TELEPHONE PRIVACY ACT OF 1990

41

HEARING

BEFOH

SUBCOMMITTEE ON

COURTS, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY,

AND THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FIRST CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

ON

H.R. 4340

TELEPHONE PRIVACY ACT OF 1990

SEPTEMBER 19, 1990

Serial No. 123

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

37-485 « WASHINGTON ! 1991

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents. Congressional Sales Office

US. Government Printing Office. Washington. DC 20402
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

JACK BROOKS, Texas, Chairman

ROBERT W. KASTENMEIER, Wisconsin HAMILTON FISH, JR., New York

DON EDWARDS, California CARLOS J. MOORHEAD, California

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois

ROMANO L. MAZZOLI, Kentucky F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR.,

WILLIAM J. HUGHES, New Jersey Wisconsin

MIKE SYNAR, Oklahoma BILL McCOLLUM, Florida

PATRICIA SCHROEDER, Colorado GEORGE W. GEKAS, Pennsylvania

DAN GLICKMAN, Kansas MICHAEL DEWINE, Ohio

BARNEY FRANK, Massachusetts WILLIAM E. DANNEMEYER, California

GEO. W. CROCKETT, JR.. Michigan HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York D. FRENCH SLAUGHTER. JR., Virginia

BRUCE A. MORRISON, Connecticut LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas

EDWARD F. FEIGHAN, Ohio CHUCK DOUGLAS, New Hampshire

LAWRENCE J. SMITH, Florida CRAIG T. JAMES, Florida

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California TOM CAMPBELL, California

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia

HARLEY O. STAGGERS, JR., West Virginia

JOHN BRYANT, Texas

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland

MEL LEVINE, California

GEORGE E. SANGMEISTER, Illinois

CRAIG A. WASHINGTON, Texas

WILLIAM M. JONES, General Counsel

ROBERT H. BRINK, Deputy General Counsel

ALAN F. COPFEY, JR., Minority Chief Counsel

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COURTS, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, AND THE ADMINISTRATION OF

JUSTICE

ROBERT W. KASTENMEIER Wisconsin, Chairman

GEO. W. CROCKETT, JR., Michigan CARLOS J. MOORHEAD, California

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois

JOHN BRYANT, Texas HOWARD COBLE. North Carolina

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia D. FRENCH SLAUGHTER JR., Virginia

GEORGE E. SANGMEISTER Illinois HAMILTON FISH, JR., New York

WILLIAM J. HUGHES, New Jersey F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER JR.,

MIKE SYNAR, Oklahoma Wisconsin

MEL LEVINE, California

MICHAEL J. REMINGTON, Chief Counsel

VIRGINIA E. SLOAN. Counsel

CHARLES G. GEYH, Counsel

ELIZABETH R. FINE, Counsel

THOMAS E. MOONEY, Minority Counsel

JOSEPH V. WOLFE, Minority Counsel

(II)

qi^totv^^
<4"

CONTENTS

HEARING DATE

Page

September 19, 1990 1

» TEXT OF BILL

H.R. 4340 2

OPENING STATEMENT

Kastenmeier, Hon. Robert W., a Representative in Congress from the State of

Wisconsin, and chairman, Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property,

and the Administration of Justice 1

WITNESSES

Cullen, James G., president and chief executive officer. New Jersey Bell 79

Goldman, Janlori, legislative counsel, American Civil Liberties Union 104

Kohl, Hon. Herbert, a Senator in Congress from the State of Wisconsin 6

Moore, Stephen J., public counsel, Office of Public Counsel of the State of

Illinois, on behalf of the National Association of State Utility Consumer

Advocates and the Office of Public Counsel of the State of Illinois 32

Poat, Andrew L., Acting Director, U.S. Office of Consumer Affairs, accompanied by Patricia Faley, Director of Consumer and Industry Relations, and

Nickie A. At hanason-Dymersky. General Counsel, Office of Special Adviser

to the President for Consumer Affairs 14

Stangland, John, assistant vice president for product development and management, Pacific Bell 61

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING

Cullen, James G., president and chief executive officer, New Jersey Bell:

Prepared statement with attachments 81

Goldman, Janlori, legislative counsel, American Civil Liberties Union: Prepared statement 107

Kohl, Hon. Herbert, a Senator in Congress from the State of Wisconsin:

Prepared statement 9

Moore, Stephen J., public counsel, Office of Public Counsel of the State of

Illinois, on behalf of the National Association of State Utility Consumer

Advocates and the Office of Public Counsel of the State of Illinois: Prepared

statement with attachment 35

Poat, Andrew L, Acting Director, U.S. Office of Consumer Affairs:

Article from Newsbytes News Network 55

Prepared statement 17

Stangland, John, assistant vice president for product development and management, Pacific Bell: Prepared statement with attachments 63

(in)
IV

APPENDIX

Additional letter and statements: ***

Barton, Richard A., senior vice president, government affairs, Direct

Marketing Association: Prepared statement 137

Central Telephone Co.: Prepared statement 144

Knauff, Carol, director, Intelligent Network Services, American Telephone & Telegraph Co.: Prepared statement 149

Sodolski, John, president, U.S. Telephone Association: Letter to Hon.

Robert W. Kastenmeier (September 18, 1990) 148

Southwestern Bell Corp.: Prepared statement 161
TELEPHONE PRIVACY ACT OF 1990

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 1990

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COURTS, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY,

AND THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE,

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,

Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:20 a.m., in room

2226, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Robert W. Kastenmeier

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Robert W. Kastenmeier, Howard L.

Berman, William J. Hughes, Mike Synar, Carlos J. Moorhead,

Howard Coble, and D. French Slaughter, Jr.

Also present: Elizabeth R. Fine, counsel; Virginia E. Sloan, counsel; Kathrine Urban, research assistant; and Joseph V. Wolfe,

minority counsel.

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN KASTENMEIER

Mr. KASTENMEIER. The committee will come to order.

The gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that

the subcommittee permit the meeting today to be covered, in whole

or in part, by television broadcast, radio broadcast, and/or still

photography, pursuant to rule 5 of the committee rules.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. Without objection, that will be done.

This morning the subcommittee will consider H.R. 4340, the Telephone Privacy Act of 1990. This is a bill which I introduced, along

with our colleagues Mike Synar and Don Edwards. It provides that

if a telephone company offers its customers Caller ID to register

the numbers of incoming callers, it must also offer those customers

a device to block transmission of the telephone numbers.

[The bill, H.R. 4340, follows:]

(l)
101ST CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4340

To amend title 18, United States Code, to protect the privacy of telephone users.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 21, 1990

Mr. K,\si INMKIKK (for himself, Mr. SYNAR, and Mr. EDWARDS of California) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the

Judiciary

A BILL

To amend title 18, United States Code, to protect the privacy of

telephone users.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United Stales of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the "Telephone Privacy Act of

5 1990".

6 SEC. 2. TITLE 18 AMENDMENTS.

7 (a) EXCEPTION TO PROHIBITION.•Section 3121 of

8 title 18, United States Code, is amended•
3

2

1 (1) in the heading for subsection (b), by inserting

2 "WITH RESPECT TO USE BY PEOVIDEB" after "Ex3 CEPTION";

4 (2) by inserting after subsection (b) the following:

5 "(c) EXCEPTION WITH RESPECT TO USE OF CALLEB

6 IDENTIFICATION SYSTEMS.•The prohibition of subsection

7 (a) does not apply with respect to the use of a device that

8 allows the recipient of a telephone call to determine any indi9 vidually identifying information about the caller or the origi10 nating number (other than information voluntarily given by

11 the caller in the course of the communication) if the provider

12 enables any telephone call originator to block receipt of the

13 identifying information."; and

14 (3) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection

15 (d).

16 (b) CIVIL LIABILITY.•Section 3121 of title 18, United

17 States Code, is further amended by adding at the end the

18 following:

19 "(e) CIVIL ACTION.•Any user of wire or electronic

20 communication service may, in a civil action, obtain relief

21 against any provider who directly or indirectly provides to

22 recipients of telephone calls the ability to determine individ23 ually identifiable information, but fails to enable an originator

24 to block receipt of the originating number as required under

25 subsection (b)(3), in the same manner and to the same extent

•III! KUD III
3

1 as a customer aggrieved by a violation of chapter 121 of this

2 title may, under section 2707 of this title, obtain relief

3 against the violator.".

O

• UK 4.140 III
5

Mr. KASTENMEIER. Caller ID appears to be a controversial issue

across the country. There are apparently those who advocate Caller

ID with blocking, those who favor Caller ID without blocking, and

those who oppose Caller ID entirely. The trend among telephone

companies appears to be in favor of some kind of blocking, although some companies strongly oppose this solution.

Caller ID is a fairly recent technology that has competing privacy implications. The task before this subcommittee is to try to balance the privacy rights of telephone call recipients with those of

telephone callers.

Caller ID also implicates the Electronic Communications Privacy

Act. At my request, the American Law Division of the Library of

Congress studied the issue of whether Caller ID is a trap and trace

device and, therefore, prohibited by ECPA. The Library's conclusion was, in fact, that Caller ID appears to be prohibited by ECPA.

ECPA was the congressional response to the emergence of many

new technologies that were not covered by the wiretap laws. Congress determined that it was important to recognize and encourage

these new technologies. It also determined, however, that "privacy

cannot be left to depend solely on physical protection or it will

gradually erode as technology advances. Additional legal protection

is necessary to ensure the continued vitality of the fourth

amendment."

Today's hearing is therefore important in light of the fact that

telephone companies around the country are offering Caller ID,

and in light of this subcommittee's obligation to clarify the law and

to review the privacy implications of this technology.

I regret that we could not hear from all of the interested parties

on this issue. We, of course, welcome any written statements. But

in light of the many pressures on the subcommittee and on the

Congress as a whole as we move toward adjournment, we simply

are not able to take the testimony of everyone who could have

something to offer. I do look forward to today s hearing and the testimony of a variety of witnesses with differing perspectives.

Before we call on our first witness, I would like to yield to the

gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Slaughter.

Mr. SLAUGHTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate having the opportunity to express

my views regarding the Caller ID service which we are receiving

testimony on today. This service is currently available in the Commonwealth of Virginia and has proved a measure of assistance to

many citizens. While I welcome the variety of comments we are

about to receive, I generally believe that a blocking option would

diminish the effectiveness of Caller ID.

If people who want Caller ID cannot see who is calling, the service is less valuable, if an obscene caller or someone with violent intentions only has to touch two numbers to block Caller ID. What is

the good of having Caller ID at all? In my view, the instances in

which a caller legitimately needs to prevent someone from knowing

who is calling can be worked out without curtailing the benefits of

Caller ID.

Caller ID is currently available without blocking in Virginia and

we do not seem to have any problems with the program. In fact, I

understand that in less than a year Caller ID has over 15,000 sub-
6

scribers in Virginia, and a lot of benefits have been realized. I

could point out the obvious benefit of deterring obscene callers, but

I think the service has proved to be even more valuable in helping

law enforcement officials.

For example, a family in Fairfax County, VA, had been out of

town on vacation and came home to find they had been robbed.

Upon checking their Caller ID box, they found several calls that

had been made at late hours from a number they did not recognize.

The police were able to trace the strange number which led them

to the stolen property.

Mr. Chairman, I'm not convinced of the need for Federal legislation on this issue. In my State, concerns regarding Caller ID have

already been worked out by the State corporation commission

which has decided that the blocking option is not needed. This decision has also been reached by other States with Caller ID. In my

view, the benefits of Caller ID without the blocking option far outweigh any downside of the service. Just as an individual has the

right to a peephole on his front door to see who is knocking before

opening the door, one has the right to see who has chosen to call

on the telephone before answering.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to express my

views on this issue.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. I thank my colleague.

I would like to acknowledge the presence of a cosponsor of the

bill, Mike Synar of Oklahoma.

Mr. SYNAR. I just want to thank the chairman for holding this

hearing on a very important subject.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. Our first witness today is a good friend and

fellow colleague of mine from the State of Wisconsin, Senator Herb

Kohl. The Senator is a leading proponent of Caller ID legislation.

In fact, he was the first one to introduce legislation on the issue in

either body. I want to welcome him this morning. I'm sure I speak

for the committee when I say we're looking forward to hearing his

advice on this very interesting and controversial topic.

Senator Kohl.

STATEMENT OF HON. HERB KOHL, A SENATOR IN CONGRESS

FROM THE STATE OF WISCONSIN

Mr. KOHL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am very pleased that you

called this hearing today and that you've also invited me to testify.

For many years, Mr. Chairman, you have been a champion of

privacy rights and individual liberties, and so I'm especially

pleased to work with you on this legislation. You and your staff

have done an excellent job of putting together what I know will be

a comprehensive and fair discussion of Caller ID. I would like to

take this opportunity to thank Mike Synar for his support on this

issue.

I would like to briefly comment on what I see as the relevant

issues here today. This is really not a debate over the value of

Caller ID. Most everyone thinks that Caller ID is a good service,

and I agree. I, like many other people, want to see it spread as

quickly as possible. But the question is, in what form should it

spread? Should there be forced Caller ID in which the phone com-
pany requires our phone numbers to be displayed every time we

make a call, even if we have an unlisted number? Or should there

be voluntary Caller ID, in which callers decide when they wish to

give out their numbers? Keep in mind, it's easy to get someone's

address with their phone number, so mandatory disclosure can

mean revealing where you live and even, very possibly, your

name•whether you want the other person to know or not.

Forced Caller ID violates our fundamental right to privacy. I believe we have the right to call a crisis hot line or a Senator's office

or an IRS help line without having to say who we are. I believe the

phone company shouldn't be able to compel us to identify ourselves

when we call a business for information.

There are even times when forced Caller ID is dangerous. Prosecutors often call witnesses at night from home. Surely they should

not be compelled to reveal where they live. Battered women often

take refuge with friends and then call home to check on one thing

or another. They should not be compelled to tell their abusing husbands where they're staying. There are many other dangerous situations, but the point is simply this: The phone company cannot determine when it's safe to reveal your name, your number, and your

address. There are clearly too many circumstances and too many

variables.

So the answer must be to allow callers to retain freedom of

choice, and our Telephone Privacy Act would do just that. Let callers dial three digits on the phone when they want to make private

calls. With free, per call blocking, callers can display their numbers when calling friends and family, and they can keep their numbers confidential when they feel the need to do so. The recipients of

blocked calls will always see the word "private" flash on the Caller

ID box. Then, if they wish, they can ignore the call, screen it with

a tape machine, or simply answer the telephone.

Some phone companies would like to frame this whole issue in

terms of obscene phone calls. This approach might make for good

marketing, and even larger profits, but it is ultimately deceptive.

The real truth is that other services such as Call Trace more effectively combat abusive phone calls, even if there is Caller ID blocking. Therefore, it turns out that the ability exists to protect victims

and privacy at the same time.

But, Mr. Chairman, before we go any further with Caller ID, we

have got to make sure that it's legal. This summer, the Pennsylvania Court of Appeals ruled that Caller ID violates that State's wiretap law, which is similar to the Federal version that you helped

draft. The Telephone Privacy Act would amend the Federal law to

authorize Caller ID.

There is one more reason to pass legislation. Blocking already

exists for the wealthy. A new 900 number allows people to make

private calls for $2 a minute. I believe that is wrong. As a matter

of fairness, phone companies should make privacy available to everyone, rich or poor. Blocking is a matter of equity as well as

privacy.

I will wrap it up, Mr. Chairman, by pointing out that all around

the country States are requiring blocking, and telephone companies

are opting for it. I understand that even NYNEX•one of the last

holdouts•will be offering per call blocking soon. This recognition
8

is occurring for a crucial reason: Caller ID with blocking offers privacy protection for callers and for recipients alike. That's a powerful rationale and that is why I believe our legislation will soon

become law.

Mr. Chairman, I thank you very much. I am pleased to be here,

and I am sure this will be an excellent hearing.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. Thank you very much for your statement,

Senator Kohl. I think it was an excellent statement to start the

hearing with.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kohl follows:]
XMifH H SIOtM. JR.. QSLAWAM. CHAMMAN

SJg AMD M. KCMNfDY MASSACHUSETTS STROM THURMOND SOUTH CAROLINA

HOWARO M. MimNtAuu. OHIO OIMM O HATCK UTAH

DENNIS MCDNCM, AHtfONA ALAM K SIMPSON WYOMING

MTMCK J LOMY VERMONT CHARLES L GRASSLEY, IOWA

MOWIU HEfLIN ALABAMA ARLEN SPECTER PENNSYLVANIA

CORDON J HUMPHREY. NEW HAMPSHIRE Bmted States Senate

Duma mjmtA* J^T SS»TV* ££?£ DdMCTD* COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

i P1CR. Qtxiui counsel SSTL J

»3X«°S5SS5\»»•I WASHINGTON. DC 20610-8275

•HO ('"I 0«fCTO>

Testimony of Senator Herb Kohl

Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property and

Administrative Practice

U.S. House of Representatives

Hearing on Caller ID

September 19, 1990

I'd like to begin by commenting briefly on what I see as

the relevant issues here.

This really is not a debate over the value of Caller ID.

Host everyone thinks that Caller ID is a good service, and I

agree: I want to see it spread as quickly as possible. But the

question is, in what form should it spread? Should there be

"forced Caller ID," in which the phone company requires our

phone numbers to be displayed every time we make a call -- even

if we have an unlisted number? Or should there be "voluntary

Caller ID," in which callers decide when they wish to give out

their numbers? Since a call recipient can obtain the caller's

address with the phone number, mandatory disclosure means

revealing where you live, whether or not you want the other

person to know.

Forced Caller ID violates our fundamental right to

privacy. I believe we have the right to call a crisis hotline,

or a Senator's office • or an IRS help line • without having

to say who we are. And I believe the phone company shouldn't

be able to compel us to identify ourselves when we call a

business for information.

There are even times when forced Caller ID is dangerous.

Prosecutors often call witnesses at night from home. Surely

they should not be compelled to reveal where they live.

Battered women often take refuge with friends, and then call

home to check on one thing or another. They should not be

compelled to tell their abusing husbands where they're

staying. There are many other dangerous situations, but the

point is this: the phone company can't determine when it's

safe to reveal your number and address. There are just too

many circumstances and too many variables.

The answer must be to allow callers to retain freedom of

choice, and the Telephone Privacy Act would do just that. Let

callers dial three digits on the phone when they want to make

private calls. With free, per-call blocking, callers can

display their numbers when calling friends and family • and

they can keep their numbers confidential when they need to do

so. The recipients of calls will always see the word "private"
10

flash on the Caller ID box. Then, If they wish, they can

Ignore the call, screen it with a tape machine, or simply

answer the phone.

Some phone companies would like to frame this whole issue

in terms of obscene phone calls. This approach might make for

good marketing • and larger profits • but it's ultimately

deceptive. The real truth is that other services, such as Call

Block and Call Trace, more effectively combat abusive calls.

For example, Call Trace lets the victim of a harassing phone

call automatically send the number of the the harasser to the

authorities after hanging up • merely by dialing a three-digit

code. And these new technologies work even if a caller

withholds his number • in other words, even if there is

blocking. It turns out that the ability exists to protect

victims and privacy at the same time.

But before we go any further with Caller ID, we've got to

make sure that it's legal. This summer, the Pennsylvania court

of appeals ruled that Caller ID violates that state's wiretap

law • which is similar to the federal version that you helped

draft. The Telephone Privacy Act would amend the federal law

to authorize Caller ID.

There's one more reason to pass legislation. Blocking

already exists for the wealthy. A new 900 service allows

people to make private calls for $2 a minute. I believe that's

wrong. As a matter of fairness, I think phone companies should

make privacy available to everyone, rich and poor. Blocking is

a matter of equity as well as privacy.

I want to conclude by calling attention to something

happening outside of this hearing room. All around the

country, states are requiring blocking, and telephone companies

are opting for it. And I understand that even NYNEX • one of

the last holdouts • will be offering per call blocking soon.

This recognition is occurring for one crucial reason: Caller ID

with blocking offers privacy protection for callers and

recipients alike. That's a powerful rationale, and that's why

I believe our legislation will soon become law.

Thank you.
11

Mr. KASTENMEIER. The questions seem to be relatively simple:

Should companies have Caller ID? Then, if the answer is yes,

should they have a blocking device? Those are the two large technical issues. But as you have pointed out, there are a series of side

commentaries about alternative technologies that do coexist with

those two technologies•Caller ID and the blocking technology. The

question is, what is the state of the law and, then, do we need Federal legislation? Can we rely on State public utility commissions to

resolve this from State to State? Can we have a system nationally

that has different systems within different areas? That is to say,

some with blocking devices and some without blocking devices?

Who should make that determination? There really are quite a few

questions.

Let me ask you first about the need for Federal legislation. Do

you see the need for some Federal legislation, notwithstanding how

we might come to a conclusion about the utility of blocking devices,

or the necessity of them, in terms of privacy? Do you think Federal

legislation is needed in this area?

Mr. KOHL. I think so, because it seems to me the issue needs to

be resolved on a level that will apply to every State. I would not

consider it to be satisfactory to have some States with blocking authorized and legal and other States without it. There is also the

question of interstate phone calls, and how do you handle that if

you don't have a single piece of legislation that covers the legitimacy of blocking nationwide?

Mr. KASTENMEIER. We obviously currently see the roles of public

utility commissions and State legislatures, but nationally, does the

FCC have a role in this as well? Have they acted on the subject, as

far as you know?

Mr. KOHL. I'm not familiar with any action they've taken.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. Frankly, I'm not either. We certainly want to

explore that.

Much of this will be anecdotal in terms of utility, as far as law

enforcement needs and, as you point out, obscene phone calls. How

do you protect people from disclosure when they make a call and

do they have a legitimate right to be protected from having their

phone numbers being disclosed upon making a telephone call?

How do you respond to the anecdote of the gentleman from Virginia where, without a blocking device, a couple was able to discover who broke into their house because they had Caller ID? Mr.

Slaughter went on to say, had the perpetrators had a blocking

device and used it, they would not have been able to discover who

the thieves there.

Mr. KOHL. I think it's important to recognize that we're not talking 100 percent either way. We're not talking about a clear issue of

Caller ID with blocking being perfect and the other way being totally imperfect. There's a balance that we're looking for. Certainly

those who favor no blocking may be able to bring up one or two or

three instances where the point is well-taken.

But when you talk about balancing all the competing interests in

this country, balancing the need and the legitimacy of people not

wanting to have their phone number displayed every time they

make a phone call, whether they like it or not, it just seems to me
12

that the overall equity and fairness clearly comes down on the case

of offering blocking.

With respect to obscene phone calls, as you know, blocking does

not rule out in any way referring an obscene phone call to the

police station immediately for action. If you get an obscene phone

call, you just press three digits and that phone call is immediately

referred to the police. They are on the phone talking with this obscene caller in a matter of seconds. So I think in most every case

fairness and equity comes down on the side of Caller ID with blocking, rather than Caller ID without blocking.

I think the fact that telephone companies for the most part, all

across the country, are now voluntarily offering blocking with

Caller ID is some indication that even they, who are running companies for profit, recognize that they need to offer blocking with

Caller ID.

Another thing. I have never understood why they have offered

unlisted phone numbers for so long and recognized that it was a

value and a need in our society, and all of a sudden they come

along with a new technology and make the argument•and not all

of them are•but make the argument that unlisted phone numbers

are no longer of any value or need in our society. I guess there's an

inconsistency there that I find hard to fully comprehend.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. I thank my friend.

The gentleman from California, Mr. Moorhead.

Mr. MOORHEAD. Thank you.

You know, Senator, it would seem to me that if you have Caller

ID and a blocking device, it would be totally unfair, the fact that

the call was blocked the information was not given to the recipient

of the phone call. I would question receiving a phone call from

someone who wanted to block out their number, unless you happen

to be a certain kind of agency that was anxious to get every call

that came in. If someone wouldn't let you know where they were

calling from, why should you want to talk to him?

Mr. KOHL. YOU don't have to.

Mr. MOORHEAD. But some systems are going to have blocking devices and some aren't. Some people that call will have that capability and others will not. So if they do have that capability to block

and they do block, you surely on the other end ought to be able to

see it on your phone that it is blocked and be able to reject the call.

Mr. KOHL. YOU will have

Mr. MOORHEAD. There would be a disadvantage to the person on

one side that would know which number he called; they would

know all about you; you wouldn't know anything about him, or

who the call was coming from.

Mr. KOHL. YOU mean if he blocks.

Mr. MOORHEAD. If he blocks.

Mr. KOHL. Then you don't have to pick up the phone.

Mr. MOORHEAD. But if some systems have a blocking device and

others do not, unless your phone would reflect the call was blocked,

you wouldn't know whether he had blocked it or not.

Mr. KOHL. Right. Well, if I understand, what we're requiring is

that all systems•that's the purpose of our Federal legislation•is

that all systems that have Caller ID have blocking.
13

Mr. MOORHEAD. Then would the other people have the ability to

see that it's blocked on their own phone?

Mr. KOHL. The recipient?

Mr. MOORHEAD. Yes.

Mr. KOHL. The recipient would know when his telephone rings, if

he has Caller ID. If his telephone rings and there is no number on

his little device, he knows that

Mr. MOORHEAD. Then he can reject the call or put it on a tape, as

you indicated.

Mr. KOHL. Yes. He can pick up the phone, not pick up the phone,

or tape the phone call. But he would know that the caller is blocking their number. Then he has a choice.

Mr. MOORHEAD. It would seem to me, because there can be calls

coming from outside the United States or outside the area, that

there would be exceptions. It would be much better to require that

it shows it is blocked.

Mr. KOHL. Yes. I guess that's another reason why we think there

needs to be a single piece of legislation in this country to cover

Caller ID, so that you will know in every case that if it's a block,

it's a block.

Mr. MOORHEAD. Thank you.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. The gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. Synar.

Mr. SYNAR. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Herb, I want to thank you. I think that your statement summarized probably better than I have ever heard the whole issue of this

Caller ID and the importance of why we have to provide this

blocking.

As is too often the case, when issues first hit, people seem to

center in on one issue. With the advertisements on obscene calls,

many of us who support this legislation have been held out as

being ones who believe that abusive and obscene calls should be

OK. I think your statement clearly points out why that is not the

case.

I think it's important that you also point out that people do have

the right to privacy when they call their Senate office, when they

call the IRS, or, if they're in an abuse center, not to have that

number revealed. What we're trying to do with this legislation is to

try and protect that privacy while also recognizing that there will

be opportunities to solve the second problem of obscene calls

through the present technology. So I want to commend you for that

statement.

I hope that we can get the telephone companies, who seem very

supportive of the effort by their voluntary efforts, to help us fashion the advertising which will get a lot more viewership than what

we do here today, to really help us sell this message, because I

think they want the same types of things.

I can tell you a story about coming here•I'm sure you're in the

same situation•when you get here early in the morning and sometimes you answer your own phone because nobody is here. During

the height of one of the debates a couple of weeks ago I was sitting

in my office and a guy called me. He was yelling and screaming,

saying "You tell that jackass Synar that I'm mad as hell at him on

the way he's going to vote today." I said, "I'll do that." He says,

"you tell that jackass Synar that I'm going to make sure in the
14

next election that he's going to hear from me." I said, "I'll tell him

that." He says, "How do I know you're going to tell that jackass

Synar?" I says, "You're talking to the jackass." The phone went

"click."

Mr. KOHL. That was me, Congressman.

[Laughter.]

Mr. SYNAR. I would have liked to have had his number. But the

fact is, he has the right, as a citizen of this country, to call me up,

with the privacy of not identifying himself, and calling me a jackass. That's a right that I think is a very important right to protect.

So I want to thank you for your leadership in this, which is very

critical. We appreciate it.

Mr. KOHL. I appreciate that.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. Does the gentlemen from Virginia have a

question?

Mr. SLAUGHTER. NO questions, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. If the gentlemen from Virginia or North Carolina do not have questions, we know that you need to return to the

judicial hearings on the other side, which are very important. We

appreciate, Senator Kohl, your appearance as a leadoff witness

here today. Good luck to you, sir.

Mr. KOHL. Thank you.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. Next I would like to introduce and greet a

panel of witnesses. First we will hear from Andrew Poat, Acting

Director of the U.S. Office of Consumer Affairs, which represents

consumer interests in domestic policy development for the administration. We will also hear from Stephen Moore, public counsel for

the Illinois Office of Public Counsel, which represents the interests

of consumers in the State of Illinois. Mr. Moore is also on the executive committee of the National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates and will testify on that association's behalf today.

Gentlemen, we welcome you here this morning. Mr. Poat, would

you care to go first?

STATEMENT OF ANDREW L. POAT, ACTING DIRECTOR, U.S.

OFFICE OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, ACCOMPANIED BY PATRICIA

FALEY, DIRECTOR OF CONSUMER AND INDUSTRY RELATIONS,

AND NICKIE A. ATHANASON-DYMERSKY, GENERAL COUNSEL,

OFFICE OF SPECIAL ADVISER TO THE PRESIDENT FOR

CONSUMER AFFAIRS

Mr. POAT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am Andrew Poat, Acting

Director of the U.S. Office of Consumer Affairs. With me today are

Pat Faley, Director of Consumer and Industry Relations, and

Nickie Athanason-Dymersky, our General Counsel. We appreciate

the opportunity to appear at this hearing today to share an administration perspective on new telecommunications services.

When we first learned about Caller ID just about 1 year ago, our

reaction mirrored what we believe to be the first impression of

most consumers•here is a valuable new tool with which we may

better manage certain intrusive aspects of home telephone service.

Since that time, a national debate has ensued regarding the privacy implications that accompany this technology. Even so, we con-
15

tinue to be very impressed with Caller ID. Quite simply, consumers

want it.

In the interest of brevity, permit me to associate myself with the

remarks of the Senator from Wisconsin regarding the benefits of

Caller ID for residential use.

Additionally, however, I would like to raise a second area in

which associated technology is going to be very important, and that

is automatic number identification. This is the commercial version

of Caller ID and it also has a value to consumers and to business.

When an individual calls a company with an inquiry or complaint,

for example, ANI can help speed up responses by giving service

representatives instantaneous access to customer account information. The efficiency gains which businesses will realize through this

sort of technology offer further testament to the value of Caller

Identification.

Clearly, then, we do not underestimate the benefits of Caller ID.

Neither, however, do we underestimate its privacy implications.

Concern about privacy is both high and sustained.

The recently released Harris poll found that four in five Americans are concerned about threats to their personal privacy. And so,

as President Bush has warned, we cannot take these concerns

lightly.

Why do Caller ID and ANI raise privacy concerns? They do so

because they disclose the phone number of nearly every phone

caller without regard to those who have an unlisted number or a

specific, legitimate need to prevent disclosure. In some instances,

that need is frequent, as with physicians who wish to return calls

from patients from their homes during the evening, and yet do not

wish to reveal their private phone numbers, or undercover police

detectives who need to protect their identity. Teachers, too, often

have a need to call parents and should be able to do so without putting their home phone number at risk of being misused by

students.

The point is, blocking cannot and should not be viewed solely as

the last bastion of protection for telephone harassers. Examples of

reasonable uses include not only those I have mentioned but also

those who are making anonymous tips to the police, calling drug

abuse, suicide and other help lines, and perhaps when calling 800

and 900 numbers.

Permit me to explain that last example. The market for information about our buying preferences, lifestyles and spending habits is

burgeoning. The immense technical barriers that once kept data

bases of this information separate have been laid flat. In the process, our telephone number has become a speedway connecting our

name and address to a great deal of personal information.

In fact, one of the principal uses of ANI is to permit marketers

to automatically capture telephone numbers when consumers call,

and to match those numbers to databases of information about

those callers.

On the surface, it would appear that the Caller ID debate comes

down to our right of privacy versus our right to know who's calling.

But looking deeper, we see that the parameters of these rights vary

greatly, not so much from person to person, but from call to call.

Certainly, no one wishes to give obscene phone callers the right to
16

prevent their identity from being revealed. Yet, everyone would

allow abused spouses the right to call home without disclosing

their location. Thus, we need a solution that balances these rights

with both flexibility and fairness.

The administration believes that this balance is best struck with

per call blocking. Trial tests prove that consumers exercise their

right to this choice responsibly. Only in a very small percentage of

calls did consumers block their numbers. So per call blocking does

not negate the value of Caller ID. That is why four regional Bell

operating companies now offering, or soon to offer, Caller ID will

provide per call blocking.

Those who would use the blocking mechanism irresponsibly are

subject to other technologies, such as Call Trace. Call Trace works

even if the harasser attempts to block the telephone number.

The legal environment for Caller ID and ANI is unclear at

present. A Pennsylvania Appellate Court decision declared Caller

ID illegal under the State wiretapping law, a law which closely resembles the Federal wiretapping statute, as well as the statutes of

some 15 other States. Two bills in Congress would change Federal

law to require those who offer Caller ID to offer call blocking as

well.

The administration believes that it is not necessary at this point

to separate this telephone service decision from any other telephone rate and service decision, jurisdiction for which is reserved

for public utilities commissions. Interstate telecommunications decisions are properly within the jurisdiction of the Federal Communications Commission.

We see telephone companies, direct marketers and others in industry beginning to respond to telecommunications privacy concerns with creative technological solutions, the range of which we

do not wish to inhibit. Thus, at this time, and until a demonstrated

case for removing this authority from the States presents itself, we

would oppose Federal legislation.

In our view, the administration's approach is one that provides

the maximum room for consumer choice and enterprising response

to consumer privacy concerns in the fast-paced world of telecommunications.

We certainly would be pleased to respond to any questions which

you, Mr. Chairman, or other members of the subcommittee might

have.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. Thank you, Mr. Poat.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Poat follows:]
17

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ANDREW POAT, ACTING DIRECTOR, U.S. OFFICE OF

CONSUMER AFFAIRS

Privacy concerns are nothing new to telecommunications. When

Americana first started uaing telephones, the nature of this

concern was the switchboard operator who, by virtue of the need

to connect one caller with another, knew not only who was calling

whom, but perhaps what was being said as well. Who can forget

the caricatures of the talkative operator who, over one cup of

coffee, could let you know every bit of gossip in town?

Later, party lines were introduced to provide a greater number of

Americans with better phone service. While party lines permitted

service to a greater number of people, they came with the

distinct risk that conversations might be overheard by others.

Today, new technologies continue enhancing and expanding the ways

in which we rely on telecommunication services. Just as credit

cards have become the financial tool by which many Americans

finance transactions, so the telephone is becoming an

indispensable way of conducting business. Interconnected with

computer capabilities, telecommunications may well be the means

by which we conduct the majority of our business. In this

regard, most would agree that the telephone is making our lives

easier.

With all the advances made possible by these new technologies, we

have not yet eliminated the concerns about privacy that have, in

one way or another, been e recurrent issue. Indeed, these new

technologies, if not implemented with care, can make the privacy
18

2

Intrusions of any one operator or party line customer pale by

comparison.

At issue is the supply and demand for personal information •

something that is growing at both ends. On the supply side,

computer technologies have given the information industry (such

as credit bureaus) a rapidly expanding ability to collect and

manipulate data. The technical barriers, which in the past kept

data bases separate, are crumbling. All this as individuals

become more reliant on electronic transactions that inevitably

leave "finger-prints" which can be aggregated and analyzed.

On the demand side, a growing and lucrative market exists for

such information about each one of us -- a market that consists

of direct marketers, employers, landlords, financial

institutions, medical service providers and insurers, charities,

the media and others who want to know more about us • either as

Individuals or as categories of individuals.

Today the telephone can provide a wealth of information about

individuals or groups of Individuals in much the same way as

credit cards or bank records can disclose an individual's life

style.
19

3

The telephone number 1B now a key that connects a previously

rather anonymous individual with a rapidly growing repository of

information about him or her.

In addressing the issue of telecommunications privacy, I have

taken the position that consumers have an expectation of privacy

in their dealings with telephone companies • an expectation that

is now in danger of becoming a thing of the past, without their

knowledge.

It is with this in mind that I've divided my testimony into three

subject areas each having privacy implications for consumers.

They are as follows:

1. Residential Caller ID Service

2. Commercial Automatic Number Identification Systems

3. Telephone Transaction-Generated Information

At the outset, let me make clear that I am not calling for

federal laws at present. In my view, decisions on new telephone

services should not be separated from any other service or rate

decision for telephones • which are the domain of the State

Public Utility Commissions, and also, for interstate service, the

Federal Communications Commission.
20

1. Residential Caller ID Service

Caller ID is a valuable service vith obvious benefits to

consumers, giving then the ability to ignore calls from

recognized sources, and acting as a deterrent to prank calls. It

does this by allowing the recipient of a call to see the phone

number from which a call is initiated before deciding to answer.

In most instances, callers have no need to conceal their phone

numbers and so the needs of both parties to a phone conversation

•re not only met, but on the side of the person receiving the

call, enhanced.

There are circumstances, however, wherein some individuals may

need to preserve the confidentiality of their phone numbers or

locations. In these circumstances, some blocking option seems

appropriate. These include abused adults or children calling

hone, or mental health professionals and doctors who return late

night patient calls, all without giving any of these parties

their home phone numbers.

It is important also to weigh the concerns of the law enforcement

community. Ne, of course, want to make certain that law

enforcement officials have the ability to detect and prevent

crime. He believe that Caller ID, in combination with other
21

technologies, would help with the work of law enforcers. Some law

enforcement organizations, however, have stated their concerns

about Caller ID without blocking.

For example, the Ohio Association of Police Chiefs and the

Treasury's Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Flreams have recently

added their voices to those calling for some kind of blocking

option. Their concern is that law enforcement agencies that

utilize "undercover telephones" for covert investigative

operations may be subject to discovery if suspects/violators

acquire Caller ID. Law enforcement officers from South Florida,

raising similar concerns, have caused the Florida Public Service

Commission to delay the implementation of Caller ID there.

Phone companies have expressed concern about offering call

blocking. They say it will devalue the service to consumers and

encourage obscene phone calls; however, the evidence suggests

otherwise.

The test marketing of Caller ID with an optional blocking service

conducted by U.S. West indicates that, when given the ability to

block, consumers actually block few calls.
22

6

Furthermore, those called will be wary of calls with blocked

numbers and, in most Instances, will not be likely to answer

them.

And, the fact that harassing phone calls in the New Jersey

experiment were reduced by 50% when only 2% of eligible telephone

subscribers purchased the Caller ID service suggests that the

real threat to prank callers is the knowledge that technology

exists to catch them, not the actual subscription rate to Caller

ID.

In addition, there is another technology that provides a better

means of addressing the problem of truly troublesome callers.

Call Trace, the technology by which an individual consumer can

capture an offending caller's number • whether or not it is

blocked • is a real threat to the obscene phone caller and would

be a deterrent to obscene calls if marketed in the same highvisibility manner as Caller ID.

Again, the preferences of law enforcement officials are an

important consideration. Such officials readily prefer the

information made possible by Call Trace to investigate and

prosecute. The consumer simply presses a star and two digits and

Call Trace makes a permanent record of the call.
23

7

Caller ID, without the tracing option, raises an additional

concern • that the victim of obscene calls, upon seeing the

number of the caller, will confront that caller and/or take the

law into his or her own hands. In this respect. Caller ID and

Call Trace are complementary services. Individuals may use

Caller ID to gain greater control of which friends, neighbors,

relatives, direct marketers and other legitimate users of the

telephone may contact them. And for improper calls • even if

they are blocked by the caller • Call Trace can make a permanent

record of the offense with the phone company for appropriate law

enforcement follow up.

2. Commercial Automatic Number Identification (ANI) Systems

The technology which permits Caller ID at the residential level

has separata applications at the commercial level. Clearly,

businesses do not fear obscene phone callers and would have no

interest in screening calls from customers. Vet, commercial AHI

systems continue to multiply, usually in tandem with toll free

800 and toll service 900 calls.

One beneficial usage has been to accelerate the response time of

companies to their customers by calling up the account on a
24

•

computer screen, thus permitting faster service for customers and

more efficient us* of time on the part of sales or service

representatives.

At another level, ANI has also become a means by which companies

•ay identify individuals with which they have had no past

relationship in the hope of beginning a new one.

800 and 900 number providers can now capture callers' numbers and

through a computerized reverse directory discover the names and

addresses of the callers. So that consumers who, for example,

call in response to a rock music ad or classical music ad are

classified individually and accordingly. Those who call in to

talk to cartoon characters are labeled children. Each caller, in

return, might be placed on a mailing or telemarketing list to

receive future phone and mail solicitations.

The problem here is not that such marketing practices take place,

but that they do so without the consumers' knowledge. Consumers

should know when their numbers are being captured by marketers

and have the final say if they do not want to receive additional

•ail and telephone solicitations.
25

9

In a recant survey by Glamour Magazine, 51% of the respondents

•aid they would refrain froa calling an 800 or 900 number if they

knew their numbers were being recorded. Strategic Telemedia

found that about a third of callers would not dial 800 lines if

they knew their phone numbers were going to be captured. This

cannot be good news for business, inasmuch as they tell us there

is no benefit derived from contacting people who do not want to

be contacted.

And, we are finding that reputable direct marketers are foursquare behind the concept of blocking. In fact, the Direct

Marketing Association (DMA), the world's largest and oldest

direct marketing trade association consisting of 3,000 members,

has recently released its official position. The DMA Board of

Directors stated their intent to support legislative and

regulatory efforts to implement blocking of commercial numbers.

OKA is an organisation of members for which information is their

livelihood. Why, therefore, would DMA adopt this position? They

know that only some consumers will block their numbers • and

then only some of the time. Further, they know full veil, from

their own member research, the increasing consumer concern about

the lack of control over personal information. They do,not want
26

10

to alienate consumers by contacting those who are viscerally

opposed to being called. This is a well-conceived, balanced

approach. It makes good business sense and they are respecting

the consumers' right to privacy.

I agree with DMA that consuaers should have the choice of

blocking their numbers from those who use 800 and 900 numbers. I

am told, however, that the technology to block these calls has

not been developed and may be years in the offing.

This is disappointing. The developers of residential Caller ID

foresaw the public debate now taking place over Caller ID and

built in the capability to block. Perhaps those who constructed

the 800 and 900 number technology never envisioned the

capabilities that now exist. I would therefore urge the

e

telecommunications industry and the providers and users of 800

and 900 numbers to see that a mechanism for blocking be developed

expeditiously, not only for the consumers' welfare, but for its

Until blocking is technologically feasible, I would urge the

Industry to disclose to consumers when their numbers are being

recorded and give them the opportunity to opt out of any

additional uses for their personal information.
27

Telephone Transaction Generated Information

11

My offlca held a series of informal meetings on

telecommunications privacy. He invited industry, consumer,

government and special Interest groups to help us define the

telecommunications privacy issues of most concern to consumers.

What we heard was that Caller ID was just the first of many

communications technologies that threaten to reduce, or at least

redefine, consumer privacy. Participants identified several

concerns including privacy considerations of FAX machines in

consumers' homes and whether consumers are aware that

conversations on cellular and cordless phones are easily

overheard. As a group, however, they were most concerned with

telephone-transaction generated information or TTGI.

Put simply, TTGI includes information on who recently signed up

for telecommunications services, what telephone numbers they

call, what telephone numbers call them, the date, origin and

length of calls, as well as credit and billing information.

Because of the break up of the Bell system, many

telecommunications companies are sharing the telephone network

and the information transported through it. For example, the

consumer may originate the call with one local telephone company,
28

12

the call then travels to an interexchenge carrier, to a

telecommunications gateway for enhanced service, via another

local exchange carrier and then terminates in a data base

aarvice. Each leg of the network needs certain information to

process the call and bill the customer. As the number of

carriers and service providers haa markedly increased so has the

amount of information about consumers and their use of

telecommunications products and services. There is a question aa

to how this information is protected, if at all.

A recent "Newsbytes" article reported that, "Hundreds of small

phone companies around the country are preparing to follow major

firms in compiling dossiera on their customers which can be aold

to industry." The article described a prase conference at which

one telecommunications company announced it is offering its own

calling card and "will soon begin collecting databases of Caller

ID information for each local firm baaed on a central file. The

data base will include both credit card data created through use

of the calling card and lists of who's making calls to where

collected through Signaling System 7 technology which is at the

heart of Caller ID."

While the practice may be perfectly legal, most consumers would

be shocked to know that lists of their calls would be sold
29

13

without their knowledge. The mere fact that such practices are

technologically possible does not suggest that there should be

complete disregard for the privacy of individuals.

With this in mind, the Office of Consumer Affairs worked with a

variety of organizations to develop voluntary principles which

could be used by telecommunications companies as a guideline to

protect consumer privacy in the collection, use and distribution

of telephone transaction-generated information. The issues

included:

- the responsibility of telecommunications management to protect

personal Information and to take privacy considerations into

account when developing new products and services,

- the extent to which personally identifiable information and

aggregate information should be exchanged with third parties,

- the need for consumer education on the collection and use of

transaction generated information, and

- the extent to which individual consumers should be able to

participate in decisions about how data about them is used and

shared for purposes unrelated to providing telecommunications,

services.

37-485 - 91 - 2
30

14

Conclusion

Consumer concerns about privacy in telecommunications continue to

change just as the telecommunications system changes to serve

them better. The advances we are seeing now are only the tip of

the iceberg. Consumers don't fully understand what lies ahead in

telecommunications. The general public's current concern about

privacy that now exists will in no way compare to the "invasion

of privacy'* charges we will hear if new technology is put into

place without providing consumer choices to protect privacy.

Caller ID is being hotly debated in almost every locality in

which the phone companies wish to offer it. In Pennsylvania, an

appellate court ruled that the offering of Caller ID would

violate the state wiretap laws. In the District of Columbia, the

Public Service Commission voted to approve the use of Caller ID

only if a blocking device is offered. And in California, the

legislature adopted a law that allows Caller ID to be offered

only if consumers are offered a free mechanism they can use to

block their phone numbers on a per call basis. I expect that we

will see similar outcomes from other jurisdictions.
31

15

I an seeing some responsiveness on the part of telephone

companies. U.S. West is piloting Call Blocking, for example, and

Pacific Telesis and Centel have said that they will offer it as

well. And all the regional telephone companies have asked to

talk with us to bear first hand our concerns.

I do, however, believe that the issues I discussed today will

continue to be debated state by state, that the consumer concern

will increase, not decrease, and that the telecommunications

industry, if it is not responsive, will very soon face either a

patch-work of varying legislative requirements or strong

Congressionally-mandated laws.

Thus, I would urge the industry to act now to protect consumer

privacy.

The U.S. Office of Consumer Affairs appreciates the opportunity

to have offered our views on the Caller ID issue. After the

others have testified, I would be happy to address any questions

the Subcommittee might wish to pose.
32

Mr. KASTENMEIER. I had wanted to call on Mr. Moore, and then

we would have questions of you both, but I note there is a pending

vote and I think we need to recess for that vote. We perhaps won't

be able to hear Mr. Moore for the entirety of his testimony and we

would probably have to interrupt it to go for a vote, so I think

maybe it would be best to recess for 10 minutes at this time.

Accordingly, the committee stands in recess.

[Recess.]

Mr. KASTENMEIER. The committee will come to order.

When we recessed 10 minutes ago, Mr. Poat had just concluded

his presentation. We would now like to call on Mr. Moore.

STATEMENT OF STEPHEN J. MOORE, PUBLIC COUNSEL, OFFICE

OF PUBLIC COUNSEL OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ON BEHALF

OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE UTILITY CONSUMER ADVOCATES AND THE OFFICE OF PUBLIC COUNSEL OF

THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I am Stephen Moore, the

Public Counsel of the State of Illinois. I am appearing here on

behalf of the National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates, an organization of 44 members in 38 States that represent

the consumers of public utility services.

I am here to support H.R. 4340, and I second the comments of

Senator Kohl. On behalf of NASUCA, I can state that we generally

support the service of Caller ID. However, we do believe you should

take advantage of one of the components of the software that the

Bell programmers wrote several years ago, which includes the ability to have per call blocking. So we do support the bill that requires companies to take advantage of that component of the service that is being provided to the companies by the switch

marketers.

Now, my written testimony identifies some of the persons that

are affected by Caller ID, and Mr. Poat mentioned some of these

already•police and domestic violence victims. In addition, you

have professionals, volunteer counselors who make sensitive calls

from their homes, the users of crisis hot lines, persons making tips,

minorities, anyone who wants to restrict the release of their

number, certainly people who have unpublished numbers, and

anyone who wants to keep their number from becoming one more

number on databases or entering one more telemarketer's list of

people that can be called.

H.R. 4340 will help these people. It does that by offering them

the option of protecting their number. Sometimes, in the case of

police undercover officers or domestic violence victims, that protection could save lives. In other cases, it is simply a protection

against our increasingly intrusive society.

Now, you will be hearing from a representative of one of the Bell

Cos., that those opposing blocking do so in order to protect their

customers from harassing phone calls. Don't believe that for a

minute. There are other services out there that do that just as well.

This is about making money. I have no objection to them making

money; it's what they're in business to do. However, in this case,

we do have several ways that Caller ID will generate significant
33

revenues. The obvious ones are simply the provision of the service

itself, a monthly service charge. In addition, there is the rental and

sale of Caller ID equipment itself. If Congress or Judge Greene ever

lifts their manufacturing restrictions, you can also see manufacturing of new telephones as our old ones become obsolete because they

don't have Caller ID.

There is also the provision of special services. Again, if the Congress or Judge Greene lifts the modified final judgment restrictions

on the provision of information content services, then you could see

Bell Cos. around the country providing more than simply a telephone number; they could offer the name, address, anything else

that they deem is marketable that could actually appear on a computer screen within a few rings of a person making a phone call.

That is a service that could be sold to businesses and would be very

valuable to them. They can see exactly who is calling and see whatever other information the Bell company has at their disposal that

could be sold.

If the telephone companies were truly interested in protecting

their customers against obscene or harassing phone calls, they

would not be pushing unrestricted Caller ID. Instead, they would

be advocating the use of these other new custom calling services,

generally called the CLASS services. These include Call Trace, Call

Block, and Call Return. These services actually offer not only the

same protection but better protection than Caller ID.

Now, in fact, the most shameful performance of the companies

that are opposing Caller ID is the fact that they have not taken

full advantage of these other new services. Some of the companies

don't even offer them. There is litigation now in Ohio where the

company has refused to even offer Call Trace or offer Call Block, so

the consumer counsel there has had to try to get the commission to

force them to offer these services.

Other companies make their customers pay a monthly fee to use

these services, instead of letting them charge a per-use charge,

even though the software would let them actually bill customers

for each time they use Call Trace or Call Block or Call Return.

All of the telephone companies have reduced the capabilities of

these other services in some way or another. For example, every

one of them artificially limits the number of calls that could be

blocked. The software would let them block 31. None that I am

aware of block more than 10. Some block as few as six. So not one

company in this country has taken full advantage of these other

CLASS services. Not one company has been advertising to the

world: "That if you receive an obscene phone call, all you have to

do is dial three digits and it's traced. If you make a phone call to

one of our customers, you're going to get traced." Instead, they are

marketing Caller ID, generally hiding these other services under a

basket.

You have already heard that many of the phone companies in

this country have already agreed to have per call blocking. Every

Bell company west of the Mississippi River, and also just recently

NYNEX, has announced that they will be offering per call blocking. That's not enough. Because unrestricted Caller ID infringes on

the basic constitutional right of privacy, the right to control the release of information about one's self, all the telephone customers in
34

this country should have the ability to use the per call blocking to

give them the option of deciding who they want to release information about themselves to and who they want to keep it from. H.R.

4340 offers people that option.

Thank you.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. Thank you, Mr. Moore.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Moore follows:]
35

PREPARED STATEMENT OF STEPHEN J. MOORE, PUBLIC COUNSEL, THE OFFICE OF PUBLIC

COUNSEL OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF

STATE UTILITY CONSUMER ADVOCATES AND THE OFFICE OF PUBLIC COUNSEL OF THE

STATE OF ILLINOIS

Summary of Testimony of Stephen J. Moore,

Public Counsel of the State of Illinois

Caller ID should be allowed only if, at the very least, customers

are allowed to block the identification of their telephone

numbers on a per call basis without charge.

Persons who need to block:

*law enforcement personnel engaged in undercover work

•domestic violence victims

•doctors, psychiatrists, social workers, probation officers,

teachers, lawyers and reporters

•persons with unpublished numbers

•volunteer counselors who call troubled individuals from home

•persons wishing to provide anonymous information to police,

investigative agencies or reporters

•persons wishing to make anonymous calls to crisis hotlines

•persons calling businesses who wish to avoid callbacks or

being put on telemarketing lists or data bases

Caller ID will allow telephone companies to sell data base

information on callers to the recipients of calls.

A recent Harris poll shows that 75 percent of the American public

believes Caller ID should be prohibited in any form or allowed

only with blocking.

Per call blocking will not encourage harassing calls. Other

CLASS services, which can be activated by dialing a three digit

code after receiving a harassing call, are more effective than

Caller ID in deterring such calls.

•Call Block blocks the most recently received call from

getting through again.

•Priority Call generates a distinctive ring that allows the

recipient to identify wanted, or unwanted, calls.

•Return Call lets the customer call back and

confront the harasser.

•Call Trace sends the iiarasser's number directly to the

local telephone company or to the police.

Despite their professed desire to protect their customers,

telephone companies have either refused to offer these other

CLASS services or have made them unattractive by pricing them

unreasonably and by reducing their functions.

The telephone companies suggest that those who wish to prevent

the disclosure of their telephone numbers make calls through

operators, calling cards, cellular phones or pay phones. These

solutions are expensive, impractical and in some cases, short

term. Special services for law enforcement and domestic violence

organizations do not address the day to day realities of work in

those fields. Any solution that requires customers to prove that

they deserve privacy protection is repugnant.

The Privacy Act of 1990 is needed in order to provide a minimum

level of privacy protection throughout this country. Individual

states may impose greater protections based on state law and

public policy considerations.
36

Testimony of Stephen J. Moore

Public Counsel of the State of Illinois

September 19, 1990

On behalf of the National Association of State Utility

Consumer Advocates (NASUCA) and the Office of Public Counsel of

the State of Illinois, I would like to express my support for

H.R. 4340, The Telephone Privacy Act of 1990.

NASUCA is a national organization composed of 44 members in

38 states and the District of Columbia. Each member is

designated by its state to represent public utility ratepayers

before state public utility commissions, federal agencies and

state and federal courts. NASUCA assists in the exchange of

information between its member organizations and provides

information on public utility policy issues to the United States

Congress and federal regulatory bodies.

The Office of Public Counsel of the State of Illinois is one

of the members of NASUCA. It is a state agency authorized by

statute to represent the people of the State of Illinois before

all state and federal bodies that affect public utility policy

and regulation. I am the director of that office and am a member

of the Executive Committee of NASUCA.

The telephone companies across the country are introducing a

new service, named Caller ID, that allows the recipient of a

telephone call to see on a screen the telephone number of the

person calling. On its face. Caller ID sounds like a wonderful

service. Knowing who is calling, a customer could decide to pick

up the telephone and talk, or let the telephone ring. It also

equalizes the rights of calling and called parties. After all,

people making telephone calls know the number they are calling,

so why should the recipients of those calls not have the same

information? Additionally, businesses can use Caller ID to

provide better service to their customers.

Like any new technology, however, Caller ID has a negative

side. Sometimes, callers need to withhold the numbers of the

telephones from which they are calling. For this reason, NASUCA

believes that Caller ID should be allowed only if callers have

the option of withholding the transmission of their telephone

numbers for some or all of their calls. Furthermore, NASUCA

believes that customers should not be charged for exercising that

option. Attached to this testimony is a copy of the resolution

of NASUCA reflecting the views of its membership.

Because H.R. 4340 requires telephone companies to provide

their customers with the ability to block the identification of

numbers, NASUCA supports that bill. In addition, NASUCA urges

that the final legislation provide that blocking be offered at no

cost to callers.
37

The Context of the Caller ID Debate

The issue of Caller ID has generated a tremendous amount of

attention around the country. That reaction is understandable,

given the nature of the debate in most states. The arguments on

all sides trigger strong visceral feelings in the listener.

Those opposing Caller ID and those supporting restrictions on the

service are characterized as the friends of obscene phone callers

and callers using telephones to intrude on the peace and quiet of

our homes. Those in favor of unrestricted Caller ID are

characterized as infringing on the constitutional right to

privacy, plus supporting wife beaters, cop killers and anyone

else that could find an evil use for the service.

It is unfortunate that the debate has been so narrowly

focused. The introduction of Caller ID is only one of several

new services now available under the Custom Local Area Signaling

Services package (CLASS). These include Call Block, Priority

Call, Return Call, Call Repeat and Call Trace. These new

services are fundamentally different from existing custom calling

services in that the CLASS services have an impact on those who

do not even subscribe to them. The effect of each service

varies. In some cases, that effect is minimal. In others,

particularly in the case of unrestricted Caller ID, the impact on

all subscribers could be serious.

This brings me to the two principles that should guide

telephone companies implementing Caller ID and the other CLASS

services. First, it is necessary to determine how to take

advantage of the benefits that can be provided by all of the

CLASS services. This can be accomplished by configuring and

pricing the package of CLASS services in a way that is in the

best interest of their customers.

Second, because the CLASS services affect both users and non

users of the service, the nature of basic service will be

changed. Caller ID has the largest impact and therefore provides

the best example. Today, you do not have to reveal the number

from which you are making a telephone call. Some may argue that

you have no right to withhold that number, but the fact remains

that today you do have that ability. Caller ID eliminates that

ability and therefore reduces the value you assign to making

telephone calls. Yet your rates will not fall to compensate you

for that reduction in value. In order to maintain the same level

of service that you have today, you would have to spend

additional money to purchase a second line, or make operator

assisted calls, credit card calls or pay phone calls. So your

choices will be either to pay the same amount of money for a

reduced level of service or to pay more for the same level of

service.

Combining these two principles, telephone companies should

fashion a package of CLASS services that provides the most

benefit to users of the new services and at the same time causes
38

a minimal diminution of the value of basic telephone service to

nonusers.

As described in more detail below, however, many telephone

companies in this country have violated those principles. In

order to enhance their chances of regulatory approval of

unrestricted Caller ID, they have diminished the value of the

other CLASS services. Furthermore, by insisting on unrestricted

Caller ID, they are supporting the form of that service that

causes the greatest harm to nonusers of the service.

Requiring that telephone companies allow blocking with

Caller ID will protect all customers from a serious diminution in

the value of telephone service. Additionally, by taking away the

ability of telephone companies to offer unrestricted Caller ID,

H.R. 4340 will remove much of the incentive to reduce the value

of the other CLASS services.

Disadvantages of Unrestricted Caller ID

The disadvantages of unrestricted Caller ID fall into two

categories. First, there are certain circumstances when callers

need to withhold their telephone numbers. That need is

particularly important given the existence of reverse

directories. Giving out a telephone number is equivalent to

giving out an address. The specific groups that could be

adversely affected by Caller ID include the following:

* Law enforcement personnel

Those engaged in undercover work are concerned that their

operations could be undermined and their own lives and the

lives of their informants endangered if subjects of

investigations discover the telephone numbers of all callers.

* Domestic violence victims

A husband trying to track down a wife who has left the home

may use Caller ID to find her if the woman calls home for any

reason. Those sheltering the woman, usually family or

friends, will be in danger as well as the domestic violence

victim herself. Additionally, it is not uncommon for a woman

still living with an abusing spouse to call a shelter or

organization for advice or help. Callbacks are often

necessary, sometimes by personnel in a shelter, other times by

volunteers calling from their homes. No longer could the

worker or volunteer safely hang up if the husband answered.

Even if the woman answered, Caller ID would allow the husband

to later discover that such a call was received. He could do

so simply by retrieving the numbers of all recently received

calls from the Caller ID equipment. Most Caller ID devices

keep a record of the last 30 to 60 calls.
* Professionals that use hose telephones

Doctors, psychiatrists, social workers, probation officers,

teachers, attorneys or other persons who make business calls

from home may not want to give out their telephone numbers.

In fact, many of these professionals have obtained unlisted

telephone numbers or use answering services to protect their

privacy. Unrestricted Caller ID would eliminate that

protection for these callers and for any other person who

currently has an unlisted telephone number.

* Volunteer counselors that use home telephones

Many crisis centers utilize the services of volunteer

counselors who use their own home telephones to call back

troubled individuals. Those counselors do not want those

individuals calling them at odd hours or, even more

frighteningly, appearing on their doorsteps.

* Hotlines and recipients of tips

Once the public is aware of the existence of Caller ID, people

may hesitate to make calls for help to hotlines and calls with

tips to police, investigative agencies or reporters. Despite

all efforts of such groups to advertise the fact that they do

not have Caller ID on their telephones, people will be

suspicious. Those requiring absolute anonymity will fear that

their identities will be known.

* Minorities and low income individuals

Unrestricted Caller ID will increase the ability of real

estate agents, landlords, taxi cab companies or any business

to engage in redlining. The first three numbers of a

telephone number coincide with the location of the central

office of that customer. In fact, with computerized reverse

directories, businesses could know the exact address of the

caller before their employees pick up the telephone.

Businesses could identify areas of a city that would receive a

different level of service and could do so without even having

to ask any questions of the caller.

The second group of customers who may want to block the

identification of their telephone numbers is composed of those

concerned about their privacy rights. That group should consist

of all of us. As far back as the 1890 Harvard Law Review article

by Louis Brandeis and Charles Warren, it has been recognized that

individuals should have the right to control information about

themselves. Recent federal laws have provided specific

protections against the unauthorized release and dissemination of

personal information. (See: Fair Credit Reporting Act of 1970,

15 U.S.C. sec. 1681 et seg.; Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. sec.

552a; Fair Debt Collection Practices Act of 1977, 15 U.S.C. sec.

1692 et seg.; Right to Financial Privacy Act of 1978, 12 U.S.C.

sec. 3401 et seg.; Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984, 47

U.S.C. sec. 551; Video Privacy Protection Act of 1988, S.Rep.

No. 599, 100th Cong., 2d Sess.) with unrestricted Caller ID,

callers will be forced to reveal the numbers from which they are
40

placing calls. That information can easily be turned into the

name and address of the caller.

Additional problems are caused by the fact that the

telephone number is identified during the silent phase after the

first ring. A number is therefore revealed even if the person

called does not answer the telephone. Also, most Caller ID

equipment stores all of the numbers that have called until that

information is erased. A called party will know exactly how many

times and when a person tried to call. No longer could people

change their minds about completing telephone calls in mid ring.

Failing to speak to an answering machine could bring a rebuke

from the called party.

Caller ID will also increase the number of unsolicited

calls from businesses and telemarketers. Calling a car dealer,

insurance agent or other business for price information could

lead to countless callbacks. Making calls to businesses may also

result in callers being put on telemarketing lists.

Finally, telephone numbers are already a standard entry way

into many database systems that can reveal personal and financial

facts about virtually every American. Being required to always

provide one's telephone number will enlarge the universe of

people with the ability to access those databases. In fact, the

telephone companies may play a major role in disseminating

personal information. Imagine a future world in which a business

can purchase a service that provides it with not only the

telephone number of the customer calling, but also whatever

information the local telephone company deems marketable, such as

address, calling habits and bill payment history. Of course, the

telephone company could supplement its own data base with more

detailed personal information available on the market and sell

that too. It could even buy one or more of the credit reporting

companies and use their data bases. The potential revenues are

unlimited, because this service would be considered competitive

and therefore deregulated by most states.

Of course the sale of such information by the Bell companies

would run up against the restrictions in the Modified Final

Judgment against the provision of information content services.

Therefore, the Bell companies would have to obtain a waiver or

await the day when those restrictions are lifted. Once they have

the right to provide information services, all they have to do is

comply with the Fair Credit Reporting Act of 1970, 15 U.S.C. Sec.

1681 et seq., and any cost accounting on separate subsidiary

requirements imposed by the FCC or the states. The latter

requirements are obviously affected by the recent 9th Circuit

reversal of the Computer III rules.

In summary, those that wish to hold on to information about

themselves, such as their telephone number, do not necessarily

have something to hide. They are simply exercising the right of

privacy.
41

Caller ID Block

Technology exists that will minimize most of the concerns

discussed above. The computer software that enables the

introduction of Caller ID allows a telephone company to offer

customers the option of blocking the transmission of their

telephone numbers. Callers wishing to activate the blocking

mechanism on a particular call would dial three digits prior to

making the call. Because this "per call" blocking is already

contained in the Caller ID software, and because the customer

does all of the work, there is virtually no cost to the telephone

company. Alternatively, a customer could request that his or her

local telephone company block all calls made on a particular

line. In this case, the company would experience a small, one

time cost of programing the local switch to block calls on that

line.

When callers activate the blocking function, persons with

Caller ID would see a "P" or "private" on their screens. Persons

receiving numberless calls could decide not'to answer their

telephones, let answering machines handle such calls or answer

their telephones and be ready to deal with callers who will not

reveal their telephone numbers.

Those opposing the utilization of the blocking ability of

the Caller ID software argue that blocking reduces the value of

the service. To some extent, that is true, because individuals

with Caller ID would occasionally see a "P" on their screens

instead of a telephone number. The issue is whether or not the

reduction in value is a price worth paying to protect the various

privacy interests discussed above. In most circumstances, the

reduction in value Is minimal. One does not have to answer the

telephone if callers insist on blocking their numbers.

Is is fair to reduce the value of Caller ID by allowing the

use of Caller ID Block? It is when one considers the relative

number of persons harmed. Only a small number of residential

customers will want to pay $60 or more for the Caller ID

equipment and $6 or $7 per month for the service. Unrestricted

Caller ID therefore forces the vast majority of people to give

their telephone numbers to the few customers who purchase the

service. For example, Caller ID has been available for more than

two years in the state of New Jersey. Yet only 2.4 percent of

the residential customers in areas where Caller ID is available

had purchased the service as of April, 1990.

In the State of New York, Rochester Telephone Corporation

could not even give Caller ID away. As part of an experiment

approved by the New York Public Service Commission, that company

had offered 500 free Caller ID units and no monthly charge to the

10,000 customers in one of its exchanges on a first come, first

served basis. The most recent data, which covers the first 15

weeks of the experiment, shows that only 393 customers took the

free Caller ID service.
42

The American public agrees that restrictions on Caller ID

are necessary in order to protect privacy rights. Numerous

studies performed by the telephone companies themselves show that

just as many people are concerned about the privacy intrusions

caused by Caller ID as find the service to be valuable. In fact,

in a recent Harris poll, 48 percent of the respondents indicated

that Caller ID should be permitted only with blocking, and 27

percent of the respondents indicated that the service should not

be allowed at all. Only 23 percent of the respondents thought

that the service should be offered with no restrictions.

The Rochester Telephone Corporation experiment confirms

these survey results. In addition to offering free Caller ID

service, that company offered free per line blocking and per call

blocking to all customers in the exchange. After the first 15

weeks of the experiment, 551 customers had requested per line

blocking. Therefore, the number of people who wanted to block

the identification all of their calls exceeded the number of

people willing to take Caller ID for free.

Abusive Telephone Calls

The telephone companies' most appealing argument against

blocking is that it would eliminate the ability of Caller ID to

stop abusive calls. Presumably, those callers would block the

release of their telephone numbers. There are other new

services, however, that are more effective in dealing with these

callers and that are not affected by the existence of

Caller ID blocking. As mentioned above, the technology that

allows Caller ID also enables the telephone companies to offer a

series of services generically known as "CLASS" services. All of

these new services work even if callers block the identification

of their telephone numbers. Among these new services are the

following:

* Call Block allows a customer to designate telephone

numbers that will not be allowed to complete a call on that

telephone. The caller receives a message that the called

telephone is not currently taking calls. This function can

be activated by dialing in the numbers of the calls to be

screened or by dialing a three number code to screen the

number of the most recently received call. This service can

therefore be used even if the recipient of a call does not

know the number of the person that just called.

* Priority Call allows a customer to designate telephone

numbers that will activate a distinctive ringing pattern.

One can assign a distinctive ring to a known number or to

the most recently received call.

* Return Call allows the customer to dial the number of

the most recently received call. As with Call Block and
43

Priority Call, the customer need not know the number of

the caller. He or she need only dial three digits after

hanging up.

* Call Trace allows the telephone company to automatically

trace a call when a customer dials a three number code after

hanging up. The telephone company can retrieve that number

and report it to the police.

A person that receives an abusive telephone <Jall can simply

activate Call Block. When the caller tries again, he or she gets

a message. The recipient's telephone never rings. Compare the

effectiveness of that action with watching the number of what you

know is that obscene caller flashing on the Caller ID equipment

at 2:00 AM.

If the abusive caller makes calls from different telephones,

thus avoiding Call Block, one could use Priority Call to identify

the calls that will be taken. Of course, one could also get

Caller ID and only answer calls displaying numbers that are

known. A more aggressive form of self help would be to activate

Return Call and tell the abusive caller not to call again.

Recipients of abusive calls who wish to involve the

telephone company or the police can activate Call Trace. The

telephone company obtains a computer record of the calling

party's number and time of the call. The telephone company could

even run a search of its trace activity and identify particularly

frequent abusive callers. The telephone company can then deal

with the caller or turn the information over to the appropriate

authorities. Because the information is a business record, it is

admissible in court proceedings. Simply advertising the

existence of Call Trace will reduce the number of abusive

telephone calls. Such callers would be afraid that a single call

could generate a trace and a report to the police.

As already mentioned, these CLASS services would even

function against calls in which the caller activates Caller ID

blocking. Therefore, passage of H.R. 4340 would not affect the

utility of these other CLASS services.

These other CLASS services have a major advantage over

Caller ID•cost. Unlike Caller ID, customers need not pay

monthly charges in order to use the other CLASS services.

Therefore, those receiving few abusive calls need not pay

expensive monthly charges for a service they rarely need. For

example, Pennsylvania Bell charges customers one dollar for each

use of Call Trace and S.25 for each use of Return Call. That

company also charges customers S-50 for each day that they use

Call Block or Priority Call.

In summary, there are three ways that the other CLASS

services are more effective than Caller ID in deterring abusive

telephone calls. (1) Customers can take the same actions they
44

would have taken with Caller ID: call the abusive caller back

and tell him or her to desist (Return Call), screen wanted or

unwanted calls (Priority Call), or make a complaint to the

telephone company or police (Call Trace). Additionally, they can

do something Caller 10 will not do: stop the abusive caller from

getting through again (Call Block). (2) Because the CLASS

technology allows the companies to bill customers on a per use

basis, these services are more cost effective than Caller 10.

(3) Because the other CLASS services do not provide the customer

with the number of the abusive caller, they prevent the vigilante

Justice that may result when a Caller ID customer uses a reverse

directory to find the residence of an abusive caller.

Emergency Providers

Another argument against Caller ID blocking is that it may

prevent emergency providers such as fire departments, police or

ambulance services from locating a caller who fails to provide an

address before hanging up. In fact, the telephone companies cite

examples of emergency providers that have used Caller ID to call

a person back and get needed information, or used a reverse

directory to locate an address. The result in each of these

cases, however, would have been exactly the same if H.R. 4340 had

been in effect. First, common sense should tell us that callers

will not dial the three digit blocking code prior to dialing an

emergency number. Second, it is not possible to block a call to

a 911 number. Therefore, most, if not all, calls to emergency

providers will show a telephone number. Third, in the few

instances when a caller blocks the identification of his or her

number to a non-911 emergency number, the emergency provider can

activate Return Call and get the person on the line again or

activate Call Trace and obtain the number from the telephone

company.

The Reduction in Value of the Non-Caller ID CLASS Services

Many telephone companies in this country have attempted to

enhance their chances of obtaining regulatory approval of

unrestricted Caller ID and increase their Caller ID revenues by

limiting the attractiveness of the other CLASS services. In some

states, that effort takes the form of refusing to even offer some

of the CLASS services. For example, Ohio Bell has proposed

Caller ID but has not proposed Call Trace or Call Block. Think

about it. Here are two services that can provide tremendous

social benefit. Bomb threats and abusive phone calls can be

traced by anyone with the presence of mind to press three digits

after hanging up. Obscene callers can be stopped dead in their

tracks with Call Block. Yet in Ohio, the telephone company is

withholding these services from its customers just so Caller ID

will look better.
45

In other states, the telephone companies are a bit more

subtle, using pricing as a discouragement. For example,

customers may find infrequent uses for Priority Call and Call

Block. They will be discouraged from using those services if

they must subscribe to them and pay a monthly fee. The CLASS

software was written to take these customers' needs into account.

It allows telephone companies to bill on a per use basis as well

as on a monthly basis. For example, as mentioned above,

Pennsylvania Bell customers can pay either a monthly fee for each

service or fifty cents per day of activation of each service.

That is a valuable option if you can envision only a rare use of

either service. Most telephone companies, however, have not

taken advantage of that feature of the CLASS software. They only

offer these services on a monthly charge basis.

Another example of the same tactic is the pricing scheme of

the Southern Bell Companies, which charge their customers a

monthly fee for the right to use Call Trace. Similarly, General

Telephone Company in Indiana has proposed that it charge

customers five dollars per month for the right to use Call Trace.

The pricing of both companies makes Call Trace far less

attractive than it is in other states, where the telephone

companies charge one to five dollars per activation, without any

requirement of monthly subscription.

Finally, most telephone companies reduce the value of the

non-Caller ID CLASS services by intentionally reducing their

capabilities. For example, most companies limit to less than ten

the number of telephone numbers that generate a distinctive ring

or that can be screened. They have taken that action even though

the CLASS software allows thirty-one numbers to be designated for

a distinctive ring or to be screened. There is no cost

justification for that limitation.

That brings me back to the first principle that should guide

telephone companies introducing Caller ID and the other CLASS

services: they should maximize the benefits that can be provided

by all of the CLASS services. They can accomplish that goal by

offering all of the CLASS services; pricing them on a per use as

well as on a per call basis; and not artificially limiting the

capability of the CLASS services. None of the telephone

companies opposing H.R. 4340, however, have taken those steps.

Although they claim that they oppose blocking because they wish

to protect their customers, in reality, they have harmed their

customers by withholding the full benefits of the other CLASS

services in a crass attempt to make Caller ID more attractive.

Solutions Offered by Telephone Companies

Many telephone companies, such as Centel and all of the Bell

Operating Companies west of the Mississippi River, plan to offer

their customers the ability to block the identification of their

telephone numbers. Other telephone companies in this country,

10
46

however, oppose giving their customers the option of blocking.

Instead, they suggest that their customers avoid the

identification of their numbers by making calls through

operators, using credit cards or cellular telephones, making

calls using pay telephones or getting additional lines that are

used for outgoing calls only. Two of these solutions are short

term. Caller ID may soon allow users to identify the numbers of

- calls made using credit cards or cellular telephones. All of

these solutions will result in extra costs to the customers and

sometimes insurmountable inconvenience. These telephone

companies are, in essence, changing the nature of basic service

for all of their customers. In the past, callers were able to

maintain the confidentiality of their telephone numbers without

taking any steps or paying any extra money. With unrestricted

Caller ID, however, customers face the choice of having a lower

level of service (i.e., no confidentiality) or paying more for

the same level of service.

This subcommittee will doubtless hear that the telephone

companies are attempting to address the most compelling concerns

with unrestricted Caller ID•its effect on law enforcement and on

domestic violence victims. These attempts include offering law

enforcement groups and domestic violence agencies special

services, such as remote lines, unpublished outgoing only lines

or blocking on selected lines. None of these solutions recognize

the day-to-day realities of work in law enforcement or in the

domestic violence field.

For example, providing special services to law enforcement

personnel will not help informants who are afraid to reveal their

locations to drug dealers, organized crime members or other

subjects of investigations. Law enforcement personnel using

these special services could also be endangered. Because some

undercover officers are working on several investigations at

once, they will need to keep track of the lines associated with

each investigation. If a mistake is made, an officer could die.

Also, numerous special lines or remote lines will be necessary to

avoid compromising an investigation when separate targets of

investigations discover they are dealing with someone using the

same telephone number. Budget strapped law enforcement agencies

cannot afford the additional costs of maintaining a sufficient

number of lines. For these reasons, law enforcement groups

across the country.have supported the availability of blocking

for all customers. The essence of undercover work is the ability

to blend in with society. With the umbrella of protection

afforded by universally available blocking, persons working in

law enforcement could safely block the identification of their

numbers by the subjects of investigations.

Similarly, providing domestic violence shelters with

outgoing only lines or free blocking will not assist the vast

majority of abused women who rely upon friends and relatives for

shelter and assistance. Adoption of these solutions will also

fail to assist the volunteers who make calls from their own homes

11
47

with counseling and advice to women still living with their

husbands.

Finally, any solution that is directed at selected groups

creates more problems than it solves. It is repugnant to think

that persons or groups with concerns about Caller ID must

approach their telephone company or regulatory commission for

special treatment, such as the ability to block or the right to

discounted outgoing only lines. Who will decide which ones merit

special treatment? What criteria will they use? Will those

criteria implicitly or explicitly include the social desirability

of the activities of the individual or group, their ability to

obtain public sympathy if denied, or their political influence?

All of these issues are raised once it is determined that only

those that "deserve" privacy should get it.

The Need for Federal Legislation

The Privacy Act of 1990 is needed for several reasons.

First, any form of Caller ID, even one with per call blocking,

may violate Section 3121 of title 18 of the United States Code.

The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania has ruled that a provision

of that state's wiretap law, which is almost identical to Section

3121, prohibits both unrestricted Caller ID and Caller ID with

per call blocking. Modification is needed to resolve the

ambiquity of the legality of Caller ID. That modification should

include the per call blocking restriction contained in H.R. 4340.

Second, the right of privacy, infringed upon by Caller ID,

arises from the United States Constitution. It is therefore

appropriate that all citizens in this country be provided the

same minimum degree of protection that would be given by federal

legislation. States would then be free to impose even greater

restrictions on the service based on state law and public policy

considerations.

Charges for Blocking

Customers should be able to block the identification of

their telephone numbers for free. First, there is virtually no

cost to the telephone company when customers activate per call

blocking and only a small cost when they request that all calls

on their lines be blocked. Second, customers who block are

simply maintaining the same level of service and degree of

privacy that they have always had. They should not be required

to pay extra to maintain those levels of service and privacy.

12
48

Conclusion

The National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates

and the Office of Public Counsel of the State of Illinois believe

that Caller ID should be offered only if all customers have the

option of blocking the identification of their telephone numbers

at least on a per call basis and without charge. Allowing

blocking will result in only a minor diminution in the value of

Caller ID. That diminution is a small price to pay for the

maintenance of the basic right of privacy of being able to

control the disclosure of information about oneself and the

protection of countless persons who could be harmed by

unrestricted Caller ID.

September 19, 1990

Respectfully submitted,

The National Association of State

Utility Consumer Advocates and the

Office of Public Counsel of the

State of Illinois

Illinois

National Association of

State Utility Consumer Advocates

1101 14th Street, N.W., Suite 808

Washington D.C. 20005

(202) 727-3908

Office of Public Counsel of the

State of Illinois

100 w. Randolph Street, Suite 11-300

Chicago, Illinois 60601

(312) 814-3903

13
49

1989-15

THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE UTILITY CONSUMER ADVOCATES

RESOLUTION

Resolving That Calling Number Identification Services

Should Only Be Offered If A Caller -ID

Blocking Mechanism Is Offered At Tha Sama Tina

WHEREAS, Telecommunications Companies ace offering ot ace planning

to offer services which will display on sepacately

purchased Customer Premises Equipment the telephone

number of tha calling party before a call is answered;

and

WHEREAS. Such services, ot which CallerMD is the most prevalent,

while providing benefits to people receiving calls and to

emergency service providers, also pose threats to those

making calls: and

WHEREAS. Calling number delivery services which do not offer the

ability to the caller to block the transmission of his or

her phone number when a call is made ("unblockable

calling number delivery services") would create a threat

to individual* subject to domestic violence by providing

a means for abusers to track them down or to locate

shelters and harass shelter workers: and

WHEREAS. Unblockable calling number delivery services pose threats

to crisis hotlines for suicide, drugs, alcohol, mental

illness and the like by threatening a caller's ability to

make calls without betraying his or her anonymity: and

WHEREAS, Unblockable calling number delivery services pose threats

to law enforcement by threatening their ability to

conduct undercover activities as well as by reducing the

chances that citizens will report crimes or "tips" if

their anonymity is not assured: and

WHEREAS, Unblockable calling number delivery aervices create

inconvenience and hardship for doctors, psychiatriats.

social service workers, lawyers, newspaper reporters,

teachers and others who return or make calls from their

homes but who ordinarily do not give out their private

telephone number; and

WHEREAS. The state of California has enacted a law which requires

that if a calling number delivery service is offered in

that state, it must be accompanied by a means to block

the display of a phone number on Individual calls at no

charge to the caller; and

WHEREAS. Telephone company-sponsored marketing studies Indicate

that just ii many people are concerned about the privacy

intrusions caused by calling number delivery services as

find the service valuable; and
50

WHEREAS. The telecommunications system which makes possible the

CLASS fully of services, of which Caller-ID is one. is

already designed and programmed to provide Caller-ID

Blocking, so that no extra cost or delay would be caused

by ordering a Caller-ID blocking ability: and

WHEREAS. Other CLASS services, such as Call-Trace, Call-Bloc* and

Call-Return have been found by customers to be just as

effective In responding to annoying or obscene calls and

these services still would be available to a Caller-ID

customer if he or she received an abusive call from

someone who had chosen to block his or her phone number

from being displayed on the Caller'ID screen.

THEREFORE. BE IT RESOLVED by the National Association of State

Utility Consumer Advocates that if calling number

delivery services are to be permitted to be offered to

the public, such services must be offered with a

mechanism which allows customers to block the

transmission of their phone number at least on a par-call

basis and at no additional charge to the caller.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the National Association of State

Utility Consumer Advocates authorizes its Executive

Committee to develop specific positions consistent with

the terms of this resolution on a legislative bill,

regulation, or any other type of proposal which concerns

the subject of the resolution including the preparation

of policy papers and communications reflecting NASUCA's

position to the United States Congress. The Executive

Committee shall advise the membership of any other

proposed actions prior to taking the action. If

possible. In any event, the Executive Committee shall

notify the membership of any action taken under this

provision.

Approved by NASUCA:

Boston. Massachusetts

Place

Favorably Reported By:

NASUCA Telecommunications

Committee

November 6. 1989

Date

Committee Members:

November 12. 1989

Date

Jack C. Shreve (FL). Chairman

Robert Johnson (IN)

Fred Hoover (MD)

Phil Shapiro (NY)

Dan Clear:leld (PA)

Ron Binz (CO)

David Conn (IA)

Bruce Weston (OH)

Nick Singh Gumer (DC)

Doug Brooks (AZ)
51

Mr. KASTKNMEIER. Let me see if I understand your positions. Mr.

Poat, you basically support Caller ID, and also blocking technology;

is that correct?

Mr. POAT. That's correct.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. Your position is at this time that no Federal

legislation is required, however?

Mr. POAT. That's correct.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. What would your comments be on the concerns of some, notwithstanding the efforts of local utility commissions and others, that we're going to run the risk of having a

patchwork of laws, where some Caller ID systems will not be fully

effective anywhere, and some States will have blocking and others

will not? That ultimately there will just be a patchwork of technologies and no consistent technology nationwide. Does that not concern you at all?

Mr. POAT. The concern you express, Congressman, is certainly a

very appropriate one. At this time, however, we would note that

Caller ID is a service which cannot transcend State lines. It is restricted to local telephone calls at this time. So even the availability of call blocking on a local basis would have no long-distance

effect, if I may use that term.

Second, the Federal Communications Commission has demonstrated interest in this matter and will be addressing the issue of

uniformity. .

Finally, I would note that most telephone customers, as was recently pointed out, are going to be receiving the option of Call

Blocking voluntarily. The providers of telephone services, certainly

to most of the larger States•California and New York amongst

them•have decided to offer voluntary Call Blocking. If at some

time, through the FCC investigation, or once long-distance identification is possible, the need for uniform national legislation becomes clear, there is no reason why we wouldn't be in a position to

reconsider the position which we have expressed today.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. DO you have any notion of whether some sort

of long-distance technology across State lines is in the offing?

Mr. POAT. It is in the offing, Mr. Chairman. It is my understanding it will be available some time•I'm informed that AT&T will

begin rolling out the capability for that service in 1992.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. I'm glad to have your comment on that because I suggest that we need to think prospectively about the implications of all of this before, like Topsy, technology grows and

then we have an incompatible system developed which we can't

very well sort out without great economic damage to some systems.

That is why, while this Congress may not be doing anything this

year on the subject, I would think the next Congress should look

very seriously at the issue.

We also have, as you know, a series of lawsuits going on, which

suggests that we can't walk away from it. We may have to make

judgments about whether the Electronic Communications Privacy

Act does or does not find Caller ID offensive in some respects, and

if that is the case, clearly we're going to have to legislate.

Mr. POAT. Mr. Chairman, your desire to exercise leadership on

this issue is certainly commensurate with your role as chairman of

this subcommittee. I would note simply that the Federal Communi-
52

cations Commission is looking at the issue and State courts are

looking at the issue. Bell of Pennsylvania is appealing the decision

in Pennsylvania. I would hope that as the Congress resolves the

other issues which it has before it in the next several months, and

when they reconvene in the next session, that some of these questions would have been resolved and perhaps we'll have a little bit

better understanding as to the need for Federal legislation at that

time.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. One last question, Mr. Poat. Your statement

that you filed with the committee, which we have before us, does

not mention any position on the part of the administration, but I

think orally you indicated opposition to the legislation, which you

have every right to do. My question is, is this a change in position

or is this a recent position of the administration with respect to

this legislation?

Mr. POAT. No, Mr. Chairman. As a matter of fact, our written

testimony reflects almost verbatim the testimony which we had delivered to a similar hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee 1

month ago and discussed within the administration at least since

May.

I would appreciate the opportunity to clarify this point. I think

the issue that is being raised here has to do with usage of the word

"opposed" at this time. I would emphasize•I believe it's somewhere in the written statement and I can't pinpoint it exactly at

this time•we indicated that at this time we do not view that there

exists a need for Federal legislation. I would direct your attention

to page 3 of the written statement.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. I think you said at the outset "Let me make

clear I am not calling for Federal laws at present." On the other

hand, I thought your oral statement was more explicitly in opposition to the pending legislation.

Mr. POAT. I think, since this written testimony is conclusive, I

would note simply that it is a question of nuance, and there's no

question that nuance is important within any written or verbal

statement.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. Let me restate it. It is clear at this point in

time that you prefer to let the FCC take a look at this. You are not

supporting legislation such as this now; is that correct?

Mr. POAT. That's well phrased.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. Mr. Moore, your position is that you support

Caller ID, but you support it with the option of a blocking device in

every jurisdiction. That is to say, universally, you believe a blocking device should be available in the United States?

Mr. MOORE. Yes. In fact, to be more precise, NASUCA members

believe that, at a minimum, there should be per call blocking,

which will be available across the country. In addition, there are

other mechanisms of blocking•for example, per line blocking and

default blocking. Under default blocking, everybody starts out

blocked, and in order to participate in Caller ID, one would have to

take an affirmative step of either contacting the phone company

and asking to unblock your line, or activating per call unblocking,

which is also technologically possible by just dialing three digits.

That's a matter that we do understand is beyond the purview of

this legislation, but some NASUCA members will be advocating
53

those measures before the States based on either State law or just

simply public policy. But on a nationwide level, it should be at

least per call.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. Let me ask you both, do you see any new technology on the horizon affecting telephone technology, in receiving

calls or whatever, that should cause us to think ahead and perhaps

to anticipate some other problems or some other technology questions that may arise affecting Caller ID? Or something else which

affects the nature of calls? Do you see any other technology that

maybe we ought to be looking at in terms of its possible future

impact?

Mr. MOORE. I can start first.

There have been tests out in the west, in North Dakota, of a

service that would actually provide a name instead of the phone

number of a person. The person would actually be able to select the

name that would be going out when they make phone calls. Now,

that's a service that is much more useful to residential customers. I

mean, right now, if you see a phone number flashing on your

Caller ID, and you have 3 or 4 seconds to decide whether or not to

answer it, unless you have a pretty good memory for phone numbers, that's not going to be a particularly useful service to you.

However, if you have names that are actually coming across and

people are giving you the name of•for example, up to 20 letters of

the person making the phone call•that's a service that's useful to

residential customers and also doesn't contain some of the problems that Caller ID has.

I could call a business, and all they would know is that Steve

Moore is calling. They don't have my phone number and they can't

call me back. They can't put my phone number on a telemarketer's

list or on some database. So that has some advantages over Caller

ID that, if phone companies are truly interested in providing a

service to residential customers, they would provide.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. On the other side of the coin, it is also a little

more sensitive information with respect to the privacy of the caller,

right?

Mr. MOORE. It may be. In fact, I would advocate there also be per

call blocking for the name identification. So that's one technology

out there. There are other things that I wouldn't call technologies

but "events," which I just mentioned in my oral statement, the restrictions in the MFJ may eventually be lifted•restrictions on the

manufacturing of equipment and, more importantly, on the provision of information content services.

Allowing phone companies to provide information content along

with Caller ID, which gives them a vehicle to send information to

businesses that want to buy that information, unleashes all sorts of

problems. I can certainly see not much public outcry if they start

sending along the name and address. But if they start sending anything that they could buy in a computer data bank from a credit

card bureau, we may be seeing some more Federal legislation down

the road on that kind of provision of services.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. Thank you.

Mr. POAT. Mr. Chairman, I would very much associate myself

with those remarks with respect to the marketing use. I think new

technologies are being developed to enable the individual telephone
54

user to utilize the telephone in new ways. There's no question but

that the telephone may in the near future be, along with your television, the means by which you conduct many transactions, which

are somewhat sensitive, including banking information, mortgages,

or you may be ordering prescriptions and things of that nature.

I would like to deliver to your staff for the record an article from

the Newsbytes service which talks about hundreds of small phone

companies that are preparing to follow major firms by compiling

dossiers on their customers which can be sold to industry. As the

telephone becomes a mechanism by which we transact more business, it is simply clear that, without some sort of ability on the

part of the consumer to control that information, there could be a

huge market out there for information about them being sold without their consent.

[The article referred to above follows:]
55

IKAU FBOHE COMPANIES GET KM? TOR CALLER ID

ATLANTA, CEORCIA, U.S.A., 1990 APR It (KB) .. Hundreds Of until

phone companies around the country an preparing to follow major

firm in compiling dossiers on thair euatomera which can be aoldto industry;

At • praaa conference during tha SuperComm ahow, tit Xndapandant

Telecommunication* Betwork, a conaortiun of indapandant phono

firms, annouocad It has atartad offaring ita own TelCard calling

card and will aoon begin collecting databaaai of Cellar ID »

information for aach local firm baaad on a cantral fila. 'We've

east out contracta to 1,000 indioe in the laet 3 weeka, and ovar

130 companiaa aignad up already,• aaid spokesman Dan Hoffat. The

databaaa will include both credit card data created through use

of the TelCard and what'a called M7 data, liata of who'e making •

calls to where collected through Signaling System 7"technology'

which la at the heart of Caller X0.' -;•-•• •

Ray Donnelley, vice president of marketing end ealaa for ITU.

aaid...(concerning Telcard induatry usage)

In responae to questions from Bewsbytos, Donnelly confined that

the small independents, like their larger brethren, are opposed

to the idea that those with unlisted nunbere should have their

numbers blocked eo that merchants can't collect then. •The

feeling ie that when you call aemeone else you don't have a right

to privacy,* ba aaid. Hoffat added, however, that the databases

are purely a defensive move. *jf you look at our product

legietration materials fox the Regional Bell companies, they ask

a.lot of things about yen, like your income and kids. They're

positioning themselves* to xe-sell this data "and we'd like the

Independents to bo positioned for that ea well.*"-

(Dana Blankenhorn/Bowebyteai Press Contact! Dan Hoffat, TIB, M541-9200)

((c) BEWSBITES on CEnle online service • reprinted with limited

permission]

BEWSBTTES Beve Network is the largest independent computer industry news)

service in the world, published continuously since Kay,}

1M3J

BSU8BTTES bee 4 U.B. and 7 international bureaus in London, Brussels, Toronto,";

Tokyo, Hong Kong, Moscow; end Sydney, Australia, ' '

devoted to gathering the most significant microcomputer and consumer technology*

news. HEWSBYTES news stories ere republished by

some 74 megaiines, newspapere, news sources, end online systems worldwide.

HEWSBYTES has selected CEnie es the 'official- network for communication

between all its worldwide bureaus. Bach issue's etories

are transmitted from each bureau around tha world to tha editor in chief in San

Francisco, California and tha managing editors in

Los Angeles and Toronto.

HEWSBYTES was honored es one of the few publications in the history of the

Computer Press Association awards to win twice, once in

1906, end once in 1990, both in the 'Beet Online Publication* category.
56

Mr. POAT. There's nothing sinister about the fact that that

market exists. It may well help people serve customers better. But

the fact of the matter is that consumers should have some ability

to control information about themselves.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. Thank you.

The gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. HUGHES. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It is a very,

very interesting subject. I just have a few questions. I know that

time is of the essence and we're going to have a series of votes very

shortly.

Do I, as a customer, have a right to privacy in my own home,

barred against calls I don't want to take?

Mr. POAT. In my view, Congressman, you do. I think that right is

enhanced by caller identification. The test marketing instances

that we are aware of so far•New Jersey, Pacific Bell out west as

an example, the Canadian Government

Mr. HUGHES. Let me follow up on that, then.

Mr. POAT. It's simply that people don't block their phone numbers in most instances, so I think the notion that people are going

to block every call simply because they have the ability to do so

would not be a fair representation.

Mr. HUGHES. But if you permit a caller to be able to block that,

they deny you the right to make a decision as to whether you want

to take the call. Frankly, I don't know what's accomplished. The

moving party is the person that places the call. I don't know about

you, but I'm taking more and more calls that I would rather not

take, where they randomly select telephone numbers. I'm getting

them in my campaign now, from organizations that use a recorded

message. They get through and have a very sophisticated technique

for selecting and targeting at this point. So the frequency of unwanted calls is increasing.

Why in the world would I want to give somebody the right to

deny my right to privacy by giving them the right to block the

caller identification? If I were an obscene caller, I would have a

blocking mechanism on my phone. If I were somebody trying to

harass, as often happens, I would have such a blocking mechanism.

Why give somebody the right to do that? What is the right to privacy that an individual who is initiating the call has that overrides

my right to be secure in my home from such calls? I don't understand that principle. Have I lost something here?

Mr. MOORE. Well, the right of privacy, which really goes back to

the late 1800's, in an article by Justice Brandeis, has two components. It's the right to be left alone, and it's also the right not to

give out information about yourself. That's what we're talking

about here. Those are two conflicting rights.

Mr. HUGHES. I understand that, but the individual who is initiating the call is the one invading my privacy. There is a presupposition that he's to be accountable for that.

Mr. MOORE. Well, in the case of an individual calling you, if they

block, you've got the right to say "I'm not answering the phone.

Anybody that blocks and calls me isn't going to get me." That is a

right that you have with Caller ID. Therefore, even with blocking,

it gives you far more information than if you do not have Caller

ID.
57

Mr. HUGHES. Then I give up my right to have a telephone now.

The way I can protect myself against harassing telephone calls, or

other telephone calls I don't want to take, is to not answer my telephone. Is that what you're saying?

Mr. MOORE. Well, let me give you some numbers. In Rochester,

NY, there was a test recently, and over a roughly 4-month period

they had Caller ID with blocking. By the end of that period, there

were approximately 100,000 calls per week being made. Of those

100,000, 10 were being blocked on a per call basis. Those are the

kind of numbers that we're talking about here. So if you happen to

be getting all 10, I can sympathize with you. But the fact is few

people are going to be taking advantage of the per call blocking.

Mr. HUGHES. I do know this. The answer to harassing calls is not

getting the police involved. I mean, I've gone that route. I served

for 10 years before I came here in law enforcement. I took my

share of harassing and obscene telephone calls. Attempting to get

the police, who were already overburdened, to be able to engage in

that activity, when they're overwhelmed with pursuing criminal investigations, you know, is kind of naive. They don't have the resources to do that.

So how do I protect myself? Wouldn't you agree that, if you were

an obscene telephone caller, the first thing you would do would be

to get a blocking device?

Mr. MOORE. The first thing I would do is to be very careful about

my initial conversation and find out if the person has Caller ID. If

they don't, then I make my obscene comments. If they have Caller

ID, I'm careful.

The fact is that any customer in this country should be able to

trace an obscene phone call and send it to the police; any customer

in this country should also be able to hang up, dial three digits,

and confront that person and say "Don't make that phone call

again." Maybe if they get lucky they may actually get the guy's

wife.

Mr. HUGHES. Have you ever been in a position where you have

attempted to get a law enforcement agency to follow up on a report

from the telephone company?

Mr. MOORE. Oh, I know it's extremely difficult.

Mr. HUGHES. I have. I have.

Mr. MOORE. What is Caller ID going to do, though?

Mr. HUGHES. I was in law enforcement and had somewhat of a

problem.

Mr. MOORE. But what does one do with Caller ID? I mean, if you

get a phone number that you don't recognize, and you pick it up

and it s an obscene phone call. With Caller ID, perhaps the next

time they call you can recognize that number and not answer it.

But if you instead activate Call Block, they can't even get through.

They're going to get a message saying this phone isn't taking any

messages any more. If you have Call Return, you can return the

call to them and say stop it. Or, you can simply trace it. Those are

all the same things Caller ID does, plus more. So having blocking

doesn't stop people's ability to react to obscene phone calls. There

is a whole range of techniques that they can use if the companies

would offer them. The problem is they aren't.
58

Mr. HUGHES. But I don't understand the principle involved,

giving somebody who is basically making those unwanted calls the

right to deny you the right to find out who it is, whoever is initiating the call.

Mr. MOORE. What are you going to do with that information,

though? How can I deal with that information? The steps I would

take with Caller ID, if I've got a number, are: I cannot answer the

phone the next time they call; I can send it off to the police and

have them throw it in the garbage can; I can call them back and

tell them not to call. Those are all things I can do with the other

CLASS services.

Mr. HUGHES. But the call might be from your son who has run

out of money at college.

Mr. MOORE. That's right. With Caller ID, you'll take that call.

Mr. POAT. Congressman Hughes, I think the important point

here is that most callers have no reason to block their number. For

example, your son calling you. If you think of the everyday telephone usage which most people have, it's calling their spouses,

their children, their parents, the local pizza parlor, whatever. In

each of those instances, there is no incentive to block your call. If a

direct marketer or someone of that nature is trying to call you at 6

o'clock, whether you see their number, which is going to be unfamiliar to you, appear on the display, or you see a blank box, really

I think the information that you receive as the recipient of the call

is basically the same. Someone with whom I am unfamiliar is attempting to contact me at this point. You would respond by simply

deciding whether or not you wish to speak to someone at that

point, the identity of which you don't know.

Mr. HUGHES. Would you give whatever agency regulates this

area the ability to determine whether or not some individuals, like

direct marketers, have that right to block? Would you start to discriminate as to who can block and who can't block?

Mr. POAT. We would prefer that the public utility commissions

have overall oversight. We believe that rate and service decision

are appropriate at that level.

Mr. HUGHES. AS a matter of principle, do you give somebody the

right to make that determination as to who should block and who

shouldn't block?

Mr. POAT. The individual determination?

Mr. HUGHES. Yeah.

Mr. POAT. Yes. As I said before, the information that the recipient of the call has, whether it's an unfamiliar telephone number on

the display, or a blocked display, that information is essentially the

same; that is, there's an unidentified quantity trying to reach me,

as opposed to my son or daughter trying to reach me to get money,

or your next door neighbor or whatever. So the information that's

being transmitted to the call recipient is basically the same in

either instance.

If I may also note one other thing•your point about law enforcement is an important one. I think it needs to be weighed. I would

also point out that the police chiefs of Ohio, as well as the Drug

Enforcement Administration in Florida, have answered as parties

in favor of some sort of call blocking mechanism so as to protect

their undercover operations as well. So I think the point you raise
59

is a good one, but equally, we also have to recognize that call identification has some important implications for law enforcement

generally.

Mr. HUGHES. Well, you know•Mr. Chairman, my time is up. But

in balancing the constitutional rights of privacy, I believe that I

have an overriding right to be secure in my home to protect

myself.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. I thank my colleague.

The gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Coble.

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Moore, I'm going to extend a little bit what the gentleman

from New Jersey commented about. In your testimony you talked

about the protection that Call Trace would provide to a consumer,

but is it not true that generally, before law enforcement officials

will become at least actively involved, would the complainant not

be required to prove that a pattern or a common practice had occurred as opposed to an isolated event, and furthermore, in many

instances, do now law enforcement officials require a complainant

or a victim to agree to prosecute before they will pursue this

effort?

Mr. MOORE. That certainly is the practice of many law enforcement agencies, and partly it is because of the nature of the difficulty of the traditional trap and trace, which required a set up of a

line which would record everything single phone call and the

period of time of all of those calls, a comparison of those would be

made with a listing of phone calls that the customer would have to

keep, which would identify which were the ones that were obscene.

But prior to providing that kind of a service, there has certainly

been a requirement that there be a serious problem.

I should point out, however, that with Caller ID, to the extent

that one wants to involve law enforcement, you would have to contact them and say I read on my Caller ID box and this is the

number. With the Call Trace, it's a business record in the computers of the phone company, admissible at trial. No one can contest

the fact that you misread it, or no one can contest the fact that

you're not too sure if that was the exact time of the call. It's there

and it's usable.

So to the extent that one considers Caller ID as a mechanism to

bring in law enforcement, Call Trace is even better than that.

Mr. COBLE. What procedure, Mr. Moore, is followed in law enforcement having privy to that information? Once it's locked in,

once the trace has been effected and it's locked into the telephone

records, then what must be done logistically next to bring law enforcement into that loop?

Mr. MOORE. When a customer activates Call Trace, they get a recording instructing them to next call either the phone company or

the police department, generally the police department, and the

police department would then contact the phone company and retrieve the number. Now, if it's not a serious matter, they may not

take that step. But if it's serious enough, they certainly would.

I would guess it's going to be like any other matter. It's going to

be a function of each individual police department, depending upon

how busy they are. They will have different procedures.
60

Mr. COBLE. Let me ask you one more question, Mr. Moore, and

this may be duplicative of what I just said, because I am still in

this law enforcement side of the picture. You indicated, I believe,

that law enforcement, especially those engaged in undercover operations, had expressed concerns about unrestricted Caller ID. Now,

the Bell Atlantic testimony, I believe, will reveal the experience

that indicates law enforcement officials in New Jersey have been

supportive of unrestricted Caller ID.

Now, we may be back to what you said before. This may depend

on what individual group may have to say about it. But I would

like to hear from you on that.

Mr. MOORE. Certainly. Let me read to you from a document that

was filed recently in the State of Florida by the Law Enforcement

Committee on Caller ID. This is a group of State and Federal law

enforcement officials, and let me read this statement to you.

"Investigation by this committee into Southern Bell's claims that

no other law enforcement agencies and States with Caller ID are

having difficulties with the service are simply not true. Cases have

been documented in Maryland, where heroin traffickers have

begun to set up their illicit drug delivery scenarios around the use

of Caller ID. Arrests have been made and CND boxes seized. I was

personally asked to discuss Caller ID with a group of tactical

agents and major crime investigators in New Jersey. I received several comments on how Caller ID had already put numerous cases

in jeopardy but fortunately had not yet caused any injuries. Some

of these investigators said they were seeking legal assistance to

have Caller ID outlawed in the State of New Jersey, the State that

supposedly loves it. I did not hear one officer in an audience of over

16 investigators say anything positive about this service."

Now, this is a document filed by a group of law enforcement officers in the State of Florida talking about their fellow officers in

New Jersey. Certainly some of the police chiefs, and I know the

chief of the State police, have been in favor of the service, but

when you get down to the line officers, those people are terrified of

Caller ID. They see their lives in jeopardy.

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, Mr. Moore.

Do you all care to comment on my question that I put to Mr.

Moore?

Mr. POAT. I think that answer responds perfectly.

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, folks.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. I thank my colleagues, and we thank both of

you, Mr. Poat and Mr. Moore, for your contribution this morning.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. I now would like to introduce our second

panel this morning, representing the telecommunications service

providers. First we will hear from Mr. John Stangland, the assistant vice president of product development and management with

Pacific Bell. Mr. Stangland has had a long plane flight from California and we certainly appreciate his being here. Second, we will

hear from Mr. James Cullen, the president and chief executive officer with New Jersey Bell.

Mr. Stangland, would you like to proceed first, sir?
61

STATEMENT OF JOHN STANGLAND, ASSISTANT VICE PRESIDENT

FOR PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT AND MANAGEMENT, PACIFIC

BELL

Mr. STANGLAND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. My name is John Stangland. I am the assistant vice president for product development and management for Pacific Bell.

It is a pleasure to be here this morning and present a one company, one State, perspective on the introduction of a very valuable set

of new telecommunications services to the customers in California.

Pacific Bell does plan to offer a full set of seven new custom local

area signaling services to California customers. Caller ID is an essential feature in this set. We also plan to include per call privacy

at no charge. These services and their operational characteristics

are spelled out in detail in an attachment to my written testimony.

As background for my comments, it is valuable to know that we

have been formally working on deployment strategies and plans for

these services since 1985, and plan initial implementation with regulatory approval in October 1991. The significant time interval is

driven by both the magnitude of the task, of deploying both the

CLASS features and the supporting network infrastructure, and

our desire to provide ubiquity and connectivity for these services in

those areas where it is introduced, San Francisco and Los Angeles

initially.

Throughout the activity associated with the development of these

new products, I would characterize our direction as being one of intense customer focus. For example, we work with the switch vendors to design and deploy upgrades to the software which make

these features easier for the customers to understand and use.

With early recognition of the privacy issue, we have been working

with a wide variety of consumer and professional groups in both a

learning and educational role, making sure that the services and

both sides of the privacy issue are fully understood.

Also, we have conducted four distinct sets of primary market research. The last one in 1989 focused specifically on the privacy

issue associated with Caller ID and the options for dealing with it.

All of this input resulted in a series of analyses and a thorough

consideration of several deployment options for Caller ID. These

options are spelled out in detail in my written testimony.

For numerous reasons, ranging from relative value provided by

the Caller ID feature to technical feasibility, the per call privacy

option was selected. We strongly believe that per call privacy provides the optimum solution for California customers. It clearly balances the opposing views on privacy, calling party versus call ed; it

maintains the value of the Caller ID feature and the related

CLASS features; it is consistent with what our customers have told

us in our market research efforts, research which also indicates

that support for this position grows with understanding.

Our decision to include per call privacy in our tariff proposal

with the California Public Utilities Commission left us in a unique

position to assist Assemblyman Jerry Eaves when he drafted legislation to deal with caller identification products in California. Our

position is in full compliance with this new law and we believe in

compliance with all legal requirements.

37-485 - 91 - 3
62

All of this brings us to today. We are in the middle stages of

what will be for us about an 8-year product deployment cycle. Regulatory industry and market forces are beginning to shape a full

understanding of this product and its value to customers. We have

selected an implementation option for Pacific Bell customers in

California which we strongly believe will enable these new products to enhance the elements of choice, convenience and safety in

the lives of our customers.

Thank you.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. Thank you very much, Mr. Stangland.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Stangland follows:]
63

STATEMENT OF JOHN STANGLAND, ASSISTANT VICE PRESIDENT

FOR PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT AND MANAGEMENT, PACIFIC BELL

INTRODUCTION

My name is John Stangland, and I am the Assistant Vice

President (or Product Development and Management at Pacific

Bell' ("Pacific"). In this position, I have been part of the

team that is actively developing Pacific's "Caller ID" product,

as well as other Custom Local Area Signaling Services (see

Attachment 1 for a description of these "CLASS" products).

First, allow me to thank you for this opportunity to discuss

Caller ID. Pacific has targeted late 1991 for initial

introduction of the Caller ID product. This exciting new

service will allow telephone customers to see on a display

screen the telephone number of the calling party before

answering the phone.

We are moving forward with Caller ID and the other exciting

CLASS features because they promise to add greater choice,

convenience, and safety to our customers' lives. We at Pacific

Bell believe that, given a thoughtful approach to customer

privacy needs, virtually everyone in California could benefit

from some application of this technology.

This hearing provides a unique forum to discuss Pacific Bell's

approach to the privacy concerns associated with the offering

of Caller ID. Pacific's solution • Per Call Privacy • gives

all its California customers the capability of preventing their

number from being displayed to the called party.

Caller ID: A New Service with Limited Deployment Nationwide

Because Caller ID has very limited deployment to date, both the

industry and the states are only now beginning to deal with the

inherent privacy issues. Pacific believes that it would be

prudent for Congress to wait and see how initial offerings work

out and to consider the regulatory experiences of various

states before mandating national standards. We plan to work

within the industry to ensure that the privacy concerns of our

California customers are honored throughout the country as our

networks interconnect with those of the other common carriers

(please see Attachment 2 for some examples of Per Call Privacy

calling scenarios).

Pac I f I c
64

Per Call Privacy: The Best Solution for California

Pacific Bell will be offering Per Call Privacy in California

because we believe that it is the most balanced alternative for

our customers. Unlike the other options which I will discuss

in some detail, this one allows the parties involved in the

call to make decisions about their needs for privacy.

Pacific's position on Caller ID was borne out of extensive

consumer research. That research, along with our knowledge of

the California marketplace, tells us that Per Call Privacy or

blocking is the most effective means of balancing the privacy

concerns of all our customers. Further, our research shows

that Per Call Privacy will not undermine the value of the

product (though our research may differ from research in other

regions). Our approach makes sense from a marketing, consumer,

and public policy point of view for our customers.

Let me make clear that Pacific is not on a campaign to promote

our approach as a national standard, nor are we passing

judgment on the approach taken by others in other parts of the

country.

CALLER ID IN CALIFORNIA

Let me begin by briefly describing some of the benefits of the

Caller ID product as it will be offered in California.

Caller ID will be extremely helpful in medical or police

emergencies, or in enabling you to identify an important call

from a family member or a business client. Caller ID will help

you decide if you wish to answer and, if so, how.

when you are busy, this service will allow you to answer

important calls and make a note of calls to return. For

example, imagine that you are home alone dealing with a sick

child, waiting for the doctor to call, when the telephone

rings. Rather than divert your attention for any length of

time from the child, you can simply glance at the number

flashing on your screen. If it is not the doctor, you may want

to return the call at a more convenient time.

On the other hand, when you are the calling party, there may be

instances when to retain your privacy you may not want your

number displayed. For example, a caller has a right to privacy

when calling from a battered woman's shelter; or someone may

want to remain anonymous when gathering quotes on merchandise

to avoid unwanted follow-up sales calls.

There also may be times when you want your number delivered as

when you are calling someone who is waiting to hear from you on

an urgent matter.
65

Automatic Number Identification (AND

You should also be aware that Caller ID is not the only

technology that delivers your telephone number to the called

party. Even when using Per Call Privacy, your telephone number

may be delivered to an "800" or "900" number service subscriber.

This technology is known as Automatic Number Identification or

"ANI." This information has traditionally been passed within

the telephone network for billing and routing purposes only.

However, today, some long distance carriers have started

passing ANI information to the called party as part of their

own service offerings. In this situation the calling party has

no control over the forwarding of ANI.

However, a solution to this problem is on the horizon, with

the deployment of Common Channel Signaling System 7', upon

which the CLASS features are based, the network can forward

routing and billing information separate from the information

needed to provide customer services. This will allow for

customer control of calling party identification.

CALLER ID: THE PUBLIC POLICY DEBATE

This new technical capability has caused a reassessment of the

importance of privacy in telecommunications.

Some contend that Caller ID is appropriate because it increases

the called party's privacy. Not only can the recipients screen

their calls, they have some ability to hold callers accountable

for their actions or statements on the telephone. Others

object to Caller ID because, by losing their anonymity, they

may be subjected to subsequent invasions of privacy by the

receiving party.

The privacy issues are complex since the strong opposing views

can be considered equally valid.

I C«H»n cm«(l I I f n a I I a • CCCII iillllli a illitirl

ttaaBilcmti taal (aratacall cil III II|||IU| lynia T. CCS

la a ilillfl till IKIIIIII III laaarailag algaallag •|||||||

rria im valaa/aa«a irmaliilti Mini II) aggragatlag thai*

ll|illlt| atliaill aa a ttaaan IIIIMMH nil aatwarK

aaalaataa «a algaallag, 111 utlag mi aigaaliag a a twin ta

lataraaaaaat all III iliaini af taa aatwara, laelualag til

lal itilni ifflin HI iiiiriniil aata nun aaa I 4 I ualng

til ~iii

-3-
66

PACIFIC BELL'S POSITION ON CALLER ID

As a public utility, franchisee) to provide service for

everyone. Pacific Bell cannot ignore this polarized customer

response in California. And we haven't. Pacific Bell began

doing research on consumer reaction to CLASS products,

including Caller ID, five years ago. The issue and its

permutations are not new to us. we considered a variety of

options to address the concerns of our California customers and

have selected a solution. Per Call Privacy, which we believe

best balances all of the concerns raised.

Pacific Bell will universally provide Per Call Privacy, without

additional charge to the customer, regardless of whether they

subscribe to any of the new features. By dialing ""67" (or

"1167* on a rotary phone) before dialing, the calling number

will not be delivered; rather the message "Private Number" will

appear on the called party's Caller ID display. The customers

can then decide if he wants to answer an anonymous call. The

called party who subscribes to Caller ID will receive one of

three messages: the calling party's number; "Private Number;"

or the words "Out of Area" when the call originates from

another signaling system service area1.

The key aspect of offering Per Call Privacy is that the

"private number" indicator, when displayed, has message value.

It says the person calling has chosen, on this call, to mask

his telephone number. That knowledge provides the recipient

with helpful information to make a choice as to whether to

answer such a call (effectively where we are today).

Importantly, Per Call Privacy does not hamper the basic

function of the other CLASS services. So, our customers will

retain the ability to deal effectively with unwanted callers

through Call Trace, Call Block and Call Return.

For the system to be effective it is necessary for all numbers,

including those not listed in the telephone directory, to be

treated the same. All callers, listed or unlisted, will have

the same capability to prevent disclosure of their telephone

number under Per Call Privacy.

Some argue that Per Call Privacy will undermine the financial

integrity of the service because very few will want to

subscribe to Caller ID when it won't deliver all of the calling

numbers. Our research shows that activation of the Per Call

Privacy feature does not significantly diminish the value of

the product.

« n a i , < i • r i - r * ana o • . Tm actual ma

-4-
67

In fact, we expect that the actual number of calls where Per

Call Privacy will be used will diminish as people become more

familiar with the service. Its use will likely become limited

to a few key calls, such as to crisis hotlines and to some

businesses.

Rochester Telephone Corporation Trial

Telephony [May 7, 1990] reports that the Per Call Privacy

solution already is being tested by Rochester Telephone

Corporation in its Caller ID trial in Perinton, New York.

Although Rochester is still gathering data, its experience

seems to support the contention that Per Call Privacy does not

undermine the value of Caller ID. In fact, Per Call Privacy is

having the desired effect of allowing both the caller and the

called party to make a choice: for the calling party, whether

to withhold a telephone number; and for the called party

whether to take such a call.

Although our market in California may be somewhat different

than New York, we are encouraged that the early results of

Rochester's trial seem to support our research findings that

Per Call Privacy will not undermine Caller ID.

HOW PACIFIC BELL CONCLUDED THAT PER CALL PRIVACY IS BEST FOR

CALIFORNIA

Ne arrived at the conclusion that Per Call Privacy was the best

solution for our California customers by working closely with

consumer groups, conducting extensive market research, and

considering a number of product options before finally settling

on Per Call Privacy.

Let me briefly explain.

Pacific Bell Caller ID Timeline

Pacific Bell has been engaged in the study of CLASS products

including Caller ID and its related privacy issues, since

1985. Our market research, which includes interactions in

focus groups, consumer panels, and industry forums, and our

experience with other service offerings in California, have

given us insight into the attitudes of California consumers

(including such constituencies as law enforcement, local

government, community support organizations and small

businesses). These experiences allowed us to make business

decisions that are in the best interests of our customers and

to assist our state legislators in understanding Caller ID

(Please see Attachment 3 for a timeline of our activities).

Results of Market Research

The market research has highlighted the strong feelings that

customers have about Caller ID.

-5-
68

As you night expect, some Californians expressed strong views

that caller anonymity should be protected. Others stated that

the person receiving the call has a greater right and that the

addition of Caller ID is warranted. Often, we discovered,

people held both views.

However, our research did reveal one undeniable result • •

result which played a large part in our final decision to offer

Caller ID with Per Call Privacy. Offering callers the ability

to restrict or block their numbers from being delivered had a

significant favorable impact on customer acceptance.

Our research indicates that without offering any blocking

options those strongly opposed to Caller ID are about equal to

those strongly supporting the service. Adding Per Call Privacy

significantly reduced opposition to the product.

Another important finding, which also helped us settle on Per

Call Privacy, is that offering blocking on a 'line*' basis does

not appear to significantly further reduce opposition (about 1%

more than Per Call Privacy) to Caller ID. In other words, the

only way to satisfy most of the people who still object to

Caller ID, even with Per Call Privacy, is to not offer the

service at all. The vast majority of customers grant the

overall value of the service. They only argue how it should be

provided.

While some claim that the rights of customers with unlisted

numbers to privacy are violated by the number delivery service,

research results indicate that in reality, these customers'

views are not significantly different from the rest. In fact,

this group reported a slightly higher interest in buying this

service than those with published numbers.

Product Options Considered

Based on our extensive market research, we developed six

alternative Caller ID product scenarios which we studied. It

may be easier to understand our reasons for endorsing Per Call

Privacy if I explain the options we considered (see

Attachment 4 for a matrix of options considered).

Offer Number ID without any blocking

Caller ID without any blocking provides the person receiving

the call with all of the control or privacy protection. If one

believes that the telephone is like a door on a house, one can

logically argue that the person who owns the door has a right

to see who it "knocking" before answering.

a Lin* ll«ltll| itfiri w n•n all calls a I a c a a rr*i that

laiaaaaaa laallt lllill •••II IMPIIJ ill ••'<• •fmill

Riaiir1aa taa lllill aariy-i cellar ID acraaa ritirllm af

•inlir in mltff intilil rar Ha naitr ta aa •nillll.

-6-
69

However, there are legitimate situations where the caller needs to

retain their anonymity and the door analogy loses credibility. For

example, the women calling home from a battered women's shelter

needs to conceal her calling location for self protection. It is

not an exaggeration to conclude that lives could be endangered if

some form of blocking is not available.

Offer Number ID with Per Line Privacy when requested

A second option we considered was to offer per line blocking at the

customer's request. This option significantly reduces service value

and adds major confusion for callers when they call from various

locations.

Line blocking would remove much of the service value of Caller 10

because when the "private number" message appears on the Caller ID

display, the called party is unable to reasonably determine if they

should answer the call. Our research indicates that the primary

value of Caller ID is that it allows people to better manage their

calls. We question the value of offering a service which fails to

completely satisfy the need for which it is designed.

Line blocking is site specific and few of us make all of our calls

from the same phone. Therefore, if line blocking were available, we

would have to know the "blocking status" of each phone we use. The

resulting confusion is readily apparent.

Offer Caller ID but block specific groups or block all customers

except those who want their number to be delivered

Another possibility was to offer Caller ID, but block specific

groups or block all customers, except those who want their numbers

to be delivered. Universally blocking all customers or major

customer groups would almost completely diminish the value of the

service for most customers. Further, if blocking is offered only to

certain groups, such as unlisted customers, certain people will have

a greater claim to privacy (anonymity) than others. Should privacy

be based upon one's ability to have their name omitted from a

directory or pay a fee?

Don't offer Caller ID but offer the other six CLASS features

Another possible solution was not to offer Caller ID at all, but

still offer the other six CLASS features. Removing the Caller ID

service altogether while offering the other six is not a viable

option because it is not the only CLASS service which delivers the

calling party's number. In attempting to make the service easier

and more useful to customers, we have incorporated announcements

that allow customers to know the number of their last call. This

lets customers know the number before returning a call with Call

Return (Automatic Callback) or indicates the number they just added

to their Call Block (Selective Call Rejection) lists.
70

However, all of the features respect a blocking request and don't

deliver the number, except for Call Trace. As stated before, a

customer may trace a call and have the information delivered to the

police even if the caller used blocking. With Call Return the

caller may still return the last call, he just won't know the number.

Provide a "beep tone* to callers to let them know their number

will be delivered

We also considered providing a "beep tone" to callers to let them

know their number will be delivered. However, we believe that

trying to alert callers that they are calling someone who subscribes

to Caller ID is financially, technologically and practically

unworkable. The process would slow down the completion of almost

every call by as much as ten seconds, double the signalling load on

the network, and cost millions of dollars. The option is just not

viable.

In viewing any of these options, it should be realized that they

only apply to services based on the new network signalling system

7. And as I mentioned earlier, other number delivery services such

as multi-frequency based ANI, now used for BOO services, cannot

technically be blocked by the customers.

After carefully considering the needs of our customers and reviewing

the product options available, we determined that Per Call Privacy

was the best solution for California.

Implementing Per Call Privacy In California

We recognize that for Per Call Privacy to be effective it requires a

certain degree of consumer education and awareness. Everyone using

a telephone needs to be aware of and understand the implications of

number delivery and the blocking options.

In developing our plans to educate customers about Per Call Privacy,

we have drawn from our experiences with advertising and "976"

customer notification. We have decided that we are going to use all

of the vehicles we normally use for advertising, including

television, radio, and print media.

Our message will attempt to communicate two key points:

e starting on a specific date your telephone number may be

delivered to the party you are calling and

• you have the ability to stop your number from being delivered on

any call without additional charge.

Clearly there are additional points we want to communicate, such as

which service areas will be impacted.
71

The other aspect of this effort will be to prepare our customer

representatives for the anticipated calls and questions. We have

already started educating our employees on the privacy issue. Every

employee who deals directly with customers will be covered on the

public policy issues around privacy, and will be given an overview

of the product line. Before we begin the notification campaign we

will train them to deal with customer calls, as well as give them an

opportunity to test and learn about all of the new features.

All of our plans for customer notification will be submitted to the

California Public Utilities Commission as part of our tariff

proposal. Our notification effort will begin after we obtain tariff

approval and before we begin selling the features.

California-Law Mandates Per Call Privacy: AB 1446

Offering Per Call Privacy to our customers is now more than just a

prudent business decision • it is the law in California.

Last year, the California Legislature passed AB 1446 (see

Attachment 5), introduced by Assemblyman Jerry Eaves, which required

phone companies offering the service to include a feature allowing

subscribers to prevent their numbers from being displayed, on a per

call basis, at no charge to them.

As I have mentioned, since 1985, we have been attempting, in a

thoughtful manner, to deal with some of the complicated privacy

concerns that Caller ID has generated. Thus, we were in an ideal

position to provide valuable assistance to Assemblyman Eaves and the

California Legislature in the writing of AB 1446 which took effect

on January 1, 1990.

The legislation made exemptions for:

- an identification service which is used within the same

limited system, such as Centrex or private branch exchange

(PBX);

- an identification service which is used in connection with a

public agency's emergency telephone line or on the line which

receives the primary emergency telephone number (911);

- any identification service provided in connection with legally

sanctioned call tracing or tapping procedures;

- an "800" or "900" access code telephone service until the

technical capability exists to comply with the legislation.

-9-
72

CONCLUSION

There is no one solution which will adequately address all of the

concerns raised around the Caller ID service. Some argue that the

recipient of the call has the right to hold the caller accountable

for their actions. Others argue that the caller "owns" their

telephone number and has the right to control the distribution of

that number to protect their anonymity. Still others contend that

this is not something that should be decided by the majority,

because democratic rule should not apply to an individual's rights

to privacy.

We are excited about this new product because we expect it to add

choice, convenience, and safety to the lives of our customers. We

at Pacific Bell believe that Per Call Privacy best balances the

conflicting privacy concerns as they are perceived in California.

We are confident that this approach gives the consumer the ability

to personally manage their privacy concerns. The California

Legislature agrees with this balanced approach and it will be the

framework for our tariff filing with the California Public Utilities

Commission.

-10-
73

ATTACHMENT 1

DESCRIPTION OF PACIFIC BELL'S CLASS/COHMSTAR SERVICES

REPEAT DIALING•If the number a subscriber dials it busy, the caller dials a

two-digit code and this feature automatically checks this called nuaber every

45 seconds for up to 30 einutes. then both nuabers are clear, it rings the

caller and then sets up the call. This alleviates the need to repeatedly dial

a busy nuaber.

CALL RETURN•Provides the subscriber the nuaber of the last person to call

along with the tine and date, and allows hia to automatically radial the

nuaber. If the nuaber ia busy, Call Return works like Repeat Dialing,

checking the nuaber automatically and alerting the caller when the nuaber is

free. This service is intended for those situations when you cannot answer

the phone iaaediately, for example, if you are showering, bathing baby or just

entering your boa* or office when the phone stopa ringing.

CALLER I.D.•Displays the nuaber of the calling party on a device that

attaches to a standard telephone or is incorporated into a special telephone,

permitting the subscriber to see the caller's nuaber before answering the

phone. Aa an exaaple of this service's uses, if you are fixing dinner and the

kitchen phone rings, or aeeting with someone at your desk, you can be alert

for iaportant calls.

PRIORITY RINCING•Allows subscribers to prograa aa aany aa 10 nuabers into the

telephone system and receive a unique ring whenever someone calls from one of

those numbers. This service can alert the subscriber to iaportant calls or

can be used to determine who should answer the phone by programming, for

exaaple, the nuabers from which a youngster frequently receives calls. Also

works in conjunction with Call laiting.

SELECT FORWARDING•Subscribers can select several telephone nuabers to be

automatically forwarded to another phone. This service can free a subscriber,

who ia expecting an important call, to viait a neighbor or to attend a meeting

in another office. Select forwarding and the related COMSTAR feature, Call

Forwarding, which forwards all calls to another nuaber, can operate

aiaultaneoualy.

CALL TRACE•Subscribers cam automatically trace the originating telephone

number of disturbing or threatening calls. To protect the rights of both

parties, the information will be placed in a secure data base at

Pacific Bell. Specially trained professionals will work with the customer

and, if a police report ia filed, provide the information to law enforcement

authorities.

CALL BLOCK•A subscriber can program his service to reject calls from as aany

aa 10 specified nuabers. Callers will receive a recorded announceaent, "We're

sorry, the party you are calling is not accepting thia call. Thank you." One

of the most common uses expected for this services is handling annoyance calls.

To increase the user friendliness of the services, all of then have recorded

prompts that aid customers in their operation.
74

ATTACMT2

PER CALL PRIVACY CALLING SCENARIOS

Wh*t tht Rccwvwtg Pvrty

Ctltor Dials

Par Call

Privacy (*67)

To: San

Franalaaa,

CA

To: CLASS

location

Outtkta CA

Otforlnf

Blocking

To: CLASS

Location

Oinalda CA

Ho4 Offartna

BlockIrta

To: Nan

CLASS

Location

BMMa of

OMaWa CA

To: MM AM

Caatoaar

AM: San

Fi anal•a, CA •rwATt

NVHIBC

•rtrvATT

NVHBtir

•fUVATt

Huutar

MIA •sjMur

Froa: CLASS

Locatlaa.

Outatdo CA

Offering

Blocking

•nm/at

NVMUf

•rWATt

mutae

•rtlYATt

MWuT

MA •SS3-5SSf

Frora: CLASS

location

OutaMaCA Nat

Ottaiini

Blocking.

uusr iss-jjsr TSM-IUS* NM sss-ssir

Froa: Nan

CLASS Laaafdon

biaMa *

Ouutda CA

•OUTOTAUf •OVTOfAJtlA' •OOTOfAUi' MIA •vs-sisr

' Thaw tcsnarioa aaauma

hava boon mada to

raquaat • honored and

that 1) fAaca la SS7 fcitaffonnaoaoT)

oaaJgn raquaamanai for

a nunbar la not dafwarod.

rwjor* and 2) no mod'tition*

La, a pnvacy
75

ATTACHMENT 3

PACIFIC BELL CLASS TIMELINE REVIEW

Summary of Privacy Policy Development Activities

1985 Pacific decides to deploy SS7 and Class

throughout California

November 1985 Primary market research (qualitative) on

Customer Views of features - Privacy concerns

were among the key issues

1987

Pasadena

Los Angeles

San Ramon

Oakland

San Diego

Six regional forums held with key community

representatives

Minority Leaders

Local Government and community support

organizations

Small Businesses

Non Profit and community agencies

Law Enforcement Representative

June 1987 Primary Market Research (qualitative) on

perceived benefits and uses - Privacy concerns

were among the key issue

March 1988 Primary Market Research (Quantitative) to

determine potential demand for each of the

features - Privacy concerns were measured

August 1988 A privacy issues forum us held, bringing

together various experts community leaders to

discuss telecommunication privacy issues

October 1988 Decision made to further access stakeholder

response to per call privacy solution as well

as develop effective customer education program

March 1989 Eaves introduces AB 1446 - proposes making

number delivery illegal/Pacific reps, meet

with Eaves

April 1989 Eaves amends AB 1446 to allow for Caller ID to

be offered but requires per call blocking
76

May 1989 Primary Market Research (Quantitative) focused

specifically on Privacy Issues is completed

June 1989 Pacific publicly endorses Per Call Privacy as

preferred solution to privacy concerns

September 1989 AB 1446 passed by Legislature and signed by

Governor

May, August,

November 1989 Meeting with Consumer Product

Panel to discuss privacy Issues and

alternatives
77

Assembly Bill No. 1446

CHAPTER 483

An act to add Section 2893 to the Public Utilities Code, relating to

privacy.

[Approved by Governor September 15. 1989. Filed with

Secretary of State September 18, 1989]

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DICEST

AB 1446, Eaves. Telephone call identification service: privacy.

(1) Existing law does not require a telephone call identification

service to allow a caller to withhold the caller's identity from the

recipient of the telephone call

This bill would, with specified exceptions, direct the Public

Utilities Commission to require any call identification service offered

by a telephone corporation, or by any other person or corporation

that makes use of the facilities of a telephone corporation, to allow

the caller, at no charge, to withhold, on an individual basis, the

display of the caller's telephone number from the telephone

instrument of the individual receiving the call. The bill would

exempt "800" or "900" access code telephone service from this

requirement until the commission determines the telephone

corporation has the technical capability to comply.

Since, under existing law, a violation of any rule or order of the

commission in this regard would be a misdemeanor, the bill would

impose a state-mandated local program by creating a new crime.

(2) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse

local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the

state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that

reimbursement

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this

act for a specified reason.

The people ofthe SUte of California do enact MS follows:

SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares all of the

following:

(a) Telephone subscribers have a right to privacy, and the

protection of this right to privacy is of paramount state concern.

(b) To exercise their right of privacy, telephone subscribers must

be able to limit the dissemination of their telephone number to

persons of their choosing.

SEC 2. Section 2893 is added to the Public Utilities Code, to read:

2893. (a) The commission shall, by rule or order, require that

every telephone call identification service offered in this state by a

telephone corporation, or by any other person or corporation that

93 80
78

Ch. 483 •2•

makes use of the facilities of a telephone corporation, shall allow a

caller to withhold display of the caller's telephone number, on an

individual basis, from the telephone instrument of the individual

receiving the telephone call placed by the caller.

(b) There shall be no charge to the caller who requests that his or

her telephone number be withheld from the recipient of any call

placed by the caller.

(c) The commission shall direct every telephone corporation to

notify its subscribers that their calls may be identified to a called

party either.

(1) Thirty or more days before the telephone corporation

commences to participate in the offering of a call identification

service.

(2) By March 1,1990, if the telephone corporation is participating

in a call identification service prior to January 1, 1990.

(d) This section does not apply to any of the following:

(1) An identification service which is used within the same

limited system, including, but not limited to, a Centrex or private

branch exchange (PBX) system, as the recipient telephone.

(2) An identification service which is used on a public agency's

emergency telephone line or on the line which receives the primary

emergency telephone number (911).

(3) Any identification service provided in connection with legally

sanctioned call tracing or tapping procedures.

(4) Any identification service provided in connection with any

"800" or "900" access code telephone service until the telephone

corporation develops the technical capability to comply with

subdivision (a), as determined by the commission.

SEC 3. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to

Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because the

only costs which may be incurred by a local agency or school district

will be incurred because this act creates a new crime or infraction,

changes -the definition of a crime or infraction, changes the penalty

for a crime- or infraction, or eliminates a crime or infraction

Notwithstanding Section 17580 of the Government Code, unless

otherwise specified in this act, the provisions of this act shall become

operative on the same date that the act takes effect pursuant to the

California Constitution.
79

Mr. KASTENMEIER. Mr. Stangland, we will reserve questions for

you following Mr. Cullen's report to us. Mr. Cullen.

STATEMENT OF JAMES G. CULLEN, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF

EXECUTIVE OFFICER, NEW JERSEY BELL

Mr. CULLEN. Thank you, sir.

Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, Bell Atlantic opposes national Caller ID legislation because it would preempt

debate on these issues at a State level, where the debate actually

belongs. State public utility commissions today throughout the

country are actively engaged in exploring the ways in which Caller

ID should be offered in their respective jurisdictions. We believe

that each State should be free to adopt the regulatory policy which

it believes is best for the needs of its residents. This is particularly

true at this point in time because, to date, the only full-scale offering of Caller ID has been without blocking. The proposed legislation would result in the implementation of Caller ID in a form that

has not been implemented anywhere except in a few scattered

trials. Moreover, customer experience with Caller ID in the real

world demonstrates that the hypothetical problems with this service simply do not exist.

Bell Atlantic has almost 3 years of very successful experience

with Caller ID service. That is success measured in terms of meeting the needs of 132,000 Caller ID customers and addressing the

wide-ranging problems caused by anonymous calls. These are serious problems•false fire alarms, bomb threats to schools, obscene

calls, threatening calls, harassing calls. In New Jersey, for example, a 7-year-old Passaic girl was so terrorized by obscene calls directed at her that she was afraid to go to school. Caller ID solved

this problem. A New Jersey State legislator from Hamilton Township was repeatedly harassed by anonymous calls before he subscribed to Caller ID. Again, Caller ID solved this problem.

In Teaneck, NJ, when witnesses to an alleged racial shooting

began receiving intimidating phone calls, the New Jersey attorney

general ordered Caller ID for the witnesses and widely publicized

that fact.

Our essential concern with blocking is that it would allow a

cloak of anonymity to be given back to malicious callers, to obscene

callers, and again would lead many of our customers unprotected.

Some of have suggested•and we've heard those suggestions this

morning•that Call Trace might be just as effective as Caller ID in

dealing with these serious abuses. A recent Bell Atlantic survey of

New Jersey Bell Caller ID customers shows otherwise. Of those

customers who have used both services, the vast majority found

Caller ID more helpful because it allows them to screen their own

calls and deal with the problems without getting anyone else involved. When a customer uses Call Trace, the number is provided

only to the police. Police departments have expressed serious concerns about their ability to handle the present volume of Call

Trace requests. Frankly, with the growth of drug-related crimes,

most police departments today have much higher priorities than

obscene and harassing phone calls.
80

In fact, Senator Kohl's statement earlier, that if you punch 2 or

3 digits within seconds the police will be on the phone with an obscene caller, is simply untrue. For them to even get involved, most

departments require victims of harassing calls to document at least

3 calls, and in some jurisdictions require the victim to receive as

many as 10 calls. In addition, they require the victim to prosecute

the caller if he is caught. This process can be lengthy, it can be

frustrating, and is often disconcerting for the victim, because the

victim does not really want to prosecute a caller. The victim does

not want to have to endure multiple instances of abuse, but simply

wants the calls to stop.

Bell Atlantic is also committed to accommodate the unique needs

of agencies that help victims of domestic violence and sexual assault. We have met with these groups to gain an understanding of

their special needs in a Caller ID environment. We have so far

been successful in providing solutions which meet their unique

needs.

We have also worked successfully with State, Federal and local

law enforcement agencies to meet their unique needs in a Caller ID

environment. In fact, over the past 3 years, just in New Jersey, we

have met with over 2,000 law enforcement officers to explain Caller

ID.

Mr. Chairman, the problem with mandating blocking is that it

will immediately put obscene and malicious callers right back in

business. We have the technology on hand to address the widespread and serious problem of abusive telephone calls. The demonstrated effectiveness of that technology over the past 3 years

should not be destroyed by federally mandated blocking. Instead,

each State should continue to be free to decide how to best balance

the interests of its own citizens. Bell Atlantic favors unrestricted

Caller ID because it restores full accountability when using the

public telephone network. We believe that it is the right thing to

do.

Thank you.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. Thank you, Mr. Cullen.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cullen follows:]
81

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JAMES G. CULLEN, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE

OFFICER, NEW JERSEY BELL

My name is James Cullen, and I represent Bell Atlantic. I am the

president of New Jersey Bell, one of the seven Bell Atlantic telephone companies

and the first telephone company in the country to offer Caller ID. Caller ID is also

offered in three other Bell Atlantic states -- Maryland, Virginia and West

Virginia.

Bell Atlantic has over 132,000 Caller ID subscribers. Many of these

customers subscribed to Caller ID as a result of a problem with abusive telephone

calls. Bell Atlantic's experience demonstrates that unrestricted Caller ID is an

effective deterrent to abusive calls. Moreover, with unrestricted Caller ID, all

customers, including those who do not subscribe to the service, benefit from its

deterrent effect on harassing calls because callers do not know who does or does

not subscribe to the service. By contrast, none of the hypothetical problems with

Caller ID have materialized in those states where Caller ID without blocking has

been implemented.

Caller ID has many undeniable benefits. Once widely deployed and offered

on an unrestricted basis, it holds the promise of forever eliminating anonymous

obscene and harassing calls. Moreover, in a time when public agencies are

reducing budgets and straining resources to address critical issues such as drug

enforcement and health care, Caller ID can reduce the strain on those resources
by reducing false fire alarms, deterring telephone bomb threats, improving

emergency response, and solving burglaries. In addition, it saves lives.

The purpose of my testimony is twofold. First, to suggest that there is no

need for national Caller ID legislation. Second, to explain why the proposed

blocking requirement in House Bill H.R. 4340 would drastically reduce the

benefits and erode the value of Caller ID. In the course of explaining why any

form of blocking is not appropriate, I will also share the more than two and onehalf years of successful experience that Bell Atlantic has had with Caller ID

without any restrictions.

We believe that it is premature to consider national legislation. State public

utility commissions throughout the country are actively engaged in exploring the

way in which Caller ID should be offered. As a result, different regulatory

policies have developed. For example, last month, the Nevada Public Service

Commission authorized the introduction of Caller ID, but only with per call and

per line blocking. Although we disagree with that policy decision, we believe that

each state should be free to adopt the regulatory policy which it believes is best

suited to the needs of its residents. This is particularly true at this point in time

because there is no actual experience with any form of blocking of Caller D3. To

date, the only full-scale implementation of Caller ID has been on an unrestricted

basis, and none of the hypothetical problems has actually materialized.

Therefore, we believe that federal legislation would clearly be premature.

In order to understand why blocking is not in the best interests of the

public, it is important to understand the magnitude and nature of the harassing

call problem. According to one estimate, an obscene or harassing call is reported

in the United States on average every five seconds. Our own research indicates

that this large number of reported cases is only the tip of the iceberg. Many people

fail to report the harassing calls they receive because of embarrassment, fear of

reprisal, or reluctance to prosecute. In New Jersey alone, we estimate that one

million customers receive obscene, threatening, harassing or annoying calls

yearly.
Abusive calls range from graphically obscene calls directed at women and

children to threatening calls designed to intimidate or evoke fear in the recipient

In addition, anonymous callers often seek to disrupt schools and the work place

through telephoned bomb threats, incite unrest through anonymous hate calls, or

intimidate witnesses. The experience in Bell Atlantic clearly demonstrates that

unrestricted Caller ID is an effective deterrent to these calls:

• A seven year old child in Passaic, New Jersey was so alarmed

by the threats of an obscene caller that she had to be

accompanied to and from elementary school each day. When

Caller ID became available in her area, her mother subscribed

to the service and obtained the number of the caller. She called

him and threatened to go to the police if the calls did not stop.

The calls stopped.

• A Maryland customer plagued by a "breather" for more than

two years was able to identify the source of the calls the first

day Caller ID was used. The customer immediately called

back and confronted the caller. Again, the calls stopped.

• A Virginia Beach woman, whose husband frequently travels,

received a number of obscene calls. Using Caller ID, the

woman was able to get the caller's phone number and called

him back. They have not received any more calls from that

caller.

• A New Jersey state legislator and his wife regularly received

harassing calls before they subscribed to Caller ID. The

legislator, who now subscribes to Caller ID to screen all of his

incoming calls, advised the anonymous caller that he had the

caller's number. The calls stopped.

These cases are just a few of the many anecdotes continually reported to

Bell Atlantic. In each of these cases, the malicious callers could have used

blocking, if that alternative had been available, to continue their harassment.

Because no such option was available, the victims were able to end the telephone

abuse immediately and decisively •- without the protracted involvement of either

the telephone company or the police. Our Caller ID customers tell us that what

they like best about the service is the fact that they are able to resolve the problem

themselves by informing the "anonymous" caller that they have his number.

Blocking takes away the customer's ability to resolve such problems immediately.
84

Proponents of blocking generally seek one of two types of blocking - per line

blocking, where the calling party's number is never passed unless it is

affirmatively unblocked for a particular call, or per call blocking, where the

calling party elects whether to affirmatively block the passage of his number each

time he makes a call. With another version of per line blocking, which may be

implemented in Nevada as a result of the recent decision by the Nevada Public

Service Commission, the calling party's telephone number is permanently

blocked from appearing on a Caller ID device. Based on Bell Atlantic's experience

with Caller ID, neither per line nor per call blocking should be permitted for both

public safety and policy reasons.

Since permanent blocking does not permit the passing of the calling party's

number under any circumstances, Caller ID's life-saving benefits would be

forever lost. In Bayonne, New Jersey, for example, a child started choking on a

piece of food. Distraught, his mother called the main police number, even though

9-1-1 was available. Before the mother could give the police her address, she

dropped the telephone to return to help her child. The police, with the aid of

Caller ID, quickly identified the caller and dispatched an ambulance, which

arrived in time to save the child's life. If the mother had permanent blocking, her

number would not have passed, and the police would not have been able to quickly

dispatch the assistance necessary to save her son.

Per line blocking with the capability to unblock on a per call basis is

likewise inadequate under emergency conditions. For example, last month in

Hillsdale. New Jersey, a four-year old boy used the programmed button on his

parents' phone to call police. He had just awakened from his afternoon nap and

found he was alone. "My mommy's not here," he sobbed. He could not provide his

address, but with the aid of Caller ID, the police arrived within minutes and

found the boy's mother visiting a next door neighbor. Although in this instance

the story had a happy ending, it illustrates the public safety deficiencies of per line

blocking, even with the capability for per call unblocking. If his parents had per

line blocking, it is unlikely that the child in this example could have dialed the

code necessary to pass his number to the police and the police would not have been

able to quickly come to his assistance.

4
85

For public policy reasons, any form of blocking would also be a mistake,

since it would permit callers to make anonymous calls with little accountability.

For example, a malicious caller whose anonymity is guaranteed will still be able

to call randomly and harass unsuspecting victims with little fear of being caught,

since experience indicates customers are unlikely to report a single incident of

harassment. Restoring a malicious caller's ability to make anonymous calls

when we now have the capability to prevent it is just not right

Moreover, blocking effectively makes those who do not subscribe to Caller ID

the target of malicious callers. Only those customers who subscribe to Caller ID

would know that the calling party is trying to conceal his telephone number and

could choose not to answer.

With unrestricted Caller ID, all customers, including those who do not

subscribe to the service, benefit from its deterrent effect on obscene and harassing

calls. This deterrent effect was confirmed by our experience in Hudson County,

New Jersey, where the number of traps and formal tracing investigations by our

annoyance call bureau, two methods of collecting telephone call data for

prosecution, substantially decreased after the introduction of Caller ID. This

substantial reduction took place even though at the time only 3% of our Hudson

County customers subscribed to Caller ID. It is clear that malicious callers are

thinking twice before making these calls in Bell Atlantic territory as the following

anecdotes illustrate:

• An elderly Newark, New Jersey, woman wrote the Board of

Public Utilities to praise Caller ID service. This woman had

been plagued for years by obscene and harassing calls - as

many as ten per month. She reported that the calls virtually

ceased as soon as Caller ID service became available in her

area. Yet, she does not have Caller ID herself.

• A man who made a harassing call to the Union County, New

Jersey police turned himself in, fearing that the police had

obtained his telephone number via Caller ID. The Union

County police, however, did not yet have Caller ID.
86

Some proponents of blocking argue that blocking, in conjunction with Call

Trace and Return Call, could provide an acceptable alternative to Caller ID. Our

Caller ID customers disagree.

First, Call Trace was designed to obtain documenting evidence for

prosecution. It is not a fully automated process and was not designed to give

customers immediate access to the calling number. When a customer uses Call

Trace, any number obtained as the result of that trace is only given to law

enforcement officials. Unless the call involves a life threatening situation, law

enforcement officials will not get immediately involved.

Even in an emergency, the victim is dependent on the availability of the

police, who are burdened with other criminal activity, in order to resolve the

problem. In fact, many police departments have expressed serious concerns

about their ability to handle the present volume of Call Trace requests. If Call

Trace were the only way customers could handle problems with harassing calls,

the police would be swamped. To even get involved, most officials now require

victims of harassing calls to document at least three calls and some jurisdictions

require the victim to receive ten calls. In addition, most police departments

require that the victim agree to prosecute the caller if he is caught. This process

can be a long, frustrating one for the victim who does not want to prosecute a

caller but simply wants the calls to stop.

Second, Return Call is not as effective as Caller ID in stopping harassing

calls. Return Call is a service which permits a customer to call back the last

person who called him. This call is placed automatically by our central office

computers and the customer does not get the number of the calling party. If you

receive another incoming call before you use Return Call, you lose the ability to

call back the harassing caller. Because Return Call does not give you the number

of the calling party and only works on the last incoming call, it is ineffective in

situations where you may want to call back a child's parent later.

Our customers tell us that what really stops the calls is telling the

harassing caller that you have his telephone number. When there is no doubt

that the harassing caller's anonymity has been shattered, the calls stop. Where

6
87

both services are offered in Bell Atlantic, it is Caller ID, and not Return Call, that

is the most popular feature.

Third, Caller ID displays the number of the calling party before you answer

the telephone. Call Trace and Return Call only work after you hang up the

telephone. Call Trace and Return Call, therefore, are not effective in those cases,

such as calls from suicidal persons or requests for emergency medical

assistance, where it is important to keep the caller on the line.

Proponents of blocking also speculate that Caller ID will reduce the

effectiveness of some public and private agencies, such as law enforcement

agencies, hotlines, rape crisis centers, and battered women's shelters. Bell

Atlantic's experience with Caller ID is not based upon conjecture or "what ifs."

That experience clearly demonstrates Caller ID can be offered without blocking

and still satisfy the concerns of such agencies.

Unrestricted Caller ID does not jeopardize the activity of law enforcement

officers. (See, testimony of Colonel Clinton L. Pagano on Senate Bill S. 2030, filed

with the Subcommittee on Technology and the Law of the Senate Committee on the

Judiciary, annexed hereto as Attachment 1. Also see. Resolution of the New

Jersey State Association of Chiefs of Police, dated June 29, 1990, annexed hereto as

Attachment 2.) As has been recently reported in the Washington Post, organized

crime is now a very sophisticated business. Criminals use beepers, cellular

phones, and fax machines to facilitate their illegal activity. Law enforcement

agencies have found the need, therefore, to adapt their procedures to respond to

these new technologies.

Bell Atlantic has met with over 3,000 law enforcement officials and

conducted over a hundred seminars on the impact of unrestricted Caller ID on

their operations. When apprised of how Caller ID can enhance their enforcement

activities, the overwhelming response is that the benefits of Caller ID far

outweigh the changes in operating procedure which it requires. For example,

during an investigation concerning an alleged racially motivated shooting in

Teaneck, New Jersey, witnesses began receiving intimidating calls. The New
Jersey Attorney General ordered Caller ID service for the witness** and widely

publicized that (act.

We have worked successfully with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the

Drug Enforcement Agency, and other law enforcement strike forces to meet their

unique needs in a Caller ID environment. One solution we have discussed

involves the use of specific telephones, called "Safe" phones, to make undercover

calls. This solution passes a telephone number that would not compromise

undercover operations.

Blocking, on the other hand, would not adequately safeguard undercover

officers because the privacy indicator which blocking would send instead of a

telephone number might arouse suspicions of the called party. According to the

law enforcement groups with whom we talked, it is important that their

undercover operations appear as normal as possible•blocking would defeat that

purpose. Consequently, experienced undercover officers who have worked for

more than two years in a Caller ID environment tell us that if a state requires

blocking, law enforcement will still have to utilize the same undercover

safeguards employed today in Bell Atlantic where Caller ID is available.

With respect to hotlines, there has been no reported decrease in the number

of calls as a result of the introduction of Caller ID. Moreover, some hotlines,

particularly crime stopper or tip" lines, specifically advertise that they do not use

Caller ID.

Without the use of blocking, we have addressed the unique needs of

agencies that help victims of domestic violence or sexual assault. For example,

we have worked with a rape crisis center to develop a program which uses a

second line to make outgoing calls only. This second line cannot accept incoming

calls and thus effectively meets the needs of rape victim counselors. This solution

sends the number of the calling party, yet protects that party from unwanted call

backs. By passing a number, there is accountability if the telephone is misused.

In addition to meeting the unique needs of certain groups like battered

women's shelters or rape crisis centers, we offer other services to any customer

8
89

particularly concerned that the passage of his or her number will lead to

unwarranted return calls. For example, we can arrange a customer's service so

that any calls he receives on his telephone line can be forwarded to another

number. Thus, doctors in Bell Atlantic do not have to worry about receiving

unwanted callbacks when they call patients from their homes. If a patient with

Caller ID tries to call them back, the call could be forwarded to the doctors'

answering service or office.

Bell Atlantic favors unrestricted Caller ID because it restores full

accountability when using the telephone network. Nonetheless, the District of

Columbia Public Service Commission recently approved Caller ID with per call

blocking. In response to this decision, Bell Atlantic has proposed to implement

per call blocking through the use of an operator to complete the call. If the

operator proposal is approved, we hope that callers within the District of

Columbia will be discouraged from making abusive calls because of the

involvement of an operator and the existence of a record of each call.

In sum, the problems and abuses which Caller ID addresses are local

problems and states should continue to have the ability to adopt regulatory policies

which they believe are best suited to the needs of their residents. The problem

with blocking is that it affords some customers the opportunity to make

anonymous calls in an attempt to address the concerns of those who do not want

their telephone number passed. Bell Atlantic believes that the interests of society

in eliminating unwanted, harassing, and malicious calls can be obtained with

unrestricted Caller ID without any adverse consequences for anyone else.
90

Attachment 1

TESTIMONY OF COLONEL CLINTON L. PAGANO

FILED WITH THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON

TECHNOLOGY AND THE LAW OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

My aunt it Clinton L. Pagano. I am the immediate put Superintendent of

the New Jersey State Police, a position I held for fifteen years through January

1990. As a result of 38 years of law enforcement experience, and particularly my

experience with Caller ID in New Jersey since lata 1987,1 am authorised by the

governor and Attorney General of the State of New Jersey to present testimony on

Senate Bill S.2030. Currently, I am the Director of the Division of Motor Vehicle*

ofthe State of New Jersey, a position I assumed in February 1990. My career with

the state police began in 1962.

I have been a proponent of Caller ID without blocking (at the service Is

currently offered in New Jersey) since the beginning of public discussion on ths

subject. Following New Jersey Bell's initial trial of the service, I appeared before

the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities in my then official capacity ae State Police

Superintendent urging approval of Caller ID on a statewide basis.

The purpose of my testimony is to share with this Subcommittee the

reasons why I believe that Caller ID is a valuable service which directly benefits

law enforcement as well as the citizens who suffer various forms of harassment

and abuse over the telephone. I also want to explain why a blocking requirement,

as proposed in Senate Bill S.2030, would limit the effectiveness of Caller ID fcr

both law enforcement and the general public. Finally, I hope to diffuse the

apparent belief by some, both within and outside of the lew enforcement

community, that Caller !D without blocking might jeopardize undercover po'.:c?

activities
91

My comment* concerning undercover work are beted upon personal

experience in all phaiee of undercover activity including, for example,

investigation! of drug trafficking, organized crime, and domeitic terrorist

organization*. Moreover, theie obtervation* result from actual law enforcement

experience in a Caller ID environment in New Jersey, Law enforcement agencies

in New Jersey (where Caller ID ha* been uied since late 1987) at the ttate, federal

and local level have successfully adapted to Caller ID technology, just at they have

adapted to other technology changes in the past, and at they will continue to adapt

in the future.

Caller ID provides the public with added security in their home* and place*

of business from those who would otherwise teek to use the telephone to annoy,

harass, threeten or intimidate. Telephone threats of violence and other threat* of

intimidation against our citizen* unfortunately are not uncommon. The crank,

annoying, harassing, and obscene telephone call* that citizen* must endure at

odd hours and on a continuing basis are becoming much more common. With

the widespread availability of Caller ID, not only will those rogue* be discouraged

from making such veiled telephone call*, but the victims will now be able to

successfully address the problem themselves by advising the offensive caller that

his telephone number has been identified.

Personal safety is one of those intangible factor* which cannot be measured

or quantified. The elderly, particularly those living alone in high crime areas,

now feel insecure in their own homes and Caller ID may provide the needed peacf

of mind to this segment of society
92

The police limply cannot be a* effective •• Caller ID in addressing the day

in and day out burden of haraaiing call* endured by our citizen*. I am convinced

that Caller ID without blocking constitutes an effective deterrent to these calls. In

many instances, victims of telephone harasament are not interested in spending

time dealing with the telephone company and the police, they just want the calls

to stop. Caller ID offers the solution. Yet. if blocking were available, the

harassing or obscene caller would certainly take advantage of the ability to

prevent hie telephone number from passing to the called party and a significant

public benefit of Caller ID would be diminished.

Every police and fire department, large or small, receives numerous

emergency reports which include life threatening telephone calls requiring

immediate action by the respective department. However, because of the

traumatic nature and psychological impact of an emergency and the fact that the

public is generally not trained to react in crisis situations, the caller may hang up

without giving the dispatcher enough information to ensure a speedy response.

In other situations due tc the severity of an injury or an ongoing attack or

confrontation, a victim's call is not completed. In New Jersey, Caller ID has beer,

responsible for identifying locations in first aid and fire emergencies, for

successful apprehension of individuals calling in false alarms, and for saving

livea.

In situations involving telephone bomb threata to schools and businesses,

false alarms, kidnapping*, residential burglaries, and random poisonings,

Caller ID serve* us an .r.\ eluabln tool ir. the investigative process because i;

provides informatisn irstarv.'v Ciller ID dramatically mcraases the abi'.ity of
law enforcement :o respond and perhaps apprehend a suspect or begin the

investigation quickly, thereby increasing the chances of a successful conclusion.

I urge this Committee to reject the suggestion that blocking is required to

safeguard undercover police activities. In fact, blocking would not serve as an

effective safeguard for undercover officers, since blocking itself could raise

suspicions of the person to whom the call was placed. Knowledgeable law

enforcement groups actively involved in undercover operations will tell you that

blocking would be the equivalent of sending the target of an undercover

investigation a messege that the police are calling.

Law enforcement agencies need to keep pace with and adapt to

technological development. Cellar ID is juet another example of a technology

with which law enforcement must coexiet. The point here il that law

enforcement is faced on a daily basis with sophisticated technology being used

against it by criminal enterprises. To raise an objection that a new technology like

Caller ID is exposing undercover people is an objection that should have been

abandoned ten years ago.

The following example illustrates my point When we found the first

safehouse used by members of a domestic terrorist group convicted of murdering

a New Jersey State trooper in 1981, we found the equipment neceseary to wiretap

state pclice facilities, along with pictures of the facilities. More sophisticated

technologies are available 10 criminals today.

Reality is, and \-a beer., that you have to protect ycur undercover pccj'

with the thojght .n ir.inJ th..: ihey are being monitored every minute
Consequently, some law enforcement agencies bava used "tafa" phones for

undercover ectivines long before the introduction of Caller ID. Thia practice will

continue in a Caller ID environment. In addition to the use of "safe* phones, the

law enforcement community in New Jersey has received assistance from the

telephone company for other arrangements to satisfy taw enforcement

requirements. As a result, state, local and federal law enforcement agencies in

New Jersey have successfully adapted to Caller ID without blocking.

Significantly, this has not been difficult.

In summary, I believe that a blocking requirement would limit the

effectiveness of Caller ID for both law enforcement agencies and the general

public. In addition, blocking is not the answer to safeguard undercover police

operations.

I would be happy to answer any questions of this Subcommittee.
95

Attachment 2

m NSW mat* STATI ASSOCIATION or CHIEFS or POLICE

TITIX: The Maw Jerssy Stats Association of Chiefs of Voiles

support o< Callsr 10 ssrvica of Hav Jarssy Ball Telephone

Coarpeny.

The New Jarsay Ststs Association of Chlefa of police

recognise a sarioua problem in the stats involving

obscene. Harassing, threatening, intialdating, and

otherwise abuaiva talaphona calls. Our citlssas ara

subjected to abuaa over the telephone at all hours of the

day and night, and;

Felee flra elan calls received by Pollea and firs

departments asjsssysj s•• seross ••«ww«. Maw .. • • Jerasy result in a vasts of

municipal riiourcM, And;

3oib threat* called to school* and business** reeuit in

disruption of the workplace and institutions which

iduciu our young people, and;

caiiir 10 service haa enabled the citutni of our stata

to successfully addraaa abuaiva talaphona call*. Tha

pollea cannot ba aa effective as Callar ID in addressing

tha day in and day out burden of haraaaing calla andurad

by our cltlxans. Callar 10 aarviea is * deterrent to

abuaiva talaphona calla.

Callar ID ha* provan valuable for eaergency aarviea

providars in aasiating our citizens. Callar ID has baan

raaponsibla for identifying locations in first aid snd

flra emergencies and for saving lives, and;

callar ID haa aaaistad lav anforcaaant aqanclaa

throughout tha stata in quickly initiating criminal

Investigations, tharaby incraaaing tha chancaa of a

auccaasful conclusion. Tha ssrvica had lat to tha

apprehension of individuals vho called in falsa flra

alarae. Callar ID will assist in * varlaty of

investigations including, for example, boab threat* to

schools and business**, kidnappings and raaidantial

burglariaa, and;

fIXsUMf Naw Jarsay Ball Talaphona company haa worked closaly with

lav anforcaaant aganciaa in Maw Jaraay in explaining

Callar ID Tachnology and our aganciaa have successfully

adaptad to Caller ID.

RCSOLTBD,

W IT

VUlTUa

UESOX.VXD,

That tha Mev Jarsay Stata Association of Chlafs of Police

anthusiaatically supporta Callar ID servica aa offarad

by New Jarsay Ball Talaphona Coapany and recognise* tha

subatantial poaicive affact that tha service haa for law,

enforcement agencies, other public aafaty agencies, and

our citizens generally.

That a copy of thia resolution

Jersey Board of Public Utilities.

ba mailed to the New

This Resolution adopted at tha Seventy-Eighth Annual Conference of

the New Jeraey Stata Association of Chiefs of Police this 29th day

of June, in the Year of our Lord, One Thousand/ Nine Hundred and

Ninety.

CLIFF.

President'

xiva Director
96

Mr. KASTENMEIER. I would like to yield to my colleagues first,

though I do have a few questions. First, the gentleman from North

Carolina, Mr. Coble.

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Gentlemen, it's good to have you here. You have answered most

of the questions I had prepared in your testimony. Let me revisit

just a moment a question I put to Mr. Moore. I want to hear from

you all on this. I asked him what procedure would be required of

law enforcement in coming into possession of a phone number that

had been identified through Call Trace. Perhaps I did not make my

question clear to him.

What I'm looking for, do you go the subpoena route, or what does

law enforcement activate in order to get that phone number

through Call Trace?

Mr. CULLEN. Sir, I could tell you very specifically what virtually

every law enforcement organization requires, whether it's in Fairfax County, VA, suburban Maryland, downtown Washington, or

New Jersey.

They require that you get a minimum of three documented obscene calls. Some departments require five. In certain locations in

New Jersey, they require that you get a minimum of 10 documented obscene calls. You must be victimized 10 times, remember the

code, punch it in, get confirmation of the trace, get it to the police

department. That again is not an automatic process, as was suggested earlier this morning.

After that is done, the police department will require that you

sign a statement indicating a willingness to prosecute. Thirty percent of our customers who use Call Trace end up doing nothing because they don't want to sign a statement indicating a willingness

to prosecute. By the way, contrary to what Mr. Moore asserted,

Call Trace is a very popular service and it meets the needs of customers who do not have Caller ID. In fact, in New Jersey, we get

30,000 activations a month of Call Trace, so it is effective, it is

widely used, it is publicized. But as was determined here in Washington, it is not a substitute for Caller ID.

When you get to that point, you have accumulated the calls,

you've been victimized, you've signed a paper and a willingness to

testify and prosecute. If the police find there's enough evidence,

you are then called to court.

I recently received letters from people who have undergone that

experience months after the calls have been made, and the experience is, as described by a professor at William Patterson College

who recently did a study of this, the experience is terrorizing, it is

degrading, and the letters I have received from customers have

complained that when they get to court their concerns and their

obscene calls, as documented as they are, are just not taken

seriously.

So the effective answer to the question you posed to Mr. Moore

subsequent to that is that with Caller ID, the easiest, quickest,

most effective way to deal with an obscene caller is while they're

on the line and you've got their number. You say I have your

number and this is it, and if you call again, I will prosecute. In

every instance I'm aware of, that has put an end to the obscene

call, to the threatening call.
97

Mr. COBLE. I'm still in limbo here. Once the documentation has

been perfected, the 10 times and all this business, I assume the

telephone company does not voluntarily say to the police department OK, here's the number. I presume then some sort of document, a subpoena, search warrant, something must be forthcoming.

Mr. CULLEN. From the police department.

Mr. COBLE. Right.

Mr. CULLEN. TO be very frank, I don't know what piece of paper

that is from the police department. I do know we will surrender it

only to the police department, not the customer, with proper documentation.

Mr. COBLE. That's what I meant. I'm not being critical of Mr.

Moore. I never did get that laid out clearly.

As we have conducted this hearing today, Mr. Chairman, I must

confess I have nostalgically reverted 25 years ago to the gold old

days when the telephone rings, you go answer the phone with a

simple hello and you don't worry about all of this. But I guess this

is all progress, so I'm going to have to adjust to it.

I believe you both responded to this, but I want to be sure I have

it clearly understood in my mind. Let me just put the question to

you. Is the Caller ID issue one that should be addressed by the Congress of the United States, or is this an issue best left to the States

to be determined? I think you've answered it, but I want to hear it

from you again.

Mr. STANGLAND. I believe Mr. Cullen answered it more clearly

than I could. I sit in a State that's in the beginning edges of the

patchwork that the chairman described earlier, and we do have

some legislation.

I believe I would say our official position is, it's really one of

timing and of legislating technology that's really in a stage of infancy. We wouldn't want to see, as the new services that were described earlier by the previous witnesses and others evolve, see

them restricted and put legislation in a position that ECPA is now

that very shortly you have to come back with new technology and

adjust it. That's about where we are.

Mr. CULLEN. Sir, my response is to affirm what has been said

here by Mr. Stangland. The issue today of Caller ID is a local issue.

It is a State issue. In fact, obscene calls and threatening calls are,

in the vast, vast majority of cases, local and State issues. There is

no problem, even 2 years from now, when the technology is available and is implemented, to pass this information across State lines

by long distance companies. There is no problem in the technology.

There is no need for an absolutely uniform system. In the fact of

no action whatsoever, what would happen is that the rules established in each jurisdiction would convey to other jurisdictions as

the call passes. So in California, for example, if that originating

number is blocked, it will now show on a phone in New Jersey. In

New Jersey, if the originating number is sent for full accountability, it will show on a Caller ID unit in California. So our view is

clearly there is no need for Federal legislation.

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, gentlemen.

Mr. STANGLAND. That is our concern also. That was expressed by

me earlier in the Senate hearing, that the privacy flag needs to be
98

honored universally, and we believe as interconnection occurs, the

industry will sort that out.

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. The gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. HUGHES. I thank the gentleman.

I'm not concerned about the gentleman from North Carolina adjusting. If he can adjust to the fallout from Gramm-Rudman-Hollings, he'll be able to adjust to anything.

I m interested in knowing why it is Bell Atlantic feels that it's

appropriate for the calling party's number to be given to the

receiver.

Mr. CULLEN. Yes, sir. We feel that it is very appropriate because

we firmly believe, in a simple, clear and straightforward policy,

that in fact brings us back to what the gentleman from North

Carolina suggested, and that is accountability when making a telephone call. Customers had always provided that accountability up

until the 1960's, when party lines disappeared and central operators disappeared. In fact, it was not until 1965 that the problem of

obscene calls was first mentioned by AT&T in their annual report.

Up to that point, through party lines and through operators, there

was no issue.

Our policy now is that full accountability benefits everyone, that

it harms no one, and that in the few instances where there are legitimate concerns•domestic violence organizations, police organizations•we have spent 4 years working with those organizations to

ensure that they understand the technology, they understand how

to adapt to it. I will tell you that the police organizations in New

Jersey, from the FBI on down to every local law enforcement officer, understands how it works, has adapted to it very successfully,

and I will tell you they are using it to their advantage.

The reference, by the way, from Florida was the reference from

one individual named John Tutor, who attended a meeting in New

Jersey, and during the recess attempted to talk with law enforcement officers about their experience. It is inaccurate. I have met

with many of the law enforcement officers myself.

So our policy is clear. I think it benefits everyone. I think it is in

the best interest particularly of victims of obscene calls who are

women, senior citizens and children.

Mr. HUGHES. I find it interesting. I've never heard anything but

positive things from law enforcement in my area. I've never heard

the complaint until today that some law enforcement agencies in

New Jersey are complaining that it in some way compromises

criminal investigations. That would give me great concern. I am

very much involved in law enforcement initiatives here in the Congress, and I have never heard anything from any law enforcement

agency in New Jersey in my capacity as Crime Subcommittee

chairman hearing that in some way their investigations are

compromised.

On the contrary, I know from practical experience that law enforcement agencies relegate nuisance calls, obscene calls, to a fairly

low priority, unless it's a very egregious type of case. As a practical

matter, I'm not sure that Call Trace is effective because we're just

overwhelmed today. We can't find the resources to pursue criminal

investigations that we need to pursue.
Let me ask you a more basic question that's been troubling me. I

alluded to it with the previous panel. The privacy issues involved I

have thought about to a great extent. I have thought that in placing a call there is a basically inherent assumption that you're

going to identify yourself. That's part of it, and identify yourself

properly. The caller is the one who initiates the call. He or she

doesn't have to initiate the call. You don't really have very much

choice, as the receiver of a telephone call. If you say, "Well, I'm not

going to answer the telephone," you basically have deprived yourself of some very valuable rights.

So in weighing the right to be secure in your home or have privacy in your home against the right of somebody to be secure and

have the right to privacy in identifying themselves, who should

come out ahead in that weighing process? It seems to me that the

person who has the right to be secure in his home, who is not the

initiator of the call, is the one that we should attempt to accommodate and protect, as opposed to somebody who is initiating the call

where it's presumed they're going to identify themselves properly

anyway.

Mr. STANGLAND. I would like to respond to that. I guess without

the reality of all of the stories that Mr. Cullen has about Caller ID,

that scenario you just described we see as a debate that every individual has the right to make within his or her own jurisdiction.

What we found in doing research specifically addressed at privacy

in the State of California is that people in significant numbers go

to both sides for their own private reasons. As we weighed those

two decisions, we believed that you have to strike a position in the

middle, that we don't sit in a position of judgment on everyone's

person value for privacy, that we have to offer the service in a way

that accommodates both of those views and comes out with respect

to a position of value for the features.

With respect to per call privacy, which is the position we arrived

at back in 1988, we decided that did, in fact, accommodate both

views and it forced the calling party to think about does he or she

want to identify themselves, and if so, take an overt act, punch

three digits, star 67, and say for this call I do not want to be identified, I don't want my number identified. Then the recipient receiving the privacy indicator knows that, in fact, that person made

that value judgment and took an overt act and punched star 67.

Then that puts the decision right back in your jurisdiction.

Mr. HUGHES. I understand, and what you both have said, in essence, is that given the emerging technology, it is far better to let

the States, who have their own regulatory mechanisms, to decide

what is in the public interest in those States. I gather both of

you

Mr. CULLEN. Yes, sir, absolutely. In fact, that has been our position from the beginning. That position was recently reaffirmed in

New Jersey by the board of public utilities with respect to the

United Telephone Co. application for Caller ID service, where in

August they were allowed to provide that service. So that was the

perspective 3 years ago and that is the perspective recently reaffirmed in New Jersey. We do have 80,000 customers. Our experience has been very, very effective and beneficial in balancing the

privacy rights of everyone.
100

Mr. HUGHES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. The gentleman from California.

Mr. BERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My first question is to Mr. Cullen. If this were a bill in the New

Jersey State Legislature, what position would New Jersey Bell take

on it?

Mr. CULLEN. Our position would be precisely the same, sir, that

based on our experience, we have a very successful experience

Mr. BERMAN. YOU would be opposed to this bill?

Mr. CULLEN. We would be opposed.

Mr. BERMAN. SO let's get past for a moment the issue of this

should be State versus Federal. Your objection to this is substantive on the merits of it, and you're adding to your arguments, since

you're in Congress, "leave it to the States to do."

Mr. CULLEN. Yes, sir.

Mr. BERMAN. Let's say you had a Congressman from California

and he was getting calls from different constituents and they were

leaving their office number but, because of the time difference, he

couldn't reach all of them and wanted to make some of the calls

from his home. He has chosen•and the phone company seems to

have no problem with allowing people to have unlisted phone numbers. He now wants to return those calls, but doesn't particularly,

maybe as to that one particular constituent, want that constituent

to have his home phone number.

In California, under the system that has been described by Mr.

Stangland, he can deal with that. He can have that system. Why

do you not want to allow an individual to have that? I guess in the

bill it's referred to as a telephone call originator to block receipt of

the identifying information in a fashion which might let the receiver know that's what he was doing, and if he didn't want to take the

call, because of that reason he could make that choice.

Mr. CULLEN. Sir, when it came to a Member of Congress, I would

have absolutely no hesitation about allowing you to do that.

Mr. BERMAN. Ah, well. But once you say that, you're acknowledging there is a legitimate privacy issue for the originator of the call

as well as for the recipient of the phone call.

Mr. CULLEN. And I would suggest, sir, that the solutions we have

provided in New Jersey have addressed this issue squarely.

Mr. BERMAN. Tell me what they are.

Mr. CULLEN. They pertain to not only Members of Congress but

they pertain to physicians, psychiatrists and others who wish to

make calls from home. The answer is very simple

Mr. BERMAN. I could not, with a straight face, justify voting for

something that puts me in a class that•Well, I certainly think it's

a hard position to defend, that by virtue of occupation you're going

to now be recognized as having a privacy right.

Mr. CULLEN. I'm not suggesting that. What I'm suggesting is if

you feel, for whatever reason, without documenting it or telling

anyone what the reason is, that you have that need, my suggestion

is a second line, outgoing only calls, in your home. It would work

very effectively. You could make outgoing calls to your heart's content and none would come back to you.

This is precisely the sort of solution that we have used in domestic violence organizations, where women want to be able to make a
101

call back to the home and they don't want to be identified or have

calls come back to them. Indeed, in domestic violence organizations, they have used Caller ID so they know who's calling into the

shelter.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. The Chair will have to interrupt at this point.

We only have 4 minutes left on the vote.

Mr. BERMAN. Oh, I'm sorry.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. If our two witnesses could stay a bit

longer

Mr. BERMAN. Unfortunately, I'm not going to be able to come

back.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. The committee will be in recess for 10

minutes.

[Recess.]

Mr. KASTENMEIER. The committee will come to order.

When we recessed, Mr. Berman I think had concluded his questioning of both Mr. Cullen and Mr. Stangland. I just have a very

few questions. But I was interested in the last line of questions that

Mr. Berman was asking. Apparently New Jersey Bell offers blocking devices to some people, is that correct?

J Mr. CULLEN. NO, sir, that's not true, and I apologize if that was

misstated.

What I suggested to Mr. Berman is, if he has the need to make

calls from home•and frequently teachers and people in other occupations other than physicians have that need•there is a clear response that I think every phone company has available, and that is

a second line in your home that has the capacity to make outgoing

calls only.

When a caller calls into that number, should they get it on a

Caller ID box, a variety of options are available, a recording saying

the person is not taking calls, or a recording saying this number is

not in service or whatever. But the point is, the technology is available for people who from a residence who must make calls to, for

example, patients or constituents or students, and don't want to receive annoying calls back, can use a one-way outgoing line, call

only.

As I suggested, in at least one location in New Jersey, this is the

very solution that's been adopted by a domestic violence organization, where they are concerned about their clients making calls

and revealing their location. So in this domestic violence organization we have indeed installed outgoing only lines. In fact, we have

installed Caller ID devices on their other lines so that they will

know who's calling into the center and whether that person represents a threat to any of their clients.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. Would that not be more expensive, though?

How expensive is another telephone in the house?

Mr. CULLEN. In New Jersey, it's probably $7 or $8 a month.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. HOW will that compare in California with a

blocking device? What would that be sold for?

Mr. STANGLAND. Well, the blocking device we're proposing is, of

course, per call privacy, and it is at no charge. It's in the software

in the switch. It works automatically.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. With respect to New Jersey, do all seven Atlantic Bell companies have the same policy?
102

Mr. CULLEN. Yes, sir, all seven advocate the same policy. However, in Delaware the commission there is currently in the process of

hearings to determine how service should be offered. In Pennsylvania there is a court case that was referred to previously, and here

in Washington the Commission is in the final stages of rendering a

decision. So only four of our seven jurisdictions have, in fact, implemented Caller ID.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. There is a likelihood that the service will be

different in these various jurisdictions, one from the other, with respect to whether Caller ID is authorized or whether Caller ID has a

blocking component. It might be different in any of these particular State jurisdictions, of the seven that are within the Bell Atlantic system?

Mr. CULLEN. It appears at this stage that Washington will be different from the other six, yes, sir. But I will say very quickly that

that does not pose a problem, and while that is not the decision

that we advocated, that is the decision that we have indicated over

and over we are quite willing to implement on a pilot and trial

basis. It will make no difference whatsoever to the other jurisdictions in terms of the system fitting together and the technology

working. So it is very possible and not a problem in any way to

have each individual jurisdiction determine how Caller ID should

be offered in that jurisdiction based not on what the telephone

company wants to do but based on what the public service commissions decide is in the best interest of their ratepayers.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. Mr. Stangland, do you contemplate that there

eventually will be one national system here, or will there be this

patchwork system of each State for itself in terms of services

offered?

Mr. STANGLAND. Well, our formal position, as I stated earlier,

right now is for each jurisdiction to resolve it in the best interests

of their consumers. Our entire position is based on research and

meetings and understanding of what the consumers in California

expect and will demand out of this service.

Per call privacy, as far as we're concerned, is an essential element. I would not be allowed to tariff this product in California if I

didn't provide this kind of balance.

Mr. CULLEN. I might add, Mr. Chairman, that the benefits of

Caller ID do, indeed, spill over the boundaries of individual towns,

because in New Jersey we've been implementing it as we have developed the technology in specific jurisdictions. The benefits of

Caller ID we have discovered in many instances, to our pleasant

surprise, spill over to customers who do not even subscribe to the

service, particularly to senior citizens who benefit from an obscene

or threatening caller not really knowing whether they have the

service or not.

So the suggestion made earlier that an obscene caller in a Caller

ID environment might want to inquire about whether a person has

Caller ID, as silly as that is, seems actually to suggest that the benefits do go beyond just those people that subscribe to the service.

As Senator Kohl suggested, if you subscribe to the service and

someone blocks a call, you can decide whether or not to take that

call. I think, frankly, it would work to our benefit if, as Mr. Moore

suggested, it's just a matter of money, because we would probably
103

sell more Caller ID devices with per call blocking. You would have

to take our Caller ID service in order to know who was blocking

their message. So from a marketing perspective, probably we would

make more money.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. With blocking devices?

Mr. CULLEN. With the blocking device. At least it's been suggested that that's possible. I would leave it there. We don't know because we think that unrestricted is the right thing to do.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. We heard one witness suggest that the future

might bring a service which shows a name rather than a number.

The name presumably would be that of the subscriber of the telephone, like C. Jones. In other words, the listing of the number is to

C. Jones, let's say. That name is disclosed, irrespective of who is

making the call.

Is that something you're contemplating in the future?

Mr. CULLEN. That is something that the research organization of

the seven regional Bell operating companies is trialing and evaluating right now, along, with another wrinkle, which would be an

announcement service. The call coming in could provide not only

the name and number on a Caller ID device, but an announcement.

So if you're at the kitchen table and the phone rings, you really

don't have to get up and go check your device to see who's calling.

That really raises what I think is an important issue, Mr. Chairman, and that is the technology is evolving very, very rapidly here.

It makes it difficult to find a one dimensional blanket solution to

address a variety of concerns.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. I concede that point. I have a piece of legislation here for the purposes of debate, but I can understand that. On

the other hand, that mere point might suggest to you that the privacy concerns of the caller are enhanced because, if you're going to

disclose more than the number, it may be a little more sensitive in

terms of whether that individual has a right to block that or not.

Mr. CULLEN. I would just add, sir, that we are not anywhere near

having that capability today. We are not contemplating that offering today. If we did get to the point where our customer said that

would be a valuable service, we would go about it in exactly the

same way that we did initially with Caller ID•through hearings,

through testimony, and through the public service commissions in

each jurisdiction.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. We are informed that the Federal Communications Commission is looking into this. I don't know what conclusion they will reach. They might reach a conclusion that there are

some national interests to be served here; that is, for purposes of

uniformity. Does that at this point concern either of you?

Mr. CULLEN. The Federal Communications Commission in 1988,

sir, rendered a decision with respect to long distance carriers and a

technical capability called ANI, automatic number identification,

that allows them to, in effect, provide that service, which I might

add is a very beneficial service for their meeting the needs of their

customers, because it brings up for the customers of the firm using

it information they need to provide a service.

They currently have an open docket looking at precisely what

you suggested, the issues that have been raised here. It does not

concern me. I believe the issues raised are primarily local issues.
104

But as the FCC looks at this, we will certainly participate in that

debate.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. Very good.

Mr. STANGLAND. I would add to that, that it would not concern

us, and it would actually enhance our position on interconnection

and honoring of the privacy flag.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. I appreciate that.

Thank you both, Mr. Cullen and Mr. Stangland. You both have

been very helpful this afternoon. You've really stayed a long time

as well.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. I would like to call on our last witness today,

who is Ms. Janlori Goldman, legislative counsel, American Civil

Liberties Union. She is a frequent and valued witness on privacy

issues before this committee.

Ms. Goldman, welcome. Please proceed.

STATEMENT OF JANLORI GOLDMAN, LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL,

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION

Ms. GOLDMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for inviting

the ACLU to testify today on the issue of Caller ID and the possible

amendment to the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. We do

support the legislation. We strongly support it. We also supported

ECPA back in 1985 and 1986 when we worked with this committee

in drafting it. We think the bill you have introduced is very appropriate in regulating the use of Caller ID around the country.

I would like to summarize my written testimony and ask that it

be entered into the record in full.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. Without objection, your entire statement,

which is 26 pages, will be received as part of the record. You may

summarize.

Ms. GOLDMAN. I would like to address some of the concerns that

were raised this morning, particularly those about law enforcement

and domestic violence victims.

First let me say at the outset that the ACLU is not opposed to

Caller ID. We share the position that many of the other witnesses

voiced here today, that Caller ID can be a very useful tool for

people, particularly in protecting privacy rights in the home. In

fact, in looking at the issue of Caller ID and developing our own

policy, we found, as Representative Hughes said, that people in

their own homes do have a strong privacy interest in protecting information and gaining more information as calls come into the

home. So we support the use of Caller ID.

Our position is that you've got to balance the privacy interests

on both sides. There are privacy interests held by both callers and

receivers of phone calls. The best way to balance these interests is

to give people on the calling end the ability to block the display of

their number.

Now, what we see•and I don't think this is a big surprise•is

that this has been a very emotional issue for people, the issue of

Caller ID and whether blocking should or shouldn't be provided. I

think that is because most people use the telephone. Anyone who

uses the telephone is going to be affected by the use of Caller ID. It
105

will change the way they use the telephone, it will change their relationships with other people, who they decide to call and when.

When you ask people, ' How would you like a device that automatically reveals the telephone number that you're calling from

every single time you make a phone call?" they seem taken aback,

because they can imagine instances where they would want to

block their number. Not to hide or maintain some kind of anonymity or confidentiality, but because they don't want their phone

number displayed on the receiving end. Maybe they have an unlisted number; maybe they are a social worker or a doctor. Maybe

they are calling, as Representative Berman said, one of their Representatives in Congress and they just don't want their number revealed. There are many reasons why people want to keep their

number confidential. It is not to be secretive, not to do something

wrong, but just because they should have the right to control that

information.

On the other hand, of course, on the receiving end, people should

be able to get information about calls coming into their home. The

Caller ID device will give them that opportunity, and we think it

should be provided. The problem is that there s a misperception

about what blocking will do in this arena. We believe, and we

think most people who look at this issue carefully also believe, that

blocking will provide people with more information on the receiving end. It will give them more information than if Caller ID is offered unrestricted.

For instance, if I'm in my home and I have Caller ID•which I

don't yet have•and I see that the number from which the person

is calling me has been blocked, I can make a decision not to answer

that call. If, as New Jersey Bell says, Caller ID with blocking will

become a tool to be used by people who make harassing and abusive phone calls, all the better. The use of blocking by harassing

and abusive people will keep me from ever going to answer that

call. The phone call will never even occur. I don't even have to pick

up the phone, have the abusive call happen, or say "I have your

number; I'm going to prosecute the next time you call."

What happened to the old adage that the phone company has

used to counsel people for years and years and years: "If you get an

abusive phone call, you get a harassing phone call, you get a

threatening phone call, just hang up." Getting an abuser's number

could be dangerous; the person on the other end has your phone

number, and may retaliate if a threat is made. The line that we

hear often in promoting the Caller ID service, that it's going to protect women, protect children, protect those who are vulnerable,

really is not accurate. In fact, it will provide greater safety risks to

people, because they will think that somehow they have this

weapon in the form of Caller ID. Blocking, again, will give them an

additional piece of information, so they don t even have to answer

the phone.

What you have also heard a little bit about today is that there

are other forms of technology which can be very useful to people in

addition to Caller ID with blocking•Call Trace, Call Block. One of

the things we found interesting in terms of protecting privacy is

that if you have all the technology that's available, if you give

people the full range of choices that are available, what you will
106

find is that some people may decide to program their phone so they

don't even receive calls from people who block. That is possible to

do. Or you might find that people who receive calls from blocked

numbers might send those calls to an answering machine so that

they don't have to speak directly to the person. Or they may just

decide not to answer the phone. But blocking will actually give

people a fuller range of choices.

The ACLU is not alone in this position. For instance, the White

House Office of Consumer Affairs supports blocking as a policy

matter, as does the National Association of Regulatory Utility

Commissioners, Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility,

and a number of law enforcement officials.

On the law enforcement point that was raised here earlier, law

enforcement in Ohio, Florida, Illinois, have taken the position that

Caller ID without blocking poses life-threatening consequences.

People will be reluctant to call in as informers, undercover officers

lives will be jeopardized if they are not able to block the display of

their number. Domestic abuse centers around the country adamantly oppose Caller ID without blocking. Because even if they get

a second line, as Mr. Cullen suggests, in the domestic violence

center, what if a woman has left her home and gone to stay with a

friend or a relative? What if that person doesn t have this second

line in his or her home? What if you can't always anticipate way in

advance that you may want to block the display of your number

from time to time, so you don't have that second number. Those

are serious considerations that I think will have life-threatening

consequences. When you balance the privacy interests, a simple

blocking device would be very important in this area.

It is important to point out at this stage that Caller ID is really

only the tip of the iceberg. It raises an important privacy issue in

the development of telecommunications policy. It points out there

are new technologies that are being developed by the telephone

company, that new telecommunications issues are arising under

ECPA. Not only Caller ID, but the entire use of personal information over the telecommunications network is a big and emerging

issue. Caller ID crystallizes the larger issues for the American

public. People understand the issue because they use the telephone.

It has a very direct impact on them. But I would hope that this

committee would continue to look at the larger issues as well, and

we would hope to work closely with you on that.

Again, we do support passage of the Telephone Privacy Act of

1990. We think, as you said earlier, Mr. Chairman, the patchwork

of laws is very damaging. The issue of leaving it up to the States is

in someways rather old fashioned. The telecommunications network, the telephone network, is a national system. Most people

make calls long distance across State lines. The technology is

emerging to the point where leaving it up to the States does not

make any sense. We need uniform, national policy in the area of

telecommunications, very similar to what we did with ECPA, and

that is why your bill appropriately amends that Federal law.

I would be happy to answer any questions that you may have of

me.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. Thank you, Ms. Goldman.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Goldman follows:]
107

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JANLORI GOLDMAN, LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL, AMERICAN CIVIL

LIBERTIES UNION

WASHINGTON OFFICE

SUMMARY OF STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION

ON H.R. 4340. THE TELEPHONE PRIVACY ACT OF 1990

The ACLU believes that Caller ID, if offered unrestricted,

raises significant constitutional privacy issues and nay be

illegal under the current federal Electronic Communications

Privacy Act (ECPA). We support the legislation introduced by

Chairman Kastenmeier (D-WI), and co sponsored by Representatives

Synar (D-OK) and Edwards (D-CA), that amends the federal law to

authorize Caller ID only where callers are provided the

capability to block the display of their numbers on the receiving

end. If passed, H.R. 4340 will strike a fair balance between the

competing privacy interests of makers and receivers of phone

calls, providing both parties to a phone call the ability to

receive and control information. In fact, blocking provides

people with an additional piece of information that will act as a

safeguard to abusive and harassing phone calle.

Federal legislation is needed to resolve ambiguities in the

scope of ECPA and to establish uniform, national privacy policy

in this area. In the absence of federal legislation, phone

companies around the country will continue to market Caller ID in

a variety of conflicting ways that will only create inconsistency

and chaos in the development of public policy in the area of

privacy and telecommunications. Currently, Pacific Teleaia, U.S.

West, Southwestern Bell, NYNEX and Centel plan to offer Caller ID

with blocking. Bell Atlantic, Bell South and Ameritech do not

plan to offer the blocking option.

In addition to the ACLU, organizations that advocate

authorizing Caller ID with blocking include: the National

Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, the National

Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates. Computer

Professionals for Social Responsibility, and the Direct Marketing

Association- In addition, many law enforcement officials.

domestic violence coalitions, doctors, social workers, and others

oppose unrestricted caller ID as a threat to their physical

safety.

The limits of current law provide a safeguard for people

against policy-making by the private sector that disregards

individual privacy. It is in this Congressional forum that the

policy implications of new technologies such as Caller ID can be

considered and balanced to give both parties to a phone call

privacy protection. The ACLU strongly supports H.R. 4340 to

authorize Caller ID with blocking.
108

Mr. chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:

I greatly appreciate the opportunity to testify before you

today on behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) in

support of H.R. 4340, the Telephone Privacy Act of 1990, and on

the legal and policy issues surrounding Caller 10. The ACLU is a

private, non-profit organization of over 275,000 members

dedicated to the protection of civil rights and civil liberties.

The ACLU believes that Caller ID, if offered unrestricted,

raises significant constitutional privacy issues and may be

illegal under the current federal Electronic Communications

Privacy Act (ECPA). We support the legislation introduced by

Chairman Kastenmeier (D-WI), and co sponsored by Representatives

Synar (D-OK) and Edwards (D-CA), that amends the federal law to

authorize Caller ID only where callers are provided the

capability to block the display of their numbers on the receiving

end.1On introducing the bill. Chairman Kastenmeier noted that

"the Congress must consider the importance of a uniform

communications policy, the significant privacy concerns [posed by

Caller ID), and the implications of a change in the status quo

' Similar legislation has been introduced by Senator Herb

Kohl (D-WI), S. 2030, to bring Caller ID within the purview of

federal law. As Senator Kohl stated in introducing S. 2030: "At

bottom, we are talking about choice. Who decides whether the

caller will reveal his or her number? I think the decision must

rest with the caller." A hearing on S. 2030 was held by the

Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Technology and the Law on August

1, 1990.
109

such as ANI would causa." If passed, H.R. 4340 will strike a

fair balance between the competing privacy Interests of makers

and receivers of phone calls, providing both parties to a phone

call the ability to receive and control information.

I. INTRODUCTION

New telephone technologies promise to enhance privacy and

give individuals greater control over their lives, but also

threaten to undermine these very same rights. One such device is

Caller ID, or Automatic Number Identification (ANI), which

displays the telephone number of an incoming call as the phone is

ringing. The introduction of Caller ID has sparked an emotional

and divisive debate that affects everyone who uses the telephone.

Federal legislation is needed to resolve ambiguities in the

scope of ECPA and to establish uniform, national privacy policy

in this area. In the absence of federal legislation, phone

companies around the country will continue to market Caller ID in

a variety of conflicting ways that will only create inconsistency

and chaos in the development of public policy in the area of

privacy and telecommunications.2

As of the date of this hearing, Southwestern Bell, U.S.

West, NYNEX and Centel plan to offer Caller ID with blocking.

Pacific Telesis also plans to offer Caller ID with blocking, as

required by a state law passed last year. Bell Atlantic plans to

continue offering Caller ID without blocking. Bell South and

Ameritech also plan to offer Caller ID without blocking. In the

current environment, what will happen when a California caller

blocks his or her number to a recipient in New Jersey, where

blocking is not available? Hill the block be honored? Further,

what are the implications when, as in Pennsylvania, Caller ID is

outlawed under certain state laws.

37-485 - 91 - 5
110

II. PRIVACY AND THE RIGHT TO COKTBOL PERSONAL INFORMATION

New communication technologies are changing the ways we deal

with each other. Few social and commercial relationships remain

unaffected by the introduction of new technologies such as

cellular and cordless phones, electronic mail, bulletin boards,

and pagers. Traditional barriers of distance, time, and location

are disappearing as our society comes to take these advanced

forms of communication for granted. As new technologies become

available, a tension is often created between existing societal

values and expectations, and the commercial opportunities posed

by these advances.

However, peoples' expectations of privacy should not be

measured against what is technically possible. New technologies

pose new risks to traditional civil liberties. Today's hearing

provides us with the opportunity to examine a technological

advance in light of widely shared expectations of privacy to

avoid the erosion of essential liberties.

People care deeply about their privacy, and cherish the

ability to control personal information. Even if they have done

nothing wrong, or have nothing to hide, most people are offended

if they are denied the ability to keep certain personal

information confidential. Crucial to one's sense of self is the

right to maintain some decision-making power over what

information to divulge, to whom, and for what purpose. The uses

of new technologies are always threatening to overtake current

law, leaving society without a new set of laws and social mores
Ill

to limit and define the extent to which new devices can be used

to know all we can about each other, often without regard to each

other's wish to keep information private.

National polls document a growing public demand for privacy

protection. A Trends and Forecasts survey released in May, 19B9

found that 7 out of 10 consumers feel that personal privacy is

very important to them, with many expressing the fear that their

privacy is in jeopardy. Half of the people believe new laws are

needed to protect their privacy.

A June, 1990 survey by Louis Harris 4 Associates, Consumers

in the Information Age, found a growing public demand for privacy

legislation, documenting that an overwhelming majority of people

believe that their right to privacy is in jeopardy. The survey

also found that 79% of the American public stated that if the

Declaration of Independence were rewritten today, they would add

privacy to the list of "life, liberty and the pursuit of

happiness" as a fundamental right. In an analysis of an earlier

survey, Harris concluded:

Particularly striking is the pervasiveness of support for

tough new ground rules governing computers and other information

technology. Americans are not willing to endure abuse or misuse

of information, and they overwhelmingly support action to do

something about it.

Further, the Bush Administration, through its Special

Advisor for Consumer Affairs, Dr. Bonnie Guiton, has made the

Louis Harris, The Road After 1984: A Nationwide Survey of

the Public and its Leaders on the New Technology and its

Consequences for American Life. December, 1983.
112

protection of consumer privacy, particularly in the area of

telecommunications, a priority issue.

The new technology at issue in today's hearing is Caller ID,

or Automatic Number Identification (AMI)4, a small device that

can be attached to a telephone that allows people on the

receiving end of a call to see the number of an incoming call as

the phone is ringing. Traditionally, without Caller ID, people

have no way of learning a caller's phone number unless it is

voluntarily given. As callers, people assume that the phone

number from which they are calling will remain confidential

unless they choose to reveal it. Unrestricted Caller ID reverses

this status quo. However, a blocking feature currently available

in a number of areas provides callers with a mechanism to block

the display of their number when they want to maintain

confidentiality.

Before discussing the significant privacy issues posed by

Caller ID, it is important to review the constitutional and

statutory foundation for privacy protections.

* Caller ID is the term used to describe the use of the

technology by local subscribers. Automatic Number Identification

(ANI) is the service provided to commercial subscribers of 800

and 900 services.
113

a. The Constitutional Right to Privacy

The right to privacy • as imbedded in the U.S. Constitution

and numerous federal and state statutes • is the central

principle that limits, as well as fosters, the use of new

technologies. The right to privacy encompasses fundamental values

of liberty and autonomy, including both "the right to be let

alone,"1as Justice Louis Brandeis defined it, and the right to

control the dissemination of personal information.6

Although the word "privacy" does not appear in the U.S.

Constitution, the U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted the

Constitution to grant individuals a right of privacy, based on

the First Amendment freedom of association and expression, the

Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, the

Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of "ordered liberty," the

unenumerated rights guaranteed by the Ninth Amendment, and most

principally, in the Fourth Amendment protection of persons,

places, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and

seizures.

The scope of the Fourth Amendment once hinged on propertybased notions of liberty that linked peoples' privacy rights to

their relationship to certain places. However, in 1967, in United

Brandeis dissenting).

6 Whalen v. Roe. 429 U.S. 589 (1977). In Privacy and

Freedom (1970), Alan Westin stated that "privacy is the claim of

individuals, groups or institutions to determine for themselves

when, how, and to what extent information about them is

communicated to others."
114

States v. Katz7. the Supreme Court expanded its interpretation by

ruling that the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places. In

Katz, the Court held that warrantless wiretapping is

unconstitutional, and created a standard for determining

constitutionally protected "zones of privacy" based on whether an

individual has a "reasonable expectation of privacy" in the

conduct or information disclosed. Central to the Katz formulation

is whether the individual takes certain measures to preserve his

or her privacy."

In practice, the Katz "reasonable expectation of privacy"

standard has often been used to weaken privacy protections. The

objective "expectation" model can only reflect, not prevent,

deterioration in societal respect for privacy. Applying Katz. the

Court in later cases determined that an individual's privacy has

not been violated by certain intrusions because society's

"expectation of privacy" has been persistently lowered by the

"What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in

his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment

protection. But what he seeks to preserve as private, even in an

area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally

protected." Katz. at 351.

* Nowhere is the fallibility of the Katz standard more

blatant than in U.S. v. Miller. 425 U.S. 345 (1976), where the

Court found that people do not have a constitutionally protected

privacy interest in their personal financial records held by a

bank. The Court reasoned that since Miller had relinquished

possession of his documents, he no longer had a "reasonable"

expectation that the bank would not disclose his records. As

Justice Brennan noted in his dissent in Miller, people do. have an

expectation that their bank records will only be used for

8
115

surprising since many people can no longer claim to "reasonably"

expect privacy even in the most intimate activities of their

lives.'0

In one of those Fourth Amendment cases, Smith v. Maryland",

the Court ruled that law enforcement officials do not need a

search warrant to install a pen register, a device that records

the numbers dialed from a telephone. Applying the Katz standard,

the Court found that people have no reasonable expectation of

privacy in the numbers that they dial. Congress later rejected

this approach in a section of the Electronic Communications Act

of 1986.

b. Congressional Response

In response to the Supreme Court's rigid interpretation of

the Constitutional right to information privacy, Congress has

enacted legislation that gives people expectations of privacy in

internal banking purposes. In addition, he observed that

".judicial interpretations of the constitutional protection of

individual privacy must keep pace with the perils created" by the

development of sophisticated information technology that have

accelerated intrusion into areas a person has chosen to keep

confidential. In response to Miller. Congress enacted the Right

to Financial Privacy Act in 1978 to create a protectible privacy

interest in personal records held by banks. 12 U.S.C. 3401.

10 In 1986, the Supreme Court in Bowers v. Hardwick. 478

U.S. 186 (1986), upheld Georgia's sodomy statute, finding that

one does not have a constitutional right to engage in private,

consensual sexual conduct.
116

certain information held by others, including credit12,

education15, financial14, cable15 and video records.1'

In the area of communications, following Katz, Congress

passed the Wiretap Act of 1968, which limits severely the

government's ability to intercept and record communications."

And, in 1986, Congress passed the Electronic Communications

Privacy Act (ECPA) to update the Wiretap Act to cover the

interception of new forms of electronic, non-aural

communication.1' In addition, in ECPA Congress rejected the

Supreme Court's conclusion in Smith v. Maryland that telephone

toll records are not entitled to privacy protection.

ECPA provides that "no person may install or use a pen

register or trap and trace device19 without first obtaining a

" Fair Credit Reporting Act, f 15 U.S.C. 1681 (1970).

11 Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, 20 U.S.c. I

1232g (1974).

u

Right to Financial Privacy Act, 12 U.S.C. § 3401 (1978).

15 Cable Communications Policy Act, 47 U.S.C. § 551 (1984).

14 Video Privacy Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2710 (1988).

" The Omnibus Cri

18 U.S.C. 2510 et seq.

" As Senator Lear

wiretap Act "is hopelessly out of date. . . [In 1968], Congress

could not envision the dramatic changes in the telephone industry

which we have witnessed in the last few years."

19 A trap a trace device is defined as a "device which

captures the originating electronic or other impulses which

identify the originating number of an instrument or device from

which a wire or electronic communication was transmitted." 18

U.S.C. 3127(4).

10
117

court order" that certifies "that information likely to be

obtained is relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation being

conducted" by a particular law enforcement agency.20 This

general prohibition does not apply if used by a provider of:

electronic or wire communication service•

(1) relating to the operation, maintenance, and testing of a wire

or electronic communication service or to the protection of the

rights or property of such provider, or to the protection of

users of that service from abuse of service or unlawful use of

service; or

(2) to record the fact that a wire or electronic

communication was initiated or completed in order to protect such

provider, another provider furnishing services towards completion

of the wire communication, or a user of that service, from

fraudulent, unlawful, or abusive use of service; or

(3) where the consent of the user of that service has been

obtained.

Although Congress did not consider specifically Caller ID in the

drafting of ECPA, the use of Caller ID as a trap and trace device

is clearly covered by the law.

III. CALLER ID AND CURRENT LAW

A serious question exists as to whether Caller ID, as a trap

and trace device, is legal under current federal law. As drafted,

ECPA contemplates the use of trap and trace devices by only two

parties • law enforcement, which must first obtain a court

order, and telephone service providers, which must meet one of

three exceptions. All other uses are prohibited.

20 18 u.s.c. 3121(a), 3122(b).

21 18 U.S.C. 3121(b).

11
118

Caller ID devices squarely fit the lav's definition of a

trap and device as one that "captures" and identifies "the

originating number... fron which a wire or electronic

communication was transmitted."22 ECPA prohibits the use of a

trap and trace device without a court order unless one of three

exceptions are met. The three exceptions only apply to

"providers" of telephone services. Thus, it appears that the use

of a trap and trace device by a telephone subscriber is

prohibited. The Congressional Research Service (CRS) arrived at

the same conclusion. In an opinion issued last fall, CRS

interpreted the exceptions to the general prohibition to apply

only to the use of trap and trace devices by providers of

communication services, and not users of the services.21 The

language of ECPA and its legislative history are clear that the

intent is to allow providers to use trap and trace devices

primarily to verify billing, and to detect illegal activity. In

addition, other sections of the law refer explicitly to both

providers and customers.2*

22 18 U.S.C. 3127(4).

21 CRS, October 18, 1989, memo to House Judiciary Committee.

2( See 18 U.S.C. 3127(3) which authorizes both provider and

customer use of a pen register for billing purposes. As

originally introduced ECPA did not contain language on the use of

trap and trace devices. However, earlier bills did include the

proscriptions on the use of pen registers intended as a response

to the Supreme Court's decision in Smith v. Maryland. The trap

and trace language, added without altering substantially the pen

register section, first appears in the Senate bill on September

27, 1986, less than one month before the Act's passage. The

legislative history is silent on the intended impact of the

change.

12
119

Evan if it is determined that "providers" nay provide Caller

ID to telephone subscribers, none of the three exceptions apply

to authorize its general, unrestricted use. The first exception

applies to the use of a trap and trace device in the "operation,

maintenance, and testing" of the service, or to "protect the

rights or property of the provider" or to protect the users of

that service from unlawful or abusive use of the service. The

legislative history is clear that this first exception was

intended to cover only use of a pen register by the phone

company.a

The second exception authorizes a provider to use a trap and

trace device to protect providers and users from fraudulent,

unlawful or abusive use of service. Again, the second exception

is inapplicable to the everyday use of Caller ID by telephone

subscribers. In addressing the first two exceptions, CRS

concluded:

Any suggestion that either of these exceptions authorizes a

user'8 employment of a trap and trace device to identify all

incoming calls in order to avoid answering those from sources

likely to be obscene or harassing overlooks the fact that

permissible use is limited to providers.

The third exception authorizes providers to use trap and

trace devices "where the consent of the user of that service has

bill.

24 CRS memo, p.6 (October 18, 1989).

13
120

been obtained." At best, the scope of this exception is

ambiguous. First, is the user the caller or the receiver of a

phone call? Or is it the subscriber? Logically, since it is the

caller who takes the active step to initiate a phone call, and it

is his or her number that is being revealed, it follows that it

is the caller's consent that should be obtained prior to the

provider using a trap and trace device.

Even assuming that "the user" is found to be either party to

a phone call, in its analysis CRS interprets the third exception

to be:

restricted to consent to use a trap and trace in connection with

a particular call where there is only a single user who may

consent, as opposed to continuous use of a trap and trace device

in connection with a particular line which might over the course

of time have many users... The consent exception therefore cannot

embody consent of a telephone subscriber to include a

continuously operating trap and trace device as a feature of his

or her telephone service.

Me do know, though, that in 1986 the development of Caller

ID technology was in its infancy, and was not considered

explicitly by either the Congress or the various groups that

supported passage of ECPA. Nevertheless, Congress did intend

ECPA's scope to be elastic enough to cover the development of new

communications technologies. As the Chairman of this Subcommittee

and chief author of the House-passed version of ECPA stated:

The first principle [upon which ECPA is based] is that

legislation which protects electronic communications from

interception by either private parties or the Government should

27 CRS found it important that exception (3) refers to the

user, whereas others sections of the law refer more generally to

a user.

1*
121

be comprehensive, and not Halted to particular types or

techniques of communication . . . Any attempt to write a law

which tries to protect only those technologies which exist in the

marketplace today ... is destined to be outmoded within a few

years. *

One of the primary achievements of ECPA was to ensure that

communications privacy would not be diminished by the advent of

new technologies. In this context, the law's general prohibition

on the use of trap and trace devices must be read broadly. Caller

ID, as a trap and device, may not be used unless an explicit

statutory exception applies.

No federal court has yet interpreted ECPA's trap and trace

law as applied to Caller ID. However, on May 30, 1990, the

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania ruled that the use of Caller

ID is illegal and unconstitutional under its state law, which is

modeled on and virtually identical to the federal law.29 In its

decision, the court relied heavily on the State's trap and trace

law to conclude that Caller ID, with or without a blocking

mechanism, violates individuals' privacy and due process rights.

In addition, in July, 1990 the Public Service Commission of the

District of Columbia determined that Caller ID must be offered

u

132 Cong. Rec. 14886 (remarks of Representative

Kastenmeier accompanying H.R. Rep No. 647 (1986).

29 David M. Barasch. Consumer Advocate v. Pennsylvania

Public Utility Commission. N. 2270 CD. 1989 (May 30, 1990).

Named plaintiffs also included the ACLU of Pennsylvania, the

Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence, and the

Consumer Education and Protective Association.

15
122

with blocking to avoid any question of violating ECPA.30 The

rulings in Pennsylvania and the District of Columbia lend support

to our position that Caller ID is prohibited under current law.11

IV. POLICY CONSIDERATIONS AND LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS; THE FUTURE

nr aaa •

The ACLU supports the legislative solution proposed by B.R.

4340, the Telephone Privacy Act of 1990, to amend the trap and

trace section of ECPA to authorize Caller ID if offered with a

mechanism that allows people to block the display of their number

on the receiving end. If passed, the bill will most fairly

balance the competing privacy interests of both parties to a

phone call.

The ACLU believes that while Caller ID holds the prospect of

enhancing peoples' privacy, it also threatens to severely

undermine cherished expectations of confidentiality. If not

properly restricted, Caller ID will automatically reveal a

50 In The Matter of the Application of the CtP Telephone

Company to Offer Return Call and Caller ID with the District of

Columbia. Order No. 9506 (July, 20, 1990), p. 16.

31 Although the court in Pennsylvania relied on the state's

trap and trace law in its ruling that Caller ID is illegal with

or without blocking, the court buttressed its argument with

reference to the state's Wiretap Act, which requires the prior

consent of all parties to a communication before it can be taped

or intercepted. See Barasch v. PDC. No. 2270 CD. 1989, pp. 6-7.

In addition to Pennsylvania, approximately 14 states with

Wiretap Acts have "all party consent" or "two-party consent"

laws, including Maryland, Michigan, California, Florida, Hawaii,

Louisiana, Montana, Washington, Alaska, Georgia, New Hampshire,

New Mexico, Wisconsin, Massachusetts, and Puerto Rico.

16
123

caller's number, and possibly identity and location, without a

mechanism that allows callers to selectively block the display of

their numbers on the receiving end, people will no longer control

when and to whom to give their numbers.

The controversy generated over Caller ID is unique in that

the competing privacy interests are most often held by the same

people • those who make and receive phone calls. In fact, when

they see themselves as receivers of phone calls, most people are

eager for Caller ID. But, as makers of phone calls, most people

want the power to block the display of their numbers. The most

recent Harris survey • Consumers In the Information Age •

documented the public's views on Caller ID. Nearly half of the

American people (48%) believe Caller ID should be permitted only

if blocking is available, and over a quarter (27%) feel Caller ID

should be prohibited by law. Significantly, only 23% of those

polled say Caller ID should be available without any limitations.

The common thread running through the Caller ID debate is

that each party, at different times and for different reasons,

has an interest in receiving phone numbers and in limiting

dissemination of their numbers. (Admittedly, Caller ID has a

limited utility for consumers, since people will not instantly

recognize most phone numbers. Host people want to know who is

calling.)

What is actually at stake here?

17
124

Interest In receiving mfcMM

1. Consumers can sea the number from which a call is being

placed to decide whether or not to answer the phone. The

familiarity or unfamiliarity of a number will provide them with

more information to make decisions about calls coning into their

home.

2. Businesses want to use the technology to gather

information about people who call them. Some businesses claim

that the devices make it more efficient to automatically bring up

files, and allows for the creation and linkage of databases for

marketing purposes.

3. Law enforcement officials and emergency service providers

want the technology to locate people in danger or people using

the phone to make obscene or harassing calls; or to identify

other illegal use.

Interest in Limiting Disclosure

1. The automatic display of one's phone number can create

life threatening situations, including: calls to or from battered

women's shelters; calls made by a woman to a batterer; and calls

by social workers, doctors, and others who protect their safety

by keeping their phone numbers unlisted. In addition, law

enforcement officials in a number of states, including Illinois,

Pennsylvania and Florida, are concerned that Caller ID will

hamper undercover operations, and may discourage informants from

calling police departments.
125

2. Automatic number identification will be used by

businesses, including phone companies, to create and enhance

databases of consumer information to be used for marketing

purposes.

An individual's dual interest in receiving information and

in limiting disclosure are important here. The technology exists

to take into account and balance both of these interests by

providing blocking as part of the Caller ID service. In fact,

blocking actually provides people with more information • that

the person calling does not want to reveal their number, identity

or location. A call from someone who has blocked may discourage

the person on the receiving end from picking up the phone.

Some phone companies claim they want to offer Caller ID

without blocking primarily to give women who receive obscene or

harassing phone calls the ability to get the number of the person

calling them. Clearly, obscene and harassing phone calls are a

very serious problem. However, there is another service currently

available in many areas, known as Call Trace, that is rarely

advertised and much more effective than Caller ID for combatting

harassing phone callers. With Call Trace, a person who receives

such a call can instantly send a signal to the phone company and

the police that records the phone number of the caller and alerts

law enforcement officials that the call was just received. Host

importantly. Call Trace is still effective even if the caller

blocks.

19
126

It is untenable for a phone company to suggest that Caller

ID without blocking vill protect women from harassing phone

calls, particularly in light of the advice phone company

representatives have given for years to women who receive these

phone calls • "just hang up and report the call." Caller ID

may deter some harassing callers, thereby decreasing the number

of complaints received by phone companies each year. And, those

who persist in making harassing calls may block the display of

their number. But, if people are reluctant to answer blocked

calls, the harassing call never happens. In the event that an

harassing caller does not block, what do phone company

representatives suggest women do with the caller's number? Call

back? Threaten the caller? Such a vigilante approach is

dangerous.32 It is irresponsible for a phone company to use

Caller Id technology to wash its hands of this serious problem.35

There is a lack of hard data on how per-call blocking would

actually affect the use of Caller ID. The phone companies that

are currently offering the device without blocking failed to test

a per-call blocking option. However, the New York Public Utility

Commission mandated that the phone company in Rochester offer

both per-call and per-line (permanent) blocking in its

Caller ID as a weapon, and suggest that women use it to fight

back against obscene callers.

D

Again, Call Trace reports the number to police and cannot

be blocked.

20
127

preliminary trial of Caller Id.5* Early results from that trial

confirm what many have been saying all along. A very snail

percentage of phone numbers are actually blocked."in addition,

D.S. West is also offering Caller ID with blocking in its trials

of the service.

A number of reasons exist as to why few calls are blocked.

One, people are reluctant to answer blocked calls. Second,

blocking requires an affirmative act on the part of the caller. A

caller must want to keep his or her number confidential, at least

before the phone is answered, and must take steps (punching in a

code) to block the display of the number. It is important to

recognize that there is a burden associated with requiring people

to "do something" to protect their privacy. Most likely, there

will be many instances when people who want to safeguard the

confidentiality of their phone numbers will forget to block.

V. THE COMMERCIAL USE OF AUTOMATIC NUMBER IDENTIFICATION fANI)

The use of Caller ID by businesses to collect phone numbers

for commercial purposes poses significant privacy concerns, in

particular, that people are increasingly losing control over

personal information in exchange for receiving goods and

34 New York Public Service Commissioner Eli Noam stated that

the marketing of unrestricted Caller ID represents a

"technocratic disregard for privacy."

55 "New Caller ID Data Emerges in Trial," Telephony, May 7,

1990.

21
128

services, often without the individual's knowledge and consent.5*

The commercial use of Caller ID is especially troubling since

most businesses can not claim to have a privacy interest in

receiving phone numbers before calls are answered. In fact, many

businesses welcome calls from consumers, and aren't likely to be

reluctant to answer a blocked call. On the other hand, a person's

phone number has become a very valuable piece of information.

A phone number is much like a social security number in

that it is perceived as a unique identifier. A person's phone

number may easily be used as a key to "unlock" databases

containing personal information, allowing for a variety of

information to be compiled, exchanged, manipulated, and sold for

commercial purposes. The commercial use of Caller Id allows

businesses to capture phone numbers and match them with names,

addresses, buying habits, credit history and other information to

build valuable consumer profile databases for marketing.

law • information collected for one purpose should not be used

for another purpose without an individual's consent. In other

words, a person should not have to give up his or her phone

number as a condition for using the telephone. American Express

learned that it is bad business to let consumers know it uses

Caller ID technology. As the phone was ringing, the company

would match the incoming phone number to the appropriate customer

file, and answer the phone by greeting the customer by name.

American Express stopped greeting customers by name after people

objected to the practice, but they continue to use the technology

to call up customer files.

22
129

The phone number itself reveals personal information.17 For

instance, it nay be significant that a person placed a call from

a particular number. Or, the number may be otherwise unavailable

because it is unlisted. Many businesses are becoming more anxious

to receive unlisted numbers since between 30-55% percent of

telephone subscribers, depending on the area, currently pay to

keep their numbers unlisted.M

The phone number as a hot, new commodity has been well

documented by the media. As the Christian Science Monitor

reported last month: "Bell Atlantic, Bell South and Ameritech

plan to efficiently link this transmission system [Caller ID]

with every car dealer, insurance salesman and telemarketer. The

Bell companies will be selling a database of your home phone

number, telephone records, and buying patterns for a massive,

automated telephone assault."39

Maryland: "The numbers dialed from a private telephone •

although certainly more prosaic than the conversation itself, are

not without 'content.' Most private telephone

subscribers....[would not] be happy to have broadcast to the

world a list of the local or long distance numbers they have

called. This is not because such a list might be incriminating,

but because it easily could reveal the identities of the persons

and the places called, and thus reveal the most intimate details

of a person's life."

M

Last year, the Washington Utilities and Transportation

Commission recognized an enforceable privacy interest in

unlisted phone numbers. The Commission ordered Pacific Northwest

Bell not to disclose unlisted numbers to anyone, for any purpose,

except in cases of a life-threatening emergency or pursuant to a

court order.

59 Christian Science Monitor. May 1, 1990.

23
130

A Wall Street Journal article froa last fall entitled

"Making a Phone Call Might Mean Telling the World About You:

Number Identification Service is a Dreaa for Marketers But a

Threat to Privacy," posed the question: "Does a public utility •

the phone company• have the right to release phone numbers,

particularly unlisted ones, to individuals and institutions

willing to pay a fee for the information?""'

Telephone companies plan to use ANI technology to profit

from the collection and use of peoples' phone numbers, and other

personal information generated by use of the phone. This bundle

of information passing through phone company systems on its way

somewhere else is known as Telephone Transaction Generated

Information (TTGI). TTGI encompasses information generated by

phone usage, and transactions relating to the service. One

commentator notes the growing demand for TTGI by non-telephone

companies that value it for marketing purposes in:

characterizing, identifying, and locating their constituencies

... TTGI may be even more telling than census and other data in

defining the characteristics of individuals...[Citing Justice

Brennan]: The transactions of an individual give a fairly

accurate account of his religion, ideology, opinions and

interests."'1

"So a company with this new technology•

and some good data banks• could match a person's phone number

with the story of his life..."

41 T. McManus, TTGI: Rights and Restrictions. Harvard, 1989.

As Marc Rotenberg of CPSR noted in testimony before the Public

Service Commission of the District of Columbia, telemarketing

services currently provide "such personal information as length

of residence, marital status, education level, homeowner or

renter, even how much money the person makes and how many credit

cards the person holds, from just the phone number." In the

24
131

Against this back drop. Caller ID should not be authorized unless

callers are given the ability to block the transmission of their

phone numbers.

VI. PUBLIC RESPONSE

In addition to the ACLU, many groups have taken the position

that, if authorized, Caller ID should only be made available with

a mechanism that allows callers to block the display of their

numbers on the receiving end. Further, the overwhelming majority

of people confronted with this issue, and the views on all sides,

come to the same conclusion. Host notably, the Special Advisor to

the President for Consumer Affairs and Director of the White

House Office of Consumer Affairs, Dr. Bonnie Guiton, advocates

offering Caller ID with blocking to protect consumer privacy

interests.a

Matter of Application of the Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone

Company to Offer Return Call and Caller ID within the District of

Columbia, Formal Case No. 891, February 9, 1990, at 15.

** "Caller ID is just the first trickle in a floodwater of

communications technologies that threaten to reduce, or at least

redefine, consumer privacy in America," according to Dr. Guiton.

See "Concerns Over Telecommunications Privacy Multiplying,"

1/29/90, Office of Consumer Affairs. As Dr. Guiton notes, "Caller

ID reveals the number of every local incoming call, even unlisted

numbers, without regard for callers' specific need to protect

their privacy, or their ability to go out and call from another

phone so the number can't be traced to their address. And Caller

ID doesn't give callers any warning that their number will be

revealed." See, "Should Your Phone Number Be Private?" 3/26/90,

Office of Consumer Affairs)

25
132

Organizations that advocate authorizing Caller ID with

blocking include: the National Association of Regulatory Utility

Commissioners'3, the National Association of State Utility

Consumer Advocates*4, Computer Professionals for Social

Responsibility", and the Direct Marketing Association. **

In addition, many law enforcement officials, domestic violence

coalitions, doctors, social workers, and others oppose

unrestricted caller ID as a threat to their physical safety.

VII. coNcmsioN

The limits of current law provide a safeguard for people

against policy-making by the private sector that disregards

individual privacy. It is in this Congressional forum that the

policy implications of new technologies such as Caller ID can be

considered and balanced to give both parties to a phone call

privacy protection. The ACLU strongly supports H.R. 4340 to

authorize Caller ID with blocking.

"universal consumer choice" as the ethic to follow in making

policy decisions regarding new technology.

" NASUC believes that blocking will give consumers "total

privacy" as both callers and receivers.

" CPSR supports a "consent alternative" to the use of

Caller ID which would allow people to use the technology to

affirmatively display their numbers.

** DMA adopted a position last month in support of

legislative efforts to require that blocking be provided where

Caller ID, or Automatic Number Identification is provided.

26
133

Mr. KASTENMEIER. HOW important is a uniform national policy?

If a uniform national policy were to exclude blocking devices but

permit Caller ID, would that be preferable to a patchwork in which

some jurisdictions would have Caller ID with blocking and others

without?

Ms. GOLDMAN. Well, if our main goal was to have uniform Federal policy, regardless of what that policy was, it probably would be

preferable. What we do seek is to have Caller ID authorized, which

we don't think it is now. We agree with the CRS opinion that it is

currently illegal under Federal law. We think it should be authorized, but only if blocking is provided.

We are in a slightly fortunate situation these days in that the

majority of phone companies around the country have decided to

offer Caller ID with blocking, but a number of telephone companies

have still taken the position not to offer blocking. The Federal law

does need to address that issue, and we urge it. We would oppose

any bill that would authorize Caller ID if blocking were not

required.

So our main goal is not necessarily to have uniform policy, regardless of what it is, but to have good uniform policy that respects

the privacy interests of both sides to a phone call. Of course, these

competing interests are held by the same people, since most people

are, at one time or another, makers and receivers of phone calls.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. Your position also is that Federal legislation

is necessary even if it wouldn't go to the point of designating which

system should be used. Your point is it's necessary because Caller

ID may be illegal. That is to say, you happen to agree with the

Congressional Research Service that suggested it's illegal. Therefore, if that is true, we do have to legislate one way or the other.

Ms. GOLDMAN. That is exactly our position, Mr. Chairman. We

think, as a threshold matter, if Caller ID is going to be authorized

at all under any circumstances, that Federal legislation is necessary to amend the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. The decision in Pennsylvania echoes this as well. The court found Caller

ID, with or without blocking, illegal under the State law.

Because Caller ID needs to be authorized, we then reach the

second question, which is, if Caller ID is available at all, under

what circumstances should it be offered. We think it should only be

offered with blocking to most fairly balance the privacy interests.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. HOW do you answer those who say we may

need national policy on this, but we haven't reached the point

where we know how the technology will evolve well enough to

make a judgment at this point in time? Judgments as to precisely

what we're permitting or what we're dealing with, whether additional information can be communicated to the caller, for example,

names and other information, and whether the marketing arrangements may produce additional considerations? Perhaps we should

wait to see how this technology evolves before attempting to legislate. What would you say about that argument?

Ms. GOLDMAN. It would be an unusual circumstance if the telephone companies came forward today and said: "We embrace Federal legislation, we think this is the time we need to be regulated

and we support your bill." Though that would be very unusual, we

would certainly be thrilled if that happened, but we wouldn't

37-485 - 91 - 6
134

expect it. It's not likely the industry would come forward in this

kind of a circumstance and say "now is the time for legislation."

The truth is that over the past few years what you've seen

throughout the country are efforts on the part of a number of

phone companies to offer Caller ID, that it is currently available in

a number of areas, that it is having a direct impact on people's

lives today, and that people are very aware of the issue and care

deeply about it.

However, we have seen that there's been some industry response

that has been very conscientious and encouraging. For example,

Nynex recently joined Pac Tel, Southwestern Bell, and U.S. West

in deciding to offer Caller ID with blocking. The Direct Marketing

Association has taken a position in favor of the bill here today and

in favor of per call blocking, mainly out of an understanding that it

is not just the consumer-to-consumer use of Caller ID that can be

troubling, but it is also the commercial use of the technology that

is going to have some very substantial privacy implications in the

future.

If I can just take this moment and read from an article in the

Wall Street Journal last year about how a number of businesses

are moving toward using Caller ID to gather personal information.

In an article entitled "Making a phone call might mean telling the

world about you•number identification services, a dream for marketers but a threat to privacy," they pose the question: "Does a

public utility•the phone company•have the right to release

phone numbers, particularly unlisted ones, to individuals and institutions willing to pay a fee for the information?" What they found

is that there is going to be the creation of databases around the

country that will be used to capture phone numbers and match

them with names, addresses, buying habits, credit history and

other information that is valuable to build consumer profile data

bases.

That is why we strongly applaud the efforts of the Direct Marketing Association in taking their position. If people don't want to

give up their phone numbers, they shouldn't. If a company wants

the phone number, they can ask on the telephone, "May we please

have your phone number." That's out of a very basic respect for

the privacy rights of consumers.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. DO we know enough about these new marketing strategies and technology to incorporate them in any legislative

recommendation that comes out at this time?

Ms. GOLDMAN. Well, I think there aren't that many secrets at

this point. I think it would be very important for Congress to take

the initiative here and to say this is the policy that we want to set;

this is how we want the industry to develop in looking at privacy

interests. It's not so much about whether technology should be

available or not available. As we have said earlier, we support the

Caller ID technology and think it should be available. We do not

want to be in a position of hampering or hindering the development of any new technology.

But, in fact, what we have seen is that there are certain companies and certain kinds of technologies that are developed that disregard privacy interests. If Congress takes the initiative and sets

the tone and sets the policy, technologies can be developed in a
135

way that most closely regards and best respects the privacy interests of both sides.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. YOU have also heard reference to the fact that

the FCC is scheduled to take another look at the subject. What is

your reaction to that announcement?

Ms. GOLDMAN. Well, we think it's fully appropriate for the FCC

to look at this issue, as they would look at any other telecommunications issue. But we also believe that consistent with ECPA it is

necessary for Federal legislation to look at the issue of Caller ID,

whether it's to authorize it with some restriction, or to not authorize it at all. Again, we do support that it be authorized, with some

restriction. But those are complementary roles that the FCC and

Congress can play at this stage.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. I thank you very much for your testimony

today, and your response to questions on this subject. I think your

challenge to the committee is a valid one. There is Federal policy

at issue here and the Congress will have to confront this issue.

At this moment I am not necessarily convinced that the legislation I cosponsored answers all the questions, but I think we must

be prepared to do so in the near future. In the waning days of this

Congress we doubtless will not be able to do that, but we will have

an opportunity very early next year to return to this question, in

both the Senate and House. We hopefully will have the benefit of

even more information available and more opinions and more recommendations. We are delighted to have yours as a very important

part of this.

I want to thank you and the other witnesses today. This concludes the hearings this morning and this afternoon on the question of Caller ID, a question we will be returning to in the near

future.

The committee stands adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 12:50 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned, to

reconvene subject to the call of the Chair.]

APPENDIXES

ADDITIONAL LETTER AND STATEMENTS

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RICHARD A. BARTON, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, GOVERNMENT

AFFAIRS, DIRECT MARKETING ASSOCIATION

My name is Richard Barton and I am Senior

Vice-President of the Direct Marketing Association. I an very

pleased to submit a statement on Caller ID Technology. I am

even more pleased to state that the DMA supports legislative

efforts including H.R. 4340, that requires suppliers of ANI and

similar services to offer consumers the option of blocking the

receipt of the ANI signal by commercial users.

I appeared before this subcommittee just two years ago

to support this subcommittee's efforts to pass consumer privacy

legislation in the context of the 'Video Privacy Protection Act

of 19BS." That effort was successful with passage of a statute

that very same year. We hope that our current efforts results

in similarly positive action.

This past Hay, the Board of Directors of DMA adopted a

position on ANI and blocking. I would like to review that

policy paragraph by paragraph. First, DMA's position states as

follows:

The Direct Marketing Association (DMA)

recognizes that the proper use of technology

such as automatic number identification (ANI)

benefits consumers. DMA also acknowledges the

privacy concerns that may arise with the use of

such technology.

(137)"
138

ANI technology and Caller ID services provide

significant technological advancements for direct marketers and

the consumers that they serve. When a consumer calls a

marketer the primary interest of the consumer is to communicate

as accurately as possible and get off as quickly as possible.

For the service provider speed and accuracy are also both

important. ANI, by providing a means to link incoming calls

with existing files, goes a great way to further the goals of

speed and accuracy. The current application of ANI

technologies allows an operator to see customer account

information when she or he first says "hello". Once it is

verified that the person calling is in fact the person

identified by ANI, the operator can verify information which

already appears in the caller's file rather than having to

re-enter it for every call. Also, in some cases, particularly

for on-line services like home banking, ANI will be very

helpful in making sure that the person calling is in fact the

authorized consumer. All of this will allow for faster, more

accurate and more secure transactions.

ANI technology will also provide the marketer with the

opportunity to retain the number of the party making the call.

DMA guidelines require, however, that the marketer inform the

consumer if information obtained as the result of a telephone

contact is to be collected and made part of a mailing list

rented sold or exchanged with others, and provide the consumer
139

with an opportunity to have his or her name stricken from that

list.

ANI in concept is not new. DMA members for many years

have received on a periodic basis from their long distance

carriers the telephone numbers of people who have called their

800 and 900 numbers. Since the marketer is paying for these

services it is appropriate that the marketer be informed of who

made the call for billing purposes. Today, most marketers use

either 800 or 900 numbers. Very little national marketing is

done on the "regular" local or long distance network. ANI in

the past has come in the form of paper printouts or computer

tape.

What is new is the instantaneous delivery of the AMI

number to the marketer at the time the call is received. What

is also new is that this type of service can now be

economically used by most marketers and not just the very large

ones. The DMA believes that this is an important and

essentially pro-consumer technology and that it should be able

to develop with a minimum of regulation.

DMA also acknowledges that privacy concerns may arise

with the use of this technology. These concerns relate to

consumer knowledge. If a consumer has an unpublished number

than he or she reasonably expects that such numbers will not be

given to anyone else. Moreover, ANI technology should not be

a basis for creating marketing lists unless the consumer has

been so informed.

-3-
140

Primarily, the privacy concerns raised in this context

relate to the more locally based Caller ID services which

generally are not used by the marketing industry. While we

believe that there is no threat to privacy by our industry's

use of AN I services, we do recognize that there may be some

positive steps that can be taken to avoid even perceived

problems.

The DMA policy goes on to state:

In view of the direct marketing industry's lono

history of supporting the opportunity of

consumers to limit the unwanted dissemination

of information about themselves, the Direct

Marketing Association intends to support those

legislative or regulatory efforts that require

suppliers of AMI and similar services to offer

consumers the option of blocking the receipt of

the AM signal bv commercial users.

DMA has long supported the practice of informing

consumers of how information about them is to be used and to

give them the opportunity to limit the dissemination of

information about themselves. DMA's Mail Preference Service

("MPS") name removal file was established in 1971 in response

to consumer requests to control their mail volume. A companion

service, the Telephone Preference Service ("TPS) was

established in January, 1985, as an answer to increased

consumer inquiries regarding telephone marketing.

In 1977, the U.S. Privacy Protection Study Commission

recognized MPS as an alternative to legislation regarding

mailing list usage. The Commission also encouraged individual

-4-
141

direct marketers to give people on lists an opportunity to

indicate they do not wish their names made available to outside

sources for marketing purposes. DMA supported this effort in

its "Freedom To Mail" campaign and sought to expand the

existence of in-house mail preference or "opt out" programs.

As a result, many direct marketers established their

own in-house mail preference services, or, as they're known in

the industry, "suppression files" so that consumers could enjoy

the convenience of shopping by mail, while at the same time

controlling their mail volume. Telephone marketers are also

encouraged to use in-house suppression as a means of ensuring

that solicitation calls are only targeted to those who are most

receptive. Traditionally, only a small minority of direct

response shoppers have taken advantage of such in-house

services, thereby supporting the industry's contention that

targeted direct marketing is seen by millions of consumers as a

convenience.

The in-house suppression programs consist of a policy

of notification and ability to opt-out. Typically, a catalog

company or credit grantor will inform its customers that it may

make its mailing list available to others. Industry acceptance

of the service shows a commitment to improve consumer

acceptance of direct marketing. MPS and TPS are also seen as a

means to save valuable marketing resources by not having people

on marketing lists who do not want to be there.

-5-
142

The DMA believes that it is consistent public policy

to inform consumers of ABI and related services and give them

an opportunity to limit the dissemination of information about

them. Per call blocking is the best way to do that. Blocking

allows the consumer to control the release of the information

in the first place upon making a call. This will provide the

consumer a vehicle for privacy protection without undo burden.

Subscription blocking would not be as good an idea because it

will automatically deny the consumer of the value of ARI when

it is wanted and needed.

Finally, DMA policy states:

DMA acknowledges that there are questions as to

the current technical capability to block all

AMI signals, and the potential cost

implications for commercial providers and

u£fir_5_. In those situations where blocking is

not technically feasible, the DMA Guidelines

for Marketing Bv Telephone require that

telephone marketers who receive or collect

consumer data as a result of a telephone

marketing contact, and who intend to rent, sell

or exchange those data for direct marketing

purposes should notify the consumer of that

lacJL. Consumer requests regarding restrictions

on the collection, rental, sale, or exchange of

data relating to them should be honored.

The blocking of Caller ID services made available as a

result of Signalling System Seven is by and large a readily

available technology. The blocking of ANI signals for 800 and

900 services is more difficult and is not currently available.

The delivery of the ANI signal is critical to the billing of

-6-
143

long distance callers and there Is no public interest in

blocking the delivery of billing information.

The phone companies should be encouraged, however, to

develop means to communicate the desires of consumers for

blocking of their phone numbers fox non-billing purposes. We

believe it is important that the telephone companies provide a

means so that those consumer concerns can be addressed. If

someone does not want his or her name or telephone number on a

marketing list, our industry believes that they should not be

on one.

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify and we

look forward to working with your committee to resolve these

important issues.

-7-
144

POSITION STATEMENT OF

CENTRAL TELEPHONE COMPANY

ON PRIVACY ISSUES RELATED TO CALLER

IDENTIFICATION SERVICE

I. Summary

Central Telephone Company, a subsidiary of Centel Corporation, serves 1.6

million customer lines in Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Nevada, North Carolina,

Ohio, Texas and Virginia. Centel is a customer- and community-oriented company,

committed to providing the most modern telephone service available.

Centel is an industry leader in deploying new technology to improve customer service, keep our rates as low as possible and bring the benefits of new services

to all our customers. For example, more than 95 percent of our customer lines are

digitally switched supporting a wide range of modern services, including Calling Number ID. But foremost to Centel is serving our customers.

Centers philosophy is to be customer-responsive - to offer the customer as

wide range of choice as possible in selecting among communications products and

services. Centel firmly believes that the customer, not the serving telephone company,

should decide what services the customer will use - including the disclosure of customer telephone numbers.

Furthermore, the company believes that offering Calling Number ID Block on

a par-call basis, available to all customers, stnkes an appropriate balance by offering

the many benefits of Calling Number ID service while preserving customer privacy Interests.
145

II. Benefits of Calling Number ID

Calling Number ID service supports the delivery of very valuable capabilities

to a wide variety of users.

Calling Number ID permits individuals to screen calls allowing them the option of answering or not answering. Calling Number ID also keeps a record of calls received for future reference or action when persons do not or cannot answer their telephone, such as when they are busy, running errands or on vacation. Moreover, the

new technology deters and more easily identifies obscene and harassing callers.

Businesses and their customers derive benefits from businesses receiving

the telephone numbers ol customers and potential customers who call. Through quick

identification of the caller, businesses can offer more personalized and responsive

service. The cost savings to businesses and improved efficiency mean lower prices

and higher quality to consumers.

Communities that have Enhanced 911 service have seen the benefits of giving certain emergency services immediate information regarding the location of a caller.

Calling Number ID would give communities that do not have Enhanced 911 the capability of identifying the location of an emergency caller through Calling Number ID and

cross reference of data banks and directories.

These are just a few examples of the many benefits of Calling Number ID.

Centel wants its customers to have these benefits available to them.

III. Concerns About Calling Number ID

Centel realizes - and is very sensitive to - its customers' concerns about privacy. Some customers for certain calls will want not to have their number identified.
146

In developing our position on Calling Number ID, we conducted focus groups

and sought the opinions of various audiences ranging from law enforcement agencies

to hotline services and consumer groups.

It readily became very dear that there are situations in which customers do

not want their telephone numbers to be revealed. Examples of these include:

•Individuals conducting business from their homes, such as psychiatrists,

doctors or lawyers, may not want their home numbers disclosed.

•An individual in a battered person's shelter who may want to call home

without revealing the location to an abusive spouse.

•Police or drug agency informants and individuals calling various hotlines

may want to remain anonymous.

Centel wants to be responsive to those customers who wish not to have their

number identified on certain calls.

IV. Optional Blocking Is Essential to the Balancing of Interests

There is a conflict between making the benefits of Calling Number ID available and the need for some form of blocking the display of calling numbers. Centel believes offering optional Calling Number ID Block on a per-call basis to all customers resolves this conflict: blocking would be available to everyone without greatly diluting the

benefits of Calling Number ID.

Per-call blocking requires callers to select that option each time they wish to

block. Therefore, Calling Number ID would not be blocked indiscriminately. But undercover policemen, hotline callers or abused spouse could block the delivery of their telephone numbers. They would not have to find a pay phone as no-blocking proponents

would require.

-3-
147

Customers do have various reasons (or wanting to keep their telephone numbers private tor certain calls. Centers approach gives them this choice.

Nor does optional call blocking cloak the originating number of obscene or

harassing calls. Customers with Return Call service have the option of returning an immediately preceding incoming call even if Calling Number ID Block had been used by

the caller. Furthermore, the related Call Trace feature enables all customers, regardless of whether they subscribe to Calling Number ID and whether the caller used Calling Number ID Block, to Immediately initiate a trace of obscene or harassing calls. Results of such a trace would be stored in the telephone company's switching office and

would be released only to appropriate law enforcement authorities. Return Call and

Call Trace can be effective deterrents to obscene and harassing callers even while optional call blocking preserves the privacy of other users.

V.. Support of State Approaches to Calling Number ID

Local service issues have traditionally been regulated at the state level, with

the states often diffenng in their legislative and regulatory approaches. Because of this

framework, Centel believes that Calling Number ID and related services also should be

considered on a state-by-state basis. Moreover, valuable experience with the new

technologies would be gained by permitting a variety of regulatory approaches across

VI. Conclusion

In conclusion, Centers approach would bring to customers the benefits of

Calling Number ID while preserving the customer's right to choose whether to disclose

his or her telephone number. The customer will have the choice - of the new services

and of number disclosure.
148

@£H&

United States Telephone Association 900 19m streetNW suueeoo

Washinglon, DC 200062105

(202) 835 3100

September 18, 1990

The Honorable Robert w. Kastenmeier

2328 Rayburn House Office Building

Washington, D.C. 20515-4902

Dear Chairman Kastenmeier:

The Board of Directors of the United States Telephone

Association, the national association of the local exchange

industry, on September 11, 1990 unanimously adopted the following

position on the issue of "Caller*ID":

"Caller*iD should not be the subject of federal

regulatory or legislative action at this time. The

individual state* and their commissions are the proper

government agencies to determine how to implement

Caller'ID and should be given the necessary time to

establish such policies.**

As you proceed with your hearings and deliberations on these

issues, we hope that you will be guided by this philosophy. The

individual states and commissions have a rich history of

encouraging technological development while protecting the rights

of consumers. Caller*ID service has been deployed in a number of

states, and the experience of the consumers in those states will

provide important evidence as to the best way to maximize

call<?r«ID's benefits.

We hope that you will allow the states the opportunity to fully

study this issue and apply their expertise.

Respectfully yours.

JOHN SODOLSKI

President

Michael Remington

Virginia Sloan
149

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CAROL KNAUFF, DIRECTOR, INTELLIGENT NETWORK SERVICES,

AMERICAN TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH CO.

My name is Carol Knauff. I an the Director of Intelligent

Network Services for AT&T. My organization is responsible for

the development and marketing of enhanced network services for

AT&T's business customers.

Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony on H.R.

4340. AT&T recognizes that calling party identification services

involve important public policy implications, and we welcome this

chance to share our views on the subject.

As calling party identification (CPID) services have become

increasingly available to the American public, they have also

been increasingly in the spotlight of public policy debate.

These services, in which the caller's telephone number is

displayed to the party receiving the call, are being provided to

both business customers and consumers depending upon the

deployment of the enabling technology. The display of the

calling number, as the services have become more widespread, has

raised some concerns about the privacy interests of both the

party placing the call and the party receiving it.

AT&T's involvement in privacy issues is not new. As a

leader in the telecommunications industry, we have a firm policy

to protect the privacy of the content of any information • voice

or data • that is transmitted over our facilities. He remain
150

committed to that policy in the future.

We were also a leader of the coalition that helped to pass

the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986. That

coalition included the Bell operating companies, other industry

participants, law enforcement agencies and the American Civil

Liberties Union. We have also worked to educate and inform all

interested parties about the technology under discussion today.

The bill now before the Committee, The Telephone Privacy Act

of 1990, would require that a telephone company that offers

customers a calling party identification service must provide the

calling party with the option of restricting the presentation of

their phone numbers. This is sometimes called "blocking" the

display of the calling number.

AT&T believes that mandating nationwide blocking capability

at this time would be premature and unwise. These services are

still at the early stages of development, and there is simply not

enough information available about -them to permit the Congress to

reasonably conclude that blocking is appropriate. Indeed, the

available.evidence points the other way. Where they have been

introduced, the services have already demonstrated their value in

enabling customers to offer new and more responsible services to

their, consumers, in sharply reducing the levels of anonymous

obscene and harassing calls, and in the provision of 911 and

- 3 -
151

other emergency community services. By providing customers with

the ability to screen unwanted calls, these services have finally

offered then choice and control over the use of the telephones in

their own hones. Sometimes called an "electronic peephole", CPID

services actually enhance the privacy of the party who is being

called.

AT&T therefore urges the Committee to do three things as

part of its review of this proposal.

First, we ask that you do not enact legislation that

unnecessarily or prematurely impedes the developnent, deployment

and uses of these new technologies. AT*T supports the widest

availability of telecommunications products and services to give

customers control of their communications services. This

includes services such as Caller ID, which utilize calling party

identification technology. Only with growing use will these

services provide their full benefits to our society.

Second, we recommend allowing the states to continue to

perform their traditional role as laboratories of public policy

development before enacting a federal law. It is important, we

believe, to allow some time to evaluate the results in the

various states where Caller ID has been introduced. Those

results will assist the Congress in determining consumers' needs

and desires in concluding which, if any, particular national
152

policy is appropriate or required.

And third, in the event this Committee determines that

restricting display of the calling number is required now, we

urga you to exempt certain long distance business services from

this requirement. In addition, because CFID capabilities are

critical to the evolving information industry, AT&T would

strongly object to any "per line" blocking requirement, i.e..

blocking all forwarding of identifying digits from a phone line.

I would like to examine each of these three points in

slightly more detail.

On the first point, I urge the Committee not to adopt

legislation that would preclude the unencumbered development of

these innovative technologies. Nationwide federal restrictions

on these services could significantly retard their development

and use, and would clearly reduce their value to customers.

Intelligent network services are the foundation of the

Information Age, and the unrestricted flow of information about

the calling number is essential to evolving products and

services.

Because these new technologies will act as the catalyst for

a wide array of new services and efficiencies that will benefit

the public, AT&T believes that premature limitations on these

- 5 -
153

services would be inappropriate. Public policy should not

discourage the development of new technology and, consequently,

deny customers the benefits of new services and products.

On my second point, I encourage the Committee to allow

sufficient time to evaluate the many state and industry trials

now being conducted on CPID deployment before rushing to judgment

with a national policy. Among the states there is now a full

range of options being offered, ranging from no restrictions on

calling number identification to mandating a per-call blocking

capability free of charge.

Several states have approved calling party identification

without restriction. New Jersey, for example, was one of the

first states to approve Caller ID, and it has done so without

requiring a blocking option. The service, in existence since

1988, has proven to be extremely well received by the consumers

in that state.

At the other end of the spectrum, California has enacted

legislation that would require capability for per-call

restriction of the number display at no charge when the service

is introduced. Since no calling party identification services

have yet been offered in California, the effect of this

restriction is unknown. Meanwhile, the Pennsylvania courts have

held that the entire concept of Caller ID is illegal under state
154

law. The matter is expected to remain in litigation for the next

several months.

Other states, like Florida, have taken a middle-ground

approach, requiring blocking capability only in certain

circumstances. In Canada, a different approach is being tried by

the telecommunications commission. There, per call blocking will

be available on a paid operator-assisted basis. In addition, at

leaat a dozen states are now conducting generic investigations or

hearings on specific tariff filings, and industry trials are

underway in New York and Nevada.

The varied state and industry approaches to deploying this

new technology are, in effect, creating a national laboratory in

which new services are being offered under a wide variety of

policies, terms and conditions. We suggest that these various

offerings, still at their early stages, will provide valuable

experience that will inform the development of an appropriate

national policy. We are confident that the best solutions will

emerge from the various approaches now being employed.

My final point relates specifically to business services.

We recognize that the Committee may find it appropriate to move

ahead now with some form of restriction on the presentation of

the calling number on a national basis. In that event, AT&T

strongly urges you to exempt certain interstate business services
155

from this blocking requirement. To elaborate on why AT&T makes

this recommendation, I would like to describe briefly some of our

current service offerings.

AT&T offers a variety of specialized long distance services

to our business customers. Of particular interest in this

discussion are our 700, 800 and 900 services.

Our 700 service is a conference call service, enabling

people in multiple locations to participate in a single call.

Our BOO service is used by businesses to accept toll-free calls

from their customers. And 900 service is an interactive service

that permits callers to leave or receive a message. A television

network, for example, may use 900 service to poll viewers on

their opinions on current events. Or a provider such as a travel

services firm may use a 900 service to provide callers with

access to up-to-date weather reports in any part of the world for

a reasonable charge.

AT&T also provides a service feature we call INFO-2 to our

800 and 900 customers. These are typically businesses with

nationwide customer bases, such as medical insurance providers,

hotel or motel chains, airlines, or credit card companies. With

INFO-2 service, the business customer can see the number of the

calling party displayed as the call takes place. Companies with

this service can establish a file of regular customers, which

- 8 -
156

they can link to the calling number. In this way, when a

customer calls the company can respond almost immediately.

Productivity is enhanced, and the calling customer eliminates

idle waiting time while the business retrieves the proper file.

There are three primary reasons why we recommend that these

business services should not be included in any mandate to

restrict the presentation of the calling number.

First, our customers are depending upon these services to

provide their own customers with the fast, efficient and accurate

service that their own customers demand and expect. These

services, in short, are an increasingly important productivity

and service improvement tool for businesses of all kinds.

A major financial services firm, for example, speeds and

enhances customer service • and improves its competitive

position • by using the calling number identification service.

When a customer calls the firm's toll-free number, the calling

number is automatically matched up with the appropriate customer

file. The employee taking the call gets access to the customer

file at the same time the call is received. Hasted time, for

both the employee and the customer, is eliminated.

A major automobile company also uses these services to

provide its customers with a single nationwide number for
157

roadside assistance. If a car has a problem, no natter where it

occurs, the driver calls an 800 number. Based on the number from

which the call is made, he or she is put in contact with the

nearest dealer or service agency for immediate emergency repairs.

A leading motel chain provides another example. It has

found that these services enable travelers to make their

reservations 20 percent more quickly than with older technology.

Similar applications are used by many customers in the

insurance and banking industries and in other consumer service

organizations. The common denominator is better, faster and more

responsive service to consumers.

Occasionally, the payoff is even more significant. A major

consumer products company received a call on its toll-free 800

number • not to ask for information, but to report that the

anonymous caller had just tampered with one of the company's food

products. Because of the automatic identification of the calling

number, authorities were able to arrest the caller within 30

minutes. The speedy response headed off any potential that an

unwary consumer would become sick or die from eating the tampered

food.

He currently offer CPIO services to more than 70 customers,

virtually all of whom report improved service and significant

- 10 -
158

productivity gains. We would certainly like to continue to

provide these value-added features in accordance with our current

tariffs and contracts. If blocking of the calling number is

required, it will clearly diminish productivity improvements and

the value of these services to our customers, and to theirs.

The second reason that AT&T would urge the committee to

exempt these business services from requirements to restrict

calling number presentation is simply that calls to these

services are, by their very nature, discretionary business calls.

Calls to 700 services are conference calls. Calls to 900 numbers

are for the purpose of exchanging information. And calls to 800

numbers are not only business calls, but are paid for by the

recipient, not the calling party. A business which establishes a

toll-free 600 number for the benefit of its customers should have

a right to Xnow what calls are being billed.

These business calls, we suggest, are not subject to the

privacy concerns raised by calling party identification services

in the residential market. A call to a credit card company, for

example, is solely for the purpose of transacting business • and

an essential part of transacting business is to identify oneself.

Concerns about personal safety in the residential marketplace,

such as possibly revealing the location of a battered spouse,

simply do not apply here.

11
159

The final reason to exempt theae business calls from any

mandated blocking requirement is that it is not technologically

possible today to restrict presentation of the calling number on

calls to 700, 800 or 900 services on a selective basis. The

technology which carries the signalling information • in effect,

the command to display or to block display of a calling number -

- is what va call Signalling System Number 7, or SS7. This

technology includes the capability of passing this signal from a

local exchange company to an interexchange carrier and then onto

another local company.

If the caller is not in a territory served by SS7

technology, there is no way, technically, to receive a signal to

block display of the calling number. It is this current lack of

technological capability that prompted the State of California to

exempt calls to 700, 800 and 900 services from its requirement to

offer a blocking option until the required technology is

deployed.

The SS7 interconnect between the local exchange companies

and the interexchange companies, while not yet available, is

expected to be deployed beginning in 1992.

To summarize, AT&T welcomes this opportunity to present our

views on emerging new technology and the public policy concerns

raised by that technology.

- 12 -
160

At this tine, we urge the Committee to exercise caution

before mandating any nationwide restrictions on the presentation

of calling numbers. He believe that such restrictions would be

premature, that they would deny the public the benefits of new

services by impeding the development and use of intelligent

network applications, and that they would retard current efforts

by the states to evaluate a variety of public policy options.

Finally, if the Committee does propose a requirement to

restrict calling number presentation, we recommend that this

requirement not include certain business services and, in no

event, should "per line" blocking be required.

Thank you very such for the opportunity to present AT&T's

views on this important issue. I assure you that we will provide

our full support and cooperation as the Committee's work

proceeds.

II*

13
161

statement of Southwestern Bell Corporation

Regarding Proposed Legislation

on the Caller-ID Service

Southwestern Bell welcomes this opportunity to

articulate its views regarding the privacy issues which this

committee is now addressing. We commend the committee for

its foresight in identifying and addressing the potential

conflict • seen by some • between the provision of

Caller-ID and the Electronic Communications Privacy Act.

Southwestern Bell anticipates that it will begin

offering "Caller-ID" within the very near future • perhaps

as soon as first quarter, 1991. An integral element of our

Caller-ID service offering, to be submitted to state

regulatory commissions for approval, will be the provision,

at no cost or charge to the customer, of a per-call blocking

capability. This per-call blocking capability will provide

each customer the ability to select which calls that

customer desires to remain unidentified to the called party.

We believe offering Caller-ID in this manner

provides a proper balance. First, this approach recognizes

the value of Caller-ID to the called party in better

managing the flow of communications into the home and

business. Furthermore, this approach recognizes and

respects the deeply-felt concerns of some of our customers

who say they want a choice about whether their assigned

telephone numbers are transmitted in readable form to

persons they call. Such concerns are more obviously

compelling for customers engaged in law enforcement duties,

as well as service organizations such as "shelter" homes for

battered women and children. We recognize also that other

customers desire to maintain this element of their privacy

less for social policy reasons than for preservation of the

more traditional view of privacy, i.e., the "right to be

left alone."

Southwestern Bell believes that its policy

regarding Caller-ID protects the concerns of the various

segments of its customer body who are concerned about number

delivery services. At the same time, however, the policy

does not intrude either on those customers who affirmatively

desire to transmit their telephone number with each new call

they place, or on those customers who are truly indifferent

to the issue one way or the other. Southwestern Bell

anticipates that number delivery will still occur on a high

percentage of calls, thereby accommodating the desire on the

part of many of our customers to be able to identify the

calling party.

One aspect of our policy that warrants particular

mention to this Committee is the fact that it was adopted by

Southwestern Bell voluntarily, without the aid, direction or
162

compulsion of legislative or regulatory pressure or mandate.

This is, we believe, the better course.

However, Caller-ID is but one type of number

delivery service. Other number delivery services and/or

name information services have been proposed by various

providers in different parts of the country. To the extent

that any oversight dealing with specific number delivery

services is viewed as necessary or desirable, it may be

appropriate for such terms or conditions to be imposed at

the state level. However, the terms, conditions, and

charges for provision of specific intrastate service

offerings, such as Caller-ID, appear to be more properly

matters of regulatory, rather than legislative concern.

Such matters have traditionally been the purview of state

commissions and there appears no need for preemptive

legislative action as it relates to Caller-ID.

Should the Committee determine that the provision

of number delivery services causes unintended conflict with

the Electronic Communication Privacy Act, the Committee

should act to prevent such a result. Southwestern Bell will

be pleased to work with the Committee to assure that any

possible conflict such as this is resolved so that the

provision of number delivery services cannot be interpreted

to constitute the provision of • or engagement in • trap

and trace or pen register activity as those terms are

defined in the Electronic Communications Privacy Act.

Trap and Trace or Pen Register devices and

activity have been subject to legislative regulation for a

considerable period of time and were recognized as

legitimate subjects of national legislation. Southwestern

Bell views number delivery services to be of an entirely

different nature. Their regulation, as noted earlier,

should be at the state level, reflecting values and concerns

unique, perhaps, to a given state.

Again, Southwestern Bell appreciates the

opportunity to present its views to this Committee. He will

be happy to assist the Committee in its consideration of

this issue.

2 •

o

37-485 (168)

293 91



,^S»" a°° 'V*^^*^ %7*&*'^ -V*^P\^ %'

.•^JtX rj£iikr\ ^SkX <?*.£&• °o <*,•

V >

0^ V! jp^. •_•

**ZPJ> v*SSV \r£*r V^S^V V

***** ^ /^j^f*- ^ ^ *!tf^L^r° ^

A

* ^JalKliv ^ & *$$ft/ti£°

"fl^V %3^r v^^V \^^v* "v

4VA

ft ^^ :< ° ^4. A* •

Av<*> - ^tai^r' • eP °j> • w^wtf * A

y

*^. - ^•^S' * cp yi> • W5?VSr *

• *P"»A 1"

. «J' ^ •• A:•*^ :i