Michigan Bell Telephone Company is a communications company, which provides local, long-distance telephone, cellular service, paging, security, cable TV, Internet access, and directory publishing services. The company was founded in 1904 and is headquartered in Detroit, Michigan. Michigan Bell Telephone Company operates as a subsidiary of AT&T Teleholdings, Inc.
444 Michigan Avenue
Detroit, MI 48226-2517
Founded in 1904
Michigan Public Service Commission Issues Order Regarding Complaint of Evelyn McMillian Against AT&T Michigan
Sep 24 13
Michigan Public Service Commission issued order regarding complaint of Evelyn McMillian against AT&T Michigan is dismissed with prejudice. On March 14, 2012, Evelyn McMillian filed a complaint against AT&T Michigan (AT&T) alleging that AT&T had changed her service plan without her authorization, changed the wiring inside her residence preventing her from using her inside wire and telephone equipment, charged her for calling features not provided, and failed to provide her with correct information when she contacted customer service. AT&T filed an answer to the complaint on April 20, 2012, a motion to dismiss on April 30, 2012, and a motion to suspend service on May 9, 2012. On May 9, 2012, an evidentiary hearing was held before Administrative Law Judge Thomas E. Maier (ALJ). AT&T, the complainant, and the Commission Staff (Staff) appeared at the hearing. On August 12, 2013, the ALJ issued a Proposal for Decision in which he found that the complainant provided sufficient factual allegations to make AT&T aware of the nature of her claims as required by the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 1999 AC, R460.17505. The ALJ found that AT&T did not violate the Michigan Telecommunications Act (MTA), MCL 484.2101 et seq., when changing Ms. McMillian's service plan. The ALJ also found that the complainant did not meet her burden of proof, nor did AT&T violate the MTA, with regards to the increase in the complainant's monthly bill, the assessment of long distance charges, and the charges for and loss of 'linebacker' service. Because he found no violations of the MTA, the ALJ recommended dismissing the complaint with prejudice. The ALJ provided the parties an opportunity to file exceptions by September 3, 2013, and if necessary, replies to exceptions. No party filed exceptions. The Commission reviewed the record, agrees with the reasoning of the ALJ, adopts the PFD, and finds that the complaint should be dismissed with prejudice.