt return to the original telecommunications
utility within three business days of the customer's or original telecommunications
utility's request. SWBT also recommended revising proposed (f)(1)(A), (f)(1)(B),
and (f)(1)(C) to require the unauthorized telecommunications utility to act
on the request of the original telecommunications utility. AT&T expressed
concern about this recommendation indicating that it would create an exception
to the verification procedures and that allowing the original telecommunications
utility to "represent" the customer without any proof of agency would lead
to conflicts, confusion, and complications.
Proposed (f)(1)(B) requires the unauthorized telecommunications utility
to provide all billing records to the original telecommunications utility
related to the unauthorized change of service. Proposed (f)(2)(A) requires
the original telecommunications utility to inform the unauthorized telecommunications
utility of the amount that would have been charged to the customer. Sprint
indicated it does not have available any information concerning the customer's
original telecommunications utility and that currently there is no systematic
method to transfer billing records between long distance carriers. Sprint
further commented that the proposed amendment mirrors the FCC slamming rules
that have been stayed and recommended the commission wait for the federal
ruling concerning a third party administrator (TPA) that will be responsible
for handling liability. BCI concurred with Sprint's comments.
Proposed (f)(1)(D) requires the unauthorized carrier to refund to the customer
any amount paid during the first 30 days after an unauthorized switch and
any amount in excess of the authorized carrier's charges paid after the first
30 days. The Associations stated that while this is generally consistent with
the FCC in 47 C.F.R. §64.1100(d), the federal provision is currently
stayed by the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The Associations suggested
that proposed (f)(1)(D) not be implemented pending the D.C. Court of Appeals
and FCC decisions. The Associations indicated that a delay in implementing
the commission's proposed carrier liability requirements does not preclude
the commission from directing slamming carriers to refund all amounts to slammed
customers on an ad hoc basis following a commission review of a slamming complaint.
AT&T and GTE also recommended deleting proposed (f)(1)(D) stating that
the proposed amendment is in conflict with PURA §55.302(a)(3) which mandates
consistency with FCC rules, since the absolution requirement is not currently
in effect for the FCC. GTE further commented that the proposed rules would
only apply to "state services" since the FCC granted states authority to adopt
additional state rules that apply only to "state services" and that the FCC
has authority over interstate services.
SWBT recommended revisions to proposed (f)(1)(D) to make it consistent
with the FCC in 47 C.F.R. §64.1100(d). SWBT's proposal stated that a
customer is absolved of liability for all charges within the first 30 days
if the customer has not paid those charges. If the customer paid those charges,
the unauthorized carrier is responsible to pay the original carrier what it
would have been paid by the customer and refund any excess to the customer.
SWBT further commented that the proposed amendment by the commission would
require an unauthorized carrier to pay twice the amount it received, a refund
to the customer under proposed (f)(1)(D) and a payment to the original carrier
under proposed (f)(1)(C).
The commission agrees with SWBT's recommendation to add a requirement under
proposed (f)(1) that the unauthorized telecommunications utility take all
actions within its control to facilitate the customer's prompt return to the
original telecommunication utility within three days of the customer's request.
The commission does not agree with SWBT's recommendation to allow the original
carrier to represent the customer in making various requests to the unauthorized
carrier. The commission agrees with the concerns expressed by AT&T about
this recommendation.
The commission agrees with SWBT's comment that the 30-day absolution period
in PURA also applies when the customer has not paid the unauthorized charges.
To clarify this point in the rule, the commission adds (f)(1)(F) and (f)(2)(D).
The commission does not agree with the recommendations to either delete
proposed (f)(1)(D) or delay its implementation pending actions by the D.C.
Court of Appeals and the FCC. Proposed (f)(1)(D) is necessary to implement
PURA §55.304(d) and is not in conflict with FCC rules that are currently
in effect. Should subsequent federal action require further revision to §26.130,
the rule can be modified at that time.
Subsection (g), Notice of customer rights
Sprint commented that the notice requirement in proposed (g)(1) may need
to be clarified to apply only to local exchange companies. Sprint further
stated that since local exchange companies already provide this information,
it sees no reason to provide direct notice to its long distance customers.
BCI supported Sprint's comments.
With regard to the customer notice in proposed (g)(3), Sprint restated
that it does not have information on a customer's original carrier and recommended
item 2, providing billing records, and item 3, paying the original telephone
company, be deleted pending a federal ruling concerning a third party administrator.
BCI supported Sprint's comments.
AT&T recommended that as with the LOA form, proposed (g)(3) should
be suggested rather than required language. In the event the customer notice
remains a required form, AT&T requested it be allowed to use its current
supply of the existing form. AT&T also pointed out that §26.32(g)(6)
and §26.32(g)(7) provide that the notices required by the cramming rule
may be combined with the slamming rule notices and recommended reciprocal
language in §26.130 that would clarify this point to anyone reviewing
the rules separately and unaware of the connection.
SWBT recommended changes to proposed (g)(3) consistent with the changes
recommended for proposed (f)(1)(C) and (f)(1)(D). SWBT also recommended revising
proposed (g)(4)(B) to replace requiring the notice upon the first publication
after the effective date of this section with beginning with directories having
a publication close date of more than 31 days after the effective date of
this section.
The commission disagrees with the Sprint recommendation that the requirement
to provide notice of customer rights apply only to LECs. Since the original
§26.130 was adopted in 1997, customer notice has been required for all
telecommunications utilities.
The commission also disagrees with the recommendations involving the portions
of the notice that relate to areas that are pending a federal ruling. The
commission's reasons for this were previously stated under subsection (f)
above.
The commission agrees with AT&T's suggestion to include in this rule
reciprocal language to the provisions in §26.32 that allow combining
the slamming and cramming notices. Accordingly, the commission adds a new
(g)(4) and revises proposed (i)(4).
The commission also agrees with the proposal by SWBT to allow more time
for printing the notice in the telephone directories and revises proposed
(g)(4)(B) (now (g)(5)(B)) to require the notice beginning with the first publication
30 days after the effective date of this section.
Subsection (h), Compliance and enforcement
The OAG recommended that the proposed amendment should clarify that the
commission will coordinate its enforcement efforts with the OAG with respect
to fraudulent, unfair, misleading, deceptive, and anticompetitive business
practices. The OAG indicated that the language in §26.32(h)(6) related
to "cramming" could be used in §26.130. In its reply comments, GTE stated
that while not disputing that there should be cooperation between the agencies,
did not believe the OAG's recommendation was necessary.
The commission agrees with the OAG's recommendation and adds (h)(4) with
language taken from §26.32(h)(6).
Subsection (i), Notice of identity of a customer's
telecommunications utility
Sprint commented that its direct long distance billing does not currently
contain the statement required in proposed (i)(4) concerning contacting the
commission if customers believe they have been slammed. Sprint recommended
deleting proposed (i)(4) indicating that any unique, state-specific statement
of this type would result in a significant administrative cost. BCI supported
Sprint's comments.
The Associations objected to the proposed (i)(4) statement urging customers
to contact the commission. The Associations recommended retaining the language
in the current (i)(4), which states that customers may contact the commission.
AT&T requested that it be given 90 days to change its bill statement
to comply with the revised language in proposed (i)(4) and continue to use
the language in the current (i)(4) in the interim.
The commission disagrees with the Sprint recommendation to delete proposed
(i)(4). A slamming statement has been mandatory for any bill for telecommunications
services since 1997. Experience with processing slamming complaints since
that time indicates that this information on telephone bills has been the
primary source of educating customers about unauthorized switches in telephone
service.
The commission agrees with the Associations' recommended revision to proposed
(i)(4) to change "urge" to "may." The commission also agrees to allow more
time to implement the revised statement on the bill by revising proposed (i)(4)
to indicate that the statement shall appear on the first telephone bill issued
60 days after the effective date of this section.
Subsection (j), Preferred telecommunications utility
freezes
The Associations commended the commission for proposing carrier freeze
rules that provide an effective tool for preventing slamming, yet remain competitively
neutral. The Associations recommended adding a one sentence provision directing
incumbent LECs to tariff their freeze programs by a date certain, such as
within 30 days of the effective date of the amended 26.130.
GTE and SWBT disagreed with the recommendation to require incumbent LECs
to tariff freeze services. These parties indicated that the proposed rule
establishes freeze requirements and that requiring the information in a tariff
would be redundant, unnecessary, and an administrative burden without additional
consumer benefits.
The commission does not believe it is necessary to require the freeze process
to be tariffed. The provisions in §26.130(j) provide the necessary guidance
to telecommunications utilities on the freeze process and provide the commission
a needed tool to promote customer protection while deterring anticompetitive
practices.
SWBT recommended a revision to proposed (j)(2) to make clear that no certificated
telecommunications utility is required to offer freezes, but that if it does,
it must offer them on a nondiscriminatory basis. SWBT stated that this change
is necessary for consistency with FCC regulations in 47 C.F.R. §64.1190(b).
The commission agrees with SWBT's recommendation and revises proposed (j)(2)
accordingly.
TTA expressed concern that proposed (j)(4) would prevent a utility from
providing new customers with information about freezes unless the customers
request this information. TTA stated that companies should be allowed to advise
customers of the availability of the service and the availability of the educational
materials when signing up for service. TTA pointed out that if customers do
not know about the service, they would not know to request information. TXU
Telephone agreed with TTA's comments.
SWBT commented that the FCC recognized the futility of attempting to draw
the line between "solicitation" and "educational materials" and concluded
that LECs should not be prohibited from soliciting freezes as long as the
information conforms to the standards adopted to protect customers. SWBT recommended
removing the distinction between "marketing" and "education" from the preamble
and the proposed amendment. SWBT suggested that the restriction in proposed
(j)(4) on a utility's ability to inform the customer of the availability of
a freeze during the sign up process is inconsistent with the recognized value
in providing the customer with information about freezes. SWBT recommended
revising proposed (j)(4) based on the above comments.
The commission agrees to delete the restriction in proposed (j)(4) on providing
freeze information during the process of signing up a customer.
SWBT also recommended adding two new subparagraphs to proposed (j)(5),
Freeze verification, and two new subparagraphs to proposed (j)(7), Lifting
freezes, to permit a certificated telecommunications utility to use any form
of verification that has been approved by FCC rule or order granting a waiver.
The commission agrees with the recommendation to allow the use of any verification
method approved by FCC rule or order and adds (j)(5)(D) and (j)(7)(D), accordingly.
Proposed (j)(7)(C) allows a customer to request the LEC to lift a freeze
during a three-way conference call with the customer, the preferred carrier,
and the LEC. AT&T stated that it is important that the LEC also be required
to accept the customer's oral request to change a preferred carrier as part
of the same three-way call and that the rules specifically allow this. SWBT
disagreed with AT&T's position. SWBT pointed out that the FCC requires
three-way calling only for the purpose of lifting freezes. There are separate,
explicit FCC rules for verification of carrier changes and for verification
of freezes that clearly distinguish the role of each carrier. SWBT noted that
the FCC has stated that the three-way call merely lifts the freeze and that
the submitting carrier must follow the federal commission's verification rules
before submitting a carrier change.
The commission agrees with SWBT's position on this issue and, therefore,
does not adopt AT&T's recommendation to require the LEC to change a customer's
preferred carrier as part of a three-way call intended to lift a freeze.
GTE and SWBT recommended deleting proposed (j)(8). The parties stated that
while they do not currently charge customers for freeze service, they should
not be prohibited from doing so in the future if the cost and administrative
burden become significant. They also pointed out that the FCC explicitly recognizes
that charges may be appropriate (47 C.F.R. §64.1190(d)(1)(C)) and that
it would be inconsistent with FCC rules to prohibit charges.
The commission remains convinced that a freeze is a basic customer protection
that should be made available to customers at no charge. The commission believes
that this prohibition is not in conflict with FCC rules, which allow a charge,
but do not require it.
GTE recommended deleting proposed (j)(10), Marketing prohibition, stating
that it would unduly restrict communication without providing an increase
in consumer protection. GTE further commented that proposed (j)(10) appears
to violate the LEC's protected rights to commercial speech and may actually
increase customer frustration and confusion by making contact with the LEC
unnaturally constrained and by preventing handling multiple objectives on
the same call. GTE and SWBT stated that proposed (j)(10) would require a customer
to make separate calls if the customer wanted to make a change in preferred
carrier
and
lift or place a freeze. SWBT recommended
revising proposed (j)(10) to prohibit only marketing directed at the same
type of service affected by the freeze and only if the freeze is related to
changing to a competitor's service. In its reply comments, GTE agreed with
SWBT's recommended revision. AT&T stated in its reply comments that the
restriction on marketing is an important protection against anticompetitive
conduct by the LEC and should be retained by the commission. AT&T made
the following points: 1) the FCC recognized the potential for anticompetitive
conduct inherent in the freeze process; 2) the commission's proposed rule
is consistent with the FCC; 3) the restriction prevents the LEC from taking
unfair advantage of its role as freeze administrator; 4) the proposed rule
does not require a customer to make multiple calls to discuss other matters
about the customer's account; and 5) in the case of a three-way call, there
should be absolutely no marketing because the LEC should only be on the call
as administrator of the freeze.
The commission revises proposed (j)(10) from a prohibition against engaging
in marketing to a prohibition against initiating marketing. As revised, the
rule does not prohibit a customer from imposing or lifting a freeze and accomplishing
all other desired actions with the LEC on one call. The rule recognizes that
in the process of implementing or lifting a freeze, a LEC should function
solely as a neutral administrator and should not be allowed to take unfair
competitive advantage of its role as administrator. While the revised rule
prohibits the LEC from initiating marketing, it does not in any way prevent
a customer from seeking information or requesting any action from the LEC
in conjunction with a customer's request to impose or lift a freeze nor prevent
the LEC from fully responding to any customer request.
SWBT also suggested changes to proposed (j)(12) and (j)(13) to indicate
that both intraLATA and interLATA services may be subject to a freeze.
Proposed (j)(12) and (j)(13) clearly state that a freeze may be imposed
on either or both services. Therefore, the commission makes no changes to
these proposed paragraphs.
Subsection (k), Transferring customers from one
telecommunications utility to another
TTA indicated that the provisions of proposed (k) do not appear to be applicable
to slamming and should be deleted from this rulemaking and addressed in the
commission's ongoing telephone customer service standards rulemaking, Project
Number 21423. TXU Telephone agreed with TTA's comments.
The commission disagrees with TTA's position that proposed subsection (k)
should be addressed in another rulemaking. Since this proposed subsection
involves the switching of a customer's preferred telecommunications utility,
it is properly placed in §26.130, Selection of Telecommunications Utilities.
SWBT recommended deleting proposed (k) in its entirety. If not deleted,
SWBT proposed that the obligation to give at least 30 days notice, be placed
on the losing company rather than the gaining company. SWBT further stated
that proposed (k) is inconsistent with bankruptcy law and practices, inconsistent
with resale agreements previously approved by the commission, and potentially
inconsistent with state tort laws, including tortious interference and defamation
provisions. SWBT made the following additional points: the Bankruptcy Code
gives the Bankruptcy Court sole jurisdiction over the assets of the debtor
and the disposition thereof; notice would be viewed by the court as detrimental
to the interests of the CLEC debtor's estate because it would tend to decrease
the number of customers; it would be a breach of resale agreements for SWBT
to notify customers prior to transferring them over to SWBT and prior to an
actual disconnection of the CLEC's service; and it would be rare for a target
company, prior to an actual closing date, to willingly share customer specific
information.
For reasons cited by SWBT, the commission agrees that in some cases the
30 days prior notice requirement cannot be met. While the constraints in some
cases may prevent the desired advance notice, the commission, nonetheless,
believes it is essential that customers be informed of the transfer to another
telecommunications utility as soon as possible after all legal and regulatory
requirements are met. Accordingly, the commission revises proposed (k)(1)
to indicate that if legal or regulatory constraints prevent sending the notice
at least 30 days prior to the transfer, the notice shall be sent promptly
after all legal and regulatory conditions are met.
Proposed (k)(1)(C) requires explaining that the customer has a choice of
selecting a service provider and may select the acquiring company or any other
company. The Associations believed that such a disclosure is unnecessary and
will undermine the value of acquisitions with negligible countervailing public
benefit. The Associations further stated that the requirement to inform affected
customers of their right to elect other providers becomes an invitation to
leave the acquiring carrier.
At the public hearing, Global Crossing stated that proposed (k)(1)(C) requires
clarification. Global Crossing made two points. First, in cases where the
customer has signed a term contract with the current carrier, the customer
may not be able to select another carrier without incurring a penalty. Second,
the customer may incur a preferred carrier change charge if the customer selects
another carrier.
The commission disagrees with the recommendation to delete proposed (k)(1)(C).
The commission believes it is important to inform the customer that the customer
has a choice in selecting a preferred carrier. This disclosure does not constitute
an invitation to leave the acquiring carrier. In fact, the acquiring carrier
certainly has the opportunity to explain the benefits of being its customer.
The commission acknowledges the points made by Global Crossing and revises
proposed (k)(1)(C) to add that the customer may incur a charge for switching
to another carrier. The commission agrees that the notice may include information
regarding contract restrictions that apply to some customers and that (k)(1)(C)
does not prohibit including this information.
Subsection (l), Complaints to the commission
The OAG recommended that §26.130 include specific procedures used
to process slamming complaints submitted to the commission.
The commission agrees with the OAG's recommendation and adds subsection
(l), which reflects the commission's current process for investigating slamming
complaints.
All comments, including any not specifically referenced herein, were fully
considered by the commission. In adopting this amendment, the commission makes
other minor modifications for the purpose of clarifying its intent.
This amendment is adopted under the Public Utility Regulatory
Act, Texas Utilities Code Annotated §14.002 (Vernon 1999 Supp) (PURA),
which provides the Public Utility Commission with the authority to make and
enforce rules reasonably required in the exercise of its powers and jurisdiction,
and under PURA §§55.301 - 55.308 which require the commission to
adopt and enforce rules to implement the provisions of PURA Chapter 55, Subchapter
K, Selection of Telecommunications Utilities.
Cross Reference to Statutes: Public Utility Regulatory Act §§14.002
and 55.301 - 55.308.
§26.130.Selection of Telecommunications Utilities.
(a)
Purpose. The provisions of this section are intended to
ensure that all customers in this state are protected from an unauthorized
change in a customer's local or long-distance telecommunications utility.
(b)
Application. This section, including any references in
this section to requirements in 47 Code of Federal Regulations §64.1100
and §64.1150 (changing interexchange carriers), applies to all "telecommunications
utilities," as that term is defined in §26.5 of this title (relating
to Definitions). This section does not apply to an unauthorized charge unrelated
to a change in preferred telecommunications utility which is addressed in
§26.32 of this title (relating to Protection Against Unauthorized Billing
Charges ("Cramming")).
(c)
Definition. The term "customer" when used in this section,
shall mean any person, and that person's spouse, in whose name telephone service
is billed, including individuals, governmental units at all levels of government,
corporate entities, and any other entity with legal capacity to be billed
for telephone service.
(d)
Changes in preferred telecommunications utility.
(1)
Changes by a telecommunications utility. Before a change
order is processed, the telecommunications utility initiating the change (the
prospective telecommunications utility) must obtain verification from the
customer that such change is desired for each affected telephone line(s) and
ensure that such verification is obtained in accordance with 47 Code of Federal
Regulations 64.1100. In the case of a change by written solicitation, the
prospective telecommunications utility must obtain verification as specified
in 47 Code of Federal Regulations §64.1150, and subsection (e) of this
section, relating to Letters of Agency. The prospective telecommunications
utility must maintain records of all changes, including verifications, for
a period of 24 months and shall provide such records to the customer, if the
customer challenges the change, and to the commission staff if it so requests.
A change order must be verified by one of the following methods:
(A)
Written authorization from the customer in a form that
meets the requirements of subsection (e) of this section.
(B)
Electronic authorization placed from the telephone number
which is the subject of the change order except in exchanges where automatic
recording of the automatic number identification (ANI) from the local switching
system is not technically possible. The prospective telecommunications utility
must:
(i)
ensure that the electronic authorization confirms the information
described in subsection (e)(3) of this section; and
(ii)
establish one or more toll-free telephone numbers exclusively
for the purpose of verifying the change so that a customer calling the toll-
free number(s) will reach a voice response unit or similar mechanism that
records the required information regarding the change and automatically records
the ANI from the local switching system.
(C)
Oral authorization by the customer for the change, given
to an appropriately qualified and independent third party that confirms appropriate
verification data such as the customer's date of birth or mother's maiden
name. The verification must be electronically recorded on audio tape. The
recording shall include clear and conspicuous confirmation that the customer
authorized the change in telephone service provider. The independent third
party shall:
(i)
not be owned, managed, or directly controlled by the telecommunications
utility or the telecommunications utility's marketing agent;
(ii)
not have financial incentive to confirm change orders;
and
(iii)
operate in a location physically separate from the telecommunications
utility or the telecommunications utility's marketing agent.
(2)
Changes by customer request directly to
the local exchange company. If a customer requests a change in preferred telecommunications
utility by contacting the local exchange company directly and the local exchange
company is not the chosen carrier or an affiliate of the chosen carrier, the
verification requirements in paragraph (1) of this subsection do not apply.
The local exchange company shall maintain a record of the customer's request
for 24 months.
(e)
Letters of Agency (LOA). A written authorization from a
customer for a change of telecommunications utility shall use a letter of
agency (LOA) as specified in this subsection:
(1)
The LOA shall be a separate or easily separable document
containing only the authorizing language described in paragraph (3) of this
subsection for the sole purpose of authorizing the telecommunications utility
to initiate a telecommunications utility change. The LOA must be signed and
dated by the customer requesting the telecommunications utility change.
(2)
The LOA shall not be combined with inducements of
any kind on the same document, except that the LOA may be combined with a
check as specified in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of this paragraph:
(A)
An LOA combined with a check may contain only the language
set out in paragraph (3) of this subsection, and the necessary information
to make the check a negotiable instrument.
(B)
A check combined with an LOA shall not contain any promotional
language or material but shall contain on the front and back of the check
in easily readable, bold-faced type near the signature line, the following
notice: "By signing this check, I am authorizing (name of the telecommunications
utility) to be my new telephone service provider for (the type of service
that will be provided)."
(3)
LOA language.
(A)
At a minimum, the LOA shall be printed with sufficient
size and readable type to be clearly legible and shall contain clear and unambiguous
language that confirms:
(i)
the customer's billing name and address and each telephone
number to be covered by the preferred telecommunications utility change order;
(ii)
the decision to change preferred carrier from the current
telecommunications utility to the new telecommunications utility;
(iii)
that the customer designates (name of the new telecommunications
utility) to act as the customer's agent for the preferred carrier change;
(iv)
that the customer understands that only one preferred
telecommunications utility may be designated for each type of service (local,
intraLATA, and interLATA) for each telephone number. The LOA shall contain
separate statements regarding those choices, although a separate LOA for each
service is not required; and
(v)
that the customer understands that any preferred carrier
selection the customer chooses may involve a one-time charge to the customer
for changing the customer's preferred telecommunications utility.
(B)
The following LOA form meets the requirements of this subsection.
Other versions may be used, but shall comply with all of the requirements
of this subsection.
Figure: 16 TAC §26.130(e)(3)(B).
(4)
The LOA shall not require that a customer take
some action in order to retain the customer's current telecommunications utility.
(5)
If any portion of an LOA is translated into another
language, then all portions must be translated. The LOA must be translated
into the same language as promotional materials, oral descriptions or instructions
provided with the LOA.
(f)
Unauthorized changes.
(1)
Responsibilities of the telecommunications utility that
initiated the change. If a customer's telecommunications utility is changed
without verification consistent with this section, the telecommunications
utility that initiated the unauthorized change shall:
(A)
take all actions within its control to facilitate the customer's
prompt return to the original telecommunication utility within three days
of the customer's request;
(B)
pay all charges associated with returning the customer
to the original telecommunications utility within five business days of the
customer's request;
(C)
provide all billing records to the original telecommunications
utility related to the unauthorized change of services within ten business
days of the customer's request;
(D)
pay the original telecommunications utility any amount
paid to it by the customer that would have been paid to the original telecommunications
utility if the unauthorized change had not occurred, within 30 business days
of the customer's request;
(E)
return to the customer within 30 business days of the customer's
request:
(i)
any amount paid by the customer for charges incurred during
the first 30 days after the date of an unauthorized change; and
(ii)
any amount paid by the customer after the first 30 days
in excess of the charges that would have been charged if the unauthorized
change had not occurred; and
(F)
remove all unpaid charges.
(2)
Responsibilities of the original telecommunications
utility. The original telecommunications utility shall:
(A)
inform the telecommunications utility that initiated the
unauthorized change of the amount that would have been charged for identical
services if the unauthorized change had not occurred, within ten business
days of the receipt of the billing records required under paragraph (1)(C)
of this subsection;
(B)
provide to the customer all benefits associated with the
service, such as frequent flyer miles that would have been awarded had the
unauthorized change not occurred, on receiving payment for service provided
during the unauthorized change;
(C)
maintain a record of customers that experienced an unauthorized
change in telecommunications utilities that contains:
(i)
the name of the telecommunications utility that initiated
the unauthorized change;
(ii)
the telephone number(s) affected by the unauthorized change;
(iii)
the date the customer asked the telecommunications utility
that made the unauthorized change to return the customer to the original telecommunications
utility; and
(iv)
the date the customer was returned to the original telecommunications
utility; and
(D)
not bill the customer for any charges incurred during the
first 30 days after the unauthorized change, but may bill the customer for
unpaid charges incurred after the first 30 days based on what it would have
charged if the unauthorized change had not occurred.
(g)
Notice of customer rights.
(1)
Each telecommunications utility shall make available to
its customers the notice set out in paragraph (3) of this subsection .
(2)
Each notice provided under paragraph (5)(A) of this
subsection shall contain the name, address and telephone numbers where a customer
can contact the telecommunications utility.
(3)
Customer notice. The notice shall state:
Figure: 16 TAC §26.130(g)(3).
(4)
The customer notice requirements in paragraph (3)
of this subsection may be combined with the notice requirements of §26.32(g)(1)
and (2) of this title (relating to Protection Against Unauthorized Billing
Charges ("Cramming")) if all of the information required by each is in the
combined notice.
(5)
Language, distribution and timing of notice.
(A)
Telecommunications utilities shall send the notice to new
customers at the time service is initiated, and upon customer request.
(B)
Each telecommunications utility shall print the notice
in the white pages of its telephone directories, beginning with any directories
published 30 days after the effective date of this section and thereafter.
The notice that appears in the directory is not required to list the information
contained in paragraph (2) of this subsection.
(C)
The notice shall be in both English and Spanish as necessary
to adequately inform the customer. The commission may exempt a telecommunications
utility from the Spanish requirement if the telecommunications utility shows
that 10% or fewer of its customers are exclusively Spanish- speaking, and
that the telecommunications utility will notify all customers through a statement
in both English and Spanish that the information is available in Spanish by
mail from the telecommunications utility or at the utility's offices.
(h)
Compliance and enforcement.
(1)
Records of customer verifications and unauthorized changes.
A telecommunications utility shall provide a copy of records maintained under
the requirements of subsections (d), (e), and (f)(2)(C) of this section to
the commission staff upon request.
(2)
Administrative penalties. If the commission finds
that a telecommunications utility is in violation of this section, the commission
shall order the utility to take corrective action as necessary, and the utility
may be subject to administrative penalties pursuant to the Public Utility
Regulatory Act (PURA) §15.023 and §15.024.
(3)
Certificate revocation. If the commission finds that
a telecommunications utility is repeatedly and recklessly in violation of
this section, and if consistent with the public interest, the commission may
suspend, restrict, deny, or revoke the registration or certificate, including
an amended certificate, of the telecommunications utility, thereby denying
the telecommunications utility the right to provide service in this state.
(4)
Coordination with the office of the attorney general.
The commission shall coordinate its enforcement efforts regarding the prosecution
of fraudulent, misleading, deceptive, and anticompetitive business practices
with the office of the attorney general in order to ensure consistent treatment
of specific alleged violations.
(i)
Notice of identity of a customer's telecommunications utility.
Any bill for telecommunications services must contain the following information
in easily-read, bold type in each bill sent to a customer. Where charges for
multiple lines are included in a single bill, this information must appear
on the first page of the bill if possible or displayed prominently elsewhere
in the bill:
(1)
The name and telephone number of the telecommunications
utility providing local exchange service if the bill is for local exchange
service.
(2)
The name and telephone number of the primary interexchange
carrier if the bill is for interexchange service.
(3)
The name and telephone number of the local exchange
and interexchange providers if the local exchange provider is billing for
the interexchange carrier. The commission may, for good cause, waive this
requirement in exchanges served by incumbent local exchange companies serving
31,000 access lines or less.
(4)
A statement that customers who believe they have been
slammed may contact the Public Utility Commission of Texas, Office of Customer
Protection, P.O. Box 13326, Austin, Texas 78711-3326, (512) 936-7120 or in
Texas (toll-free) 1 (888) 782-8477, fax: (512) 936-7003, e-mail address: customer@puc.state.tx.us.
Hearing and speech-impaired individuals with text telephones (TTY) may contact
the commission at (512) 936-7136. This statement may be combined with the
statement requirements of §26.32(g)(4) of this title if all of the information
required by each is in the combined statement. This statement shall appear
on the first telephone bill issued 60 days after the effective date of this
section.
(j)
Preferred telecommunications utility freezes.
(1)
Purpose. A preferred telecommunications utility freeze
("freeze") prevents a change in a customer's preferred telecommunications
utility selection unless the customer gives consent to the local exchange
company that implemented the freeze.
(2)
Nondiscrimination. All local exchange companies that
offer freezes shall offer freezes on a nondiscriminatory basis to all customers
regardless of the customer's telecommunications utility selection except for
local telephone service.
(3)
Type of service. Customer information on freezes shall
clearly distinguish between intraLATA and interLATA telecommunications services.
The local exchange company offering a freeze shall obtain separate authorization
for each service for which a freeze is requested.
(4)
Freeze information. All information provided by a
telecommunications utility about freezes shall have the sole purpose of educating
customers and providing information in a neutral way to allow the customer
to make an informed decision, and shall not market or induce the customer
to request a freeze. The freeze information provided to customers shall include:
(A)
a clear, neutral explanation of what a freeze is and what
services are subject to a freeze;
(B)
instructions on lifting a freeze that make it clear that
these steps are in addition to required verification for a change in preferred
telecommunications utility;
(C)
an explanation that the customer will be unable to make
a change in telecommunications utility selection unless the customer lifts
the freeze; and
(D)
a statement that there is no charge to the customer to
impose or lift a freeze.
(5)
Freeze verification. A local exchange company
shall not implement a freeze unless the customer's request is verified using
one of the following procedures:
(A)
A written and signed authorization that meets the requirements
of paragraph (6) of this subsection.
(B)
An electronic authorization placed from the telephone number
on which a freeze is to be imposed. The electronic authorization shall confirm
appropriate verification data such as the customer's date of birth or mother's
maiden name and the information required in paragraph (6)(G) of this subsection.
The local exchange company shall establish one or more toll-free telephone
numbers exclusively for this purpose. Calls to the number(s) will connect
the customer to a voice response unit or similar mechanism that records the
information including the originating ANI.
(C)
An appropriately qualified independent third party obtains
the customer's oral authorization to submit the freeze and confirms appropriate
verification data such as the customer's date of birth or mother's maiden
name and the information required in paragraph (6)(G) of this subsection.
This shall include clear and conspicuous confirmation that the customer authorized
a freeze. The independent third party shall:
(i)
not be owned, managed, or directly controlled by the local
exchange company or the local exchange company's marketing agent;
(ii)
not have financial incentive to confirm freeze requests;
and
(iii)
operate in a location physically separate from the local
exchange company or its marketing agent.
(D)
Any other method approved by Federal Communications Commission
rule or order granting a waiver.
(6)
Written authorization. A written freeze authorization
shall:
(A)
be a separate or easily separable document with the sole
purpose of imposing a freeze;
(B)
be signed and dated by the customer;
(C)
not be combined with inducements of any kind;
(D)
be completely translated into another language if any portion
is translated;
(E)
be translated into the same language as any educational
materials, oral descriptions, or instructions provided with the written freeze
authorization;
(F)
be printed with readable type of sufficient size to be
clearly legible; and
(G)
contain clear and unambiguous language that confirms:
(i)
the customer's name, address, and telephone number(s) to
be covered by the freeze;
(ii)
the decision to impose a freeze on the telephone number(s)
and the particular service with a separate statement for each service to be
frozen;
(iii)
that the customer understands that a change in telecommunications
utility cannot be made unless the customer lifts the freeze; and
(iv)
that the customer understands that there is no charge
for imposing or lifting a freeze.
(7)
Lifting freezes. A local exchange company
that executes a freeze request shall allow customers to lift a freeze by:
(A)
written and signed authorization stating the customer's
intent to lift a freeze;
(B)
oral authorization stating an intent to lift a freeze confirmed
by the local exchange company with appropriate confirmation verification data
such as the customer's date of birth or mother's maiden name;
(C)
a three-way conference call with the local exchange company,
the telecommunications utility that will provide the service, and the customer;
or
(D)
any other method approved by Federal Communications Commission
rule or order granting a waiver.
(8)
No customer charge. The customer shall not be
charged for imposing or lifting a freeze.
(9)
Local service freeze prohibition. A local exchange
company shall not impose a freeze on local telephone service.
(10)
Marketing prohibition. A local exchange company shall
not initiate any marketing of its services during the process of implementing
or lifting a freeze.
(11)
Freeze records retention. A local exchange company
shall maintain records of all freezes and verifications for a period of 24
months and shall provide these records to customers and to the commission
staff upon request.
(12)
Suggested freeze information language. Telecommunications
utilities that inform customers about freezes may use the following language.
Other versions may be used, but shall comply with all of the requirements
of paragraph (4) of this subsection.
Figure: 16 TAC §26.130(j)(12).
(13)
Suggested freeze authorization form. The following
form is recommended for written authorization from a customer requesting a
freeze. Other versions may be used, but shall comply with all of the requirements
of paragraph (6) of this subsection.
Figure: 16 TAC §26.130(j)(13).
(14)
Suggested freeze lift form. The following form is
recommended for written authorization to lift a freeze. Other versions may
be used, but shall comply with all of the requirements of paragraph (7) of
this subsection.
Figure: 16 TAC §26.130(j)(14).
(k)
Transferring customers from one telecommunications utility
to another.
(1)
Any telecommunications utility that will acquire customers
from another telecommunications utility that will no longer provide service
due to acquisition, merger, bankruptcy or any other reason, shall provide
notice to every affected customer. The notice shall be in a billing insert
or separate mailing at least 30 days prior to the transfer of any customer.
If legal or regulatory constraints prevent sending the notice at least 30
days prior to the transfer, the notice shall be sent promptly after all legal
and regulatory conditions are met. The notice shall:
(A)
identify the current and acquiring telecommunications utilities;
(B)
explain why the customer will not be able to remain with
the current telecommunications utility;
(C)
explain that the customer has a choice of selecting a service
provider and may select the acquiring telecommunications utility or any other
telecommunications utility and that the customer may incur a charge if the
customer selects another telecommunications utility;
(D)
explain that if the customer wants another telecommunications
utility, the customer should contact that telecommunication utility or the
local telephone company;
(E)
explain the time frame for the customer to make a selection
and what will happen if the customer makes no selection;
(F)
identify the effective date that customers will be transferred
to the acquiring telecommunications utility;
(G)
provide the rates and conditions of service of the acquiring
telecommunications utility; and
(H)
provide a toll-free telephone number for a customer to
call for additional information.
(2)
The acquiring telecommunications utility shall
provide the Office of Customer Protection with a copy of the notice when it
is sent to customers.
(l)
Complaints to the commission. A customer may file a complaint
with the commission against a telecommunications utility for any reasons related
to the provisions of this section.
(1)
Customer complaint information. The complainant should
include the following information:
(A)
the customer's name, address, and telephone number;
(B)
a brief description of the facts of the complaint;
(C)
a copy of the customer's and spouse's legal signature;
and
(D)
a copy of the most recent phone bill and any prior phone
bill that shows the switch in carrier.
(2)
Telecommunications utility's response to complaint.
After review of a customer's complaint, the commission's Office of Customer
Protection (OCP) shall forward the complaint to the telecommunications utility.
The telecommunications utility shall respond to OCP within 21 calendar days
after OCP forwards the complaint. The telecommunications utility's response
shall include the following:
(A)
all documentation related to the authorization and verification
used to switch the customer's service; and
(B)
all corrective actions taken as required by subsection
(f) of this section, if the switch in service was not verified in accordance
with subsections (d) and (e) of this section.
(3)
OCP investigation. OCP shall review all of the
information related to the complaint and make a determination on whether or
not the telecommunications utility complied with the requirements of this
section. OCP shall inform the complainant and the telecommunications utility
of the results of the investigation and identify any additional corrective
actions that may be required.
This agency hereby certifies that the adoption has been
reviewed by legal counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's
legal authority.
Filed with the Office of
the Secretary of State on June 23, 2000.
TRD-200004410
Rhonda Dempsey
Rules Coordinator
Public Utility Commission of Texas
Effective date: July 13, 2000
Proposal publication date: February 18, 2000
For further information, please call: (512) 936-7308