1 Customer Service Standards Washington Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors Spring Conference – Chelan, WA May 1-2, 2014 Brian T. Grogan,

1

Customer Service Standards

Washington Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors

Spring Conference – Chelan, WA

May 1-2, 2014

Brian T. Grogan, Esq.

612-877-5340

[email protected]

2

Customer Service

Many jurisdictions have adopted the FCC’s customer service obligations (47 C.F.R. § 76.309)

Two main issues:1. Telephone Response Time

2. Installations and Service Calls

3

Customer Service1. Telephone Response Time

– 24/7 customer service– Answer time within 30 secs (90%)

• Under “Normal Operating Conditions (NOC)”– Busy signal less than 3%– Call received by automated response unit (ARU)

• Or live human being

2. Installations and Service Calls– Within 7 days of request– 4 hour time block (during Normal Business Hours)– Within 24 hours of interruption– Begin corrections next business day

4

Regional Call Centers• Combining customer service operations to

serve 100,000+ subscribers– Has resulted in loss of local presence/office

• Many call centers handle multiple services– Cable Service– High-speed data (cable modem)– Local telephony

5

Call Center Performance• Some centers struggle handling voice, video

and data service calls– Historical difficulty meeting 90% compliance

• Industry has history of blaming poor telephone responsiveness on:– Voice and data service calls

• Rollout of new services• Time consuming calls

Service Level Performance• TSL - Telephone Service Level TSL: HWSL / NCH

– Calls answered in 30 seconds

– NCO - Number of calls offered to the call center

– NCH - Number of calls handled by the call center

– HWSL - Number of calls handled within service level by call center

– ASA - Average Speed of answer for all calls• Should be less than 30 seconds

– % ATB - percentage all trunks busy > 3%

6

Month NCO NCH HWSL TSL ASA %ATB

2011-4 15795 15684 14769 94.2% 11.64 0%

2011-5 11867 11812 11332 95.9% 9.55 0.1%

2011-6 9203 9151 8659 94.6% 13.23 0.0%

Q2-QTD 36865 36647 34760 94.9% 11.30 0%

7

8

Normal Operating Conditions• Defined by FCC• Within the control of operator

– Upgrades

– Rate increases

– Peak demand

• Not within the control of operator– Power outages

– Weather

– Telephone network outages

• Operators often argue that their call centers are not under NOC

9

Normal Operating ConditionsExample: Your system is served by regional call center covering entire state

– Storm 100 miles away results in heavy call volume– Subscribers in your City can’t get through on

telephone– Is operator relieved of compliance because it was

not under NOC in part of their region?

Between line cuts, weather, telephone & power outages will call center ever be under NOC?

10

Normal Operating Conditions• The larger the call center the bigger the problem• How can cities verify compliance with customer

service standards?– Will objective local data be available?– If no local data will operator rely on regional data?

• Scrubbed data v. raw data– Scrubbed data excludes time when operator is not

under NOC– How is this calculated?

– Does your franchise permit access to data?

11

City of Savage Case• City of Savage v. Triax Midwest Associates, L.P.

– unpublished MN Court of Appeals decision 9/29/98

• City adopted FCC’s Customer Service Standards (CSS)– By providing Triax 90 days written notice

• City also had CSS in Franchise Agreement• City requested info to verify compliance• Triax failed / refused to provide info

12

City of Savage Case• City found Triax in violation of franchise for its

failure to:– open customer service center during normal

business hours– provide monthly compliant log – answer phones within 30 seconds– ensure busy signal less than 3% under normal

operating conditions – provide 4 hour appointment window for installations

and service calls – provide written information to subscribers

13

City of Savage Case• Triax challenged to MN Court of Appeals• Court found City’s record

– Contained substantial evidence supporting non-compliance

• Record consisting of numerous subscriber complaints – Found to be sufficient despite lack of telephone

records which Triax never produced• After decision Triax settled with City

14

City of Savage – Part II• City found new operator in violation of franchise on

October 15, 2001– Failure to provide quarterly telephone answering

reports “specific to the system serving the city.”• In early 2002, City drew $26,250 from security fund

under franchise

15

City of Savage – Part II• Parties entered into Settlement Agreement in

October 2002.• Operator agreed to the following:

1. Special 800 # for customer service inquiries exclusively for Savage residents

2. Separate and dedicated trunk capacity to handle traffic on 800 Savage line

3. Separate 4 person staff of CSRs assigned exclusively to handle incoming calls from Savage residents

16

City of Savage – Part II4. Designed customized software to track Savage only

call information

5. Deploy roll-over lines for 24/7 live CSR assistance

6. Savage specific report format (14 days from end of quarter)• Daily ACD report printouts• Providing half hour by half hour call data

7. Financial settlement addressing City’s costs

Future??• Are the FCC standards obsolete?

– Email inquiries– iPad applications– On-line bill handling– Self install kits

• Local office– Will there be local offices in the next few years?

• Without local regulation– Will industry be governed by competition, or– Will cities have single provider and limited service

17

18

Thank YouBrian T. Grogan, Esq.

Moss & Barnett, A Professional Association4800 Wells Fargo Center, 90 South Seventh Street

Minneapolis, MN 55402-4129(612) 877-5340 phone / (612) 877-5999 facsimile

E-mail: [email protected] site: www.lawmoss.com