UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

\+ + + + +

CONSUMER ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING

\+ + + + +

THURSDAY,

NOVEMBER 20, 2003

\+ + + + +

The meeting convened at 9:00 a.m. in Room

TW‑C305 of the Federal Communications Commission, 445

12th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C., SHIRLEY L.

ROOKER, Chair, presiding.

CAC MEMBERS PRESENT:

SHIRLEY L. ROOKER, Chair

THOMAS ALLIBONE

MATTHEW D. BENNETT

DEBRA BERLYN

DAVID BRUGGER

DIANE BURSTEIN

ANNETTE CLECKNER

JIM CONRAN

CINDY COX

MICHAEL F. DelCASINO

MIKE DUKE

LARRY GOLDBERG

JOSEPH GORDON

SUSAN GRANT

DAVID HOROWITZ

CHERYL JOHNSON

BRENDA KELLY‑FREY

KAREN KIRSCH

CAC MEMBERS PRESENT (Continued):

JEFFREY KRAMER

REBECCA LADEW

RONALD MALLARD

SUSAN PALMER‑MAZRUI

DAVID POEHLMAN

MARK PRANGER

JOY M. RAGSDALE

EUGENE SEAGRIFF

DONALD SNOOP

BYRON ST. CLAIR

CLAUDE STOUT

RICHARD T. ELLIS

ANDREA WILLIAMS

DIXIE ZIEGLER (present telephonically)

ALSO PRESENT:

JONATHAN S. ADELSTEIN, Commissioner, FCC

PATTY BANNIER, Hamilton Relay Services

CLAY BOWEN, Virginia Relay

AMY BROWN, Legal Adviser

PAM GREGORY, Chief, Disability Rights Office,

Consumer Information Bureau

CHRISTOPHER LIBERTELLI

Senior Legal Adviser, FCC

KRIS MONTEITH, Associate Bureau Chief for

Intergovernmental Affairs, Consumer and

Governmental Affairs Bureau, FCC

K. DANE SNOWDEN, Chief, Consumer and

Governmental Affairs Bureau, FCC

PAM STEWART, Maryland Relay

KAREN PELTZ‑STRAUSS, Powrie V. Doctor Chair

for Deaf Studies, Gallaudet University

THOMAS WYATT, Deputy Bureau Chief, Consumer

and Governmental Affairs Bureau, FCC

I‑N‑D‑E‑X

AGENDA ITEM PAGE

Welcome and Call to Order 4

Shirley L. Rooker, Chair,

Consumer Advisory Committee (CAC)

Meeting Logistics 6

Scott Marshall, CAC Designated Federal Officer,

Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau (CGB)

The Life of a Complaint 15

Thomas Wyatt, Deputy Bureau Chief, Consumer &

Governmental Affairs Bureau (CGB)

Presentation: Voluntary Consumer Information 52

Code

Andrea Williams, Assistant General Counsel,

Cellular Telecommunications and Internet

Association

Introduction of the Chairman and Commissioners 82

K. Dane Snowden, Chief, CGB

Update on the Consumer & Governmental Affairs 83

Bureau

K. Dane Snowden, Chief, CGB

Working Group Recommendations and Progress 105

Reports

TRS Working Group 105

Brenda Kelly‑Frey, Chair

Broadband Working Group 136

Larry Goldberg, Chair

Consumer Complaints, Outreach, Education 148

and Participation Working Group

Joy Ragsdale, Chair

Ancillary Services Working Group 163

Eugene Seagriff, Chair

Comments from the Public; Wrap‑Up; Future 177

Meetings

P‑R‑O‑C‑E‑E‑D‑I‑N‑G‑S

(9:01 a.m.)

WELCOME AND CALL TO ORDER

CHAIRPERSON ROOKER: If we could join

around the table? We have a very packed day, as

usual. I would also like to express some thanks to

people. The National Association of Broadcasters we

would like to thank for lunch and breakfast.

Breakfast is certainly good. So if lunch is equal to

that, we\'re in good shape here.

Also I would like to thank Betty Thompson

and the other FCC staffers who made this meeting

possible. Of course, that would not happen at all

without Scott Marshall, bless his heart. I know he

just gets so mad at me every time I say that.

Nevertheless, it\'s true because he does all the work.

He really does. Amy Brown is also doing a great

thing. Thanks from us for keeping us legal, making

sure we\'re not doing something that\'s wrong.

In addition to that, Verizon and MCI have

very generously donated teleconferencing services for

the working groups. We would like to thank them. We

appreciate that very much because you really have made

the facilitating of the working groups so much easier

for us.

We have a new representative, some changes

in our membership from the National Urban League,

Michele Moore, but, unfortunately, Michelle could not

be with us today. Joining us instead is her

alternate, Lisa Malone. Lisa, where are you? Is she

here yet? Well, we hope she is going to be. I think

she is going to be joining us a little later. And

Stephen Gregory is no longer a member of the

committee.

I also would like to say that it has been

very gratifying to see the work that has been going on

in the working groups. You were called to the working

groups for a reason, obviously, because you have been

doing a lot of work. There has been a lot of

activity, a lot of discussion, teleconferencing,

e‑mails, and then recommendations that have come out

of it that will be presented today.

There are a few of you who have not joined

a working group. I strongly encourage you to do so

because without your participation in a working group,

you really are missing out on a lot of what is going

on in the committee. Let Scott know so that you can

be plugged in to the meetings that take place and so

that you will be getting all of the information in the

e‑mails. Your participation is so important. I just

can\'t stress that enough.

Now I am going to turn this over to Scott,

who has some information that you need t pay careful

attention to because it has to do with a drill that is

going on here today.

MR. MARSHALL: Thank you, Shirley.

MEETING LOGISTICS

MR. MARSHALL: Good morning, everybody,

and welcome. Several quick announcements. As you

know from our agenda, we will be breaking out into the

working group sessions at the end of this hour.

We do have cart services and sign language

interpreters for all of those breakout sessions. By

the way, to the working group chairs, we can provide

you with an uncorrected transcript of your

discussions. However, we have assisted listening

devices only here in the commission meeting room,

where the TRS group will be meeting, and in one other

working group room. It\'s an interference issue. And

that\'s due to the proximity of the rooms here today

that we are using. We can only run two assisted

listening device systems at one time.

So it would be very helpful to us if you

could identify yourself to us at this point if you

plan to attend the broadband working group, the

consumer complaints and outreach working group, or the

ancillary services working group and if you need an

assisted listening device. If you could raise your

hand and let us know what group so that we can set up

that equipment between now and 10:00 o\'clock?

Anybody? Shirley?

CHAIRPERSON ROOKER: We have Joe, Rebecca.

Who else?

MR. MARSHALL: Keep in mind that if you\'re

going to be in the TRS group, you are not going to

have a problem. It\'s going to be right here. And we

are equipped in this room.

CHAIRPERSON ROOKER: I\'ve got you and Joe.

MEMBER GORDON: I think I would go to the

consumer complaint meeting if you can have assisted in

that.

MR. MARSHALL: Okay.

MEMBER GORDON: The word \"complaint\" is

what I am doing now.

CHAIRPERSON ROOKER: Which group?

MEMBER GORDON: Consumer complaint.

MR. MARSHALL: Fine.

MEMBER GORDON: Is that okay, Scott?

MR. MARSHALL: Fine.

MEMBER GORDON: Thank you.

MR. MARSHALL: And, Rebecca, you are going

to stay here or you are going someplace?

MS. LADEW (via interpreter): I will be

here.

CHAIRPERSON ROOKER: Okay. That solves

that problem.

MR. MARSHALL: I hope you got that

information. It\'s the Consumer and outreach group

that needs the portable assisted listening device

equipment.

Everyone has been very conscious of

security after 9/11. That\'s certainly true here at

this agency. This morning there will be a

shelter‑in‑place drill taking place during our

meeting.

The shelter‑in‑place procedures are

designed to protect you, our guests, and our staff in

the unlikely event of a chemical or biological threat.

Basically, the building shuts down and people are

directed to designated shelter areas throughout the

building.

This morning, though, in order not to

interrupt this meeting, what we would like you to do,

we plan to adjourn the first session, Thomas Wyatt, at

about 9:45. We would like you to then quickly, as

quickly as possible, move to the breakout rooms. We

will have staff available to show you the way.

They\'re just across the hall, actually, and down the

corridor. Of course, if you\'re in the TRS group, you

stay right here. There are also signs on the rooms as

well.

We would like you to get in those rooms as

quickly as possible and stay there for the duration of

the drill. The drill will occur at about 10:05. And

you\'ll hear a couple of announcements over our public

address system.

Please do not be alarmed by this. It\'s

only a drill. Go about your business in the usual

way. Keep working in your working groups. And there

should be no problem.

Then we would like to see you back here at

noon in the commission meeting room for lunch and our

luncheon presentation with Andrea Williams from CTIA.

Does anybody have any questions about the

shelter‑in‑place drill? Somebody said \"Scott.\"

David, go ahead.

MEMBER POEHLMAN: I just want to know the

break, then, is it 9:45?

MR. MARSHALL: We will be adjourning at

9:45 to go to the breakout sessions, correct.

MEMBER POEHLMAN: At least one of us will

need to jump outside for a few minutes. And I didn\'t

know if that would interfere with the drill thing or

not.

MR. MARSHALL: I would like you to go if

you at all possibly could go directly to your room

because the corridors are going to be very mobbed

during this drill process, we believe, because people

can\'t use the elevators and it\'s going to be a

challenge.

MEMBER BERLYN: Scott, it\'s Debbie Berlyn.

MR. MARSHALL: Hi, Debbie.

MEMBER BERLYN: Hi. Question. I don\'t

know if this is the appropriate time, but if you

belong to two groups ‑‑

MR. MARSHALL: You would have to make a

hard choice, Debbie.

MEMBER BERLYN: Is there any way that you

can? Is there a point at which we can go from one

group to the other during that period of time?

MR. MARSHALL: You certainly could after

the half‑hour drill time if you wanted to float

between two groups. That\'s certainly your option. We

would like you to stay in one spot during the

shelter‑in‑place drill.

MEMBER BERLYN: Okay.

MR. MARSHALL: Anything else?

(No response.)

MR. MARSHALL: And, of course, restrooms

are right out this door to my right and down the hall

to the left. They haven\'t moved since last time, I\'m

happy to say. I guess that\'s it. Back to you,

Shirley. Thanks.

CHAIRPERSON ROOKER: Brenda, did you have

a comment?

MEMBER KELLY‑FREY: This is Brenda

Kelly‑Frey.

MR. MARSHALL: Hi, Brenda.

MEMBER KELLY‑FREY: Hi, Scott. Just

wondering, since the TRS working group has also been

asked to consider homeland security as part of our

job, would it be possible for someone from the working

group to kind of observe what\'s going on with the

sheltering in place so that we can possibly include

some of the things that we have learned from the

sheltering in place here at the FCC in our suggestions

to the homeland security for disabled individuals?

MR. MARSHALL: I guess I\'m not clear about

your question, Brenda. We do have procedures in place

for our employees and guests with disabilities if this

were an actual emergency. We have special procedures

today because of this meeting going on in terms of

what we\'re doing in order not to disrupt the meeting.

MEMBER KELLY‑FREY: I\'m just wondering.

I think it would be very beneficial to see to maybe

meet with the people who do this, who have done this

drill, to just kind of find out what accommodations

were made or will be necessary for us to include in

our homeland security recommendations in the future.

MR. MARSHALL: Sure. I think we can work

that out.

MEMBER KELLY‑FREY: Okay.

MR. MARSHALL: Yes. After the fact, I

think we can work that out without a problem.

MEMBER KELLY‑FREY: Okay. Great. Thanks.

MR. MARSHALL: Just remind me. Okay?

MEMBER KELLY‑FREY: Thanks.

MR. MARSHALL: All right. Anything else?

(No response.)

MR. MARSHALL: All right. Really back to

you this time, Shirley.

CHAIRPERSON ROOKER: All right. Another

reminder. We are being televised. So behave

yourselves. Also I would like to ask you to please

sign in the registration sheet ‑‑ I believe it\'s out

in the hallway ‑‑ so that we have a record of your

being here.

With that, it gives me great pleasure to

introduce our first speaker because I think that we

have been asked that he come and speak to us again.

So, Thomas, you must have done something right the

first time.

We\'re delighted to have Thomas Wyatt, who

is the deputy bureau chief, who oversees the consumer

complaint and inquiry process. He has graciously

agreed to come back today, as requested by the

consumer complaints working group, which is chaired by

Joy Ragsdale.

Thomas, welcome.

(Applause.)

MR. WYATT: Thank you, Shirley.

THE LIFE OF A COMPLAINT

MR. WYATT: It\'s good to be here. Scott

informed me that I have a little less time than I had

planned for. So I intend to keep my remarks fairly

brief. I\'m sure Scott will see to that.

Also I believe you should have a copy of

my slide presentation in your packet. So that may

help speed us along as well.

I would like to talk about our consumer

center operations and then more specifically about the

informal complaint process. I believe some of you

have indicated that you want to understand the process

from beginning to end a little better. So I intend to

focus on the consumer complaint process.

My slides aren\'t up yet. There they are.

The second slide. Okay. Well, our consumer centers.

You have heard us say this before. Our consumer

centers are typically the consumer\'s first point of

contact with the FCC.

They operate in two locations: here in

D.C. and in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania. They really

operate virtually as one because they share schedules.

They don\'t duplicate any work. Really, they do the

same functions in both centers. So there\'s really no

duplication. It\'s virtually one center, but we refer

to them as two.

We have about 72 consumer advocacy and

mediation specialists, or CAMS, as we call them, that

handle the telephones, that handle the complaints, and

respond to consumer inquiries.

We also have a distribution center that

supports the complaints process by sorting and

scanning the incoming mail. That\'s a pretty major

challenge given the amount of mail that we get from

time to time.

I want to talk a little about training as

well. I believe that was a question someone had about

training for the CAMS. Joe has probably had one of

the toughest jobs at the commission in my assessment.

He\'s required to have a pretty broad knowledge of

various commission rules and policies. As you might

imagine, that\'s a pretty major undertaking, but we try

to provide substantive training on a regular basis for

the CAMS.

For example, when the recent do not call

requirements came out, we had some pretty in‑depth

training for the CAMS on those requirements and how

they needed to handle consumer inquiries and

complaints.

We are also doing it with what is local

known affordability. So that is something we put a

lot of emphasis on. When there is a major initiative

by the commission, we try to make sure that the CAMS

receive substantive training on those requirements.

We also have a practice of sending out

daily e‑mails on hot topics and special items of

interest. We also conduct in‑depth monthly group

training on current policy issues.

Another thing we do is we put a lot of

emphasis on team building. So we have team‑building

training as well to make sure that we\'re working as a

group. It\'s very important. We have a lot of diverse

issues to deal with. And we need to make sure that

we\'re all working together so that we get it right.

We also have research training for the

camps periodically as well. It\'s important that they

understand how to get at information that consumers

need. Again, with the volume of the work that comes

out of the commission, it\'s important that they have

the ability to track that information down and provide

it to consumers.

Finally, we put a lot of emphasis on

customer service because consumers expect and demand

excellent service. I don\'t need to tell you all that

because you deal with consumers and you know that they

expect and demand excellent service. That\'s pretty

challenging sometimes because we will get calls and

consumers will want something that we practically are

not able to deliver, but we try to inform them of that

in a very nice way. Sometimes that doesn\'t even help.

So if we can go to the next slide, I

wanted to talk about the consumer center workload. We

divide the workload into two basic groups. Basically

it\'s the real‑time work. That\'s the phone call.

When the phone rings, we have to answer

it. And we try to answer it as quickly as possible.

I don\'t have any available stats today, but generally

we answer the phone within 30 seconds in most cases.

I don\'t have the specific stats on that, but we do a

good job of answering the phone very quickly. On

average, our CAMS take close to about 30,000 telephone

calls a month. That\'s speaking directly to the

consumer.

The next category, follow‑on work we call

it, and that\'s the work that follows on after the

real‑time work is done. Usually after a phone call,

there\'s some information that the consumer has

requested or the consumer has filed a complaint. So

that has to be processed into our system and has to be

worked.

Sometimes the CAMS will be required to

gather information and send out information. So

that\'s the work that falls on after the initial

contact with the consumer.

E‑mail is a big part of that. We average

about close to over 15,000 e‑mail a month as well.

These are e‑mail that the CAMS are required to respond

to, usually within two days. Sometimes it takes a

little longer depending on the complexity, but we try

to respond to e‑mail within two days of receipt.

We also get quite a bit of paper through

the mail, paper complaints and inquiries. We receive

probably close to 9,000 of those each month.

So let\'s go to the next slide. I want to

keep going here. I wanted to talk about the informal

consumer complaints. I think I have sort of preached

this over and over again, but we really put a lot of

emphasis on this face.

An informal complaint can be filed by any

reasonable means. What I have listed here on this

slide is the most used means: toll‑free call, voice

TTY. When someone calls in a complaint, that

compliant is manually entered into our database by the

CAMS while she is on the phone. Once that complaint

is in the system, then it can be processed by the

CAMS.

E‑mail is normally efficient because we

can scan our menu into the database. Personal mail

probably presents the biggest challenge because we

have to scan that into our database. Our distribution

center does that, but sometimes the mail is not in

real good shape. So it requires some extra work to

get it into the system, and the same thing with fax.

Sometimes fax communications aren\'t real legible and

we have to really work with those to get those in.

The internet is probably the easiest

method of getting a complaint to us from our

perspective because we can get that complaint directly

into our database from the internet. So it\'s really

an efficient way of getting the complaint to us.

The next slide I am going to go to is to

talk about the informal complaint process. I have a

flow chart here on these next two slides that

describes the process.

As I said earlier, any reasonable means to

file a complaint, let\'s say if someone files one via

the toll‑free call, that complaint is processed and

logged into our tracking system, the same with e‑mail,

personal mail, fax, and internet complaints.

Once they\'re logged into the system, the

CAMS then evaluate the content and jurisdiction we

have over the subject matter of the complaint. If the

content is not okay, then usually we try to obtain

additional information from the consumer.

If there\'s a jurisdiction problem, we

refer the consumer to another agency. It could be a

state or federal agency. Sometimes we refer to the

enforcement division for their expert review of it as

well.

Let\'s say that if the content and

jurisdiction are okay, then, if you go to the next

slide, the complaint is usually forwarded to the

company or companies involved, usually within 20 days.

Martha is in the audience. I am looking

to her to confirm because I don\'t want to say

something that\'s really off base, but I believe we do

a pretty good job of getting complaints to the

carriers now, maybe within 20 days, Martha. Once it\'s

into our system, we can get it to the carrier within

20 days. And we\'re trying to improve that even.

We started a project a little over a year

ago electronically serving complaints on some

carriers; actually, some of the carrier

representatives here.

I believe the process is still working

pretty well. We\'re always looking to refine it. And

we hope to be able to refine it more very soon. But

that works very well because we can get it to the

carrier sooner. They can address it sooner. And the

consumer is happy sooner because the carriers do a

real good job of making the consumer happy. So we

really want to see that process up.

Let\'s say we have the complaint. Whatever

means it got to us, we process it into our system. We

determined that it can be served. We served it. And

we get a response.

We reply to the response. Say the

complaint is satisfied. Well, we typically close it

because we don\'t do much more with the complaint,

although it could be subject to further review by the

Enforcement Bureau for some possible violation, but we

basically close it out once we hear from the carrier

and the consumer that it has been satisfied.

If it is not satisfied ‑‑ and I really

want to emphasize these points because I think there

is some misunderstanding about our informal complaint

process. It\'s really not designed to produce a

decision on the merits. We really try to facilitate

some of the resolution for the individual consumer.

So if it\'s not satisfied, we may mediate

on behalf of the consumer. That might be a phone call

to Mike, for example, asking if they could take a

second look at it because we think there may be a

problem. Usually the companies are pretty good about

doing that. So we really try to facilitate some

resolution for the consumer.

Sometimes we will even require that

companies provide us additional information. So, for

example, if someone gives us a response that says,

\"Well, we look at the complaint, and it\'s not valid,\"

we don\'t usually view that as a legitimate response.\"

We expect some explanation of the situation and how

the company handled it. So we may go back and ask for

more information if we get that kind of response from

the company.

We also advise the complainant of options

because, again, we don\'t issue decisions on the

merits. If a consumer expects us to issue a written

decision that says, \"Based on these facts, there was

or was not a violation of this particular rule or

order of the commission, they\'re not going to get that

via the informal complaint process.\" But we\'ll

explain to them what their options are.

Under the commission\'s regulatory scheme

for common carriers, that option is to file a formal

complaint. So we provide detailed information about

how to pursue a formal complaint.

If I can sort of go to the last slide, I

guess, we want to talk a little bit about the

difference between inquiry and the complaint because

I get that question a lot.

As you can see from the slide, inquiry is

basically a communication to one of our consumer

centers seeking information about an issue or problem.

If the consumer doesn\'t name a company and

ask for relief from that company, we generally don\'t

view that as a complaint. Complaints are any

correspondence, communication to the consumer centers

by or on behalf of a consumer which alleges a

violation and seeks relief.

So if a consumer calls, writes, or

e‑mails, whatever, and says, \"In my dealings with X

company, I experienced this problem. And I think it

was wrong, and this is the relief I want,\" then that

is definitely a consumer complaint. We forward that

to the company, which has the 30 days to respond.

I would point out that ‑‑ I alluded to

this earlier ‑‑ the companies that we serve complaints

on generally do a good job of addressing those

complaints. We did an informal study a little while

ago that showed about 80 percent of the complaints

that we serve are resolved to the satisfaction of the

consumer. I think that\'s a pretty good ratio.

We recognize there are at least 20 percent

of consumers who may not be satisfied, but, again, the

process is designed to facilitate informal resolution

on behalf of the consumer. I think it does a pretty

good job of accomplishing that.

So we are very pleased and proud of the

process. We are looking to refine it all the time.

We are always looking for suggestions on how to make

it better. We have regular discussions with the

companies that we serve complaints on to make sure

that we\'re not burning their systems and that we\'re

working together to really make it a full and

effective process.

So that essentially describes the

complaint process. And I guess I will open it up to

questions if you have any. Yes?

MEMBER HOROWITZ: Tom?

MR. WYATT: Yes?

MEMBER HOROWITZ: I\'m just wondering. Do

you log these complaints as to the subject matter?

MR. WYATT: Yes, we do.

MEMBER HOROWITZ: Are those put on the Web

site?

MR. WYATT: Well, we issue what we call a

quarterly statistical report on top consumer

complaints and inquiries. That report only lists the

top consumer complaints received for the previous

quarter.

We don\'t routinely put all of the

complaint categories on the internet, but that

quarterly report is available on the internet. As a

matter of fact, I am hoping that we will have one

coming out today.

MEMBER HOROWITZ: This is just my feeling.

I feel that is really a good guide for people who are

looking at the Web site to know percentages of

complaints that come about certain issues ‑‑ it could

be from home phones to cell phones to whatever ‑‑ and

break those out. And it would also be something that

would really be interesting to the media because the

media is always looking for the top ten this and the

top ten that, but just to get an idea of what people

are really complaining about.

MR. WYATT: That is something we are

considering. As I said earlier, right now we are

focusing on the top categories. We are looking at

possibly broadening the scope of the report to include

some additional categories, but that is something that

we would appreciate some more comments on. It\'s

something maybe we will be able to do in the future.

CHAIRPERSON ROOKER: Okay. We have a lot

of questions. I saw Joe Gordon\'s hand first. Let me

just remind us, say who you are. But before you start

talking, hold your hand up so the people in the booth

can find you.

MEMBER GORDON: All right. I\'m Joe Gordon

from the League for Hard of Hearing. We represent a

large population of consumers that use telephone

really and watch closed captioning. I have a question

or I need some advice.

Many times consumers would like to write

a letter to the cable company, the TV company,

telephone company, and not write a letter complaining

to the FCC. They don\'t get a response. When they

write a letter to the FCC, they do get a response.

How can we solve that problem that we get an answer

from the company? Should we write to the company and

copy the FCC?

The big thing is specifically with, say,

closed captioning and television. If a consumer

writes to the cable company saying, \"Why was there no

captioning?\" they are not going to reply. If they

write a letter to the FCC saying, \"There was no

captioning,\" they will get some acknowledgement. How

can we solve that problem?

MR. WYATT: And that\'s been a longstanding

problem. I think I alluded to this earlier. Most

companies are usually good about getting back to

consumers.

We recognize that consumers don\'t always

get the response they want or expect. And we need to

encourage consumers to copy the company when they send

a letter to us because I think that does get their

attention. They\'re maybe more likely to respond

directly to the consumer. So the consumer has

indicated their intent that they have sent this to the

FCC.

Our goal is to make sure that the

consumers do get that response, which is why the

informal complaint process is so important because if

the consumer wants a response from the company and

they send us a complaint, we will facilitate that

process and make sure there is a response.

Oftentimes the company is in a much better

position to resolve something than we are. Just

facilitating that dialogue really speeds the process

up.

CHAIRPERSON ROOKER: Okay. I\'m going to

try to get you in the order that I saw your hands.

David, I think you\'re next. I see you, David. Okay.

MEMBER POEHLMAN: This is David Poehlman

with the American Council of the Blind. Hello,

everyone.

Thomas, thank you very much for presenting

this very clear road map and a very clear distinction

between an inquiry and an informal complaint. This is

something that a lot of people get confused about, as

you said.

I have a couple of real kind of logistical

kinds of questions. You say that e‑mail can be

scanned in. Does that mean it\'s printed and then

scanned or does that mean that there is some other

process that you\'re referring to as scanning?

MR. WYATT: I believe that we print it and

then scan it. Usually the copies are very legible.

They\'re much easier to scan in. I believe that\'s the

process.

We\'re looking at ways now to actually not

have to scan it in but actually be able to input it

into our system without that process, but that\'s

something that we have in the works and hope to have

it available in the not‑too‑distant future.

MEMBER POEHLMAN: That\'s going to actually

be part of my follow‑up, and that is it\'s kind of

hard, I guess, sometimes to verify the authenticity or

genuinity of an e‑mail. So I imagine you get a lot of

throw‑aways. I\'m sure you have something in place

that kind of helps screen that, but I\'m sure it makes

your job really tough.

You alluded to the possibility of having

a way to encode the e‑mail directly. Would one

possible solution be to send an e‑mail form back to

the originator and have them like fill it in in an

e‑mail and return it? Anyway, that\'s just an off

side.

I also was interested in the statistics of

the types of the media of the communications with the

FCC. I noticed that e‑mail is ‑‑ what is it? ‑‑

practically double what paper is. I find that very

interesting.

MR. WYATT: Yes. E‑mail has become very

prevalent. I mean, we\'re getting a lot of e‑mail.

And the number is always going up. E‑mail is also a

way for a lot of people to really get a point across

to the commission.

I\'ll give you an example. We have been

receiving a lot of e‑mail recently about the Golden

Globe award program. During that program, ‑‑ you all

might be familiar with it ‑‑ someone used the \"f\" word

in describing his experience at the Golden Globe

awards.

A lot of people were really outraged that

that was broadcast. So we\'ve gotten a lot of comments

and complaints from consumers about the use of the \"f\"

word on the broadcast.

Most of them have come in via e‑mail. We

get a lot of phone calls, but a lot of them have come

in via e‑mail. It was thousands and thousands of them

in a very short period of time. So e‑mail is a very

prevalent tool that consumers have at their disposal.

We recognize that. Our job is to be

poised and prepared to take that e‑mail and work with

it effectively.

CHAIRPERSON ROOKER: Thank you, Thomas.

MEMBER POEHLMAN: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON ROOKER: This side over here

seems to have a lot of questions. I saw your hand

first. Go right ahead. Start at the end and work

your way up. Tell us your name. Okay.

MEMBER ALLIBONE: I\'m Tom Allibone. I\'ve

got a question for you. In my real life, I am

actually a consultant representing consumers. I have

filed on behalf of a number of consumers complaints

with the FCC over the past years.

It seems that the treatment or the process

‑‑ okay? You did a very high level of review today of

the process and without a lot of details. I can tell

you that as a consultant, for example, something is

falling through the cracks in the informal complaint

process.

Definitely there is not a feedback loop.

And, in fact, even the consumers I represented also

did not get adequate feedback. So I want to bring

that to your attention, at least, if it has not been

brought up before in the past.

The second thing is more of a comment.

Okay? I have utilized your CAMS on a number of

different occasions to inquire. Quite frankly, part

of what I do in my investigations, I am kind of

testing the waters all the time to see exactly what

you know and what you don\'t know.

I have to tell you that it\'s been kind of

hit and miss. I understand it\'s a tall task, you

know, in this new world order to be kind of an expert

in many, many areas, but what concerns me is that in

this new world of deregulation, of long distance and

local all coming back together again, phone bills are

more complex and confusing than ever, when consumers

bring complaints to you ‑‑ and I\'ll give you just a

real simple example.

A complaint comes forward where I\'m being

billed, I discover, for a dial tone line that I

haven\'t had for 20 years. On the surface, it would

appear that that complaint may be better served going

back to the local/state public utility commission.

But, in fact, the way that the phone lines are

structured these days, there are multiple charges

associated with that dial tone line, as you know. And

many of those charges are regulated by the Federal

Communications Commission.

I am just curious. Out of the statistics

that you gather and you capture, when you are making

a determination of what goes back to the state and

where you have jurisdiction there are these gray

areas. There are very important gray areas.

I asked a question of one of your folks

several months ago. I said, \"Does anybody in the FCC

actually track the number of FCC subscriber line

charges that are being billed to nonexistent lines?\"

It\'s kind of a squirrely question to ask.

The reason I was asking that question is

because that same complaint goes back to the state

public utilities. You find out that a consumer has

been paying for a nonexistent line for 20 years and

this money has been collected. Okay? I am just

curious, things like that.

It\'s just one example. How are you making

the tough call on some of these cases that could have

state implications and FCC implications? And how are

you really sharing that data?

MR. WYATT: You pointed up a challenge

that we have. I mean, these are the tough issues.

Some of the things you pointed out are issues that

most attorneys here wouldn\'t be able to answer in

response to the initial phone call. They require some

amount of analysis.

I think our process is not structured

towards having expertise on the phone. We have people

that are knowledgeable about tracking down information

to give the information back to the consumers, but we

don\'t have so‑called experts on the phone who are able

to answer really tough questions sometimes.

A lot of them are really tough. Frankly,

we sometimes get the jurisdictional calls wrong. But

we work with our state counterparts to try to make

sure that we get it right. We\'re always looking to

improve that process. And that\'s why comments like

yours are always appreciated, because it tells us that

we need to work harder and figure out how to do things

better.

So I welcome those comments. I know I am

not really answering your question, but it\'s a tough

question. I don\'t have a ready answer for it. We

will look at the process, the types of complaints that

you describe. We do get them, and we try to make sure

that we have jurisdiction before we put any obligation

on the companies to respond to us.

I mean, it\'s not our role to require the

companies to respond to matters that are more properly

within the jurisdictions of the states. So we try to

do a good job of getting things to the state.

Sometimes they\'ll send them back. And then the

consumer may be left in the lurch a little bit.

We try to figure out an answer eventually

and get it back to the consumer. It\'s not a perfect

process but one that I think if we keep working to

make it better and keep our focus on serving the

consumer, we will get it right.

CHAIRPERSON ROOKER: Okay. Let\'s work our

way up the table. I think there were some hands. Who

was the next person? Susan?

MEMBER GRANT: Good morning. Susan Grant

from the National Consumers League.

CHAIRPERSON ROOKER: Put your hand up,

Susan, so she can see you.

MEMBER GRANT: I have a two‑part question

about inquiries. If a consumer contacts the FCC about

an industry‑wide problem or perceived gap in the FCC

rules and doesn\'t name a specific company, is that

considered an inquiry, rather than a complaint?

Secondly, do you track inquiries to see

what people are asking about, which might be useful in

terms of developing consumer education programs as

well as looking at whether or not, in fact, there are

systemic problems in telecommunications that might

need to be addressed in a policy way.

MR. WYATT: In response to your last

question, absolutely. We track inquiries very

closely. It\'s something that we put a lot of emphasis

on because the other bureaus rely on us to provide

them that information about what consumers are

inquiring about because the inquiries often point up

a problem or an issue that needs to be addressed in

some regulatory fashion or in some other fashion.

So it also points up the need for us to do

more outreach because if consumers are calling us with

a lot of questions about a matter, it tells us that

we\'re not getting good information out. So we use

that information to develop outreach materials and to

improve our fact sheets so that we can better educate

consumers.

Regarding your first question, generally

no. We don\'t generally treat that as a complaint. If

they\'re pointed up in industry‑wide, what they view as

an industry‑wide problem, we don\'t generally track

that as a complaint.

We track that as an inquiry, although if

we get enough of those, those are given a lot of

attention as well because we have enough of those. It

tells us that there is something that we may need to

address.

CHAIRPERSON ROOKER: Okay. Thank you.

Claude, I think you were next. No? Okay. Is there

any other one? All right. Joe, you have had one

question already. I\'ve got to give Larry and then Joy

a chance. Sorry about that. He\'s pouting.

MEMBER GOLDBERG: Hi. This is Larry

Goldberg from WGBH in Boston Media Access Group. I

had a question about both the reporting and

potentially the policy decisions made on the volume of

these complaints.

I am an avid reader of the daily digest

and see a tremendous number of particularly slamming

complaints that are received and resolved. These are

basically complaints made and decisions made based on

the volume of the complaints, the top ten list also.

I know there are a lot less complaints

about access issues. It\'s very hard for you to make

any decisions based on the quality of a complaint,

instead of quantity, but because there are so few

access complaints, it\'s a smaller population,

communications problems are endemic, I am concerned

that all of those access issues are getting sort of

buried.

Certainly in the quarterly report, you

won\'t see them in the top ten often. Sometimes you

will. But there\'s a difference between a two‑dollar

overcharge in your phone bill and the fact that there

were no captions during an emergency, for instance.

I know that\'s a quality issue.

I think a lot of the disability access

complaints are really played down significantly.

MR. WYATT: If I can come in next, I would

like to differ with you. By all means, are they

varied. I think we probably scrutinize access

complaints as much or more than any other complaints.

You mentioned that we don\'t get as many.

That\'s very true. We don\'t get a lot of access

complaints, but we do scrutinize them. We share

information with the Enforcement Bureau. We have a

telephone accessibility specialist whose primary job

is to really zero in on those complaints and identify

issues that might require some explanation.

I personally have been involved in

mediating some access complaints over the past year.

That tells you as well that we take them very

seriously. And if there are issues raised that

require more attention within the bureau, then they

certainly receive it.

So the fact that they don\'t appear on the

quarterly report as one of the top categories by no

means reflects the seriousness with which they take

them.

CHAIRPERSON ROOKER: Joy, I think you were

next.

MEMBER RAGSDALE: Good morning. Joy

Ragsdale with the Office of People\'s Counsel,

representing NASUCA, state utility consumer advocates.

I have several questions, the first one in

regards to the jurisdiction. How do you guide the

consumer in understanding where they should go to file

their complaint?

NASUCA is also interested in establishing

a point‑to‑point relationship with FCC, not

representatives at the call center but key staff

members where we can help guide our consumers without

having to go through the normal process.

My local office, the Office of People\'s

Counsel for D.C., we have a good relationship with

Martha Contee. So we are able to call her directly.

And some of the other member offices would also like

to establish that type of relationship across the

country. So that\'s I guess a two‑part question.

MR. WYATT: Well, we really try to put a

lot of information in our fact sheets that really draw

the line in terms of what should come to us and what

should go to the states. We are always looking to

improve those fact sheets.

We also post information on the internet.

And we also supply our CAMS with scripts that they can

use in responding to questions along jurisdictional

lines.

It\'s a challenge because there are so many

overlapping areas. It\'s tough to sort them out

sometimes, but what we try to do is make sure that our

fact sheets are as clear as possible. We have

information on the internet. Consumers can access

that and make a decision about where to go.

We also try to make sure that we can

facilitate the exchange of information between us and

our state counterparts. So, for example, if we

receive a complaint that we think belongs to a state,

then we know who at that state to contact and send

that complaint to. So we try to speed the process

along. Sometimes we\'ll tell the consumer, \"You should

go there\" or sometimes we\'ll take the complaint and

actually send it there on a consumer\'s behalf. That

works as well.

So it\'s a challenge. And I think the key

is to try to get good information out to consumers,

make sure that the CAMS are able to answer questions

about jurisdiction and direct the complaints

accordingly.

MEMBER RAGSDALE: So you said you would

send it to the commissions as your counterpart or

would you also be interested in sending it to the

NASUCA offices or other consumer advocate offices?

MR. WYATT: We try to ascertain what other

agency organization has some control or involvement

with the complaints. Once we identify who the best

party is to handle the complaint, our goal is to get

it to that party, so not necessarily a state

commission. It could be another state agency. For

example, local franchising authorities receive a lot

of referrals from us on cable‑related complaints.

CHAIRPERSON ROOKER: Joe, if you have a

short follow‑up? Stick your hand up.

MEMBER GORDON: Joe Gordon, League for

Hard of Hearing. I would imagine you get a lot of

complaints that are not under your jurisdiction, but

do you ever write a letter of concern?

I\'m specifically speaking about TV Guide,

which we all know no longer publishes \"CC,\" \"Closed

Captioning,\" in their TV Guide, which is really

something nobody understands. If you get complaints

on that and TV Guide doesn\'t fall under your

jurisdiction, would you ever write a letter of concern

about something like that?

MR. WYATT: Let me answer that this way.

That would be a call that would be made by probably

someone well above me because clearly we have no

jurisdiction over TV Guide. I mean, who am I to call

them and even give them a recommendation? That\'s

something that I would imagine that if the commission

is inclined to do it, it would be a decision made by

someone much higher than me.

this whole thing we typically don\'t do.

We don\'t have jurisdiction. I mean, we don\'t inure,

if I can use that word, to areas where we clearly

don\'t have a jurisdiction because there are a lot of

people that don\'t appreciate that.

And we have so many areas where we do have

jurisdiction that it\'s somewhat of a resource issue

for us as well.

CHAIRPERSON ROOKER: Thomas, thank you

ever so much for being with us. Obviously everyone

has enjoyed having you again.

(Applause.)

CHAIRPERSON ROOKER: I\'m sorry. Thomas,

can we bring you back? I\'m sorry. Susan, I totally

missed your hand. Please forgive.

MEMBER PALMER‑MAZRUI: Okay. This is

Susan Palmer‑Mazrui for Cingular Wireless. I

apologize for making you come back.

I was wondering if there was a possibility

of addressing some of Larry\'s concerns. I know in

terms of numbers the complaints won\'t be in the top

ten for accessibility or other pertinent issues.

I\'m wondering if there could be a section

that would talk about concerns or trends or issues

that might highlight the dedication that your staff

has on the issue and that as well on a daily release

that that goes out because I think that there really

hasn\'t been a lot of information. It may be resolved,

but you might prevent some complaints if companies and

organizations know that you\'re looking into it and

taking steps to resolve things.

MR. WYATT: I think that\'s something that

we can consider doing. I don\'t know whether that\'s

something that would come out of one of the working

groups, their recommendations, but we\'re certainly

willing to take that up as a recommendation and see

what we can do with it. I think it would have some

value to consumers. So I\'m certainly more than

willing to take that up.

It\'s a clarification question for Scott.

Scott, is that something that would come to us as a

recommendation?

MR. MARSHALL: I\'m sorry, Thomas. What

was the question again?

MR. WYATT: Expanding the scope of our

quarterly report to include complaints that don\'t fall

within the top categories?

MR. MARSHALL: Sure. Yes. That certainly

would fall into the consumer complaints outreach and

education working group\'s purview.

MR. WYATT: Again, I would be happy to

take that recommendation and work with it.

CHAIRPERSON ROOKER: Debbie, if your

question is very fast? It\'s got to be fast.

MEMBER BERLYN: I hope so. I just wanted

to ask what you do to anticipate a new and high volume

of complaints that might be on the horizon. For

example, on the eve of the implementation of wireless

LNP, actually wireline LNP, I\'m just wondering if you

have taken any steps to anticipate complaints on that?

MR. WYATT: Oh, boy, have we.

CHAIRPERSON ROOKER: There is your answer.

MR. WYATT: We learned many hard lessons

over the years. We know now that we need to prepare

when there\'s a major initiative launched by the

commission because consumers are going to call us,

they\'re going to e‑mail us, and they\'re going to write

us. We need to be prepared to take that

correspondence and deal with it.

So we\'ve had very detailed training for

our CAMS. We have talked extensively with our

colleagues in the Wallace Bureau to make sure that we

understand what we should be saying to consumers.

We\'ve talked to some of our counterparts

in industry about issues and how they\'re going to deal

with them so that we can be as consistent as possible

so that we\'ll know where to steer consumers as well

because our goal is to really get consumers an answer.

And if we know where to send them out to companies,

then that really helps our process.

CHAIRPERSON ROOKER: Thank you ever so

much for coming back.

(Applause.)

CHAIRPERSON ROOKER: Just a reminder, the

drill starts at five after 10:00. You need to be in

your rooms. You cannot go visit other groups while

that process is going on for about a half an hour.

After that, if you want to sit in on several of the

other working groups, you can do that.

Does anyone have any questions before we

break?

(No response.)

CHAIRPERSON ROOKER: You will be back here

at 12:00 o\'clock for lunch. As far as where you\'re

going?

MR. MARSHALL: The rooms are right out

this door to my right and down the corridor. They are

on either side of the corridor. There is signage

there for each group. And we have FCC staff that will

be able to direct you as well. Again, the TRS group

will stay right here. And the other three working

groups will adjourn to those rooms. It\'s 402 and 445

B and C are the actual room numbers.

CHAIRPERSON ROOKER: Okay. Thank you

much. We will be back here at noon.

(Whereupon, at 9:49 p.m., the foregoing

matter was recessed, to reconvene at

12:00 noon the same day.)

A‑F‑T‑E‑R‑N‑O‑O‑N S‑E‑S‑S‑I‑O‑N

(12:11 p.m.)

CHAIRPERSON ROOKER: If everyone would

come back to the table, please? We\'ve got an

interesting presentation during lunch. I appreciate

your courtesy in doing that. Hint, hint.

It gives me a great pleasure to turn the

CAC over to Andrea Williams, who is one of our

members, who is going to talk about some new

developments. I am going to let you just take it from

there, Andrea.

MEMBER WILLIAMS: Okay. Thank you,

Shirley.

PRESENTATION: VOLUNTARY CONSUMER INFORMATION CODE

MEMBER WILLIAMS: first of all, I wanted

to thank Shirley and Scott for giving CTIA the

opportunity to talk about some of the things that we

are doing with respect to wireless consumer

complaints, how we are trying to make it better for

our consumers.

And what I am going to talk about today is

the CTIA consumer code for wireless service and also

let you know where we are on wireless number

portability. As we all know, that\'s four days away.

And we will let you know where we are.

One of the things that we wanted to do

when CTIA was developing a consumer code for wireless

services, we are trying to find as many opportunities

as we can to get the word out to consumers, what it

is, what they can expect.

We thought it would be great to have the

consumer advisory committee make a presentation to

members since you represent some of the largest

consumer advocacy groups as well as some of the state

agencies that deal with consumers and as a vehicle to

really help us get the word out to consumers so that

they can get information so that they can make

informed choices about their wireless services.

On September 9th, 2003, we, CTIA, publicly

announced the consumer code for wireless service. And

we unveiled what we call the official seal of

wireless‑quality consumer information. What I am

going to tell you about a little bit, what the purpose

is and also in terms of what the purpose of the seal

is, this program that CTIA has developed has been over

a year in developing.

Really, it started, I would say, almost

two years ago with a phone call from Thomas Wyatt and

Martha Contee to me saying, \"We see a trend in

wireless complaints. Come over. Let\'s talk about it

and see where we\'re going.\"

The research director, myself came over.

We had a meeting with Thomas and Martha showing us

where they had seen a spike in number of wireless

complaints. Around that time, also things were

happening on the Hill and in California and other

states in terms of wireless services and getting

information to consumers.

So what we did, as CTIA always does, we go

to the heads of our member companies, which are

presidents and CEOs, and say, \"How can we help our

customers understand better how to make informed

choices about wireless services?\"

Believe me, when you get six major

competitors sitting in a room trying to reach some

consensus, it\'s not easy. To say that we have come

this far in a year, believe me, someone called me.

They said, you know, \"Andrea, I\'m going to give you

sainthood for hurting CAS. It\'s called sainthood for

hurting wireless members.\"

We realize that as a growing industry ‑‑

and right now, as many of you know, we have

experienced a fantastic growth, particularly in the

last couple of years.

What we are seeing is over 115 million

subscribers. The interesting thing, even though we

have a large number and we continue to grow, we are

finding that per capita, our wireless complaints have

fallen or are holding steady based on our meetings,

the information that we are getting from the FCC.

We realize as a growing industry that we

also have a responsibility to consumers. What we are

trying to do with the code is to help consumers better

understand what they can expect from the wireless

service provider. It\'s the wireless industry I feel

that is making an important statement about our

commitment to our customers and to service quality.

There are three basic tenets of the code.

First is to provide consumers with information to help

them make informed choices in selecting wireless

services, help ensure that consumers understand their

wireless service and rate plans, and to continue

offering wireless services that meet consumers\' needs.

What we did in terms of looking at what

should be in this consumer code for wireless service,

there are basically ten points. There is a handout

that sort of gives you ‑‑ I am just going to go

through basically the basic what the ten points are,

but there is more information in terms of defining and

explaining each of those ten points.

What we did with the help of the FCC in

terms of they provided us with some of the informal

complaints as well as the inquiries and also talking

to some of the state consumer agencies and even some

of the consumer advocacy groups, trying to identify

what were some of the issues of greatest concerns to

consumers.

And we found that they would basically fit

in three areas. First was how rates and terms of

service are disclosed, including clear service area

maps and addressing termination rights and privacy

concerns.

What we came up with, again, is this

ten‑point consumer code for wireless service,

disclosed rates and terms of service to consumers,

make available maps showing where service is generally

available, provide contract terms to customers, and

confirm changes in service, allow a trial period for

new service, ‑‑ and as part of the code, the trial

period is a minimum of 14 days ‑‑ provide specific

disclosures in advertising, separately identify

carrier charges from taxes on billing statements,

provide customers a right to terminate services for

changes to contract terms, provide ready access to

custom service, promptly respond to consumer inquiries

and complaints received from governmental agencies,

and abide by policies for protection of consumer

privacy.

When we launch this, you will find that

many of the nation\'s large carriers are implementing.

Some already have fully implemented. Some are still

in the process.

For example, Alltel; ATT Wireless;

Cingular; Verizon; Nextel; Sprint PCS; for those of

you in the Midwest, U.S. Cellular; T‑Mobile; U.S.A.,

all of them have adopted these principles of the code,

not only our large carriers but we\'re also finding

many, many of our small carriers are also adopting the

code. Again, we\'re still in implementation stages.

So you are going to probably see what I will next show

you as a seal on various Web sites.

This is a seal of wireless quality

consumer information. You\'ve heard that saying, \"Look

for the seal.\" That\'s what we want customers and

consumers to do, is look for the seal of wireless

quality consumer information.

Not everyone gets to use a seal. What the

seal does, it marks a carrier\'s voluntary

participation in CTIA\'s voluntary consumer information

code program. And it signifies that the carrier

supports not only the basic tenets of the code but

also that they adopt the principles, disclosures, and

practices that are outlined in the ten‑point that you

just saw, and that they are fully implemented, those

practices, throughout their operations.

So you can imagine for nationwide

carriers, this has been a tremendous process for them

over the last couple of months, particularly if they

wanted to use a seal.

At CTIA, with any type of seal, there is

always the question, \"Well, how can you assure that

people are going to stay in compliance?\" What we have

done, we have set up an annual certification process,

which is handled by CTIA\'s legal department, Mike also

and me.

In order to be awarded use of the seal,

the company has to adhere to all ten points of the

consumer code for wireless services, not just one or

whatever they feel like; all ten.

They have to certify to us in writing that

they have adopted and have fully implemented the code

throughout their operations. Usually that requires a

signature from someone in senior management at the

president/CEO level or senior vice president/executive

vice president.

What we have is an annual recertification.

If you\'re not in compliance with the code, you will

not be permitted to display the seal. I can tell you

just from the three months of the program being

launched publicly, the carriers, the seal has become

very much a competitive issue among them.

I get calls from my members saying, \"Well,

you know, so and so member has a seal. And did you

see their coverage map? You need to take a look at

this, Andrea\" or I\'ll have carriers even saying,

\"Well, we were the first one to be certified. So we

get to use the seal first.\"

So it\'s having the impact that we had

hoped it would. And it\'s making them aware, our

members aware, that this is going to be an area where

they are going to be competing for consumers. And it

makes good business sense to voluntarily adopt the

code.

Because we are a trade association, it is

a voluntary process. One of the interesting things I

found out last week was that in I think one of the ETC

proceedings, the carrier, one of the requisites that

is being required in order to get ETC status, said

they have to adopt the code, the CTIA consumer code

for wireless service, in order to gain ETC status.

At CTIA, we feel that is a major, major

event because what that says to us is that on a

federal level, we\'re being recognized that this is

something good for consumers as well as for carriers.

If you want ETC status, adopt the code.

In terms of if you want more information

on the consumer code for wireless service, you can go

to CTIA\'s Web site. I am going to see if this works.

It should come up. Well, while we\'re waiting,

basically if you go to CTIA\'s Web site, there is a

display of the seal. When you click that on, there is

all of the information. Most of this is information,

what you have in your handouts in terms of the

consumer codes. There\'s Q&A\'s.

At any rate, in terms of those of you who

have consumer advocacy groups and state consumer

advocacy agencies, if you like for CTIA to come and

talk to your groups about the code of consumer

wireless, the consumer code for wireless service, we

would be happy to do so.

It\'s important that we get this

information out to consumers. Feel free to link your

constituents, your clients, the public, whoever you

deal with, to our site where they can get information.

Eva Won, who is dealing with the state

level on these issues, she is the contact person at

CTIA or you can always call me. Everyone here I think

knows where they can reach me.

Shirley, do you want me to divide this up

in terms of taking questions on this and then talk

about wireless number portability?

CHAIRPERSON ROOKER: Why don\'t we take

questions on your code because I have one?

MEMBER WILLIAMS: Sure.

CHAIRPERSON ROOKER: I like what you\'re

saying. The question that I have for you is when,

let\'s say, I as a consumer go to a retailer of

wireless phones and services. What is their

obligation to provide me with this information? You

are talking about the major carriers; correct?

Let\'s suppose I go to a small company that

is a seller of these services.

MEMBER WILLIAMS: Well, the wireless

consumer code, we only represent carriers. And we do

have some members who are ‑‑ well, just one, really,

Virgin Mobile U.S.A. This is not something that we

have heard yet.

I think what you are talking about is the

retail distribution program, like the Best Buys and

the Radio Shacks.

CHAIRPERSON ROOKER: Yes, or small vendors

who also sell phones.

MEMBER WILLIAMS: Like kiosks in the mall?

CHAIRPERSON ROOKER: Yes, whatever,

whatever size they might be.

MEMBER WILLIAMS: Right. We would love to

have them. Would they participate? Right now the

code is just being launched and implemented in the

carriers\' stores. Unfortunately, we do not have, the

trade association does not have, a relationship with

those entities.

CHAIRPERSON ROOKER: The company

ultimately is going to have me as a customer, one of

your wireless carriers, right? So would the carrier

then send me the information on the ten points and

deal with me directly?

MEMBER WILLIAMS: Yes. You can go

directly.

CHAIRPERSON ROOKER: I may not get it from

this independent retailer, but I would get it from the

carrier?

MEMBER WILLIAMS: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON ROOKER: Okay.

MEMBER WILLIAMS: Any carrier who

voluntarily is participating. And, as I said, on

their Web site, you have a seal. I wanted to show you

what some of the carriers have also put out, brochures

with this information as well. All you have to do is

call their customer service. They\'ll send you the

information you need.

CHAIRPERSON ROOKER: Why don\'t we see?

Susan has a question and then Debra. Oh, she has a

follow‑up to mine if you don\'t mind.

MEMBER BERLYN: Thank you.

Wouldn\'t this code be on information when

you go to purchase your wireless phone?

MEMBER WILLIAMS: It is really up to the

carriers in terms of how they display the information.

Some carriers I know ‑‑ Susan, I hope you don\'t mind

if I pick on you ‑‑ Cingular. When you go to

Cingular\'s Web site, there\'s a seal there. You click

it on. And up comes the information on the ten‑point

program.

Cingular also has in their stores at the

point of display information about the code. Also in

their advertising, they have, in fact, said, you know,

first nation carrier to be certified to use the seal.

And it has a number there where you can call to get

additional information about the code.

We wanted to also make the code in terms

of how they use the seal flexible so they could use it

in their advertising, their marketing, if they want to

use it in their radio ads, if they wanted to use it in

their television ads.

You have to remember we\'re dealing with

not only nationwide carriers but also small carriers,

rural carriers, and the goal here was to make it broad

enough so everyone could use it. Sometimes you have

different needs. So that was quite a challenge.

CHAIRPERSON ROOKER: All right. Susan?

MEMBER GRANT: I have not only a question

but just to follow‑up on Debra\'s point. I think the

point that she was making was that for the disclosure

parts of the code, those are only meaningful if

they\'re before the transaction has been completed, not

afterwards.

MEMBER WILLIAMS: Yes. That\'s why in your

information there is some more information in terms of

what that entails in terms of disclosure. Each of the

carriers had decided how they are going to disclose

those terms and conditions.

It may be, for example, some carriers have

decided to do it when you purchase your Cingular

phone, your Cingular service. You get all of this

information in terms of what the ten‑point code is,

who you can call, and things of that nature.

So it\'s really allowing the carrier the

flexibility.

MEMBER GRANT: Okay. Well, actually, that

wasn\'t my comment or question, but I just wanted to

put that out. So here\'s my comment and question.

The comment is that National Consumers

League has a very popular brochure, \"Going Wireless,\"

which we developed with a grant from Sprint. We are

revising it slightly because of number portability and

also translating it into Spanish. If that is

something that your members would be interested in

using as an educational tool for consumers, we would

love to talk to you about that.

My question is, in regard to the bullet

point in the code about abiding by privacy policies,

what privacy policies are those? Does CTIA have a

privacy policy that ‑‑

MEMBER WILLIAMS: These are the privacy

policies that each of the companies have developed for

their own companies. As you know, because you\'re

dealing with a lot of the subscriber information; for

example, even in wireless, there are certain ways that

we have to handle customer proprietary network

information, CPNI. What that is saying that you agree

that you are abiding by the CPNI rules, whatever state

rules that there may be in terms of privacy, whatever

your own company policies may be in terms of privacy

issues.

MEMBER GRANT: Okay. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON ROOKER: Okay. I think we\'re

going to have to move on. Maybe we can hold the

questions until your next presentation and then if

it\'s appropriate if you\'ve got time.

MEMBER WILLIAMS: Okay.

CHAIRPERSON ROOKER: Because we want to

get people a little bit of a break before we start our

1:00 o\'clock program.

MEMBER WILLIAMS: Right. Wireless number

portability or, as we at CTIA know it as, a lot of

sleepless nights lately.

CHAIRPERSON ROOKER: Say that again.

MEMBER WILLIAMS: A lot of sleepless

nights lately. We have four days to launch on

November the 24th. I think this has been one of the

most labor‑intensive processes that we have been

working on, particularly in terms of our networks,

doing the appropriate testing, and getting technically

what needs to be done to make this as smooth and

seamless as possible for customers.

Basically, as we define wireless number

portability, it means keeping your existing phone

number and choosing the new carrier to provide your

service.

We have over the months been working on

what we call wireless‑to‑wireless porting in terms of

taking your number from one wireless provider to

another. Just last week we got an order from the FCC

what I call explaining the rules of the road with

respect to inter‑carrier from wireline to wireless.

I\'ll talk about that a little more in just a moment.

As you know, starting Monday, wireless

number portability is going to be available in the 100

largest metropolitan areas nationwide. This is going

to be one of our challenges we know in terms of the

top 100 MSAs. There are various definitions floating

around in terms of what constitute the top 100 MSAs.

Again, as I said, we have been working

24/7 for months now trying to make this as pleasant

and smooth as possible for consumers. And, again,

this sort of dovetails into our whole overall consumer

information program in terms of helping our customers

understand and prepare for in this instance the

porting process.

What we have done at CTIA, we launched a

consumer Web site. Let\'s see if we can try this again

now. Hopefully this one will work. There it goes.

What it does is it explains the meaning for consumers

in terms of what it means for number portability and

available, again, in the top 100 MSAs. As you can

see, we have over here a map. We\'ve got to give them

a list.

The most important thing is that it

provides what we consider are very good consumer tips

and frequently asked questions on what they should

know if they plan to change their number, move their

number from one wireless service to another.

I know we are sort of short on time, but

I just want to give you an idea of some of the things

that it tells consumers, like explaining how you can\'t

take your number if you live in California and you

want to port your number to D.C. Well, you can\'t take

the same number because it\'s not within a local area.

We have some issues again with the

wireline, what we call intermodal porting in terms of

what do you consider local in terms of I guess the

best way, what we call rate centers. And that\'s an

issue that hopefully the FCC is going to resolve for

us by Monday; if not, maybe the courts.

Also, in terms of what you should bring

with you, knowing your current contract, finding a new

phone and a new plan that fits for you. We also want

to go to consumer tips. Well, that\'s taking too long.

A copy of the consumer tips is in your brochure.

What I think we are trying to help

consumers understand is what is happening behind the

scenes in terms of yes, this is a complicated process.

What we are hearing from a number of analysts is that

we can anticipate 15 to 20 million porting requests

within the next 10 months. The concern is, especially

within the next week, how many of those 15 to 20

million people will be moving.

Also in the site, we have basically a

step‑by‑step process that explains to consumers what

they can anticipate. This is what I show people in

terms of this is what is happening behind the scene

when you want to port your number. And, as you can

imagine, any break or any glitch in one aspect of

those arrows can create some glitches.

We anticipate yes, there are going to be

some glitches the first couple of weeks. And we are

doing our best, believe me, to work with our customers

and work through those glitches. Our brethren over on

the wireline side, we have learned some things from

them in terms of managing customers\' expectations,

which we know is going to be a challenge.

In terms of the industry readiness, we

have been testing our systems, our networks carrier to

carrier in terms of wireless to wireless carrier.

At this point we have what we call in the

wireless world network lockdown. And that means that

after November 18th no additional software can be put

into the networks. So it is what it is, the network,

at this point.

There is a lot of training going on in

terms of customer service and sales staff. I just

found out last night from my sister, who works for

Nextel in human resources. She said, \"Oh, I went to

my number portability training today.\"

And I said, \"You\'re in human resources.\"

She said, \"Everybody in Nextel has number portability

training.\" And she said, \"Oh, don\'t worry.\" She

said, \"I understand all of our competitors are doing

the same thing, too.\"

The other readiness in terms of consumer

education, CTIA\'s easy porting Web site is one thing

that we are doing as a trade association; also, each

of the carriers has on their Web sites or you call

their customer service, have information to help

consumers to understand what the porting process is.

We also had a meeting last week with

Thomas and Martha in terms of what we can anticipate

in terms of some of the glitches, where some of the

problems may be so we can anticipate educating with

their respect CAMS, their customer service people and

those particular problems that may come up.

CTIA is a trade organization. We continue

to monitor the testing on a daily basis. And we\'re

keeping our members informed of any developments with

respect to inter‑carrier communications for the

process.

I must tell you because of the lateness of

FCC\'s order with respect to wireline to wireless

porting, it has not been as fully tested, I would say,

as wireless to wireless because there were some things

that we really still needed some guidance from the

FCC.

Wireless industry, we are planning, anyone

who comes to us with a wireline phone number and they

want a port, we\'re going to be there ready to help

them.

Basically, here are some of the challenges

that we foresee over the next couple of months,

particularly the first two weeks of implementation.

One is managing consumer expectations.

To give you a class example, this morning

I was coming over in the cab. The taxi driver said to

me, \"Oh, where are you from?\"

I said, \"Trade association.\"

\"Oh, wireless?\"

I said, \"Yes.\"

He said, \"Oh, I\'m going to be able to move

my number.\" He said, \"I already know what service

provider I\'m going to.\"

I said, \"Well?\"

He said, \"Do you think it\'s going to be

easy?\"

I said, \"Well, we\'re going to try to make

it easy.\" And I said, \"What carrier are you going

to?\"

And he said, \"Well, I\'m going from carrier

A to carrier B.\" I can\'t tell you because both of

them are my members.

Well, carrier A has one type of digital

technology that\'s, say, CDMA. Carrier B has another

type of different technology that\'s, say, GSM. I

said, \"Well, you know, you may have to get a new

phone.\"

\"No. I want to keep my same phone.\"

I said, \"Well, you have two different

digital technologies. And the phones are not going to

work. The same phone is not going to work on both

systems.\"

He said, \"Oh. So I\'m going to have to buy

a new phone. I didn\'t plan on that. I\'m glad you

told me that. I don\'t know. Well, do you think

they\'ll give me a deal?\"

I said, \"Hey, I don\'t know. You have to

talk to them about that.\"

And then there\'s also in terms of early

termination of contracts, that\'s why we tell you

please, please, please read your contracts because

just because you have the opportunity to port, you

need to understand that if you decide to leave a

carrier, say you have a one‑year contract and your one

year is not up, you may have to pay early termination

fees in accordance with the contract.

The other issue in terms of managing

consumer expectations is how long the process is going

to take. As I said, I showed you that chart before.

One glitch can create a problem. We\'re going to try

our best to get the porting process done within two

and a half hours, but it may be longer.

One of the things that came up at our

executive committee meeting was in terms of business

customers. For the wireless industry, say, for

example, ‑‑ I\'ll use my husband\'s company ‑‑

Bridgestone Firestone has an account with, let\'s say

‑‑ I\'m going to pick on you ‑‑ Nextel and my husband

decides he wants to change his service from Nextel to

Cingular. Well, he is not the customer. Bridgestone

Firestone is.

So he may go into a store saying,

\"Cingular, here is my number. Port it.\" Well, he is

not going to be able to because in terms of

authorization, Cingular is not going to be able to

move that individual because the customer is

Bridgestone Firestone.

So helping consumers to manage their

expectations, again, we are going to be ready as much

as we can be. We do expect glitches, you know, but

we\'ll work through them.

CHAIRPERSON ROOKER: Andrea, I think we\'re

going to have to call it a halt. I\'ll give you

another minute.

MEMBER WILLIAMS: Okay. In terms of some

of the other challenges, I have them listed here. I

think in terms of the fringe counties, again, that\'s

a top 100 MSA issue. We\'re finding that depending on

if you use OMB or if you use Census Bureau, the top

100 MSA may vary from one carrier to another.

So carrier A may say, you know, \"Howard

County is in the Washington, D.C. area, top 100 MSAs,\"

and another carrier may say, \"Well, no, not according

to the Census Bureau.\" So we expect some problems

there as well and also with retail distribution

outlets.

Again, you have your Best Buys, your Radio

Shack. As you know, with a competitive wireless

industry, they\'re selling five, six different service

providers\' services and may not have the level of

knowledge as a store would have, what I call a

carrier‑owned store. So we\'re expecting some

challenges there.

CHAIRPERSON ROOKER: Thank you ever so

much. I appreciate it very much.

MEMBER WILLIAMS: Okay.

CHAIRPERSON ROOKER: We have a ten‑minute

break. You need to be back here at 1:00 o\'clock

promptly.

MEMBER WILLIAMS: Thank you very much.

CHAIRPERSON ROOKER: Thank you.

MEMBER WILLIAMS: And if anyone has any

questions, I\'m here.

(Applause.)

(Whereupon, the foregoing matter went off

the record at 12:50 p.m. and went back on

the record at 1:08 p.m.)

CHAIRPERSON ROOKER: Please, if I could

have your attention? We have some guests with us, and

we would like to welcome them. So, please, if you

could take your chairs, we would really appreciate

that.

It gives me a great deal of pleasure to

welcome I believe the newest commissioner to the FCC,

Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein. We\'re lucky to have

you with us here. Thank you for joining us.

(Applause.)

MR. ADELSTEIN: Thanks for having me. I

just wanted to thank you all for all the work you do

on behalf of all of my colleagues. I know how much

time and effort you put into these issues.

It means a lot to us. For example, we\'re

really looking forward to hearing what you have to say

on the TRS working group report. That\'s going to I

think form a basis for our actions.

We\'re hoping to move quickly on that

because we take the kind of work that you do extremely

seriously. We\'re hoping, for example, on the TRS to

try to get an item moving early next year. Your input

on that is going to be the basis for our items.

Just know that what you\'re doing here is

going to see the light of day, that we are going to

move on it. Things like this are so crucial in the

context of homeland security and the need for all

Americans to have all the protections that they

deserve.

So it\'s wonderful to be here. I see that

we have ARP here today. Reading the headlines this

morning, I think this is a safe haven for you.

(Laughter.)

MR. ADELSTEIN: You are all welcome here.

And we really do appreciate all the work that you do.

I just wanted to let you know that we take it so

seriously and that we plan to actually act on it and

to thank you for your time and your dedication to

serving us with nothing but the goodness of your

hearts and knowing that you\'re doing the right thing

for your country and to help us to do the right thing

for the consumers, who are also the most important

constituency that we serve.

Our job, we have a telecommunications act.

In the Telecommunications Act of \'34, we focused on

the public interest over 100 times. So it forms the

very essence of what Congress intended us to do. And

the public interest is shaped by what best serves

consumers.

So this is a crucial activity that you\'re

involved in, and we really appreciate all your help

and your input. So thank you for being here.

CHAIRPERSON ROOKER: Thank you so much.

We really appreciate it.

(Applause.)

CHAIRPERSON ROOKER: Do you want to take

a couple of questions? Do you have time to take

questions, a couple?

MR. ADELSTEIN: Sure. If there is

anything that you would like me to respond to, I would

be happy to. I don\'t want to impede your work, but is

there anything on your minds?

(No response.)

CHAIRPERSON ROOKER: Thank you so much.

MR. ADELSTEIN: All right. Well, thanks

for ‑‑

CHAIRPERSON ROOKER: We really appreciate

your being here.

MR. ADELSTEIN: Sure.

CHAIRPERSON ROOKER: I would like to take

this opportunity to welcome Dane Snowden, who is the

chief of the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau

and a familiar face to all of us. Welcome, Dane.

(Applause.)

MR. SNOWDEN: Hello, hello. I thank you

very much, Commissioner Adelstein.

INTRODUCTION OF THE CHAIRMAN AND COMMISSIONERS

MR. SNOWDEN: It\'s good to be back here

with you guys. It\'s been a little while. I apologize

for being a little bit tardy. I was on a phone call

dealing with some local number portability issues, and

I saw Andrea\'s presentation from my office. So good

job, Andrea. I won\'t belabor some of those points.

Before I got into some of my comments

today, I wanted to introduce two members from the

commission as well, Christopher Libertelli, who is the

chairman\'s senior legal adviser. You all may

recognize Chris used to be a legal adviser in the

Wireline Competition Bureau, and he moved up to the

chairman\'s office and now has assumed the ranks as

being the senior legal adviser. So he keeps all of us

in line. Jennifer Manner, who is a legal adviser to

Commissioner Kathleen Abernathy. They wanted to come

down and show their thanks and appreciation for all

that you all do in serving on this committee.

I wanted to join Commissioner Adelstein

and others in saying welcome and thank you very much.

UPDATE ON THE CONSUMER &

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS BUREAU

MR. SNOWDEN: It\'s been a very busy time

since the last time you all were here. We\'ve gotten

a lot of things done, as you might imagine.

Of course, I would be remiss if I didn\'t

mention the TCPA and what we have done with the

national do not call registry. As you know, this has

gone back and forth. As we like to say, we are

cautiously optimistic that the 54 million Americans

who signed their name up on that list will be proven

right and will be allowed to have this list and this

registry stay in business, as it is right now.

As you know, the registry and the issue of

the constitutionality of it involved many courts.

And, of course, as I said earlier, it involved a

district court judge, two federal courts, two federal

agencies, United States Supreme Court, the White

House, and the U.S. Congress.

An interesting fact is that the U.S.

Congress when the constitutionality of the do not call

list was called in question, the United States

Congress acted the quickest they have ever acted in a

peacetime setting ever. So that tells you, I think,

our folks on the Hill realize that the Americans

across the country wanted this list, they need this

list, and they are going to get this list according to

what we are doing and what they are doing as well.

I did want to mention some outreach

activities that we have been working on here at the

commission. In August, we launched, the chairman

launched, a rule, outreach initiative, where we are

looking at ensuring that Americans across the country,

particularly in rural America, have access to

telecommunications services that so many of us who

live in urban areas have.

Just a couple of weeks ago, we launched a

telemedicine effort, where we went down to the

University of Virginia and saw firsthand how the goals

of universal service, that fee we all pay on our

telephone bill, how it\'s being put to use in rural

America, ensure that medical attention is given to

those Americans who live in rural America, the same

levels that they are giving to all of us in urban

areas. So we are very excited about that.

Part of that initiative will be doing more

outreach events in rural America, partnering with the

Appalachian regional council and other members in

rural America. We are going to look at the delta

communities; the breadbasket area; and, of course,

Alaska and our tribal partners as well. So there is

a lot of activity coming from the commission on that.

We also had an E911 coordination

initiative, which was in October. This is an

important initiative because we believe and the

chairman has said it quite clearly that if you pay on

your wireless bill for E911 every month, you should

have it.

And so the commission, the chairman is

using his bully pulpit to galvanize and pull and

coordinate all of the parties together because we

don\'t regulate all of the parties who are involved in

the E911 process. So we want to make sure that what

we can do as our part is pulling everyone together.

We recently had the governors\' designees

from across the country come and participate with us,

talk about the issue, and what are the challenges that

we\'re seeing that are being faced with having

deployment with E911.

We like to tell consumers, quite candidly,

decide on a carrier based on their E911 service. That

is very important. Use that as a discriminate point

of why you\'re going to purchase a particular product.

So we\'ll have more coordination issues in 2004, but

rest assured this is a priority for the commission as

we move forward.

Finally, I would be remiss if I didn\'t at

least mention local number portability, which is the

topic du jour, which seems to be more the topic of the

month. I don\'t know how to say \"month\" in French, but

topic of the month. I can say mesa, which is in

Spanish.

We are very excited about this, the

chairman on down. We are leading our own. Along with

the members of the industry, I know CTIA is involved

is involved in this as well. We are leading our own

campaigning, making sure that people are aware about

what the options are about local number portability.

This is a great, great thing for the

American consumer. Consumers wants it. I know there

might be some, even some in this room, ‑‑ I\'m not sure

‑‑ who might contest our rules, but rest assured the

commission will stand to fight any legal opposition

that comes toward us because this is something that we

think is right.

It\'s good for competition. It\'s good for

consumers. And I have to say it\'s also good for the

industry as a whole because it will make the industry

be more competitive and fight for your business. And

I think that\'s good ultimately for the American

consumer.

In conjunction with the local number

portability, we, of course, have launched some of our

fact sheets and our checklists of what consumers

should know. We, of course, are very clear in the

sense that we understand that this is going to be a

bumpy road over the next couple of months as we roll

out local number portability, but we also know that we

have got to start somewhere. And we\'re starting on

November 24th.

The chairman, some of us, you see, were a

little tired. We have been up since 4:00 this morning

doing a satellite media tour that the chairman led

getting across the whole country talking about local

number portability to various television stations.

He did that, and he is committed to that

because he wants to make sure: one, people know what

is coming; and, two, what they need to do. I think

Andrea talked about this a little earlier, about some

of the steps that consumers should do.

One, in particular, we like to say is read

your contract beforehand and if you do decide to port,

bring a telephone bill with you because it makes the

porting process go so much smoother.

We are very excited about a lot of the pro

consumer initiatives that we have taken since your

last meeting. We look forward to your guidance, your

thoughts, and your comments as we go forward.

I would like to say before I close and

take some questions the work that you all have done,

when I got a briefing from my staff on the working

groups, I just want to say thank you and commend you

for your good work.

As some of you know, I joined the

commission about three years ago, when we had CDTAC

and now CAC. Quite candidly, ‑‑ and I don\'t mean to

talk out of school here, but, quite candidly, this

committee was finding its way. I can tell you now by

looking at the great work that is being done, this

committee has found its way and is doing the work that

the commission needs it to do as we go through and

navigate some of these prickly issues, these technical

issues, but these very important issues.

So I want to thank the working groups for

all of their hard work. And, of course, you\'re not

off the hook. So we hopefully will continue. Please

note that our sincere thanks from the chairman on down

for the good work that you all have been doing, I know

on your own time, not just when you\'re here but when

you\'re outside this building.

So, again, I thank you for that, and I

will be more than happy to answer any questions you

have before I have to go back upstairs.

Yes, ma\'am?

MEMBER RAGSDALE: Hello. Joy Ragsdale

from NASUCA.

Can you tell us more about the satellite

media tour?

MR. SNOWDEN: Sure. It\'s a process where

you can get the biggest bang for your buck in a way.

We started this morning. The chairman had to be there

bright and early. We started at 6:00‑something, first

interview. Literally you do a series of about 30‑some

odd interviews across the country talking about the

same issue.

Basically TV stations log in through the

satellite and start asking the chairman questions.

Bless his heart, he had to answer the same question

probably over and over and over and over and over

again, but he got it down. I\'ll tell you that.

It is a great thing. It allows us to

reach as many Americans as we possibly can. We

targeted the 100 markets, the 100 markets that the LNP

is rolling out first. That was intentional because we

wanted to make sure people in those markets who can

get it right now are aware of what the process is.

And so it\'s our way of trying to reach out to

consumers more and more as we go forward with these

consumer‑type issues.

You will see us doing things like this or

something similar to this when we have consumer‑type

issues, when we talk about the triennial review. It\'s

not something that most Americans understand or care

about, although it is important in terms of what

happens in the telecom world for them.

We want to make sure we can get out there

on these consumer issues. We didn\'t necessarily have

to do them on the do not call because I think the

media did a very good job of covering this issue.

We believe that, as you have seen in some

accounts in the industry as well, on local number

portability as of Monday, we will see more and more

media outlets taking the lead in the bandwagon of

sharing this information with consumers across the

board.

So that\'s what happens. It\'s a great

thing. It\'s not an easy thing. I will say that. And

the chairman was a trooper for doing it because it\'s

a long day. As you know, as I said earlier, we got up

at 4:00 in the morning to make sure we were there on

time.

MEMBER RAGSDALE: Is it a taped show?

MR. SNOWDEN: No. They\'re live programs.

The way the media works is that obviously they do a

live segment first. And then they will package it and

show it throughout.

I\'m sure a lot of stations will run it

again on Monday because we did, of course, show it

here in this market, in Washington, and run it across

the country, Minneapolis, Philadelphia, North

Carolina. Again, I\'ve been up since 4:00. So I am

kind of blurring my states right now, but it was

across the country.

Any other questions? Yes?

MEMBER GOLDBERG: Larry Goldberg here.

Can you tell me, do you know what the

status is of the FCC\'s reauthorization on the Hill?

(Laughter.)

MR. SNOWDEN: Didn\'t you hear me say I got

up at 4:00 this morning?

(Laughter.)

MR. SNOWDEN: I believe it is in the

omnibus bill right now and it is not out of committee

just yet. So we are still waiting to hear, and we are

eagerly anticipating that we would get what we need so

we can keep moving. We\'re optimistic. Put it that

way.

MEMBER WILLIAMS: Can you hear me?

MR. SNOWDEN: Yes.

MEMBER WILLIAMS: Dane, I know that over

the last couple of months, you all, particularly your

bureau, has been doing a lot of work with respect to

tribal nations. I\'m wondering how receptive and

effective you found the work in terns of the forums,

the different forums, you have been having and are

they well‑attended?

MR. SNOWDEN: That\'s a great question, and

it\'s not a plan. I\'m glad you asked that question.

MEMBER WILLIAMS: No.

MR. SNOWDEN: You allowed me to give a

commercial without having to pay for it.

As some of you may know, when Chairman

Powell became the chairman, one of the things he said

to me directly was we need to do more with our Indian

relations.

We have a responsibility, a

government‑to‑government responsibility, with our

tribal nations. There are about 550 tribal nations

across the country.

So we have embarked on a very aggressive

plan to reach out to tribal communities. Recently, in

September, members of my staff and the Wireline

Competition Bureau and International Bureau, we all

traveled to Alaska because we are looking at the

unique issues that relate to the individual tribes and

also relate to different geographical regions

throughout the country that deal with tribes.

No one tribe is alike. At one point in

the commission, we had the idea of having a massive

meeting with all of the tribes coming together. And

as we talked to the tribes, we realized that they are

at different stages of development and growth.

Some tribes have their own

telecommunications facilities. Some are trying to

figure out how to get their schools up and running.

So when you have those two vast differences between

the tribes, we needed to come up with something new,

something different.

And so we have launched our Indian

telecommunications initiative. The goal behind it is

to bring some of the programs that the commission has;

for example, the expanded lifeline linkup program that

is only available to individuals on reservations.

We\'re making sure people are aware of those programs.

We\'re also bringing the commission to them.

It\'s interesting as you look at the

various tribes around the country and the various

stages of development that they\'re in. We want to

make sure that they have access to the commission.

And we have been doing that.

So the answer to your question about how

effective it has been, I am probably not the best

person to ask, but I will tell you my opinion. I

think it has been very effective, but we have a lot

more work to do. And we are committed to doing that

work in the months and years to come here at the FCC.

Any other questions?

(No response.)

MR. SNOWDEN: With that, again, all the

best for a successful meeting. I thank you again for

making your way here. And if there is any time you

are here in town, even if you are not here for a

meeting, please let us know. We will be more than

happy to sit down and talk with you.

I know I see some of you somewhat on a

regular basis. I see Claude in front of me. So I

look forward to seeing more of you more often. And I

hope you all have a wonderful Thanksgiving and safe

travels back to your homes.

Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON ROOKER: Dane, thank you.

MR. SNOWDEN: Thank you.

(Applause.)

CHAIRPERSON ROOKER: We really do

appreciate the time you give to us, Dane. Thank you

ever so much.

I would just like to ask Chris and

Jennifer if they want to say any words or anything.

Jennifer I believe has left, but, Chris, thank you.

Chris Libertelli, as you just heard, who is from

Chairman Powell\'s office, welcome. Chris?

MR. LIBERTELLI: Thank you very much. I

won\'t take up much of your time. Jennifer did have to

go upstairs because she had an outside meeting, but I

wanted to come down and just echo what Dane had said

and thank you very much for coming here and expending

your efforts. I know the companies that are

represented here do this as a matter of largesse. And

we appreciate your efforts.

I also did want to say that the chairman\'s

office is working closely with Dane\'s shop on some of

the TRS issues that I know the task force is working

on. We hope to move those recommendations into

action, as Commissioner Adelstein said, in the

beginning of 2004.

So I thank you for those efforts. Good

luck with today\'s meeting. And if there\'s anything

the chairman\'s office can do to help you with your

efforts, please don\'t be shy and let us know. Thank

you.

CHAIRPERSON ROOKER: Thank you very much.

(Applause.)

CHAIRPERSON ROOKER: I do have a few

announcements and a little bit of housekeeping to make

I promised to make. We will be taking requests for

cabs at the break. So don\'t let me forget to do that,

those of you who want to get a cab.

Also, I just want to tell you that the FCC

has some new fact sheets on the Web. So you may want

to look them up at fcc.gov. There\'s quite a list of

things.

As a matter of fact, I have some of them

here somewhere if I could find them, but, of course,

I can\'t, not when I need it. That\'s what you get when

you have a pile of paper in front of you.

Here we go. The fact sheets include

digital radio, do not call, homeland security,

wireless number portability, digital phone and people

with hearing disabilities calling 911 from a wireless

phone, DTV, and closed captioning. And that\'s just a

sampling. So you may want to go visit.

Another thing that I want to tell you, you

may be getting a call from the General Accounting

Office. As far of their requirements and as they

normally do, they are doing a study of all of the FCC

federal advisory committees. Of course, that\'s what

we are.

So you may be contacted to learn about

your experiences on the CAC, which is a normal thing.

This is part of GAO\'s responsibility to keep oversight

over these committees. So don\'t be alarmed. Answer

any questions that they might have. And do say good

things about your experience here.

Some other items. Our next meeting ‑‑ we

have a question, David? I\'m sorry.

MEMBER POEHLMAN: Shirley, I hate to ask

this, but is there any way we can get that phone

number so that we can be sure to answer the phone,

those of us who have caller ID who don\'t answer

telephone calls from numbers we don\'t know, or would

they be kind enough to leave a message so we can call

them back and talk to them?

CHAIRPERSON ROOKER: I suspect if they

want you, David, they will leave you a message.

MEMBER POEHLMAN: I don\'t know.

CHAIRPERSON ROOKER: I think they\'ll get

you. They\'ll get you, David, we promise. It\'s

unlikely that you will get a call, but I just want you

to know that if you do, that is what is going on. So

don\'t be alarmed about it.

As you know, the next meeting is scheduled

for the 26th of March. The day before, the FCC is

hosting a summit meeting of the stakeholders with

regards to the needs of people with disabilities

during a disaster or terror attack.

Now, I know that this was discussed

somewhat during the TRS working group. And what they

are looking for is what to do in terms of emergencies.

This meeting is going to take place the

day before the regular CAC meeting. Then the

recommendations that come out of that 25th meeting

will be considered by us on the 26th as part of our

agenda. So you will have those agenda items will be

added. They have to be on the agenda, but we don\'t

know what the items will be. So they will be up for

discussion and recommendations for the commission.

I really want to thank Brenda Kelly‑Frey

for her taking the lead in a lot of this. She has

been one of the guiding lights behind the summit

meeting, and we are really appreciative of that.

TRS working group will be taking the lead

in terms of participating in the summit meeting. I

suspect if others of you are interested, that you

would be welcome to join it if you\'re not on the TRS

working group. But, anyway, that\'s kind of the story

there.

Also, another item ‑‑ and if you have

agenda items that you would like to suggest for the

March 26th meeting, just to let you know, you have got

to get it to us at least six weeks in advance because

that\'s so we can meet the requirements of the Federal

Register.

So if you\'ve got some thoughts in your

mind that you want something to put on the agenda for

the 26th of March, you have got to let us know as soon

as possible, really, because the agenda gets really

cram‑packed and there\'s not always room. So do

forgive us if we can\'t accommodate your request for

any particular item. Sometimes we just have already

made the plans. Anyway, the sooner you let us know,

the better.

Now to get on to our next order of

business. Does anyone have any questions on anything?

Yes, Joe?

MEMBER GORDON: Can you give me some more

information on the meeting on the 25th? Is it in this

room, the hours?

CHAIRPERSON ROOKER: I don\'t have that

information. Scott, do you have it?

MR. MARSHALL: I can give you a little

information.

CHAIRPERSON ROOKER: Here we go.

MR. MARSHALL: Hi. This is Scott

Marshall.

Joe, this is still in the planning stage.

I suspect it will be an all‑day meeting on the 25th.

And it would be here in this room.

MEMBER GORDON: Thank you.

MR. MARSHALL: Okay.

CHAIRPERSON ROOKER: Okay. Any other

questions? Are we okay?

(No response.)

CHAIRPERSON ROOKER: All right. Well,

then let\'s just get right to the order of business,

which is to hear from our working groups. I want to

say again how really excited I am and Scott is and, as

you can hear, from the commission at the work that is

being done by the working groups.

I mean, it really is a very important

process that we have been going through. And you all

have done a great job. And it\'s because of you and

your leaders. So we really thank you.

We\'re going to start out. What we\'re

going to do, this is what we\'re going to have happen.

We\'re going to have working group recommendations.

And after each of those, we will take it either as a

whole or if you feel that it\'s important that we

divide up the recommendations into separate items,

they will be voted on. They will either be voted up

or down as to whether or not they will be presented to

the commission as a recommendation of the entire CAC.

Does anybody have any questions about that

process?

MEMBER POEHLMAN: We can have a

discussion, right?

CHAIRPERSON ROOKER: Oh, we may let you

talk a little bit, David, yes. Yes, we are going to

definitely have discussion. I cannot believe this

group wouldn\'t have discussion.

Well, let\'s start out. We are going to

start out with the TRS working group, which, as you

may recall, has been asked by the FCC to make comments

on the TRS. So we\'re going to have that. Brenda

Kelly‑Frey is the chair.

Brenda? Thank you again, Brenda, for all

the work you have been doing.

And you do have summaries of these in your

agenda in your folder.

WORKING GROUP RECOMMENDATIONS AND PROGRESS REPORTS

TRS WORKING GROUP

MEMBER KELLY‑FREY: Good afternoon,

everyone.

CHAIRPERSON ROOKER: And I should just

explain something. I\'m sorry to interrupt you. Each

working group has a half an hour. So we have to get

to the issues, and then we have to get to the

discussion, and then we have to get to the vote. So

we do have a jam‑packed half‑hour.

I will give you a little leeway because I

am looking at the clock because I know it\'s not right

at 1:30. And I\'m sorry. I really forgot my whip

today to get everybody in line.

MEMBER KELLY‑FREY: Start?

CHAIRPERSON ROOKER: Go.

MEMBER KELLY‑FREY (via interpreter):

Okay. First of all, I want to thank the FCC and

Chairman Powell for inviting us and providing us the

opportunity to make recommendations from NASRA, the

National Association of State Relay Administration,

and TRS industry consumer action network, as well as

the consumers.

We would like to thank the members of the

working group, Becky Ladew, Stephen Gregory, Claude

Stout, Pam Stewart, Clay Bowen, Dixie at Hamilton, and

Patty Bannier, and also Joe Gordon.

The objective of the TRS working group

was: first of all, to address public access issues

for TRS information and networks, to determine whether

the FCC has the authority or the jurisdiction over the

TRS national network and outreach, and also the

mechanism established for the network and outreach.

Considerations given to TRS include as a

priority restoration in emergency situations,

providing the framework for the FCC\'s summit to be

able to focus on homeland security issues.

And Clay will also be speaking about

addressing the public access to TRS information and

network.

MR. BOWEN: I\'m Clay Bowen with Virginia

Relay. Brenda and I were asked to present a workshop

on national outreach at the National Association of

State Relay Administration\'s conference in September.

We had worked on this prior to the FCC

NPRM on national outreach. So we decided to take that

workshop as an opportunity to get feedback from the

membership, from the consumers, from the vendors, and

from the other stakeholders that were in attendance at

the NASRA conference.

We thought this would be an excellent

vehicle to get feedback from a very diverse group, all

of which are involved in TRS, and get answers to the

specific questions that were addressed to this group

in the NPRM earlier this summer.

Our workshop was scheduled for 45 minutes.

We went almost an hour and 15 minutes before we were

cut off. Dixie Ziegler of Hamilton and I stayed on

stage for almost an additional half‑hour. We got a

lot of information to bring back.

We summarized that information. And we

presented it at the workgroup meeting, the CAC

workgroup meeting on TRS, in September. To summarize

that real quickly, these are specific responses to

questions that were in the FCC NPRM.

Approximately ten percent of outbound

calls result in hangups. We found that no state or no

provider actually tracked the number of hangup calls.

The ten percent figure was based on anecdotal

information that we receive from state relay managers

and from CAs themselves.

We also found out that we could not

determine that any far‑reaching outreach efforts

existed in the states. There were certainly states

that had outreach programs, but they were specific to

that state.

Outreach activities were also maybe

specific to a provider, meaning a particular provider,

such as Sprint or Hamilton, would provide information

or outreach to those states which they provided

services to, but there were no nationwide efforts of

a particular relay vendor for outreach.

What came up, which was also referenced in

the NPRM, was the information that\'s in the front of

all telephone directories. This is perhaps the most

common form of outreach that is out there. However,

there are problems with that, too.

The language that\'s in the phone books is

not standardized. It\'s different in different areas

of the country, even in different areas of the state.

It\'s sometimes not understandable. But it\'s most

often discounted by businesses, by the hearing

population as TRS being a service only for the deaf.

And it\'s not considered a part of a business or an

employment opportunity or another way to communicate

for the hearing population as well.

Based on these recommendations, the TRS

work group would like to recommend to the full CAC

committee that a coordinated information and outreach

program can achieve a national consciousness on the

use and benefits of TRS. And that\'s their

recommendation to this committee.

In our research, we found that the state\'s

programs, as I had said, were either specific to a

state, specific to a relay provider, or we found one

example very close to home, that back last year,

Maryland produced a series of commercials on relay

that were specific to Maryland.

However, DeVanie and Associates, the

company, the marketing company, that produced those

commercials, also made a generic version of that same

commercial that spoke only of state, your state relay

center, your state relay provider. Therefore, it

became a commercial that could be used by more than

one state.

Virginia as well as Montana and some other

states took advantage of that. We purchased the

rights to that commercial. Our state did not have to

pay the development cost, the production costs.

It was a very good deal, thanks to

Maryland relay, for us. You will note at the end ‑‑

we are going to show those commercials right now ‑‑

that these commercials had a space for a tag line that

any state could use for this generic commercial. So

if we could show those commercials right now?

(Whereupon, a videotape was played.)

MEMBER KELLY‑FREY: Accommodation of those

is now in the legislation. And there is regulatory

action guiding us to determine the results for the

FCC\'s work that we currently have the authority and

jurisdiction to be able to establish and identify a

funding mechanism for a national network program. And

here are some of the examples.

We have section 255 communication

amendment, the House of Representatives report on ADA,

section 4‑I of the Communication Act of 1934, specific

court cases related to interpreting and the FCC

responsibility or jurisdiction as being expansive on

that, previous involvement with consumer networks and

outreach, and education programs.

For example, we have things such as the do

not call list. That is one way that the FCC is

advertising. Another example would be outreach to the

tribal nations.

Another one we recently heard of this

morning is the satellite media tour by Chairman

Powell. So that\'s really cool. So why not look at

that for TRS? Think about it.

Now, next the FCC has asked us to decide

if the FCC has the authority over the national network

campaign. And we would recommend yes, the FCC does

have the authority based on the other prior examples

that we have shown you.

And the funding for the national outreach

campaign can be done through TRS contributions from

the various carriers and their customers and various

other funding mechanisms that exist within the FCC\'s

responsibility.

We have met with NASRA as a committee.

And, as Clay mentioned, they are recommending, first

of all, what you just saw and the TRS funding to be

used for this as well as for national outreach

programs.

Also, we should establish a separate

advisory board to help the FCC to be able to set up

national outreach campaigns. We can help to develop

an RFP to recommend and perhaps hiring a professional

marketing firm under the FCC as well as a special and

separate board to be established.

And the TRS working group offers our

experience and expertise in the selection of the

process for the board members to establish that new

advisory board.

And our suggestion for the composition of

that new advisory board on the network marketing we

feel should be as follows. There should be two deaf;

two hard of hearing; two hearing; one speech‑impaired

people who have hard of hearing as well as children of

deaf adults, otherwise known as CODAs. We should have

a deaf‑blind participant. We should have participants

from the relay industry, two participants; as well as

two from NASRA; one from an administrative position in

terms of the interstate funding; and a representative

also from the local exchange carriers, or LECs.

So that would be a 16‑member group for the

advisory board. And that should be sufficient to be

able to provide information, assistance, and advice to

the FCC to be able to select a marketing company and

proceed with that goal.

MR. BOWEN: There is already an interstate

TRS advisory council that makes recommendations on the

funding from the TRS interstate fund. Their expertise

lies in relay and relay products and in funding for

relay.

Both NASRA and the workgroup felt that

there needed to be a separate, as Brenda has just

described, advisory council with the expertise in

marketing or marketing to consumers or marketing to

the general public. That\'s why we decided not to

include that in the existing interstate TRS fund

advisory council.

So if this is accepted by the CAC as well

as the FCC, the interstate fund provider would then

have two advisory councils: one to oversee funding

issues for TRS, one to oversee outreach.

MEMBER KELLY‑FREY: Okay. And then next

we would like the FCC to consider TRS as a vital

service to the deaf and hard of hearing community.

Therefore, we believe that we should have

telecommunications services as priority established

for relay.

And TSP was established in 1988. At that

time, there was no relay. Relay came about about

1991\. So relay was not included in the current TSP

plan. And we feel that that is very valuable for

restoration for the relay so that deaf people will be

able to get telephone service on an equal and fast

level, basically equal to hearing people.

The recommendations for the TRS workgroup

include that there be a call center. The relay center

will be selected as determined. And the TRS call

center will be designated as a key telecommunication

facility in America and will receive top priorities

for restoration in consideration if there is in the

event of bad weather or an act of terrorism. That\'s

looking at emergency situations.

We are also discussing that it would be

extremely beneficial for the individual states and for

their TRS providers to establish some kind of

operation plan for TSP, for their facilities with

their local PSAPs, 911 centers, and LECs.

We also recommend that the FCC host a

summit to address the different homeland security

issues related to people with disabilities. We would

recommend that the FCC host a two or three‑day summit

to address those concerns, especially considering

those related to deaf and hard of hearing individuals

as well as other people who have disabilities.

So it would actually be two separate

summits: one that would be an all‑day summit focusing

on the hard of hearing and deaf issues. And the other

would also be an all‑day summit focusing on other

disability groups.

The deaf group has communication issues

that are very unique to that group; whereas, hearing

people with other disabilities do not have problems

with communications in the event of an emergency. So

we feel that it is very important to have a separate

day for each of those.

And so then there would be one final day

where both groups would combine and have

representatives from each participating to present to

the full committee for homeland security individuals.

That day I believe Scott mentioned would

be like the 25th of March, for one day prior to the

next full CAC meeting on March 26th.

We also suggest that different

representatives from the disability groups participate

in the panel after they have already had their

pre‑summit meetings to be able to hear the various

perspectives and concerns and issues from the

different disability groups.

We also would like to suggest establishing

some kind of mechanism for ongoing consultation to the

homeland security group for new issues, problems,

concerns that come up in the future.

We don\'t want to be a one‑time summit

where we consider concerns have been heard and then

drop it. We know that more things will be coming up

in the future.

Also this morning the TRS working group,

when we met, there were some new guests that joined

us. And we discussed the video relay services. After

that meeting, we believe that there are different

issues related to video relay service that do not have

the same type of problems within the TRS, including

ethical concerns, funding, setting up the calls, the

role of the video relay operator, ‑‑ the TRS operator

is a different type of role ‑‑ the impact on the

supply and availability of the interpreters.

Once VRS expands, they are going to be

using a lot of skilled interpreters. So what is going

to happen to the consumers in everyday life that need

interpreters in the workplace, doctor appointments,

you name it? Will we have enough interpreters for

that need, one‑on‑one meetings, and so forth?

We also need to determine minimum

certification for video operators and what that is and

how that will happen as well as numerous other issues

that can be coming up as we go along because it is a

very new technology and people love it.

And that is the end of my presentation.

I would like to thank you for letting me go over my

time a bit.

CHAIRPERSON ROOKER: You actually haven\'t

exceeded your time.

MEMBER KELLY‑FREY: Oh, I haven\'t yet?

Really?

CHAIRPERSON ROOKER: You have done all

right.

MEMBER KELLY‑FREY: Can we advance now?

CHAIRPERSON ROOKER: No, you can\'t talk

more.

MEMBER KELLY‑FREY: Oh, well.

CHAIRPERSON ROOKER: Actually, I think if

we can discuss it, it\'s an excellent presentation,

Brenda. Thank you ever so much, really excellent.

I guess the first question that I have of

the group is to decide whether or not we look at these

recommendations as a whole or whether there are some

that you feel need to be broken out and voted on up or

down separately.

So, keeping that in mind, I have people

who are here. I saw Eugene\'s hand first and then

Susan. And then do we have somebody else? Okay.

Eugene, do you have a question or whatever?

MEMBER SEAGRIFF: Yes. Thank you for the

presentation, Brenda. It was excellent.

I want a clarification on two issues. One

is on the advisory council, there was some mention of

input from marketing people, but I think you really

want to have some on the team from the get‑go so you

can carefully select your marketing company. That may

be useful.

MEMBER KELLY‑FREY: I think there was a

bit of a misunderstanding in that. What we are

suggesting is that those people who are on that

advisory committee be subject matter experts on the

marketing and outreach, in addition to their own

expertise or experience in terms of the providers and

the deaf consumers, but also be aware of that and the

funding issues.

MEMBER SEAGRIFF: My second area of

confusion was related to the telecommunication service

priority. I\'m not sure of what the existing hierarchy

is and then, therefore, where in the existing

hierarchy you are suggesting TRS be put.

MEMBER KELLY‑FREY: We as the working

group have suggested that we be put at an equal level

to the LECs for priority telephone to have restoration

of phone service.

If a hearing person has the ability to be

able to make a phone call after an emergency situation

has occurred, then we expect that a deaf person should

be able to have the equivalent telephone access.

MR. BOWEN: Just one thing that we added

in discussion on that, Eugene, was that right now

relay is not even on the radar screen when it comes to

priority restoration.

And relay to deaf and hard of hearing is

dial tone. And as dial tone is reestablished for the

hearing community, it should also have a priority for

the deaf community.

CHAIRPERSON ROOKER: Okay. Susan?

MEMBER PALMER‑MAZRUI: Thank you for doing

a lot of work. It is really clear that the group has

done a tremendous amount of activity on this issue.

In terms of the emergency servicing, there

is one thing that was said that I want to make sure is

not put into writing in the way that I heard it

anyway, which was that people with disabilities other

than hearing disabilities don\'t have communication

issues. I think what was meant was have different

communication issues. So I just want to make sure

that that is reflected in anything in writing.

MEMBER KELLY‑FREY: I think that is

exactly right, Susan. Thank you, Susan. Yes, you are

correct in the way that that was misinterpreted. Yes.

CHAIRPERSON ROOKER: Okay. We have

another question. David?

MEMBER POEHLMAN: Hi. This is David

Poehlman, American Council of the Blind.

Short one for a change. The information

about the summits and the way it is ultimately being

divided up, one of the things that caught me as I was

reading through this and listening to what was being

said is that there would be a summit for the deaf and

a summit for everybody else.

The question that came to my mind was that

there are hearing people who have communications

problems that are similar to the deaf, as is

illustrated with the use of the TRS systems.

So would those people also not be part of

the issues for the deaf summit that you are going to

hold?

MEMBER KELLY‑FREY: I\'m not really sure I

clearly understand your point, David. Can you give me

an example of who you might be referring to?

MEMBER POEHLMAN: People with speech

communication problems are going to have difficulty

communicating in the same ways that people who are

hearing‑impaired are going to have difficulty

communicating. The TRS centers should be up and

running as part of priority restoration for them for

the reasons as they need to be up and running for

people who are hearing‑impaired.

You already acknowledged this. So I was

wondering why the statement that people with hearing

impairments would be for one summit and the other

summit would be everybody else.

MEMBER KELLY‑FREY: I think perhaps we may

be mixing two different things here: first of all,

talking about telephone service priority, or TSP, for

restoration of the relay so that it would be equal to

any telephone service restoration for hearing people;

and then in a separate issue, we would be talking

about a summit related to the homeland security

issues, where we feel that communication issues are a

problem for deaf people, who cannot hear what is being

announced on the radio or sometimes captions are not

happening on television or sometimes maybe there is a

power outage and then deaf people have no way to get

the information.

Hearing people who have a speech

disability can still receive the information and hear

what is happening on the radio or on the television,

but deaf people are stuck in the dark, so to speak.

MEMBER POEHLMAN: Oh, I see. So you\'re

saying the telephone communication is not part of the

discussion for the summit. It\'s only information

dissemination that you\'re talking about.

MEMBER KELLY‑FREY: Well, it can be

inclusive of all of that, but we\'re happy to get any

comments or feedback from any disability group to be

included. What will happen is on the final day, we

will have a full summit with the combination of

participants, hearing, deaf, disabilities in general,

to discuss all the issues on the table and their

individual concerns.

MEMBER POEHLMAN: Okay. Well, thanks for

clearing that up.

CHAIRPERSON ROOKER: Claude, I think we

will give you the last question. Okay.

MEMBER STOUT (via interpreter): Yes.

This is Claude speaking.

From that summit, I think that the people

with hearing disabilities as well as people with other

disabilities will be able to discuss what more

recurring issues we have.

In relation to her experience and comments

about electricity going off, we can not see captions

on the news then. And then we can\'t use our

computers, and we can\'t get information from the

internet.

And so, of course, if we go to drive in

our car, we can\'t listen to the radio in the car. So

now, as the laws are currently written, TVs have to be

13 inches or above to include the caption chip. And

we would like to see the law or the FCC make an effort

to determine if that is reasonable and if the

producers of TVs that are smaller, if they can and if

they have like a battery, have that come with captions

so that people are armed with more power or if they\'re

on the road and can\'t use the radio, they could turn

on a battery‑powered TV with captions included and see

what is going on with relation to the given emergency.

So the goal is that we hope with the FCC

and industry and government to be able to develop

increasing capability and to plan and resign to the

concerns and to handle the emergencies as they occur.

MEMBER KELLY‑FREY: And other thing that

I would like to add as Sue McNeil, she can answer any

of your questions about the homeland security issues

because she is the deputy to Kris Monteith. So also

‑‑

CHAIRPERSON ROOKER: We\'re running pretty

late here, folks.

MEMBER KELLY‑FREY: I would also like to

thank Tom Chandler for being able to come today and be

willing to listen to our report. So thank you.

CHAIRPERSON ROOKER: Just a couple of

items before we begin a general discussion, we are

going to set up a new working group ‑‑ we will talk

about that in a little bit ‑‑ to meet the homeland

security issues that you have suggested. Brenda,

thank you very much.

Also, the items in your packet for

discussion from the TRS working group, there are some

additions, as you have just heard about the summit

meeting and a couple of other things. Those things we

can vote on now, but we will need to get from Brenda

her slides so that they can be included for the

commission.

So now my first question to you is, do you

feel comfortable with accepting the things that the

TRS working group has proposed or do you want some

particular items of discussion? Susan?

MEMBER PALMER‑MAZRUI: I would like to put

it all together, but I would like to discuss a few

things first.

CHAIRPERSON ROOKER: Okay.

MEMBER PALMER‑MAZRUI: I think I would

feel comfortable with some discussion first.

CHAIRPERSON ROOKER: Okay. Well, all

right. Does anyone else also want to discuss items?

Let me just get a sense of what time we are going to

have here. Andrea also. Okay.

One of the working groups has generously

given us some extra time. We can cancel the break.

So there are your choices. So let\'s start with

Susan\'s comments. Then we\'ll go to Andrea. Then

we\'ll see if there\'s enough of a consensus that we can

take a vote.

MEMBER PALMER‑MAZRUI: I like the idea of

having the summit. I am concerned about isolating it

to people with hearing disabilities, although I

understand functionally why that is the case.

I do have concerns that one of the issues

from consumers that I have worked with around the FCC

is a sense that maybe there\'s more concern, certainly

because of the regulatory issues in the past and some

of the legal things, that they\'re only concerned about

those disabilities. I don\'t believe that that is the

case.

I don\'t think anybody here at the table

believes that that is the case. My concern is that

coming out with this and saying this is first maybe

lend some credence or encourage people to think along

those lines. And I was wondering if the group would

consider a general disability one.

Obviously it\'s going to be heavily

weighted toward hearing disabilities because of the

issues that Claude mentioned, but I think if it is

open and the agenda is open, that may help a little

bit in terms of outreach to other communities as well,

even if it is two days broken up into some other

means. So I was wondering if that was a possibility.

CHAIRPERSON ROOKER: If I can answer that,

I think what Brenda has proposed ‑‑ and correct me,

Brenda, if I am wrong here ‑‑ is that we have two

days, one day with the deaf community and the other

day with the homeland security issues for members of

groups with other disabilities. So that we\'re looking

at then coming together on the third day.

MEMBER PALMER‑MAZRUI: Yes, I do

understand that. I am just saying that if that is the

case, then I am concerned with the PR issue, really.

CHAIRPERSON ROOKER: Oh, you mean the PR

issue for TRS?

MEMBER PALMER‑MAZRUI: No. For the FCC.

CHAIRPERSON ROOKER: Oh, I see. Okay.

MEMBER PALMER‑MAZRUI: If you do one

first, it looks like it\'s more important. And that\'s

the only thing. If it\'s mixed in some way ‑‑ and I

understand the issue with transportation and other

things.

I am just wondering if the group is

willing to write it up some other way just to make it

seem as though it\'s more across this vote,

all‑inclusive, although certainly I understand that

some of the issues are certainly more heavily in terms

of the deaf and hard of hearing.

CHAIRPERSON ROOKER: Okay. We have got a

lot of hands up on this issue. I think I saw Patty

first. Then, David, I will come to you.

MS. BANNIER: This is Patty Bannier.

I just think I want to clarify. I can see

your concern about having one meeting one day and a

second meeting on a different day. It certainly could

be that both groups meet at the same time.

The importance was that all of the various

disability groups had an opportunity to really hash

out what their specific concerns were so that they

weren\'t overlooked.

So if there was one day where the

deaf/hard of hearing group got together specifically

to address those issues, at the same time other

disability groups could get together and discuss their

concerns, then they could meet together and be more

solid on the specifics of what is involved before they

would go to meet with any technology provider or start

to determine what needs to happen to resolve it and

what is the best way to do it.

Would you agree with that, Brenda?

CHAIRPERSON ROOKER: Susan, does that

address some of your concerns?

MEMBER PALMER‑MAZRUI: I think if you\'re

talking about also having dates available when you\'re

talking about it or there are other things because I

think the response could very easily be, yes, we will

have that meeting, maybe they will have something

later. I think we just have to be really sensitive to

some of the concerns in other groups.

CHAIRPERSON ROOKER: If I understand it

correctly, what Patty is saying is to have them both

on the same day.

MEMBER PALMER‑MAZRUI: That would address

my concerns, but also I think ‑‑

CHAIRPERSON ROOKER: Yes. That\'s what she

was saying. She was saying to have the two groups

meeting on the same day and then coming together on a

second day, which really makes sense, coming together

on the second day to address issues of common concern

and your unique concerns. Does that address your

issues?

MEMBER PALMER‑MAZRUI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON ROOKER: All right. Now let

me see. I\'ve got some other hands here. David?

MEMBER POEHLMAN: This is David Poehlman,

American Council of the Blind, again.

That once again whittled me down to

something short. I propose for the sake of marketing

that we call this something like consumer

telecommunications homeland security summit or event

or whatever you want to call it. And then we can

bring everything in and set it up the way we need to.

I think, for example, one day with two

tracks and another day with everybody coming together

may be a good idea. We may just find we need three

tracks.

The only reason that I mention this is

because if we open it up in such a fashion as we have,

advocacy organizations, consumers themselves, various

groups that deal with various issues that are

concerned with the kinds of things that are going to

be dealt with concerning homeland security, that we

can get a lot of good momentum.

I just want to say that this discussion

again and this report have pointed out once again my

request and my continued cry for captioned radio.

Thank you very much.

CHAIRPERSON ROOKER: Okay. And, Claude,

you had a comment.

MEMBER STOUT: Yes. Let\'s call March 25th

the summit. And any meeting prior to that, let\'s not

call it a summit. It will just be a meeting of the

working group because you may have the one group

involved with people with hearing disabilities and

another group involving individuals with other

disabilities.

And that way when we all meet together, we

can see where it is we have common concerns and issues

and where they might be different. So that way we can

put it all together.

And then when CAC has their meeting on the

26th, we can address all the issues as needed so that

they are all issues for people with disabilities, not

making such a distinct separation. That way we can

avoid the mentality of one size fits all because that

is not what we are functioning on.

We need to address as much as possible

issue by issue because of the various disability

groups\' concerns. So we want to start with that and

then go from there.

CHAIRPERSON ROOKER: Thank you, Claude.

I think you put that extremely well. That\'s a very

well‑thought‑out approach. I think that that is very

true. It would not be called a summit.

Can we put those issues aside in terms of

what we call it and the structure and then vote on the

content of what was presented here today as to whether

or not we want to make these recommendations to the

FCC? Is this okay to move ahead? Is everybody

comfortable? All right. Then can we put it to a

vote?

Do we want to accept the recommendations

proposed by the TRS working group? May I see a show

of hands for?

(Whereupon, there was a show of hands.)

CHAIRPERSON ROOKER: Well, I don\'t have to

count. I think that\'s unanimous.

Thank you, Brenda, very, very much.

(Applause.)

CHAIRPERSON ROOKER: We do need, Brenda,

copies of your slides so that we can have all of the

recommendations in writing. Okay?

And now we are going to the broadband

working group. Larry Goldberg has been doing a

wonderful job. Larry, the floor is yours.

MEMBER GOLDBERG: Thanks. If you don\'t

mind, I will just sit over here and do the report from

here.

BROADBAND WORKING GROUP

MEMBER GOLDBERG: It\'s a fairly simple

report. It\'s a very big and meaty issue: broadband.

It\'s broad, and it\'s slippery. You have an excellent

group that really is giving each other very good,

respectable hearings to each other\'s issues.

We have been fishing around a little bit

for what our particular role and recommendations could

be. If you remember, we started with a panel here ‑‑

I guess it was at our last meeting ‑‑ which aired a

lot of really good viewpoints on particularly the

issues of level playing field and regulation in the

field of broadband.

Our ongoing discussions on the phone and

in person had us batting back and forth what exactly

we could do to add to the record on broadband, which

has been discussed quite a bit in public, quite a bit

at the FCC.

The various issues that we have brought up

and some draft recommendations came down eventually to

what you have in your package today, but we have even

more yet coming.

What is interesting is that because issues

of regulation and marketplace versus regulation are

sometimes contentious, we wanted to try to come up

with something that was very consensus‑oriented

without backing away from making a statement on the

issue because we\'re all very strong proponents of

making sure that broadband is available to anyone who

wants it and accessible to anyone who wants it.

So with that said, after a number of

drafts, we looked at what we could say that would add

to the record. Should we suggest more study? Should

we suggest that maybe consumer information could be

better written and the consumers could be better

educated?

And then, all of a sudden, the voice over

IP issue raised itself up as one of the hottest

immediate issues in the world of broadband and one

that hasn\'t yet generated such a large public record

where maybe we could add something to it.

At virtually the same moment, the FCC

announced that they were going to have a notice of

proposed rulemaking, that they were going to have a

voice over IP summit. And we felt like we should at

least point up some of the issues we wanted to make

sure the FCC was going to address in this summit and

in the NPRM.

At that point, the chairman issued his

announcement about the summit and all of our issues or

most of our issues that we wanted to make sure were

taken up or named.

One thing that was not specifically named

in the release was access for people with

disabilities, which certainly raised a concern. And

so we added that to our recommendation.

I have just learned that it\'s confirmed

that at the December 1st summit, there will be a

representative to talk about disability issues and

access to voice over IP. So we feel pretty confident

that before we have even released this publicly or

voted on it, most of what we would like to recommend

has already been accepted.

I think it would still be a fairly strong

voice to have the entire CAC recognize that. I\'m not

sure whether I need to read this full recommendation

through. It was all sent to you in advance. And you

have got it in various formats.

It\'s mostly raising the issue that within

the broadband world, voice over IP is a new service

that is being offered over the changing world of

broadband. Though it\'s new, it has a potential to

become a widely used service, offers all kinds of

benefits but raises questions about the impact it will

have on consumer issues.

As new services like voice over IP blur

the legal distinctions between communications

services, it is important to identify consumer

protections.

We then recognized Chairman Powell\'s

stated agenda for the upcoming forum and subsequent

NPRM, \"to explore the best means to achieve important

health, safety, and welfare policy objectives, such as

E911, universal service, and homeland security.\" We

urge the commission to also pay close attention to the

additional issue of access for people with

disabilities.

An interesting addition to that is that we

stressed that these consumer protections can and

should be addressed, regardless of the ultimate

regulatory treatment of voice over IP, which means

either through voluntary means, marketplace issues, or

regulation, we feel strongly these issues must be

recognized.

I have a further report from today\'s

meeting, but if we would like to take up this

particular recommendation first, we could do that.

CHAIRPERSON ROOKER: Larry, I want to make

certain that we know exactly what we are talking about

here. So what you are really suggesting that we vote

on is identifying the consumer concerns in terms of

the changing communications market, that we recognize

the chairman\'s statement and objectives and support

and strongly encourage that they be followed, and also

to pay close attention to the issues for the

disability community.

MEMBER GOLDBERG: Right.

CHAIRPERSON ROOKER: Now, if there

anything else that I have missed?

MEMBER GOLDBERG: Just the final statement

that we are making it additional that consumer

protection should be addressed, regardless of ‑‑

CHAIRPERSON ROOKER: Oh, yes. Okay.

MEMBER GOLDBERG: ‑‑ how voice over IP is

treated, particularly on the issue of is it an

information service, is it a telecommunications

service. Regardless of whether that\'s determined, it

still should be addressed.

CHAIRPERSON ROOKER: Okay. All right.

Yes, you\'re right. All of this is in the information

that we distributed. All right. We can open the

floor for discussion. Yes, Brenda?

MEMBER KELLY‑FREY: Hi. This is Brenda

Kelly‑Frey representing NASRA.

Larry, as you just said in your report,

the OIP is growing and is projected as becoming a

major future telephony service. You may or may not be

aware that TRS and 911 services have surcharges

attached to the telephone bills to pay for TRS as well

as for 911 and E911.

I want the group to also consider the

ramifications of that TRS funding that happens to be

based on land line phones as well.

MEMBER GOLDBERG: We absolutely recognized

all of that within our group and realized that our

group wasn\'t able to recommend that it be explicitly

not included, but it absolutely has to be part of the

record in the upcoming forum and in the ongoing NPRM.

So we all recognize those are two of the

big issues. And that\'s why we made sure that it was

added to the agenda but couldn\'t conclude where it

should go, either way.

MEMBER KELLY‑FREY: Right.

MEMBER GOLDBERG: We don\'t feel it\'s

appropriate. Does that state the sense of the group

well enough?

CHAIRPERSON ROOKER: Okay. And we had

Donald. I think you put your hand up.

MEMBER SNOOP: Larry put it very

succinctly.

CHAIRPERSON ROOKER: Okay. What is the

other discussion that we have?

(No response.)

CHAIRPERSON ROOKER: Oh, my goodness. You

are going to get us back on track? I can\'t believe

it. Somebody wants to take a break. Okay.

Then shall we have a show of hands as to

whether we accept the proposal from the broadband

working group and present it to the FCC?

(Whereupon, there was a show of hands.)

CHAIRPERSON ROOKER: You all are

unbelievable. That\'s great work. Thank you, Larry

and your groups. We really appreciate it.

(Applause.)

MEMBER GOLDBERG: And you\'ll be hearing

from us further shortly about our next issues and our

next recommendations.

CHAIRPERSON ROOKER: Okay. Well, I like

that, too. Thank you very, very much.

We have done a lot of work in this last

hour or so. We have a 15‑minute break. Did you hear

that, folks, 15‑minute break?

(Whereupon, the foregoing matter went off

the record at 2:26 p.m. and went back on

the record at 2:45 p.m.)

CHAIRPERSON ROOKER: I think it\'s

appropriate right now to talk about setting up a new

working group. That would be the working group that

would address the disability issues that we discussed

other than the deaf issues relative to homeland

security. Is that right? Am I correct?

Is anybody interested in setting up a

group like this and working on it and then giving

input to the committee? Larry?

MEMBER GOLDBERG: I just have a question.

The FCC does have a network security and homeland

security advisory committee already. Some disability

advocates are on that committee. So I\'m just

wondering how that meets up with what this group would

do.

I know AFB is represented and others on

captioning issues and things like that.

CHAIRPERSON ROOKER: I can\'t answer that.

Can you answer it, Scott?

MR. MARSHALL: No, but we will investigate

it. No, I can\'t answer that, Larry, at the moment.

I know that there are some disability organizations

involved with the homeland security policy council,

which is another federal advisory committee here. But

I am sure that as this thing develops, we will be able

to coordinate because there has been some information

shared to date.

Is Sue McNeil here? She might be able to

address it. I can\'t.

CHAIRPERSON ROOKER: I don\'t see her.

MR. MARSHALL: I am sure we will take that

all into account, Larry.

CHAIRPERSON ROOKER: Nevertheless, that

still brings me back to my original question, who

would be interested in serving on a separate working

group that would address other homeland security

issues, other than the deaf issues? I see Mike. We

see Rebecca.

MR. MARSHALL: Mike as in Duke.

CHAIRPERSON ROOKER: Mike as in Duke.

MR. MARSHALL: Okay.

CHAIRPERSON ROOKER: Rebecca. Mike

DelCasino. Anyone else? Mark Pranger. Susan, not

Susan Grant, Susan Mazrui. Who else has got a hand up

over there?

Claude, do you have a question or you want

to serve on something? Did you have a question? Oh,

I\'m sorry. Okay. You have to be careful when you

stick your hand in the air. I call on you.

Anyone else?

(No response.)

CHAIRPERSON ROOKER: Okay. So we\'ve got

the beginnings of a working group here. Thank you all

very much. We\'ll get you set up into an e‑mail list.

And maybe somebody will volunteer to be the chair of

it.

MR. MARSHALL: And David was which David?

CHAIRPERSON ROOKER: Which David? David

who? Was there a David who volunteered?

MR. MARSHALL: I wrote \"David\" down. No?

CHAIRPERSON ROOKER: No. Mark Pranger.

MR. MARSHALL: Okay. Review: Mike;

Larry; Rebecca; Mike Duke, that is; Mike DelCasino;

Mark; and Susan. Is that correct?

CHAIRPERSON ROOKER: Yes. Mike Duke and

DelCasino.

MR. MARSHALL: Okay. Got it.

MEMBER GOLDBERG: Scott, this is Larry.

I don\'t think I volunteered. I was just asking a

question before.

CHAIRPERSON ROOKER: Yes.

MR. MARSHALL: Oh, you didn\'t volunteer?

MEMBER GOLDBERG: No, no. Thank you

anyway.

MR. MARSHALL: You see, that\'s the

problem. All right. Got you off, got you off.

CHAIRPERSON ROOKER: Now, who have we got?

Show the hands again.

(Whereupon, there was a show of hands.)

CHAIRPERSON ROOKER: We\'ve got Mike Duke,

Mike DelCasino, Mark Pranger, Rebecca, and Susan.

Okay. Good. That\'s great. Thank you all very much.

MR. MARSHALL: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON ROOKER: Then let\'s move on to

our next working group, the consumer outreach,

education and complaints working group, which is

chaired by Joy Ragsdale. Again, Joy, thank you all so

much for your work. And you\'re going to start this

off.

CONSUMER COMPLAINTS, OUTREACH, EDUCATION AND

PARTICIPATION WORKING GROUP

MEMBER RAGSDALE: Today we\'re going to

give a presentation of the consumer outreach,

complaint, education and participation working group.

Because of the size of the group and the

number of issues involved, we after the April meeting

divided into three small groups. Consumer complaints

is chaired by Mike DelCasino. Consumer outreach

issues are chaired by Debra Berlyn. And modernizing

the FCC and addressing electronic access issues is

chaired by Susan Mazrui.

We are going to have a brief progress

report given by Debra and Susan. However, our

recommendations that will be presented to date for

voting will be given by Mike DelCasino on behalf of

the consumer complaints group.

We have met with several FCC staff members

over the course of six months. Louis Sigalos and his

staff have met with many of our members and gave us a

full presentation, which Debra will speak in detail

about in a few moments.

We have also met with various groups of

the Electronics Express and section 508 compliance

unit, also the webmaster, which Susan Mazrui will give

you further details about that in her report.

However, in some of our discussions, we

also determined that we did not have the expertise in

our group on the whole to address Indian and tribal

issues. So we presented to Vernon James whether he

would be interested in heading up another subworking

group. He is not here today. And we have not heard

from him to confirm that. But that is something under

discussion.

So at this moment, I would like to turn

over the mike to Debra, who will give a report on our

further activities for this year.

MEMBER BERLYN: Thanks, Joy. Let me just

start out by thanking you, Joy, for the outstanding

work you do in managing a group that has such a broad

set of issues to deal with. Our subworking group ‑‑

I guess that\'s what we call ourselves ‑‑ addresses

consumer outreach and education. And after our first

meeting, we recognize the need to find out what the

FCC was already doing in terms of outreach and

education.

So, as Joy mentioned, we had a meeting in

early August with the Division of Consumer Outreach

that is headed by Louis Sigalos. He brought some of

his staff together with us. Joy has I believe

distributed a full report on our meeting with all the

discussion points.

One thing that our subgroup has recognized

is that the FCC has come excellent information. In

fact, if you go out to the lobby area, you will notice

that there are some wonderful fact sheets there with

all sorts of information for consumers about wireless

phone service, slamming, et cetera.

The question I think that our group needs

to address is how can we get that good information

into the hands of all consumers, particularly

consumers who are in areas where they may not have

easily accessible internet Web site service, where

they can download this information.

So there are several issues: one, how do

we let consumers know this information is out there;

and then how do we make sure that we get this

information in the hands of all consumers.

In our discussion, one of the issues that

was brought up by the Consumer Outreach Division of

the FCC was a limitation in funding resources for them

to accomplish all of the tasks that we would ideally

like them to and they themselves want to. So that is

always in the back of our minds, what can we do with

limited resources that the FCC has.

As you will see, we talked about some

efforts they have made to get on the road, again

limited by funding resources, but they have gone to

schools in the areas. They have gone to do a

roundtable at the Public Utility Commission in

Pennsylvania. They worked with seniors at a

discussion in, I believe it was, Las Vegas, Nevada.

So they have themselves tried to do some

outreach. And we support them and want to work with

them in figuring out ways in which they can do more of

that.

Our group today discussed kind of the

second step to that, which is what are the best means

for getting information out there. We discussed ways

in which we can perhaps work with the FCC to build a

database that they are working on of all the contacts

that they have, where they could immediately send

information over the internet to a set of contacts.

And then those contacts would then distribute the

information for them.

And some of those groups we want them to

include are libraries and community centers as well as

perhaps other organizations. We will be working with

them in the future to help them build that database.

The other thing we want to try and do is

to get together with the Office of Media Relations and

the Outreach Division and talk about ways in which

this information could be placed in community

newspapers. Perhaps we discuss a monthly column or a

bimonthly column that would address some key outreach

issues for consumers, education issues for consumers.

So, with that in mind, what we are going

to work toward for perhaps our March meeting is a

plan, working closely with the Outreach Division and

the Office of Media Relations to work on a plan, for

doing some of these consumer outreach activities.

Thank you.

MEMBER PALMER‑MAZRUI: First of all, I

would like to say that I am one of the co‑chairs of

the modernizing the FCC working group. Claude Stout

and David Poehlman are also working on this as

co‑chairs. I invite them to interrupt and correct me

at any time.

What we tried to do is look at some of the

efforts the agency has done to go along with the

modernizing efforts that have been taking place over

a lot of different federal agencies. In particular,

we looked at Web access and information, how is that

being shared with those outside the Beltway, and

efforts along the lines of training.

We recently had a meeting with the

webmaster, the manager for EDOCS, and the manager for

the electronic filing system. That was very

productive.

Prior to the meeting, we had an

opportunity with a lot of input from members of the

working group. Larry Goldberg, for example, and David

Poehlman, and Claude Stout were some of the ones who

did a quick overview of the accessibility of the Web

site. And there were areas of concern.

There were areas that were done very well,

and that\'s one of the things we said things are great

and commendable, efforts that have been done to

clearly follow 508 guidelines. And there are areas,

let\'s say, that have opportunities for growth.

So the inconsistency was one of the things

that was of concern. We found that our initial

thoughts about improving the access on the Web site,

both usability and accessibility, were really

consistent with what the Department of Justice was

making recommendations on across the board for all

agencies.

So what we are in the process right now of

doing is we have drafted some initial recommendations

from the working group. We have just gotten comments

back. We should have that circulated out to the

larger subcommittee and then the full committee before

the next meeting and would like to be on the agenda

for the next meeting to talk about those

recommendations.

You will all have an opportunity to

comment, make improvements, and provide feedback on

this effort prior to the meeting as well as during the

next meeting if we are put on the agenda as requested.

Does anybody have questions?

(No response.)

MEMBER PALMER‑MAZRUI: Okay.

MEMBER RAGSDALE: Mike?

MEMBER DelCASINO: Good afternoon. I am

Mike DelCasino. I am happy to be able to present the

recommendation from the complaints subworking group of

our working group.

I want to do a couple of things before I

actually launch into that. First is I want to thank

the group members for their literally tireless

efforts.

What you have in front of you is a

one‑page recommendation, but I assure you that we had

four or five meetings, ‑‑ I can\'t remember exactly how

many ‑‑ each of which were two and a half or so hours

in length.

So we had a tremendous amount of

discussions and sharing of thoughts and ideas. I want

to thank and commend our working group members for

that.

The second thing I would like to do is I

would like to thank two folks from the commission\'s

CGB staff, Martha Contee and Cynthia Brown, who also

participated in most of the meetings that this working

group had.

I think of particular note in that regard,

the recommendation that we have, as we will talk about

in a minute, has got a fairly narrow focus, but our

discussions over all those meetings were very broad

and covered lots of areas of the complaint process.

Interestingly, as a result of some of that

conversation, Martha and Cynthia actually took some

things back and have already made some minor

modifications and changes to the complaint process and

to the commission\'s Web site. So that kind of

demonstrates that just discussing these things tends

to lead to some improvements.

The third thing I guess I would like to

say is that while this particular recommendation has

a few new thoughts and suggestions, I think it is

largely an expansion of a lot of the very good work

that the commission has already begun to do, a lot of

which you heard about today, some of which Dane

mentioned this afternoon that we weren\'t even aware

of. So the point here is really that we think we have

a couple of suggestions that will enhance a lot of the

work that the commission is already currently doing.

The last point I think I want to make ‑‑

and then we can talk about the recommendation itself

‑‑ is to say that this particular group\'s work I think

is very far from done. We surfaced a lot of things in

our discussions.

As a result of that discussion, we seemed

to focus around outreach and settled on bringing

before you today this particular recommendation. But

I think you will see as we move forward that this

complaint working group will be back to you with some

additional recommendations regarding complaints.

You have all seen the recommendation.

It\'s not quite a page long. I don\'t know as there is

much point in reading through it. Let me just comment

that it is outreach‑focused.

Our recommendation here to the commission

is to expand and elaborate on some of the activities

that they already have in place. We request that they

use the resources that are available to them that they

are currently funding through the universal service

fund to enhance their outreach efforts regarding a

consumer complaint and also to think about or test the

possibility of using some of the newer technologies to

do that. And they are kind of outlined here.

So utilize libraries, utilize

universities, utilize the school systems, utilize

conference calls. They do town meetings, for example.

If it\'s possible to arrange to have that town meeting

webcast, you could expand the scope of the population

that gets to hear that message; similarly, with

something as simple as arranging for a conference call

at a meeting where some subgroup of people can dial

into the meeting and hear the message. Our group

thinks that that would enable the outreach to get to

a larger portion of the population.

I guess let me leave it at that and ask if

anybody has any particular questions or ask the other

working group members if I left anything out and they

want to add to it, please do that.

CHAIRPERSON ROOKER: Do we have any

comments or questions for Mike?

(No response.)

CHAIRPERSON ROOKER: You just covered it

all, Mike. They\'re just stunned. I can\'t believe

this group doesn\'t have a question. Oh, we did with

David.

Thank you, David, for saving us.

MEMBER DelCASINO: Are you sure you want

to thank him?

CHAIRPERSON ROOKER: Well, we\'ll wait.

MEMBER POEHLMAN: Hello. This is David

Poehlman with the American Council of the Blind.

Since nobody else volunteered to come

forward, I thought I would see if I could cobble

something together to say or to ask.

I have actually been looking at this

recommendation and looked at it several times in

e‑mail and in Braille here. I am trying to find out

if we have left anything out in the way of

communications. I am not sure that we have, but I am

wondering if we take a look at the suggested modes of

delivery, if there isn\'t something that we might want

to add.

I think at one point during our group\'s

discussions, I had suggested adding something like

\"and others\" or something like that to this list.

It\'s a great list, but I don\'t know if we left

anything out. So I just thought I would mention that.

CHAIRPERSON ROOKER: So you would just say

that we would be leaving this open for other avenues

of consumer outreach?

MEMBER POEHLMAN: Yes. I would say \"and

others\" or something like that.

CHAIRPERSON ROOKER: Okay. Do we have any

other comments or discussions? Okay, Larry.

MEMBER GOLDBERG: I\'m interested in the

use of all of these educational institutions as

vehicles for outreach and complaints, particularly

public schools.

I know in public broadcasting, we make a

huge effort to create materials for use in schools.

And I don\'t know if the FCC actually has, like many

sites, the kids\' site or the kids\' zone for FCC

issues.

It might sound dry, but, in fact, the

technologies are fascinating to kids and whether the

creation of materials and, therefore, matching class

projects to have the class together file complaints or

communicate with the FCC.

It\'s sort of touched on in the first

bullet point. I don\'t know if the FCC has done that

yet or not.

CHAIRPERSON ROOKER: They do. Scott is

telling me that they do. Scott, do you want to talk

to him about it?

MR. MARSHALL: Hi, Larry. Scott Marshall.

We do have a parents\' page that is up and

running at the moment. I believe that we also have a

kids\' page that is under development.

CHAIRPERSON ROOKER: Okay. Do we have any

other questions or comments?

(No response.)

CHAIRPERSON ROOKER: Okay. Then we\'ll

vote it. We\'ll take a vote on whether or not to

recommend to the commission the suggestions, the

recommendations made by the subgroup of the sub of the

group. Long titled group here. The consumer group.

Let\'s just make it a short title.

Anyway, may I see a show of hands of

people who would like to make this recommendation to

the commission?

(Whereupon, there was a show of hands.)

CHAIRPERSON ROOKER: Well, once again, you

all are breaking records today. That was a unanimous

vote. Thank you very much. So we shall make that

recommendation to the commission, as you suggested.

Thank you all very much. Joy, group, thank you. We

really appreciate that.

Then moving right along here, we will go

to Eugene Seagriff with the ancillary services working

group.

MEMBER SEAGRIFF: Thank you, Shirley, and

thank you all for allowing us some time on the agenda

today.

ANCILLARY SERVICES WORKING GROUP

MEMBER SEAGRIFF: Our working group

consists of Karen Kirsch, Diane Burstein, Vernon

James, Byron St. Clair, Dave Poehlman, Mike Duke,

Larry Goldberg, and myself.

We were studying if there were any issues

related to the ancillary services in the current

proceedings that the FCC is considering. We held a

number of conference calls and plenty of e‑mail

traffic to discuss these issues.

With Scott\'s help, we were able to have

briefings by FCC experts in several areas to inform

our discussions. For example, Steve Broeckaert

briefed us on plug and play. Rick Chessen briefed us

on DTV. And Ed DeLaHunt briefed us on digital radios.

So those were the three areas that we were looking at.

We determined that there were not any

issues related to ancillary services in these areas

that CAC could address in the form of recommendations

to the commission. That was our opinion.

However, we felt there is a much wider

group here available to us, and we didn\'t want to take

these things off the table entirely without at least

flagging them for you and letting you know what a

couple of the things that we found were.

First is related to DTV. In DTV, as in

analog TV, there are cable must‑carry requirements for

program‑related material. There are a few things that

are specifically called out as examples of

program‑related material, but one of them that is not

included is material currently contained in the analog

SAP that may be considered program‑related.

So the only debate we were having is,

well, gee, should that stuff have been specifically

called out as part of the program‑related material or

not?

We didn\'t feel strongly that this should

be a recommendation, but we wanted to get some

feedback from the wider group before we shelved it.

Does anyone have any comments or ideas on

that issue?

MEMBER SNOOP: This is Don Snoop. Are you

talking specifically on the SAP issue between analog

and digital?

MEMBER SEAGRIFF: Yes. As Diane can

explain much more eloquently than I can, there\'s not

really going to be SAP per se on DTV, but the material

that is currently in the analog SAP if it\'s considered

program‑related, should that be specifically called

out in the must‑carry portion of DTV?

CHAIRPERSON ROOKER: You\'re losing me with

all of these initials. I am assuming DTV is digital

television. What is SAP? Don\'t tell me it\'s me.

MEMBER SNOOP: Secondary program so that

you can actually ‑‑

CHAIRPERSON ROOKER: What is it?

MEMBER SNOOP: Secondary audial program so

that you can actually push a button on your TV set and

you can get a second audio. Sometimes it will be in

Spanish. Sometimes it will be ‑‑

CHAIRPERSON ROOKER: Okay. Thank you very

much.

MEMBER SEAGRIFF: Sometimes it\'s used for

a description for the blind as well.

CHAIRPERSON ROOKER: David?

MEMBER POEHLMAN: Yes. David Poehlman

with the American Council of the Blind.

The reason why we are sort of putting this

out on the table, this particular one, is because we

understand that there is some discussion already

underway concerning this and we didn\'t know if we

should put it forward as a recommendation.

We would like to hear from you all about

this and some of the other things that we had.

MEMBER SEAGRIFF: Okay. I\'ll take that as

it\'s not a big deal to anybody. We didn\'t think so,

but we wanted to make sure. It was really a semantic

thing about whether we should call this particular

item out in the must‑carry or not.

Program‑related materials are called out

in must‑carry. And we kind of thought that was

sufficient, but we wanted to get a wider input before

we shelved it.

A second issue is related to plug and

play. Plug and play is about enabling cable‑ready

digital television sets essentially. Part of the plug

and play report and order mention that there would,

could, and should be consumer disclosures about what

people should expect to happen and how it is supposed

to work.

Right now those are just pretty much vague

and have to be hashed out. We didn\'t feel like the

CAC should get involved in hashing that out or spell

out what we felt should be in there, but we wanted to

get an opinion from the wider group on that issue as

well.

Should we take a more active role in

suggesting how the disclosure issue should play out?

MEMBER SNOOP: I have an opinion. Plug

and play, right now there\'s a number of things. It\'s

like a two‑edged sword.

CHAIRPERSON ROOKER: Donald Snoop.

MEMBER SNOOP: Oh, I\'m sorry. Yes.

In other words, right now the cable

industry, the CEA, the consumer communications

electronics, have come to an agreement to have all of

these cable‑ready TV sets, have it so the customer can

just plug in a cable and have it work for the most

part if you\'re a cable TV customer. It does exclude

direct TV. It does exclude other technologies. And

that has already been bantered about a number of times

by the FCC.

Is it negative? No. From a consumer

perspective, should we be addressing it? We probably

should keep it on our radar screen only because of the

fact that there are a number of consumers a couple of

years down the road when this becomes a reality.

You may walk in and buy a TV set, be it

DirecTV or Dish subscriber network or another

technology, thinking that it is going to work and find

out it actually doesn\'t. So it may be something you

might want to keep on the radar screen.

MEMBER SEAGRIFF: We\'re not saying that in

the future, as circumstances change, we wouldn\'t

revisit an issue or take further action.

MEMBER SNOOP: Right.

MEMBER SEAGRIFF: What we said is at this

time, we didn\'t feel there were any concrete

recommendations we could make.

MEMBER SNOOP: Okay.

CHAIRPERSON ROOKER: Shirley Rooker.

Is it possible that this technology at

some point will if you have Dish or DirecTV be

available?I don\'t know that much about the technology.

MEMBER SNOOP: It\'s hard to say at this

point because the press releases, almost on a weekly

basis, press releases are going back and forth as to

what is happening, what the objections are, and things

of that nature. So it\'s playing itself out.

I\'m sure at some point there will be

because it\'s a numbers game. There are millions of

people with DirecTV and Dish Network along with cable

customers. So at some point I think they are going to

have to. I don\'t think it\'s something that we have to

engineer, but I think from a consumer standpoint, I

think we need to keep it on the radar screen.

CHAIRPERSON ROOKER: It seems to me like

what you are saying is there is a consumer education

aspect attached to this ‑‑

MEMBER SEAGRIFF: Oh, absolutely.

MEMBER SNOOP: ‑‑ educating the consumers

that the TV that they think they are going to go plug

in and play may not.

MEMBER SNOOP: Right.

MEMBER SEAGRIFF: The plug and play order

from the FCC includes a provision that disclosures

must be made so that customers are not mislead or

misunderstood. Our discussion was, should we insert

our committee into that proceeding or not?

CHAIRPERSON ROOKER: I see.

MEMBER SEAGRIFF: And our feeling at the

time was not.

Last but not least, ‑‑ and I know I am the

only thing between us and the end of the day ‑‑ is

digital radio. It seems that digital radio is still

in its formative stages. It\'s not fully codified and

defined.

It seems that multiple data streams will

be possible, but it\'s not clear that there are any

plans to include things like radio reading services or

other services in those data streams.

We weren\'t sure even if the FCC had a

mechanism for encouraging such usage of the bandwidth

or not and whether it was going to really go one way

or the other in the future. Anyway, the crystal ball

wasn\'t working so well.

We felt that we would table it, but we

wanted to also bring that to your attention beforehand

as well.

CHAIRPERSON ROOKER: Okay. Do we have any

comments or questions? Claude?

MEMBER STOUT: Yes. I just wanted to drop

a thought off to your group. I wanted to bring up the

digital radio, to keep that in mind. If there is any

possibility that we could enjoy captioned radio while

we are driving in the car or while we are using a

global positioning system, we could see the caption,

just keep that in mind. We would like to see that

happen.

CHAIRPERSON ROOKER: Okay.

MEMBER SEAGRIFF: We\'ll keep that in mind.

I\'m not sure if that\'s an area the FCC can really deal

with either.

MEMBER STOUT: I think people in Japan are

using captioned radio technology if I understand

correctly, but maybe that\'s something that could be

investigated and looked into.

MEMBER GOLDBERG: I think that Eugene\'s

point is we might not be able to encourage that

someone start such a service, but we will want to keep

our eye on the technology so it can be supported.

There is nothing about the technology that would

prevent anyone from providing captioned audio of any

sort. And that\'s where we will keep our eye on it

because I don\'t know that any of us are yet fully

informed about the capabilities and limitations of

digital radio.

MEMBER SEAGRIFF: Right. And that is

still forming. But since there should or could be

multiple data streams in a digital world, anything can

be put in that data stream theoretically.

So, Claude, to your point, there are

really two sides to that problem. One is the ability

of the radios themselves to play and decode the

captions, if you will, which I imagine is probably

possible because all the satellites, radio systems

show you the artist and title and that kind of thing.

However, the other side of the coin is

getting the content captioned. That\'s a content

creation issue, which is a very difficult challenge to

solve.

CHAIRPERSON ROOKER: David?

MEMBER POEHLMAN: I just wanted to add to

Eugene\'s excellent report ‑‑ David Poehlman again with

the American Council of the Blind ‑‑ that during our

call on digital radio, some of these issues were

raised.

The thing that we are talking about here

basically, though, is that FCC right now is basically

concerned with helping to get digital radio up and

running. They did that by licensing a company I

understand to provide the licensing and carrier

services and that sort of thing. It\'s one company

that is doing it for all the facilities out there.

And now they\'re involved.

They have been involved in the testing and

the rollout and that sort of thing of that kind of

thing. And then they\'re also involved with making

sure that transmitters and so forth are in compliance

with FCC regulations.

There is a lot of interesting stuff,

actually, in digital radio. For example, one thing

that you will want to know when you go out to buy your

digital radio set in a few years, don\'t be afraid to

go out and buy one because let\'s say that there are 10

or 15 stations in your market and only 2 of them are

digital.That\'s okay.You\'re not going to lose the other

11 or 12 or whatever because you will still be able to

pick up the analog signal from your digital set.

So I would encourage you in a few years

when you start seeing them show up in the stores and

they are cheap enough to buy, go out and grab one.

It\'s going to be very exciting.

With regarding to captioned radio,

something I have been pushing for for a while, I asked

about this and some other things we asked about, the

radio sets themselves, you know, what they\'re going to

look like, what their interfaces are going to be. And

it\'s really too early for some of this information to

be available.

That was also the sense that I got about

captioned radio, not impossible. Somewhere down the

line, it may happen, but it\'s just too early to tell.

CHAIRPERSON ROOKER: Thank you, David. I

really did not know that you could pick up analog on

a digital radio. That\'s good information.

MEMBER POEHLMAN: There aren\'t many of

them out there yet, but when there are.

CHAIRPERSON ROOKER: When there are.

MEMBER SEAGRIFF: That\'s the conclusion of

my report. I would like to thank all the working

group members for their help and support and

participation. I feel my role is just to keep all of

these bright and active people engaged and to take a

lot of notes. So thank you all for your work.

CHAIRPERSON ROOKER: Keep them working.

Thank you very much, Eugene. I really appreciate it.

I think we have looked at our working

groups. We have come up with some very excellent

things today. Congratulations to all of you for your

hard work.

I also wanted to put a question to you.

Do you think that we\'re addressing all of the issues

that are of concern to you? Do you feel that we need

other working groups? That\'s something you don\'t

necessarily have to answer today, but I would like for

you to think about it because there are so many things

that concern us that we want to make sure that we are

being inclusive with everyone.

We do have the working group that Vernon

James heads up that we hopefully will get something

from. Am I correct, Scott?

MR. MARSHALL: Scott Marshall.

He had expressed an interest in the

possibility of a rural issues, Native American group.

I have not heard back from him about that. So I don\'t

know what the status is currently. So that may be

coming. If I do get something, I will send it out on

the list to ascertain if anybody is interested in

pursuing that.

It might very well fit with the

commission\'s rural initiative that Dane mentioned

earlier this afternoon.

CHAIRPERSON ROOKER: Okay. Then I would

ask of you, as I said, to think about what we\'re

discussing and if you feel that there are gaps and

things that we need to bring up.

COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC;

WRAP‑UP; FUTURE MEETINGS

CHAIRPERSON ROOKER: I don\'t have any

other items of business except for our public, opening

for the public. Scott, do you have other information?

MR. MARSHALL: Except to ask if you

haven\'t signed the registration form, it should be in

the room here. Please do so or at least see me.

Especially if you haven\'t spoken at the meeting, I

don\'t know that you\'re here.

CHAIRPERSON ROOKER: He does not look at

your hand waving. Right?

Okay. Well, Debra?

MEMBER BERLYN: Yes. I just wanted to

make a general comment ‑‑ this is Debbie Berlyn ‑‑

before we go to the public comments. I found this

format very helpful. I would like to encourage Scott

and you, Shirley, to include an opportunity for us to

deliver reports and work together, perhaps not at the

length we did today but at our next meetings.

CHAIRPERSON ROOKER: Yes. Thank you.

Yes. We agree with you. We feel it\'s very

productive. It\'s very productive because you all as

working groups have done your job. So it wouldn\'t

have been otherwise. We would have been sitting here

looking at each other going, \"What do we talk about

now?\" So thank goodness for you working, industrious

people.

It\'s my pleasure to open the discussion to

the public members who are attending here today and to

invite you for your comments, questions, or concerns.

Do we have anyone who wants to address any issues to

the committee?

(No response.)

CHAIRPERSON ROOKER: Well, then if not,

we\'re going to end early for a change. I would like

to thank all of you for making it such a wonderful

meeting, look forward to seeing you in March, and also

to wish you all a very happy Thanksgiving and happy

holiday. So, anyway, thank you very much.

(Whereupon, at 3:25 p.m., the foregoing

matter was adjourned.)