Skip navigation

Judd v Att Wa Plt Opening Brief Phone Rates 2006

Download original document:
Brief thumbnail
This text is machine-read, and may contain errors. Check the original document to verify accuracy.

NO. 57015-3·1

SANDY JUDD, et al.,




(Filed Under Seal)"

Jonathan P. Meier
719 Second Avenue, Suite 1100
Seattle, VVashblgton 98104
Telephone: (206) 223-0303
Facsimile: (206) 223·0246 "
Attorneys for Appellants



11;;;;;;;;1. . . . . . . . .

Table of Contents


NATUREOFnmCASB .............~ .................................................. 1


SU1WARY OF THE ARGUMENT .... :............,....... :.................... 3

ill.' ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR .......................................................... 7

IV. STATEMENT OF ISSUES ......................................... ;..................... 7

HISTORY ......................................................... :................................ 8

VI. STATEMENTOFCASE: FACfS ................................................ ll

The parties...................................... :......................................11


How an inmate telephone call is routed ............................ 12


T-Netix operll.tes operator services
platforms at Washington,prisons and is an
, Operatqr Services Provider....................................... ;.........13


T-NetiX did riot provide rate disclosure
during the relevant time period......................................... 15

'VII. STANDARD OF REVIEW ............................................................ 16

VITI. ARGUMENT .................................................................................. 17

The Legislature provided a remedy under
the Consumer Protection Act whenever an
Operator Services Provider fails to disclose
rates ............................ .-... .-........................................................18



'The WUTC required OSPs to disclose rates,
in real time, to consumers paying for
telephone calls from public telephories ......................... :.•. 21


T-Netix was an Operator Services Provider
and failed to disclose rates on calls received
by Ms. Judd and Ms. Herivel. ............................................. 23


Issues of fact exist regarding whether
AT&T acted as an OSP in connection with
. interLATA calls, including a call received
by Ms. Herivel. ...................................................................... 27



Issues of fact exist regarding whether
Tara Herivel received an interLATA
call from the Airway Heights prison........................ 29


Issues of fact exist regarding whether
T-Netix or AT&T was the OSP for the
interLATA call received by Tara
Herivel. .......................................................................... 32

Defendants' summary judgment argument
is wrong as a matter of law because it
focuses on the company that"carried" a call
rather than,on the company that was the
OSP for a call......................................................................... 35

IX. CONCLUSION ................................ :............................................. 40

.. , ....


Table of Authorities

Judd v. American Tel. & Tel. Co.,
152 Wn.2d 195, 95 P.3d 337 (Wash. 2004)............:..................... 8, 20

Miniken v. Walter,
978 F. Supp.1356 (E.D.Wash.1997) ............................................... 29

No Ka O~ Corp. v. National 60 Minute Tune, Inc.,
71 Wn. App. 844, 863P.2d 79 (1993) ..............................................31

Suquamish Indian Tribe v. Kitsap County,
92 Wn. App. 816, 965 P.2d 636 (1998) ............................................16
19.86 RCW ..................................................... :..........................................19
RCW 80.36.510 ............................................................................... 1, 18, 19
RCW 80.36.520................................................................................ passim
RCW 80.36.524 .........................................................................................19
RCW 80.36.530 ..........................................................................1, 16, 18, 19
RCW 86.30.520 .............:............................................................................35
WAC 480-120"021 ........................................................................13, 20, 21
WAC 480-120-141(2)(b) ...................... ;......... ~ ....................... 19, 21, 22,36
WAC 480-120-141(5)(a)(iv) ...................................................... :.20, 22,35




After the break-up of the Bell System in the 1980s, many
telecommunications companies began to offer services for long-distance _
payphone calls.

The charges were often exorbitant and provoked a

-consumer backlash. - To address this growing problem, the state_
Legislature declared that the failure to- identify ''the services provided or
-the rate, charge or fee" for a long distance, collect telephone call is an
unfair trade practice -and a per se violation of the Consumer Protection
Act. RCW 80.36.510 - .530. The Legislature directed the WUTC to enact
regulations governing the disclosure requirements. The Commission did
so in 1991. Failure to comply with the disclosure requirements gives rise
to a claim under the Consumer Protection Act, with damages presumed to
be $200 per call plus the cost of the service. RCW 80.36.530.
Over the next nine or ten years, the defendants in this case---T-Netix and AT&T-failed to disclose the required rate information on
collect calls originating from Washington state prisons. The recipient of
an inmate call-oftentimes a spouse or dependent family member under
financial stress-was given two choices: (1) accept the call without any
disclosure of rate information; or (2) hang up.


As reported in the Wall Street Journai 'and elsewhere, companies
that provide operator services looked to inmate collect calls as a lucrative
profit center:
In 1992, the state of Washington opened the Airway
Heights Corrections' Center, a 2,0.0.0.-man, medium security
prison near Spokane. It furnished the prison with 142 pay
phones-one for every 14 inmates-and allowed prisoners
to use them virtually anytime they were not asleep or
otherwise confined in their ,cells. During December 1997,
inmates spent $458,581 calling home for Christmas-an
average bill, per inmate, of more than $20.0..

Prison as Profit Center, WALL ST. JOURNAL, March 15,20.0.1, at BI-B4.
Rate disclosure is an essential consumer protection afforded by
Washington law.
. Plaintiff Sandy Judd is the fonner spouse of fonnerinmate Paul
Wright. Plaintiff Tara Herivel is a Seattle attorney who received telephone
calls from inmates. Neither was provided rate disclosure on calls from
Washington state inmates. Plaintiffs seek to certify a class of thousands of
consumers who were inmates after June 20., 1996, but who were
not provided the required disclosures.
The central question in this case is whether T-Netix and/or AT&T
were operator service providers for inmate calls, and therefore subject to
the rate disclosure requirements. The issue on appeal-whether plaintiffs
have standing to sue T-Netix and AT&T for failure to disclose rates-is


inextricably bound up with the question of whether T-Netix and/or AT&T
were operator service providers or contracted with such providers.

Although this case involves complicated telecommunications
issues, this appeal turns on basic summary judgment principles.


bottom, the trial court's judgment must be reversed because the court
failed to credit the observations and conclusions of plaintiffs' expert and
because it igtiored a clear factual dispute.
The trial court determined that plaintiffs lack standing to pursue
their claims under the Consumer Protection Act (CPA). To sustain their
CPA claim, plaintiffs must show that 'defendants violated regulations
issued by the Washington ,Utilities & Transportation C()mmission

Under those regulations, companies that provide operator

services, or Operator Service Providers, are required to disclose rates to
consumers. Plaintiffs have standing because T-Netix and/or AT&T were
Operator Service Providers that failed to disclose rates on calls received by
Before the trial court ever ruled on the standing question, an
Administrative Law Judge considered the exact same arguments, fro!p. the
exact sarue parties, and concluded that issues of fact precluded summary

The ALJ heard this issue because the trial court had


r~fem:d, under the primary. jurisdiction doctrine, certain questions

presented by this lawsuit to the WUTC for an initial adjudication. After
the parties began· doing discovery on these issues, T-Netix and AT&T
moved for summary determination, arguing that plaintiffs lacked standing.
ALI Aun Rendahl denied defendants' motions, holding alternatively that
(1) fact issues relating to the role of T-Netix and AT&T as Operator
Service Providers precluded summary determination on the standing issue,
and (2) even if this were not the caSe, the WUTC did not have jurisdiction
to decide the issue on a primary jurisdiction referral from this Court. TNetix appealed that ruling to the WUTC, which· affirmed on the latter
Judge Rendahl Was correct.

The following facts are either

undisputed or are disputed and must be viewed in the light most favorable
to plaintiffs: (1) plaintiffs received inmate-initiated telephone calls from
four different Washington prisons; (2) no rate disClosure was provided on
these calls; (3) T-Netix owned and operated a call control platform at each
of these facilities that provided operator services; and (4) plaintiffs' expert
has concluded that T-Netix was the Operator Services Provider for these
institutions and sholild have provided automated rate disclosure to
consumers. Accordingly, plaintiffs have been injured by T-Netix's failure


to- disclose-rates in its capacity as the Operator Services Provider on these
Defendants' claim that pl$tiffs lack standing relies on two
arguments, one legal and one factual. The factual issue involves a classic
factual dispute that should have precluded summary judgment.


dispute centers on whether plaintiff Tara Rerivel received a particular
phone call.

In 1997 or 1998, Ms. Rerivel interviewed irunate Don

Miniken for an article she was publishing on First Amendment issues. To
facilitate the interview, Mr. Miniken called Ms. Rerivel from prison.
Ms. ReriveI's article contains quotes from her phone conversation with

Mr. Miniken. These facts are established through sworn declarations
provided -by Ms. Herivel and Mr. Miniken, a copy of the article, and

ReriveI's interrogatory responses.
Defendants dispute whether this call actually occurred, but -

acknowledge that

if the call was made, then a factual dispute exists

concerning which defendant-T-Netix or AT&T-was the Operator
Services Provider for the call. T-Netix maintains that AT&T was the
Operator Services Provider for the type of call that Ms. Rerivel received
from Mr. Miniken. AT&T points the finger right back at T-Netix. One of
these two defendants served as the Operator Services Provider for this call,
yet the trial court dismissed both. Although the trial court's stimmary

-5 -

judgment order contains no reasoning, it appears· to have resolved the
disputed factual issue of whether the call actually occurred in defendants'
favor by improperly weighing the evidence.
Defendants also make a legal argument that cannot be reconciled
with the statute and regulations. T-Netix and AT&T claim that they can
rely on waivers or exemptions. from rate disclosure requirements that were
granted to certain companies by the WUTC. Neither T-Netix nor AT&T,
however, were exempt from or had waivers from compliance with rate·
disclosure requirements. Instead, they argue that they can ''piggyback'' on
the waivers or exemptions that were granted to other companies. The
dispositive question is whether T-Netix or AT&T provided operator
services in connection with the calls received by plaintiffs. The, statute and
regulations place the responsibility for rate disclosure on the shoulders of
the Operator Services Provider-regardless of whether another company
was involved in the transmission of the call. Plaintiffs have put forth
substantial, detailed evidence that T-Netix and/or AT&T served as the.
Operator SerVices Provider for the calls that plaintiffs received.
The Administrative Law Judge applied her expertise and found that
this evidence created factual issues that precluded suminary determination
on the standing issue. The trial court erred when it arrived at the opposite



Appellants B$sign error to the trial court's:.

Or4er Granting Defendant T-Netix's Motion for Summary

Judgment (CP 330-31);

Order Granting AT&T's Motion for Clarification of the

September 7, 2005 Order Granting Defendant T-Netix's Motion for·
Summary Judgment (CP 346-47);

Order Granting· Defendant T-Netix, Inc.'s Motion for

Clarification of Order (CP 348-50).

Standing against T-Netix. Under state statutes and regulations, an
Operator Services Provider (OSP)is required to disclose rates to
consumers when connecting phone calls from public telephones, including
. prison phones.

Plaintiffs received inmate-initiated calls from four

different Washington prisons for which no rate disclosure was provided,
and on which T-Netix served as the OSP. Do plaintiffs have standing to
bring a claim against T-Netix for violation of the regulations?
(Assignments of Error 1-3)

Standing against AT&T. T-Netix and AT&T were both involved
in connecting an inmate-initiated call received by plaintiff Tara Herivel.
Defendants point the finger at each other, each contending that the other


v.:as the OSP for this type of call. Does Ms. Herivel have. standing because
factual issues exist regarding (i) whether the call occurred; and (ii) which
company served as the OSP or contracted with the OSP for' the call?
(Assignments of Error 1-3)



Plaintiffs file.d this lawsuit in the summer of 2000 as a putative
class action in King County Superior Court, asserting that five companies
had violated the Washington Consumer Protection Act by failing to
disclose rates on calls placed from Washington state prisons in violation of
state law. CP 403-08. Three of those companies (Qwest, Verizon, and
CenturyTel) were dismissed by the trial court. See CP 33. Plaintiffs
appealed and eventually argued their case in the Washington Supreme
Court, which affirmed the dismissals. Judd v. American Tel. & Tel. Co.,
152 Wn.2d 195, 95 PJd 337 (Wash. 2004).
The two remaining defendants-T-Netix and AT&T-also moved
to dismiss, but the trial court did not grant these motions. Instead, it
referred certain questions to the WUTC. CP 5-6; 9-10. Specifically, the
Court asked the WUTC to determine whether T-Netix and AT&T were
operator service providers (OSPs) and whether they had violated WUTC
regulations requiring OSPs to disclose rates to consumers. !d. The trial
court stayed further proceedings until the agency adjudicated the questions


referred to it, and explicitly retained jurisdiction of matters not
encompassed within its referral.

See id.· In November 2004, after

plaintiffs had exhausted their appellate options with respect to the three
other defendants, they activated the trial court's referral by filing a
complaint with the WUTC. CP 33-38.
The parties hired experts and began discovery. T-Netix then filed a
motion for summary determination in the WUTC, arguing that plaintiffs
lacked standing. CP 12. After two months of extensive briefing by all
parties and oral argument, Administrative Law Judge Ann Rendahl denied
the motion and denied AT&T's separate motion to be dismissed on
standing grounds. CP 206; see CP 150.
Judge Rendahl rejected defendants' standing argument on two
different, alternative grounds. CP 214-17. First, she concluded that issues
of fact precluded summary determination. CP 215, ~ 34. Specifically, she
. found that plaintiffs had produced evidence, sufficient to raise fact
questions with regard to plaintiffs' standing, that T-Netix and AT&T were
functioning as operator service providers and were involved in connecting
the telephone calls received by Ms. Judd and Ms. Herivel:
The issue in this proceeding is whether T-Netix and
AT&T provided service as operator service companies on
the calls at issue in this proceeding. While T-Netix asserts
that only US West and 01E carried the calls in question,
Complainant's affidavits and pleadings raise questions as to
the role of T-Netix and AT&T in connecting the calls


between the correctional institutions arid the Plaintiffs. The
parties' dueling and numerous affidavits i~entify several
issues of fact concerning AT&T and T-Netix's network and
their irivolvement in the calls in question.

Judge. Rendahl's . alternative holding focused on thepcimary
jurisdiction doctrine. CP 215-16. Noting that the question of plaintiffs'
standing was not encompassed within the issues referred to the WUTC by
King County Superior Court, Judge Rendahl concluded that the agency did
not have jurisdiction to decide the issue of standing. CP 216, ~ 37.
T-Netix attacked Judge Rendahi's conclusions on two fronts. In
the WUTC, it filed an interlocutory appeal. See CP 491. In king County
Superior Court, it asked the court to lift the stay on trial court proceedings
and filed a motion for summary judgment on the standing issue, repeating
the same arguments it had made in the agency. CP 242. The WUTC
accepted T-Netix's appeal and affirmed Judge Rendahl's decision on the
ground that the agency lacked jurisdiction to determine whether plaintiffs'
had standing. See CP 324. It said nothing about the merits of the 'Standing
issue. Plaintiffs did not oppose T-Netix's motion to lift the stay in the trial
court. CP 264.
Although plaintiffs adduced similar (actually, more) evidence
when responding to T-Netix's summary judgment motion than they had in
the WUTC, the trial court granted T-Netix's motion. CP 330-31. The

-10 -

order granting summary judgment discloses no reasoning. fd.· The trial·
court later clarified that its ruling applied to AT&T as well and rescinded
its primary jurisdiction referral to the WUTC, but declined to shed any
light on the reasoning that led to its order. CP 346-47, 348-49. Plaintiffs
appeal from the trial court's summary judgment. CP 341.


The parties.
Plaintiff Tara Herivel is a Seattle attorney who received telephone

.calls from former Washington state inmates at two different prisons.
CP 267-69, 97-98, 487. Plaintiff Sandy Judd also received telephone calls
from a former imnate while he was incarcerated in three different
Washington prisons. CP 93-94, 34, 20 n.2; see CP 494 n.4 ..
During the relevant time period, defendant AT&T held a contract
with the Washington Department of Corrections to provide telephone
service to state prisons.

CP 46.

AT&T subcontracted with other

companies, including defendant T-Netix, to provide certain services in
connection with these calls. CP 47, 40, 90-91, 447, 453-59.


How an inmate telephone call is routed.
To uoderstand the issues on appeal, it is essential to understand

how the inmate calls that 'plaintiffs. received were routed through the


· . telecommunications system. Plaintiff's expert, Ken Wilson, described the
process as follows:





T-Netix operates operator services ·platforms at.
Washington prisons and is an Operator Services

.It· does so in many Department of

Corrections locations in Washington. CP 462, 358. T-Netix has produced
documents in this case, and filed others before regulatory bodies,
admitting that it (or T-Netix's predecessors-in-interest) has provided and is
providing automated operator services. CP 462, 360-401.
Plaintiffs' expert provided sworn testimony that the T-Netix
platform provides a "connection" as that term is used in WAC 480-120021 (1999)1:

1 The regulationdefmes

an Operator Service Provider, or asp, as follows: .

Operator Service Provider (OSP) - any corporation, company,
.partnership, or person providing a connection to intrastate or
interstate long-distance or to local services from locations of
call aggregators. The teoo "operator services" in this rule
means any intrastate telecommunications service provided to a
call aggregator location that includes as a component any
automatic or live assistance to a consumer to arrange for
billing or compl~tion, or both, of an intrastate telephone call
through a method. other than (I). automatic completion with
billing to the telephone from which the call originated, or (2)
completion through an access .code used by the consumer with

-13 -

(footnote continuation)
billing to an account previously established by the consumer
with the carrier.

WAC 4.80-120-021 (1999) (emphasis added).


in Seattle, Ms. Herivel received calls from the Washington State
Reformatory and Airway Heights correctiorial facilities. CP 267-69, 9798,487. Ms. Judd received calls from the Washington State Reformatory,
McNeil Island, and Clallam Bay facilities. CP 93-94, 34, 20 n.2; see
CP 494 n.4..

T-Netix did not provide rate disclosure during the
relevant time period. .

During the relevant time period2, plaintiffs allege that the T-Netix
platform did not provide rate disclosures required by statute and

CP 403·08; 268.

T·Netix admits it did not provide rate

disclosure. CP 411,

This Court reviews a summary judgment de novo by undertaking
the same inqufry as the trial court Suquamish Indian Tribe v. Kitsap

2 This lawsuit seeks damages dating back to calls made in 1996. See CP 403
(lawsuit filed in 2000); RCW 19.86.120 (four·year statute of limitations).
Although recipients of inmate·initiated calls are now receiving rate disclosure,
the question of when rate disclosure began is a fact question that has not yet
been determined.


County, 92 Wn. App. 816, 827, 965 P.2d 636 (1998). All facts and
reasonable inferences therefrom are viewed in the light most favorable to
the nomnoving parties. ld.
When standing is the issue on review, the inquiry is no differentthe moving· party bears the same burden any other party bears under CR
56. Accordingly, the trial court's decision cannot be upheld if there are
any issues of material fact with respect to plaintiffs' standing. ld. at 832
(reversing sunimary judgment because plaintiffs demonstrated that issue of
fact existed with regard to whether they would be injured by proposed
planned unit development).
The question here is whether plaintiffs have standing to bring a
CPA claim. The only element at issue is whether plaintiffs suffered the
requisite injury under the statute. Because the Legislature has determined
that violation of WUTC regulations is sufficient to establish a per se claim
under the CPA, see RCW 80.36.530, plaintiffs can establish the requisite
injury by demonstrating that defendants violated the regulations in
connection with calls that plaintiffs received. For purposes of summary
jUdgment, plaintiffs need only establish that issues of fact exist with
respect to this issue.

-16- .

Plaintiffs' standing to bring this action depends primarily. on
whether: (1) T-Netix and/or AT&T were Operator Service Providers on


calls received by Ms. Judd or Ms. Herivel; and (2) T-Netix and/or AT&T
failed to disclose rates on those calls, thus violating agency regulations.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiffs,. we
show below that

• T-Netix violated the regulations by failing to provide rate
• Plaintiff Tara Herivel received one calion which either TNetix or AT&T was the Operator Services Provider-the
defendants point the finger at each other on this issue; and
• The fact that certain companies obtained exemptions or
waivers from rate disclosure requirements does not mean
that defendants can "piggyback" on the exemptions of these
other companies-T-Netix and AT&T are still responsible
for disclosing rates .if they were the Operator Services
Provider or contracted with the Operator Services Provider
. for a given calL

-17 -

Before addressing these points, we provide'

an overview of the

statutory and regulatory history and framework governing the questions on

The Legislature provided a remedy under the
Consumer Protection Act whenever an Operator
Services Provider fails to disclose rates.
In 1988, the state Legislature acted to require companies providing

long-distance operator services at public telephones to disclose rates. See
RCW 80.36.510, .520, and .530.
The legislature finds that a growing number of companies
provide, in a nonresidential setting, telecommunications
services necessary to long distance' service without
disclosing the services provided or the rate,'charge or fee.
The legislature finds that provision' of these services
without disclosure to consumers is a deceptive trade
RCW 80.36.510 (Appendix, A-I).
These disclosure requirements were specifically imposed on
"alternate operator service companies":
The utilities and transportation cpmmission shall by rule .
require, at a minimum, that any telecommunications
company, operating as or contracting with an alternate
operator services company, assure appropriate disclosure to
consumers of the provision and the rate, charge or fee of
services provided by an alternate operator services'

-18 -

RCW 80.36.520 (Appendix, A-I). ImPDrtantly, the Legislature identified
whD was required to disclDse rates tD cDnsumers. The phrase "alternate
. .operator services cDmpany" was defined in the statute:
FDr the purposes .of this chapter, "alternate DperatDr
services company" means a persDn providing a cDnnectiDn
tD intrastate Dr interstate IDng-distance services frDm places
including, but nDt limited tD, hDtels, motels, hDspitals, and
custDmer-Dwned pay telephDnes.
RCW 80.36.520. There has never been any dDubt that priSDns are amDng
the places cDvered by the statute.

See WAC 480-120-141(2)(b)

(Appendix, B-1). CDllect calls from prisons require the "cDnnectiDn"
described in the statute..
The Legislature sDUght tD give the statute SDme teeth by making a
violatiDn .of these provisiDns aper se viDlatiDn .of the CDnsumer PrDtectiDn
Act ("CPA"):
In additiDn tD the penalties prDvided in this title, a viDlatiDn

.of RCW 80.36.510, RCW 80.36.520, Dr RCW 80.36.524
cDnstitutes an unfair Dr deceptive act in trade Dr cDmmerce
in viDlation .of chapter 19.86 RCW; the consmner'
prDtectiDn act. Acts in viDlation DfRCW 80.36.510, RCW
80.36.520, Dr RCW 80.36.524 are nDt reasDnable in relatiDn
tD the develDpment and preservatiDn .of business, and
cDnstitute matters vitally affecting the public interest fDr the
purpDse .of applying the cDnsmner protectiDn act, chapter
19.86 RCW. It shall be presmned that damages tD the
cDnsumer are equal tD the CDSt .of the service provided plus
twD hundred dDllars. AdditiDnal damages must be proved.
RCW80.36.530 (Appendix, A-3).

-19 -

To effectuate this public policy, the Legislature directed the
WUTC to issue rules requiring rate disclosure by "any teleCommunications

company, operating as or contracting With an alternate operator services

RCW 80.36.520 (Appendix, A-I).

It is the violation of

WUTC rules .that gives rise to an actionable claim under the CPA. See

Judd v. American Tel. & Tel. Co., 152 Wn.2d 195, 204, 95 P.3d 337
(Wash. 2004). Thus, plaintiffs have standiD.g if they can demonstrate iliat
issues of fact exist with respect to whether T-Netix or AT&T violated the
WUTC regulations in connection with telephone calls they received.
B. .

The WUTC required OSPs to disclose rates, in
real time, to consumers paying for telephone calls
from public telephones .

. In 1991, the WUTC required alternate operator services companies
to disclose rates for a particular call "immediately, upon request, and at no
charge to the consumer." WAC 480-120-141(5)(a)(iv) (1991) (Appendix,

D-S). The operator was required to provide "a quote of the rates or
charges for the call, including any surcharge." ld. An alternate operator
services company, or AOSC, was defined to include any company, other
than a local exchange company, providing a connection to intrastate or
interstate long-distance or to local services from locations of call

WAC 480-120-021 (1991) (Appendix, D-4). Neither T-

Netix nor AT&T is a local exchange company, so the regulation applies to


them if they provided the requisite "connection" described in the
regulation. [d.

In 1999, the WUTC amended the regulation, substituting the term
"operator services provider" (OSP) for "alternate operator s.ervices
company" (AOSC).

See WAC 480-120-021 (1999) (Appendix, C-3).

Although the regulation now applied to local exchange compauies, the
definition of an OSP was identical in all other respects to the older
definition of "alternate operator services company."

Thus, the terms

AOSC and OSP are synonymous and interchangeable for purposes of this
appeal. We shall refer to both as OSP.
The 1999 regulation imposed stronger disclosure requirements.
The rules· required automatic rate disclosure that is activated by pressing
keys on the telephone keypad:
Before an operator-assisted call from an aggregator location
may be connected by a presubscribed OSP, the OSP must
vernally advise the consumer how to receive a rate quote,
such as by pressing a specific key or keys, but no more than
two keys, or by staying on the line ... This rule applies to
all calls from pay phones or other aggregator locations,
including prison phones ....
WAC 480-120-141(2)(b) (1999) (Appendix, B-1).
As stated by the WUTC in its Order adopting the new
requirements:. "The verbal rate disclosure option is necessary to better
inform consumers, fosters a more competitive environment, and it serves

- 21-

the public interest"

wurc Order No. R-452, Dockei No; UT-970301,p.

9 (Appendix, E-9).
Under both the 1991 and 1999 regulations, the responsibility to
disclose rates is placed. squarely on the shoulders of the company
providing operator services. see WAC 480-120-141(2)(b) (1999) ("the
OSP must verbally advise the consumer how to receive a rate quote ... ")

(emphasis added); WAC 480-120-141(5)(a)(iv) (1991) ("The alternate

operator services company shall: ... immediately, upon request, and at
no charge to the consumer, disclose to the consumer: a quote of the rate or
charges for the call, including any surcharge") (emphasis added).
Plaintiffs' standing to bring this action therefore
. whether:



(1) T-Netix and/or AT&T were OSPs on calls received by

Ms. Judd or Ms. Herivel; and (2) T-Netix and/or AT&T failed to disclose
rates on those calls, thus violating the regulation. Alternatively, plaintiffs
have standing if AT&T and/or T-Netix "contracted with" an OSP that
failed to disclose rates on calls received by one of the plaintiffs. This is
because the Legislature directed the WUTC to
require, at a minimum, that any telecommunications
company, operating as or contracting with an alternate
operator services company, assure appropriate disclosure to
consumers of the provision and the rate, charge or fee of
services provided by an alternate operator services
RCW 80.36.520 (Appendix, A-I) (emphasis added).



T-Netix was an Operator Services Provider and
failed to disclose rates on calls received by
Ms. judd and Ms. Herlvel. .
. Plaintiffs' expert, Ken Wilson; is a IS-year veteran of Bell Labs

and worked for a diVision of AT&T after that. CP 460-61. He reviewed
defendants' responses to discovery, declarations and affidavits submitted
by T-Netix and AT&T, and hundreds of documents produced by them.

See, e.g., CP 46~-63, 465-66, 471.




Among his many conclnsions
the· Washington



telecommunications system are the following:

All calls made by·inmates are collect calls and therefore require

operator services for completion. CP 461-62.


.In 1999, T-Netix began upgrading its inmate operator services
platforms in more than 1400 locations at correctional facilities across the
country to accept remote programming and to provide precise" rate quotes.
CP 470. In February 2002, T-Netix asked the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) for additional time to complete upgrades that would

(foottwle continuation)
Washington, lind one that covers the southwestern comer of the" state. See UTC
News & Views (Winter 2002)." Calls between two different LATAs are known
as interLATA calls.



allow its platforms to give precise rate quotations when conneeWtg calls
from inmates. ld.
In addition to the evidence detailed in Mr. Wilson's declaration, T~
Netix has filed documents with the WUTC indicating that it provides
"alternate operator services," CP 365, and that its "automated operators
will inform the CClnsumer and the called party that they are using T-Netix
Telecommunications Services, Inc.'s automated Operator service at the
start· of each call."

CP 371.

As early as 1992, one of T~Netix's

predecessors-in-interest filed documents with the WUTC indicating that it

was providing "alternate operator services." " CP 379, 382-83, 394; see
CP 398-401 (noting name change from Gateway Technologies to T-Netix
in 2001). T-Netix also obtained a waiver from the" FCC's parallel federal
requirement that an OSP provide rate disclosure on interstate calls.

cr 360.61.

-25 -

As. previously noted, plaintiff Tara Herivel received inmate calls
.from the WashingtOn State Reformatory and Airway Heights correctional
fatlilities. Plaintiff Sandy Judd received calls from the Washington State
Reformatory, McNeil Island, and Clallam Bay facilities.

T-Netix admits ·it did not provide rate disclosure at any of the
prisons from winch plaintiffs receive.d CP 411. . Consequently;T_
Netix violated. WUTC regulations in connection with calls received by
Plaintiffs have standing.


Issues of fact exist r~garding whether AT&T acted
as an OSP in connection wlthinterLATA calls,
including a call received by Ms. Herivel.
One of the central disputes on appeal is whether plaintiff Tara

Herivel received an interLATA call from the Airway Heights prison. This
issue is significant because T-Netix's motion for summary judgment
assumed that all inmate-initiated calls received by the plaintiffs were
intraLATA calls. See CP 254-55. Under T-Netix's theory, all local and


intraLATA calls (but not interLATA calls) were exempt from disclosure
requirements. The theory proceeds as follows: (1) all calls received by
plaintiffs were inttaLATA clills; (2) all such calls were carried by local
exchange carriers (US West, G1E, or PTI); (3) all of these carriers were
exempt. or received waivers from the rate disclosure requirements;
therefore (4) no rate disclosure was required on such calls. See CP 254,
We show later in this brief why T-Netix's theory is wrong as a
matter oflaw. But it also contains a fatal factual assumption; namely, that
Ms. Herivel did not receive an interLATA call. If she did, then T-Netix's

theory falls apart because (a) AT&T was responsible for carrying
interLATA calls, VRP at 31-32,39; CP 46, 247, and (b) AT&T was not a
local exchange carrier. VRP 39 (admission by AT&T's counsel: "AT&T
... is not a local exchange carrier or LEC.") As such, AT&T did not have
an exemption or waiver from rate disclosure requirements and one of the
two defendants in thiscase--either AT&T or T-Netix-was responsible
for rate disclosures on interLATA calls. T-Netix and AT&T point the
. finger at each other with respect to who bore that responsibility.
In the next two sections, we show (1) that Ms. Herivel did indeed
receive an interLATA phone call, thus puncturing T-Netix's theory; and

-27 -

(2) that either T-Netix or AT&T was legally responsible for disclosing
rates on that call.


IBsues of fact exist regarding whether Tara
Herivel received an interLATA call from the
Airway Heights prison.

In the latter half of 1997 or 1998, plaintiff Tara Herivel received a
phone call, at her Seattle apartment, from Don Miniken, an inmate at the
Airway Heights Corrections Center near Spokane.

CP 267-68. They

discussed a lawsuit brought by. Mr. Miniken. CP 268. In particular, they
discussed the published opinion in that case, Miniken v. Walter, 978 F.
Supp. 1356 (B.D. Wash. 1997). ld. Ms. Herivel subsequently published
an article, based in part on her conversation with Mr. Miniken, in the
January-February 1999 issue of the Washington Free Press.

ld.; see

Cl> 211-76 (copy ofal:ti\lle). She quoted Mr.Miniken in the article; those
quotes were taken from her telephone conversation with him. CP 268,
274. No rate disclosure was provided for this call. CP 268.
Mr. Miniken corroborated Ms. Herivel.



reinembered making a call, from the Airway Heights facility, to
. Ms. Herivel in Seattle. ld. He remembered speaking to her about his
lawsuit and, in particular, the summary judgment order that was published
in the Federal Supplement.


He also recalled that Ms. Herivel's

-28 -

p~se in speaking with him was to iriterview him about the case for an

article she was writing on First Amendment issues. ld.
According to T-Netix, the conversation between Ms. Herivel and

Mr. Miniken never happened. VRP 31-33; CP 255-56, 324-25. Why?
Because Ms. Herivel's declaration is "conclusory." VRP at 32. T-Netix
never even acknowledged Mr. Miniken's corroborating declaration.
Instead, it offered two short affidavits from one of its vice-presidents
stating that she requested her subordinates to research whether Ms. Herivel
received a call from Airway Heights and could find no such calls. CP 28081; CP _.4 Notably, T-Netix's research was restricted to the June 1, 1998
to December 31, 1998 time period. CP _. T-Netix ·didn't bother to
research calls placed earlier-despite Ms. Herivel's statement that the call
... iiiiiybave-been placedsOlnetime after August 26,


Compare id. with

CP 267.
To support its contention that the call never took place, T-Netix
emphasized that Ms. Herivel did not produce any bills listing a call from
Airway Heights. CP 255. But Ms. Herivel diligently searched for and was
unable to find copies of her bills from the 1997-98 time period (which was



years before she filed suit). CP 268, 1 3. Moreover; 'when she requested
copies ofher bills, Qw~ told her that it does not provide copies that far in
the past Id. Reinforcing her sworn declaration, Ms. Herivel identified
Airway Heights in an interrogatory asking her to list prisons from which.
she had received


calls-before T-Netix ever raised the

standing question. CP 97-99.
Recognizing the fact issue'raised by Ms. Herivel and Mr. Miniken, ,
T-Netix resorted to jury arguments. Thus, T-Netix argned that the trial
court should ignore Ms. Herivel's allegations because "their weight pales
in comparison" to the affidavits of its own vice-president CP 325
, (emphasis added).

T-Netix further claimed 'that, "even granting

, Ms. Herivel all inferences," the "preponderance" of the evidence showed
that she never made the call. Id. (emphasis added).
"[I]t is axiomatic that on a motion for summary judgment the trial
court has no authority to weigh evidence 'or testimonial credibility, nor
may we do so on appeal." No Ka Oi Corp. v. National 60 Minute Tune,

Inc., 71 Wn. App. 844, 854 n. 11, 863 P.2d 79 (1993). Ms. Herivel's

(footnote continuation)
4 Counsel will file a supplemental designation of clerk's papers containing
the second affidavit of T-Netix's vice-president. When that has been
accomplished, counsel will fill in the appropriate citation and file an appropriate
substitution page.


.declaration is hardly· conclusory--eertainly less so


the competfug

affidavits of Ms. Lee.· And it is corroborated by Mr. Miniken and her
. responses to interrogatories from months before. Viewing the evidence
and inferences in a light most favorable to plaintiffs, there is but one.
conclusion: the trial court erred in necessarily weighing and discrediting
the evidence from Ms. Rerivel and Mr. Miniken. 5

Issues of fact exist regarding whether T-Netix or
AT&T was the 08P for the interLATA call
received by Tara Rerivel.

Ms. Herivel's receipt of the interLATA call raises fact questions
with regard to whether AT&T or T-Netix provided operator services for
that call. Before T-Netix ever moved for summaryjudgrnent, AT&T filed
a· motion for summary determination in the WUTC.

CP 43.~.


motion, which was still pending when the trial court granted summary
. judgment, argues that T-Netix provided automated operator services at six
prisons, including Clallam Bay, from which Ms. Judd received a call.
CP 437 & n.l. AT&T further contends that it is

5 The trial court recognized the dispositive nature of this issue, noting that
neither T-Netix nor AT&T appeared to dispute that sununary judgment would be
improper if the court determined there was an issue offact. VRP at 60-61. Even
counsel for AT&T acknowledged that if there were displited factual issues
relating to whether an interLATA call was made and whether AT&T or T-Netix
was an asp with respect to that call, then those issues would have to be decided
by the WUTC. VRP at 39-40.


T-Netix equipment, programmed by T-Netix, that makes
the jate disclosures at those fucilities. If there were
mistakes made in regard to those rate disclosures, as the
.plaintiffs allege, 'they would be the responsibility ofT-Netix
. because T-Netix serves' as the OSP at those facilities.
CP 439. AT&T also submitted an affidavit from its Market Manager for
the corrections industry, who alleged that
AT&T does not own or provide the operator interface
between the called party and the collect call announcement
or the access to rate quotes. These services were provided.
byT-Netix.. ,.
CP 442,



T-Netix, on the other hand, points the finger right back at AT&T.
With respect to interLATA calls, T-Netix contends that AT&T is the OSP.
CP 444. IfT-Netixis correct, then AT&T is liable for failing to make rate
disclosure on the interLATA call received by Ms. H~vel,
. . as it was. not
exempt from the regulations, nor did it obtain any waiver from the WUTC.
T-Netix's counsel openly acknowledged that the two defendants in
this case were pointing the finger at each other with respect to who
functioned as the OSP on interLATA calls. VRP at 31.

The only

.' argument offered by T-Netix in response to this point was this: "[T]he one
thing we know, Judge, is that there are no interLATA calls in dispute in
this case." VRP at 31-32.


RegardleSs of which defendant is right on the OSP issue6, the
existence of the interLATA call, and the question of who was responsible
for rate disclosure,·are questions that must be answered by the WUTC.
. One of these two defendants violated WUTC regulations by failing to
disclose rates on a call personally received by Ms. Herive~. That violation .'
gives·rise to


per se' claim under the CPA. Ms. Herivel's injuries are

redressable through this lawsuit and she has standing to pursue it.
. Other fact questions exist with regard to AT&T's role as an asp or
.as an entity that contracted with an asp.

In addition, AT&T

received intraLATA authority. as an interexchange carrier in Washington
in the· 1995 timeframe and as such could have been carrying both
interLATA and intraLATA calls from

Dac locations.

CP 465. Finally, .

AT&T contracted with T-Netix, thus exposing itself to liability under the
"contracting with" prong of the statute. See RCW 80.36.520 (regulations

6 Although plaintiffs' expert identifies T-Netix as the asp when T-Netix's
platform is used in conj,!nction with a particular .prison, T-Netix's position that
AT&T i~ the asp on all interLATA calls creates a fact issue, separate and apart
from the conclusions of plaintiffs' expert, with respect to whether AT&T was
the asp on the call received by Ms. Herlvel. The WUTC is the appropriate
agency to resolve this fact question in the first instance.

-33 -

shall require ''that any telec.ommunicati.ons c.ompany. .operating as or

contracting with an alternate .operat.or services .company. assure
appr.opriate discl.osure to c.onsumers") (emphasis added).

Defendants' . summary judgment argument is
wrong as a matter of law because it focuses on
the company that "carried" a call rather than on
the company that was the asp for a call.

The factual dispute c.oncerning the interLATA call received by
plaintiff Tara Herivel is sufficient, by itself, t.o reverse the trial C.ourt's
judgment. The judgment sh.ould alS.o be reversed on a legal point. The
central assumpti.on made by defendants-and apparently accepted by the
trial C.ourt-is that a telephone call is not subject to rate disclosure
requirements as long as an entity that was involved in the transmission of
the call was exempt from or had obtained a waiver from rate disclosure

F.or example, T-Netix relies .on the fact that the 1991

regulati.on exempted l.ocal exchange carriers (LECs) from ratediscl.osure.
It further relies on the fact that Qwest and Veriz.on .obtained waivers

the 1999 disclosure requirements. Using these exempti.ons and waivers as
essential building bl.ocks in its argument, T-Netix then claims that because
all calls received by plaintiffs were transmitted, in part, by an LEC like
Qwest .or Veriz.on, the calls themselves were exempt discl.osure
requirements. See CP 254 ("[E]ach .of these carriers was exempt ...
.the rate discl.osure requirements.... These calls were n.ot required to

-34 -

include rate disclosures.") (emphasis added); see CP 256 (arguing that rate
disclosure did not apply to calls "carried by" LECs that were exempt).
. As we have just seen, this argument fails because not every call
was carried by an LEC-Tara Herivel received an interLATA call that was
carried byAT&T.
But defendants' argument suffers from a more fundamental flaw.
The dispositive question is not who "carried" or transmitted a call or
whether a "call" is exempt, but rather Who .provided operator services.
The regulatory exemption, and any waivers obtained from the
Commission, applied only to specific companies.

T-Netix cannot

"piggyback" on the waivers or exemptious of other companies by claiming
that simply because an exempt company carried a particular call, then all
entities involved in the call are exempt.
This conclusion flows directly from the terms of the statute and
regulations. Under RCW 86.30.520, it is a "telecommunications company,

operating as or contracting with an alternate operator services
company," that must "assure appropriate disclosure to consumers." The
1991 regulation requires an "alternate operator services company" to
disclose rates "immediately, upon request, and at no charge to the
consumer." WAC 480-120-141(5)(a)(iv) (1991) (emphasis added). And
the 1999 regulation requires "(he OSP' to ''verbally advise the consumer

-35 -

how to receive a raUl quote." WAC 480.120.141(2)(b) (1999) (emphasis
added). .From a functional point of view, this makes perfect sense.

An LEC is not responsible for rate disclosure unless the LEC is

also operating as an OSP. But if the OSP at a particular prison is not an .
LEC, then the LEC's exemption or waiver cannot insulate the OSP from
its disclosure obligations.
. 1bis is where defendants' argument breaks down. Ken Wilson,
plaintiffs' expert, was careful to distinguish between the functions
performed by an LEe and the functions performed by T-Netix at those
prisons where T·Netix owned and operated its platform: .


Defendants· cannot argue, therefore, that the LECs were in fact
operating as OSPs on calls received by plaintiffs. More precisely, the triill
court was required to accept Mr. Wilson's observations and leave factual
disputes concerning the roles performed by the parties to adjudication by
the WUTC. If AT&T and T-Netix dispute the conclusions reached in

Mr. Wilson's investigation, they are· free to do so. before the agency that
was tapped by the trial court to answer these questions. For purposes of
this appeal, those conclusions must be accepted as true.


Administrative Law Judge properly recognized that factual issues
precluded summary judgment on standing. CP 215, 224.
During oral argument, the trial court appeared to be troubled by the
fact that Qwest and Verizon had obtained waivers from the 1999
regulation. VRP 47-49; 52-56. The orders granting the waivers do not
identify specific prisons where either Qwest or Verizon were providing
operator services. See CP 426-34. The order pertaining to GTE (Verizon)
does not even mention prisons. CP 426-29. Reasoning that these walvers
would not have been sought or granted if these LECs did not have some
rate disclosure obligations, the trial court wondered why T-Netix would
still be on the hook for failing to disclose rates. See VRP 47-49; 52-56.·
The answer is that, while Qwest and Verizon may well have been
that they were.
the OSP with regard to certain prisons, there is no evidence

-37 -

the OSP for aU prisons. Indeed, the evidence before the Court is that
peither of these companies served

as the OSP at any of the prisons from

which plaintiffs received calls.

The waivers obtained by Qwest and'

Verizon undoubtedly had value for these companies-they served as an
OSP at many non-prison facilities and Qwest apparently served as an OSP
at some prisons from which plaintiffs did not receive calls. But the
relevant question is whether the waivers obtained by Verizon and Qwest
somehow eliminated rate disclosure obligations on calls' made from
prisons where either T-Netix or AT&T served as OSP.

Because the

regulations require OSPs to disclose rates, that obligation remained intact
with respect to calls from any ·institution served by an OSP that did not
obtain its own waiver.

The trial court's judgment should be reversed with directions to the
trial court to reactivate its primary jurisdiction referral to the WUTC.
DATED: February 17,2006.

P. Meier (WSBA #19991)
s for Appellants


Certificate of Service
I certify, under penalty of peIjury pursuant to the laws of the
United States and the State of Washington, that on February 17, 2006, a
true copy of the foregoing OPENING BRIEF OF APPELLANTS was served
upon counsel of record as indicated below:
Michael P. McGinn
800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 400Q
Seattle, WA 98104
Attorneys for AT&T
Charles H.R. Peters
6600 Sears Tower
Chicago, IL 60606-6473
Attorneys ror AT&T

[xl By Legal Messenger

[xl By United States Mail

Letty S.D. Friesen
919 Congress Avenue, Suite 900
Austin, TX 78701-2444
Attorneys for AT&T

[xl By United States Mail

Laura Kaster
One AT&T Way, Room 3A213
Bedminster, NJ .07921
Attorneys for AT&T

[xl By United States Mail

Donald H. Mullins
Sandrin B. Rasmussen
701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4750
Seattle, WA 98104
Attorneys for T-NETIX

[xl By Le g~l Messenger

Stephanie A. Joyce
Glenn B. Manishin
1200 19th . Street, NW, Suite 500
Washington, DC 20036

[xl By United States Mail

Attorneys forT~NETIX .

: DAlED: February 17, 2006, at Seattle, Washington.








baying their phones blocked from ac-

ceSs to information delivery s.nlees.

(2) It Is the intent of the legislature
lbAt" the ,u1l\111es and transportation
commission aud local exchange compa-

nies, to the _
feasible, distinguish
between lrifimnatlon delivery seIVices
that _ mbIeadlng to consum..... directed at minors, or otherwise objoctioDable and adopt pollcles and rules
thai accomplish the pmposes of RCW
80.36.500 with the leasl adverse effect
on Information delivery senlces thai
are not misleading to consumers, direct·
ed at minors, or otherwise objectionable." [1988 c 123 § I.]
IJiveStlgatlon and report by collllll1sslon: "By October I. 1988. the comIilisslon shall investigate and report to the

committees on energy and utilities in
the house of. representatives and the
senate on' methods to protect minors
from obscene. indecent, and sa1aclous
materIaJs avallable throush the. use of
Information delivery seIVIces- 'lbe investigation shall inc1udt a study of personalldentl8cation numb..... credli cards.
scramblers. and beep-tone devices as
methods of 1imitlog access." [1988, c
123 § 3.]

Severabl1ll)'-1988 c 123: "If any provision of this act or its appllce.tlon to
any person or circumstance Is held in-

valid, the remainder of the act or the

application of the provision 10 other
persons or circumstances is not affect·
ed." [1988 c 123 § 4.]

Cross References
. Informationdellvery services, see § 19.162.010 etseq.

Library References
Telecommunications ""321. 321.1.
WESTLAWToplc No. 372.

CJ.S. Telegraphs. Telephones. RadIo.,
and Television § 78.

80.36.510. Legislative finding
The legislature finds that a growing number' of companies provide, in a nonresidential setting, telecommunications services necessary to long distance service without disclosing the services
provided or the rate; charge or fee. The ,legislature finds that
provision of these services without disclosure to 'consumers is a
deceptive trade practice.
[I988c91§ I.].




80.36.520. Disclosure o( alternate operator services
The utilities and transportation cominission shall by rule require, at a minimum. that any telecommunications company, oper- '
ating as or contracting with an alternate operator ,services compa·
ny, assiire appropriate disclosure to consumers of the provision
and the rate, charge or fee of services provided by an alternate
operator services company.
For the purposes of this chapter, "alternate operator services
company" means a person providing a connection to intrastate or
interstate long-distance services from places including, but not


EXt-HBIT A·-/,









limited to, hotels, motels, hospitals, and customer-owned pay




[1988 c 91 § 2.]

. Te1eccmmuDIc:atI*"3U.
WBs'l'L\WTopIcNo. 372.


JJbrary BeIereDces
c.J.s. TeIe~ TelepboDes, RadIo,
and TeIriIsIon §§ 79, 85.

Alternate operator servl~ complllll~Regiatra.


All alternate operator service conipllllles providing services with~
in the state shall register with the commission as a telecommuni.
cat;ioDS comp\UlY before providing aIternate operator semces. The
commission ll1ll¥ deny an application for registration of an alter·
nate operator services company if, after a hearing, it finds that the
services and charges to be offered by the company are not for the
public convenience and advllIltage. The commission may suspend
the registration of an alternate operator services company if, after
a hearlog, it finds that the company does not meet the service or
disclosure requirements of the commission. Any alternate operator
services company that provides service without being properly
registered with the commission shall be subject to a penalty of not
less than five hundred' dollars and not more than one thousand
dollars for each and every offense. In case of a continuing offense.
every day's continuance shall be a separate offense. The penalty
shall be recovered in an action as provided in RCW 80.04AOO.
[1990 c 247 § 2.]
L1bl'lU')' References
Telecommunications ~311.
WFZrLAW Topic No. 372.

CJ.S. Telegraphs, Telephones, Radlo,
and TeI.evislon §§ 79, 85.

80.36.524.' Alternate operator service compllllles-Rules
The comniisslon may adopt rules that provide for minimum
service levels for telecommunications companies providing alternate operator services. The rules may provide a means for suspending the registration of a company providing alternate operatQr services if the company fails to meet minimum service levels or
if the company fails to provide appropriate disclosure to consumers of the protection afforded under this chapter.·
[1990 c 247 § 3.]









80.36.530. Violation of consumer protection act-Damages,
In addition to the penalties provided in this title: a violation of
RCW 80.36.510, 80.36.520, or 80.36.524 constitutes an unfair or
deceptive act in trade or commerce in violation of chapter 19.86
RCW, the consumer protection act. Acts in violation of RCW
80.36.510. 80.36.520. or 80.36.524 are.not reasonable in relation
. to the development and preservation of business, and constitute
matters vitally affecting the public inter~ for the purpose of
applying the consumer protection act, chapter 19.86 RCW. It shall
be presumed that damages to the consumer are equal to the cost of
the service provided plus two hundred dollars. Additional damages
must be proved.
[1990 c247 §4; 1988 c 91 § 3.]
Library References
Consumer Protection ¢;I6.
WES'ILAW Topic No. 92H.

CJ,S. Trade to Marl<s, Trade to
Names, and unfair Competition
, §§ 237to 238.

80.36.540. Telefacsimile

messages-UnsoUclted transmission-Penalties
(1) As used in this section, "telefacsimile message" means the
transmittal of electronic signals' over telephone lines for conversion into written text.
. (2) No person. corporation, partnership, or association shall .
initiate the unsolicited transmission of telefacsiinlle messages promotiIig goods or services for purchase by the recipient.
(3Xa) 'Except as provided in (b) of this subsection, this section
. shall.not apply to telefacsimile messages sent to a recipient with
whom the initiator has had a prior contractual or business rela,tionsbip.
(b) Aperson shall not initiate an unsolicited telefacsimlle message under the provisionS of (a) of this subsection if the person
knew or reasonably should have known that the recipient is a
governmental entity.
(4) Notwithstanding subsection (3) of this section, it is unlawful
.to initiate any telefacslmi\e message to a reqipient who has previously sent a written or telefacsimile message to the initiator clearly
indlcat1Dg that $e recipient does 'not want to receive telefacslmi\e
messages from the initiator.
, (5) The wisoUcited transmission of telefacslmi\e messages promoting goods or;services for purchase by the recipient is a matter



WA ADC480-120-141
WAC 480-120-141
wasIL AdmIn. Code48O-I:zO:141 .

Cumot wIIh !!IJ!C!!iImente adopted tbrough 5;-23-01.
.480-120-141. Operator servlce providers (0SPs).

(I) GeDeraL ThiB section giVes Informadon to operator serviceprovlden! (OOPs) that provide operator servlces
froin pay phones' and other aggregator locations within Washington. All telecom!Dl!D!rnUlons compailies providing
.operator services (both live and automated) must comply with this and all other ru1es relating to
telecollllllUlliCations companies not specifically waived by order of the commission. The absence from these rules
of specific requirements of the Americans with DisabUitles Act and of other local, state or federal requirements
does not excuse OSPs from compliance with· those requlrements.
. .
(a) Each operator service provider (OSP) mUst majntain a current list of the customers it serves In Washington
and the locations and telephone IlUIIIbera where the service is provided.
(b) No OSP may provide service to a PSP that is not fully in compliance with the rules.

(c) Forpurposes of this section, 'consumer' means the party iDltiatlng and/or paying for scali using operator
services. In collect calls, .both the originating party and the party on the terminating ~d of the call are consUmers.
'Customer' means the call aggregator or pay phone service provider, i.e., the hotel, motel, hospital, correctional
facilitylprison, or campus, contractiog with an OSP for service.
(2) Disclosure.

(a) What must be posted. The following information must be clearly and legibly posted· on or near the front of a
. pay phone, and must not be obstructed by advertising or other messages:
(i) The name, address, and without-charge number of all presubscrlbed operator service providers, as registered
with the commission. ThiB' information must be updated within thirty days after a change of OSPs;
(il) Notice to consumers that they can access other iOI)g distance carriers;

(ill") In contrastiog colors, the commission compliance number for consumer complaints, to include the following
Information: 'If you have Ii complaint about service from this pay phone and are unable to resolve it by calling the
repair/refund number or operator, please call the commission at 1-888-333--WUTC (9882)'; and

(iv) Placarding as a result of rule changes shall be in place within sixty days after the effective date of the rule
(b) Verbal disclosure of rates. Before an operator-assisted call from an aggregator location may be connected by
a presubscrlbed OSP, the OSP must verbally advise the consumer how to receive a rate quote, such as by pressing
a .specific key or keys, but no more than two keys, or by staying on .the line. This message must precede any
further verbal information advising the consumer how to complete the call, such as to enter the consumer's calling
card number. ThiB rule applies to all calls from pay phones or other aggregator locations, including prison phones,
and store-and-forward pay phones or 'smart' telePhones. After hearing an OSP's message, a comer may waive
their right to obtain specifiC rate quotes for the call they wish to make by choosing not to press the key specified
in the OSP's message to receive Slich in.formation or by hanging up. The rate quoted for the call must include any
applicabie surcharge. Charges to the user must not exceed the quoted ral\l.

Copr. @West2OO1
. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt.
. . Works


( .1'



PageZ, .

(3) ~ Pay phoneS mUst provide access to the services JdendfiecJ In WAC 480-120-138(3).
(4) Branding. The operaioi: servk:c provider must:

(a) IdeaIIfy theOSP providing the servjce audibly 8IId dIstIncI1y at the begbmIug of every call, including an
annoUDCelllllllt to the called party 011. caDs placed collect.
(b) J!osure that the beginning of the callis DO Jater Ihan innnedlately foUowlng the prompt to enter billing
Infonilation on auto1iIated caDs and, on live 8IId automated operator caDs. wheIl the callis initially routed to the

(c)'State the DaIIIC of the company as registered with the commission (or Its registered 'doing business as' name)
whenever referring to the OSP. Terms such as 'company" 'coJlllIlUDications,' 'inCorporated,' 'of the northwest,'
etc., may be omitted when not necessary to Identify clearly the OSP.
(5) Bi11ing. The operatOr service provider must:

(a) Provide to the billing company app1lcable call detail necessary for bi1llng purposes,' as well as' an address and
toll free. telephone number for COJl8llllle[ inquiries.
(b) Ensure that consumers are not billed for cal1s that are not completed. For billing purposes, calls must be
itemized, identified, ami rated from the pOint of origination to the point of termination. No call may be transferred
to another carrier by an OSP unless the call can be billed from the point of origin of the call.

(c) Charges billed to a credit card need not conform to the call detail requirements of this section. However, the
OSP must provide specific call detail in accordance with WAC 48()"120-106, Form of bills, upon request.
(6) Operational capabilities. The operator service provider must:

(a) Answer at least ninety percent of all cal1s within ten seconds from the time the call reaches the carrier's
(b) Maintain adequate facilities in alIlocat!oas so the overall blockage rate for lack of facilities, including as
pertineat the facilities for access to consumers' preferred Interexchange carriers, does not exceed one percent in
the timKOnsistent busy hour. Should excessive blockage occur, It is the respoasibility of the OSP to detcrmine
what caused the blockage and take itnmMiate stws to correct the problem.

(c) Offer operator services that equal or exceed the Industry standards in availability, technical quality, response
time, and that also. equal or exceed Industry standards In variety or are particularly adapted to meet unique needs
of a market segment•
. (d) Reoriglnate calls to·another carrier upon request and without charge when the cspability to accomplish
reorigination with screening and allow billing from the point of origin oflhe call, is In place. If reoriglnation is
not available, the asp must give dialing inBtructiQas for the coasumer's preferred carrier.
(1) Emergency calls. For purposes of emergency calls, every OSP must have the following capabilities:

(a) Be able to transfer the caller Into the appropriate E-911 system and to the public safety anSwering point
(pSAP) serving lite location of the caller with a single keystroke from lite operator's console, to Include automatic
identification of the exact location and address from which the call is being made;
(b) Have the ability for the openitor to stay on the line with the emergency call until the PSAP representative
advises the operator that they are no longer required to stay on the call; and

Copr. @West2001 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works

eXHIBIT &;.~



WAADC480-120441 .

Page 3

(c) Be Ible to provide a wi1hoiIt-dwgo I11IIIIber foi direct access to public iarety wwering polnls shouIit
additiomllDfoimation be needed when Ie8pC!IIdIDg to a can for assistance from a phone nh1/z!ng the provider's

services. That emergeocy contact Informadon IIIIISt DOt be considered proprietary.
(8) Fraud prokdioa. .

. (alA company providing telecommUllications service may not bill a canaggregalOr for the following:
(l) Cbargea bDled to a line fOr ea1Is which origlnatel\ from that line through the. \I8e of carrier access codes (i.e.,
10XXXkO. 10XXXJd)1. 950-XXXX), toll·free access ·codes. or when the can originating from that Ilne otherwise
reached ail Operator position, if the Originating line subscribed to outgoing can SCIeeDIng or pay phone specific
·ANI. coding digits and the illI11 was placed after the effective date of the outgoing can screening or pay phone
specific ANI coding digits order; or

(ii) CoRect or third·number billed ea1Is. if the line serving the call that was. billed bad subscnoed to Incoming call
screening (also termed billed number screening) and the can was placed after the effective date of the call
screening service order.
(b) Any calls bDled through the access line provider in violation of (aXi) or (ii) of this subsection must be
removed from the can aggregator's bill by the access line provider. If investigation by the access line provider
determines that the pertlneut call screening or pay phone specific ANI coding digits was operational when the call
was made, the access line provider may return the charges for the can to the telecommunications .company as not

(c) Any call billed directly by an OSP, or through a bil\ing method other than the access line provider, which is
billed in violation of (aXi) and (ii) of this subsection, must be removed from the call aggregator's bill. The
telecommunications company prOviding the service may request an investigation by the access line provider. If the
access line provider. determines that call screening or pay phone specific ANI coding digits (which would have
protected the call) was subscribed to by the call aggregator and was not opera~onal at the time the call was
placed, the OSP nrust bill the access line provider for the call.
(9) Enforcement. Operator service providers are subject to all pertinent provisions of law.
(a) Suspeuslon. The commission may suspend the registration of any company providing operator services if the
. company fails to meet minimum service levels or fai\s to provide disclosure to consumers of protection available
·under chapter 80.36 RCW and pertineut rules.
(i) Suspension may be ordered following notice and opportunity for hearing as provided in RCW 80.04.110 and
the procedural rules of the commission.
(Ii) No operator service provider may operate while its registration is suspended.
(iii) Except as required by federal law, no provider of pay phone access line service,may provide service to any
operator service provider whose registration is suspended.

(b) Penalty. The commission may assess a penalty as provided in RCW 80.36.522 and 80.36.524, upon any
company providing operator services if the company falls to meet minimum service levels or fails to provide
disclosure to consumers of protection available under chapter 80.36 RCW.

(c) Alternatives. The commission may take any other action regarding a provider of operator services as
authorized by law.
(d) Complalnts. Complaints and disputes will be treated in accordance with WAC 480-120-101.
Copr. II} West 2001 No Claim to Orig. U.S, Govt. Works





. ..

Page 4

WA ADC 4aO-J.20.141

Statutory AudJority: 1I.CW 80.04.160, 80.36.520 aad 80.01.040. !19-()2.. 020 (Order 11.451, Docket No.. '
tIT-970301), S 480-120-141, flied 12129198; eflI:cIi.e 1129199. Statutory AudIorIq.: 1I.CW 80.01.040. 95-1().()39
. (Order R- 430, Docket No. tIT-9SQ134), S 480-120.141, filed 4/28/95, effective 5129195; 94-20-010 (Otder
11.422, Docket No. tIT-940(49), S 480-J.20.14~, filed 9122194, effecIive 10123~. Statutory AudJority: 1I.CW
80.01.040 aad chapter 80.36 1I.CW. 91-20-162 (Order 11.-348, Docket No. ur-910828), S 480-120-141, filed 101
2191, effecIive 1112191; 91-13-078 (Order 11.-345, Docket No. tIT~9OO726), S 480-120-141, flied 6/18/91,
effective 7/19/91. Statutory AutbOrity: RCW 80.01.040 and 1988 c 91. 89-04-044 (Order R- 293, Docket No.
U-88-18B2-1I.), S 480-120-141. flied 1131189.


<General Materials (GM) - References. Annotations, or Tables >
WA ~ 480-120-141

Copr. © West 2001 No Clalm to·Orig. U.S.· Govt. Works





t }
Page 6

WA ADC 480-120-021
Wash. AdmIn. Code48O-1w:ml


Cumut wIdl amendmmta adopted throogh 5-23-01.


Ac:cesa tine· a circ:ult between a subscriber'i point of demarcation and a serving switcblng center.
Access IXJde • sequence of numbers that, when dialed, connect the caller to the provider of operator
telecomnnm1cation services 8s8oclated with that sequence.
Aggregator· is referenced in these rules as a call aggregator, defined below. Alternate operator services company ·is referenced in these rules as an operator servlce provider (OSP), defined
-Applicant· any person, fum, Pl\fIIIership; corporation, municipallty, cooperative organization, governmental
agency, etc., applying to the utility for new service or reconnection of discontinued service.
Automatic dlsling·announcing device· any automatic terminal equipment which incorporates the following
(1)(a) Storage capability of numbers to be called; or
(b) A random or sequential number generator that produces numbers to be _called; and

(c) An ability to dial a call; and
(2) Has the capability, working alone or iii conjunction with other equipment, of disseminating a prerecorded
message to the number called.

Automatic location identlficatioDldata management system (ALIlDMS) • ALUDMS is a feature that forwards to
the public safety answering point (pSAP) a caller's tel~hone number, the name and service address associated
with the telephone number, and supplementary Information as defined in the DMS for automatic display at the
PSAP. The DMS is a combination of manual procedures and computer programs used to create, slllre,_
manipulate, and updste data required to provide selective routing, ALI, emergency service nwDbers, and other
information associated with the calling party's telephone number.
Billing agent· a person such as a clearing house which facilitates billing and collection between a carrier and an
entity such as a local exchange company which presents the bill to and collects from the consumer.
Base rate area or primary rate area· the area or areas within an exchange area wherein mileage charges for
primary exchange service do not apply.
Call aggregator· any corporation, company, partnership, or person, who, in the ordinary course of its
operations, makes telephones- available to the public or to users of its premises for telephone caUs using a provider
of operator services, including but not limited to hotels, motels, hospitals, campuses, and pay phones (see also pay
phone service provider).
Centrex· a telecommunications service providing a subscriber with direct inward dialing to telephone extensions
Copr. @West2oo1 No Claim to Orig.

U.S. Govt. Works

EXHIBIT c .. ,



Page 7

WA ADC 480-120-021

arid dlrect outward dla1iDg from lhem.

Cemrat oflk:e - a switd1IDg unit In a te1ephone system. having the _suy ecuDPment imd operatiDg"


arraJJgeIIlIIlI for terminating aDd Ioten:oanecIiDg subscrlben' Uoes. farm« JIoes,
JIoes 8IId Intero~ tnmkB.
(More than one cential oflk:e may lie located In the 88IDO buildlDg or In the 88IDO exrbang~.)

Commission (agency) -Ina context meanfug a 8!afe agency, the Washington uti11tIes 8IId transportation


Coimnlsslon (financial) -In a ci!iuellt referring to compensation for telecommunications Services, a paymeut from
an AOS company to an aggregator based on die dollar volume of business, usually expressed as a percentage of
tariffed mess~ge toll charges.
Competitive telecommnnlcatlons company· a telecommunications company which Is classified as such by lhe
commission pursuant to RCW 80.36.320.
Competitive telecommunications service· a service which Is classified as such by the commission pursuant to
RCW 80.36.330.
Consumer· user not classified as a subscriber•
. Customer premises equipment (CPE) • telecommunications. terminal equipment, including inside wire, located at
a subscriber's premises on the subscn'ber's side of the atandard network interface/point of demarcation (excluding
pay telephones provided by the serving local exchange company).
Emergency calling - the ability to access emergency services by dialfug 9\1, or dialing a local number to police
and/or fire where 911 Is not available, without die use of a coin or the entering of charge codes. Where enhanced :
911 Is operational, the address displayed io ·the public safety answering point (PSAP) shall be that of the phone
instrumeJit If different from the public access line' demarcation point and the phone number must be that of the pay
Exchange - a unit established by a teleconimunications company for communication service in a specific
geographic area, which unit usually embraces a city, town or community and its environs. It usually consists of
one or more central offices together with the associated plant used in furnishing communication service to the
general public within that area.

Exchange area - the specific area served by, or purported to be served by an exchange.
Farmer line • outside plant telephone facilities 'owned and maintained by a subscriber or group of subscribers,
which line is connected with the facilities of a telecommunications company" for switching service. (Connection is
usually made at the base rate area boundary.)
Fanner station - a telephone instrument installed and in use on a farmer line.
Foreign exchange service - a communications exchange service that uses a private line to connect a subscriber's
local central office with a distant central office in a community outside !he subscriber's local calling area.
Interexchange telecommunications company - a telecommunications company, or division thereof, that does not
provide basic local service.
Interoffice facilities· facilities connecting two or more teleph0.!le ~itching centers.
Local cOin call'" a connection from a p~y phone within the local calling area of not less than fifteen minutes.
Copr. @ West 2001 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works




Page 8

WA ADC480-120-021

.. Locatim surcharge • a IIat, per-eall charge assessed by an operator service provider (()SP) on behalf of a calIaggregalOrlpay phone service provider In addition to IDessage toU Cbarges,lOcal call charges, IIId opCrator service'
charges. A \ocatlon 8ureharge is re)"lttM, iii whole or In part, to the call aggregator/pay phone setvice provider.

- . Operator service cliargC • a c:lwge, In addlIlon to !lie message toU charge or local call cl!arge, assessed for use of
a caUin& card, a c:redlt card, or fur automated or live operator service In completlDg il call.
Operator service provider (OSP) • any cotporatlon; cmnpany, partnership, or person providing a collJleClion to
Intrasta1e or Interstate 10ng.()lst8nce or to local services from locations of call, aggregators. The term 'operator

servkes' In thIa rule meaJI8 any intrastate teJeconnmmlcations service provided to a call aggregator location that
_includes as a component any automatic or nve asslstanI:e to a consumer to arrange fur billiog or completion, or
both. of an Intrastate telephone call Ihrough a method other than: Automatic completion with billiog to the
telephone from which the call originated; or completioll through III access code used by the consumer with billiog
to an a=unt prevIously established by the consumer with the carrier•
. Ouislde plant • the telephone equipment 8Ild facilities installed Oil, along, or under streets, aneys, highways, or
on private rights-of-way betweeo. the central office IIld subscribers' locations or betweeo. cell1ral offices.
Pay phone or pay telephone - Illy telepbone made available to the publlc on either a fee-per-(:a11 basiS,
Independent of lilY o~ commercial transaction, for the PUIpOse of making telephone calls, whether the
telephone Is coln- operated or -Is activated by ca1ling collect or using a calling card.
Pay phone access nne, public access nne, pay telephone access line, pay station service, pay phone service (PAL)
- is referenced in these rules as III access line, see above.
Pay" phone services· provision of pay phone equipment to the public for placement of local exchange,
Interexcbange, or operator service calls.
Pay phone service provider (PSP) - Illy corporation, company, partnership, or person who owns or operates nnd
makes pay phones available to the public.
Presubscn'bed provider of operator services - the provider of operator services to which the consumer is
connected when a callis placed without dialing an access code.
Person - unless the context Indlcittes otherwise, any natural person or an entity such as a corporation, partnership,
. mimiclpal cOrporstion, agency, or association.
Private brlllCb exchange (pBX) - customer premises equipment installed on the subscriber's premises that
functions as a switch, permitting the subscriber to receive Incoming calls, to dial any other telephone on the
premises, to access a tie trunk leading to another PBX or to access an outside trunk to the public -Swiiched
telephone network..
Private line - a dedicated, nonswitched telecommunications channel provided between two or more points.
Public safety answering point (PSAP) - an answering location for enhlllced 911 (E-911) calls originating in a
given area. PSAPs are designated as. a primary or secondary. Primary PSAPs receive E-911 calls directly from
the public; secondary PSAPs receive E-911 calls only on a transfe.r or relay basis from the primary PSAP.
Secondary PSAPs generally serve as ~ntralized answering locations for a particular type of emergency call.
Reverse search of ALIIDMS data base - a query of the automatic location identification (ALIIDMS) data base
initiated at the public safety answering point (pSAP) to obtain electronicallY the ALI data associated with a known
telephone number-for pUIpOses of handling an emergency call when the searched telephone line is not connected to
the PSAP.
Copr. © West 2001 No Claim to Orlg. U.S. Govt. Works


C .. 3




WA ADC! 480-1204l21

. Page9

Special cIrc:ult ~ an access Uno speeIaIly coiuntIooed to give it i:haracteristlc siJltab1e for b~ndJlng special or
unique SCIVfces.
StandaId network Interface (SNi) -1ho point of ioteIcoDDectIon betw~ telecommunIcatIoD company
· comm",,,,,,tIons facIIIIieI and termlDal equJpmmt, protecCive apparatus, or wiring at I subscriber', premises. The
network Interface or cJemucatIOn point Is IocatecI on 1be subscriIier', aide of 1ho tel~ company's
· protector. or 1ho equ1va1ent 1horeof In cases wbete a protector Is not employed. .
Station· a telepbone ~ Installed for the use of a subscriber to provide toU and exchange service.
Subscriber· any person. finn, partnership, corporation, municipality, cooperative organization. governmental
agenCy. etc., supplied with service by any uti\iIy.
. ToU stalion - a telePhone Instrument connected for toU servlceonly and to which message telephone toU rates
apply for each can made therefrom.
Trunk· a single or multichannel telecommunicationS medium between two or more switching entities which may
Include a PBX.

Utility. any corporation, company, association. joint stock association, partnership, person, their lessees,
· trustees or receivers appointed by any court whatsoever. owning, contr01l1ng, operating or managmg any
telephone plant Within the state of Washington for the purpose of furnishing telephone service to the public for
hire and subject to the jurisdiction of the commission.
Statutory Authority: RCW 80.04.160, and· 020 (Order R452, Docket No.
UT-970301), S 480.120-021, filed 12/29/98. effective 1129199. Statutory Autl).ority: RCW 80.01.040. 93-06,055
(Order R- 384, Docket No. UT·921192), S 480.120-{)21, filed 2126/93, effective 3129193. Statutory Authority:
RCW 80.01.040 and chapter 80.36 RCW. 91-13- 078 (Order R-345, Docket No. UT-900726), S 480.120-021,
filed 6/18/9i, effective 7/19/91. Statutory Authority: RCW 80.01.040 and 1988 c 91.89- 04-044 (Order R-293, .
Docket No. U-88-1882-R), S 480.120-021, filed 1131/89. Statutory Authority:RCW 80,01.040. 86-11-009 (Order
R-250, Cause No. U-85-58), S 480.120-021, filed 5/12186, effective 7/31186. Statutory Authority: RCW
80.()1.040 and 1985 c 450. 85-23-001 (Order R-242, Cause No. U-85-56), S 480.120-021, filed 1117/85.
Statutory Authority: RCW 80.04.060. 79-10.060 (Order R-131, Cause No. U-7942), S 480.120.021, filed 9/181
79. Statutory Authority: RCW 80.36.140. 79-03-031 (OrderR-I23, Cause No. U-79-01), S 480.120-021, filed 21
28m; Order R-25, S 480.120-021, filed 5/5n1. Formerly WAC 480.120-030.

<General Materials (OM) - References, Annotations, or Tables >
WA ADC 480.120-021

Copr.@West2OO1 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Oovt. Works







WasIlIlllOll Statt R'lllster, 1sS1It9l,,1.



i 26. 1991,


. . Wednesday•.J,


arsuments to IIIe commlSllol"iwrlJln, prior 10 May 21,
1·99I,.11lII orlIlIy at t.OO a.m~ WClIlIClday, June 5. 1991•.
In the commlBton', harin, room above noted. At the
I~ne 5. 1991, mecllna tho commission cOnsidered the
rule chan,e·proposal No wllnen or oral comments were
The rule chanae aWeot. no economic values. '. .
In revlewln, the Chllre record herein, il haa .been de- .
lermlned thai WAC 48Q..I2-D03 should be amended to
read as set forth In AppendiX it. shown below and by Ihi.
referenco made a part hereof. WAC· 480-)2-003 will
now rcOeCl Ihe proper reference to Ihe rules pe~lainins
to pracJlce and proCedure berore Ihe commission.
WHEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED That WAC 4So12.:003 IS sel ronh In Appendix A.. be Il\1ended I. a
rule of the WasbinSlon Utilities Ind Transporlalion
Commission 10 lake. eWeet pursuant 10 RCW·
. IT IS I;URTHER ORDERED Thatlhe order and.lhe
annued rule•. aCler 6rsl belna recorded in Ihe order res·
ISler of Ihe WashinBlon Uttulles and Transportation
Commission, shall be forwarded 10 Ihe code reviser lor
filing punuanllo chapler 34M RCW and chapler 1-21
DATED al Olympia. Washin,IOIi. Ihis 111h: day of
.June. 199 ••
Washlnglon Ulilitles and Transportation Commission
Sharon L. Nelson. Chairman.
Richard D. Casad. Commissioner
A. J. Pardini. Commissioner

PLAN 0' OPEIlATtON mlioYlJ),·....

iuIllO·atW;4UtA4O!i)'" Iller PlIbIIc IMulq. ..........lu1oll-

.................... PIal 0I!lPm1/oa, IS ICI fGnII III WAC
BI.,I-lIU. PIOIldoII ....... 1Io1ls "" 11M (air. -1lI! 1I\CI1lI""
lillie 14oIWsin.1oI
rat IIle
loacI. IIllIlhI'" ..""'."'....11 tiitIo ................... of ihl
""" 1110 U""""lIlpplG\¢. OYIDED·
E l1lJ .110


' 'IiII'




ClbftU ItS




t t


" n ull6)m

I .

or aft


..... ."IlCW 4Ul.loo. .........1Id.. ;rIor ....hJllMVnl>CO .IIaD
. ·be
10 bYe bteot hl'lol'."rifJ It.llln.'' ror I ...... G1hor
"II par""1 if prcmJ
PI .hora rbe I
pen.. ,01...
par"" ,"".irt<!
1 whn. OI ba .11Jibl< I.
udo prior
mFfo, .... or .lit!biB.,.!.. ,,,.......hh 1m..... kII 01'01'."1)' 1I.., or
emplojDltIl by 0 \ld1OII COYOO" br al amplll).f. , ...... h..llh lniu,once poIlq lib ... ba "'~m" YoI.nllry " ...i.lli.. 0( lbe prto, i..


SUrirtee coveraar.·



or IICW 41.41.14O(]1..."nil 'nd.. Inr prior

- health htSUfl1'Ict deemed to Jmvc bee. lavolunl.rl1y iermialled
roe I RO'" olh...
OOftl'ltmenl or premium, If I"" premium 11'
q.aire4lOeoalirI1IC CO\'ChlC under SIKh Insurance ,.ecceds byonHhfrd
or rao:!t ,be prcml\lm rcquf~ \0 cover tbe individu.l under Ihe pooI's


one hundred ~r dcdllttiblc plan•.



'£II.\IAIii •


· (Orde, k-J46,Dock.. No. TV-900ll6-FiI




. In themallerof·amendlnsWAC4SQ..I1-G03 relaliris
frelshl Carriers..
This aCllon I' laken pursuanl 10 NOllce.No. WSR 91to-081 filed ..lIh Ihe code re,lser on April 30. 1991.
The rule chanae herelnafler adopled shall lake elreci
pursuanllo RCW 34.05,~iO(2).
This rule-maklns proceedjns is broushl ·on pursuant
10 ReW 80.01.040 ,nd Is Inlended adml~iSlralively io
implement.lhal SlalUte.
This ·rule-maklns proceedins is In compliance wilh
Ihe Open Pilbllc Meelinss ACI (chaplet 42.30 ReW).
Ihe AdmlnlSlf&llve Procedure Act (ohapler 34.05
· RCW), the Siale Reslmr Art (chaplet 34.08 RCW).
· Ihe Slate Environmental Polioy Act .of 1971· (chapler
43,21C RCW). and lhe Resulalory· Fairness Aet (ch,p. ter 19..85 RCW), .
Polluanl to NOllce No. WSR 91-10-08\ Ihe above
~aller was SCheduled lor cOnsidenlion ,t 9:00 a.m.,
10 mOIOf



). 1991, In the Cominlsslon'a Hearin,
. lane n. 1991 . Room. Second 'rloor, C1Iandler· Plaza BuiTdln.. 1300
Da-W H. Ilod,cn
SOlJlb Evef'8RCII Park Drive $.W~ Ol>mpla, WA,.. lJc,.
fore Chairman Sharon L NelJon and Commlssioncn
Richard D.,Cuad IlId A. I. PardlnL
IDI1Innce Commissioner
'Under 1\10 tCl1lll or salel notICe, Inlerated poraons
S~IPi1 .. (AnI~I' ~ Il ...... ft~•. were all'onIe4 tile opponunllJ tei submit dala, mws. lit

. Dllnf .Intended AiIOplier



AMENDATORY SECTION (Amending Order R-24.
filed 4/16/11)
WAC 48Q..12-OO3 PROCEDURE. Excepi I I
·olherwlse provided In Ihls chapler. Ihe commission',
rules relating 10 procedure, chapler «(0186-68» 480-09
WAC shall sovern Ihe adml~lslrallve praclice and procedure in and berore Ihe commission in proceCllinss Involving. mOlor rreight carriero.

WSR 91-13-018

lOrd•• R:'145, Dock.. No. UT.,ooi2~FII'" I.n. II. 1991, 12:OS


·In the mallerorainending wAc 48Q..120-02i. 48012Q..106. 4SQ..12Q..I38.and 48G-12D-141 and adoptln,




WAC.4~110-143 rekllnt


com. . . ' .
filslClion Is ialten panuanllO Notlce No. \\'SR9I-



Wli~tqiotl Slile Rejlsltr. i_ 91':1)
MI. Rainier Que


~ Semj..ah-moo, ComCort Inn. . . •

It .Sea-Tac.. ~o"'" Blooin8arde..,. Hya" Re,ency-

Bellevue. Washlnaton Ind,cpendenl Tclep1Ionc 'Assocla03-IU lied Wllh lhe code reviser 011 Jlnuary·1J. 1991•.. li~ Public CommuniCIIllons of America. SheratonThe nile ebanle he"lnefler adopted .hall."Ialte efreet
Spokane, Four SeasOns, Inlepelel, Inc~ Whidbc1 Telepunuatlo lCW 34.05J80(11.
phone Co•• Telesphere limited. Inc. eentnl Telephone.
11lIs nIHlakllll. pcoCeedln, Is brouShl at pursuant' CSI Pay TeleplloDc IIIVQIOII, Raymond'R,hltn, and
l~ Iltw ~.oI.Q40 aDd chapler 10.36 RCW alld Is In- . Robert P. Dick.
tended adInIal1lrallvel~~ement these statulet.
• '. Onl commenll were .,lsO received rrom. Ylrlous per.
11IiI- nJo.inaklns
nl Is I. compliance with
lOllS In IfIls docbt. Illhe May • and May IS meed. as.
. the Opeahbllc Meellnp. Act (chapter 4130 lCW). . as well as at mwln8' under prior nollcca'1n Ihll dncltet.
·the Admlallllalive Procedure Act (chlpter 34.05
Oral commenll hive lice.... received In Ihis docltct C,om:
RCW),.Iha. Slale Reslsler Act (chlpler, 34.08 RCW).
'Dean RaMalL OrE.,.NW; Ray Ohrine, Paytel NW;
Ih"Stlle Etlvlronrnenlal Polley Act oC 1911 (chapler
DouS OwcnS, Paytd NW and CSI; Mark HlflCDbrilc.
U.1IC leW). and Ihe lelulalo,y Falrnm Act (chapFone Ame.rlel; Bill I!iales Ind Jim McAllum, ATa:T; ,
Robert Snyder, Wbldbey TelephDne; Clyde Maciver;
19." ICW).
Pursunl 10 NOllce No. WSR 91-03-121 Ihe above
NW PaypllOne &: Mel: Jim Wriahl, Intemallonll Pa.
mailer was .scbeduled Cor consldcrallon ai 9;00
cifte; Anhllr Bllller•.TRACE!t; Michael Dohen, Fane
Wednaclay. May I. 1991. In Ihe Commission's Hearing
America: William aarlin8. Public Counlel: Kay
OodC,ey. Sleven Kennedy. TRACER; CIIII' Websler.·
Room, Second Roar. Cbandle, Pia.. Buildin.. 1300
Soulh E","een p.rlt D,lve S,W~ Ol)'mpia, WA.. be;
Washin810n Siale Holel .t Molel Assocllllon; Tilm
fore OaInnan Sharon L. Nelson and Comrnisslone~
Kent. Red L1~ Dlvid ThompsOn, Weslln Hotels; Jaclt
Rlchlrd D. Casld Ind A. J. PardlnL
DO)'le. Paclftc Telecom: Mike Miran. US. West: Jim'
· Under Ibe .Ierms or Slid notice. Inlerelled. persons
Lazar; James Cadu: Georie Vinyl. Telesphe..... Inc.;
· were all"orded Ihe' opponunity to submit dall. ;,Iews, or .' Reid Presion, Telecall. Inc~ Rlcha(d Finniaan. Terry
Vaan, WITA: GloM Harris, United Telephone; and Jim
Irsu\llenlS to tbe commission In wrilins'prior 10 March
Ray. Inlernatlonal Pacific.
.6. 1991. wilh reply comm.nts due on March 11.1-991.
The rul. change aR'ee11 no economic values.
and orally al 9:00 a.m. Wednesday. May I. 1991.• In th.·
In reviewina the enlire record herein. It has been d..
commission's h.arins room above noted. AI. the May I.
lermined thai WAC 480-120-021.480-120-\06.4801991. meeling. on Ih. rccord. Ihe COmmission eontin",ed
the matter 10 thc May 8. '199"1. weckly meeting at the . 120-138. and 480-110-141 should be' amended and
WAC 480-110-143 sbould be.adopted to read IS set.
same time arid place.
rorth In Appendil A shown below·and. by Ibis rererence
· . AI the May 8. 1991, meeting. 'Ihe commwion considmad. a pari her~C. These rules, as amended and adoptcred Iha rule change proposal. and took oral comment•.
Decisions regardina adoption or Ihe amendments were . ed, esl3blish requlremenls for alternative operalo, ser·
vices compani.s and conneclion or pay telephones 10 tbe
made. and'the mallcr was'continued on Ihe r.cord to the
.network or exehang. lelecommunications. companiet.
May IS. 1991. w.ekly meel!na ror final adoplion. .
Wrill.n eommenls hav. be.n received C,om various
. Some changcs were made" Ihe lexl or Ihe
: persons In this docket. under lhe above noilce and under
amendmenls issued punuanl to NO\ice Nu. WSR 9103-122 and the len finally adopted by Ihe commission.
prior nollces, iDcludina: U.s. Lana Distance. Beuye
Pursuanl \0 'RCW 34.05.340(3) lhese chanaes are CItHorn. Joan .Addina10n. Inlelllcal. Inc.. ITI. Eric.
plained al follows:
TOllison. OTE Nouhwesl. Inc. MCI 'Telecommunlcalions Corp. U.s: Wesl Communicallons. Public COURChlDSes Crom noticed dral'l: Definitions: TJie deftni·
. sel. Intematlo~al Pacific," Nalional Technical Assoc:lates. . lion oC operalor services Is chanaed 10 more closely re.flect Cederal definillons, and lo.emphaslze thallhe alter:Operalor Asslsian~e Network, Zero Plus Dlalina. Inc..
Norlh,,~ Payphone Association. Fone America. ATAT
nalive operator services. AOS•. rules apply only to operCommunications oC th~ Plclfic Norlhwesl. Inc. David . ator services, as deftned. WAC 480-120-011.
Fluharty. Unil~d. Telephone Co•• Bruce Benhelt, F.G.
Commission as a sum paid 10 an assresator or lOCIHazehl~e. M.D.• Lisa Bergman. Douglls Syrin8. Elaine
lion owne, is defined 10 distinguish Crom Ihe WU'rC, ~.
Brill. James H. Culler, Dean S. Johnson. William J.
Localion surchar.e and operalor service charso are
Clancy. Warren BllYer. Jim Lazar. The Friedrich Group.
dcfined as separ~1C elements 10 dlsllntulsh Ihem rrom
Public Communicalions oC America. lric.. The Park
olher charges and 10 elclude per-call Cces assessed and
Lane MOIel .t. R,V. Park.l'iorwesl Marketing. Jamos R.
eollecled direclly by arareaatora. Id.
Person is defined -ror clarity. Jd~
Redfield. Holiday Inn. Cro"ne Plazi-5eallle. Iiolid.y
Loose-Wenatchee, Anacortes Inn, The Eversreen InnLocal excha~8e lelephone' companies lECl, are reLeavenworth. Tower Inn-Richland. The Westin HOlel.
moved Crom Ihe definitIon oC Illernlle operalor servlcca
company, consistenl wilh Ihe draCI Initially noliced In
Northwell Lodgtna.. Inc.. Travelers Inns, Washln8ton
State 'HOlel &: MOIeI Association. The Inn Il' Friday'
Ihis docket. LECs may illll be considered aalreaalon
Harbor. The Wesiwater Inn. 'Sherllon-5ullle. The Inn
.under Ihe terms or Ihe rule, IC Ihelr conduel mcets lbat
·al Vilalnla Mason. Ouenlher Manaaement Company.
dellnllion. Unlike I,Ec., AOS companies Cln be leen II.
· The SIIi.h Looae; Holiday Inn-Bellevue. A.M.' enlerlna and cxlllinl mar~eu al will. AOS companieD
Vendelluoli. Pilrlc.ia·s Enlerprlu. Sheralon-Tacoma,
wcrc lhe lubJeCI or specific Icalslatlve enaCUllen\. AOS







.-;...._~_ _.~--.])'.;;a2..,;..:
__ _ _





W.slUiJOtI Slat. Rqlster.11SIit 91-13


Oflell charp hI,bel
1 thaD LEe.. leadin.
.applia. nil ad· Jed,es aDd fCllq.les the ,enoral rulc
ClIl1IlIIiier cOlIIplaillll.· CO\l)o>.oml oflen expect lhat, that tarlll'ed ntes alUSl be charaed Cor senice. pmldCif.
.IIe, WI Ibelr LEe wben the, usc I pa, phone:.
WAC 410-120-I3NII).
Rq1IInaicIlIl ·Ibat .pply to ilOlI-LEC compan,leIto II\~
R,rercoces adjudlcatiOlII are cJariJIed to nale that •
C_ tk COlISuma: that It Is not the LEC are realOlllble.
,an,e of adjldlcallYe pr__ 1s available 10 "I with
complaints pllll"ani 10 pertinent' .dmlnlslralive rules
.-:-auaei rrom noticed draft: FOrm or Bills: The local aDd law. WAC 480-120-131(19).
excbua.e compaD)'•. LEe, must provide • copy.of .. bUlChanla rrom IIOtIced dral't: AOS rule: PrIson service
Ina . . .·1 customer HIt to It. COlIImissloll only wh.. a
wallm CIA be &CCIiIIlpl"lSIleiI on a casc-by-caae basIs,.ao .
carrier is .dded to or delctCd rtOm the list In order to
no' eapi'ess pr4ViIIon Is required•. WI,.C "80-120;;14'. .
reduce .anccessaf1 admlnbtratiye 'cII'oi1. WAC 480The list cl ~I\or ICrYlce cultOmerJ or..ell "OS Ia
- 10 be filed. ~ rule Is chansed. to acknowledse that tlte
Pa, phOtIc' rule chan,ci Crom noliced draft: Coinless. list is proprietary. to protect confidential Inrormatlon.
pa, te~ones are definCd 10 exclude In-room p~ones
when Ihe "OS' compiles wllb pertinent clllsllni rules ror
provided b, Iiolels, hospitals. campuses and IImllar ra.Identlrylns Jl!Oprletary Informallon. WAC 480-120"
cilities ror'usc or IUW or residents. JuJildlellonal bsues·
were prmnled· whIch are resolyed by this exclusion.
The rule Is clarlfied 10 Slate Ihat AOS companies arc
WAC 480-120-138(b).
required to secure compliance with their tarllJ' proYIFor dircClory assistance. 'pay phones rna, charie the
sioDl, as arc other PUblic scrvice companies. Specific
. . prevailin, rale, ror Comparable directory services. The
procedures to reduce dlspules are Identified ror clarity.
Intent is that a ~, phone rna,; .hen penlnenl, chatae
EaI~lnl pcrtiDent commission adjudicative jlrocedurea
the COIIsUmer the preYaUin. cha,ses ror credit card usc
are Identified ror co.mpleteness. To aid enrorcemenl,
and for InlraLAT" or interLAT" dlreclory,assls~nce
when the commission has round lhat a eustomerl
can.. A location surcharse Is not permilled on dircClory a.sre8alor has knowlna!)' and repealedI, viol~ted com·
assistance calls. WAC 480-120-138(4).
minion AOS rules, II Is to be rerused AOS scrVice unlil"
Req~lremenlS ror pasllns Inrormallon to consumers
Ihe commission Gnds Ihe cuslomerlaSlrcptor will com- '
pi,. Wilhholdin, or compensallon Is al.o required. can- '
are chadled: inslead or specir,lnS In Ihe rule the me·
chanles ror securlns rale InrOrmatlon.lhe rule now alslstenl wllh. rederal require",enl", on a loc',lion-b~ocation basis. WAC 480-120-141(2).
Ia'" Ille a88fCaalor to past lis prererred melhod rOt o!>talnin. Wilhoul~har.e· inrormatlon' re.ardina all
The consumer may be eilher. or .bolh. Ihe penon lillAlii charses Indudinl rees, so I~anhe consumer able. tlatlns 'a caR Ihrough ID AOS compan, or Ihe penon
to be Inrormed about Ihe charges It will pay: This allows . paylna ror Ihat call The change is made 10 assure Ibe '
flexlbilily ror an asgresalor 10 usc the method compatiavallabffily or inrormalion and proleclions 10
Ihe'persons wbo may Deed lbem. WAC 480-120-t41(3).
ble wllh Its syslem. Id.
. '. '
. New poslinS requirements ma, be implemenled laler
A provbion which wolild bave Iimiled chargcs ror local calls aroHor access 10 1-800 numbers and prererred
Ihan Inilially proposed ror pracllcal conslderalions. Cur. interuchange carriers 10 twenly-five cenlS was deleled
renl po5llnS rules musl be complied wllh unill then. ror
In IiShl of redenl/slate jurisdictional Issues; Ihe Unsellransilion purposes. It is not reaslble 10 require dilrerent
noilccs ror locallons whose p(esubscrlbed AOScaRler
tied nalure ot' comparable provisions In federal resulaexceeds prevaRins rales and Ihose which do noL WAC
tlon: anil pos.ible adverse economic effecL M..
Concerns were expressed resardins rnud mullins
from lbe use or 10XXX dlaHns codes to reach all InlerNOllce to consumers or. rales mUSI Include nOlice or
exchana. carrier. Se,leclin blocklns Is Increasinsly · Ibe existence, Mlure and amounl or loCallon surcharscs
available rrom local cachange companies to ,alloW calls
and alb., rees to betlcr inform consumers. This provito so Ihrough an operator. but to block dirCCl-dialed · slon Is moved from'noliced subsecllon 10(c). Id.
calls which could be billed 10 the auregalor rather than ,
PrOpOsed provisions 10 limit location Cbarscs 10
the consumer. Thai sort or selectiye blocklns will reduce
lariffed surcharge rales and 10 RSlriel local call. 1-800
fraudulent billing 10 Ihe pay phone while allowing 'access
and inlCrOlchange carrier, ateen were deleled because or
to Ihe consumer's prererred carrier. OUlgoinl aild,lnlikely adverk econoinlc effeci on small business and becomins call screenlna arc fealures which provide inrorcause or polenllal Interjurisdlclional Issuel nOled above.
malian 10 operalors Ihal billing should. nOI be made 10
- Audible noilce, or brlndina. is required no'laler Ihan.'
the screened line. WAC 480-120-130(10) require. Ihe
local exchange company to provide Ihese selecllve bloclt· · rather than 'al' Ihe be.iDn!n, or Ihe call. 10 allow com,ins and scree~ing iervices upon request.- when ihe lech· . plhlnc. by reasonable nOlices ellher berore or .fler the
nology 10 provide·lhem Is available In Ihe central office
sisnal 10 enler billing Inrormation: WAC, 480-120141(5). .
servinilthe requesling line. The cha'!J.e rrQm Ibe nOliced
draCt Is io describe and makes specific reference 10 Ihe
The brandina mtssa8e musl usc the carrier's name IS'
rcalstered wllh the comrnl~slon. although the proposal Is
' " dlll'erentservIces. WAC 410-120-138(10). WAC 480120-141(12) provides ror all~lion of rlslt or loss when
modified 10 Illow the commission 10'Bran\ a waiver to
abbreviate or'o'mlt'porlions or lhe reBislered name Ir Ih'e .
Craud occun despite subscripllon 10 call screenlnl.
, Local elchanle company field visits 10 pa, phone 10full lerm Is DOl necessitY Cor clca~ consumer Idenllficacalions shall be charled pun'uanl 10 tariff when a uriII'
lion llr,lhe service provider. J!!.















. \\'SR tJ.I3-071

~:~s~~~~), ' ..





'nc proposed rcciultemen lise ipecllle madlna
)lke .reCl
Ianli'lt Wla delClcd 10 J1ahv""
dllllallliel In distillaulsblaa belweco'lnlmlalf and hllcntale' calls and be-,
IT IS ~THE.l ORD~RED Tballbe order Ind lhe ....
ca1lSll cutIcrs demonsllatcd vafJInl ways'to provide .dannexed rule; Ifter Inl bein. monied In Ibe order re," •
equate eonnmcr D;otIce of the canlcr'lldenllly, lei. .
Isler of the Wuldntton Utllillca Ind Tnnsponatloll
. Am curIcn muil mall1\11in ldequate flcll1llii :for a Commlssloa. shal be forwarded 10 lhe cod' rcVlscr for
liIlnl panuanl·1o chaptCf 34.l1.S RCW Ind chapter 1-21
b1acbae nle not ClCCCdIn, one percellt III·the lime conWAC
alslent hq IiolIr,lilher than apell bull bellIr, conllsDATED It OIytl1p!a, Waihlnaton. Ihis I7lh
or '
tent-.llldusuy IlInd1rdL If·the AOS canlcr provides
June, 1991. ..
tlciUtleI fat access 10 coiIJumcra' preferred carriers.
tt- fIcII1lica mUll also mect lhe IlIled l~eqUIC)' Sllll..
SharQll L Nebo... C!\alrmall
dant. J ! ! . .
Richard D,.Casad. Commissioner
Locl~ sureharlCl are aUowed In "OS company
IlIr111's. Ind can·be waived by IlarelalOlS II' mlY be es. A.' J. ..Pardini. Co""'''s,k>~er
IlIbllsllcd II ·a hlaher level for locatlCltll wilb dcmOl\llrl·
bly. hl&her costs. This will help mlillare multi-tiered
surehlrall :wbich may be dlscrimlnalory' and confuslna
AMENDATORYSECTION (Amendina Or<'r,' .... " ,
.and may 100d 10 unjustly .bllb ra~s: w\l\ allow ftesibmly
filed 1/31/89)
ilt pridni; Ind will avoid Ihe nc¢ 10 spread lbe support
of hip.eosllocatlons, WAC 410-110-141(10),
no JeCIion headillas are chanaed 10 refer 10 ..riable nershlp, or JlCI'SOII 01hCr lhan a local eacbanll .com~ny
flit.. lad sureara". llle presenl subject of subsection
provldln. I connccIlolt 10 intrastale or inierslllle
cbriftcatlon is added Ihal Ibe relevanl rales 'for con· . distance f;)r to local'senices rrom. «(Places iuc1adiul but
not liihi~ed to, l101els. iiwtels; bospitds; eaiiipasu, and
sideration ·ate Ihose wblch conlumen are cbaraed and
pal tdepbOiiC$. Mltihale 0riato. SCI'
Ibal Ihe relevanl markel means InlerLATA or
,ices coaapania &Ie tIl_ with ..1,leh • IlOtel. lIIotel.
InlraLATA. Id;
hospital. campus. o. eustom,..ohiicd paJ telephone.
The proposed cap upon localion cliarges. fees or lur·
ete_, WilbaCb to piowidc upc.ator unites to Its cUe..
charall IIcccdina Iwenly-five centl for any call, above
Ide») locatl~ or call anreaalon. The lerm 'operalo,
IlIrilfcd ralcs. wu deleled because of polential adverse
seIVicC$' llllb,s rule means any Inlrastale lelccommunlO •
economic elfeCt. The posllna requiremenl relaled 10 sucb
ealions service prO'ilded 10 a call .aBsresatOl' locallilsi
ehalles wu moved 10 subsection (4) or IhlJ rule for
Ihal includcs u a componenl any, aUlomalic 01' live as.. proximllY 10 olber postlnl requiremenlS. for clatlty•.
sislance 10 a consumer to .. rran e tor billin or com I..
. Departure from llmailinl ralcs can be supported by
I on
an ntraS\lle lele one call tbrou a
all AOS. Sucb a demonstrallon can Include evidence
mel .olber n I aulomalle com Ielio wll Ihn
From anreaalors aboullbe economic'necessllY for loca.
lion surcharacs. This will asslsl AOS companicslo sup- . 10 Ibe lele hone fro wh c Ihe all 0 inaled 01' 2
com ellon Ihrou an access e use b Ihe consume,
porI Ibe economic need For cbarlcs paid 10 ·Iheir cuSloIb billin 0 an aecoun revious esla IS
b I e
consumer WI! I e carrier.
Subsection (-12) Is added In .older 10 allocale risk of
· AppUcanl - any person. firm. partnership, corporaloss from fraud on loll traffic when loss from tnud 0c·lion,
munic:lp:tllly. cooperalive oraanlzalion. lovemmencurs even Ibro,ah 'be ·local eschanae company olfeis
lal Iseney. etc., applyinSlo lhe ulilily for new service or
and all lureaalor subserlbct 10 call sereenlna.
reconnection or dlsconllnucd service.
. . Local service 10 lagreillon: A new'scctioll Is added
Aolomalic diallns-announclna device - any aUlomalic:
wbicll requires LEC larllfs 10 provide' lhat III
equipmenl wbich incorporales Ihe tollowlng
anreplors wbo olfer local caUs on I per-eall blsls musl · lerminal
. ..
provide wllboul-ebarae Iccess 10 911, wbere available.
(I)(a) ~loraae capabilily or numbers 10 be called; ~r
Ind 10 Ibe local exchanae company operator. The re(b) A random or sequenllal number seneralor Ihal
qulremenl was nOliced In WAC 480-120-141 (4)(0) as
numbers to be Cilled; and
I condllion required Ibrouab AOS providers. bUI reFers
(e) An ability 10 dial a call: and
10 I local services and Is more approprislely associaled
i2l Has.lhe capability, working alone or In conjune-.
wllh Ibe provision. of local eaebanae service. Tbe relion
wllh olher equlpmenl, or dlsseminalinl a prerccord.
quirement will assure !bal Ihere Is no Impedlmenl ·10
cd messaae Iillh. number called.
. .
deallna switlly. wllh emeraeney conditions alfeclina
hOll e
heailb or ,af'ety. WAC 4ao-I20-[43.
whlc ac IitalCS UhnR a collecllon belween a car er
I'nd an enlil sucb.. 1&11 e~ehan e com n whiCh
rnenll Ibe bU to an co "II rom I e consumlt.·
WHEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED That WAC 48012~I, 480-120-106, 480-120-138, and 480-120-141
Bll1eh'lale area or pr maf1 nle Rrea - lhe Irea or at· .•..
cas wIn an uebanse Irea wherein· mllcaae cbarael for'
is sel forlh In Appendls A, be amended Ind adopled IS
primary eschanse lervice dO nOI apply.
rul~ of Ih,e Washllliion UIII'llII and TranlportatlOJr









.wuUiacA Stll. Rqlller; Istut 9M3

"'5R 91-13-078




DOt I . I

es Ie
10 Ole





, II OIl - I
. t,
·1IItlIt MIl
ora ..bscnler 10, P1O'idt loll and elltbana' amIct.
- .lWIle ns anilla a loJepbollnrslem
Subscriber - alY penott, 8nn. ptrlnenJilP. cwpoiabvlll, tilt IICCeISII'J cqUlpmclll. and opml1JI ama,1lion, lIIunk1pa1lt" cooper.1lve orpnlut\on, 8O'emmcnmeata ror ICr\lllnatlal an4 InlClCOIlncetlnl IIlbscrikrs'
lIIaJCIICY, etc., suPJllled wllb aenIce by Iny.almly.
lina. rUlloillnCS, Ion lines and Inlorollke lrunks.· . Toll slltioll - I telcplloDe IlISlrumonl COlInected for
(MOle tkaa One cenlnl olllce liliy"be IOcaled· in lbe
101.1 aervlce onl)' 1114 10 which
lelophoM 1011
same Ilu\ldlni or Inlbe Ame uchanje.)
. . rales appl)' ror cadI can made thUefrom.
Commlll101l IIaensx) - In I conlext mOlnlnl a Sllle
Utility - 'any corporation, company, association, joint .
slOcl assCR:iatlon., partnership. person. Ihelr lelltes.
Ibe Washln,lon utUltiel and lranlporlltlon
. comm SsIon..
1I\111ees or recelvela Ippolnled by Iny'court whltaocvcr.
Commllllon Rnlnelal _. In a conlOll tefmln to
ownln.. contrallin.. operailna or I1UI:nl&ln. Iny Iclecom~IiOl or lelecommunlcallona ae ces, I piy.
. phone planl wtlhin the Slale 0( Washlnglon ror IhI purpost of ru.mlshln,lelephone senke 10 Ihe public for 1I1re
menifSfu an AOS com~ny to In .~srellior bIRd on
Ihe dollar volume 01 bUincu, UIU It expresled It I
and lubject 10 the jurisdiction 0( the comm\Jslon.
pe~nll&e larlffed messalC 100f cbaraes.
'. .
lI..ha'I lOt.. RCW 3405J9S .<qul.......... or .o4t~lnIoJ:
ompet\U;;: le.kcommillilcailona company - a tele. , 104 ddoIloa
Ii ........ IllItft4tncftg ••••btInt nl... TItt
""b1bW I
nricllroao b ~ I......10 ....\lC<II DOl I••
communlcallons company lI!hlcllls classi"ed II luch by
Ihe comllllssIoIl pursuanllo PoCW 80.36.320. . '.
, dla... \I)' IlIt or Illost marldllp.
. Compelillvi telecommlint~allons lervlce - I service
which Is clalllRed as such by Ihe commlsllon punuanl 10
Rled 1/31/89)
., '
RCW aO.36.330.
((EuStoh'C.» Consumer - user nol classified as a
WAC 4go-120-106. FORM OF BILLS. Bills 10
subscribers shall be rendered regularly and I\all clearl)' ,
lill all charges. Eacll bill lhall indicate Ihe ale it beExchan&e - a unil eSlablished by lutilily for communlcalion service In a speelfic geoaraphlc area, which unit
comes delill<luent and notice of means bi which I lub, usuany embraces a city, lown or community and hs en·
scrlbe( can contact Ihe nearesl husiness office of the
"'" vlrons. II u~ally conslsu 0( one or more cenlral offices
toael~er with Ihe associaled plant, used In fumishl.-,
The portioo of a bill rendered by Ihe local eK~hanae
communication service to Ihe aeneral public wilhin Ihal
company on behalf of IlSelf and olher companies shall
clearly. specify Ibe allemale 0 ralor .senlce com n 's
Exchange area -·the apec:iftc area. served by. Of pur·
blllins agenl a~dtihere f.. slbl~ wilhin ninely IV" ~ .
ler Ihe elfeetWe e or tlllnyle,'Ibe provlaer of the II·
porled 10 be served by an exchange. '
·Farmer line - ouulde planl lelephone facUlties owned
ternate 09'llor service lt0' its .4lltOI it'd billin,
and maintained by a subscriber or group 01' ~bs~rlbers,
'qcnt;1J an a IOU free lelephone number Ihe COnsumer
which line Is connecled wilh Ihe facllities of I lelecomcan call lo,qucsllouhal portion of Ihe hill, Ind. If IP-'
munlcatlons company for swltchln, servlee. (Conneclion
proprlale. roc:elve mdl,L A number may be~ on Ihls
Is usuIII, made 1\ Ihe base rate area boundary.)
D<l ion of Ihe bill onlvif il conriec:u Ihe sU~ber with
.f'lnner slation - I lelephone instrumenllnslalled lod
a rm which his full aUlhorilY 10 Invesllule Ind. if,ao.Dr lorille 10 adlust disDOt« calli Inc:ludlna I means 10
In use Oft I rlrmn line.
Inlere,change'lelecommunications company - I tele·vertlY Ihli Ine roles char.e are correct. Consumers reo
communications company, or division Ihereol'. Ihal does
quesllna In address ,.here, Iney can "'rill:. io quoslion
not provide basic locllse"ice.
Ihat porllon of the bill shall be provided Ihal
Locallon lurcharae - a ftal, per-c:all charge as.sessed
b an Illemale 0 ralor services com n on chait of a
A local exchanle company Shall nOl' provide hillin,
call a re alor in I Ilion to messa e toll char es loea
and collcetlon· services for telecommunications service 10
call chlr
an 0 rator lervice char os. A lOCal on
any company nOI properly resistered to provide semc~
surcharsc Is remlned, in who e or n part, 10',1 e call
whhinlh~ Slale or,Washin!IOn,cxceptlo I billlns uenl
, '
that cortlftes 10 lhe 101.-.1 exchan8e carrier Ihat .it. will
Operator so"ice charae - a· charse, In addillon to Ihe
submil charses onlf· on behalr or properly reglSlered
mella Ii loll char c or local call cliar e, assesSed tor Ule
companies. As a part or Ih1s certiftcalion Ihe local eK' '
of.1 calhn car ,a credil card or for aulomated or Ive
chan e com an Ihlll r ulre Ihal Iho blll'n I enl ro·0 erator atrvlce In ·com eUn a cal.
y e 10 t a cilrrenl II 0 cae 'Ie ecommuni~llIons comOuts e pani - the lelep one oiIu pmenl Ind racUllies
n for w Ich II ills Ihowln Ihe name I ri lere
0 comm ilion an I ress. This lSI I III u
"" Instilled on. along, or under ~IreCII. alle¥l, htghw,ys. or ' W
on private rights-of-way belween Iho central olllce and
dated and provi 10 the ocal nchlnBc com~ny IS
subsc.rlbcn' locations or belween central offices,
chln el occur. The i ai nchan e com n s ·111 In,
tur u n recolvin I rov ea co of I s III I e












· \\'SI,I-I3-07I

WashhtalOli SiJlt Realsler.l_ 91-13·


fody mlew whs;..... a c.arr!U is a~~ or

docs DOt Include

tele bones se" or SImilar ac t

. or t

II. .
. ills telepbone smIce shaU.ldllllllr and set GUt· use pCIII or
for ~
rules. tht term 'subserlber' is .
separate17 aay amss'or OIber eharan Illlposed by order
of Of It IN !Urection 01 the Federal CommuplcallOlli . . d.efl.1ICd is I party requestml or usln, I public ICCCII
Coinmhsloft. III ad4ldotl,
bRls tor telepho11.·seri\ce
line for the purpose 01 conn~n, I pay telephone io the
wltbli jldldletlOlll wllere ta.a arc applicable win
ttlepbone~. .
cIcarIJ ~tt tIIo a1llOl!1It, or the ptrCCIIlIle rate at
(I) Pay telephoaes coMCCted to tlt~ company Dttw'ork
wlilc1l saki ~I Is toIIIplIted, whleb iepmenll municipal
must comply wltla Part 6B 01 the· Feileral Communlea.
OCCIJpallaa. buslnesa ~nd elldse tana that haft beta
tlons Commlslioa fIIlet.lIId rtlUllllons Ind tbe .((ClIP
levied 'Y a municipality Iiallist said utRlly, the eO'ect cif
tcnt)) Natl_l Electric Code and National Electric
whlell IS passed OD as a· part of the charle fonelephone
Safet)' tode IS tlie, edsted 011 Jlnuary I. 1991. Ind
must be rCilitcred "il& th~. FCileral CcimmunlCatlo",
·, Subscribets :requesllnB .by telephone, leller or office
CommilSlon. or l'!$lalled j1ehlnd a Courun. device wblob
visit II lttllllzcd statement of aU charan shall be furhu been realSlered wllh Ihe Federa Communleatlons
nished Jlme. An Itemized statement Is m.cant to· Include
(2) All pay telephones shall provlde dial lone first to
scparalely; the total fllr uchanBe service. mil"Be
assure emergency acecss to operilors without tbe lise of
charles. tues. credils, mllCeDaneOll4 or special smlces
a coin.. '.
. .
· and toll eharaes. the latter showing at Imt date, place
. called aJld tharae for each caD. III ltemlzlnalhe eharaes
(3) The caller IIllIst tie able to access the operalor Ind
of Infonnatlon pmlden. the utility shaD furnish the
911 where anllable wlthoullhe use of I' coin.
name, Iddress, telephone nUl\)bcr and loll rtec number;
(4) «'file sublai". allaH pay ttl, local dh"IOlJ as
If lilY. of such providers. Any ad4itional lJemlzatlon
sis'aace eliOl')' ('Iicni" ill dreet wi cael. Pi).MCpholl'
.shall be au filed tarill' charae.
. . and Ilia) maiic tilt wea EOi "heelOI) assistine, calls.)}
Upotl a showing of aood cause, a sul!sc~iber may re,' The charge for each direclory assiSllnce call paid by tbe
quCSllO be allowed to pay by a culaln date which Is nOl
consumer shall not exceed the
vaillns per call tharge ((paid bj tilt sntsci.ibn)) ...2!
the normaUy dtsianated payment dale. Oood cause shall
Include. but nOI be limited to. adjustment of the pay~rable directory assistance. In the absence of ~.
ment schedule to parallel receipt or Income, A ulillty.
suasive C9ntrary evidence. lhe charlO or 0 S W T
may be exempted from Ihls adjustment. requiremenl by
Communicationi .rOt intnLATA directory asslslInce or
the commission.
ATAT for inlerLATA directory assislance shall be ae-' •
cepted' as Ihe prevailina charse. A location surcharse is
AMENDATORY SECTION '(Amen~ing Order R-316.
not permilted•.
(S) Emergency numbers (e.g.• operalor 'assislance and
ftled 3/23/901
mUll be clearly posled on Cftch pay. telephone.
WAC 480-120-138 PAY TELEPHONES-LO(6) Information couisllng of lhe name, address. tele.
CAL AND INTRASTATEo Every telecommunications
company operalinB an exchanBe wlihln ·the Itate or .. phOne nllmber of Ihe owner. or lhe name of the owner
and 'a loll-free telephone number where a caller can obW~shlnaton may allow pay telephones 10 he connected
tain assistance i~ lhe eve!'t Ihe pay telephone malfllncto the company's nelwotk for purposes or Interconnecdons
in Iny ,,·a!. and proc:edu~es for obtaining I refund
tion and use or realstered devices for local and intraslate
from the subscriber mun be displayed 011 Ib.. front of.
communicallons, Every such lelecommunlcations com-'
pany oft'erll\&such service shallllie tarlO's with the com- . the pay telephone.
The followlna information shaU also be posled on or
mission seltlnB rates and conditions appliCable to .the
adjacent 10 the telephone Inslrument:
COnnection of pay telephones to the local and InlraSlate
network'under )he following lerms an~ conditions, Local
is a'ailabl, to ill(. USCi by dialiu. "e" alld itquestiiil
eachanae companies that do not bave a pUblic access
The method by 'whlch Ihe consumer may oblalil
line tariff on file with the commission shall not be subwithout charge an aCCUrale 9uolatl~n of rates, fees ana
ject to theie ruin.
. ,
surcharges: and
For purposes of these rults 'pay telephone' is deftned
WAC 4~0-12O-:as equipment connected 10 Ihe network in one
. 141«((tt» ill·
of the following modes: .
In no cast will Ihe charles to the user uceed Ihe
(a) Coin operated: A lelephone capable. of receivlns
nickels, dimes. and quarlers 10 complete telephone calls.
numbe~ of th. pay telephont must
Credit card or olher operalor-assilted billing may be
be displayed on each InslrUmenl.
used from a coin-operited lnst~menl. .
(8) The subscriber shall eRlure Ihallhe pay telephone .
(b) Coinless: A pay .telephone where completion of
for usc with bearing aids and its InslaUacaRs, except emcrBency calls. must be billed by an alte;·
native billing method sucb IS credit carel, callin. cards, . tion compiles with all applicable federal, state. an4 local •
chllect"lhlrd:-party billing. or billed In. conilection with . laws Ind regulations 'concernlna the use oC telephones by .
dislbled persons.
" .
t e bil ins of meals, Soodl, and/or services, These pIIy
must return .
phones lilclude, but are .Rot limited to,. ~harge-Jl~\l.
corilless', tablelop, and credit ca~d slallons: The term

or tim.




1110 I .



WISIIi.,,_s'ltt Realster.1mt






WSR 91-IJ...07I·


. ID.4 III1Sl lie capabli of fee". . J nickels. cIiiIIcs, llId
UII VioIlIllc )r·lhe tarill'; commission
!Iual1«l. l.ocaI uchlnae COln) pay ,elephona shall·
lijnln"lo pa)' \coqlhone service. or other rcquiremellll
contalaed in IIIae rul includin Inlertx 113n e CI , ;
llOl he abJtet to the rC4ulrellltllll 01 this iukcc1lon.
access··JtQulremenlJ,· II ~
Ihe. pay Ie
. (I0)~y telephones mUll «(bC capable II PJ~.Id·
IntH . access to III ilIlerucha.p canIm where d~ioa or HMce It the defic1Cney illIOl corrected·
sm lCCtlI IvaUable. If fC4ues1Cd bJ the IiIbscrilier.
wllhln lYe da)1 from date of wrillen notlftcat!oll to Ihe
subscriber. WAC 480-126-081 (4)11) ,.all·not Ipply 10
1M local CllCWae COIIIpaDY skovIdlallH pubrlC Iccess
line dalsupp!1b.wbeie aYllIab!~ 'Il rcstrIclIott wIIere
such dliconnectlons. ~ tKCha~ ~lIeld vlsllS
111311 be cbar ed to ·eiubSCri It
r e Is re1 •• Habk; whlcll preyen.. f";1 ~ by selective
ur . a
txC n ccom n ta 11'.
b1ock1 or lOXXX J+ co4es and
can screenin
I lIi1e .. one to wlllCS. If es llll not
I I I be lbe responSIbility of every loci eXt ange
atappro ale tan
compani to alSure Ihal any subscriber lakinl service
Eacepl·filr service provided to. IIospllal..·libraries,
pursuaat to Ihese rules and 10 tarill's filed purluanl 10
or .Imllar publle facilities In which I· telephone rlnc
Ihese rules. meOlS ali of the lerms and condilions con··
.mlahl eaUlt undue disturbance, or IlpoD writttllrequesl
lained within Ihese rules and the larill's $0 filed. II Ihall
1M: the dUly of the local e~chan8" company .10 enforce
of • law .nforcement Iceney. collHlperaled pay telethe lerml and coriditlons conlalned herein.
phones must prOYIde Iwo-way ""ice, and Ihere .haD bo
It Ihall be Ihe responsibilily of Ihe local e~change
no charae impoRd by the· subscriber for Incomlna ·caDs.
This SIIbsectiOD wlJl· not apply to pay Ielephones a....
comp:!ny 10 provide frcc of.charge one current lelePbone
directory each yea, for each public access line. It sball .
ranged for on~ay se"lce and In
OD May I.
1990. S1KIuld "In exlsdna one-ny aenice be" dlscoA·
he the ·responsibility of Ihe subscriber 10 make a reason·
nectllt chinae ielephone numbei; or chance finanCial
able ell'ort to assure a current directory Is available at
every pay lelephone location.·
responslbi6ly. the rCliulrements ot this suh.sectlon shall
apply. AU pay \lilephones confined 10 nne-way service
Public access lines will be chareed II rales .~co·ding
shall be clearly marked:on Ih. front of Ihe ioslrumenl.
to the relevant larUr as approVed by Ihe commission.
19 Disconnee:tlon u~ or refusal to connCCl. a· a·
(12) Pay lelephones shall be connected only to. public
access lines In accordance with Ih. approved larill's of·
telephone for violation of these rules may be review· 'l
fered by lb. local .~chang.· company. local tlchange
the commISsion In a formal com laint. uncler WAC 48C:::
company pay Itlephones are. not lubjecl 10 this
09-42 S Ihrou h an ad udicalivc or a b ~f sd 'ldi...jI·
tlve proee liie under Ihe provisions of chapt~rs 34.0S
RCW and 480-{)9 WAC.
.(13) A subscriber must order a separale pay telephone·
access line fo, ,sch pay lelephone installed, ExCens!on
ItttlMr'l 1t01~ lew .l4.05.)9~ "requires 'he .sc or on4ertinini
.telephones may be connecled to a pay access· . and ddttion maru 10 indicate Imendmtntt to C'istin. rvkt. 11tr tlile
fl\lblbhtd a~e: nrid rrom Its prtdttessor in ""ain mf't"'e.~l In
line when Ihe Inllrumenl:
dicllcd b) 1M lISe 0( I.h~ II'l3rltlnp.·
(a) Prevenls origination of calls from Ihe menslon
stalion; and
.AMENDATORV SECTION (Amending Order. R-;t9J.
(bl l'llVenlS Ihird P~rlY access 10 Iransmi••ion from
filed 1/31/89)
el.lher the extension ((of) 2!·lhe «euin=vpciated)) I!!I
telephone ioslrument.
lOllI exchange companies are exempled from (b) of
SERVICES. Alllelecommunicallons companies provide
this lubseellon.
Ing alternate operalor services ~AOS~ as deflried ·In
. .(14) Credit. card opersted pay lelephoaes lhall clearly
WAC 480-Il0-{)21, shall ((eo"filh i )) com~y wllG
idenllfy all credil cardslllat will be accepted.
Ihli and an OIher rules relallne 10 telccomniun .:allolls
(I S) InvoluRlary changes la telephone· numbers upon:
compaaies nOI sPecifically waived by order of Ihe ~om·
conversion of pay telephones from locil e~chanee commission. «(AltehtJte opc:tat\iI SCi ,iccs companies ,,,,OS\
pany-owned 10 privately-ow.ned pay telephones are
alC tf~osc hith "Melt a hotel. liIotel. hospitaL Pi iiOil.
. prohibited.
ctlmplS,. castqmc.=<lAued P3J telephone, tK•• CQhhlCU
(16) No fee Ihan be charged for nonpubli.hed num· . to protide Opei:\tOi SCi ,ices to· its clientele.})
bers on a public access line.
.1"1) Eacb allernate operatOr services company shall file
(17) Cordless and t~blelop pay lelephones shall nOI be
.",jlh the commission at lem ever.y si~ months a current
connected 10 Ihe telephone ntlwork excepl under I~e
.list or 0 rator services customers which iI It"es and
followln8 conditions:
Ihe locations· and·.lClep one num ers III VI C sue Sll'
(ar The bill for usaee Is lendered 10 Ihe user before· vi e Is rovided to each cuslomer. A cuslomer Iisl . roo
leaving the premises wherCflhe bill was Incurred or alvi ed ursuanl \0 Ihis rule is ro rietar in ormalion
ternatively billed al t~e customer's requesl: and
and, If I~nli cehv en filed as required in WAC 48~
(b) Tbe user Is notified verbally or on Ihe instrumenl
09-015. subice:t to the protections of Ihal rule.
that privacy ·on cordless and tablelop lelephones Is· not
, 2 Each AOS com an is r
nsible for assurin
tbat" eae of U cuslomers ·com itS ·fu I . with ntract
.., ~ luaranleed; Ind .
(c) When. other electricaldevlces are ·equlpped with
.and tar
rovlSions which are s cifi Iii
a rule•.
filters. IS necessary, 10 prevent Interference with the pay
aUure to lecure compliance· conslilines e vlO at on y
!he AOS company.









W~naIOll Slale Rt.lsIer: lu.t 91-1:


ore'. lit ·canler and 10 mate it clear Ihal
tb.. COIIS1IIlIGhavolCCesslO lhe other pnI'Ildtn. .
c Provldeac
Inslrument 10 1-800 ,
Ind I ava:i. e Inlernc 0 e
en' •
:;:='E::a.;on::::..Of~ ncar Ihe· 1I111rurnen • notice
I lure' I e Of an Cl r ee '
Iroo len.mmen
IlIIClInl an ee or
lion lare r e
a . cin:ammnca whCll I Wit I
I· 0Sl a
I est ru cuba
' Iii no Ialer Ihan
I 19 I In I all com Cl no ler tban
I 99 n lhe nltrim
com ance
W Ih I e,lInmediale
In, rOVlJlons
48 120-141 regu red and sha I conslllule comp lnee
Wllh IbtI rule;, .
«fflJl ill The ahernale operalor setvlc~ company
(a) Identify" lhe AOS company" provldlna Ihe service
«(01 ib aotlloiizcd billing agent») audibly and distinctly
, allhe'beamnlnl of every call. Ind aB.lin before Ihe call
Is connected, Includinl (II". "a.idled aoiolUllkil6.
and)) an announcemenl 10 Ihe called pany on .calls
Placed eolia
'. .
. .
111 For
,of Ihis·rule lhe beginning or Ihe call
is no Iller Ihan immedialely rollo'A;nslbe prompl 10 en.
ler billing information on aulomaled calls and. on live
and aUlomated operalor calls, wben Ihe' cali Is initially
rouled 10·lhe "petltor;
. .
Ii The messa e used b Ihe OS com n shall
sille Ibe name of Ihe company as re,isler .... I Ihe
. Commission whenever referring 10 Ihe "OS companv. •



lemile 0 "'lor len en ·1
W I In five da
rom It wrillCII no
cal . 10 I e a re alor. A 48ll- 20.() I
!!!! nol..!l!llIY 10 IUC lermlnalioils.·
Ie) AOSCOmpatly aCtIons In l'iirtheranee ollhls rule
may be reviewed-by Ihe commksion In a Cormal com,·
'lafnl nldir WAC 480-09-420 Ibrou b an la'lidlealive
or a
r I u leal vo reeeed n under e
o e apeers 34.0S CW and·480-09 WAC.
d .... AOS
n shall rcruse 10 roride 0 rslor
leMen 10 a call a'lreSltor • 0 I 'eomm on I
COl!.nd 10 have bOMn,lv and reJl!aledly 'lOlllcd com,
mlSl(ol rults relardlnl! Ibe pr2!1IJOii of allernate operl:
lor servICe unlll Ibe commission lias round Ibat Ibe call
..,reSller ""iii comply wilb relevanlla. and rule. '
ill For purposes or Ibis seclion «(lhtlli' 'connmer'
means Ibe party «billed for Il,e eOiiipletio. 01) initial"
ins and/or payin. ror an (inlcutatc/inbaslate)) Intereacbanse or local call. •Cuslomer' melDS Ihe cali
InrClalor. I.e, Ihe hOlel, mOlel. bospital. prison, ca'"jji':
pus. t(ctlSlomca-vhiied» pay telephone, etc.. conl;ac:ling
with IIl.AOS for service.
((ttl») ill An allernale operalorservices company
shall require, as a part or «tlle)) !!!1 conlract wllh liS
cuslomer and as a lerm and condition of wvice Silled in
its larllr, Ibat the cuslomer:
(a) POSI on Ibe lelepbone instrumenl'in plain view of
anyone uslna Ibe lelephone. In eiahl polnl or larser Slymle Bold I~'pe, Ihe Informalion prOVided in Ihe fOllowing
' .


ISSTRI:CTIO!o.'S FOR «DIXLI.CO il,xol:cillllE
tOtAL" lELU"OHl CO"'iI'A.( In a("CHINO

(bl POSI and mainlain in legible condition on cr near
(I) The name, address. and whhouH:harSe"Dumber of
Ihe alternate operalor services company, IS registered
wllh Ihe commission:
,(ii) Dialina direc!ions 10 thaI a consumer may leach
Ihe AOS·operslor
wilhoul charn 10 receive
specific rale Informalion: and
. (iii,) Biali",· d Directions 10 allow ,the consumer 10


({dial throbgfi tbc1«al ·tclepbohc: COilipliil)) reach the


Terms such as -company·, ·~mmunicatioft$"!


. rated' 'of the northwest', etc" when nol necessa 10
clear consumer denlificllion of the enlilY prov dina ier.
vice may be omitted when aUlhorjnd by leller from the
secretary OIlbe C<lmmisslon. '
lUil The consumer shall be J!ermilteillo lern:l;E~t~ •,':'
telephone clal II no charse before Ihe call is ~:.I~·=--::'
Ii.) The
company shall immediale!'~!.. ..
quesl; IOd II nO charge \0 Ihe consumer, discl~~ !'!_"c
lAi a qUOIe of the rales or cbarSeI for Ihe ·call, an·
c1udlnl any surcharse;
lBlthe method by which the rates or charges will be
collected; and
lCllhe methods bY-which tompJlinlS aboul lhe nics,
charges. or collection practices ",ill be resol~ed,
. (b) Pro~lde 10 the local exchange company such in·
formalion as may be neoessary ror billing pJirposes. IS
"'ell as an address and loll free Ielephone number ror
consumer Inquiries.
c 'Reorl inate calls 10 anolher carrier u n r ueSI
and w Ihout char e, when e ui menl is in lace wb"ch
will actom lis rlori inalion wil screen n 'and.1 6w
bl Iinl hom lhe poinl or origin of Ihe ca I;
"orlginallon Is nOI available. Ihe AOS company shail
live dialing inslruclions for the consumer·'s prefelred
carrier, '
"lilIAlsure Ihal a minimum of ninel
rcenl of .11
ca Is shall. be answered by Ihe operator wil In len seconda from the time lhe call reaches the carrier'a awltch,



llU I




WSR 91-13-078
lhi Ibsence or f1
r u'asive evidence I demonslra.
tlon Ibll
lor I<TVICC ua
S '
munlcat ons or Intra
l:!orl.:l:,,;;,:,oT~ or nler TA serv ces WIll be a
n e eamers
IlII COlIS enl
~monstiat n8 public conven enee I
bel res
b Cbar 110 reller" than IIIe 'ev_lIin
. to
oew I'~
-. serv char es I lilt re evanl niarket - lOin A A or
nter TA - wO be a
ltd as emonllra n I at.
not I
I ann anulUl
c des are Dr· pli Ie conven ence Ind adVlnllSc. n
suc u ill
Jbi IbRace Of l!S!uulve conlrary evidence the charm
e I erillie operator _
ror.O S WESTTorlnlraLATA service ana AT!T Jor
InterUTA smite will beacoeoted· as'lbc IlrevalnnR
shaD ISAIe at ((eGiisume..
DOl billed ror
.calls.wlllck .~re not completed. or
nt purpcses, calls
shaD be lumlnd, IdepUlled. and nled rrom Ibe poInl or
Ie I liIIrchaIR'" variable ratel. No location .urchllRe
mav be added to wlthoutoo<har.e calls nor to i charRe
orislnalioa 10 Ibe polnl or lermlpatlon. No can shaD be
lransrerred to Inothercarrier by 111 AOS wblcb caonot
for dlrectorv alsistance. No Isriff may provide ror rale
l/r will 110I complcle Ibe call. unless Ibe caD can be billed
levels !,hlch vary atlhe option or I
aguesalor, pr0In acconlance wilb Ihis subsection,
vided, that an aggregalor mav waive application or the
. «t4)1l ill For purposes or emergency _cans. every al· -Iurchare to calls rrom ilS iRilrumentl, and Drovi&d
.rUf\htr,liii. an AOS comFJn¥ may ellabUsll _ tarill"
lemale opetalor services Company shall have Ibe rouow.
nle for h1a!Hosl location. ,r the conditions ror apmlca.
Ins capabnlllei:
(I) AQlOmalic-identillcalion al Ibe operator's consol, . lion or Ih. rale- confine It to Iocallons with sUbslanllally
!!!sher than average operaling COilS.
. -or Ihelotallon rrom wblcli lbe call is belns made;
(b) Aslomallc Idendllcation II Ib, operator's consol,
_ (Ill Ratts 10 Ihe consumer ror the provision or aller·
of tbe correct lelepbone numbers .or emergency service
nate ooerator services, including direclOry assistancc,
provlden th·u serve Ibe lelephone location, includins but
shall nol exceed Ihe prevailin@ rales for such serylces in nOI limited 10, police, fire, ambulance, and ·poison
the relevant market - InlraLATA or interLATA - un· control:
- ..
less need lor Ibe excess 10 produce rales whicb are fair .
(c) Automalic abilily Illhe ope,alor's-console or di; . jusl and reasonable il demonstrated 10 tbe satisfaction
the commission. In Ihe absence 01 persuasive contrary
aJlnl Ibe approprlale emergency service "lilt a single
evidence, rate levels 01 U S WEST for ;nlfaLATA ser·
~ keyslroke:
(d) Ability or tbe operator 10 slay:on Iheline witb tbe . vice and AT&T ror interLATA service will be consid·
ere'd the prevailing rale.
emergency call unlil Ihe einergency service is dispatched.
(\ 2) Fraud prevention.
No charge shall'be imposed on the caller «from)) ~
Ilte-tetephone company or Ihe allernale operstor services
(al A companv providing ;nlercxchange lelecommuni- -.
calions .ervlce may not bill a call auregator for charges
company ror Ihe emersency call
billed 10 a line lor calls which originated from Ihill line
It thi: alternale operalor services .company does nOI
possess these capabllliles. all calls In whicb the «caUcr))
througb Ihe use of IOXXX+O; IOXXX+Olj 95-XXXXj
or 1-800 access cOdes, or when Ihe call originatina from
Cgnsumer dials uro (0) and no other digits wllbin five
that line olherwiSe ruched an- operator posilion,ll the
. "conds shall be routed direclly to the local exchange
company operalor, or 10 an ,ntily rully capable or com·
originatin! line subscribed 10 outgoing cali screening and
Ihe call was placed arter lhe effect;ve date of Ihe oUlgoplylns wilb tbese requirements, AQS companies lacklnl
Ina call screen;nl order. _
sufficlenl racllitiel to provide sucb roodns _s~n. Celse
operadOllS until sucb time as the requlrel1l<iillS or Ihls
(bl A company providing iillerexchange telecommuni·
seclion are met.
calions service may not-bill to a call agaregalor any.'
_'(((51 eOiiS~iIlel») !ll.,£omplahilS and disputes sb~1l
charsts for collect or Ihird number billed calls, if Ihc
line serving 10 which Ihc cali was billed was subscribed
be treated in accordance wllb WAC 48~12~IOI,
Complainls and disputes.
to incoming "II .emningand the call was placed afler
«t6"l)) ill Cbargcs bllJed to a credit g(d company
Ihe elfeclive dale of the call screening -service order.
(e.S., American Express or Visa) need nol conform to
c An ClIlis billed Ihrou h the local exchan .-carrier
tbe call detail requirements or tbis section. However, Ihe . In. violalion 01 subparasraphs la) or (bl abov$ must
AOS .hall provide «eolis.I\ICIl with)) .peclfic call·delail
removed from llle cali agsresalor's bill bv the local ex·
In aecordan~e with WAC 48()..12()"106 upon_request.
change company llpon idenlificalion. If "invesligalion by
Ihe local -exchange company determines thaI Ihe pertl.
(101 'PUblic convenience Ind advanlase'j surcbarses;
variable rates.
- - . nent cali sereenin vias 0 ralion.1 when Ihe cali was
lal For' jerviccs Dublic convenienCe and. advtnlUc
made, I e loc.1 exchange company- may return Ihc
charges lor the ClIIi 10 lheintercxchange lelecommuni.
means at a mlllimum Ibll the provider or ahernale OJl:
cations company as nOI billable.
erltor services offers aMmor services ~ bleh ....ual or
An ClIIi billtll direc!1 b an allernate 0 ralor
,~ exceed the industiv lIanaards .In 1"lIab htv: lechnicsl
Dualtty Ind resDOnse thne and wbich caUl Ior eme. In·
servIce coni an or lhrou h a billin mcth ot en anthe OCI exchan c com an 'which is billed In v olatlon
dustry Ilandards In Vlrtely or WhICh' Ire parttcu Irly
o sUbparuraphs(a) and (b). a\love. musl_ be remove
adapted 10 meel unique needl of a market segment. In
.(eUblDtalll Ideguatt raclnl

cwiii1IlIliCiI I nil


tor Iacf-_









-',I lUI


WSR JI-l3-t'71
Subsectloll (I) • }!cleled. Tbls chn,. w.. made I~ ,
response 10 COIIIJ\It-' lhl it wu duplicative alld Ineon.llOD
shteal with requirements II WAC 173-460-040..
. Subsectlotl (3XI) relabeled subsection (2)(a)' loci was •
tIIOdIIed by deleted an tell after lhe 'wOfd ~dnlcea." .
WIS sublcri
ThII 'Chanae 'fl1S made In respoIISe to public comtne1ll
thallhe seclloa WI.
ancIlncorrect ,Jammu
~IOI: !H..!!!Il"!I!!m.\iOnI AU I
Sublecdoll (3)(e).wu Idtkd III exeinpt "process v~..
.~ '&;AOhlli#iy ·hiljli!"IIiO tl£
.subject to 4!l CFR Pans. U4 and 265, SUbpan AA."
TWa 'flU Idded In respoI!sIto COIlImenl Ibll relulallon
· ......... _"!lCW M.G5J9S ........ 1M ISC or~.
ot l'hesc Yeats Is duplicative wllb ledenl rule.
allOl dd&lloo IIlirb lOla4lca.. a.-d1llC1ltI1O nlsllni nIel. no Ilk
. paWlIW ..... YUIa 1_ IIJ ,menu.. I. cenahl ltlPCllS IIClt IIWAC 173-4~ NC'flsource reviC'fl.
dleal'" ., 1llI,,"'I'lllest"'~, '
Sublectlon (I). ~e cxplanation of notice· or Conalruc,
_ no 'fPOi!I~ onor 10 lilt 111M .... 1o‫ס‬i ... lion In SUbsectiOll (1)(1) WIS moved 10 tbis sectloil for
cumd I
.." ftkd " ........, and .ppan II IIIc R'liII"
pa"" ",tile "'lOI"mo;II' 01 Rew 34.0I.GlO.
Subsecllon (I )(a). tbls subs:eCtion was. rewrltien to
clarity. The phrUC' "unless conditions In aubsectlons (c)
and (dl or this subsection apply to the ne.w source" was
WAC 480-120-143 'LOCAL SEIlVICE TO, d.eleted and I se~nd senlcnce used 10 explain When no- .
AGQREO~TOIlS. The local Cl~hanse'companY'llarifl'
lification Ind notice or oonstru~lon are 001 requIred•
•hllI prcnIde I)lal evelJ, Issrelilor ofl'erin,1oca1 ealls on
The lerm "applicallon" WIS Iddcd 10 clarify lhal all new
a' pef-QD b.m II!USI provide ."lthou~-eharle 1c:«sJ 10
lOde ionrces musl Pf'lYlde intormatlon 10 the autbority.
911. whete "valtalile. and 10 Ihe local eichanse company
this change Is. made because or chan.e or appllcabllllY
operator. '
or Dew source revle'fl 10 loxic IncreaKs, only. An applicalion will be used to evaluale pollutanl chanSeI as Increises or decreases.
Subsecllon (cl was dcleled becau'se the nollce or con.
structlon requirements were consolidated In subsection
(I)(a". A new requiremc.t becomes subsectloll (c). This
IimilS new source review or modifications Ind "Ibe
IOrder ~Z-FiI.4 Jo•• II. 1"1.1'40 p.m.•• lI'eoti" Sept.mber
CODlaminanlS, ~bose emissions may IncreaSe as a resull •
of Ihe modificalion." This chanae is made for conslslency wilb change made to lhe Washington Clean Air Acl
Dalc or Adoplion: June 18. 1991. "
and because or public comment requestlns Ibat new
Purpose: Relulale' Ihe dis~har8e of loxlc pollutanlS
lource r..lew be IImlled 10 lox~ pollu..nt Increases.
rrom new pollution sour~es and certain exlstina sources
Subseclion (dl was deleted .Ind rewriuen as subSec11\ order to prevent air pollullon. reduce einlsslons 10 Ihe
lion (l)(a)(b)(c). Subtection (2) Is the same as subsec, ex.lend reasonably pOssible Ind mainlain such levels ot
lion (d). Subse~lon (l)(al Is the same as subsection
air qualily as wlll-prolect humin hellth and !ltety.
id)ii). Subsection (d)(il) was relabeled subsecllon (l)(b)
Slatutory Authority tor Adoption: ReW 70.94.331. '
.nd ~hanced by deletlns Ibe phrase 'docs not :Increase
·1'Qnulnt 10 notice "cd as WSIl 91-ll1-ll13 on
toxic air pollulan( emissions lisnlficanlly.' Chanse WIS
December n. 1990•.
made based on. pDblic cammenl that tbls pbrue WI'
. Cbanaes OIber thin Editlnl rrom Proposed to Adopl'
amblluoUS In how II rel,aled 10 the small quanlity emised Venion: WAC 17~""'40-01!l Pu.rpose. '
sion Iables. Subsection (d)(IlI) WIS relabeled subsection
. Subsection (I) 'flas revised 10 clarlry Ihat ecolOlY will
(2)(c) Ind' simplified to relate III .mlnor material
use Ihe I1sIS Iii WAC 173-'160-150 llid 173-'160-160 10
ch.IICes to Ihe small quanlily 'emission tables. The redefine IOxic air pollulanl. ·This ~banae was made 10 Inquirement for demonstrat!nl no overall toxicity Increasc
sure conslstenty wlih Ihe definition of lodc·air pollulanl.
was dropped. This was changed because of public Cl!mWAC 113-'160-020 Definition.
menlthal this seclion was ambiguous. Subseclion (d)(\Y) ,
'Acceptable source Impact level (ASIL)' was revised
.10 clarify lbat Ihe rule does n~ apply 10 restrlcled or ,WIS dropped because. It WIS duplicative wllh Ihe.
nonprocess, fDallive emission exempllon in WAC 173· controlled areas. This change was made in response to
public ~ommenl requestlnl clarlficallon.
Subseclion (2) Is relabeled su!Jseclion (3).
"Rcasonably av.i1able'! te~hnol08Y for !oxics
Subseclion (3)(a) Is rclabeled subseclion (4)(1) and
(T-RACT)' was added. Tbls le~hnololY calegory, was
to add 'Ind IUlhorily' afier:'$\ale.· Chinle Is
· added fot IWO reaSoRs. Chlnges to the Wasblnalon
m:ade 10 clarify Ihat sources musl be in accord wllb .pClean Air Act restrict applic.btllty'Or·new soutce reyiew
pllcable local luth9rlty rules. Chante 'Is made 'In reandT-BACT 10 pollUtant Increases. Publk commenls
10 public comment recommendfnllbls addition.,
recommended Ihal T-BACT apply only 10 sources In·
(3)lb)'ls relabeled lubseetlon.(")(b) and •
creasln.tox.ic pollutants.
modlAed hy adding 'ror I~e lOltic air pollutants wblch
WAC 173"",6~30 Requireinents••ppllcability. and
" ex.eniptlonl. "
, . arc likely 10 Increase." Ch.ngc Is made for conslstenc)'
wllh .the W.shlngton Clean' Air ACi arid becluse of

, 'rom


.iOr'. bill i ..efecommuleatloils
..... '
•• lItestl '
nc II ClOIII • I I




9?0301 - Older Amending, Rep.ea1ing, and Adopting Rules Permanenttr,







.. Pago-l 0112


iE. r::-:.

OnUne Document
....General Info
DocumentNiune: 970301 - Order Amending, Repealing, and AdoptingRUIes
Description: Order Amending WAC 480-120-021, -138 & -141; and Repealing WAC
480-120-137, -142 & -143 Relating to Pay Phone and Operator Service Providers





DECEMBER 29, 1998 at 3:42 p.m., WSR #99-02-020

In the Matter of Amending
WAC 480-120-021,480-120-138 and
480-120-141; and Repealing
WAC 480-120-137,480-120-142 and
Relating to Pay Phone and Operator Services Providers.


























e ••••••••••

DOCKET NO. UT-970301
. STATUTORY OR OTHER AUTHORITY: The Washington Utilities and
Transportation Commission (Commission or WUTC) takes this action under
Notice WSR #98-17-068, filed with the Code Reviser on August 17,1998. This
Commission brings this proceeding pursuant to RCW 80.04.160, RCW 80.36.520
and RCW 80.01.040.
STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE: This proceeding complies'with the Open Public
Meetings Act (chapter 42.30 RCW), the Administrative Procedure Act (chapter
34.05 RCW), the State Register Act (chapter 34.08 RCW), the S~,
~xHIBIT f.-[


.. .




',' 9?0301 ~ Order A~jrig, ~ and Adopting Rules PemianentlY,•....,






Environmental Policy Act of 1971 (chapter 34.21C RCW), and the RegulatorY
FalmessAct(chapter 19.85 RCW). '
DATE OF'ADOPTlON: The Commission adopted this t:lIle on
October 28, 1998.
proposal requires pay phone service providers and operator service providers to
provide a consistent level of service and to meet Intrastate standards that are
, consistent with federal requirements. The rules will also preserve, to the extent
possible, continued consumer protections in a largely-deregulated environment
by measures including adequate disclosure to consumers at the pay phone itself,
at the time of a call. The rules recognize fede.ral mandates lifting economic
regulation from pay telephones and operator services. Rule amendments delete
provisions that are no longer applicable or are unduly burdensome, maintain a
minimum level of service, provide a means to obtain limitations on service when
needed for public purposes, imp9se consumer protections through disclosure at
the pay phone, and inform consumers of their rights as pay phone users. The
rules also reduce the level of bureaucratic involvement in this business to the
minimum' consistent with adequate consumer protection. Rules revisions are
designed to meet standards set out in Executive Order 97-02.
REFERENCE TO AFFECTED RULES: This rule repeals, amends, or suspends
the following sections of the Washington Administrative Code:
Amends WAC 480-120-021 Glossary, WAC 480-120-138 Pay telephones - Local
and intrastate, and WAC 480-120-141 Alternate operator services; and,
Repeals WAC 480-120-137 Customer-owned pay telephones -Interstate, WAC
480-120-142 Alternate operator services - Enforcement, and WAC 480-120-143
Local service to aggregators.
The Commission filed a Preproposal Statement of Inquiry (CR-101) on March 27,
1998, at WSR #97-08-036.
STATEMJ;NT: The statement advised interested persons that the Commission
was considering entering a rulemaking relating to pay telephones and alternate
operator service providers. The Commission also informed persons of the inquiry
into this matter by providing notice ofthe subject and the CR-101 to all persons
6n the Commission's list of persons requesting such information pursuant to
HCW 34.05.320(3), by gending notice to all registered "telecommunications
companies, and by providing notice to the Commission's list of
telecommunications attorneys.


http://www.wutc... J53aI836c22271aaf882566efU0584acOIOpenDociunent&Highiight=2.priso


!T!lOOl- Ordet Amending, ~iDg, BII!l Adopting Rules permanent~l






Pui'$Uant to the notice, the Commission held a workshop on May 6, 1997. The
. Commls$lon on JI!Iy 3, 1997, wrote Interested persons, summarizing tile workshop and
requesting commenl$. On September 12,1997, the Commission Staffclrculated a draft of
· possible rule changes, based on ~ discussions andcommenl$, to Interested persons,
. requesting further commenl$. Commission Staff received commenl$, and prepared and
sent a secoljd draft of possible rules to Interested persons on April 28, 1998 and requested
comments on tile poSsible changes. .
Staff Convened a meeting of Interested persons on June 2, 1998, to discuss the economic
impact of this rulemaklng. Repr~ntatlves from the Northwest Payphone Association, local
. and long distance telephone companieS, and Public Counsel-were Invited to attend.
Commission Staff also Circulated a questionnaire to gain more Information about the cost
impaCts of the rule. Five companies responded to the questionnaire. This information and
their participation in the discussion led to the resu!ts summarized In the Small Business
Economic Impact Statement
· NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKlNG: The Commission filed a notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (CR-102) on August 17, 1998, at WSR #98-17-068. The
Commission scheduled this matter for oral comment and adoption under Notice.
WSR #98-17-068 at 9:30 a,m., Wednesday, October 28~ 1998 in the
Commission's Hearing Room,.Second Floor, Chandler Plaza Building, 1300 S.
· Evergreen Park Drive S.W., Olympia, Washington. The Notice also provided
interested persons the opportunity to submit written comments to the
COMMENTERS (WRITIEN COMMENTS): The Comm!ssion received written
comment~ from Fullers of Chehalis and Centralia, Jeffrey D. Glick of Seattle, .
GTE; Northwest Inc.(GTE-NWJ, McDonalds in Vancouver, the Northwest .
Payphone Association (NWPA), William Paine of-Maple Valley, the Public
Counsel section of the Washington Attorney General (Public Counsel), the City of
Seattle, Sentliry Market in Goldendale, United Telephone Company of the
Northwest (Sprint), Teltrust Communications Services, Inc. (Teltrust), U S WEST
Communications, Inc. (U S WEST), the Washington Independent Telephone
Association (WITA), and Washington State Representative Philip E. Dyer.
Based on the comments received, Commission Staff suggested revised language
without changing the intent or ultimate effect of the proposed rule.
RULEMAKING HEARING: The rule changes were considered for adoption,
pursuant to the notice, at the Commission's regularly scheduled open public
meeting on October 28, 1998 before Chairwoman Anne Levinson and
Commissioner Richard Hemstad. The Commission heard oral comments from
Suzanne Stillwell, representing Commission staff; Brooks Harlow, represe.nting
the NWPA; Matt Steuerwalt, representing Public Counsel; and Theresa Jensen,
representing U S WEST. Oral commenters repeated concerns that were stated in
.their previous written comments. .

http://www.wutc.. ..I53a1836c22271aaf882566ef00584acO!OpenDocument&Highlight=2.priso 9113/00·

"" '.I:U",Ul -umer Amending, ~ andAdopting Rules P""'~-J

- '




participants worked diligently to achieve consensus, the participants IiInd
Commission staff did not reach complete agreement on some topics. A. summary·
of those areas follows.

1. Jodsdjctjonallssues. Several commenters assert that the Commission does
not have Jurisdlctic:m over pay phones at all because, they--argye, the
Telecommunications Act of 1996 removed all'regulation from Hie state.
Commenters believe that the proposed ruleiare Inconsistent with federal law
and regulation and that the incumbent local exchange companies (LECs) will be
" disadvantaged in the competitive market The Commission rejects these "
".arguments. While FCC rules ended state regulation of the local coin rate, it left to
the states the authority to regulate other aspects of the pay phone industry,
especially In the area ~f consumer protection. The rules are consistent with the
intent of CongreSs and the FCC, and are competitively neutral as it relates to
Incumbent L E C s . "
2. Disclosure at the pay phone. Commenters argued that the disclosure that the
"rules require from both the pay phone service provider and operator service
provider is unneCessary and costly, thattoo many numbers must be posted, and
that technical limitations may affect their ability to offer on-demand verbal rate
quotes. The Commission strongly believes that adequate disclosure at the pay
phone site is essential to promote 'effective competition and to inform and protect
users appropriately of pay phone services. The amount of posting will be nearly
the same as prior rule language (adding one telephone number while removing
other language). Adding the Commission's compliance number is a necessary
consumer protection measure. The Commission will consider requests for
waivers of the rules pursuantto WAC 480-120-141(2)(b) iftechnicallimitations
reasonably prevent offering on-demand verbal ra~e quotes on request.
3. Compensation for incoming calls. Commenters argued that pay phone
providers should be allowed to charge customers for calls made to pay phones
(incoming calls), and that the rules' prevention of such charges violates federal
law. The Commission rejects this argument. Federal statute and FCC orders are
at most ambiguous about the existence of an obligation to compensate incoming
calls, and the Commission finds no legal or policy reason to allow such charges.
4. Restrictions on calliength~ Some pay phone providers (PSPs) and/or location
providers want the authority to restrict the length of local calls. These PSPs argue
that all customers should have reasonable access to a phone. The rules require
that a basic local call be a minimum of 15 minutes, which will allow persons
ample time to cond~c~ business, wait on "hold", or deaJ with exceptional
circumstances. PubliC' Counsel urges that there be nq restrictions 01') length of
local calls, except to meet needs due to illicit activity. The rule does not require
the restriction of calls to 15 minutes, but offers a balance betweEW.~lj~t91J1Jl!





http://www.wutc .. .J53a1836c22271aafS1I2566ef00584acOIOpenDocument&Highiight=2.priso 9/13/00

. :;I


~U.lUJ - \.IlUCr 1\W!II01Dg,





I1114Adopting Rules permanent1yn
. .




turnover and Individual callers' needs. The reqUirement does ·not affect the mm
.. for a local call, which pursuant to federal requirements Is not regulated~


Other specific comments that the Commission rejected in adopting the rules
include the followillg: . . .
. WAC 480-120·138 Pay phone service providers (PSPs)
Subsection 138(3)(d), required access to telecommuniCations relay servjce calls
for the hearing Impaired. Public Counsel urged retaining the broader language of
the existing rule, 480-120-138(8), to require that "...installation complies with all
applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations concerning the use of
telephones by disabled persons." Although the Commission does not support
other violations of law, and if it learns of such violations will report them
appropriately, it has no jurisdiction to act upon such vio.lations. Other agencies
have the responsibility for ensuring compliance with other federal, state and local
Subsection 138(4)(a). Posting of rates. The rule requires that the rate and any
call length limitations be clearly and legibly poste.d on or near the front of the pay
phone. Public Counsel asks that all placards bear the rate in 30-point or larger
type sruI. contrasting color. Contrasting colors can be an effective means of
highlighting the local call charge, as well as larger type, and either one is .
. . 138(4){c). Notice that no change is provided. GTE argues that it is a commonly
known fact that pay' phones do· not make change and that it needlessly uses
space on an already overlo~ded pla.card. The Commission rejects the argument;
virtually all contemporary-technology coin-operated devices offer change, and
there is n9 technological reason why the telephone instrument cannot be
provisioned to do so. GTE can avoid the disclosure requirement by providing
instruments that make change.
. 138(4)(9) and (k), Posting requirements. Subsection (g) requires the PSP to post
the name,address, and without-charge telephone number of all presubscribed
operator service providers serving the instrument, and that the placard be
updated within 30 days after a change, GTE argues that the 30-day requirement
will be burdensome in parts of its rural territory. In some areas, the company may
only maihtain telephones on an lias needed" basis. As to 138(4)(k), requiring
updated placarding within 60 days after the effective date of a rule change, GTE
asks that it be amended to permit change at the time of the next regularly
scheduled visit to the pay phone. The Commission rejects the suggestion that the
time periods be extended. The trade-offs here are between consumer information
and PSP convenience and expense. From the time of the change uritil the correct
information is posted, consumers will not have on-site access to accurate
E .5'-


http://www.wutc... J53a1836c22271aaf882566ef00584acOIOpenDocument&Highlight=2.priso 9113/00

,nV.lVl- UI\ICO: lUll_ling, ~

. : ..~.

anaAOOpung Kules permanently.:




· Infonnation. The Commission recognizes that an '1mmediate change"
requirement would Impose hardships on PSPsand sizeable expense. The time
perlods.set In the rule appropriately balance the affected Interests. P8P .
Information shows that the time periods will allow changes to be made during
"routine" site visits In the vast majority of Instances. Thirty days Is appropriate to
change out placards when there has been charige In' a presubscribed operator
service provider, and sixty days is a (8asonable time period to change out
· placards
. as a result of this or comparable rule changes•


138 (4)0). Commission toll-free number. This subsec~ion requires posting, in
· contrasting colors, the Commission's consumer complaint compliance number, to
include a statement that, "If you have a complaint about service from this pay
phone and are unable to resolve it with the pay phone owner/operator, please call
the WUTC at 1-888-333-WUTC (9882)." NWPA, US WEST, and GTE object to
printing a Washington-specific placard that puts another number in very limited
space. They contend that the public may become confused. and fail to follow
· instructions for routine calls. They fear that this will lead to a costly level of
misdirected complaints that should be managed by the PSP. The Commission
rejects this·view.The Commission compliance number is necessary to support its
compliance efforts and to get information from consumers about pay phone
Public Counsel suggests retaining the eXisting rule language of 480-120-138(14)
that requires credit-card operated phones to identify all credit cards accepted.
The Commission believes that in today's market this is not critical for consumer
protection, and the marketplace will address this issue.
138(5)(c). one line per instrument. This subsection requires that a PSP obtain a
separate pay phone access line (PAL) for each pay phone instrument. Pay phone
providers oppose this, suggesting that it may stifle innovation and prevent PSPs
from obtaining the most efficient and cost-effective service. The problem
addreS.sed by this rule is assuring that the pay phone is available for service - if a
single line serves more than one instrument, the line cannot be available for both
instruments at the same time. The rule was modified in response to this objection
and now specifically provides for Commission waiver if a company demonstrates
that technology accomplishes the same result as the rule's requirement.
138(5)(d) and (e). Extension. cordless or tabletop telephones. U S WEST argues
that the WUTC should not regulate the operational characteristics of extension
telephones, cordless,or tabletop telephones because such phones, as customer
provided eqUipment (CPE), are deregulated. We reject this argument. The.rule
does not regulate CPE. It does not prohibit such equipment, set a rental rate for
such equipmeht, or regulate the dimensions, color, form, or style of the·
equipment. The rule regulates the services provided to the customer, a matter
that remains within the Commission's jurisdiction.


http://www.wutc ... i53aI836c22271aaf882566eto0584acOlOpenDocument&HighIight=2.priso . 9/13/00

,,!V-W1- UNCr AmeMmg, ~and A~ RlIles perman~




Page 7 of 12


138(5)(1) Keypad reStrIction. The rule requires that a pay phone may not restrict
the number of digits or letters that may be dialed. US WEST argues that the
restriction Is Inconsistent with marketplace demands, and that whether or not to
apply keypad restriction should be a declslon·b~tween the PSP and location
providers. The CommisSion rejeCts US WEST'S' arguments. In today's
environment, consumers'need keypad access after dialing the number to enter
billing codes, to' retrieve voice messages, use pagers, access bank accounts and .
• . credit card accounts, call offices that use automated menus, etc. Keypad
restrictions often mean that the cost of a call is wasted and the consumer has no
means to conduct her or his activities. Keypad restriction is of little value in
preventing professional crime, because portable tone generators are readily
. available to persons who know they will lJeed them. If location-specific problems
call for keypad restrictions, waiver is available under subsection (6) of the rule. .
138(5)(g) Coin and Credit Operation. Pay phones may provide credit-only
service,or coin and credit service. U S WEST again states that it is inconsistent
with market place demands, and shOuld be a decision between the PSP and
location providers to determine type of restrictions. A company may apply for
waiver of the rules if necessary.
138(6) Authorizing Restrictions - This prOVision allows the Commission to direct
limitations on pay phone service upOn request of local governing jurisdictions to
support their efforts to prevent or limit criminal or illicit activities. Restrictions may .
include, but are not limited to, blocking of incoming calls, limiting touch tone
capabilities, and imposing coin restriction during certain hours. US WEST argues·
that this is beyond the Commission's jurisdiction and inconsistent with federal
law; it argues that PSPs will implement such restrictions appropriately and
willingly at the request of local communities, property owners, neighborhood
groups, or others at the discretion of the company. The Commission rejects the
~uggestion that such restrictions must be available without Commission
oversight The Commission does have the jurisdiction and the authority to ensure
consumer protection and the minimum service and quality standards provided
from pay phones. While the Commission should not be an impediment to
effective local police and safety regulation, interests of consumers must be a
factor in the process.'
138(7) Telephone directories The PAL provider must furnish without charge one
current directory each year and the PSP must ensure that a current directory is
available at every pay phone. GTE argues that this is costly ahd burdensome,
and suggested thaUhe PSP need only make j'a reasonable effort" to Iillake a
curren~ directory available at every pay phone location. We disagree. Providing ~
directory Is a part of pay phone service. Consumers should not be forced to use'
directory assistance for numbers that are readily available in a local directory.

http://www.wutc... J53a1836c22271aaf882566efD0584acO!OpenDocument&Highlight=2.priso 9/13/00


·138(8) Correcting malfunctions and rule violalions. The rule imPoses a5-day limit
for correcting reported malfunctions or rul~ violations. US WEST argues that
. "Malfunction" aspect should be removed because it is· beyond the WUTC's
jurisdiction since pay phones are deregulated. As noted repeatedly in this order,
the ComJ:l1lsslon disagrees sharply with US WEST's limited view of our .
jurisdiction. Public Counsel suggests retaining provisions of the existing 480-120..
138(18) that make a LEC resPonsible to ensure that.its PSP customers comply .
with ru.les regarding the use of its PAL line. We reject this suggestion; In today's
. ' competitive marketplace it is inappropriate to require the LEC to police the .
activities of a competitor. Each company is independently responsible for
compliance with WUTC rules.
WAC 480-120-141 Operator service. providers (OSPs)
141 (2)(a) Posting - rates. Public Counsel asks the Commission to retain the .
language from the prior rule that "Service ·on this instrument may be provided at
rates that are higher than normal. You have the right to contact the operator for
. information regarding charges before placing your caU ....". The Commission
rejects the request The adopted disclosures provide needed notice, especially
coupled with the opportllnity to receive an on-demand verbal rate quote.
GTE, NWPA, U S WEST expressed the same concerns discussed above in the
138 (4) section on disclosure requirements for pay phone service providers. The
Commission notes that disclosure is reasonably required for consumer
protection, and resolves these concerns in the same way.
141 (2)(b) Verbal Disclosure of Rates. Before an operator-assisted call from an
aggi"egator location may be connected by a presubscrib~d OSP, the OSP must
verbally advise the caller how to receive a rate quote, such as by pressing a
specific key'or keys, but no more than two·keys, or by staying on the line. The
rate· quoted for the call must include any applicable surcharge, and charges must
not exceed the quote.
Teltrust argues that the proposal is premature in light of the I=Cc's
reconsideration ofthe parallel federal rule, which is subject to change. It argues
that the rule is burdensome and expensive and that it threatens to harm OSPs as
. well as consumers by leading to rate increases. GTE states that it does not have
the technology to comply, but that it should be able to do so by late 1999. The
NWPA does not object to the verbal requirement as long as it is consistent with
federal requirements both in substance and in. the timing of implementation. US
WEST argues that the WUTG should postpone adoption of rule language
concerning this issue until the FCC adopts its final rule, stating that the needed
teclinolollY is not currently available for U S WEST, and wi!! take about 15
months to implement once a final decision is made to use it. US WEST also
argues thatthe rule generates costs. and expenses to the company that they do




Page 9 of12


· not face today. Public. Counsel argues that provisions. of exisijng ruleS, 48()'12()'
141 (10)(b) and (11) containing liinits on OSP rates should be retained;
The COmmission adoptS .the FCC's verbal disclosure requirement on an intrastate basis. Staff recognizes that the FCC granted limited waivers and extensions
of time to come into' compliance to several specific petitioners for automated
. calls, collect call and inmate selVices(10/31198, and .1.2131198 for collect call and
inmate services, respectively). Further;the FCC permitted OSPs that use store· and-fo~rd technology, until October 1999, to come into compliance with its
· rules. The federal rule is stayed only as it applies to interstate (ntraLATA operator
services until 60 days after release of the FCC's reconsideration order.
The verbal rate disclosure option is necessary to better inform consumers,
fosters a more competitive environment, and it serves the public interest
Petitioners to the FCC rule have indicated they can use live operators for rate
quotes during the interim period. Staffs intent is that the WUTC rules be as
consistent with the FCC as local conditions permit If there are significant
changes to the FCG rule resulting from the FCC's review and resulting order, the
Commission will do an expedited rulemaking at that time to consider changes
needed for consistency. Waivers will be considered during the interim period,
consistent with the FCC approach.
141 (6)(b) Operational capabilities - adequate facilities. This rule requires the
OSP to determine cause of excessive blockage and take steps to correct 'the
problem. US WEST argues this is not enforceable, stating that the responsible
party is the Interexchangee Carrier (IXC), since the IXC is prOVisioning trunking.
The Commission believes that the OSP needs to pursue any service problem
directly with the IXC or other responsible party to resolve a blocking problem.
141 (6)(c) Operator service standards.. US WEST asks the Commission to.reject
this language as ambiguous and not measurable. The Commission believes that
the language as stated is a reasonable public expectation and that it is stated
With sufficient clarity.
141 (6)(d) Operational capabilities - reorigination. The rule requires an OSP to
reoriginate calls to another carrier upon request and without charge when
eqUipment that will accomplish reorigination with screening and allow billing from
the point of origin of the call, is in place. If reorigination is not available, the OSP
must give dialing instructions for the consumer's preferred carrier. US WEST
asks the Commission to eliminate this provision because its operators do not
have dialing instructions for customers who wish to reoriginate a call to another
carrier. Customers are transferred to· directorY assistance to learn their preferred .
- carrier's access number. The Company argues that OSP's shouldncit have to ..
incur the expense of increased call handling time. The Commission notes that
. this is not new rule language and that it requires no new technol~¥ .,Tl1.e






... .I53aI836c22271aaf882566ef00584acOIOpenDocument&Hlghlight=2.priso

. ..


- - - • --'0'00



6-r.:,...-...."'IS> ...... noN}"W5""""" rqmllJlCllU!










required service is appropriate and should continue to be required.
141 (9) Enforcement Public Counsel asks the WUTC to retain language from
WAC 48();.12o-142, whiCh IncludeS specific RCWs and WAC's detailing minimum
selVice levels. The Commission rejects the proposal because revised rule
IncorpOrates needed references.
COMMISSION ACTION: After considering ail of the infonnation regarding this
pr9Posal, the Commission repealed the three rules proposed fot repeal and
adopted the proposed rule amendments, with the changes described and
discussed in this order. Appendix A of this order sets out the rule as adopted.
CHANGES FROM PROPOSAL: The Commission adopted the proposal with the
following changes from the, text noticed at WSR #98-17-068. Note that the
changes described below are in addition fo non-substantive grammatical,
editorial, and minor clarifying changes.
WAC 480-120-021 Glossary
Pay phone services definition was changed to "provision of pay phone equipment
to the public for placement of local exchange, interexchange, or operator service
calls. This amendment was offered by the N\lVPA. We adopt it for the reasons
advocated in its support.
WAC 480-120-138 Pay phone service providers (PSPs)
138(4)(b) is changed to state that "notice must be posted that directory
assistance charges may apply, and to ask the operator for rates" ,rather than the
proposed requirement to state the rate. Public Counsel asks that the Commission
retain a rate cap at dominant carrier's rates. The FCC requirement appears to be
clear that PSPs, if charged for Directory Assistance, may pass those costs onto
the consumer/caller. The adopted language is consistent with the intent of the
rule and the need for appropriate disclosure from pay phones.
138(5)(h) One way call restriction. Many commenters want the flexibility to deal
on their own with the question of whether or not to ban incoming calls. They
argue that pay phone owners and location providers should be allowed to restrict
phones against incoming calls whenever they choose. The Commission believes
that, generally, two-way service should be available'from pay phones. However,
the Commission proposed exceptions to this policy to meet concerns that were
expressed. Present exceptions allowing restricting incoming calls in libraries and
hospitals, where quiet is necessary for the operation of the institution, would
. continue. The Commission proposed a new exception, inside thebuilding~of'a
, private business, where the pay phone provider and the location owner may
decide whether to restrict against incoming calls. Phones located outside such,




http://www.wutc.. .J53aI836c22271aaf882566efl10584acOIOpenDocurnent&Highlight=2.priso 9/13/00





: "'.




• . private business locations, and in or on premises where'peOple have access to
public transportation suCh as airports, bus and train stations, must provide twoway service unless the Commission grants a,waiver. Adopted language
addresses concerns heard in the comments, and it Is consistent with the intent of
" the rule and appropriate consumer protection.


. 138(6) Is revised to remov~ repetitive and unnecessary language, to correCtly

identify the appropriate subsection for ~equesting a waiver, and to shorten the
comment period from thirty fo twenty days when there has been a request to
restrict a pay phone, as the City of Seattle suggests. It is consistent with the
intent of the rule and with appropriate consumer protection.
the entire record, the Commission determined that WAC sections 480-120-021,
480-120-138 and 480-120-141 should be amended to read as set forth in
AppendiX A, as rules of the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission,
and WAC sections 480-120-137, 480-120-142, and 480-120-143 should be
repealed, to take effect pursuant to RCW 34.05.380(2) on the thirty-first day after
filing with the Code Reviser.

1. WAC sections 480-120-021, 480-120-138 and 480-120-141 are amended to
read as set forth in Appendix A, as rules of the Washington Utilities and
Transportation Commission, and WAC sections 480-120-137,480-120-142 and
480-120-143 are repealed; to take effect on the thirty-first day after the date of
.filing with the Code Reviser pursuant to RCW 34.05.380(2)..

2. This order and the rule set out below, after being recoi'ded in the register of the
Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission, shall be forwarded to the
.Code Reviser for filing pursuant to chapters 80.01 and 34.05 RCW and chapter
1~21 WAC.'
3. The Commission adopts the Commission Staff memoranda, presented when
the Commission considered filing a Preproposal Statement of Inquiry, when it
considered filing the formal notice 'of proposed rulemaking, and when it
considered adoption of this proposal, in conjunction with the text of this order, as
its Concise Explanatory Statement of the reasons for adoption of the proposed
changes, as required by RCW 34.05.025.
DATED at Olympia, Washington, this 28th day of December 1998.

http://www.wutc.•. J53a1836c22271aaf882566ef00584acO!OpenDocument&lllgbllght=2.priso





------------- r '

.DJ-..---~&:-.'W."'"'RI"tl. ".




WILLIAM R. GILLIS, Commissioner
.. Creation Info

Cathie Anderson was the last to edit this document. on 06/30/99.
, 130~ S. Evergreen Park Drive ~W - Olympia, WA98504-7250
Phone: 360-664-1160 (Ill state toll-free: 1-800-562-6150) FAX: 360-586-1150
Comment Form I Complaint Form I Contact Us
To request avaUabUity of docamellts
III alternate format, please cOlltad
(360) 664-1133 or
TTY at (360 586-8203

http://www.wutc.•. J53a1836c22271aaf882566efU0584acOIOpenDocument&Highlight=2.priso 9/13/00