ORDER NO. 97-334

ENTERED AUG 27, 1997

This is an electronic copy

BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION

OF OREGON

UM 775

DISPOSITION: RECONSIDERATION DENIED

On July 7, 1997, MCImetro filed an application for reconsideration of Order No. 97-165. No responses were filed.

Background

Order No. 97-165 establishes policies relating to toll restriction service, billed number screening, and associated billing and collection practices of local exchange carriers. MCImetro focuses its application for reconsideration on two policies adopted by the Commission on page 14 of the Order:

An IXC shall not bill the customer of record when the IXC does not check for BNS or does not honor a BNS indicator.

Carriers, including LECs and IXCs, shall not bill the customer of record for toll charges incurred by personal 1-800 or 1-888 numbers or by the use of calling cards when those numbers or cards were issued without confirmation from the customer of record or when the carrier has mailed the personal 1-800 or 1-888 number or calling card to an address other than that on record for the customer of record.

MCImetro asks that the Order be amended to specify "that regardless of the policies contained in items 2 and 3, listed on page 14 of the Commission Decision, the third party providers [customers of record] must forward to the IXC any monies paid the provider by an end user who has incurred toll charges in excess of funds owed the third party provider, unless the customer clearly states that he or she intends that the funds be otherwise allocated."

Argument

MCImetro argues as follows: end-user customers of the third-party dial tone providers sometimes send more money to the third-party dial tone provider than they owe for the access to local exchange services provided by the third-party dial tone provider. This excess payment may be intended to apply to the end-user’s long distance bill. One of the third-party dial tone providers involved in this case testified at the hearing, however, that he does not forward an excess payment to the IXC, but keeps it as a credit to apply to the end-user customer’s account with the third-party dial tone provider. He noted that he has and seeks to have no business relationship to the IXC.

MCImetro characterizes this behavior by the third-party dial tone provider as "intolerable" and asks that the Commission order the third-party dial tone providers to forward these "overpayments" to the IXC. MCImetro argues that it is "misappropriation" for the third-party dial tone provider to retain the funds for its own benefit.

Commission Disposition

The application is denied. First, the matter presented was not an issue addressed by the parties. In only a very general sense is it within the scope of the issues set out in the issues list adopted for the proceeding. And, in fact, the parties presented only sketchy evidence and no argument on the specific issue now raised by MCImetro. We therefore do not have a good record on the matter.

In any event, we do not believe the requested policy is appropriate. If the third-party dial tone providers are misappropriating funds, it would appear that the "victim," if there is one, is the end-user, not MCImetro or other IXCs. Moreover, it may be that even the end-user is not a victim. The record indicates that the third-party dial tone provider who testified keeps the excess money in the end-user’s account as a credit to be applied to the charges for local exchange service. The customer thus gets the benefit of the money eventually. It is also not clear from the record that the customer always, or even usually, provides directions to the third-party dial tone provider as to what to do with the money. The end-user might intend the payment to be forwarded to the IXC (or perhaps to the LEC for intraLATA toll charges) or to be applied to the charges for local service. In any event, the third-party dial tone provider who testified seeks to have no relationship to MCI or to any other IXC. He pointed out, moreover, that his company would incur costs in forwarding the "overpayment" to an IXC. Under these circumstances, we cannot conclude that a basis exists for adopting the policy proposed by MCI.

ORDER

IT IS ORDERED that the application for reconsideration filed by MCImetro is denied.

Made, entered, and effective ____________________________.

A party may request rehearing or reconsideration of this order pursuant to ORS 756.561. A request for rehearing or reconsideration must be filed with the Commission within 60 days of the date of service of this order. The request must comply with the requirements of OAR 860-014-0095. A copy of any such request must also be served on each party to the proceeding as provided by OAR 860-013-0070. A party may appeal this order to a court pursuant to ORS 756.580.