Source
Automatically imported from: http://commons.somewhere.com:80/rre/1994/unfortunate.FCC.decision.html
Content
This web service brought to you by Somewhere.Com, LLC.
unfortunate FCC decision on Caller ID
``` For the complete issue of Privacy from which these bits are excerpted, send a message that looks like:
To: rre-request@weber.ucsd.edu Subject: archive send cnid
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 94 19:13 PDT From: privacy@vortex.com (PRIVACY Forum) Subject: PRIVACY Forum Digest V03 #12
PRIVACY Forum Digest Wednesday, 29 June 1994 Volume 03 : Issue 12
---
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 1994 15:14:45 +0500 From: gregoa@lucas.emi.com (Grego) Subject: New York PSC letters to FCC and V.P. Gore regarding CNID
[ This message was received directly from the NY PSC for publication in PRIVACY Forum. Please be sure to send any replies to the postal address indicated, not to the email address of the sender. -- MODERATOR ]
These attached letters from New York State Public Service Commission Chairman Peter A. Bradford to Federal Communicatons Commission Chairman Reed Hundt and Vice President Albert Gore are being forwarded to alert you to a recent FCC ruling (Docket 91-281) that could affect the privacy interests of telephone consumers if it takes effect as planned. Send comments to: NYS PSC, Consumer Services Division, 3 Empire State Plaza, Albany, NY 12223.
---
STATE OF NEW YORK PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION ALBANY 12223
June 1, 1994
Reed Hundt, Chairman Federal Communications Commission 1919 M Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20554
Dear Chairman Hundt:
I am writing to express my concern about the Federal Communications Commission's recent decision (Docket #91-281) limiting the range of privacy protections available to telephone callers in connection with Call ID service. The potential preemptive features of this decision undermine sensible allocation of responsibility between state and federal jurisdictions, namely that the federal government preempt only where issues of overriding national concern are clearly at stake and then only after strong proof that no alternative approach will protect the national concerns.
All of these essential elements (clear national concern, strong proof, and the absence of other alternatives) are lacking here. Instead, the casual reasoning and the destructive remedy mock stated Clinton Administration eagerness to work with the states to assure that telecommunications decisions are sensitive to important consumer issues.
The FCC's decision appears to ignore the states' considerable experience with Call ID. Prior to its authorization of Call ID, the New York Public Service Commission (like many other states) conducted extensive customer outreach and education programs to determine how best to balance the privacy interests of the calling and called parties. Many witnesses, including psychiatrists, social workers, police, other public safety officials, as well as family violence crisis centers, saw danger and/or nuisance in Call ID without the option of per line blocking.
These hearings established that privacy protection consisting only of per call blocking represents the worst of all worlds. The harassing caller is unlikely to forget to use per call blocking. It is the customer who does not realize the implications of the availability of Call ID to commercial number gatherers (or others who may abuse it) who is likely to make his or her telephone number inadvertently available. As a result, we concluded that in New York callers should have the option of both per call and per line blocking. Since Call ID service was approved with these options two years ago, no complaints have been received from either Call ID subscribers or callers on the issue of blocking. Furthermore, the market for Call ID does not seem to be hurt by the availability of per line blocking, for subscription rates are at least as high in states with per line blocking as elsewhere.
Nevertheless, the FCC decision contemplates preemption of state requirements inconsistent with a federal per-call-blocking- only regime. Since per line blocking only for intrastate calls does not seem feasible, New York's standard (and those of some 40 other states) will be preempted. Protracted litigation over the FCC decision is certain and may impede the introduction of interstate Call ID service. Several states, including New York, are seeking reconsideration of the FCC decision and California has challenged the FCC order in court. Customer confusion and disappointment with limitations on privacy options will spawn a host of complaints.
Furthermore, it will be hard for state regulators to justify the current surcharge for unpublished listings while telephone companies market a service that compromises the value of those listings. I have enclosed a recent New York notice raising this concern for parties in two major cases. Telephone companies are not likely to go forward with Call ID if they must forego tens of millions of dollars per year in charges for unpublished numbers.
I hope that the FCC will think again about the impact of this decision. It is likely to damage the prospects for Call ID, and it is certain to damage federal-state relations in the communications area at a time when much depends on our mutual trust and cooperation.
Sincerely,
Peter Bradford
Enclosure
---
STATE OF NEW YORK PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION ALBANY 12223
June 6, 1994
The Honorable Albert Gore Vice President of the United States Old Executive Office Building Washington, DC 20510
Dear Mr. Vice President:
During your meeting in early March to discuss telecommunications issues with a group of state utility regulators, you emphasized in firm and welcome terms that the Clinton Administration would not be using federal preemptive authority in alliance with particular economic interests to centralize telecommunications policymaking in Washington. Since then, NARUC has worked productively with your office on a number of issues.
Unfortunately, the divisive preemption issue has now manifested itself again in an FCC decision that will sweep aside diverse privacy protections carefully crafted over several years (without adversely affecting the market for the service in question) to suit the differing privacy needs and expectations of our consumers. The matter is explained in more detail in the enclosed letter to Chairman Hundt at the FCC.
Having chaired public hearings on this issue myself, I know how strong the concerns around the Call ID issue are. For every consumer who views this technology as the best deterrent to obscene callers, another consumer foresees a surge in nuisance calls as a result of number trapping by those compiling lists for sales to telemarketers. For every consumer who believes that this technology will allow them to let unwanted calls go unanswered, another (perhaps a family violence center, a probation officer or a psychiatrist) fears inadvertently disclosing a home telephone number to someone threatening.
Here in New York, the Public Service Commission and the Legislature put a lot of time and effort into balancing the potentials of the technology with the expectations of different consumer groups. In Maine, public concern was so great that the privacy protections were written into state law. In Pennsylvania they were a subject of Supreme Court review. The FCC decision purports to eliminate the balancing achieved by these agencies, legislatures and courts as well as those of many other states.
Furthermore, this undertaking is likely to backfire expensively on the technology that it is intended to promote, as did past federal preemptive lunges on such topics as atomic power. Any telephone company choosing to offer Call ID without per line blocking may have to forego much of its revenue from charges for unpublished numbers, since the value of such numbers will be reduced or eliminated if their privacy protection is not maintained. Because the revenues lost will not be made up by revenues from Call ID, the fate of the service and the technology that the FCC is trying to promote is at best uncertain.
I appreciate that the FCC is an independent regulatory agency. However, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration and the Department of Justice have been involved in this proceeding, so avenues do exist for a clear Administration reiteration of the need for flexibility and responsiveness to local consumer concerns. Indeed, NTIA has already asserted that FCC preemption here would be "premature" and wisely advocates learning from experience about the possibility that somewhat different federal and state standards can coexist.
Thanks for any assistance that you can give us on this matter. Sincerely,
Peter Bradford
Enclosure
---
---
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 1994 11:27:12 -0400
From: Monty Solomon
Excerpts from EPIC Alert 1.03
---
[3] FCC Caller ID Decision Appealed
---
Several state utility commissions, including New York's and California's, have petitioned the Federal Communications Commission to reconsider its controversial Caller ID decision. The petitions ask the FCC to reverse its decision mandating per-call blocking for interstate calls and its preemption of state regulations. The commissions are concerned that the federal regulation will limit consumer privacy protection for intra-state calls.
It is uncertain if the FCC will take the unusual action of accepting the petitions. Since the Caller ID decision was released in April, two new commissioners have joined the FCC. A total of 48 parties, including telephone companies who are concerned about which party is charged the cost of transmitting the information, have filed petitions asking the FCC to reconsider its decision.
Per-call blocking, which is favored by telephone companies, requires that a caller to enter a series of numbers into their telephone before each call to prevent their number from being distributed. Under per-line blocking, privacy blocking is the default and the caller may opt to release their number.
The New York Public Utility Commission's petition notes that "there is no technological bar to enabling each state to designate per line or per call blocking and have that privacy notation affixed to that caller's phone calls both intra and interstate." The PUC calls on the FCC, which did not hold a single hearing on Caller ID, to review the decisions of the many states that did hold hearings.
Professor Rohan Samarajiva of Ohio State University, who also filed for reconsideration, found that 46 states held hearings on Caller ID before the FCC issued their final decision. He found that as information became more available on Caller ID, the state utility commissioners increasingly required that per-line blocking be offered in addition to per-call. By 1994, 33 jurisdictions developed rules with stronger privacy protection than the FCC decision. 18 states require per-line blocking be offered to all consumers, including Pennsylvania, Ohio, California and New York.
CPSR has also filed a petition asking the FCC to revise its decision. CPSR calls for free per-line blocking and note the additional burden of per call blocking will cost consumers who have unlisted telephone numbers $1.2 billion each year through the disclosure of unlisted numbers. They describe the FCCUs suggestion that consumers who wish to ensure that their numbers remain private purchase equipment as Runreliable and discriminatory.S
In addition, the California PUC has filed suit in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, asking the court to overturn the ruling and prevent its implementation.
The FCC decision on Caller ID and the CPSR Petition for Reconsideration are available from cpsr.org. See below for details.
---
End of PRIVACY Forum Digest 03.12
--- ```
This web service brought to you by Somewhere.Com, LLC.