U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

81–580 PDF 2013

S. HRG. 108–956 

THE WIRELESS 411 PRIVACY ACT 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, 

SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

SEPTEMBER 21, 2004 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

( 

(II) 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona, Chairman 

TED STEVENS, Alaska 

CONRAD BURNS, Montana 

TRENT LOTT, Mississippi 

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas 

OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine 

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas 

GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon 

PETER G. FITZGERALD, Illinois 

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada 

GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia 

JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire 

ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina, 

Ranking 

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii 

JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia 

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts 

JOHN B. BREAUX, Louisiana 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

BARBARA BOXER, California 

BILL NELSON, Florida 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

JEANNE BUMPUS, Republican Staff Director and General Counsel 

ROBERT W. CHAMBERLIN, Republican Chief Counsel 

KEVIN D. KAYES, Democratic Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

GREGG ELIAS, Democratic General Counsel 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on September 21, 2004 ..................................................................... 1 

Statement of Senator Allen ..................................................................................... 1 

Statement of Senator Boxer .................................................................................... 13 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 13 

Statement of Senator Brownback ........................................................................... 22 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 22 

Statement of Senator Ensign .................................................................................. 21 

Statement of Senator Smith ................................................................................... 17 

Statement of Senator Wyden .................................................................................. 16 

WITNESSES

Cox, Patrick M., CEO, Qsent, Inc. ......................................................................... 30 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 31 

Largent, Hon. Steve, President and CEO, Cellular Telecommunications and 

Internet Association ............................................................................................. 34 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 36 

Pierz, Kathleen A., Managing Partner, The Pierz Group, LLC ........................... 23 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 24 

Rotenberg, Marc, Executive Director, Electronic Privacy Information Center; 

Adjunct Professor, Georgetown University Law Center ................................... 38 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 40 

Specter, Hon. Arlen U.S. Senator from Pennsylvania .......................................... 51 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 52 

Strigl, Dennis F., President and CEO, Verizon Wireless ..................................... 18 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 19 

(1) 

THE WIRELESS 411 PRIVACY ACT 

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 21, 2004 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m. in room 

SR–253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. George Allen presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE ALLEN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM VIRGINIA 

Senator ALLEN. Good afternoon, I call this hearing to order. Senator Specter was to be speaking in the first panel, so to speak. If 

he doesn’t get here on time, we’re going to go straight to the panel, 

and I know we have many witnesses we want to hear from, so I’ll 

make an opening statement, allow Senator Boxer to have an opening statement in the event that Senator Specter appears, he can 

make a statement, if not, we will proceed to the witnesses who 

have come here. Thank you for being with us today. 

We are examining in this Committee, Senate Bill 1963, the Wireless 411 Privacy Act, which is sponsored by Senator Specter and 

Boxer. As many of us are aware, and everyone clearly in this room 

are, there are more wireless telephone users now than any time in 

history. There are over 160 million in the United States. Wireless 

phone service has proven valuable to millions of Americans because 

of their mobility, because of its service quality, its coverage, and its 

reliability. 

Personally, going around Virginia in an RV with a laptop getting 

Internet coverage through Verizon, its not just theory, it was great 

practice to not have Blackberry coverage and kind of weak cell 

phone coverage. To be honest with you, in some places, it was great 

to be able to access information. Obviously, Mr. Largent would appreciate, I was on CBS Sportsline.com, getting play-by-play of my 

brother’s pre-season game, and that coverage is, of course, very important to a few people. Congressman Largent understands what’s 

important in the real world. 

Senator McCain posed questions to 5 or 6 of the top wireless carriers, questions on this issue. Those questions have been responded 

to by those companies and they are from Cingular, Verizon Wireless, Spring, Verizon, and T-Mobile. At any rate, the questions and 

the answers will be made a part of the record. 

The facts as we proceed in this hearing, are going to be pretty 

clear, but, according to the Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association, there are more than 180 wireless services comVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:14 Jun 25, 2013 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\DOCS\81580.TXT JACKIE
2 

peting in the United States which means that’s great for consumers. Approximately 93 percent live in markets that are served 

by four or more wireless providers, and nearly 98 percent of Americans live in a market that is served by three or more providers. 

Now, by all accounts, the wireless industry is intensely competitive, and that competition continues to bring extraordinary benefits 

to consumers. According to the FCC, cell phone use in terms of 

minutes has increased by 22 percent per consumer while service 

costs have fallen by 13 percent. 

Overall, when we see this sort of a situation, consumers are the 

ultimate winners in a competitive marketplace, which enables 

them to determine for themselves or their businesses what they 

value and what they don’t value when it comes to their mobile 

phones. More recently, wireless customers, both residential and 

businesses, have indicated a desire to make their wireless telephone number available to others through directory assistance. 

To meet this consumer demand, the wireless industry is considering offering wireless directory assistance services, or 411. At the 

same time, there are efforts to create a nationwide directory and 

that, in doing so, has raised privacy concerns for consumers who 

don’t want people calling them up, and want to keep their phone 

numbers private, that is one of the benefits of cell phones in some 

peoples’ desires. 

Now, today’s hearing is to examine those privacy concerns and 

what the industry is actively considering to address them; when 

they’re going to be providing, and, not all will be providing directory assistance, some may, but at any rate, look at the scope of it, 

what is being planned and what will be available to customers. 

Now, generally speaking I think each company in a free market 

system ought to be able to make a decision for providing wireless 

directory for itself based on its own individual assessment of what 

its customers and the general marketplace demands. Likewise, I 

believe that each customer should have the freedom to make this 

decision for himself or herself based on their power to select the 

carrier they want for their particular needs or preferences. 

I don’t think it is necessarily mutually exclusive that either you 

have directory assistance through a company, or you have one that 

doesn’t, I think that the marketplace and companies will say, ‘‘If 

you don’t want your number in a directory assistance, you don’t 

have to opt in for it.’’ And it doesn’t have to be just one way or the 

other, and I think that clearly in the competitive marketplace, the 

companies, at least I have faith in the companies acting that way. 

So therefore, my general philosophy is before we move forward 

as a government with new laws and legislation, my preference is 

to allow consumers to use this vibrantly competitive market to pick 

features and services that they want. I’m hesitant to support additional regulations, however well intended, which effectively makes 

the choices for consumers. 

[Responses to Senator McCain’s questions to wireless companies 

follow:] 

3 

CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES

Washington, DC, September 15, 2004 

Mr. GARY FORSEE, 

Chairman and CEO, 

Sprint Corporation, 

Overland Park, KS. 

Dear Mr. Forsee: 

Recent press accounts indicate that a consortium of five of the six national wireless carriers, with the assistance of the Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association, are creating a multi-carrier database of subscribers’ phone numbers in 

order to provide the wireless phone numbers of their customers to consumers who 

call directory assistance services (also known as ‘‘411’’ services). While presenting 

an opportunity for wireless telephone consumers, including subscribers without 

wireline phones and small business users, to make their telephone numbers more 

widely available to friends and to potential customers, this action also raises issues 

of wireless telephone number privacy that are of great interest to the American public and to Congress. 

In response to consumer concerns about such proposed services, several bills on 

wireless directory assistance have been introduced this Congress. The Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation has scheduled a hearing on these 

services and related legislation for Tuesday, September 21, 2004, during which testimony will be heard from industry representatives and other interested parties. The 

House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce also plans to hold 

a hearing on these services in the following weeks. 

In anticipation of these hearings and to assist the Committees in understanding 

the views of all six national wireless carriers (some of which may not have the opportunity to testify), we would appreciate receiving your responses to the following 

questions prior to the first hearing: 

1. If you offer wireless directory services, will your subscribers be given a choice 

of whether to have their number(s) listed in a directory or not? If so, how 

would they exercise such choice (i.e., opt-in or opt-out), and would it vary depending on whether it was a new or existing subscriber making the choice? 

2. Do you plan to charge subscribers to keep their wireless number(s) unlisted? 

3. Are your current terms of service with customers consistent with your responses to questions 1 and 2? 

We appreciate your efforts to provide this information to the Committees and to 

Congress by Monday, September 20. 

Sincerely, 

JOHN MCCAIN, 

Chairman, 

Senate Committee on Commerce, 

Science, and Transportation. 

JOE BARTON, 

Chairman, 

House of Representatives Committee 

on Energy and Commerce. 

FRED UPTON, 

Chairman, 

House of Representatives Subcommittee 

on Telecommunications and the Internet. 

4 

SPRINT

Overland Park, KS. September 20, 2004 

Hon. JOHN MCCAIN, 

Chairman, 

Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. 

Hon. JOE BARTON, 

Chairman, 

House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce. 

Hon. FRED UPTON, 

Chairman, 

House of Representatives Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet. 

Dear Chairmen: 

Thank you for your interest in Wireless Directory Assistance (WDA). Provided 

below are responses to the questions you asked in your letter to me dated September 15, 2004. 

As you are aware, there are more wireless telephone users now than any time 

in history. Many wireless users, both residential users and businesses, wish to make 

their wireless telephone numbers available to others through directory assistance. 

Currently, there is no convenient method in place for wireless users to do that. To 

meet subscriber demand, Sprint is considering offering WDA. Although Sprint’s 

plans in this area are not yet finalized, Sprint commits that the following points 

will be at the core of any offering. 

Question 1. If you offer wireless directory services, will your subscribers be given 

a choice of whether to have their numbers(s) listed in a directory or not? If so, how 

would they exercise such choice (i.e., opt-in or opt-out), and would it vary depending 

on whether it was a new existing subscriber making the choice? 

Answer: Wireless numbers will only be made available to WDA if a specific customer directs Sprint to make them available. This opt-in method will apply to both 

existing subscribers and new subscribers. Subscribers’ telephone numbers will not 

be made available to WDA, by default. In addition, subscribers will be able to revoke 

their opt-in consent at any time. 

Question 2. Do you plan to charge subscribers to keep their wireless number(s) 

unlisted? 

Answer: Sprint does not plan to charge existing or new subscribers for keeping 

their number out of WDA listing. Also, Sprint has no plans to charge existing or 

new subscribers to remove their listing from WDA. 

Question 3. Are your current terms of service with customers consistent with your 

responses to questions 1 and 2? 

Answer: Subscriber consent will not be obtained through service contracts. 

Sprint’s current subscriber contracts do not specifically address WDA. In all cases, 

subscribers will have to specifically direct Sprint to make their numbers available 

to WDA before Sprint will do so. Even if an older version of Sprint’s service contract 

references directory assistance, Sprint will adhere to the commitments listed in response to questions 1 and 2. 

Sprint believes that carrier WDA plans are consistent with important privacy objectives and will increase customer choices. Absent an effective opt-in WDA approach as Sprint has outlined above, inter-modal competition will be harmed and 

customers who only have a wireless phone and want to be reached will be needlessly 

out of touch. 

Sincerely, 

GARY D. FORSEE. 

Chairman and Chief Executive Officer. 

5 

CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES

Washington, DC, September 15, 2004 

Mr. JOHN D. ZEGLIS, 

Chairman and CEO, 

AT&T Wireless, 

Washington, DC. 

Dear Mr. Zeglis: 

Recent press accounts indicate that a consortium of five of the six national wireless carriers, with the assistance of the Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association, are creating a multi-carrier database of subscribers’ phone numbers in 

order to provide the wireless phone numbers of their customers to consumers who 

call directory assistance services (also known as ‘‘411’’ services). While presenting 

an opportunity for wireless telephone consumers, including subscribers without 

wireline phones and small business users, to make their telephone numbers more 

widely available to friends and to potential customers, this action also raises issues 

of wireless telephone number privacy that are of great interest to the American public and to Congress. 

In response to consumer concerns about such proposed services, several bills on 

wireless directory assistance have been introduced this Congress. The Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation has scheduled a hearing on these 

services and related legislation for Tuesday, September 21, 2004, during which testimony will be heard from industry representatives and other interested parties. The 

House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce also plans to hold 

a hearing on these services in the following weeks. 

In anticipation of these hearings and to assist the Committees in understanding 

the views of all six national wireless carriers (some of which may not have the opportunity to testify), we would appreciate receiving your responses to the following 

questions prior to the first hearing: 

1. If you offer wireless directory services, will your subscribers be given a choice 

of whether to have their number(s) listed in a directory or not? If so, how 

would they exercise such choice (i.e., opt-in or opt-out), and would it vary depending on whether it was a new or existing subscriber making the choice? 

2. Do you plan to charge subscribers to keep their wireless number(s) unlisted? 

3. Are your current terms of service with customers consistent with your responses to questions 1 and 2? 

We appreciate your efforts to provide this information to the Committees and to 

Congress by Monday, September 20. 

Sincerely, 

JOHN MCCAIN, 

Chairman, 

Senate Committee on Commerce, 

Science, and Transportation. 

JOE BARTON, 

Chairman, 

House of Representatives Committee 

on Energy and Commerce. 

FRED UPTON, 

Chairman, 

House of Representatives Subcommittee 

on Telecommunications and the Internet. 

6 

January 3, 2005 

Hon. JOHN MCCAIN, 

Chairman, 

Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, 

Washington, DC. 

Dear Chairman McCain: 

Thank you for the opportunity to explain AT&T Wireless’ policies regarding the 

planned Wireless 411 database. We are pleased to respond to your letter dated September 15, 2004. 

Protecting customer privacy is one of our highest priorities, and this commitment 

is reflected in our approach to Wireless 411. I have attached a document that provides an in-depth response to the specific questions outlined in your letter. You will 

note when you review our response that it is our intention only to participate in 

a Wireless 411 database if it is completely optional for our customers, is of no cost 

to participating or non-participating customers and meets the strict standards of our 

privacy policy. If a participating customer later decides to remove his/her wireless 

number from the database, it will be quick and easy to do so. 

We believe that Wireless 411 service can offer significant benefits to our customers. Laws that restrict the offering of wireless 411 service could hamper our delivery of this valuable benefit. 

• More small businesses and sole proprietors are using wireless phones as their 

primary or only means of voice communications with customers and suppliers. 

We do not believe that this technology choice should put a business at a disadvantage in comparison to competitors that utilize land line phones and can 

therefore list their phone numbers. The Wireless 411 service will allow our business subscribers to make their phone numbers accessible to their customers and 

suppliers. 

• In addition, a growing number of consumers have chosen to use a wireless 

phone as their only phone. These consumers should have an opportunity to 

make their contact information available to friends and relatives through directory assistance services. 

• Finally, we believe there are customers who will choose to participate in Wireless 411 for the peace of mind that comes with having their phone number accessible in an urgent situation. 

Again, thank you for the opportunity to share our policies concerning our planned 

Wireless 411 service. We are confident that Wireless 411 offers significant consumer 

benefits, and we remain committed to providing our wireless service in a way that 

protects customer privacy. 

Sincerely, 

JOHN D. ZEGLIS, 

Chairman and CEO, 

AT&T Wireless. 

Cc: Chairman John McCain 

Chairman Joe Barton 

7 

AT&T WIRELESS’ RESPONSE TO SEPTEMBER 15, 2004 LETTER RE: WIRELESS 411 

1. If you offer wireless directory services, will your subscribers be given a choice 

of whether to have their number(s) listed in a directory or not? If so, how 

would they exercise such choice (i.e., Opt-in or opt-out), and would it vary depending on whether it was a new or existing subscriber making the choice? 

Customers will be given a choice whether to have their number(s) listed in the 

database. Only customers who specifically request to be included will have their 

number available for lookup through Wireless 411. In other words, customers 

must opt in by taking an affirmative step to make their numbers available. 

This policy applies to all of our customers. 

2. Do you plan to charge subscribers to keep their wireless number(s) unlisted? 

No. Just like today, we will not charge to keep a number unlisted. 

3. Are your current terms of service with customers consistent with your responses to questions 1 and 2? 

Yes. All AT&T Wireless customers—regardless of the language in earlier contracts—will have the choice whether to be included in the Wireless 411 database. In addition, no customer will be charged to keep their phone number unlisted. We believe this approach best meets the desires of consumers. 

As of June 2004 the language in the AT&T Wireless Privacy Policy, which is 

referenced in our Service Agreement reads as follows: 

‘‘AT&T Wireless does not currently disclose wireless numbers in directory assistance listings or published directories. If we do so in the future, you will be 

able to choose whether your number is listed.’’ 

It should be noted that in addition to the above privacy measures, the names and 

numbers included in the Wireless 411 database will not be printed in a directory 

or published online. The database will not be for sale to third parties. Wireless 411 

service will only allow 411 callers to get a wireless subscriber’s phone number if 

that subscriber chooses to make it available, and then only in response to a specific 

request for an individual. In addition, customers who have chosen to list their numbers can choose to remove their numbers from the database at any time. We plan 

to update customer preferences in the database on a daily basis. 

CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES

Washington, DC, September 15, 2004 

Mr. STANLEY T. SIGMAN, 

President and CEO, 

Cingular Wireless, 

Atlanta, GA. 

Dear Mr. Sigman: 

Recent press accounts indicate that a consortium of five of the six national wireless carriers, with the assistance of the Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association, are creating a multi-carrier database of subscribers’ phone numbers in 

order to provide the wireless phone numbers of their customers to consumers who 

call directory assistance services (also known as ‘‘411’’ services). While presenting 

an opportunity for wireless telephone consumers, including subscribers without 

wireline phones and small business users, to make their telephone numbers more 

widely available to friends and to potential customers, this action also raises issues 

of wireless telephone number privacy that are of great interest to the American public and to Congress. 

In response to consumer concerns about such proposed services, several bills on 

wireless directory assistance have been introduced this Congress. The Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation has scheduled a hearing on these 

services and related legislation for Tuesday, September 21, 2004, during which testimony will be heard from industry representatives and other interested parties. The 

House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce also plans to hold 

a hearing on these services in the following weeks. 

In anticipation of these hearings and to assist the Committees in understanding 

the views of all six national wireless carriers (some of which may not have the opportunity to testify), we would appreciate receiving your responses to the following 

questions prior to the first hearing: 

1. If you offer wireless directory services, will your subscribers be given a choice 

of whether to have their number(s) listed in a directory or not? If so, how 

8 

would they exercise such choice (i.e., opt-in or opt-out), and would it vary depending on whether it was a new or existing subscriber making the choice? 

2. Do you plan to charge subscribers to keep their wireless number(s) unlisted? 

3. Are your current terms of service with customers consistent with your responses to questions 1 and 2 

We appreciate your efforts to provide this information to the Committees and to 

Congress by Monday, September 20. 

Sincerely, 

JOHN MCCAIN, 

Chairman, 

Senate Committee on Commerce, 

Science, and Transportation. 

FRED UPTON, 

Chairman, 

House of Representatives Subcommittee 

on Telecommunications and the Internet. 

JOE BARTON, 

Chairman, 

House of Representatives Committee 

on Energy and Commerce. 

September 17, 2004 

To: JOHN MCCAIN, Chairman, 

Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. 

JOE BARTON, Chairman, 

House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce. 

FRED UPTON, Chairman, 

House of Representatives Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Internet. 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide specific information on Cingular’s approach to offering wireless directory assistance to our customers. There has been a 

great deal of misinformation reported on this topic and I am pleased to have the 

chance to set the record straight by communicating directly with the Committee 

members that are reviewing this matter. Cingular is dedicated to ensuring that the 

customer’s right to choose is respected. 

Your request consisted of three questions which I have restated and answered 

below: 

1. If you offer wireless directory services, will your subscribers be given a choice 

of whether to have their number(s) listed in the directory or not? If so, how 

would they exercise such choice, and would it vary depending on whether it 

was a new or existing subscriber making the choice? 

Cingular subscribers will be given the choice to have their number(s) listed 

through an opt-in method. Opt-in will not be tied to the selection of a service 

plan or any other available feature, but will be a stand-alone option that may 

be presented to the customer at the point-of-sale, during a call into customer 

service or on Cingular’s website. The opt-in process will be the same for both 

new and existing customers. 

2. Do you have any plans to charge subscribers to keep their wireless number(s) 

unlisted? 

Cingular subscribers will not be charged if they elect to keep their wireless 

number(s) unlisted. We believe that there should not be any financial disincentives for those customers that choose not to participate in listing their number(s). In addition, there will not be any charges applied if a customer that has 

previously opted-in changes his mind and asks to be removed from the database. 

3. Are your current terms of service with customers consistent with your responses to questions 1 and 2? 

Yes. 

We at Cingular are committed to protecting the privacy of our subscribers and are 

taking the necessary precautions to ensure that if a customer elects to be listed; his 

9 

or her wireless account information will not be used for any purpose other than directory assistance. I believe that sufficient safeguards exist to protect the privacy 

rights of consumers and that wireless carriers have an inherent vested interest in 

preserving them. 

STAN SIGMAN, 

President and CEO, 

Cingular Wireless. 

CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES

Washington, DC, September 15, 2004 

Mr. TIMOTHY M. DONAHUE, 

President and CEO, 

Nextel Communications, 

Reston, VA. 

Dear Mr. Donahue: 

Recent press accounts indicate that a consortium of five of the six national wireless carriers, with the assistance of the Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association, are creating a multi-carrier database of subscribers’ phone numbers in 

order to provide the wireless phone numbers of their customers to consumers who 

call directory assistance services (also known as ‘‘411’’ services). While presenting 

an opportunity for wireless telephone consumers, including subscribers without 

wireline phones and small business users, to make their telephone numbers more 

widely available to friends and to potential customers, this action also raises issues 

of wireless telephone number privacy that are of great interest to the American public and to Congress. 

In response to consumer concerns about such proposed services, several bills on 

wireless directory assistance have been introduced this Congress. The Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation has scheduled a hearing on these 

services and related legislation for Tuesday, September 21, 2004, during which testimony will be heard from industry representatives and other interested parties. The 

House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce also plans to hold 

a hearing on these services in the following weeks. 

In anticipation of these hearings and to assist the Committees in understanding 

the views of all six national wireless carriers (some of which may not have the opportunity to testify), we would appreciate receiving your responses to the following 

questions prior to the first hearing: 

1. If you offer wireless directory services, will your subscribers be given a choice 

of whether to have their number(s) listed in a directory or not? If so, how 

would they exercise such choice (i.e., opt-in or opt-out), and would it vary depending on whether it was a new or existing subscriber making the choice? 

2. Do you plan to charge subscribers to keep their wireless number(s) unlisted? 

3. Are your current terms of service with customers consistent with your responses to questions 1 and 2? 

We appreciate your efforts to provide this information to the Committees and to 

Congress by Monday, September 20. 

Sincerely, 

JOHN MCCAIN, 

Chairman, 

Senate Committee on Commerce, 

Science, and Transportation. 

JOE BARTON, 

Chairman, 

House of Representatives Committee 

on Energy and Commerce. 

FRED UPTON, 

Chairman, 

House of Representatives Subcommittee 

on Telecommunications and the Internet. 

10 

September 21, 2004 

Hon. JOHN MCCAIN, 

Chairman, 

Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, 

United States Senate, 

Washington, DC. 

Hon. JOE BARTON, 

Chairman, 

Committee on Energy and Commerce, 

U.S. House of Representatives, 

Washington, DC. 

Hon. FRED UPTON, 

Chairman, 

Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet, 

House Energy and Commerce Committee, 

Washington, DC. 

Dear Chairmen McCain, Barton and Upton: 

Thank you for your September 15, 2004, letter regarding wireless directory assistance and Nextel Communications’ interests in providing such services to our customers. In furtherance of our efforts to meet the demands for new services and applications, Nextel will offer wireless directory assistance only to those who are interested. Nextel customers will be provided information on this new option, including 

instructions on ‘‘opting-in’’ or ‘‘opting-out’’ of the service. 

We will do so under the strictest adherence to our strong policy on protecting customer privacy. In response to your specific questions, please be advised of the following: 

1) Nextel will offer wireless directory assistance to its customers, each of whom 

will determine whether their number will be listed in the directory. Further, 

if a customer chooses to have their number included in the directory, it will 

be done only if the subscriber gives a clear, unambiguous and verifiable affirmation of their decision and at no charge. This will apply to existing and prospective customers. For those subscribers who wish to remain unlisted they 

will not have to take any action. 

2) For those customers who choose not to have their numbers listed in our wireless directory, Nextel will not charge any fee, nor impose any fine or penalty. 

Further, customers who become listed may choose to ‘‘opt-out’’ of the program 

at any time and at no charge. 

3) Nextel is in the process of modifying both its subscriber agreement and its privacy policy to reflect the guarantee that our customers will have the choice of 

participating in our wireless directory assistance, with no charge either for 

participation or non-participation in the program. 

Nextel and its employees are strongly committed to protecting the privacy of our 

customer, including under one directory assistance program. Nextel will not publish 

the wireless directory assistance information or provide access to the directory assistance database to any entity other than the directory assistance provider. Be assured that we will take all necessary steps to protect our customers’ privacy within 

the dynamic wireless communications market. 

Sincerely, 

TIM DONAHUE, 

President and Chief Executive Officer, 

Nextel Communications. 

11 

CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES

Washington, DC, September 15, 2004 

Mr. ROBERT DOTSON, 

President and CEO, 

T-Mobile USA, 

New York, NY. 

Dear Mr. Dotson: 

Recent press accounts indicate that a consortium of five of the six national wireless carriers, with the assistance of the Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association, are creating a multi-carrier database of subscribers’ phone numbers in 

order to provide the wireless phone numbers of their customers to consumers who 

call directory assistance services (also known as ‘‘411’’ services). While presenting 

an opportunity for wireless telephone consumers, including subscribers without 

wireline phones and small business users, to make their telephone numbers more 

widely available to friends and to potential customers, this action also raises issues 

of wireless telephone number privacy that are of great interest to the American public and to Congress. 

In response to consumer concerns about such proposed services, several bills on 

wireless directory assistance have been introduced this Congress. The Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation has scheduled a hearing on these 

services and related legislation for Tuesday, September 21, 2004, during which testimony will be heard from industry representatives and other interested parties. The 

House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce also plans to hold 

a hearing on these services in the following weeks. 

In anticipation of these hearings and to assist the Committees in understanding 

the views of all six national wireless carriers (some of which may not have the opportunity to testify), we would appreciate receiving your responses to the following 

questions prior to the first hearing: 

1. If you offer wireless directory services, will your subscribers be given a choice 

of whether to have their number(s) listed in a directory or not? If so, how 

would they exercise such choice (i.e., opt-in or opt-out), and would it vary depending on whether it was a new or existing subscriber making the choice? 

2. Do you plan to charge subscribers to keep their wireless number(s) unlisted? 

3. Are your current terms of service with customers consistent with your responses to questions 1 and 2? 

We appreciate your efforts to provide this information to the Committees and to 

Congress by Monday, September 20. 

Sincerely, 

JOHN MCCAIN, 

Chairman, 

Senate Committee on Commerce, 

Science, and Transportation. 

JOE BARTON, 

Chairman, 

House of Representatives Committee 

on Energy and Commerce. 

FRED UPTON, 

Chairman, 

House of Representatives Subcommittee 

on Telecommunications and the Internet. 

12 

T-MOBILE USA, INC. 

Bellevue, WA, September 20, 2004 

Hon. JOHN MCCAIN, U.S. Senate, 

Washington, DC. 

Hon. JOE BARTON, U.S. House of Representatives, 

Washington, DC. 

Hon. FRED UPTON, U.S. House of Representatives, 

Washington, DC. 

Dear Chairmen McCain, Barton, and Upton, 

This letter responds to your request for information about T-Mobile’s efforts to 

offer subscribers the opportunity to list their wireless numbers in an electronic 411 

directory, set forth in your letter dated September 15, 2004. T-Mobile USA, Inc. and 

a number of other wireless carriers, with the assistance of the Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association, are in the process of creating 411 service 

for wireless subscriber phone numbers. First, I’d like to provide you with an introduction to T-Mobile. 

T-Mobile is one of the fastest growing nationwide wireless service providers, offering digital voice, messaging, and high-speed wireless data services to more than 15.4 

million customers in the United States. A cornerstone of T-Mobile’s strong consumer 

appeal has been its Get More® business strategy to provide customers with the best 

overall value in their wireless service. T-Mobile has more than 22,000 employees 

across the country dedicated to delivering on its Get More® strategy to provide customers with more minutes, more features, and more service. These efforts were recognized in the J.D. Power & Associates’ 2004 U.S. Wireless Regional Customer Satisfaction Index Study, in which T-Mobile received the highest rankings in all six regions of the country. Mobile professionals and homeowners, including those who 

have replaced their traditional wireline phone with a wireless phone, have expressed a desire to have their wireless numbers listed in a wireless directory. T-Mobile plans to offer this compelling service to customers who request it and, in so 

doing, is working with other wireless carriers and the CTIA to design this service 

to meet our customers’ expectations of privacy. (It is worth noting that some 

landline carriers may not be as eager to provide wireless customers who have ‘‘cut 

the cord’’ with the opportunity to be listed in a wireless directory.) 

As a result of our Get More® commitment, one issue has remained foremost in 

T-Mobile’s mind throughout the design and development of wireless 411 service— 

the privacy expectations of our subscribers. To that end, T-Mobile is working to ensure that the design of the database of wireless numbers contains privacy protections for subscribers who choose to be listed in a 411 database. These protections 

include listing a subscriber’s wireless number in the 411 database only after the 

subscriber has made the choice to ‘‘opt-in’’ to the service and ensuring that the numbers in the 411 database will not be sold to telemarketers. 

Below are the questions posed in your letter and T-Mobile’s responses. 

1. If you offer wireless directory services, will your subscribers be given a choice 

of whether to have their number(s) listed in a directory or not? If so, how 

would they exercise such choice (i.e., opt-in or opt-out), and would it vary depending on whether it was a new or existing subscriber making the choice? 

If T-Mobile offers wireless directory services, T-Mobile subscribers will be required 

to affirmatively opt-in to the electronic 411 directory. T-Mobile includes in its written service agreement an opt-in box on the front page that customers may check 

to list their numbers in the wireless directory. This opt-in provision is clearly identified under a section entitled ‘‘Important Customer Information.’’ Customers who activate service online, or via telesales, also will be required to affirmatively opt-in 

to list their numbers in the directory. 

Like new customers, existing customers must opt-in to list their numbers in the 

wireless directory. T-Mobile is determining how best to communicate the opt-in election to existing customers. T-Mobile is looking into providing customers the choice 

to opt-in through existing password-protected, personalized customer Web pages, 

where they manage their accounts online. 

2. Do you plan to charge subscribers to keep their wireless number(s) unlisted? 

T-Mobile does not plan to charge subscribers to keep their wireless numbers unlisted, regardless of the quantity of numbers the subscriber wishes to keep unlisted. 

13 

This decision is consistent with the policy of other carriers participating in the wireless directory. 

3. Are your current terms of service with customers consistent with your responses to questions 1 and 2? 

As noted in response to question 1, T-Mobile’s service agreement for new customers contains an opt-in provision in order for customers to choose to list their 

number in the wireless 411 directory. T-Mobile’s service agreement contains no provision authorizing charging customers for unlisted numbers and, as noted above, TMobile has no plans to charge subscribers to keep their wireless numbers unlisted. 

It bears repeating that whether a subscriber is new to T-Mobile or is one of our 

many loyal, existing customers, and whether he or she is entering into a paper contract in a retail store or an electronic contract online, T-Mobile plans to include 

wireless numbers in the 411 database only when the subscriber has affirmatively 

elected to be included in such directory. 

In conclusion, we are confident that our opt-in approach addresses our customers’ 

desire for wireless directory service and their desire for choice and privacy. I hope 

this information is useful to you and please know that T-Mobile will gladly provide 

additional information at your request. 

Sincerely, 

ROBERT DOTSON, 

President and Chief Executive Officer, 

T-Mobile USA, Inc. 

Senator ALLEN. Again, I do want to thank our witnesses for 

being with us today, in the event we move to the witnesses after 

Senator Boxer’s statements, and Senator Wyden, are you going to 

want an opening statement? I know, but are you going to want to 

make a statement as well? All right, after statements from Senators who are here, in the event that Senator Specter doesn’t come 

in, I’ll just go like this, that will be the signal so that you all can 

move forward so we can hear from you all as well. So that, with 

the concurrence of Senator Wyden, we’d now like to hear from Senator Boxer, one of the sponsors of this legislation. 

Senator Boxer. 

STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM CALIFORNIA 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much, Senator Allen, and I ask 

that my full statement be submitted for the record. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Boxer follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, U.S. SENATOR FROM CALIFORNIA

Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for holding this hearing. I also want to 

thank Senator Specter for inviting me to take the lead with him to protect consumer 

privacy as the wireless phone industry moves forward with a 411 directory of 

cellphone users. 

The Specter-Boxer ‘‘Wireless 411 Privacy Act’’ would create a national privacy 

standard for wireless 411. It would give consumers a choice as to whether or not 

their cell phone numbers are listed in a directory, it would prohibit cell phone companies from charging customers for keeping their numbers private, it would allow 

the directory to connect a subscriber to someone trying to reach them but it would 

not allow the directory to give out telephone numbers, and it prohibits the publication of cell phone numbers. 

These are protections consumers want. Both the AARP and Consumers Union 

have come out in support of the legislation. 

There are more than 169 million wireless subscribers in the United States who 

will be affected by the creation of a wireless directory. These customers have always 

had control over who has access to their wireless telephone numbers. But, a wireless 

directory threatens that control. And, it threatens to raise consumer bills as well. 

That is because wireless customers in the U.S. pay for all incoming and outgoing 

calls. If consumers are listed without their consent, then consumers could be unfairly incurring unwanted charges or using up their allotted minutes of use by reVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:14 Jun 25, 2013 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\81580.TXT JACKIE
14 

ceiving calls they do not want. Our bill seeks to protect consumers from those 

threats. 

Having reviewed the testimony of the experts here today, and in response to concerns some of my colleagues on this Committee have expressed, I have filed a manager’s amendment to the 411 Wireless Privacy Act: 

• First, due to concerns with the language requiring that the directory not reveal 

telephone numbers, I have removed that language. 

• Second, I have also included state preemption language in order to establish a 

national standard of protection for the wireless directory and to provide the 

market with regulatory certainty. 

• Third, for those small businesses who expressly wish to have their cellphone 

numbers listed, I have included an opt-in choice for consumers to allow a directory to publish their numbers. 

• Lastly, because numbers will be distributed from the directory to anyone who 

requests a number, the manager’s amendment creates an across the board optin choice for consumers. 

The industry has said it can meet this level of protection and it is now up to us 

to provide those protections in the law in order to ensure that customers are treated 

fairly. 

The industry claims that the legislation we are discussing today is a solution in 

search of a problem. But, our constituents have made it clear that an unregulated 

wireless 411 directory is a problem. 

Mr. Chairman, most consumers do not know that there is boiler plate language 

in most existing wireless contracts that allow carriers to include wireless numbers 

in a directory. That is, almost all consumers have unknowingly already agreed to 

having their number included in a directory. And, while the industry has claimed 

it is voluntarily committed to a certain level of consumer protections, without a law, 

there is nothing to prevent a carrier from changing its mind. 

The industry also claims that a highly competitive cell phone market empowers 

consumers simply to change to another provider if they do not like the terms and 

conditions of a new wireless directory. And Verizon, to its credit, has chosen not to 

participate in the directory because of its concerns that a directory threatens consumer privacy. 

But, Mr. Chairman, every consumer, regardless of cellphone service provider, 

should have a right to privacy. Given that all consumers are free to control who has 

their phone numbers today, they should remain free to have that control. A wireless 

directory may work well for a minority of consumers without strong privacy protections, but it can only work well for everyone if we establish privacy protections in 

law. 

I want to thank you again for holding this hearing and I look forward to hearing 

the testimony from our witnesses today. 

Senator BOXER. And what I want to do say, the theory of waiting 

until there are problems—but I can tell you right now, chaos will 

reign when our constituents start getting calls on their cell phones, 

which they consider, in many ways, an adjunct to their land phone, 

which they consider, in many cases, a phone they carry for urgent 

business. If you want to wait until chaos breaks loose in your state, 

that’s your right. But, Senator Specter and I have teamed up in a 

bi-partisan way where common sense dictates that we ought to 

move forward in a fair way. Now, there’s a big difference between 

your landed phone, your grounded phone and your wireless phone, 

in this way. Senators, when our constituents get a call, an unwanted call on your cell phone, guess who pays for it? Our constituents. This is a total outrage. And if we start seeing our names published in directories where anyone can call us in the middle of the 

workday, can start bothering our children, many of whom have 

these phones, that they’re told, Only use it in emergency, I’ll tell 

you that in my opinion, the wrong side of the issue to be on. Now, 

I know these companies well. I’ve got a lot of them in my state. I 

love them, and I’m a good customer of theirs. But all the promises 

15 

to the contrary where, ‘‘We won’t sell your name,’’ and ‘‘We won’t 

do this and that and the other,’’ we already know what goes on in 

the business world, it’s the bottom line. Our names represent a dollar sign. And all that is well and good if I decide to opt in. And 

that’s what we’re saying. If we want to have our name in a directory, whether it’s a private directory so that when someone calls 

411 they get my number, fine. Or a published directory, if I want 

to be in that, fine. And the wireless companies will be very good 

at persuading people, I think, that it’s to their advantage to have 

their phone listed. And that still, that’s their job. But I believe I’m 

here for a reason. And that is to protect people. And I would like 

to ask unanimous consent that a letter from the AARP endorsing 

the Specter-Boxer legislation be placed in the record at this time. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

AARP 

Washington, DC, September 21, 2004 

Hon. BARBARA BOXER, Washington, DC. 

Dear Senator Boxer: 

AARP wishes to commend your leadership in introducing S.1963, the Wireless 411 

Privacy Act, legislation on which the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

Committee will shortly hear testimony. S.1963 would ensure that consumers have 

a choice as to whether their cell phone number is included in a wireless directory 

and protection against charges for keeping it private. Congress should not leave this 

matter to industry discretion. 

While many subscribers to more traditional landline telephone service also want 

to keep their home numbers private, cell phone subscribers have additional incentives to do so. First, the privacy of wireless subscribers has always been safeguarded. Therefore, many cell phone users now expect to receive calls only from 

those individuals to whom they have personally given their number. Second, wireless service providers, unlike their landline counterparts, charge for incoming as 

well as outgoing calls. As a result, wireless users have to pay for any unwanted, 

incoming calls. 

A recent study by the AARP Public Policy institute confirms that cell phone owners place a high value on the privacy of their cell phone numbers. According to the 

study, an overwhelming majority of cell phone owners view the current lack of a 

publicly available wireless directory as a positive and say they do not want to have 

their number included in such a directory if it is created. In fact, they believe that 

no wireless phone number should be added to a wireless directory unless the cell 

phone owner specifically requests it. A copy of the study is enclosed for your review. 

We believe that AARP members and residential consumers in general deserve the 

right to maintain the maximum amount of control over the disclosure of their wireless phone number. We strongly support your effort to enact industry-wide privacy 

protections for cell phone subscribers now. The industry is poised to implement a 

wireless directory assistance service; Congressional action could not be more timely. 

If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to call. 

Sincerely, 

MICHAEL NAYLOR, 

Director of Advocacy. 

Enclosure 

Senator BOXER. And also, a consumer union in support of our bill 

that comes from testimony that was given on September, actually, 

today’s testimony. We ask that that be placed in the record. 

What we have done, what I have done working with Senator 

McCain and others, is to hear some of the problems that certain 

Senators had with our original bill, two of them are here, and we 

have filed a managers’ amendment that takes care of their problems. Basically, hopefully this will be marked up, I know we had 

bi-partisan support on this Committee, and this managers’ amendVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:14 Jun 25, 2013 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\81580.TXT JACKIE
16 

ment, I want to take a minute to explain it, due to concerns that 

the language requiring that the directory not reveal telephone 

numbers if somebody has, in fact, opted in, we initially said, ‘‘Just 

connect them to the party.’’ Senators Smith and Wyden had a problem with that, we wrote an amendment, we have fixed that, in the 

managers’ amendment, so you will be able to get the number if the 

person asks for that number and they have received permission. 

Second, we have language to establish a national standard of 

protection so the market has regulatory certainty. We have in the 

managers’ amendment an across the board opt-in choice for all consumers, so we don’t make the distinction between existing consumers and future consumers, everyone has a chance to opt-in to 

the system. So, what you’ll hear from the industry today, and God 

bless them, we’re discussing a solution in search of a problem. 

Well, I’ve lived my life awhile. I know what happens when people 

start getting calls they don’t want. That’s why we have a ‘‘no call’’ 

list, which passed this Senate and is the law of the land. And if 

you think that was an outcry from the people, imagine our families 

that have several cell phones, and what is going to be on us if we 

don’t move on this. I think Senator Specter had the solution, I 

think he did a good job. Now I’m working on a managers’ amendment to make it acceptable to a broader group of Senators. I urge 

you to support this and not wait for chaos to break out with these 

unwanted calls that invade someone’s privacy. There’s going to be 

a backlash, and then we’ll have to deal with a mess. I think we can 

do this in a simple way, you want to be listed? Simply put your 

name on the line. You don’t want to be listed? You don’t have to 

be listed, pretty simple, pretty American to me. I think that privacy is an American value, we value our privacy. And again, I’ll 

close with this: I have a little grandson who is about to get a cell 

phone for emergencies. And these kids don’t know, somebody could 

get their phone number, could call them, could con them, to say 

‘‘Meet me at the corner, I’m calling because your Mom said meet 

me at the corner.’’ You’re walking into a mess. And I would appeal 

with all my heart and soul to the industry instead of fighting this, 

to come with us, and craft this good bill with us, and do something 

that will make you feel proud, instead of just fighting for something that’s going to wind up to be a giant mess. Thank you very 

much. I hope Senator Specter shows up, if he doesn’t, I think I’ve 

spoken for him, in some ways. I think he could speak for himself 

probably better, but I think he feels as strongly as I do on this. 

Thank you. 

Senator ALLEN. Thank you, Senator Boxer, now we’d like to hear 

from Senator Wyden. 

STATEMENT OF HON. RON WYDEN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM OREGON 

Senator WYDEN. Thank you, Chairman, thank you for holding 

this hearing. We hope our friend and colleague Senator Specter 

does come, but I think Senator Boxer has accounted well for this 

cause. I particularly want to commend Senator Boxer for her willingness to work with myself, Senator Smith, Chairman McCain, 

and others on the question of the managers’ amendment, because 

I think we’re moving now toward having a good bipartisan conVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:14 Jun 25, 2013 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\81580.TXT JACKIE
17 

sensus on this issue. I have long felt that a wireless directory assistance service would have to offer in a certain way, different from 

ordinary directory assistance would, in effect, be a recipe for consumer confusion. It sounds to me like it would be better to have 

a single, integrated directory assistance service where you could 

call and get both a person’s regular number and cell phone number, if, and I want to emphasize if, he or she chose to have both 

listed. And so what Senator Boxer and Senator Specter have done, 

in my view, it seems to me they have empowered the consumer, 

they’ve said the guiding principle ought to be consumer choice. Nobody should have their cell phone number listed in a directory service unless they affirmatively want to. Nobody ought to have to pay 

to keep their cell phone number private. At the same time, the 

Boxer-Specter legislation acknowledges that folks use their cell 

phones in different ways. Some people use it infrequently, say a car 

breaks down, some use it as a private line to stay in close touch 

with a spouse or a child, some use it for business, some use it as 

their only phone, and I’m always stunned at how many people use 

their cell phone, in effect, as a full replacement for ordinary land 

line phones. So people have different views on whether and how 

they want the number to be available and it ought to be the policy 

of this Committee, the Committee that takes a lead on these 

issues, to ensure that consumers are fully empowered to make the 

choice. I think there are a number of issues from the standpoint 

of how we look today at this question that need to be examined. 

I’ve been told, for example, that some cell phone subscriber agreements have buried in them somewhere a provision saying that the 

carrier reserves the right to list the user’s number in a directory. 

Now, of course, we’re going to hear from some carriers who currently say that they won’t do that any longer, but I’m not convinced, and remain concerned that not all subscriber agreements 

reflect the carriers’ current statements on the subject. So I think 

that’s one we ought to examine, and whether, if that’s the case, 

they plan to change the language in the subscriber agreements.I’m 

also pleased as I know my friend and colleague Senator Smith is, 

that Pat Cox is here, he’s had a long history in our state of being 

involved in the technology sector and giving us very valuable counsel. So, Mr. Chairman, I think we can get this worked out. You and 

I have teamed up often, Senator Boxer and Senator Smith, and I 

think with the managers’ amendment in particular we’re a long 

way to building a good bipartisan consensus, and moving ahead 

and I thank you for holding the hearing. 

Senator ALLEN. Thank you, Senator Wyden. Senator Smith, 

would you like to make an opening statement since you’ve been referenced? 

STATEMENT OF HON. GORDON H. SMITH, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM OREGON 

Senator SMITH. Well, Mr. Chairman, I think Senator Wyden gave 

an opening statement very similar to my own. So in the interest 

of time, let me associate my remarks with Senator Wyden, and welcome Mr. Pat Cox from Houston, we appreciate his coming here, 

and participating in a very important hearing, so, thank you. 

18 

Senator ALLEN. Thank you, Senator Smith. Panel, please come 

forward. Let me welcome our panel, it’s a distinguished panel who 

will shed light on this issue. In reading some of the testimony, it 

seems like there’s a great deal of agreement in the principles, it’s 

a question of how to effectuate it. Let me introduce you, if you don’t 

mind, we’ll go in the order in which you all are seated here with 

first Mr. Strigl, let me first introduce who each of you are, and 

then hear from you first. Mr. Dennis F. Strigl, President and Chief 

Executive Officer of Verizon Wireless. Next is Mrs. Kathleen Pierz, 

who is the Managing Partner of the Pierz Group. Then we have 

Mr. Patrick M. Cox, who is CEO of Qsent of Portland, Oregon. 

Then we have former Congressman, Steve Largent who is President and Chief Executive Office of Cellular Telecommunications & 

Internet Association, and finally, last but not least, Mr. Mark 

Rotenberg, the Excutive Director for Electronic Privacy Information 

Center, otherwise known as EPIC. Thank you, gentlemen, and 

lady, for being with us this afternoon, we’d first like to hear from 

you, Mr. Strigl. 

STATEMENT OF DENNIS F. STRIGL, PRESIDENT AND CEO, 

VERIZON WIRELESS 

Mr. STRIGL. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify today, members of the Committee, it’s very nice to be before 

you today, and thank you for holding this hearing on this very important privacy issue. It is my understanding that the legislation 

we’re here to discuss today assumes that a wireless directory is a 

given. With that, if the purpose of today’s hearing is to determine 

if a wireless directory can protect a consumer’s privacy, my answer 

is ‘‘No,’’ it cannot. 

And therefore, this project should not go forward. 

The wireless industry over the last two decades has built an intensely competitive market, one that continues to bring extraordinary benefits and choice to consumers. But against that backdrop 

of competition and consumer choice, I think the wireless industry 

is missing the boat when it comes to creating a wireless telephone 

directory. It’s a subject that’s controversial, not only with our customers, but also within the industry itself. We at Verizon Wireless 

think that a wireless directory is a terrible idea. Not only the customers oppose it, but now you’ve asked us to appear here today to 

justify the idea, and I submit that it would be far better for the 

industry to abandon this needless project, and instead move ahead 

to devote our time and resources to better serve our customers. Any 

wireless customer today who wants a listing can already get one. 

And, they can get it without charge from Internet telephone directories such as Verizon Super Pages.com or Switchboard.com. The 

bottom line is this: Verizon Wireless will not participate in the plan 

you’ll be hearing about today, we will not publish our customers’ 

cell phone numbers, and here’s why. Since the beginning, this industry has not published wireless phone numbers. We did this consciously for the sake of preserving customers’ privacy, and control 

over their bills, and discouraging interruptions from unwanted 

calls. Those basic reasons have not changed. In fact, we see more 

reason today than ever to protect a consumer’s privacy. The floodgates are open to spam, viruses, telemarketing, and other unVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:14 Jun 25, 2013 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\81580.TXT JACKIE
19 

wanted, unsolicited messages on land line phones, on computers, 

and in mailboxes. We think our customers view their cell phones 

as the one place where they do not face these intrusions. Where 

they have control over who calls them, and to whom they give the 

number. And if there’s any doubt, our customers and many of your 

constituents are reiterating loudly and clearly that they don’t want 

their wireless phone numbers published. I made a speech in June 

that was widely reported in the press in which I said that a directory for the wireless industry was a dumb idea. Since then, I’ve received countless letters on this subject from customers, typically 

they say, ‘‘Please keep my cell phone free from telemarketers and 

unsolicited callers.’’ I have not received one single letter from any 

of our thirty million customers saying that they want their wireless 

number in a directory. 

It is my belief that the people who want a wireless directory are 

the people who are looking to reach somebody, not the people who 

will be reached. The Pierz Group research itself reports that 89 

percent of wireless customers do not want their number listed in 

directory assistance service. So why are we jeopardizing the privacy 

for something customers don’t even want? Clearly, there is no 

grounds or customer demand for a directory that would justify putting privacy in jeopardy. To date, the wireless industry has a 

strong record of proactive steps to preserve customers’ privacy in 

an intrusive world. We’ve surrounded our customers’ information 

with a wall of privacy, aggressively investigating and prosecuting 

spammers, deploying and updating anti-spam filters, and fighting 

to make telemarketing solicitation calls illegal. Why would we want 

to tear down that wall after spending the last two decades building 

and fortifying it? Verizon Wireless does not view the proposed optin approach as a solution. We are concerned that customers will 

see ‘‘opt-in’’ as a disingenuous foot in the door leading to opt-out 

clauses and fees for not publishing numbers. Further, opt-in is an 

all or nothing proposition, it does not give customers any control 

over how and to whom their information is revealed. To date, the 

wireless industry has been a great American success story for consumers and for the economy, how fast and far the story continues 

in our third decade of operation depends upon the wireless industry 

remaining vigilant keepers of the privacy frame, while building 

more capacity, adding more advanced services in wireless products 

to our consumers, and also, I would encourage regulators, especially at the state and local level to allow the vibrant, strong, competitive marketplace to work. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to the discussion today, and I’ll be happy to 

answer questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Strigl follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DENNIS F. STRIGL, PRESIDENT AND CEO, 

VERIZON WIRELESS

Mr. Chairman, thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify here today and 

for your interest in this very important privacy issue. I also want to acknowledge 

Senator Boxer’s strong interest in wireless privacy issues as well as my colleagues 

here at the table with me. 

I believe that the competitive culture of the wireless industry drives the decisions 

our industry and my company make, and warns us of the dangers of unnecessary 

20 

and counterproductive government regulation of a highly competitive market such 

as ours. 

The wireless industry is intensely competitive, and that competition continues to 

bring extraordinary benefits to consumers. In addition to the six national carriers, 

several regional carriers as well as countless local providers compete head-to-head 

every day. Ninety seven percent of mobile customers can choose between at least 

three wireless carriers, and thirty percent of the population has a choice of 7 or 

more providers. 

The wireless industry continues to introduce innovative pricing plans and service 

offerings, invest in and upgrade network performance and add new capabilities. 

Subscriptions are up, airtime use is up, and consumers have found text messaging 

and mobile entertainment applications to be quite popular. This Committee can take 

much of the credit for this level of competition, because in 1993 and again in 1996, 

you decided that our industry should be a model for deregulation and you prevented 

others from applying traditional rules and regulations to our operations. Coupled 

with advances in technology, and additional spectrum availability, your decisions 

have led to a resounding competitive success story. 

The industry’s implementation of Local Number Portability or LNP last year has 

facilitated the choices our customers now have. In effect, LNP has become the ultimate form of wireless consumer protection, because it has removed the major deterrent to changing companies. If a consumer is unhappy, he or she can take their 

phone number and their wallet and go elsewhere. If anybody needs proof of that, 

look no further than the losses some carriers experienced after Nov. 24 of last year, 

when LNP took effect. 

Within the last year, LNP took an already competitive market and made it hypercompetitive. Companies are under a brand new microscope and must compete as 

never before. Differentiation has been magnified, and pricing, network quality, 

handset selection, customer service, new features like camera phones, and billing 

practices are central to a customer’s carrier selection decision. 

With carriers now focused on differentiation—because that is the best way to respond to customer demands—it would be counterproductive to inject a governmentally mandated ‘‘sameness.’’ Instead we must trust the market to do its job and 

encourage choice, differences and innovation, and capital investment. 

In all, I believe the wireless industry is a great American success story—for consumers and the economy. In just two decades: 

• wireless consumer prices have dropped like a rock 

• choices in carriers, services have burgeoned 

• we’ve built a brand new industry, from scratch, into one of the drivers of the 

American economy. 

But against that backdrop, I think we’re missing the boat on creating a Wireless 

Telephone Directory. It’s a subject that’s controversial not just with customers, but 

within the wireless industry. 

We at Verizon Wireless think a Wireless Telephone Directory would be a terrible 

idea, and we will not publish our customers cell phone numbers or otherwise participate in the plan you have heard about today. 

Here’s why we will not participate in a directory assistance program: Since we 

started this business, we have not published our customers’ wireless phone numbers. We did this consciously, for the sake of preserving customers’ privacy and control over their bill and discouraging interruptions from unwanted calls. We do not 

believe those basic reasons have changed. 

In fact, we see more reason today than ever to protect customers’ privacy. The 

floodgates are open to spam, viruses, telemarketing and other unwanted, unsolicited 

messages on landline phones, computers and in mailboxes. We think our customers 

view their cell phones as one place where they don’t face these intrusions, where 

they have control over their communications. 

And if there’s any doubt, our customers—and some of your constituents—are reiterating loudly and clearly that they don’t want their wireless phone numbers published. 

I have received countless letters on this subject from our customers. Typically 

they all say, ‘‘I find your stance to be grounded in integrity . . . please keep my cell 

phone free of telemarketers and unsolicited callers.’’ I have not received one letter 

that urges me to put the customer’s number in a wireless directory. Clearly, there 

is not a groundswell of customer demand for a directory that would justify putting 

privacy in jeopardy. 

To date, this industry has a strong record of proactive steps to preserve customers’ 

privacy in an intrusive world. For example: 

21 

• The wireless industry fought to make auto-dial and telemarketer solicitation 

calls to wireless phones illegal. 

• My company and other carriers have been aggressively deploying and updating 

anti-spam filters. 

• Moreover, we have aggressively investigated, disabled and prosecuted illegal 

spammers. 

We recently determined a source of illegal SPAM to our customers and obtained 

a permanent injunction against this Spammer. 

Further, the Verizon Wireless’ do-not-call, do-not-mail, do-not-e-mail lists, and 

soon our do-not-SMS list, exceed requirements established by the Federal Trade 

Commission’s do-not-call registry. 

Our industry has surrounded customers’ information with a wall of privacy. Why 

would we want to tear down that wall—that unique advantage—that we have spent 

two decades fortifying? 

The old business adage that the ‘‘customer is always right’’ is not some old-fashioned way of doing business that has become at odds with present-day business 

models. 

Instead it is a basic tenet that remains rooted in sound business sense. In the 

end, no matter what business you’re in, pleasing customers is more profitable than 

not pleasing them. 

Verizon Wireless does not view the ‘‘opt-in’’ approach as a solution. We are concerned that customers will see opt-in as a disingenuous foot-in-the door-leading to 

‘‘opt-out’’ clauses and fees for not publishing a number. Further, ‘‘opt-in’’ is an all 

or nothing proposition; it does not give customers any control over how and to whom 

their information is revealed. 

Our plan at Verizon Wireless is straightforward. 

First, we do not, and will not publish or make available our customers’ wireless 

phone numbers for a paper directory or a directory database. 

Second, we will be changing our customer contracts to proactively and clearly 

state: ‘‘We do not provide our customers’ phone numbers for listing in directories.’’ 

That change will eliminate any ambiguity concerning our current practice of preserving customers’ privacy and our intentions for the future. 

Earlier I observed that wireless has been a great American success story—for consumers and the economy. It’s a brief history, punctuated by: 

• Consumer prices dropping like a rock 

• Choices going up 

• Building a new industry from scratch into one of the drivers of the American 

economy 

How fast and far the story continues in our third decade, depends on: 

The wireless industry remaining vigilant keepers of the privacy flame while building more capacity and adding more varied and better services to our wireless products; and 

• Regulators, especially at state and local level, allowing the vibrantly strong 

competitive marketplace to work. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to the discussion today and 

I will be happy to answer any questions. 

Senator ALLEN. Thank you, Mr. Strigl for your testimony, I’m 

sure there will be questions. Senator Ensign, did you want to make 

an opening statement? 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN ENSIGN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEVADA 

Senator ENSIGN. I’ll keep it very, very brief. Just to make a couple of points here. I don’t know that there’s any place or any industry in America that has stronger market forces at work than in the 

cellular telephone industry. And I would say that, I think there’s 

pretty good evidence out there to back up that statement. Having 

made that statement, I don’t know why we would want to put more 

government on more industry. It would seem to me that if people 

22 

are afraid that somebody’s going to force somebody into a directory, 

that you have somebody like Verizon saying, ‘‘We’re not going to do 

that.’’ And, if there are people out there that say, ‘‘I don’t want to 

be part of that, and I don’t want to have anything to do with that,’’ 

if you were a company that was going to require or start charging 

your customers for, say for instance, not being put on that list, 

then those customers would have a tendency to migrate toward a 

company like Verizon who is not. The market is going to take care 

of this problem if we just let it. This is legislation, we’re legislating 

looking for a problem, instead of just letting the market take care 

of it. I just think it’s kind of ridiculous that we are even thinking 

about putting legislation forward on this particular issue. The idea 

of you all doing what you want to do and letting the market forces 

determine that and let the customers determine where their dollars 

go would seem to make the most sense to me, so Mr. Chairman, 

I will vigorously oppose this piece of legislation, and I appreciate 

you chairing this hearing. 

Senator ALLEN. Thank you, Senator Ensign. Senator Brownback 

did not want to make an opening statement, but make a statement 

for the record and, so ordered. 

STATEMENT OF HON. SAM BROWNBACK, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM KANSAS 

Senator BROWNBACK. Thank you for holding this hearing, it’s a 

great hearing to be held, and I hope we can really look at this issue 

in some real depth, I’ve got an opening statement that outlines the 

position, because I think it’s going to be a key one for us to wrestle 

with. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Brownback follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. SAM BROWNBACK, U.S. SENATOR FROM KANSAS

Thank you, Chairman McCain, for holding this hearing. 

The Wireless companies’ plan to offer a 411 Directory has been a heated topic in 

the past few months as speculation over its possible structure has appeared in news 

report and op-ed pieces throughout the country. 

Understandably, there is a residual fear among consumers resulting from the ongoing battle against telemarketers in the landline world. Many ask, would a wireless directory expose the millions of cell phone users to an even worse type of unwanted commercial call—one that eats up their minutes? 

I would like to thank Senator Barbara Boxer for introducing her legislation and 

with it raising the public debate over this pending directory. I would also like to 

welcome Senator Specter for coming hear this afternoon to share his concerns on 

the issue with this committee. 

While I commend the good intentions of this bill’s authors, as a Co-Chairman of 

the Senate Wireless Caucus, I would like to caution this committee. I think we 

should take a very careful approach to legislating in this area. 

I am pleased that the wireless industry has responded to every criticism raised 

to date. They have committed to provide a 411-like service that will be completely 

‘‘opt-in’’ with no charge for those customers who do not wish to be listed. This is 

different from the wireline industry, where you have to pay to keep your name out 

of the phone book. They have also established that the wireless directory will not 

be published and that the names and numbers will not be sold to a third parties. 

Wireless companies have an excellent track record on privacy and have every incentive to keep their commitments. As you know, wireless is an extremely competitive marketplace. Moreover, the newly implemented wireless number portability 

makes changing carriers these days even easier. If a carrier were to break their 

promise and compromise their customers, loss in business would be swift and certain. 

23 

Our goal should be to ensure that we do not unintentionally make the legal burden too onerous for the wireless companies so that we create disincentives to establishing a 411 directory. As more and more Americans ‘‘cut the cord’’ and rely exclusively on wireless, consumers are demanding this service. It would be wrong for government to step in hastily and unnecessarily, when there is not yet a problem to 

fix. 

Of particular concern to me is Section 3(C) of the bill that requires a very specific 

call forwarding protocol. There is concern that this protocol is proprietary to a particular company. As written, this might be picking winners and losers, which government should not do. I urge a careful review of this section. 

Thank you again Chairman McCain for holding this hearing. I look forward to 

hearing from our distinguished Panel this afternoon. I offer a special welcome to 

CTIA’s new President, former Congressman Steve Largent. It is good to see you 

back on the Hill. 

Senator ALLEN. Thank you, Senator Brownback. Ms. Pierz, thank 

you and all other witnesses for your forbearance. If you would 

please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF KATHLEEN A. PIERZ, MANAGING PARTNER, 

THE PIERZ GROUP, LLC 

Ms. PIERZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, distinguished Members of 

this Committee. 

I was invited here today to present some key findings from a consumer survey that the Pierz Group just completed. We surveyed 

1,500 of three cell phone providers regarding their willingness to 

list their cell phone number, and their opinion of various privacy 

protections that could be put in place. 

The message that I have for the Committee today is simple. Better communications and privacy are not mutually exclusive. I believe that consumers should have both, and they want both. Half 

of all the telephones in the United States today are now mobile 

phones. Those are largely unlisted, and in spite of all the technological innovation that we’ve seen in the telecommunications area, 

directory assistance today remains unchanged from the way it was 

in the 1950s, and there is really very little that has happened in 

that time. The ways that we have communicated with each other, 

and all the devices that we have today, have changed dramatically. 

It may come as a surprise to the Committee, and it would be rather 

a shock to a lot of consumers to learn that there really is no specific privacy protection for cell phone numbers today. In fact, almost all mobile subscribers have already signed a contract, as was 

mentioned, that gives the specific, express permission to be included in a directory, and consumers are not aware of this stipulation today. And with number portability in place, you now also face 

the possibility that you could divulge someone’s lifetime telephone 

number without their consent, unless we have specific privacy protections in place. 

So, what do consumers want? We learned that a majority of consumers want wireless directory assistance, however, nearly all consumers want privacy protections in place to protect their cell phone 

number. The stronger the privacy protections, and specifically the 

protections that are mentioned in this bill, the more likely consumers are to opt-in to a wireless directory. We found that with 

these types of privacy protections, as many as 62 percent of consumers will be willing to list their number in directory assistance. 

Consumers rely on their mobile phones. 

24 

Today, almost 10 percent, which means 16 million mobile subscribers told us that they do not have a home phone anymore, just 

a mobile phone. And if you look at adults who are 18 to 24, that 

number increases to almost 22 percent, they only have a mobile 

phone today. We asked consumers why they would like to have 

their numbers listed. Seventy-six percent said, ‘‘I can find people 

when I need them, or in an emergency.’’ And we know from past 

research that almost everyone can think immediately of a situation 

where they needed to reach someone, or needed to be reached on 

their mobile phone and couldn’t do so. This is a top of mind communications issue for consumers. When we asked consumers what 

concerned them most about being listed, 28 percent said their overall privacy, and an additional 28 percent said that they were concerned about calls that they didn’t want, or calls from people that 

they didn’t know. 

In the survey we tested some specific options for privacy protections. Under the proposed CTIA plan, consumers will list, however 

with specific additional privacy protections where the number is 

never given out, or printed on a phone bill, and where consumers 

can actually know who’s calling them, so they can take that call, 

or not, based on their choice. You can get over 60 percent of people 

to list in a data base. This is an important number, because 60 percent represents critical mass in the database in terms of being a 

value to consumers, and to carriers. Consumers clearly want privacy protection. Especially because they believe that they have that 

protection today. I would argue that most wireless carriers would 

like to be able to give consumers more privacy protection, so what’s 

stopping us? Why can’t we get to that point? In a perfect world it 

would be easy, but much like the issue of local number portability, 

no one carrier can do this alone because a call is completed over 

different networks. There is no particular market incentive in place 

to protect a consumer’s privacy, and that’s where we’ve seen a 

breakdown in market forces. Wireless carriers, even as a group, as 

an industry, can’t force other carriers to mask numbers or protect 

consumer privacy. And, there is no particular market incentive for 

them to do that. So, if wireless directory assistance can be done 

right, everyone wins. Consumers, small businesses, fixed line carriers, and wireless carriers. We can do better than just listed and 

not listed. It’s not rocket science from a technology perspective, but 

it is complicated from an industry cooperation point of view. If the 

Committee can achieve this, and protect mobile numbers and allow 

consumers to control their own privacy, will ensure the greatest 

value is derived from this process for everyone. And it will be a 

pro-privacy and a pro-competitive move. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Pierz follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF KATHLEEN A. PIERZ, MANAGING PARTNER, 

THE PIERZ GROUP, LLC 

Chairman McCain, Ranking Member Hollings, and other distinguished members 

of this Committee, thank you for inviting me to address you this afternoon. I would 

like to request that my full written testimony be submitted for the record. 

My name is Kathleen Pierz. I am the Managing Partner of The Pierz Group, an 

independent consulting firm serving the Information Services industry with a special focus on the very narrow niche of directory assistance. Our clients are fixed line 

and wireless carriers, directory assistance (DA) providers and technology companies 

25 

around the world. I have been involved in this industry for 17 years, having worked 

in information services at Ameritech (now SBC) and IBM. I now consult to the industry and have authored more than one hundred reports and articles on the subject of directory assistance and databases. 

Half of all telephones in the U.S. are now mobile phones. The issue of adding cell 

phone numbers to directory assistance is an important one for consumers and for 

businesses. The message I have is simple: Better communications and privacy are 

not mutually exclusive; consumers can have both. 

What the Committee is addressing today is the fact that there are no guarantees, 

no legal construct that give consumers the privacy protections they want (and think 

they have today). I was invited here today to present key findings from a recent 

independent national consumer survey of 1,503 cell phone subscribers conducted by 

The Pierz Group in July and August of this year. The purpose of this independent 

research was to establish consumers’ willingness to list their wireless phone numbers in directory assistance and under what specific conditions. In addition, I have 

published three other major reports in the past 18 months about the opportunity 

to add mobile numbers to the DA database in countries where they are not included 

today. 

As an analyst, I write regularly about the fact that U.S. information services, 

whether from 411, print phone books or online services have lagged well behind our 

communications infrastructure. DA in the U.S. today has changed little since the 

1950s, but the ways in which we communicate have changed dramatically. DA databases contain a single fixed-line phone number and a billing address. Mobile phones 

as well as many other methods of communication now play a major role in our daily 

lives, yet there is no way today to reach a mobile subscriber without knowing the 

number, through DA or any type of directory. In addition, e-mail addresses, Instant 

Message (IM) addresses, SMS codes, fax numbers, pagers, website URLs etc, like 

mobile numbers, are all unavailable unless the owner gives them to you, and you 

have them when you need them. 

Nearly 53 percent of all phones in the U.S. are now unlisted. That figure includes 

the roughly 20 percent of all fixed-line numbers that are unlisted (roughly 33 percent of residential numbers are unlisted) and the 97 percent of wireless numbers. 

(Some cell phone numbers are listed because incumbent wireline carriers permit 

them to appear in their white pages—for a special fee.) By contrast, in Scandinavian 

countries between 85 percent and 95 percent of all phone numbers (wireline plus 

wireless) are listed. In these countries, between 20 percent and 25 percent of DA 

calls request a mobile number. In the U.S., mobile phone numbers are not available 

through DA; in fact, wireless numbers are not even available to emergency workers 

in life-and-death situations. 

Mobile numbers are not private 

It may come as a surprise to the Committee—and to many consumers, I’m sure— 

that today there is no specific privacy protection in place for mobile numbers. 

The only reason your cell phone number is not publicly available today is because 

that has been the industry practice for the past 20 years. One must also consider 

the fact that nearly all mobile subscribers, with the exception of Cingular Wireless 

customers, have already signed a contract that includes their express permission to 

have their mobile number listed in any type of directory the carrier may choose. 

Consumers are not aware of this stipulation in their contracts. 

LNP: An additional factor 

The need for consumer privacy protections becomes more significant in the wake 

of the new Local Number Portability plan. LNP means that cell phone users can 

keep their numbers when they change carriers—indeed, one number for the rest of 

their lives. Think of the difficulties consumers would face if these ‘‘lifetime number’’ 

were divulged without their consent. So, LNP makes it more important to protect 

consumers’ expectations of the privacy of their cell phone numbers. 

To translate these broad concepts into actual consumer experience, we surveyed 

more than 1,500 consumers in July and August. We asked them detailed questions 

about their privacy expectations on cellphones and what they want, and don’t want, 

from a cellphone listing in directory assistance. I would like to summarize those 

findings for the Committee. 

What consumers told us: 

Many consumers want to be able to contact each other on their mobile phones. 

Nearly all consumers want to have some privacy protection built into that contact 

process. Because mobile phones are considered to be more personal, they are more 

likely to be answered any time or anywhere. For these reasons—and because they 

26 

have been unlisted in the past—consumers expect a higher level of privacy for their 

cell phone number. 

• With privacy protections, a majority of consumers will list their cell phone numbers. The stronger these privacy protections, the more willing consumers are to 

list: 

» Eleven percent of consumers (about 18 million wireless subscribers) will list 

their cell phone numbers without any type of privacy protection at all. This 

number is up 500 percent over the number of consumers who said they would 

list (2 percent) under these circumstances in July of 2003. 

» Fifty-two percent of mobile subscribers (about 84 million wireless subscribers) 

will list their numbers if at least some type of privacy protection is provided. 

» With the most comprehensive privacy protections, up to 62 percent of consumers (over 100 million wireless subscribers) would be willing to list the cell 

phone numbers. Given the fact that roughly 67 percent of residential numbers 

are listed today, this is a very high number. 

» Creating a process to easily add cell phone numbers to the National Do Not 

Call Registry in conjunction with privacy protections would make 47 percent 

of consumers more willing to list their cell phone numbers. This, of course, 

is easily accomplished. 

» Our research shows that consumers could expect an average of three to five 

additional calls per year to their cell phones as a result of having their wireless number listed. This is of course an average. Many will get no calls from 

DA, some will get more. 

» If consumers had to pay for the incoming calls (and some carriers may not 

require that), an additional three to five calls per year would have little cost 

impact to consumers. These new calls would generate an additional average 

expense of $0.45 per month, or 1/100th of a typical monthly wireless phone 

bill. 

» Consumers are not aware of the provisions in their current wireless contracts 

that gives express permission to list their numbers in a directory. 

» Caller ID functions do not necessarily identify a calling party. If a phone 

number is unrecognized by a consumer, there is no way to know who is calling. In addition, a significant percentage of calls to mobile phones today are 

shown as ‘‘incoming call’’ with no number or name available. 

• Why do consumers want to have cell phone numbers available through DA? 

» These answers were very concentrated and consistent. Seventy-six percent 

said, ‘‘I can find people when I need them or in an emergency.’’ 

» Other popular answers were, ‘‘people can find me’’ and ‘‘it would help me do 

my job.’’ 

» 9.6 percent of all mobile subscribers (almost 16 million people) report having 

no home phone; only a mobile phone 

» More than twice as many (21.8 percent) people between 18 and 24 years old 

have only a mobile phone. 

• What worries consumers about listing their cell phone numbers? 

» Twenty-eight percent said, ‘‘overall privacy.’’ 

» Twenty-eight percent said, ‘‘calls from people I don’t want to talk to.’’ 

» Twenty-five percent want to avoid telemarketing (which is already prohibited, 

although consumers are not aware of this). It should be noted that in a 2002 

study conducted by privacy expert Dr. Allan Westin, 88 percent of consumers 

said the number one reason not to list their mobile number was fear of telemarketing calls. It is clear that consumers believe that the Do Not Call Registry works and could protect their mobile numbers as well. 

What privacy protections do consumers want? 

Our consumer research project tested five different privacy options, all of which 

could in theory be implemented today—I say in theory because some would require 

that all telephone services providers, both fixed and wireless, adopt appropriate 

technologies and standards and privacy protections to achieve this end. This would 

obviously generate costs for carriers, but more importantly it means that all carriers 

would need to agree to and implement these privacy protections. It is these difficult 

coordination problems that have stymied parties on all sides. 

27 

The CTIA Plan 

The CTIA, which is working to assemble a national wireless database, holds some 

sway with its membership and can ask them to cooperate—but ‘‘ask’’ is the operative word here. The CTIA cannot obligate anyone—especially fixed line carriers. The 

CTIA plan includes what might be called a least common denominator for privacy 

protection; it covers those aspects the organization can ensure within the process. 

Under the CTIA plan, wireless numbers will be put into a DA database. This national database won’t be sold to anyone, won’t be published in a print directory and 

will not appear on the Internet. Some consumers will list under this plan. Our research shows that 26 percent would list right away and an additional 27 percent 

would list once they had an opportunity to see this plan in place and be convinced 

that it works. This provides for 53 percent of consumers to eventually list their wireless numbers. That is certainly a good start but is still somewhat short of critical 

mass (0ver 60 percent listed) in order to create a robust and effective service. 

As explained below, two of the five privacy protection plans (‘‘Preannouncement’’ 

and ‘‘Listed for Messages Only’’) did test better with consumers than the CTIA plan. 

Both involve more aggressive privacy plans and actually allow consumers to control, 

to a caller, who can reach them. Our research shows that these additional privacy 

protections increase the number of subscribers who would list their mobile numbers 

right away by 61 percent. 

Preannouncement 

This option refers to the practice of the call recipient hearing some sort of announcement that a call is coming in from a wireless DA user. Callers wishing to 

reach a mobile subscriber would record their names at the prompt and would be 

connected to the mobile subscriber. The cellular customer would hear the name and 

could say ‘‘accept,’’ ‘‘reject’’ or ‘‘voice mail’’ to manage a call from directory assistance. This option tested well because under this plan the phone number would not 

be given out and subscribers would have control over who could reach them on the 

mobile phone. Under this plan, 36 percent would list immediately and an additional 

23 percent would list later. This option would allow almost 60 percent of cellular 

subscribers to list their numbers with confidence. 

Listed/Not Listed/Listed for Messages Only 

A listed/not listed/listed for messages only option also tested very well. This scenario gives wireless subscribers a third option. If they were listed for messages only, 

they would not get any calls from directory assistance, but would have a message 

sent to them with the name and number of the person trying to reach them. They 

could then return the call or not, as they chose. Like the preannouncement option, 

this privacy protection option gives consumers control over who can reach them. 

Thirty-eight percent would list now, with an additional 24 percent would be willing 

to list later, allowing 62 percent to eventually list their numbers. This is consistent 

with the roughly 67 percent of listed residential numbers today. 

28 

Source: The Pierz Group, 2004 

Consumers want to use DA to get mobile numbers and are, in large part, willing 

to list their wireless numbers—but only if they can control who can reach them. In 

the simplest terms, consumers want to receive the calls they want, and don’t want 

to receive calls they don’t want. They want and expect to be able to maintain some 

level of privacy. The wireless industry and fixed line DA providers stand to earn 

a projected $2 to $3 billion a year in additional revenues from incremental DA calls 

and additional minutes of wireless usage. Putting mobile numbers in the DA database is good for consumers and good for the industry, but only if done right. ‘‘Right’’ 

is what consumers say it is, the vast majority do not want their number given out 

(they want calls forwarded directly) and they want to maintain some control over 

who can reach them. 

If everyone wins, what are the key obstacles? 

• Consumers do not have key information: 

» Wireless subscribers do not know they have signed a contract allowing their 

number to be put in a directory. 

» There is no additional, specific legislation or regulation that dictates how mobile numbers can be used or listed. 

» Consumers do not know what types of privacy protections are planned or 

could be put in place. 

» Wireless subscribers do not know that they are already protected from unwanted commercial contact (telemarketing) on their cell phones (see FCC Report & Order 47 CFR, section 64.1200, Subpart L). 

• Consumers use their mobile phones in different ways and have different expectations. Many will list, some will not. For some consumers the mobile phone is 

a safety device kept in the glove box; for others it is a vital communications tool 

and the only phone they have. 

• It is extremely difficult for fierce competitors, particularly across wireless and 

fixed line industries, to agree to a plan to protect privacy of cell phone numbers 

without some requirement to do so. They have different incentives, business 

strategies and models, and they have different systems and technologies in 

place to manage their businesses. 


921PIERZ1.eps
29 

• Carriers have a broad array of different and in many cases aging billing systems—these would have to be modified to avoid divulging mobile numbers and 

to provide accurate Caller ID information. This would require some additional 

investment and, again, a need for carriers to meet specific privacy requirements. 

• If numbers are masked but not in a manner (such as with credit cards, e.g., 

202–123–XXXX) that gives consumers sufficient information, carriers are concerned that service costs could climb when consumers call to contest DA charges 

for numbers they can’t see. 

Why should Congress care about wireless DA? 

Based on my research with consumers and my observation of the DA sector and 

the telecommunications industry more generally, I see two principle reasons why 

Congress should care about wireless DA: 

1. Protecting consumers’ privacy expectations 

As my research plainly shows, consumers value the privacy of their cell phone 

numbers. Consumers think that they have protections today against unauthorized 

release of their cell phone numbers. Many consumers would be shocked to learn that 

there is no law or rule protecting release of their cell phone numbers. Most consumers—not all of course—are interested in getting calls through directory assistance if they can retain control over who can reach them on their wireless phones. 

Thus, the bill before the Committee protects twenty years of consumers’ expectations. 

2. Improving the value of the network for everyone 

This Committee is certainly familiar with the economic principle that additional 

users of the telephone network create benefits for everyone—the marginal user as 

well as everyone already on the network. Indeed, this powerful theory underlies our 

universal service policies and has served our country very well. That same analysis, 

however, applies with equal force to wireless. Consumers using wireless telephone 

service create networks in which subscribers benefit from additional persons being 

accessible on the network. Policies that expand use of the network and the accessibility of additional persons yield positive and direct network effects for all consumers in the market, and in fact for carriers. 

As noted above, however, the wireless area is more complex because one has to 

factor in the privacy issue—not everyone wants to be reached and most consumers 

do not want to have their cell phone numbers divulged. And that is where we see 

an issue. It is not at all clear that all the carriers involved in a wireless call (fixed 

phone to a mobile phone, or mobile phone to mobile phone) have the incentive to 

protect the privacy of the telephone number if a subscriber wants to keep it private. 

Consumers should have a choice that goes beyond simply having their cell phone 

numbers listed (everywhere) or not listed. Every consumer with an unlisted home 

number readily admits to missing calls they really want to receive, but they are 

willing to live with that problem to avoid calls they don’t want to receive. Likewise, 

consumers can readily identify situations where they needed to reach someone or 

to be reached themselves on a mobile phone and it was not possible. There are of 

course people who do not want their mobile numbers in a DA database, even if the 

number was not divulged to callers. They should absolutely be able to rely on this 

protection, and know that their numbers can remain unlisted. 

We can do better; this is not rocket science from a technological point of view, but 

it is complicated from an industry implementation point of view. We have seen this 

complication in the huge efforts by the CTIA to establish a wireless database that 

provides some level of privacy for consumers. Even so, the largest wireless carrier 

in the country is no longer willing to participate in this process based on what it 

sees as inadequate privacy protections. I do take issue with the comments of 

Verizon Wireless’ president in the press that adding mobile numbers to DA is a 

‘‘dumb idea.’’ Done right, with the privacy protections and the choice consumers expect, it is a good idea and benefits consumers, carriers and many small businesses. 

Ultimately, whether or not legislation is required to ensure consumer privacy becomes a question of political philosophy. Adding regulation to a successful and highly competitive industry is a difficult choice. It is one, however, that will promote privacy interests by ensuring that consumers have control over their cell phone number and that this privacy decision is respected by all carriers, whether wireless or 

fixed line. At the heart of this decision is the fact that this issue crosses two completely separate industries, fixed line carriers and wireless carriers, who to some degree compete with each other. The wireless industry could collectively agree to mask 

mobile numbers and not disclose them. However, if even one fixed line carrier does 

30 

not provide this same number-masking capability and prints mobile numbers on its 

billing statements, the numbers are not masked and not private. Similarly, one carrier could offer the more aggressive privacy options: listed for messages or 

preannouncement privacy protection, but that will not work unless all providers in 

the fixed and wireless industry agreed to provide the same privacy protection option(s). We have two industries and hundreds of carriers (fixed and wireless) that 

must coordinate privacy protection policy to achieve this end for the benefit of consumers. To date, these efforts have fallen short of what consumers expect. 

If the Committee can accomplish those two objectives—protecting privacy and ensuring that the greatest value is derived from this process for everyone (consumers 

and carriers)—then it will accomplish much. 

Senator ALLEN. Thank you, Ms. Pierz, I’m sure there will be 

more questions for you as well. Thank you for your testimony, we’d 

now like to hear from Mr. Cox. 

STATEMENT OF PATRICK A. COX, CEO, QSENT, INC. 

Mr. COX. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I appreciate you having me here to testify today. I want to 

talk through how the proposed wireless 411 service would work, 

talk about the privacy protections in place for it, and maybe speak 

to the value of a directory, as well. 

Qsent’s commitment to privacy and consumerchoice has landed it 

in the position where six carriers, which is Alltel, Cingular, AT&T 

Wireless, Nextel, Sprint and T-Mobile are planning on launching a 

wireless 411 initiative with a company aggregating that content 

and putting it out into the marketplace. More specifically, to create 

one single service, where these numbers will be available through 

traditional existing 411 service infrastructure today. The way the 

service is going to be designed is to ensure that consumers have a 

choice, and that their privacy is protected. It will not be available 

in a printed directory, it won’t be electronically distributed, it won’t 

be on the Internet. This is actually what we call, dynamically protected privacy data base, which means that every time a call comes 

in for an operator services company, then and only then will the 

phone number be displayed, and it won’t be stored, it won’t be kept 

by the operator stationed, it will just be permission for the single 

call. If an individual chooses not to be included, their listing will 

not be made available in any form on this service. The current 

media misperception is that every subscriber would be included in 

the 411 data base, this is not a realistic option, and in fact is not 

what would be happening. For example, if we did that, there would 

be judges, law enforcement personnel, celebrities, children included 

in this data base, and that would create a trust problem, it creates 

a privacy problem, a lot of business risk for carriers to do that, that 

is not the plan, this truly is going to be an opt-in. The data base, 

day one, starts at zero. A carrier’s greatest asset is its customer. 

And so, I think there’s no better way to take care of that customer 

and create trust than giving them choice. On how they control and 

how they display their personally identifiable information. So 

Qsent and its participating carriers believe in the following principles, and we think this also creates a very successful service: the 

right to choose, the right to change that choice, the right to security, and the right to have all of that without cost. That’s the agreement amongst all the participating carriers in this opportunity 

here.There’s a clear need for this for the consumer. The value of 

31 

a directory. Eighty percent, which is a supermajority of consumers 

today, eighty percent choose to have their land line numbers included in voice-based 411 services. Hundred of thousands of consumers now currently pay their wireless carrier companies money 

to be listed in directory assistance, and to be listed in the phone 

book. There are varying value propositions, but in essence, personal 

reasons, business reasons, sometimes people want to stay in touch 

with their prospects, their customers, their family and their 

friends, and they want to choose to be part of this. For over eighty 

years, Federal and state governments have affirmed the belief that 

telephone directories are in the public interest. In fact, printed Yellow Pages generate billions of dollars in revenue from businesses 

which result in lower phone costs for consumers. According to the 

FCC, 50 percent of all telephone subscriptions this year are for mobile service. Even a growth in dependency of the wireless phone, 

the availability of a wireless 411 service will for the first time create parity between the wireless and land line service offering, creating more competition and creating better consumer benefit and 

lower prices.For business people, particularly small business owners, the benefit is clear. A specific problem we have with the bill 

and it sounds like it’s being addressed by some of the comments 

earlier by Mrs. Boxer and Senators Wyden and Smith, but there’s 

a section C, the call forwarding, this method won’t work, legally or 

technically. There are a lot of regulatory issues around it, a lot of 

technical issues around it. There’s no existing method today that 

will positively authenticate a caller’s identity. Caller ID on the network doesn’t exist, except for just telephone number, you don’t get 

name transmitted. We don’t support it, and not only that, there are 

certain state and PUC regulations that require printed disclosure 

of both parties’ number on phone bills. So, in conclusion, the legislation before us today will stifle innovation, and investment, and 

limit consumer choices while not adding any additional privacy protection. We believe that the customer is always right. And I believe 

you should give the customer a chance to allow them to choose 

what’s best for them. The greatest right a consumer can have is 

personal choice and control. The wireless 411 service will provide 

this. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cox follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PATRICK M. COX, CEO, QSENT, INC. 

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. Thank you for inviting me to testify on Senate Bill S. 1963, the ‘‘Wireless 411 Privacy Act’’. My name 

is Patrick Cox and I am CEO of Qsent, Inc. Prior to founding Qsent, I was the 

founding CEO of MetroOne Telecommunications, Inc., the first independent operator 

services company to provide 411 services to wireless phone users. 

I am here today because Qsent was selected by six of the Nation’s leading wireless 

carriers to facilitate the delivery of wireless directory assistance information 

through the existing 411 providers, the Operator Services Companies (OSCs). Simply stated, Qsent was selected because these large, diverse, fiercely competitive companies trust us with one of their most important assets: customer listing information. In our current business, we’ve demonstrated our commitment to consumer 

choice and privacy as well as our ability in managing highly secure services. My 

company’s background and expertise makes us uniquely qualified to work with the 

wireless carriers and their associated OSCs in making the Wireless 411 Service a 

success from the consumer’s perspective. 

Mr. Chairman, you and the other members of this Committee have been leaders 

in adapting our laws to meet the changing needs of the information age. You recogVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:14 Jun 25, 2013 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\81580.TXT JACKIE
32 

nize the importance of creating an environment where new technologies can be 

adapted to provide consumers with more and better services without compromising 

their rights and privacy. I am concerned that by adopting this legislation, you may 

stall technology growth and limit new consumer and business services that provide 

real value. I applaud your commitment to privacy, and at the same time I believe 

this legislation, and the bill before Governor Schwarzenegger in California, are 

based on fundamental misconceptions about the Wireless 411 Service. The legislation outlines ‘‘fixes’’ to problems that do not and will not exist, and in doing so, will 

restrict consumer choice in unintended ways. 

The Wireless 411 Service 

The Wireless 411 Service is designed to be the consumer-choice and privacy-protected inclusion of wireless listings in the national 411 infrastructure, making wireless numbers available in the existing 411 service. In fact, it will not be a directory 

like standard 411, but based upon a dynamic privacy-protected database accessible 

only in real-time for each 411 inquiry by the operator. The service is not yet available, but the following describes the fundamental design principles. 

Subscribers will be able to pre-authorize (opt-in) through their carrier, the availability of their wireless phone number information for 411 purposes. It is expected 

that individuals will be able to choose to participate in the Wireless 411 Service at 

any time. 

If the individual chooses to opt into the Wireless 411 Service, their carrier will 

make their listing information available for the privacy-protected database. When 

a wireless number inquiry is made, the data aggregator (Qsent) will provide the carrier’s Operator Services Company (OSC) access to the data. The OSC will neither 

temporarily store nor permanently retain the subscriber information. 

If an individual chooses not to opt into the Wireless 411 Service, their listing will 

not be made available in the privacy-protected database. If no decision is made by 

the consumer to opt-in, the individual is automatically opted out. It is critically important to the success of this service that it begins with no participants and grows 

only as individuals explicitly opt-in. There is far too much business risk to the carriers and privacy risk to individuals for it to work any other way. 

Individual carriers will be responsible for outlining services and options to subscribers, managing the opt-in process and providing Qsent with the approved wireless phone number information. With their greatest asset on the line—customer 

trust—there are huge incentives to follow this course. 

Qsent will collect opt-in wireless listing data from participating carrier data 

sources and provide the information through each carrier’s selected OSCs—the same 

OSCs that provide landline 411 today. The information will be placed into Qsent’s 

dynamic privacy-protected database and will only be accessible by an OSC in response to a real-time customer query for an opted-in wireless number. 

Qsent will not create or allow to be created a wireless phone number directory, 

either printed, electronic or online, in whole or in part. Measures are in place, such 

as employee training and technical controls to ensure that no printed, electronic, or 

online directory is created. 

Privacy 

Protecting Privacy is a fundamental requirement for Qsent’s business and for the 

Wireless 411 Service. We not only focus on privacy because it is the right thing to 

do, but also because it is good business practice. Wireless carriers have a crucial 

valuable asset, the trusted relationships they build with their customers. The Wireless 411 Service will strongly support this relationship. In services such as Wireless 

411, consumer participation is an important factor for success. Building trust 

through strong privacy principles substantially increases the likelihood that individuals will participate. We understand how privacy is personal to each of us, to our 

family, to your constituents, and to our customers. We’ve designed all Qsent services, including the Wireless 411 Service, with a foundation of privacy protection. The 

Wireless 411 Service provides the wireless carriers with the ability to assure consumer trust. Qsent believes the following principles are critical to a successful Wireless 411 Service and are designed into the foundation of the solution. 

• The right to choose. 

» A Wireless 411 Service privacy policy will be made available to customers in 

plain-English—not legalese. 

» Customers must opt-in to have their phone number included in the service. 

• The right to change your mind. 

33 

1The Pierz Group, ‘‘Adding Mobile Numbers to the U.S. Directory Assistance/Enquiry Database,’’ Kathleen A. Pierz, July 30, 2004, pp. 13 -14. 

» Customers may choose to have their number removed from the service at any 

time. When they do this, no residual uniquely identifiable information will remain (as a result of having been part of the service) anywhere within or outside of the service. 

• The right to security. 

» Customer data residing in the Wireless 411 Service privacy-protected database will be disclosed only for the purpose of providing voice-accessed 411 

services, and will not be disclosed in either printed or electronic form. 

» A method will be provided for customers to have their numbers removed from 

the service or to register complaints about the service. 

» Opt-in requires authorization of an account owner who is 18 years of age or 

older. 

• The right to exercise these fundamental choices at no charge. 

» Qsent does not charge carriers for storage of listings, additions, or deletions. 

Additionally, we understand that each participating carrier will not charge for 

such services. 

These four fundamental principles are built into all Qsent practices, into the 

Wireless 411 Service and into the provision of Wireless 411 Services at the OSCs. 

Qsent will make consumers’ listing information available only as part of a real-time, 

individual query initiated by the delivery of 411 service. There will never be a bulk 

distribution of uniquely identifiable information. The OSCs will not store or retain 

the data. These efforts enable individuals and enterprises to control how personally 

identifiable information is disclosed to third parties in a clear and simple way. 

Consumer Benefits 

Today, about 80 percent of consumers choose to have their landline phone numbers listed in a directory, and there are many who now voluntarily list their cell 

phones as well. Clearly, there is a strong value to them in doing so, whether that 

value is business or personal. Further, in an increasingly electronic economy, directories are what enable networks like the Internet and e-mail to operate efficiently, 

and for consumers and businesses to gain the most value from them. Most importantly, directories play a key role in helping people stay connected. The Wireless 411 

Service is an example of how traditional directories will evolve to deliver these same 

benefits in a way that protects privacy and preserves consumer choice. 

According to the FCC, of the 165 million cell phone users in the U.S. today, 20 

percent consider their wireless phone to be their primary communications device, 

with 5 million reporting that their mobile phone was their only phone. And even 

more astounding, half of all telephone subscriptions in the U.S. this year will be mobile phones.1 Given the growth and dependency on wireless devices, a Wireless 411 

Service will meet the growing demands of those subscribers who want such a service 

and specifically choose to participate. 

For business people, particularly small business owners who are mobile such as 

real estate professionals, contractors and consultants, the benefit is clear. For personal safety, consumers may also choose to participate in order to be contacted in 

an emergency situation wherever or whenever it occurs. This could be a teenager 

searching for a parent’s forgotten cell number after a roadside accident or a frantic 

parent in a emergency trying to contact a child who is with a friend’s family. 

Finally, for the large and growing number of individuals, particularly young people for whom their cell phone is their only phone, participating in the Wireless 411 

Service will be their means for people to find them—their means to be both mobile 

and available, if they so choose. 

So why don’t more wireless subscribers choose to be listed in traditional 411? The 

answer; it’s difficult, costs money and opens them up to unwanted calls because it 

isn’t privacy protected. In fact, a telemarketer who gets a directory today has no 

way of knowing which listings are cell phones if they want to specifically avoid calling them. With the Wireless 411 Service, the consumer benefits are realized while 

the negative consequences have been designed out. 

Legislation 

Let me share with you my thoughts on the proposed legislation specific to what 

I expect to be the practical affect on consumers and businesses. 

34 

The Wireless 411 Service is a natural evolution of an increasingly pervasive technology. The idea of adding the capability for a cell phone user to call 411 for service 

assistance in reaching another subscriber who has chosen to be listed seems a natural course in the innovation of wireless technology. The design of the Wireless 411 

Service was developed with consideration for the existing consumer privacy laws already in place. 

Today, there are a number of consumer privacy laws designed for landline phones 

that cross-over to protect wireless consumers. These include: the National Do Not 

Call Registry, CAN SPAN Act of 2003 and the Telephone Consumer Protection Act 

of 1991 (TCPA). As of June 2004, 62 million numbers were on the Do Not Call list. 

This has proven to be an effective means to screen out telemarketing calls. The 

TCPA prohibits all autodialed calls to wireless phones, whether it is a marketing 

call or not. The CAN SPAM Act and the rules recently promulgated by the FCC prohibit unsolicited commercial messages to wireless phones and pagers, providing yet 

another layer of protection for the consumer. The Wireless 411 Service is compatible 

with, and in fact can help with the compliance of these laws. 

Section (C) CALL FORWARDING of the Wireless 411 Privacy Act appears to be 

an attempt to ensure that callers only receive desired calls, but the method mandated in this legislation will not allow that to occur. First, accepting or rejecting the 

notification of an unwanted call is no less invasive than receiving the call but not 

taking it. Second, there is no method or technology available to effectively authenticate the identity of the caller; therefore, it would be relatively easy for someone 

to claim a false identity in order to get through. The inability to authenticate the 

true identity of a caller to a cell phone stems from the fact that there is no technology that displays the Caller ID name for an incoming call to a cell phone. The 

name can only be displayed if the name already exists in the personal address book 

in the cell phone. Therefore, there is no way to notify the user of the caller’s identity 

before the call goes through. Third, certain state PUC regulations may require detailed call billing. If the goal of call forwarding is to obscure the number, that 

couldn’t be accomplished because the wireless number would appear on the call detail reports. 

Eventually, many technology companies will develop competing products that will 

allow you to only receive calls from certain people or allow the true integration of 

caller ID for cell phones. Consumers have the right to choose these service offerings. 

Consumer choice should not be constrained by Congressional legislation. 

The Wireless 411 Service will have a dynamic privacy protected database from 

which no printed or electronic directory will be created. However, the pending legislation calls for the prohibition against any future published directory. I do not believe this service should be strictly prohibited through legislation simply because 

subscribers themselves may find that they want to put their wireless phone number 

in the white or yellow pages, as millions of businesses do today. 

Conclusion 

We’ve designed the Wireless 411 Service to ensure that consumers know their information will be secure and private. Most importantly, the greatest protection a 

consumer can have is personal choice. The Wireless 411 Service will provide this. 

The legislation before us today will stifle innovation and limit consumer choice while 

not adding any real privacy protection. 

Thank you. 

Senator ALLEN. Thank you, Mr. Cox, we’d now like to hear from 

Congressman Largent. 

STATEMENT OF HON. STEVE LARGENT, 

PRESIDENT AND CEO, CELLULAR TELECOMMUNICATIONS 

AND INTERNET ASSOCIATION 

Mr. LARGENT. I ask that my entire statement be submitted for 

the record. 

Senator ALLEN. It is so ordered. 

Mr. LARGENT. Thank you. Let me begin first of all with the building question in my chest, and that is, why does a competitive, vibrant industry have to come before Congress to ask permission to 

offer a new service to its own customers? Is there a presumption 

in Washington that the government cares more about wireless cusVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:14 Jun 25, 2013 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\81580.TXT JACKIE
35 

tomers than wireless carriers do? I would say the answer to that 

question, the second question, is no. Mr. Chairman, this is my first 

opportunity to testify before the Senate as the spokesperson for the 

wireless industry, and I can tell you that the world looks a little 

different on this side of desk, and I’m happy to be where I am, and 

I’m happy that you’re where you’re at. 

I want to offer, if I can, just a few brief comments about the 

wireless directory assistance, but I want to begin by talking about 

the industry that I’m very proud to be associated with. The wireless industry has a tremendous story to tell, and I’m going to try 

to tell it in just a few brief minutes. Let’s look at the picture of the 

wireless industry, just in the last 10 years, from 1993 to 2003. In 

1993, the year that Congress passed some important legislation 

creating the competitive market that we know today, there were 16 

million subscribers in the U.S. Ten years later, there are 168 million subscribers in the United States. In 1993, we had 13,000 cell 

towers in this country, today we have 163,000 cell towers providing 

better quality of service than ever before. Since the advent of the 

industry, this industry has invested $148 billion in creating the infrastructure that we know today, $20 billion in 2003 alone. Eight 

hundred and thirty billion minutes of use in air time over the wireless framework just last year, 830 billion minutes of use, and at the 

same time, as Senator Allen correctly said, from 1993 to 2003, better quality of service, more minutes of use, more services offered, 

the cost of wireless service has declined from $60 per month to 

under $50 per month in 2003. Why? Because of the competition. 

Competition was vibrant and robust. Eighty-seven percent of all 

Americans have a least five, sometimes more, providers to choose 

from when they choose their wireless service provider. Ninetyseven percent of all Americans have at least three choices when it 

comes to their wireless carrier. Competition continues to produce 

new, and better, and more innovative services. Text messaging, 

photo and video messaging, broadband Internet access, consumer 

short codes, free long distance, and now, 411 service, a new service 

that we are trying to provide to customers that we know desire it. 

Now, 168 million customers in the United States do not want to 

have their number listed, we know that. We think, we estimate the 

number to be more around 5–8 percent, but still, that represents 

over 10 million people in this country that would actually like to 

have their number listed, and we’re responding to our customers 

because we are very customer-sensitive, and customer-centric. It is 

a very highly competitive industry. I’d like to make four really important points. CTIA has been tasked by six of the seven largest 

carriers in the country to act as a coordinator in the development 

of the 411 service, and I’d like to make these very briefly, these 

four points. 

First of all, the 411 service would be a totally opt-in service. It 

goes beyond the legislation that’s being considered. 

Second, you won’t be charged to opt-in and you won’t be charged 

to opt-out. 

Third, the data that would be held would be held by a secure 

third party in the form of Qsent and Pat Cox to my right, but it 

cannot be sold and it cannot be accessed by any other entity, for 

any other purpose. Finally, this is a service that has not even been 

36 

introduced. There has been no harm, and no foul, and it was in my 

opinion wholly premature and very proscriptive for Congress to 

even be considering this legislation. 

In closing, there are, however, matters that Congress should be 

thinking about before the session comes to a close that would 

greatly benefit wireless customers. 

Number one, send the Internet tax moratorium bill to the President for his signature, ASAP. Very important, as we consider the 

third generation broadband access over wireless devices. And second, the bill to provide needed spectrum for 3G advanced wireless 

services. These are things that are very important, and should be 

high on the priority list of this Congress before they leave for this 

election year. At this point, Mr. Chairman, I would conclude my remarks, thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I look forward 

to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Largent follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. STEVE LARGENT, PRESIDENT AND CEO, 

CELLULAR TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND INTERNET ASSOCIATION

Chairman McCain, Ranking Member Hollings and members of the Committee, 

thank you for your invitation to testify this afternoon on S. 1963, the ‘‘Wireless 411 

Privacy Act’’ introduced by Senators Specter and Boxer. This is my first opportunity 

to represent the wireless industry before a congressional committee since becoming 

CTIA’s President and CEO last November, and I must admit the view is a little different on this side of the dais, but I do welcome the chance to provide CTIA’s views 

on this legislation and the issue of the development of a wireless 411 service. 

Let me preface my remarks by acknowledging that I have little doubt that the 

authors of S.1963 are well intentioned in their efforts with this piece of legislation; 

however, I sincerely believe that this bill is a solution in search of a problem and 

that S. 1963 is unnecessary. The wireless industry has a proven track record of protecting our customers’ privacy, and we have made a concerted effort while developing this directory assistance service to safeguard our subscribers’ personal information. Moreover, the service is still in the planning stages. It is extremely premature for Congress to issue a government mandate on a service that has yet to 

be made available to our customers. If there are wireless customers who have serious reservations about this service or who just do not want to be bothered with the 

choice of opting-in, they have the option to switch to a carrier that is not participating in the wireless 411 service. 

The wireless industry has a great story to tell and I feel fortunate to be here 

today to tell it. Currently, there are more than 168 million wireless customers in 

this country as compared to roughly 38 million when the 1996 Telecommunications 

Act was signed. This represents a phenomenal growth rate of 425 percent. And why 

has our industry enjoyed such a dramatic growth rate? Because of intense competition among service providers, a growing number of service options, technological advancements, and prudent, forward-looking government policies that allowed the 

market to determine the fate of the industry rather than government mandates. 

However, with success, be it athletic, political, or business, comes greater scrutiny. It has become apparent to me over the past 11 months that the wireless industry is becoming viewed more as some sort of monopoly utility rather than the hypercompetitive industry that we are. To set the record straight there are currently 

more than 180 wireless service providers who compete in the U.S. An impressive 

93 percent of Americans live in markets served by four or more operators, and a 

nearly ubiquitous 98 percent of Americans live in a market served by three or more 

operators. Whether urban or rural, American wireless consumers have choice and 

the power to exercise it. Clearly, wireless customers have a multitude of service providers to choose from in the wireless market, and as a result, receive more value 

for their wireless dollars. Last year, consumers increased their individual usage of 

voice minutes by 22 percent while paying 13 percent less per minute according to 

data released last week by the FCC. 

Customers not only have carrier choice, but also choice among service features. 

Accordingly, another potential choice we want to offer our customers is a wireless 

411 service, but only for those customers who want their number listed. Many wireless customers, particularly those in small businesses who spend most of their workVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:14 Jun 25, 2013 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\81580.TXT JACKIE
37 

day away from an office and a landline phone, rely upon their wireless phone as 

their primary business line. We believe these customers would welcome the option 

of having their wireless numbers be made available in a 411 service. A survey conducted by the Small Business Administration in March of this year entitled ‘‘A Survey of Small Businesses’ Telecommunications Use and Spending’’ confirms that 

wireless services are now used by 73 percent of small businesses, and 25 percent 

of all small businesses spend more for wireless services than they do for local and 

long distance telephone services combined. Unfortunately, those small businessmen 

and women who use their wireless phones as their primary business line currently 

have no other choice but to pay to have their number listed if they have that option 

at all, which many do not. 

Seeing this void in the marketplace, in February 2002, the wireless industry first 

contemplated the concept of providing its customers with a wireless directory assistance service. During the past two and a half years, CTIA serving in the role of a 

coordinator and six of the seven largest carriers: AT&T Wireless, Cingular, Sprint 

PCS, Nextel, T-Mobile, and Alltel have proceeded with a thoughtful approach to provide a service that our customers want and currently cannot receive. 

Over 8 million Americans have ‘‘cut the cord’’ and use their wireless phone exclusively; many have no way to have their numbers listed and those that do must incur 

a cost. Unlike the traditional landline directory, which lists all customers by default, 

the wireless 411 service being developed will only include consumers who affirmatively choose to participate. Participating wireless carriers will ask their customers 

if they want their number included. If they do, these numbers can be added to the 

existing directory assistance database and be made available by the 411 operator 

to customers who specifically ask for it. 

If a customer chooses not to be included, they will not have to do anything—the 

wireless 411 database will only include numbers that customers affirmatively add 

to the list—all other numbers are automatically excluded. The only way a number 

will be listed is if the customer specifically asks that it be made available. In addition, unlike the current wireline directory system, all of the national wireless carriers have indicated they will not charge customers who elect to remain unlisted. 

A mutual concern of both the sponsors of S. 1963 and the wireless industry is the 

issue of a published directory. Let me put to rest any misperception that there will 

be a published directory associated with this service. Wireless numbers from this 

database will not be published in a directory. Additionally, the aggregated database 

of wireless numbers will not be sold to any third-party, nor will it be available anywhere on the Internet. 

The wireless industry has historically advocated for strong privacy measures for 

its customers such as prohibiting the use of automated systems to dial wireless 

phone numbers and encouraging its subscribers to register their wireless number 

on the Federal Trade Commission’s ‘‘Do Not Call’’ list. Likewise, privacy concerns 

are paramount in this initiative. We have attempted to make every assurance that 

there is no invasion to a customer’s privacy as a result of their inclusion in this 

database. Moreover, consumers who choose to be listed will have an added protection against telemarketers because of the current restrictions on the use of automated dialers calling wireless numbers. 

It is envisioned that the wireless 411 system will operate by having participating 

carriers contact their customers and offering them the choice of participating in the 

service. If they choose to opt-in, their wireless contact information will be confirmed 

by the carrier and sent to the database aggregator, Qsent, at which point Qsent will 

integrate that information with the opt-in listings provided by wireless customers 

of all of the carriers who support this service. By providing a single aggregated 

database for opted-in wireless listings, operators can make a single query to the 

Qsent database when a customer calls 411 (from either a wireline or wireless phone) 

to request a wireless listing. 

While in Congress, I was privileged to serve on the House Energy and Commerce 

Committee and worked on several privacy-related bills dealing with spamming, 

slamming, cramming, Do-Not-Call, and the privacy title of the Gramm/Leach/Bliley 

Act. All of those bills were introduced as a result of bad corporate behavior. With 

the legislation we are discussing today, there has been no bad behavior; in fact, the 

behavior so far is to fashion the service in a manner most protective of customer 

privacy. Moreover, as I keep making the point, the wireless industry is such a 

hyper-competitive business that if carriers that choose to participate in a wireless 

411 system betray the confidence of their customers, as sure as I am sitting here, 

those customers will vote with their feet and switch to another service provider. 

We believe the wireless 411 service is yet another example of the efforts of wireless companies to provide their customers with choice. It will be opt-in only and participating carriers indicate there will be no charge for opting out. There will be no 

38 

published directory, no Internet access to the numbers, nor will there be any thirdparty sale of the numbers. 

The multitude of service and feature options and calling plans, better service for 

lower prices, free voice-mail, caller ID, and 3-way calling are all competitive responses to satisfy consumer demand. Wireless 411 is one more attempt to provide 

a service to a growing number of wireless customers. We know the service may not 

be for everyone, but many have asked for it and we urge you to allow these ultracompetitive companies to offer the wireless 411 service as they propose. Customers 

truly are the ultimate regulators in a competitive market and they are capable and 

willing to decide for themselves whether a service is viable. 

In closing, as someone who used to sit on the other side of a nearby dais, I know 

the importance that your constituents place on protecting their privacy. I also know 

that the wireless industry has a proven track record of supporting legislation to protect its customers’ privacy. My concern with S. 1963 is that it offers no more privacy 

protection than the wireless industry’s own proposed 411 service, but if enacted, the 

legislation may deter future innovation and industry initiatives for fear government 

mandates will step in even before new services get off the ground. 

I welcome any questions you may have. 

Senator ALLEN. Thank you, thank you Mr. Largent, on behalf of 

Senator Wyden and myself, and Senator Ensign and all of the Senators here, we agree with you clearly on the Internet tax moratorium measure, thanks for that nice little plug, to try to get the 

House to pass that. Now, we’d like to hear from you Mr. Rotenberg. 

STATEMENT OF MARC ROTENBERG, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER; ADJUNCT 

PROFESSOR, GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY LAW CENTER 

Mr. ROTENBERG. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, it’s a real honor to be back before you today 

to talk about wireless privacy and the interests of consumers. 

My statement is very similar to the views that were expressed 

by Consumer’s Union and the AARP, and the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse. You have heard on this panel, I think, what is a commonly shared view, that privacy protection will be absolutely critical for consumer acceptance of the wireless directory, all we’re 

really debating is how best to achieve that. 

Also, I listened to the comments of Mr. Strigl from Verizon and 

I thought his position was admirable, not wanting to go forward if 

he thought there would be a privacy risk for his customers, I’ve 

looked at the principles proposed by CTIA and Qsent, and I think 

they’re reasonable privacy principles that would certainly provide 

some protection for customers. 

But in answer to your question, Mr. Chairman, why this is not 

sufficient, and why legislation is important, and why I hope you 

will move quickly on S. 1963, I’d like to remind you of a hearing 

that took place in this committee room 5 years ago about Internet 

advertising. And at that time, we were talking about a company 

called ‘‘Doubleclick.’’ And the Doubleclick company proposed an 

Internet-based advertising model that answered all of the privacy 

concerns that the public had raised. They said, ‘‘We have a wonderful, fast-moving, competitive industry,’ they said that privacy protection was important, they said it was too soon for Congress to 

act, and they said they would do Internet-based advertising that 

did not require the correction of personal identifiable information. 

And the privacy groups, and the consumer groups and everybody 

else said, ‘‘This sounds great. We support you, we think it’s innovative, we think it respects privacy, we think it demonstrates in some 

39 

areas, and in fact, Mr. Chairman, it’s not necessary for Congress 

to regulate.’’ And what happened? A few months later, the 

Doublclick company learned about a database room called Claritas, 

the largest catalog marketer in the United States and said, ‘‘Well, 

we had the old business model that didn’t require the correction of 

personal identifiable information, but you know, if we incorporate 

that data with Claritas, they make available to us, if we require 

it, we’ll have a better, more efficient, more profitable business 

model,’’ and they quietly began to revise their privacy policies. 

And it became apparent over time, Mr. Chairman, that 

Doubleclick was not able to maintain their commitment to their 

high privacy ground, but in fact they were going to collect customer 

information and that was the point when the public objected, when 

this Committee held hearings, and when the FTC began to look 

more closely at the question of what is required to protect consumer privacy in these emerging services. 

Now, we have had similar experiences, with many other companies, Amazon, Yahoo and others, that come forward with very 

strong privacy representations. And then, over time, business models change, and the privacy bar drops down. The one thing that 

does not change is that those consumers who provided their personal information in the first instance, under the representation 

that their personal data would be protected, that it would not be 

disclosed to others, now find themselves having to deal with telemarketers, spam, sale to data brokers, and worse. 

The reason, Mr. Chairman, I think we need this legislation is to 

establish the baseline. Establish the floor. There is nothing, nothing that will prevent Verizon or CTIA from developing stronger 

safeguards, from using the free market, and advertising and outreach to say, ‘‘We will do a better job protecting privacy than our 

competitors,’’ we welcome that, and we encourage that. But to propose that we go forward with the service that effectively flips the 

switch on privacy protection for mobile customers, that means that 

information that we used to assume was private, can now lead to 

us receiving calls from people who we don’t know, who we didn’t 

give our numbers to, and will, on top of it, we will have to pay the 

cost for those calls, I think will create the type of chaos, exactly 

what Senator Boxer mentioned at the opening. 

And, Mr. Chairman, I’ve had one other experience with telecommunications privacy, relevant to this discussion, and that’s 

with Telecom Consumer Protection Act. It was done in 1991, it was 

an excellent law, but the one piece that was not done when that 

law passed was the ‘‘do not call’’ list. It took twelve years to get 

that done. By the time it happened, sixty million Americans said, 

‘‘Enough is enough.’’ 

I urge you not to wait on this legislation. You do not want to 

happen with the privacy of cell phone numbers what happened 

with telemarketing in this country. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rotenberg follows:] 

40 

1Testimony of Beth Givens, UCAN, before the California Public Utilities Commission, November 25, 1998, available at http://www.ucan.org/lawlpolicy/teledoces/bgpacbell.html/. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARC ROTENBERG, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ELECTRONIC

PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER; ADJUNCT PROFESSOR, GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY

LAW CENTER

I appreciate the opportunity to appear before the Committee today to discuss privacy issues raised by a proposed wireless directory for customers of wireless of telephone services. My name is Marc Rotenberg. I am the Executive Director of the 

Electronic Privacy Information Center in Washington, and I have taught the Law 

of Information Privacy at Georgetown since 1990. As both an advocate and academic, I have participated in many of the leading privacy debates in this country. 

With me this morning is Chris Jay Hoofnagle, Associate Director of EPIC. 

Summary 

As the wireless industry develops a directory of numbers for wireless devices, 

Congress should act to safeguard privacy and to create legally enforceable rights 

with respect to data in the wireless directory. We believe the industry shares our 

concerns that privacy protection will be important for this information, and also recognizes that many other new wireless services could be jeopardized if strong privacy 

standards are not established. However, we are not persuaded that wireless directories can be administered fairly without legal rights for the millions of individuals 

who will be enrolled in the system. These new directories raise the privacy risks 

of unwanted telemarketing, SMS spam, junk faxes, and contacts from undesirable 

callers, including stalkers. 

It is clear that there are very high levels of public support for strong privacy safeguards for telephone services. More than 60 million American households signed up 

for the Do Not Call service so that they would not receive telemarketing calls at 

dinnertime. Millions of American household have unlisted and/or unpublished telephone numbers. According to one survey, 35 percent of households nationwide do 

list or publish telephone numbers. In1 major metropolitan areas in California, nearly 70 percent of telephone numbers are unlisted. 

The modern history of privacy protection is one where Congress acts in advance 

to safeguard privacy while allowing emerging technologies to develop. Enacting privacy protections for the wireless directories is both consistent with Congress’ prior 

actions on privacy issues, and necessary in this case to ensure that consumers have 

substantive rights in their personal information. The ‘‘Wireless 411 Privacy Act,’’ S. 

1963, is a first step toward addressing privacy issues presented by wireless directories. However, we believe this Committee should strengthen the Wireless Privacy 

Act in several aspects before it is presented to the full Senate. In particular, we believe that the standard for enrollment should be a consumer friendly, opt-in system 

that ensures adequate notice and requires affirmative consent. In the third part of 

our testimony, we raise objections to a related telecommunications privacy issue, 

Junk Faxes. This Committee recently reported out the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 

2004, S. 2603, without a hearing. We urge the members to take a closer look at this 

proposal. The Senate should not enact that bill, as currently drafted, as it will likely 

exacerbate the junk fax problem. 

I. Congress Has Safeguarded Privacy as New Telecommunications 

Technologies Emerge 

The recent history of privacy law in the United States is largely a story of efforts 

by Congress to pass laws to safeguard privacy as new technologies emerge. There 

are, for example, the privacy subscriber provisions of the Cable Act of 1984 (cable 

television), the Video Privacy Protection Act (video rental records), the Electronic 

Communications Privacy Act of 1998 (electronic mail), the Polygraph Protection Act 

of 1988 (lie detectors), and the Children’s Online Privacy Protection of 1999 (Children’s data obtained by companies operating on the Internet). 

The Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 is especially relevant to this debate, as that law shielded individuals from auto dialers, junk faxes, and telemarketing to wireless phones long before the devices were adopted on a widespread 

level. It is because of that 1991 law that individuals have a sanctuary from commercial interruption when it comes to their wireless phones. Because Congress acted 

early to shield wireless devices, they continue to be adopted by millions of Americans. If Congress had not acted to protect privacy, wireless services probably would 

not be as successful as they are. 

These privacy laws have come about in response to challenges posed by new technologies. However, the aim is rarely to limit the technology or to stifle a new busiVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:14 Jun 25, 2013 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\81580.TXT JACKIE
41 

ness; it is instead to ensure that the data collection is fair, transparent, and subject 

to law. This approach builds consumer confidence, establishes a stable business environment, and allows for the benefits of new technology while safeguarding key interests. 

It has been our experience that in a self-regulatory environment, even reputable 

companies are swayed by forces that result in watering down privacy protections. 

Without legal protections, privacy provisions in the wireless directory may be 

changed at will by the wireless industry. 

In other contexts where businesses operate in a self-regulatory privacy atmosphere, there has been a race to the bottom, even among profitable companies. For 

instance, eBay changed users’ preferences on receiving marketing and watered-down 

their privacy policy in 2001. The company changed the privacy choices of six million 

registered eBay members who had expressed that they did not want to receive spam 

or telemarketing. Amazon.com, a popular online bookseller, changed its privacy policy in December 2000. Amazon reneged on its promise to never reveal customers’ 

transactional information. Yahoo, a popular Internet portal and free e-mail service, 

changed its policies so that the company could send more spam to customers. The 

change required Yahoo users to re-opt-out in order to avoid the new marketing messages. Drkoop.com, a popular medical website founded by former Surgeon General 

C. Everett Koop, sold its e-mail list as a bankruptcy asset to vitacost.com in July 

2002. Drkoop.com gave individuals one week to opt-out of the sale, despite making 

guarantees of opt-in protections for transfer of personal data. 

Congressional action is warranted here because privacy is more likely to be invaded when creating a wireless directory than a wireline one. Consumers tend to 

treat their wireless phones as personal devices. Often, consumers take their wireless 

phones everywhere they go, making the devices an avenue for disruption in contexts 

where wireline phones cannot reach. Consumers are also charged for the calls and 

SMS messages received on their phones. An improperly implemented wireless directory could result in both more personal, but also more costly, disruption to consumers. 

In the past, unfortunately, phone companies have sided against privacy and consumers when implementing protections for CPNI, Customer Proprietary Network 

Information. CPNI is the data collected by telecommunications corporations about 

a consumer’s telephone calls. It includes the time, date, duration, and destination 

number of each call, the type of network a consumer subscribes to, and any other 

information that appears on the consumer’s telephone bill. Although Congress in 

passing 47 U.S.C. § 222(c)(1) specified that phone companies should obtain the ‘‘approval of the customer’’ before using CPNI, the companies interpreted ‘‘approval’’ to 

mean opt-out, and used the data unless a consumer specifically objected. 

Finally, establishing a right of privacy in law does not require extensive regulation. There are many privacy laws of only a few pages that are extraordinarily effective. The subscriber privacy provision in the Cable Act of 1984, for example, is one 

of the most effective privacy laws in the U.S. It provides a very good model for 

emerging privacy issues in the commercial world. 

II. The Wireless 411 Privacy Act, S. 1963, Is a Good Start But Could Be 

Improved 

We applaud the Members for introducing the Wireless 411 Privacy Act, S. 1963, 

and the Chairman and Ranking Member for holding a hearing on this important 

issue. The Wireless Privacy Act is a good starting point for addressing the privacy 

issues implicated by wireless directories. We have detailed the major provisions of 

the bill below while suggesting critical improvements. 

Section 3 of S. 1963 amends the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. § 332(c), 

to create an ‘‘express prior authorization’’ standard for enrollment in the wireless 

directory for current wireless subscribers. We strongly support this opt-in standard 

for enrollment in the wireless directory. 

The Standard Should Be Opt-In for New Subscribers 

Under Section 3 in a provision creating 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(9)(B), new wireless subscribers would automatically be enrolled, but could opt-out through ‘‘convenient 

mechanisms’’ at the beginning of the wireless contract, in the billing of the service, 

and when receiving any connecting call from a wireless directory assistance service. 

Here, we believe that the Committee should eliminate this provision and require 

opt-in before enrollment for both new and current wireless subscribers. 

An opt-in framework would better protect individuals’ rights, and is consistent 

with most United States privacy laws. For instance, the Family Educational Rights 

and Privacy Act, Cable Communications Policy Act, Electronic Communications Privacy Act, Video Privacy Protection Act, Driver’s Privacy Protection Act, and ChilVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:14 Jun 25, 2013 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\81580.TXT JACKIE
42 

dren’s Online Privacy Protection Act all empower the individual by specifying that 

affirmative consent is needed before information is employed for secondary purposes. 

Further, public opinion clearly supports an opt-in system for information collection and sharing. A study conducted by the American Society of Newspaper Editors 

(ASNE) and the First Amendment Center (FAC) in April 2001 illustrated strong 

support for privacy and specifically for opt-in systems. An August 2000 Pew Internet 

& American Life Project Poll showed that 86 percent of respondents supported optin privacy policies. Historically, polls show similar support for the right to affirmative opt-in consent. For instance, a 1991 Time-CNN Poll indicated that 93 percent 

of respondents believed that companies should gain permission from the individual 

before selling personal information. 

Opt-in is more effective and more efficient than opt-out because it encourages 

companies to explain the benefits of information sharing. This allows consumers to 

exercise meaningful control over personal information. Experience with opt-out has 

shown that companies routinely make it difficult for consumers to safeguard personal information. 

In other settings, phone companies have thwarted opt-out processes by demanding 

excessive authentication for opting out. For instance, the opt-out process for Customer Proprietary Network Information (CPNI) data sharing established by one 

major phone company is very confusing, and places the burden on individuals to 

navigate a five-step process in order to opt-out. 

If an opt-out standard is maintained, the procedures should be clearer. New subscribers should have the opportunity to opt out when entering the contract, by calling customer service at any time, or by checking a box on the monthly payment coupon that is mailed back to the wireless company. 

The Bill May Preempt State Law 

Although S. 1963 is silent on preemption, its placement at 47 U.S.C. § 332 may 

express a Congressional intent to supercede stronger state laws. Consumer protection is historically state-based responsibility. Federal laws in this area should establish a floor of protection rather than as a ceiling. 

There are important reasons in our form of government to continue to allow the 

states to operate as ‘‘laboratories of democracy.’’ Congress may fail to act or may 

act in such a way that reduces or limits the protections that a state might otherwise 

choose to provide for its citizens. States may also innovate and explore different approaches to common problems. 

The California Legislature, for example, has passed legislation to protect wireless 

directory privacy. The California wireless privacy bill, AB 1733, received strong bipartisan majorities in the State’s Senate and Assembly, and awaits signature by 

Governor Schwarzenegger. 

The California bill requires carriers to obtain affirmative consent before selling 

lists of phone numbers or including them in wireless directories. The bill allows individuals to revoke consent at any time. Carriers must comply with the unlisting 

within 60 days. The bill also prohibits carriers from charging for enrollment/refusal 

to enroll. 

There is also a right of recourse against violators of the law. Individuals can bring 

a civil suit against ‘‘deliberate violations.’’ Congress should adopt provisions at least 

as strong as the California law, especially if Congress acts in such a way as to preempt further state legislation. 

Greater Technical Safeguards Could Be Encouraged 

Under Section 3 in a provision creating 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(9)(C), the bill regulates 

calls forwarded through wireless directory assistance by requiring ‘‘cloaking.’’ Calls 

could only be forwarded to those in the wireless directory. Before forwarding a call, 

a carrier would have to disclose the caller’s identity to the recipient, the recipient 

must be able to decline the call, and the carrier could not disclose the recipient’s 

number to the caller. This cloaking of the recipient’s phone number would be an excellent service for callers and recipients, but it is unclear whether it is necessary 

for Congress to mandate this specific business model. For instance, individuals who 

decide not to enroll in wireless directory may choose instead to sign up for this forwarding service with cloaking. But the bill would prohibit carriers from offering that 

option. 

Carriers may develop other pro-privacy technical protections to encourage greater 

participation in wireless directories. For instance, under an ‘‘announce’’ system, the 

recipient would hear the name of the caller before accepting the call, much like collect calling works today. Again, individuals may wish to stay out of the wireless directory, but accept calls through an announce system. Congress should not prohibit 

43 

carriers from creating and offering these options. We believe that Congress should 

instead encourage the FCC to develop privacy-protective technical options with the 

carriers. Accordingly, we recommend that this provision be stricken from the bill, 

and replaced with language that directs the FCC to develop options with carriers 

that respect individuals’ privacy. 

The Publication Prohibition Should Be Strengthened 

Under Section 3 in a provision creating 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(9)(C), the bill prohibits 

publication of the wireless directory in print or electronic form. We think that this 

is a well-intentioned provision, but that it falls short of ensuring protection for the 

wireless directory. While formal publication of the wireless directory would be privacy invasive, there is a strong risk of privacy invasion caused by the sale of the 

wireless directory to commercial data brokers or to others who traffic in personal 

information. The legislation should prohibit publication, but also bulk disclosure of 

the numbers to telemarketers, data brokers, or to other unaccountable sellers of personal information. We note that California AB 1733 would prohibit the sale of databases of phone numbers. 

The Definition of ‘‘Wireless Telephone Number Information’’ Should Be Narrowed 

Under Section 3 in a provision creating 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(9)(F), S. 1963 has a 

broad definition of the information that can be stored in the wireless directory and 

disclosed to callers. ‘‘Wireless telephone number information’’ includes the telephone 

number, electronic address (e-mail address or new form of identifier, such as Electronic Numbering, or ‘‘ENUM’’), physical address, and any other identifying information by which a calling party may reach a subscriber. We think that this definition should be narrowed to include only the name and wireless telephone number. 

Consumers should have the option, but should not be required, to include other information. 

A Right of Recourse is Needed 

S. 1963 does not specify a clear remedy for individuals who are wrongfully included in the wireless directory. The bill should be amended to create clear avenues 

for recourse against carriers that wrongfully list or otherwise fail to comply with 

Congress’ direction. 

Individuals Should Not Be Charged 

Under Section 3 in a provision creating 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(9)(E), the bill prohibits 

charging for enrollment or refusal to enroll. We believe that this is an appropriate 

protection for individuals, and that it should be extended to the wireline context. 

Currently, wireline carriers charge individuals who wish to protect their privacy. 

Here in Washington, DC, Verizon charges residential consumers $5.16 a year for an 

unlisted number and $9.72 for an unpublished number. This bad wireline precedent 

should not be continued into the wireless realm. 

III. The Junk Fax Prevention Act Will Promote Junk Faxes 

We wish to comment here on a related telecommunications privacy issue, the 

problem of junk faxes, unsolicited commercial facsimile messages. S. 2603, the Junk 

Fax Prevention Act of 2004, a bill that was reported out of this Committee favorably 

without amendment, will exacerbate the junk fax problem. Section 2 of S. 2603 

would amend one of the strongest consumer privacy laws, the Telephone Consumer 

Protection Act (TCPA), to create an ‘‘established business relationship’’ exemption 

for senders of junk faxes. The same section would also effectively eliminate recently 

created Federal Communications Commissions rules that require the written consent of the recipient before junk faxes are sent. 

We recognize that obtaining written consent and managing time periods of established business relationships can create paperwork burdens on businesses. However, 

junk faxing is a serious consumer protection problem, and it places a greater paperwork burden on recipients of unwanted messages. We note that last year, the primary sender of junk faxes was fined more than $5 million for violations of the 

TCPA. Many consumers with fax machines unplug the devices in order to avoid 

junk fax broadcasting. Others have lost sales because of fax machines clogged with 

junk fax transmissions while customers attempt to send orders. In Washington 

States, a hospital was deluged with junk faxes, putting patients at risk. In a lawsuit 

filed by law firm Covington & Burling, it was alleged that a single junk faxer sent 

1,634 unsolicited advertisements in a single week. Small businesses too are caused 

significant costs of ink and paper as a result of junk faxes. S. 1603 will intensify 

these problems by creating an additional legal defense and justification for transmitting these unwanted messages. On the whole, the cost of this bill on the efficient 

44 

operation of business and government offices is far greater than the alleged benefits 

touted by proponents of S. 2603. 

We strongly urge Members of the Committee to withdraw their support for S. 

2603. The established business relationship exemption will open individuals to hundreds or even thousands of unwanted commercial fax solicitations. Technically, 

every time a consumer makes a purchase or even an inquiry about products or services, they create an existing business relationship with a company. Accordingly, the 

average consumer under S. 2603 will create the possibility of numerous junk faxes 

in their daily activities. Merely getting an estimate from a plumber, even where the 

consumer declines to employ the plumber’s services, would establish an open-ended 

business relationship that enables the sending of junk faxes. 

We also believe that the Federal Communications Commission’s requirement for 

written consent from recipients is reasonable in certain circumstances. It has been 

our experience that junk faxers will claim that they have obtained the consent of 

the recipient. Without a writing, it is difficult for consumers to argue to a court that 

they, someone in their household, or even the previous owner of the phone number, 

did not consent to receiving junk faxes. 

If the Committee does maintain support of S. 2603, we think the bill should be 

amended to allow the Federal Communications Commission to reinstate the written 

opt-in requirement and revoke the established business relationship exemption with 

respect to the most prolific junk faxers. That is, when the Federal Communications 

Commission determines that any sender routinely violates the TCPA, the agency 

should be able on a case by case basis to impose a written consent requirement and 

revoke the established business relationship defense. Furthermore, we support allowing the Federal Communications Commission to define the length of an established business relationship. The standard that could be created in S. 2603 of five 

to seven years, is entirely too long. 

Conclusion 

Privacy protection remains critical for consumer acceptance of new telecommunications services. The development of wireless directors poses special risks to privacy 

as it will impact many new services. For this reason, we believe it is particularly 

important to establish guidelines that are both sensible and effective. We appreciate 

the work of this Committee and the sponsors of S. 1963 for their leadership in ensuring that the wireless directory is implemented fairly and respects consumer privacy. Privacy protection is critical to the adoption of the wireless directory, and to 

respecting the wishes of those who do not wish to be listed. 

Senator ALLEN. Thank you. I want to thank all our witnesses for 

your testimony, now we’ll be posing some questions and have a discussion with you so we can best understand it from the varied perspectives we’ve heard here, and this is a very good and balanced, 

diverse panel. 

Mr. Strigl, you’ve said as insofar as Verizon’s concerned, you 

think a directory is a terrible idea, you won’t have nothing to do 

with it, for a variety of reasons. But would you then support Congress passing a law prohibiting a directory from even being put 

into place? 

Mr. STRIGL. Mr. Chairman, I don’t think a law is required. 

Senator ALLEN. Do you, then, not support this measure, which 

doesn’t ban a directory, as such. 

Mr. STRIGL. If this is what Congress would like to do, I would 

say those who support the directory in our industry have it coming 

to them. I want to be very clear, this is not a project that we should 

move ahead with as an industry. There are other ways of doing 

this. 

Senator ALLEN. But, do you think the government ought to stop? 

Mr. STRIGL. I am not for more regulation, never have been. This 

is an extremely competitive business, but I do think that this is a 

project that shouldn’t proceed, I think that privacy is extremely important, it’s a matter of principle with us. 

45 

Senator ALLEN. Let me say this, personally, I agree in the significant aspect of this compared to all the aggravations we get, the 

pop-ups and all the rest on the Internet. The thing on cell phones 

is if you get a call, an unwanted call, and you get plenty of unwanted calls, but I’m talking about a true pestering calls, you are 

having to pay for it. Unlike a land line or the Internet, which is 

a waste of time and effort, but it doesn’t, you’re not getting billed 

for it, as such. 

Now, Mr. Largent stated in his testimony, the policy of those in 

the wireless industry, and not all want to do it, it may be good 

marketing for Verizon, but he stated, ‘‘It will be opt-in only, and 

participating carriers, indicate those participating, that there’ll be 

no charge for opting out. There will be no published directory, no 

Internet access to the numbers, nor will there be any third party 

sale of numbers.’’ Now, suppose the panelists, does anybody disagree with that policy? I understand, Mr. Strigl, you think it’s a 

terrible idea, but do any of you all, in the event there’s a directory, 

disagree with those principles? 

Mr. ROTENBERG. I think the key question, Mr. Chairman, I think 

is, what would be the consequence if those principles are violated? 

I mean, as I said in my statement, I think it’s a good set of principles, but if in fact one of the participants decides, and perhaps 

had a good business reason for doing so, to change, what would the 

consequence be? 

Ms. PIERZ. Mr. Chairman, I’d like to provide a comment also. I 

do like the principles that have been put into place as the CTIA 

plans, but I do think we can do a little bit better, and specifically 

when we looked at the idea of knowing who’s calling you, because 

consumers said they were worried about getting calls from people 

they didn’t want to talk to. And not having the number divulged, 

so that there’s actually a gatekeeper in place, if I call directory assistance the first time and get your cell phone number I’ve always 

got it, and it’s very easy for me to, as you said, pester you with 

calls. But if each time you’re calling directory assistance, it’s forwarded and the person knows who’s calling and can accept the call 

or not, you actually create a much more valuable service for consumers, but that’s a very hard thing, no one carrier can put that 

in place without some sort of a baseline that asks everyone in the 

industry to meet that standard. And then, companies can build 

more advanced and protective services on top of that base, but it 

provides a common base across all fixed line and wireless carriers 

to protect consumers’ actual phone numbers so it’s not divulged, 

and to let them know who’s calling. 

Senator ALLEN. When you have a situation where, and no one 

disagrees with this, that 93 percent of all Americans live in markets provided with at least four choices, if not more, 93 percent. We 

don’t have that in other industries. Obviously you can get cable or 

satellite, but there’s not two cable, even for broadband, at this 

point. You’re able to get a cable modem, those of us would like to 

see DSL available more, maybe broadband over power lines, satellites all the rest, wi-fi, and so forth. But the point is that watching the cell phone business with so many different companies offering, people are going to switch, you’re going to lose market share, 

46 

you’ve gotta keep those customers for over a year, maybe even 

more to get them as a customer. 

Mr. Largent, let me finish with you, then. What are the industry’s incentives to protect the privacy that is aligned with the interests of a particular consumer or customer, is it, how does that affect their own economic interest, from your perspective, of those 

who want to get involved in this, or may want to have their number listed in the directory? 

Mr. LARGENT. Let me share, and I’m glad you asked that question because it’s exactly what I wanted to talk about, and that is 

that the wireless carriers, my friend on my left over here, talked 

about what happens if they go a different direction after they’ve 

said they’re not going to list your number, or whatever. The fact 

is that the boilerplate contracts that have, that we’ve all signed 

when we signed up for cellular service, including that language 

that says, in signing, in giving us your consent to sign this contract, we can put your name in a directory assistance. And they 

signed the contract. That’s kind of been the boilerplate-type language that’s been in their contracts for a long time, language 

which, by the way, all the carriers have said they’re going back to 

their current customers and asking them, ‘‘Do you want your number listed?’’ so they can either opt-in or opt-out, and by the way, 

there’s no charge to opt-in, there’s also no charge to opt-out, unlike 

the land line, but my point is that carriers have had permission, 

contractual permission to list numbers for a long time, and they’ve 

never done it because they have respected our customers’ privacy 

right. 

Now, when we want to do it, we’re saying we’re going to develop 

a 411 service or ask them, ‘‘Do you want to play or not?’’ and the 

real key question in this debate, really, is about what some people 

have sort of said offhandedly is, this is about privacy. The question 

that I think the Senate needs to ask in considering this legislation 

is: how is a customer’s privacy potentially violated here? And I 

think you brought the guy to answer that question, right here on 

my right, and it’s Pat Cox, who is the third party who has been 

chosen to protect that data that would be submitted by the participating carriers. How is a customer who either opts-in or opts-out, 

how is their privacy, their personal information going to be threatened as a result of this 411 service? And the answer that we believe we’ve gotten from Pat Cox and Qsent is, that it’s not at all. 

It’s not threatened at all. If you opt-in, you’re saying, ‘‘I want my 

information published, or available,’’ and if you opt-out, you’re saying, ’’You can’t contact me,‘‘ and that rule will not be breached. 

So, the bottom line, and the answer to your question is that it 

goes to what Senator Boxer said, you know, we know business, we 

know what it’s about, it’s about the bottom line. If carriers start 

offending customers by violating their privacy rights, guess what? 

They get to vote with their feet, and they get to move to a nonparticipating carrier, and they lose market share, and then they 

start hearing from the shareholders, and those people that make 

those decisions are gone, and that’s the way the market should 

work. 

Senator ALLEN. Thank you, thank you Mr. Largent. Senator 

Boxer? 

47 

Senator BOXER. Mr. Largent, how long have you been in your 

job? 

Mr. LARGENT. November of 2003. 

Senator BOXER. Well, I think you ought to leave the left/right 

partisanship behind you, because you’ve got to deal with Democrats/Republicans on this Committee, and I think turning to someone who represents consumers, and saying ‘‘left’’ is outrageous. Because we’re all consumers. You may have noticed, or maybe you 

didn’t, so let me tell you. When we passed the no-call directory, it 

was 95–0, and your friends on the right marched right down the 

middle aisle for consumers. We’re people from every part of the political spectrum, so let’s leave that behind, because we do tend to 

leave that behind in this Committee. We reach across to each 

other, and we tend to work together, so that’s just . . . 

Senator ALLEN. I do believe he was talking directionally on the 

panel. Mr. Largent: It was a total tongue-in-cheek comment, but I 

apologize, I didn’t mean to offend anybody. 

Senator BOXER. It was more than said directionally. I know political talk when I hear it. So, let me go on. I agree with you, Mr. 

Largent, that we need to pass the no Internet taxation. But we also 

have to do more than one thing at a time. We’ve gotta do that, and 

we’ve gotta do this. Because people are concerned already. They’re 

stuck, some of them, with 2 year contracts, so your point about, 

they can vote with their feet, yes, if they pay a hundred and fifty 

bucks to get out of some contract that maybe isn’t in their favor. 

Let me give you an example. I ask unanimous consent to place in 

the record this contract, AT&T, which was just changed for the 

new customers in June, I ask unanimous consent to place it in the 

record. 

Senator ALLEN. So ordered. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

48 


921TRAN1.eps

/ 

(v) facilitate or verify the- appropriate calculation of taxes, fees 

or other obligations due to a local', state or federal government. 

b. We may also release infonnation about you if we reasonably believe 

c. 

; that an emergency involving immediate danger of death or serious 

physiclll injury to any person requires disclosure of communications 

or justifies disclosure of records without delay . You consent to our 

monitoring of any communication to or from you or your Device to 

protect our rights or property or those of our customers. as well as 

for quality I~s!ejrviiic~e~~~~i~~i~~~~~~ 

24 . cPld Con •• nt . Under federal law. you bave a right, and we have a · 

duty, to protect the confidentiality of information arout the amount . 

type. and destination of your wireless service usage and the location of 

your device on our network (CPNI) wh"en you use voice service. You consent 

to us sharing your CPNI with our affiliates who provide communicat:ionsrelated services, joint venture partners and independent contractors, to 

develop or bring to' your attention cOtm\unic~tions-related products and 

services. This consent survives the termination of your Service and is 

valid until you revoke it. To remove this consent. notify us in writing at 

the address provided fn the Notices section below. providing your (1) 

name. (2) Service billing address. (3) Identifier (e.g. mobile phone 

number including area code), and (4) Service account number . Removing 

consent will not affect your current Service or the provisions of 

paragraphs 5, 22 or 24 . 

24. Bu.ine •• 'rr~~.r. You consent to disclosure of your CPNI or other 

personal information, in connection with any m~rger, acquisition or sale 

of our assets or transition of service to another provider. as wel.l as in 

the event of an insolvency, bankruptcy or receivership in which- personal 

information would be transferred as one of our business assets. 

It!:SOt.1lTION OP IlISl'tl'l'B8 

PLBASB RBAD. r1' %9 %XPORT.U1'r TKAT YOU RZAD 'rRlS SBCTIOW CUSJ"tJLLY. 'l'HIS SZC'rIQlf 

PROVIDU FOJl RKSOL'O'rIOIf OF HOST DISP1r1'lI:S TmtOUQR PINAL AND Dnmma ARBITRATION 

mSHAn OJ" m ... COURT' BY A JUDQII: OR JURY OR 'rHltOUGR A CI.&BS ~IO!rl. 'l'KIS 

AJUlI'l'RATXOU CLAUS. SHALL SU'RVXVB 'l"ZRIaHATXON OJ" THXS AQUJCMZN"r. 

25. Binding Arbitration. The arbitration process established by this 

section i s governed by the Federal Arbitration Act (the ·FAA") (9 U. S.C . 

9 

* 
49 


921TRAN2.eps

AT&T Wireless' Response to September IS, 2004 Letter re: Wireless 411 

1. If you offer wireless directory services, will your subscribers be given a choice of whether 

to have theirnwnber(s) listed in a directory or not? Ifso, how would they exercise such 

choice (i.e. Opt-in or opt-out), and would it vary depending on whether it was a new or 

existing subscriber making the choice? 

Customers will be given a choice whether to have their number(s) listed in the database. 

Only customers who specifically request to be included will have their number available 

for lookup through Wireless 411. In other words, customers must opt in by taking an 

affirmative step to make their numbers available. This policy applies to all of our 

customers. 

2. Do you plan to charge subscribers to keep their wireless nwnber(s) unlisted? 

No. Just like today, we will not charge to keep a number unlisted. 

3. Are your current terms of service with customers consistent with your responses to 

questions 1 and 2? 

Yes. All AT&T Wireless customers - regardless of the language in earlier contracts - will 

have the choice whether to be included in the Wireless 411 database. In addition, no 

customer will be charged to keep their phone number unlisted. We believe this approach 

bes]..meetS thiFdesires of consumers. 

As of Jzme 2004 th: language in the AT&T Wireless Privacy Policy, which is referenced :-r our Service Agreement reads.asfollows: . . .. " 

/ . <!,4 T& T. Wirele-ssaoes 1I0t currelltly disclose. wireless lIumbers ill directory asSistQ1~ce 

listillgs or published directories. If we do so ill the future, you will be able to choose . 

whether your lIumber is listed. " .' 

It should be noted that in addition to the above privacy measures, the names and 

nwnbers included in the Wireless 411 database will not be printed in a directory or published 

online. The database will not be for sale to third parties. Wireless 411 service will only allow 

411 callers to get a wireless subscriber's phone nwnber if that subscriber chooses to make it 

available, and then only in response to a specific request for an individual. In addition, 

customers who have chosen to list their nwnbers can choose to remove their nwnbers from the 

database at any time. We plan to update customer preferences in the database on a daily basis. 
50 

Senator BOXER. Okay, ‘‘You consent to our use and disclosure of 

your name, address and identifier, e.g., mobile cell number including area code for any lawful purpose, including without limitation, 

the provision of directory assistance, and publication of directories. 

We may charge a fee for inclusion in directory listings or publications, or to be unlisted or unpublished.’’ Then there’s this whole 

way that you could get out of it by going to the end of the contract, 

filling in your identifier of your phone, it makes it very tough to 

get out of this thing. So right now, people stuck with this contract 

have already agreed to this, unless they read the very fine print, 

which I doubt very much. 

So now, after Senator Specter and I introduced the legislation, 

I’m very proud that he’s here, because I think he’ll speak very well 

on this point. We saw some changes coming down. 

Now the new AT&T Wireless says, ‘‘As of June 2004, the language of the AT&T Wireless Privacy Policy which is referenced in 

our Service Agreement, reads as follows: AT&T Wireless does not 

currently disclose wireless numbers in directory assistance systems 

or published directories. If we do so in the future, you will be able 

to choose whether your number is listed.’’ It says nothing about 

charging people for it, you know, and that’s why our legislation is 

so key, so 1 day, you get this, where your number could be anywhere, then after Senator Specter and I introduce our legislation 

you get this, and what I’m saying is why not have a national policy 

that allows for a directory with certain rules attached to it? I think 

it makes great sense. And I want to ask a question to Ms., how do 

I say it? 

Ms. PIERZ. Pierz. 

Senator BOXER. First of all, thank you for telling us about the 

poll that you conducted. Because it disproves what was said that 

people really don’t care about this, are not worried about it. People 

are worried about this. And thanks to the candor of the panel. I 

have to compliment those who now know there is a directory being 

prepared. I happen to agree with Mr. Strigl. I think it’s bad business, but hey, you know, it’s been a long time since I was in the 

private sector. But, we know, somebody could come along from a 

smaller company and not be able to resist selling the list or anything else. Just because it’s in your guidelines now, doesn’t mean 

it’s in your guidelines tomorrow, to wit, here’s one policy before we 

introduced the legislation, and here’s another. And next week there 

could be another, and another. 

So, this is important, and I want to get to the question of our 

children. I know all of us have kids, love kids, are grandparents, 

are aunts and uncles. A teenage girl, and they love to get phone 

calls, I had one, she now takes care of me, she’s that old now. Having her number listed in this directory? Does that concern you, Ms. 

Pierz, that we’ll have some youngsters out there, because a lot of 

us give our kids and grandkids cell phones for emergency use that 

some stalker or someone else could come forward—let me tell you 

why this matters to me. I wrote legislation that stopped states from 

giving out home addresses and phone numbers from a drivers’ license. South Carolina sued, and the Supreme Court upheld it 

unanimously, including this current court. Privacy is an American 

value. I’m concerned about our kids. I don’t want to wait to have 

51 

the first father up there saying, ‘‘Some stalker got a hold of it. That 

number. And met my daughter.’’ Is this a concern that you found 

out that, that you would share? 

Ms. PIERZ. Well, I can speak as the mother of a teenage daughter, and no, I would not want her number listed. We didn’t ask consumers any specific question about children or people under 18 in 

this list. You do have to be over 18 to sign a contract, so, a parent’s 

name would appear on the contract, rather than the child’s number. 

The way that the EU’s handled this, is they passed legislation 

that numbers of any kind, and many more children in Europe have 

phones than do here, but numbers of any kind, telephone numbers 

or a home number, that would be a child’s number cannot be published in any type of directory, anywhere. They’re always masked 

or unlisted. 

Senator BOXER. Well, thank you, that’s very interesting. Well, 

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the panel because I think they 

were very straightforward, all of them, with their opinions, and 

that’s so helpful to us. You all just spoke right from the heart, and 

I think it really helps us. Again, I’m glad to see Senator Specter 

here. 

Senator ALLEN. Thank you, Senator Boxer. Senator Specter, we 

went forward with the panel here, and we’re in the midst of questioning. I would ask for the colleagues who are in line, could we 

hear from Senator Specter? You may get dragged into the questioning as well. 

Senator WYDEN. I’m next in line, I think, but I’d be happy to let 

Senator Specter go before me. 

Senator ALLEN. I thank my colleagues who have been here 

through the whole hearing, and Senator Specter, if you’d like to 

testify from that good seat, that’s normally my seat on this Committee. And so we’ll hear from you and then continue with the 

questioning. I thank Senator Smith and Ensign for their opening 

statements. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ARLEN SPECTER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM PENNSYLVANIA 

Senator SPECTER. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, 

and thank you, members of this distinguished Committee for permitting me to speak at this time. I would have been here at 2:30, 

but I had an amendment pending before the Government Affairs 

Committee, we’re marking up a 9/11 Commission legislation, so 

this was the soonest I could get here, and I feel highly honored to 

be in Senator Allen’s chair. 

I don’t know if my appearance is really necessary since my coauthor, Senator Boxer is here to speak about this issue and I will 

be very brief, I know you have more questions for this panel and 

another panel. 

This Privacy Act, Wireless 411 Privacy Act is really very fundamental. It seeks to allow people who have cell phones, 163 million 

now, not to have their numbers disclosed unless they permit it. 

And the intrusions on the telephone are; it’s hard to be home for 

an evening under other circumstances without being interrupted by 

communications, people calling up for commercial purposes, notVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:14 Jun 25, 2013 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\81580.TXT JACKIE
52 

withstanding legislation which we’ve passed in the field, and many 

of us have had our names taken off, but it’s very hard to have a 

quiet moment anywhere, under any circumstance. And to have 

somebody publish the cell phone numbers is an extraordinary intrusion, for whatever the poll was worth, 88 percent of the cell subscribers would not like to have their telephone numbers listed. Cell 

subscribers, under many circumstances have to pay for the number 

of minutes used, so they get an interruption, undesirable call, they 

are not only interrupted and bothered, but they have to pay for it 

as well. 

There are plans to proceed with the publication of a White Pages 

sometime in the immediate future, so it’s indispensable that Congress acts very, very promptly, so I’m delighted to see this hearing 

which is held today. 

There are other provisions of the bill which would permit a cell 

phone owner to know what call was coming in to be able to control 

his own time, her own time, and I think it is just a very, very basic 

privacy matter, an expense matter that if you have a cell phone, 

you shouldn’t have to have people know your number to bother 

you, it’s just as simple as that. 

I think in the words of Supreme Court Justice Douglas said, ‘‘Privacy is the right to be left alone.’’ The right to be left alone, and 

that’s pretty hard to come by in this day and age, you don’t have 

to be a Senator to have that virtually non-existent. 

That concludes my testimony, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator ALLEN. Thank you, Senator Specter. I know you’re one 

of the MVPs in the Senate and having to be in different places, and 

we thank you and Senator Boxer certainly carried your messages, 

the testimony, you would have enjoyed listening to the testimony 

here which I think actually addresses many of your concerns from 

even those who are talking about a directory, that no one who 

wishes not to have their number in any sort of directory actually, 

do have the option of doing so, then there are others, such as 

Verizon, who just think the whole idea’s awful and don’t want to 

have to do it at all. 

At any rate, let us proceed. 

Senator SPECTER. Mr. Chairman, I’d just like my prepared testimony introduced as part of the record. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Specter follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. ARLEN SPECTER, U.S. SENATOR FROM PENNSYLVANIA

Chairman McCain and distinguished members of the Committee, I appreciate the 

opportunity to testify before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and 

Transportation about the importance of privacy protections for wireless telephone 

numbers. In November 2003, I introduced S. 1963, the Wireless 411 Privacy Act, 

along with Senator Boxer. 

As every Senator is aware, consumers today rely on their wireless telephones as 

a vital and important means of communication. Wireless telephones enable families 

to stay connected, permit commerce to be conducted anywhere at any time, and provide a vital link in the event of an emergency. Some people have even abandoned 

traditional telephones and now use their wireless phones as their primary phone 

service. In fact, the Federal Communications Commission has begun requiring number portability for wireless phones so that consumers, if they wish, can make their 

wireless phone their only phone. 

The wireless industry is on the verge of introducing a ‘‘wireless white pages’’ service, and though this step could have positive benefits, it raises concerns about how 

consumers’ expectation of privacy will be protected. Consumers are not willing to 

53 

give up control of their cell phone numbers. According to a survey, 88 percent of 

cellular phone users said they would not want their wireless number disclosed. The 

legislation I have introduced, along with Senator Boxer, ensures that consumers’ expectations will be preserved. 

An important reason that Americans increasingly trust their cell phone service is 

that they have a great deal of privacy in their cell phone numbers. For more than 

20 years of cellular service, consumers have become accustomed to not having their 

wireless phone numbers available to the public. The protection of wireless telephone 

numbers is important. For example, wireless customers are typically charged for incoming calls. Without protections for wireless numbers, subscribers could incur 

large bills, or use up their allotted minutes of use, simply by receiving calls they 

do not want—from telemarketers and others. Because consumers often take their 

cell phones with them everywhere, repeated unwanted calls are particularly disruptive. 

It may surprise my colleagues that today, no law or regulation prohibits a carrier 

from divulging your wireless telephone number. And with the industry poised to introduce wireless directory assistance services, it is important for Congress to act 

now to preserve the expectation of privacy that consumers have in their wireless 

phone numbers. Because wireless directory assistance offers great benefits as well 

as posing significant privacy concerns, the legislation I have introduced strikes an 

important balance. S.1963, the Wireless 411 Privacy Act, enables those consumers 

who want to be reached to be accessible, while providing privacy protections that 

are important to consumers. 

First, this legislation permits the Nation’s 163 million wireless customers to 

choose not to be listed in wireless directory assistance databases. This feature gives 

consumers the ability to keep their numbers entirely private. Second, for those in 

the directory assistance database, the bill requires wireless providers to use systems 

that give users privacy protections and control over the use of their wireless numbers. These services must not divulge a subscriber’s wireless number (unless the 

subscriber consents to disclosure), the service must provide identifying information 

to the wireless subscriber so that the subscriber knows who is calling through the 

forwarding service, and the service must give a subscriber the option of rejecting 

or accepting each incoming call. Finally, this legislation prohibits wireless carriers 

from charging any special fees to consumers who wish to receive the privacy protections provided by the bill. Customers should not have to pay extra for the privacy 

protections that they have come to expect. There should be no ‘‘privacy tax’’ for consumers to continue the privacy protection they have long enjoyed, and this bill ensures that will be the case. 

I, once again, urge my colleagues in this Committee to adopt legislation that ensures consumers’ privacy decisions are respected. Thank you. 

Senator ALLEN. It is so ordered, make sure we get that, and I 

know you, probably, if you want to stay you may, in the event that 

you’re being summoned somewhere else. 

Senator SPECTER. Mr. Chairman, it’s not really understood widely, how many places we have to be at the same time, and as we 

speak, Appropriations is marking up billions of dollars, and I’d like 

to be able to participate. Thank you. 

Senator ALLEN. And we all hope you look kindly on us for our 

forbearance as you make those decisions on the Appropriations 

Committee. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator WYDEN. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say, that’s the reason why I wanted the Senator from Pennsylvania to go before me 

and that he is so helpful on so many other things. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator ALLEN. All right, that’s enough, enough. All right, the 

Committee will be back in order, no more of this problem before 

Senator Specter. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator ALLEN. All right, now, Senator Wyden, any questions 

you have? 

54 

Senator WYDEN. Yes, Mr. Cox, what’s the potential for innovation 

in this space? You know, my sense, and focus on these issues is I 

think as wireless directory assistance evolves over time. We’re 

going to have a chance to ensure that this is both more useful and 

more protective of privacy at the same time. Tell me what your 

sense is on the potential for innovation in this space? 

Mr. COX. Senator Wyden, I’ve always found you very interested 

and knowledgeable about technology and I wouldn’t expect a question any different than that from you, thank you for asking that. 

For example, some of the points that Kathleen has brought up 

here about consumers wanting to be able to be notified who’s calling them, I think those are the kinds of services consumers do 

want, and I think some carriers may try to figure out a way to offer 

that, others might not, I think we can see, this is a highly competitive industry, and I think there are companies looking to differentiate their service offerings. 

Specifically, on that issue it’s very, very hard, if not impossible, 

to do an information based authentication, I think we can all recall, 

we’re of the age that we used to use the wire-line network, specifically collect calls as a way of notifying home, I would call home as 

Bob Smith, and my parents would know what I was doing that day, 

they wouldn’t accept the charges, because phone network costs 

were so great. 

The system can be gamed, there’s not really any way of knowing 

who’s calling today, but as technology advances and information 

based solutions advance, I think that would be a great service offering. There’s probably fifteen or twenty different kinds of offerings, in talking with Senator Boxer’s office, learned of her interest 

and how she’d like to be involved in the directory, or not, I think 

there are going to be a lot of offerings around emergency notifications, ways for operators to maybe connect calls staying on the line. 

There are state and Federal laws requiring that if a phone call occurs, a bill has to be generated that shows numbers that were 

called and who called you if you pay the fee, so it would be hard 

today to protect that privacy with current Federal and state regulation, but I think there will be solutions around that, for example, 

not completing the call, and so on, actually having an operator intermediate the conversation, and I think you’ll find a lot of these 

offerings, maybe the fifteen or twenty different ways we can dream 

up today being delivered. 

My main concern is a lot of legislation today kills that initiative, 

it kills the investment from the venture community, it kills the investment from businesses, to find new, interesting, valuable services who solve problems for people. 

Senator WYDEN. Well, I share your view that it’s very important 

that we seize innovation in this area. I know Senator Boxer has 

been working very closely with Senator Smith and I, and others to 

make sure we do this managers’ amendment and that we get it 

right. We’ll just continue to consult with all of you and proceed in 

that kind of fashion. 

Question, Mr. Strigl from Verizon, so I can get a sense of a bit 

of your concern, first on the basic proposition, we’ve worked with 

you all on a lot of issues. We ought to be treading lightly in this 

area, and I have to go back to the days when I had a full head of 

55 

hair and rugged good looks to kind of look at how we tried on the 

Internet and others to be pretty cautious about the whole tax freedom bill and what we’ve tried to work on this area, but Senator 

Boxer comes now with a piece of legislation that essentially says, 

absolutely nothing can happen unless the consumer wants it. Unless the consumer says, ‘‘This is my choice. I’m making the judgment, I’m driving the vehicle, nothing happens.’’ You all feel that 

this is going to be very bad and Western civilization is going to end 

and the like, but tell me a bit more if you would, why it is so bothersome if nothing can happen in this area unless the consumer 

makes the judgment that that’s how he or she wants it. 

Mr. STIGL. Well, Senator Wyden, thank you very much for your 

question, let me begin by saying, first of all, the last thing we need 

in this industry is more regulation, as competitive as we are. With 

six nationwide competitors and two or three competitors in every 

local market, the last thing we need is more regulation, more rules 

to follow. 

My view on this is simple, that the consumer has the choice. The 

consumer, if they don’t want to be listed, can come to Verizon Wireless. The consumer, if they don’t want to be listed, may be able to 

not opt-in. I think there is plenty of consumer choice. 

My issue with this directory is that there are other places consumers of wireless services can opt to join. There are Super 

Pages.com, Switchboard.com, Verizon directory listing, but my 

point here is that customers in this industry have plenty of choice, 

more rules is not what we need, nor do we need this directory. 

Senator WYDEN. I think you heard me cite this question. There 

clearly seems to be some that are still out there that take away the 

consumer’s choice right now, Senator Boxer has given you examples of one, I assume we’ll get that cleaned up in a couple of years, 

but we could always slide back. I will tell you, I can understand 

why you all think that the cell phone directory isn’t a good idea. 

I certainly will say I’m sympathetic to the proposition of treading 

lightly here, but it’s hard to understand why you all care if other 

carriers make a different decision, and why it is such a bad thing 

to have something that, in effect, establishes a proposition that 

nothing can happen in this area unless the consumer wants it. 

We’re going to try to fine tune with this managers’ amendment, 

and I want you to note that I’m interested in working with you all 

to try to address as many of your concerns as we can, and if at the 

end of the day you all are just opposed to it, so be it, but I want 

us to tread carefully here, and I’m sympathetic to that message. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator ALLEN. Thank you, Senator Wyden. I’m going to have to 

leave, but I tell you, I want to thank the panelists, the Committee 

will continue, the hearing will continue, I’m going to pass the gavel 

on to Senator Smith, who’s next in line anyway. Thank you all. 

Senator SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I’m going to ask the panel here to connect some dots for me, I 

think I’ve heard testimony that people want to be included in the 

directory, I’ve heard, I think Senator Specter just say they don’t 

want to be included in a directory, like 80 percent, I think 86 percent was his number. What is it, do the people want it or not? 

56 

And I think the greater question I have is why isn’t it offered? 

Because it’s just bad business to offer it, people have some sensitivity to their privacy, and don’t want another part of it invaded? 

Ms. PIERZ. If I can offer a comment on that, just based on the 

research numbers that we have, and I don’t want to fall into a 

quagmire of citing statistic after statistic, but essentially if you 

offer consumers no privacy protection whatsoever, and just say, 

‘‘We put your number into a directory,’’ 89 percent said ‘‘No, not 

under those conditions.’’ And that’s because people expect that this 

number is more private, as has been commented before. 

But if you can offer people more privacy, they are more willing 

to list. Under the CTIA proposal, you do get over half of consumers, 

including Verizon customers, who are willing to list their number. 

Senator SMITH. That’s a difference in the numbers I’ve heard 

here, why the disparity? 

Ms. PIERZ. Right. And if you include the fact that the number is 

not disclosed, and they can know who’s calling, you get 54 percent 

of people to list their mobile number. And that’s actually a very 

high number, because if you look at residential numbers only, not 

total listed, but residential, I had a hard time getting the numbers, 

I finally got a few regional averages, but about 67 percent of home 

phone numbers are listed today, 80 percent of all numbers, business and residential mixed, are listed, but residential numbers, 

about 67 percent, and if you can get 63 percent which, without any 

market experience, having never seen it, but just a short description, to list, knowing that their number will not be given out, and 

knowing they can have some control over who can reach them, 

that’s a really good number. 

Senator SMITH. Mr. Strigl, why does Verizon not do it and the 

other carriers want to do it? 

Mr. STRIGL. We believe that this industry has spent the last two 

decades protecting customers’ privacy. There are other ways to be 

listed, it’s totally that simple. We have other things to do, rather 

than build a wireless directory, I would prefer to spend our time 

and attention building a high quality network, it’s that simple, sir. 

Senator SMITH. And Steve, I think philosophically I would very 

much agree with you that the marketplace is likely to be able to 

fix this, and as I understand, you’re saying pretty soon that technologies will be available that the market can do this, and we won’t 

need to worry about this endeavor. 

Mr. LARGENT. Yes, it’s true. 

Senator SMITH. I have to say to anybody that’s providing a service like this, I hate to get stuff unsolicited. And, I voted proudly 

for the earlier legislation that said, don’t call me at dinnertime, 

and the no-call stuff, I want consumers to have a choice, and frankly I hope we, in Congress are alleviated from the obligations to 

have to do anything, though I’ve got a piece of fax, ‘‘don’t fax’’ legislation, we’ve got to fine tune that a little bit too, because every 

night when I go home I’ve got to throw away about twenty pages 

of faxes from people. Not a lot of money to pay for the paper, but 

I don’t want to pay for the paper they’re sending me. So these are 

the kind of things that I hope you will keep in mind, because I 

think it would be better not to have to legislate these kinds of 

things. By the same token, I am very mindful, the kind of calls we 

57 

get from people, just upset with their privacy, their castle is being 

invaded by people they don’t want to talk to, or they don’t want to 

get their faxes, they don’t want to hear their messages, so I’m 

caught between my own experience, my philosophical leanings 

which are to let the marketplace evolve this on the basis of what’s 

good business, because I think that will ultimately be a better determinant as to where the lines ought to be drawn than Members 

of Congress can figure out how to draw them. But, Mr. Rotenberg, 

tell me where I’m wrong philosophically. 

Mr. ROTENBERG. Well, I agree with you, Senator, and really I 

think this is the case where consumer organizations are not saying 

that they oppose innovation, in fact you will find in my testimony, 

I support a point that Mr. Cox made about a provision in the bill 

which I’m concerned will shut down some innovative solutions for 

the identification requirement, so we really do believe in supporting a dynamic industry, we really do support innovation, we 

think the benefit’s there for consumers. 

But we also believe that you need this privacy baseline, and I’ll 

tell you what’s going to be worse, if the directory goes forward, consumers aren’t just going to be paying for the paper in their fax machine, they’re going to be paying for those unwanted calls on their 

cell phones. And that’s going to be something that people have not 

experienced in the past, I think, Mr. Strigl is right at Verizon, I 

think it’s a mistake for the industry to do this, if they want to do 

it, it’s their choice, some people sign up, that’s their choice. But for 

the rest of us who choose not to sign up, I think we have the right 

to get some protection, and that’s why we’re here today. 

Senator SMITH. I think it’s fair to say in light of comments, that 

time is really of the essence here, because I mean, there are predators who use these technologies to invade the space of our home, 

and frankly, we don’t want to hear from them. And we certainly 

don’t want our kids being invaded by them. 

So, I have no further questions, unless any of you would like to 

make a closing comment, we’ll certainly make that available to 

you. 

Mr. COX. First, not to over do the statistics here, but first, I don’t 

think most carriers charge for incoming calls, but in addition to 

that, sixty some-odd percent of members are included, with forty 

percent that are numbers, but I will tell you over 80 percent of 

households are currently listed today, your fax number is not in the 

directory. So, the way your fax number was found was not in the 

directory at all. And so, I would say that if you look at the statistics, it’s pretty clear, 80 percent of consumers today want to be in, 

99.8 percent of businesses are in directories today. 

And so that’s just kind of a good take away to understand, food 

for thought for what Ms. Pierz was saying. 

Senator SMITH. Thank you. Steve? 

Mr. LARGENT. Senator, if I could just say one thing, I think that 

I have a record and a reputation for working in a bipartisan way, 

and the comment I made had nothing, was not political, and I look 

forward to working in a bi-partisan way in the future to help move 

this wireless industry further and faster ahead. 

Senator SMITH. Thank you very much. 

58 

Ms. PIERZ. If I could add one last comment as well, just looking, 

again looking at the research and the numbers of people that are 

willing to list under different situations, one of the important success factors, both for consumers and for carriers is to make sure 

that as many people can opt-in to this process as comfortably as 

possible, because, if you only get, for example, as they did in Australia, and even in France, ten, twelve percent of numbers listed, 

it’s nine out of ten times you make $1.50 directory assistance call 

and are told the number is unlisted, thank you very much. It’s 

frustrating for consumers, and it’s not good for carriers, either, because you actually irritate people on that basis. And so, if you can 

create a baseline that lets as many people list as possible and protect the number, not have it appear in a phone bill, because that 

actually discloses it to the point that someone now has it, even if 

the operator doesn’t tell them the number, if it shows up on a bill, 

people can continue to call you on your cell phone and you will replace it if you are being pressured or harassed, people would have 

to change their numbers. And so, creating a baseline that creates 

those protections for consumers, on all levels, allows more people 

to opt-in, and then a whole range of other services that would depend on these technologies being in place can be developed from 

there for competitive purposes. 

Senator SMITH. Anything else? Thank you all, we’re adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:05 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

Æ