GAO 

United States Government Accountability Office

Report to Congressional Requesters

TELECOMMUNICATIONS

FCC Needs to Improve 

Oversight of Wireless 

Phone Service 

November 2009 

GAO-10-34 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

November 2009

TELECOMMUNICATIONS

FCC Needs to Improve Oversight of Wireless Phone 

Service 

Highlights of GAO-10-34, a report to 

congressional requesters 

Americans increasingly rely on 

wireless phones, with 35 percent of 

households now primarily or solely 

using them. Under federal law, the 

Federal Communications 

Commission (FCC) is responsible 

for fostering a competitive wireless 

marketplace while ensuring that 

consumers are protected from 

harm. States also have authority to 

oversee some aspects of service. As 

requested, this report discusses 

consumers’ satisfaction and 

problems with wireless phone 

service and FCC’s and state utility 

commissions’ efforts to oversee 

this service. To conduct this work, 

GAO surveyed 1,143 adult wireless 

phone users from a nationally 

representative, randomly selected 

sample; surveyed all state utility 

commissions; and interviewed and 

analyzed documents obtained from 

FCC and stakeholders representing 

consumers, state agencies and 

officials, and the industry. 

What GAO Recommends

To improve wireless phone service 

oversight, FCC should improve its 

outreach to consumers about its 

complaint process, related 

performance goals and measures, 

and monitoring of complaints. To 

improve coordination with states in 

providing oversight, FCC should 

develop guidance on federal and 

state oversight roles, seeking 

statutory authority from Congress 

if needed, and develop policies for 

communicating with states. FCC 

agreed with the recommendation 

on monitoring, took no position on 

the remaining ones, and noted 

actions that begin to address most 

of the recommendations. 

Based on a GAO survey of adult wireless phone users, an estimated 84 percent 

of users are very or somewhat satisfied with their wireless phone service. 

Stakeholders GAO interviewed cited billing, terms of the service contract, 

carriers’ explanation of their service at the point of sale, call quality, and 

customer service as key aspects of wireless phone service with which 

consumers have experienced problems in recent years. The survey results 

indicate that most users are very or somewhat satisfied with each of these key 

aspects of service, but that the percentages of those very or somewhat 

dissatisfied with these aspects range from about 9 to 14 percent. GAO’s survey 

results and analysis of FCC complaint data also indicate that some wireless 

phone service consumers have experienced problems with billing, certain 

contract terms, and customer service. While the percentages of dissatisfied 

users appear small, given the widespread use of wireless phones, these 

percentages represent millions of consumers. 

FCC receives tens of thousands of wireless consumer complaints each year 

and forwards them to carriers for response, but has conducted little other 

oversight of services provided by wireless phone service carriers because the 

agency has focused on promoting competition. However, GAO’s survey results 

suggest that most wireless consumers with problems would not complain to 

FCC and many do not know where they could complain. FCC also lacks goals 

and measures that clearly identify the intended outcomes of its complaint 

processing efforts. Consequently, FCC cannot demonstrate the effectiveness 

of its efforts to process complaints. Additionally, without knowing to 

complain to FCC or what outcome to expect if they do, consumers with 

problems may be confused about where to get help and about what kind of 

help is available. FCC monitors wireless consumer complaints, but such 

efforts are limited. Lacking in-depth analysis of its consumer complaints, FCC 

may not be aware of emerging trends in consumer problems, if specific rules 

are being violated, or if additional rules are needed to protect consumers. FCC 

has rules regarding billing, but has conducted no enforcement of these rules 

as they apply to wireless carriers. This August, FCC sought public comment 

about ways to better protect and inform wireless consumers. 

In response to GAO’s survey, most state commissions reported receiving and 

processing wireless phone service consumer complaints; however, fewer than 

half reported having rules that apply to wireless phone service. Stakeholders 

said that states’ authority to regulate wireless service under federal law is 

unclear, leading, in some cases, to costly legal proceedings and reluctance in 

some states to provide oversight. FCC has provided some guidance on this 

issue but has not fully resolved disagreement over states’ authority to regulate 

billing line items and fees charged for terminating service early. State 

commissions surveyed indicated that communication with FCC about wireless 

phone service oversight is infrequent. As such, FCC is missing opportunities 

to partner with state agencies in providing effective oversight and to share 

information on wireless phone service consumer concerns. 

View GAO-10-34 or key components. View 

the results of the GAO surveys online at 

GAO-10-35SP. For more information, contact 

Mark Goldstein at (202) 512-2834 or 

goldsteinm@gao.gov. 
Page i GAO-10-34 

Contents 

Letter 1

Background 5 

Most Consumers Are Satisfied with Their Wireless Phone Service, 

but Some Have Experienced Problems 8 

FCC Processes Wireless Consumer Complaints but Has Conducted 

Little Other Oversight of Services Provided by Wireless Phone 

Service Carriers 15 

State Utility Commissions’ Efforts to Oversee Wireless Phone 

Service Are Varied, Their Regulatory Authority Is Unclear, and 

Communication with FCC Is Infrequent 26 

Conclusions 39 

Recommendations for Executive Action 40 

Agency Comments 40 

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 43 

Appendix II Analysis of FCC Wireless Consumer Complaint 

Data 49 

Appendix III Industry Actions to Address Wireless Consumer 

Concerns 52 

Appendix IV Examples of Actions Taken by FCC and Courts 

Regarding States’ Authority to Regulate Wireless 

Phone Service 54 

Appendix V Comments from the Federal Communications 

Commission 59 

Appendix VI GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 65 

 Telecommunications 
Tables 

Table 1: Aspects of Wireless Phone Service Identified by 

Stakeholders as Key Areas of Consumer Concern 9 

Table 2: Estimated Levels of Satisfaction with Specific Aspects of 

Wireless Phone Service 10 

Table 3: FCC Rules Addressing Specific Aspects of Service 

Provided to Consumers by Wireless Phone Service 

Carriers 22 

Table 4: Organizations Interviewed 48 

Table 5: Consumer Complaints FCC Received about Services 

Provided by Wireless Phone Service Carriers from 2004 

through 2008 49 

Table 6: Industry Actions in Response to Key Areas of Consumer 

Concern 52 

Figures 

Figure 1: Estimated Growth in Wireless Phone Subscribers from 

1989 through 2008 2 

Figure 2: Estimated Overall Satisfaction of Wireless Phone Users 

with Their Service 8 

Figure 3: Largest Categories of Consumer Complaints FCC 

Received Regarding Wireless Phone Service Provided by 

Carriers, 2004 through 2008 13 

Figure 4: Amount of Time FCC Takes to Close Wireless Consumer 

Complaints, 2008 17 

Figure 5: States with Rules that Apply to Wireless Phone Service 28 

Figure 6: Number of State Utility Commissions with Wireless Rules 

and Wireless ETC Conditions for Main Areas Related to 

Terms and Conditions of Service 30 

Figure 7: State Utility Commissions’ Authority to Regulate Wireless 

Phone Service 32 

Page ii GAO-10-34 Telecommunications
Abbreviations 

1993 Act Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 

AAPOR American Association of Public Opinion Research 

ETC eligible telecommunications carrier 

FCC Federal Communications Commission 

GPRA Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 

RDD random digit dialing 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately. 

Page iii GAO-10-34 Telecommunications
Page 1 GAO-10-34 

 

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 

 

November 10, 2009 

The Honorable John D. Rockefeller 

Chairman 

Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Rick Boucher 

Chairman 

Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, 

 and the Internet 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

House of Representatives 

The Honorable Daniel K. Inouye 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Amy Klobuchar 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Edward J. Markey 

House of Representatives 

Wireless phone use in the United States has risen dramatically over the 

last 20 years, and Americans increasingly rely on wireless phones as their 

primary or sole means of telephone communication. According to industry 

data, the total number of wireless phone service subscribers nationwide 

has grown from about 3.5 million in 1989 to about 270 million in 2008 (see 

fig. 1).1

 As a result of this rapid growth, today the vast majority of 

Americans are wireless phone service users. Although the actual number 

of wireless users is less than the number of subscribers—since some users 

1

For the purposes of this report, the term “wireless phone service” includes the provision of 

such service by cellular, broadband personal communications service, and digital 

specialized mobile radio carriers. Federal law and FCC regulations refer to wireless phone 

service as “commercial mobile service” or “commercial mobile radio service.” This service 

may generally be referred to as wireless phone service, mobile phone service, or cellular 

(or cell) phone service interchangeably. CTIA–The Wireless Association, a nonprofit 

organization representing wireless carriers and other sectors of the wireless 

communications industry, estimated that there were 270.3 million wireless phone service 

subscribers in the United States as of December 2008. Since 1985, the association has 

surveyed its members semiannually about their subscriber numbers. 

 Telecommunications 
 

have multiple wireless phones—estimates indicate that about 84 percent 

of Americans 18 years of age or older use wireless phones.2

Figure 1: Estimated Growth in Wireless Phone Subscribers from 1989 through 2008 

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Number of subscribers (in millions)

Year

Source: CTIA-The Wireless Association, used by permission.

Note: Industry data count a subscriber as any person using a wireless phone under a paid 

subscription. Because an individual could have more than one wireless phone, such as separate 

phones for personal and professional use, the number of wireless phone service users is smaller than 

the number of subscribers. 

Concerns have arisen in recent years about the quality of wireless phone 

service, including specific concerns about billing; customer service; and 

carriers’ contract terms, such as the fees carriers charge customers for 

terminating their service before the end of the contract period (early 

termination fees).3

 In June 2009, we reported that such issues continued to 

 

2

This estimate of the percentage of adults that use wireless phone service was developed 

by Mediamark Research & Intelligence, a consumer research firm, based on its estimate 

that there were about 189 million adult wireless phone service users in the continental 

United States as of June 2009—a figure that excludes users in Alaska and Hawaii. 

3

Additionally, call quality—the ability to make and complete calls with good sound 

quality—has been a concern raised by some stakeholders. We examined this issue in 2003 

and recommended that FCC include information about call quality in its annual report on 

competition in the wireless marketplace. FCC now includes this information. See GAO, 

Telecommunications: FCC Should Include Call Quality in Its Annual Report on 

Competition in Mobile Phone Services, GAO-03-501 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 28, 2003). 

Page 2 GAO-10-34 Telecommunications
 

be of concern to some consumers, as demonstrated by the results of our 

survey of wireless phone service users.4

 Under federal law, the Federal 

Communications Commission (FCC) is responsible for fostering a 

competitive wireless marketplace while ensuring that consumers are 

protected from harmful practices.5

 FCC’s rules (or regulations) include 

procedures for handling consumer complaints.6

 States, which have 

traditionally regulated local telephone service through regulatory bodies 

known as state utility commissions, also retain some authority under 

federal law to regulate wireless phone service and many also process 

consumer complaints. 

Citing concerns about the quality of wireless phone service, you asked us 

to examine consumers’ concerns and government oversight in this area. 

This report discusses (1) consumers’ satisfaction with wireless phone 

service and problems they have experienced with this service, as well as 

the industry’s response to these problems; (2) FCC’s efforts to oversee 

services provided by wireless phone service carriers; and (3) state utility 

commissions’ efforts to oversee services provided by wireless phone 

service carriers. 

To determine consumers’ satisfaction with wireless phone service and 

problems they have experienced in recent years, we surveyed a nationally 

representative, randomly selected sample of adult wireless phone users 18 

years of age or older who had cell phone service in 2008. From this 

sample, we completed 1,143 interviews.7

 In addition, we interviewed FCC 

 

4

GAO, Telecommunications: Preliminary Observations about Consumer Satisfaction 

and Problems with Wireless Phone Service and FCC’s Efforts to Assist Consumers with 

Complaints, GAO-09-800T (Washington, D.C.: June 17, 2009). 

5

47 U.S.C. § 332(c). The Communications Act of 1934 created FCC and authorized it to 

regulate interstate telephone service. As amended in 1993, federal law specifies that 

wireless phone service carriers are to be treated as common carriers under Title II of the 

act. A common carrier, such as a telephone company, provides communications services 

for hire to the public. 

6

47 C.F.R. § § 1.711-1.736. 

7

The response rate was calculated as 32 percent using a method accepted by the survey 

research industry; however, since response rates can be calculated in other ways, the 

response rate could be different. We conducted an analysis to examine whether there could 

be a potential bias among users that did not respond to the survey and found no obvious 

levels of bias in the estimates we present in this report (see app. I for more detailed 

information about the methodology we used in conducting our consumer survey). We use 

the terms “user” and “consumer” in our report. “User” refers specifically to the population 

sampled for our survey, while “consumer” is used more generally. 

Page 3 GAO-10-34 Telecommunications
 

and stakeholders from organizations representing consumers, state 

agencies, and industry and reviewed documents obtained from these 

sources. We also analyzed consumer complaints about wireless phone 

service that FCC received from 2004 through 2008 and reviewed complaint 

data from other sources. To determine the industry’s response to these 

problems, we interviewed industry officials from the four largest U.S. 

carriers, two smaller carriers, and two national associations. To evaluate 

FCC’s efforts to oversee services provided by wireless phone service 

carriers—including the agency’s efforts to process complaints, monitor 

sources of information to inform policy decisions, and create and enforce 

rules—we interviewed FCC officials responsible for such oversight, 

including those responsible for consumer issues and enforcement. We also 

reviewed relevant laws, regulations, and procedures and FCC’s quarterly 

complaint reports, strategic plan, and budget, including the agency’s 

performance goals and measures. To describe state utility commissions’ 

efforts to oversee services provided by wireless phone service carriers, we 

surveyed state utility commissions in all 50 states and the District of 

Columbia about their wireless regulatory authority and efforts to oversee 

wireless phone service and process consumer complaints. All 51 

commissions responded to our survey. We also interviewed officials and 

examined documents from state utility commissions, consumer advocate 

offices, and attorneys general offices in California, Nebraska, and West 

Virginia.8

 (See app. I for a more detailed description of our scope and 

methodology.) This report does not contain all of the results from the 

consumer and state utility commission surveys. The surveys and a more 

complete tabulation of the results can be viewed by accessing 

GAO-10-35SP. 

We conducted this performance audit from September 2008 to November 

2009 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to 

obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for 

our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 

that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings 

and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

 

8

We selected these three states on the basis of their varying geographies, populations, 

regions, and approaches to providing wireless phone service oversight. 

Page 4 GAO-10-34 Telecommunications
 

The use of wireless phone service has grown rapidly in recent years. By 

the end of 2008, about 82 percent of adults lived in households with 

wireless phone service, up from 54 percent at the end of 2005. 

Furthermore, by the end of 2008, about 35 percent of households used 

wireless phones as their primary or only means of telephone service, of 

which about 20 percent had only wireless phones and the other 15 percent 

had landlines but received all or most calls on wireless phones.9

Consumers’ use of wireless phones for other purposes, such as text 

messaging, photography, and accessing the Internet, has also increased 

dramatically. For example, FCC reports that, while a subscriber’s average 

minutes of use per month grew from 584 to 769 from 2004 to 2007, the 

number of text messages grew more than tenfold during the same period.10

Background 

Within the wireless phone industry, four nationwide wireless phone 

service carriers—AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile, and Verizon—operate alongside 

regional carriers of various size. The four major carriers serve more than 

85 percent of wireless subscribers, but no single competitor has a 

dominant share of the market. As recently as 2007, more than 175 

companies identified themselves as wireless phone service carriers.11

To subscribe to wireless phone service, a customer must select a wireless 

phone service carrier and either sign a contract and choose a service plan 

or purchase prepaid minutes and buy a phone that works with the prepaid 

service. Most customers sign contracts that specify the service plan and 

the number of minutes and text messages the customer is buying for a 

monthly fee. Also, new customers who sign contracts for wireless phone 

service sometimes pay up-front fees for “network activation” of their 

phones and usually agree to pay an “early termination fee” if they should 

quit the carrier’s network before the end of the contract period. In return 

for signing a contract, customers often receive wireless phones at a 

discount or no additional cost. 

 

9

These estimates are based on a survey conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention’s National Center for Health Statistics. The survey, which seeks to collect 

information on health issues, also includes questions about household telephones and 

whether anyone in the household has a wireless phone. S.J. Blumberg and J.V. Luke, 

Wireless substitution: Early release of estimates from the National Health Interview 

Survey, July-December 2008, a report for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 

National Center for Health Statistics, Washington, D.C., May 6, 2009. 

10Annual Report and Analysis of Competitive Market Conditions with Respect to 

Commercial Mobile Service, Thirteenth Report, 24 FCC Rcd. 6185 (2009). 

1124 FCC Rcd. 6185 (2009). 

Page 5 GAO-10-34 Telecommunications
 

In 1993, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (1993 Act) was enacted, 

creating a regulatory framework to treat wireless phone service carriers 

consistently and encourage the growth of a competitive marketplace. 

Specifically, the law required FCC to treat wireless carriers as common 

carriers but gave FCC authority to exempt wireless service carriers from 

specific regulations that apply to common carriers if FCC could 

demonstrate that doing so would promote competition, that the 

regulations were unnecessary to protect consumers, and that the 

exemption was consistent with the public interest.12 FCC has specific 

authority to regulate wireless phone service rates and market entry, while 

states are preempted from doing so; however, states may regulate the 

other “terms and conditions” of wireless phone service.13

The 1993 Act also directed FCC to require wireless carriers, like other 

common carriers, to provide service upon reasonable request and terms 

without unjust or unreasonable discrimination, as well as to adhere to 

procedures for responding to complaints submitted to FCC.14

Subsequently, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 authorized FCC to 

exempt wireless service carriers from these sections;15 however, in a 1998 

proceeding to consider whether to exempt certain wireless phone service 

carriers from these requirements, FCC specifically stated that it would not 

do so, noting that these respective sections represented the “bedrock 

consumer protection obligations” of common carriers.16 FCC’s rules 

specify that the agency has both informal and formal complaint 

 

1247 U.S.C. § 332(c). As noted previously, a common carrier, such as a telephone company, 

provides communications services for hire to the public. 

1347 U.S.C. § 332(c)(3)(A). Preemption means that federal law supersedes state law. Federal 

law also provides that a state utility commission may not continue to apply or enforce any 

provision from which FCC has exempted carriers. See 47 U.S.C. § 160(e). 

1447 U.S.C. § § 201, 202, and 208. Respectively, these provisions provide for service and 

interconnection upon reasonable request and terms, no unjust or unreasonable 

discrimination, and complaint procedures. 

1547 U.S.C. § 160(a) authorizes FCC to exempt telecommunications carriers, including 

wireless carriers, from any of the provisions of the Communications Act of 1934 provided 

that doing so will enhance competition and the enforcement of such provisions is not 

necessary to protect consumers. 

16Personal Communications Industry Association’s Broadband Personal 

Communications Services Alliance’s Petition for Forbearance for Broadband Personal 

Communications Services, Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking, 13 FCC Rcd. 16857 (1998). 

Page 6 GAO-10-34 Telecommunications
 

processes.17 FCC’s informal complaint process allows consumers to file 

complaints with FCC that the agency reviews and forwards to carriers for 

a response. The formal complaint process, which is similar to a court 

proceeding, requires a filing fee and is rarely used by consumers. 

State agencies also play a role in wireless phone service oversight. State 

utility commissions (sometimes called public utility commissions or public 

service commissions) regulate utilities, including telecommunications 

services such as wireless phone service and landline phone service. State 

commissions may also designate wireless phone service carriers as eligible 

telecommunications carriers (ETC)—a designation that allows carriers to 

receive universal service funds for serving consumers in high-cost areas.18

Through this process, state utility commissions may place conditions on 

how wireless carriers provide services in those high-cost areas in order for 

them to be eligible for such funds. State attorneys general broadly serve as 

the chief legal officers of states while also representing the public interest, 

and their work has included addressing wireless consumer protection 

issues.19 For example, in 2004, the attorneys general of 32 states entered 

into voluntary compliance agreements with Cingular Wireless (now 

AT&T), Sprint, and Verizon, under which the carriers agreed to disclose 

certain service terms at the point-of-sale and in their marketing and 

advertising, provide a service trial period, appropriately disclose certain 

taxes and surcharges on customers’ bills, and respond to consumers’ 

complaints and inquiries.20

 

1747 C.F.R. § § 1.711–1.736. 

18Such high-cost areas include rural areas, where the cost of providing telecommunications 

services is higher than in urban areas. Universal service programs exist at both the federal 

and the state levels to support the provision of communications services to such 

underserved populations, including low-income individuals and those living in high-cost 

areas. 

19While state attorneys general may play a role in protecting wireless phone service 

consumers, we focused our review of state efforts on state utility commissions, since they 

are responsible for providing regulatory oversight, making their role similar to FCC’s. While 

we met with some attorneys general, including their national association, we did not 

attempt to ascertain the full scope of their involvement. 

20Cingular Wireless LLC, Assurance of Voluntary Compliance, June 25, 2004; Sprint 

Spectrum, L.P., Assurance of Voluntary Compliance, June 25, 2004; and Cellco Partnership 

d/b/a Verizon Wireless, Assurance of Voluntary Compliance, June 25, 2004. 

Page 7 GAO-10-34 Telecommunications
 

According to our consumer survey, overall, wireless phone service 

consumers are satisfied with the service they receive. Specifically, we 

estimate that 84 percent of adult wireless users are very or somewhat 

satisfied with their wireless phone service and that approximately 10 

percent are very or somewhat dissatisfied with their service (see fig. 2).21

Figure 2: Estimated Overall Satisfaction of Wireless Phone Users with Their Service 

Most Consumers Are 

Satisfied with Their 

Wireless Phone 

Service, but Some 

Have Experienced 

Problems 

Source: GAO survey.

45%

39%

3%

6%

6%

Very

dissatisfied

Somewhat

dissatisfied

Neither

Somewhat

satisfied

Very

satisfied

10%

Dissatisfied

6%

Neither

84%

Satisfied

Note: We conducted our survey of adult wireless phone users from February 23, 2009, through April 

5, 2009. All estimates presented in this figure have a margin of error of less than +/- 5 percentage 

points. The percentage of users very or somewhat dissatisfied with wireless phone service is 10 

percent but appears smaller in the figure because of rounding. “Neither” refers to respondents who 

indicated that they were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied. Additionally, we estimate that fewer than 1 

percent of users had no opinion or did not know about their overall satisfaction. Percentages may not 

sum to 100 because of rounding. 

Stakeholders we interviewed identified a number of aspects of wireless 

phone service that consumers have reported problems with in recent 

years.22 We identified five key areas of concern on the basis of these 

 

21Estimates we present based on our consumer survey results have a margin of error of less 

than +/- 5 percent unless otherwise noted. 

22The stakeholders we interviewed represent consumer organizations, state agencies in 

selected states, national organizations that represent state officials, wireless carriers, 

industry associations, and FCC. 

Page 8 GAO-10-34 Telecommunications
 

interviews and our review of related documents, and we subsequently 

focused our nationwide consumer survey on these areas (see table 1).23

Table 1: Aspects of Wireless Phone Service Identified by Stakeholders as Key Areas of Consumer Concern 

Key area of concern Nature of concern 

Billing • Complexity of billing statements leads to lack of consumer understanding. 

• Bills contain unexpected charges and errors. 

Terms of service contract or agreement • Consumers are subject to fees for canceling their service before the end of their 

contract term (early termination fees), regardless of their reason for wanting to 

terminate service, effectively locking consumers into their contracts. 

• Consumers are not given enough time to try out their service before having to commit 

to the contract. 

• Carriers extend contracts when consumers request service changes. 

Explanation of service • Key aspects of service, such as rates and coverage, are not clearly explained to 

consumers at the point of sale (when they sign up for the service). 

Call quality • Consumers experience dropped or blocked calls, as well as noise on calls that makes 

hearing calls difficult. 

• Consumers experience poor coverage, which in rural areas may be the result of lack 

of infrastructure and in urban areas stems from lack of capacity to manage the volume 

of calls at peak times. 

Customer service • Consumers experience problems such as long waits, ineffective assistance, and 

insufficient resolution to problems. 

Source: GAO analysis. 

Based on our survey results, we estimate that most wireless phone users 

are satisfied with these five specific aspects of service (see table 2). For 

example, we estimate that 85 percent of wireless phone users are very or 

somewhat satisfied with call quality, while the percentages of those very 

or somewhat satisfied with billing, contract terms, carrier’s explanation of 

key aspects of service at the point of sale, and customer service range 

 

23Unsolicited telemarketing on wireless phones was also cited as a key area of consumer 

concern by the stakeholders we interviewed. Congress passed the Telephone Consumer 

Protection Act, as well as the Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and 

Marketing Act, to protect consumers against unsolicited telemarketing. Because such 

problems generally deal with telemarketers, not the services provided by wireless carriers, 

we did not include this issue within the scope of our review. However, from our survey, we 

estimate that unsolicited calls or text messages to users’ wireless phones are not a problem 

at all for 48 percent of wireless phone users, a little problem for 24 percent, somewhat of a 

problem for 10 percent, and a moderate or major problem for 17 percent. 

Page 9 GAO-10-34 Telecommunications
 

from about 70 to 76 percent.24 Additionally, we estimate that most wireless 

phone users are satisfied with their wireless phone service coverage. For 

example, we estimate that 86 to 89 percent of wireless phone users are 

satisfied with their coverage when using their wireless phones at home, at 

work, or in their vehicle. 

Table 2: Estimated Levels of Satisfaction with Specific Aspects of Wireless Phone 

Service 

Level of satisfaction 

Aspect of service 

Satisfied 

(very or 

somewhat)

Neither 

satisfied or 

dissatisfied 

Dissatisfied 

(very or 

somewhat)

No opinion/no 

basis to judge

Billing 76% 4% 12% 8%

Terms of service 

contract or agreement 72 6 14 8

Explanation of service 76 5 9 10

Call quality 85 4 11 <1

Customer service 70 6 12 12

Source: GAO survey. 

Note: We surveyed adult wireless phone users from February 23, 2009, through April 5, 2009. All 

estimates presented in this table have a margin of error of less than +/- 5 percentage points. All 

respondents were asked about their level of satisfaction with each of these five aspects of wireless 

phone service. Respondents were also asked not to indicate a level of satisfaction if they had no 

basis to judge a particular aspect of service. For example, a respondent may have no basis to judge 

satisfaction with the contract terms if he or she did not sign the contract for the service. Percentages 

may not sum to 100 because of rounding. 

While we estimate that about three-fourths or more of wireless phone 

service users are satisfied with specific aspects of their service, the 

percentages of those very or somewhat dissatisfied range from about 9 to 

14 percent, depending on the specific aspect of service. For example, we 

estimate that 14 percent of wireless phone users are dissatisfied with the 

terms of their service contract or agreement. While the percentages of 

dissatisfied users appear to be small, they represent millions of people 

 

24We did not include advertising disclosures in our table of consumer concerns because few 

stakeholders mentioned this as a problem and it is not an aspect of the services carriers 

provide to users; however, we did include a question in our consumer survey about 

whether users believe that carriers truthfully and accurately disclosed information about 

their services in their advertising and marketing. We estimate that 48 percent of users 

believe that carriers disclose such information truthfully and accurately to a large or very 

large extent, while 28 percent believe they do so to a moderate extent and 13 percent to a 

small or no extent. About 11 percent had no opinion or no basis to judge. 

Page 10 GAO-10-34 Telecommunications
 

since, according to available estimates, the number of adult wireless 

phone service users is over 189 million. 

Other results of our survey suggest that some wireless phone consumers 

have experienced problems with billing, certain service contract terms, 

and customer service recently—that is, during 2008 and early 2009. 

Specifically, our survey results indicate the following: 

• Billing. We estimate that during this time about 34 percent of wireless 

phone users responsible for paying for their service received unexpected 

charges and about 31 percent had difficulty understanding their bill at 

least some of the time.25 Also during this time, almost one-third of wireless 

users who contacted customer service about a problem did so because of 

problems related to billing.26

• Service contract terms. Among wireless users who wanted to switch 

carriers during this time but did not do so, we estimate that 42 percent did 

not switch because they did not want to pay an early termination fee.27

• Customer service. Among those users who contacted customer service, 

we estimate that 21 percent were very or somewhat dissatisfied with how 

the carrier handled the problem. 

Our analysis of FCC consumer complaint data also indicates that billing, 

terms of the service contract, and customer service are areas where 

 

25We estimate that about 83 percent of wireless users are responsible for paying for their 

wireless phone service. Some users are not responsible for paying their bills, such as a user 

on a family plan paid for by another family member. Respondents were asked about the 

extent of such billing problems since the beginning of 2008. 

26We estimate that about 44 percent of wireless users contacted customer service about a 

problem during 2008 and early 2009. 

27We estimate that about 19 percent of wireless users wanted to switch carriers during 2008 

and early 2009 but did not do so. The 42 percent of these wireless phone users who wanted 

to switch but did not because of the early termination fee has a margin of error +/- 7.4 

percent. Additionally, among the wireless users who did not indicate they were satisfied 

with the terms of their wireless phone service, we estimate that 25 percent were not 

satisfied because of early termination fees. Wireless users were asked about their 

satisfaction with the terms of their service in general, not specifically since the beginning of 

2008. The margin of error for the estimate of wireless phone users that were not satisfied 

with the terms of their service because of early termination fees is +/- 6.7 percent. 

Page 11 GAO-10-34 Telecommunications
 

wireless consumers have experienced problems in recent years.28

Furthermore, FCC complaint data indicate that call quality is an area of 

consumer concern. Specifically, our analysis of FCC data indicates that 

the top four categories of complaints from 2004 through 2008 regarding 

service provided by wireless carriers were billing and rates, call quality, 

early termination of contracts, and customer service, as shown in figure 3 

(see app. II for additional discussion of FCC wireless consumer complaint 

data). 

 

28This analysis examined only FCC’s informal complaints. FCC received over 125,000 

informal consumer complaints from 2004 through 2008 about wireless phone service 

provided by carriers. Additionally, FCC received complaints about unsolicited 

telemarketing—including over 42,000 such complaints in 2008—however, we did not 

include complaints about telemarketing in our analysis, since they are not directly carrierrelated. 

Page 12 GAO-10-34 Telecommunications
 

Figure 3: Largest Categories of Consumer Complaints FCC Received Regarding 

Wireless Phone Service Provided by Carriers, 2004 through 2008 

Notes: Numbers rounded to the nearest thousand. 

a

Includes complaints about credits, adjustments, and refunds; line-item charges such as taxes and 

surcharges; charges for time spent talking on the phone; service plan rates; and unauthorized or 

misleading charges, among other issues. 

b

Includes complaints about lack of coverage, telephone reception, and specific problems such as 

dead spots, dropped calls, and busy signals due to network congestion. 

c

Includes complaints about termination of wireless phone service by the consumer or by the carrier. 

Most of these complaints were about termination by consumers prior to the end of a specified 

contract term, which could result in an early termination fee. 

Our survey of state utility commissions also found that billing, contract 

terms, and quality of service were the top categories of consumer 

complaints related to wireless phone service that commissions received in 

2008.29 Specifically, among the 21 commissions that track wireless 

Number of complaints (in thousands)

Source: GAO analysis of FCC complaint data.

Complaint category

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Billing and 

ratesa

Call qualityb

Customer 

service

Contract early terminationc

55

14 13

12

 

29“Quality of service” is a broad term that generally includes call quality, as well as 

coverage, and may also include other service issues such as customer service and the use 

of proprietary consumer data. 

Page 13 GAO-10-34 Telecommunications
 

consumer complaints, 14 noted billing, 10 noted contract terms, and 10 

noted quality of service as among the top three types of complaints 

commissions received in 2008.30 Additionally, 3 commissions specifically 

cited early termination fees as one of the top three categories of 

complaints they received in 2008. 

In response to the areas of consumer concern noted above, wireless 

carriers have taken a number of actions in recent years. For example, 

officials from the four major carriers—AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile, and 

Verizon—reported taking actions such as prorating their early termination 

fees over the period of the contract, offering service options without 

contracts, and providing Web-based tools consumers can use to research a 

carrier’s coverage area, among other efforts. In addition, in 2003, the 

industry adopted a voluntary code with requirements for dealing with 

customers and, according to CTIA–The Wireless Association, the wireless 

industry spent an average of $24 billion annually between 2001 and 2007 

on infrastructure and equipment to improve call quality and coverage. 

Also, carriers told us they use information from third-party tests and 

customer feedback to determine their network and service performance 

and identify needed improvements. (See app. III for additional information 

about industry actions to address consumer concerns.) 

Representatives of state agencies and various consumer and industry 

associations we interviewed expressed concern to us that many of the 

actions the industry has taken to address consumers’ concerns are 

voluntary and have not effectively addressed some major consumer 

concerns. For example, officials from some state public utility 

commissions indicated that there are no data to support the effectiveness 

of the wireless industry’s voluntary code and that this code lacks the level 

of oversight that state agencies can offer. Moreover, officials from state 

utility commissions and consumer associations we spoke with indicated 

that the industry’s actions to prorate early termination fees may be 

inadequate because the fees are not reduced to $0 over of the course of the 

contract period. Furthermore, some representatives of state agencies and 

consumer groups suggested that the industry has taken voluntary actions 

 

30In our survey, we provided a list of categories and asked state commissions that track and 

record wireless consumer complaints to select the three categories with the most 

complaints in 2008. Besides the categories noted above, five commissions included 

disclosure of terms and conditions at the point of sale among the top three categories of 

complaints received, one commission indicated advertising disclosures, and seven 

commissions selected “other.” 

Page 14 GAO-10-34 Telecommunications
 

such as adopting the voluntary code and prorating early termination fees 

to avoid further regulation by FCC. Industry representatives, however, told 

us that the voluntary approach is more effective than regulation, since it 

gives the industry flexibility to address these concerns. 

FCC processes tens of thousands of wireless consumer complaints each 

year but has conducted little additional oversight of services provided by 

wireless phone service carriers because the agency has focused on 

promoting competition. The agency receives informal consumer 

complaints and forwards them to carriers for response; however, our 

consumer survey results suggest that most wireless consumers with 

problems would not complain to FCC and many do not know where they 

could complain. FCC has also not articulated goals and measures that 

clearly identify the intended outcomes of its complaint-processing effort.31

Consequently, if wireless consumers do not know where they can 

complain or what outcome to expect if they do, they may be confused 

about where to go for help or what assistance they can expect from FCC. 

Additionally, FCC cannot demonstrate how well it is achieving the 

intended outcomes of its efforts. While FCC monitors wireless consumer 

complaints by reviewing the top categories of complaints received, it has 

conducted few in-depth analyses to identify trends or emerging issues, 

impeding its ability to determine whether its rules have been violated or if 

new rules may be needed. 

FCC Processes 

Wireless Consumer 

Complaints but Has 

Conducted Little 

Other Oversight of 

Services Provided by 

Wireless Phone 

Service Carriers 

 

31The information presented here represents a description of FCC’s process for handling 

informal consumer complaints. The agency also has a formal complaint process, and 

consumers may file formal complaints if they are not satisfied with the results of filing an 

informal complaint. However, there is a cost for filing a formal complaint, the process for 

doing so is similar to a court proceeding, and this process is governed by specific rules 

about what information must be submitted. According to FCC, the formal complaint 

process is typically used by corporations, not consumers, and FCC has held one proceeding 

in response to a consumer’s formal wireless complaint within the past 5 years. 

Page 15 GAO-10-34 Telecommunications
 

FCC receives about 20,000 to 35,000 complaints each year related to 

services provided by wireless carriers, which the agency forwards to 

carriers for response.32 Given that our survey indicates that an estimated 

21 percent of consumers who contact their carrier’s customer service 

about a problem are dissatisfied with the result, FCC’s efforts to process 

complaints are an important means for consumers to get assistance in 

resolving their problems. After reviewing a complaint received, FCC 

responds by sending the consumer a letter about the complaint’s status.33 If 

FCC determines that the complaint is valid, the agency sends the 

complaint to the carrier and asks the carrier to respond to FCC and the 

consumer within 30 days.34

FCC Processes 

Consumers’ Wireless 

Complaints, but Many 

Consumers May Not Know 

They Can Complain to 

FCC 

Once FCC receives a response from the carrier, the agency reviews the 

response, and if it determines the response has addressed the consumer’s 

complaint, it marks the complaint as closed.35 According to FCC officials, if 

the response is not sufficient, FCC contacts the carrier again. FCC officials 

told us they consider a carrier’s response to be sufficient if it responds to 

the issue raised in the consumer’s complaint; however, such a response 

may not address the problem to the consumer’s satisfaction. When FCC 

considers a complaint to be closed, it sends another letter to the 

consumer, which states that the consumer can call FCC with further 

questions or, if not satisfied with the carrier’s response, can file a formal 

complaint. FCC officials also told us that if a consumer is not satisfied, the 

consumer can request that FCC mediate with the carrier on his or her 

behalf; however, the letter that FCC sends to a consumer whose complaint 

 

32In addition to addressing informal complaints, FCC assists wireless consumers through 

outreach and education efforts, such as publishing fact sheets about wireless phone service 

issues and answering consumer inquiries. FCC reported receiving over 21,000 wireless 

inquiries in 2008. 

33FCC’s Web site and fact sheets suggest that consumers first contact their carrier, although 

they are not required to do so before filing a complaint. 

34According to FCC officials, a valid complaint that can be forwarded to a carrier must 

identify a particular carrier, allege harm, and seek relief. Carriers we interviewed told us 

they handle complaints forwarded from FCC and other government agencies separately 

from complaints from consumers that contact them directly. Likewise, FCC and the state 

utility commissions we interviewed told us they have specific contacts at each carrier that 

handle complaints the agencies forward to them. 

35FCC may also close a complaint for other reasons and not forward it to the carrier, such 

as if a consumer does not submit complete information with the complaint; if the complaint 

is not related to an issue within FCC’s jurisdiction; if the consumer withdraws the 

complaint; or if FCC rejects the complaint because it is invalid, incomplete, a duplicate, a 

false submission, or submitted on the wrong form, among other reasons. 

Page 16 GAO-10-34 Telecommunications
 

has been closed does not identify mediation as an option. FCC closes most 

wireless phone service complaints within 90 days of receiving them. 

Specifically, according to FCC’s complaint data, the agency closed 61 

percent of complaints received in 2008 within 90 days (see fig. 4). 

Figure 4: Amount of Time FCC Takes to Close Wireless Consumer Complaints, 2008 

7%

27%

9%

5%

52%

Source: GAO analysis of FCC complaint data.

More than 180 days

Not closed

Less than 30 days

90 to 180 days

30 to 90 days

Note: The figure depicts the percentage of wireless consumer complaints FCC closes within specific 

time frames, as measured by the number of days from when complaints are received to when they 

are closed. This analysis reflects FCC’s data as of March 30, 2009, when the agency transmitted its 

complaint data to us. FCC may have subsequently closed complaints reflected here as not closed. 

FCC uses several methods to inform consumers that they may complain to 

the agency about their wireless phone service and has taken steps to 

improve its outreach. According to FCC officials, the agency provides 

information on how to complain to FCC on its Web site and in fact sheets 

that are distributed through various methods, including its Web site. Also, 

in response to a recommendation from its Consumer Advisory Committee 

in 2003 to improve outreach to consumers about the agency’s process for 

handling complaints, FCC switched from using one complaint form to 

having multiple forms for different types of complaints to make filing 

complaints easier for consumers. FCC also made its complaint forms and 

fact sheets available in Spanish and has distributed consumer fact sheets 

at outreach events and conferences. Furthermore, the agency created an email distribution list for disseminating consumer information materials, 

which it used to inform consumers about the revised complaint forms. We 

have previously noted that it is important for an agency’s consumer 

protection efforts to inform the public effectively and efficiently about its 

Page 17 GAO-10-34 Telecommunications
 

role and how to seek redress.36 Additionally, we have reported on various 

ways an agency can communicate with the public about its efforts, 

including how exploring multiple methods for communicating with the 

public may improve public outreach. Such outreach methods can include 

making effective use of Web sites, e-mail listserves, or other Web-based 

technologies like Web forums, as well as requiring relevant companies to 

provide information to their customers.37 For example, many state utility 

commissions require landline carriers to include information on 

customers’ bills about how to contact the commission with a complaint. 

Despite FCC’s efforts to improve its outreach, these efforts may not be 

adequately informing the public about the agency’s role in handling 

consumer complaints. Specifically, based on the results of our consumer 

survey, we estimate that 13 percent of adult wireless phone users would 

complain to FCC if they had a problem that their carrier did not resolve 

and that 34 percent do not know where they could complain.38 Therefore, 

many consumers that experience problems with their wireless phone 

service may not know to contact FCC for assistance or may not know at 

all whom they could contact for help. We reported these survey results in 

June 2009.39 In August 2009, noting our survey results, FCC sought public 

comment on whether there are measures the agency could take to ensure 

that consumers are aware of FCC’s complaint process, including whether 

 

36See GAO, OCC Consumer Assistance: Process Is Similar to That of Other Regulators but 

Could Be Improved by Enhanced Outreach, GAO-06-293 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 23, 2006) 

and GAO, Consumer Protection: Federal Actions Are Needed to Improve Oversight of the 

Household Goods Moving Industry, GAO-01-318 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 5, 2001). 

37See GAO, Reexamining Regulations: Opportunities Exist to Improve Effectiveness and 

Transparency of Retrospective Reviews, GAO-07-791 (Washington, D.C.: July 16, 2007) and 

GAO-01-318. 

38Additionally, we estimate that among users, 38 percent would complain to the carrier 

again, 20 percent to the Better Business Bureau, 4 percent to another consumer 

organization, 5 percent to a state utility commission, 5 percent to a state attorney general, 3 

percent to another state or local agency, 4 percent to the Federal Trade Commission, and 3 

percent to another federal agency. Respondents could provide more than one answer. 

39GAO-09-800T. 

Page 18 GAO-10-34 Telecommunications
 

FCC should require carriers to include information for consumers on their 

bills about how to contact FCC with a complaint.40

FCC Lacks Goals and 

Measures That Articulate 

the Intended Outcomes of 

Its Efforts to Process 

Consumer Complaints 

FCC’s goals and measures related to its efforts to process wireless 

consumer complaints do not clearly identify the intended outcomes of 

these efforts. The Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 

(GPRA) requires an agency to establish outcome-related performance 

goals for its major functions.41 GPRA also requires an agency to develop 

performance indicators for measuring the relevant outcomes of each 

program activity in order for the agency to demonstrate how well it is 

achieving its goals.42

The key goal related to FCC’s consumer complaint efforts is to “work to 

inform American consumers about their rights and responsibilities in the 

competitive marketplace.” This key goal also has a subgoal to “facilitate 

informed choice in the competitive telecommunications marketplace.” 

According to FCC officials, “informed choice” means consumers are 

informed about how a particular telecommunications market works, what 

general services are offered, and what to expect when they buy a service.43

FCC’s measure related to its efforts to process wireless consumer 

complaints under this subgoal is to respond to consumers’ general 

complaints within 30 days, which reflects the time it takes FCC to initially 

 

40Consumer Information and Disclosure, Truth-in-Billing, and Billing Format IPEnabled Services, Notice of Inquiry, FCC 09-68 (2009). FCC’s notice of inquiry sought 

comment on a number of issues discussed in this report, focusing on getting input about 

the information consumers need to make decisions about their telecommunications 

services, including wireless phone service, such as when choosing a service provider or a 

service plan. Specific topics FCC sought comment on included how carriers provide 

information to consumers about call quality, coverage, service terms, and rates and the 

effectiveness of the industry’s voluntary code in protecting consumers. 

41This act is the centerpiece of a statutory framework that Congress put in place during the 

1990s to help resolve the long-standing management problems that have undermined the 

federal government’s efficiency and effectiveness and to provide greater accountability for 

results. See GAO, Results-Oriented Government: GPRA Has Established a Solid 

Foundation for Achieving Greater Results, GAO-04-38 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 10, 2004). 

4231 U.S.C. § 1115. 

43According to FCC officials, in addition to its complaint processing, the agency’s efforts to 

respond to consumers’ inquiries are an important part of the agency’s work to inform 

consumers about telecommunications services. 

Page 19 GAO-10-34 Telecommunications
 

respond to the consumer about the status of a complaint.44 The measure 

does not clearly or fully demonstrate FCC’s achievement of its goal to 

facilitate informed consumer choice. Instead, it is a measure of a program 

output, or activity, not of the outcome the agency is trying to achieve. 

Another subgoal is to “improve customer experience with FCC’s call 

centers and Web site.” While this subgoal does identify an intended 

outcome, FCC does not have a measure related to this outcome that 

pertains to consumers who complain about services provided by their 

wireless carrier. FCC officials told us that they do not measure customer 

experience with the agency’s call centers and Web sites but sometimes 

receive anecdotal information from customers about their experiences.45

We have previously reported that to better articulate results, agencies 

should create a set of performance goals and related measures that 

address important dimensions of program performance. FCC’s goals may 

not represent all of the important dimensions of FCC’s performance in 

addressing consumer complaints. A logical outcome of handling 

complaints is resolving problems or, if a problem cannot be resolved, 

helping the consumer understand why that is the case. However, it is not 

clear whether resolving problems is an intended outcome of FCC’s 

consumer complaint efforts. While FCC’s goals in this area indicate that 

informing consumers is a goal of the agency, some information from FCC 

implies that another intended outcome of these efforts is to resolve 

consumers’ problems. For example, FCC’s fact sheets state that 

consumers can file a complaint with FCC if they are unable to resolve a 

problem directly with their carrier, which may lead consumers to believe 

that FCC will assist them in obtaining a resolution. However, FCC officials 

told us that the agency’s role in addressing complaints, as outlined in the 

law, is to facilitate communication between the consumer and the carrier 

and that FCC lacks the authority to compel a carrier to take action to 

satisfy many consumer concerns. Thus, it is not clear if the intended 

outcome of FCC’s complaint-handling efforts is resolving consumer 

problems, fostering communication between consumers and carriers, or 

both. Furthermore, FCC has not established measures of its performance 

in either resolving consumer problems or fostering communication 

 

44This goal has a separate measure for responding to Telephone Consumer Protection Actrelated complaints (junk fax and do-not-call list complaints) within 20 days. 

45FCC officials told us that they do take steps to review the quality of their complaintprocessing efforts internally, such as by having supervisors review complaints and monitor 

staff performance. 

Page 20 GAO-10-34 Telecommunications
 

between consumers and carriers.46 For example, FCC does not measure 

consumer satisfaction with its complaint-handling efforts. Without clear 

outcome-related goals and measures linked to those goals, the purpose 

and effectiveness of these efforts are unclear, and the agency’s 

accountability for its performance is limited.47

As noted above, consumers may not know to contact FCC if they have a 

complaint about their wireless phone service. Additionally, because FCC 

has not clearly articulated the intended outcomes of its complaintprocessing efforts, consumers may not know the extent to which FCC can 

aid them in obtaining a satisfactory resolution to their concerns, and since 

FCC’s letters to consumers do not indicate that mediation is available, 

consumers may not know that they can request this service from FCC. 

Consequently, consumers with wireless service problems may be confused 

about where to seek assistance and what kind of assistance to expect if 

they do know they can complain to FCC. 

FCC Has Few Rules That 

Address Services Provided 

by Wireless Phone Service 

Carriers 

FCC has few rules that specifically address services consumers receive 

from wireless phone service carriers, and in general, the agency has 

refrained from regulating wireless phone service in order to promote 

competition in the market. FCC’s rules include general requirements for 

wireless carriers to provide services upon reasonable request and terms 

and in a nondiscriminatory manner, and to respond to both informal and 

formal complaints submitted to FCC by consumers. FCC also has specific 

rules requiring wireless carriers and other common carriers to present 

charges on customers’ bills that are clear and nonmisleading, known as 

 

46Although not a performance measure that is linked to a goal, FCC does internally track its 

closures of consumer complaints and the amount of money that is refunded to consumers 

as a result of its complaint-handling efforts. Based on our analysis of FCC complaints 

received from 2004 through 2008, we estimate that FCC’s efforts to resolve wireless 

consumer complaints resulted in over $10 million returned to consumers during that 

period. 

47We have identified inadequate performance management practices as a recurring problem 

in our recent reviews of FCC programs. See GAO, Telecommunications: Long-Term 

Strategic Vision Would Help Ensure Targeting of E-rate Funds to Highest-Priority Uses, 

GAO-09-253 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 27, 2009); Telecommunications: FCC Needs to 

Improve Performance Management and Strengthen Oversight of the High-Cost Program, 

GAO-08-633 (Washington, D.C.: June 13, 2008); Telecommunications: FCC Has Made Some 

Progress in the Management of Its Enforcement Program but Faces Limitations, and 

Additional Actions Are Needed, GAO-08-125 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 15, 2008); and 

Telecommunications: Weaknesses in Procedures and Performance Management Hinder 

Junk Fax Enforcement, GAO-06-425 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 5, 2006). 

Page 21 GAO-10-34 Telecommunications
 

truth-in-billing rules.48 Additionally, FCC’s rules establish other consumer 

protections, such as requiring wireless carriers to provide enhanced 911 

and other emergency services and number portability rules that allow 

customers to keep their phone numbers when switching between wireless 

carriers or between landline and wireless services.49 While FCC has rules 

that cover billing, the agency has not created specific rules governing 

other key areas of recent consumer concern that we identified (see 

table 3).50

Table 3: FCC Rules Addressing Specific Aspects of Service Provided to Consumers 

by Wireless Phone Service Carriers 

Aspects of service addressed by FCC 

rules 

Aspects of service FCC rules do not 

address 

• Billing (truth-in-billing) 

• Provision of enhanced 911 and other 

emergency services 

• Number portability 

• Hearing aid compatibility 

• Security of consumers’ personal 

information 

• Contract terms 

• Explanation of service terms 

• Call quality 

• Customer service 

Source: GAO analysis of FCC rules. 

Note: Besides these rules that address services provided to consumers, FCC has rules for wireless 

carriers covering public safety, licensing, and construction. FCC rules also address unsolicited 

telemarketing on wireless phones. 

According to FCC, the agency does not regulate issues such as carriers’ 

contract terms or call quality, since the competitive marketplace addresses 

these issues, leading carriers to compete on service quality and proactively 

 

4847 C.F.R. §64.2401. FCC’s truth-in-billing rules that apply to wireless phone service 

carriers include requirements for bills to be clearly organized; clearly identify the name of 

the service provider associated with each charge; clearly identify any change in the service 

provider; and include a plain-language description of billed charges that is clear, brief, and 

nonmisleading. 

49Enhanced 911 is a capability that provides emergency responders with the location of, 

and a callback number for, a person calling 911. 

50Legislation was proposed during the 110th Congress to require FCC to create additional 

consumer protections for wireless phone service. For example, S. 2171, introduced in 2007, 

required FCC to conduct a rulemaking to establish customer service and consumer 

protection requirements for wireless carriers. Another bill also introduced in 2007, S. 2033, 

included more specific requirements for FCC to regulate wireless carriers’ service 

disclosures, billing practices, and early termination fees, as well as requirements for FCC to 

require carriers to report information about call quality. 

Page 22 GAO-10-34 Telecommunications
 

respond to any related concerns from consumers. Additionally, having 

determined that exempting carriers from certain regulations will promote 

competition, FCC has used its authority under the 1993 Act to exempt 

wireless carriers from some rules that apply to other communications 

common carriers.51 For example, in 1994, FCC exempted wireless carriers 

from rate regulations that apply to other common carriers.52 FCC has 

stated that promoting competition was a principal goal of the 1993 Act 

under which Congress established the regulatory framework for wireless 

phone service oversight. As required by the 1993 Act, in exempting 

wireless phone service carriers from regulations in order to promote 

competition, as FCC has done, FCC must determine that such exemption 

is in the public interest and that the regulations are not necessary for the 

protection of consumers. 

FCC officials told us that the agency has taken a “light touch” in regulating 

the industry because it is competitive and noted that carriers compete 

with one another to provide better service. FCC proposed rules in 2005 for 

wireless carriers to address further regulation of billing practices and, in 

2008, to address carriers’ reporting of service quality information such as 

customer satisfaction and complaint data.53 FCC has received comments 

on both proposals but has taken no further action to date. In August 2009, 

 

51In addition to its authority under the 1993 Act, another section of the law, 47 U.S.C. § 161, 

also provides FCC with authority to exempt carriers from regulation, which the agency has 

used. For example, in 2002, FCC exempted wireless carriers from a requirement to provide 

consumers with information showing where their coverage was reliable, concluding that 

competitive pressures were strong enough to ensure that wireless carriers would continue 

to supply consumers with information on coverage even after FCC removed the 

requirement. See Year 2000 Biennial Regulatory Review–Amendment of Part 22 of the 

Commission’s Rules to Modify or Eliminate Outdated Rules Affecting the Cellular 

Radiotelephone Service and other Commercial Mobile Radio Services, Second Report and 

Order, 17 FCC Rcd. 18485 (2002). 

5247 U.S.C. §203 requires communications common carriers to file tariffs for interstate 

services with FCC and prohibits carriers from charging, demanding, collecting, or receiving 

different compensation than specified in their filed tariffs. See 47 C.F.R. § 20.15(a)(c). A 

tariff is a document that describes a carrier’s services and the rates to be charged for those 

services. 

53See Truth-in-Billing and Billing Format, Second Report and Order, Declaratory Ruling, 

and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 20 FCC Rcd. 6448 (2005) and Service 

Quality, Customer Satisfaction, Infrastructure and Operating Data Gathering, 

Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 23 FCC Rcd. 13647 

(2008). Wireless phone service carriers are exempt from existing service quality reporting 

requirements. In 2008, FCC proposed exempting other common carriers from these 

requirements, while at the same time seeking comment on whether such reporting 

requirements should be extended to all common carriers, including wireless carriers. 

Page 23 GAO-10-34 Telecommunications
 

as part of its effort to seek comment on a number of telecommunications 

consumer issues, FCC sought comment on the effectiveness of its truth-inbilling rules and whether changes in these rules are needed.54

FCC Has Conducted 

Limited Monitoring of 

Wireless Consumer 

Complaints and Has Not 

Enforced Its Billing Rules 

for Wireless Carriers 

FCC monitors informal complaints submitted by consumers to determine 

whether further regulation is needed and if the wireless industry is 

complying with the agency’s rules, but such monitoring is limited.55

According to FCC officials, trends in consumer complaint data may alert 

them to the need for changes in regulation. Furthermore, FCC has 

acknowledged that when exempting telecommunications service 

providers, such as wireless carriers, from its regulations, the agency has a 

duty to ensure that consumer protection needs are still met. FCC’s 

Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau reviews the top categories of 

complaints reported in the agency’s quarterly reports of consumer 

complaints and looks for trends.56 FCC officials said that the agency does 

not routinely conduct more in-depth reviews of the nature of wireless 

consumer complaints unless they are needed to support an FCC decisionmaking effort, such as a rulemaking proceeding. FCC does not document 

its monitoring of consumer complaints and does not have written policies 

and procedures for routinely monitoring complaints. 

FCC has taken a number of actions to enforce its rules that apply to 

wireless phone service carriers, but the agency has conducted no 

enforcement of its truth-in-billing rules as they apply to wireless service. 

One of the agency’s performance goals is to enforce FCC’s rules for the 

benefit of consumers. According to representatives of FCC’s Enforcement 

Bureau, trends in consumer complaints that identify potential violations of 

 

54Consumer Information and Disclosure, Truth-in-Billing, and Billing Format IPEnabled Services, Notice of Inquiry, FCC 09-68 (2009). 

55FCC officials told us they also monitor other sources of information about wireless 

consumer concerns. For example, the agency’s annual report on wireless industry 

competition summarizes information from third-party sources such as J.D. Power and 

Associates about call quality and consumer satisfaction. FCC also monitors the industry 

trade press and participates in monthly conference calls with state agencies, during which 

wireless issues may be discussed. Additionally, FCC has two advisory committees that 

examine intergovernmental and consumer issues and make recommendations to the 

agency. 

56FCC’s Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau is responsible for developing and 

implementing the agency’s consumer policies, conducting consumer outreach and 

education, responding to consumer complaints and inquiries, and managing relationships 

with state, local, and tribal governments. 

Page 24 GAO-10-34 Telecommunications
 

FCC rules may signal the need for FCC to conduct an investigation, which 

could lead to an enforcement action. For example, in reviewing complaint 

data, the bureau identified five wireless carriers that had not responded to 

consumer complaints, which in 2008, led the agency to initiate 

enforcement actions against these carriers.57 However, Enforcement 

Bureau officials told us that they have not reviewed complaints to look for 

potential wireless truth-in-billing rules violations. Under the method it 

currently uses to categorize informal complaints, FCC cannot easily 

determine whether complaints may indicate a potential violation of FCC’s 

truth-in-billing rules. For example, FCC officials told us that while the 

agency uses category codes to identify types of complaints related to 

billing, such as codes for rates, line items, and fees, FCC officials would 

have to review complaints individually to determine whether they revealed 

a potential violation of its truth-in-billing rules—an analysis FCC has not 

conducted. Furthermore, according to FCC officials, since the application 

of the agency’s truth-in-billing rules to wireless carriers was expanded in 

2005, the agency has conducted no formal investigations of wireless 

carriers’ compliance with these rules because investigating other issues 

has been a priority and FCC has received no formal complaints in this 

area. Since our consumer survey indicates that about a third of consumers 

responsible for paying their wireless bills have had problems 

understanding their bill or received unexpected charges, the enforcement 

of truth-in-billing rules is important for the protection of consumers. 

Lacking in-depth analysis of its consumer complaints, FCC may not be 

aware of trends or emerging issues related to consumer problems, if 

specific rules—such as the truth-in-billing rules—are being violated, or if 

additional rules are needed to protect consumers. Our standards for 

internal control in the federal government state that agencies should have 

policies and procedures as an integral part of their efforts to achieve 

effective results.58 Without adequate policies and procedures for 

conducting such analyses of its consumer complaints, FCC may not be 

 

57Subsequently, FCC entered into consent decrees with two of the carriers, which involved 

their making voluntary contributions to the U.S. Treasury. According to FCC officials, two 

of the other three carriers took appropriate corrective action, and the third carrier went out 

of business. FCC officials also told us that, since the beginning of 2004, the agency has 

taken enforcement actions against wireless carriers for violations of its rules regarding 

enhanced 911 services, the security of consumers’ personal information such as calling 

records, hearing aid compatibility, and unsolicited telemarketing. 

58GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1 

(Washington, D.C.: November 1999). 

Page 25 GAO-10-34 Telecommunications
 

able to ensure that its decisions to exempt carriers from regulation 

promote competition and protect consumers. 

Results of our survey of state utility commissions show that while most 

commissions process wireless consumer complaints, most do not regulate 

wireless phone service. Representatives of state utility commissions and 

other stakeholders we interviewed told us that states’ authority under 

federal law to regulate wireless phone service is unclear, and this lack of 

clarity has, in some cases, led to costly legal proceedings and some states’ 

reluctance to provide oversight. Additionally, based on the results of our 

survey, communication between these commissions and FCC regarding 

oversight of wireless phone service is infrequent. 

State Utility 

Commissions’ Efforts 

to Oversee Wireless 

Phone Service Are 

Varied, Their 

Regulatory Authority 

Is Unclear, and 

Communication with 

FCC Is Infrequent 

Most State Utility 

Commissions Accept 

Wireless Consumer 

Complaints, but States’ 

Efforts to Address 

Complaints Vary 

In response to our survey of 51 state utility commissions, 33 commissions 

reported receiving complaints about wireless phone service, which they 

process in different ways. Specifically, 20 of these commissions work with 

the consumer and/or wireless carrier to resolve wireless complaints, while 

the other 13 commissions that accept complaints forward the complaint or 

refer the consumer to the relevant wireless carrier or another government 

entity. States that forwarded complaints or referred consumers to other 

government entities most frequently did so to FCC or a state attorney 

general, with some complaints also going to the Federal Trade 

Commission, a state consumer advocate, or another state agency.59 State 

utility commission officials we spoke with in California, Nebraska, and 

West Virginia, which all accept complaints and work with carriers and 

consumers to resolve them, told us that they have access to higher-ranking 

carrier representatives than consumers who call the carriers directly. This 

access, they said, helps them resolve wireless consumer complaints in an 

effective and timely manner. Twenty-one of the 33 commissions that 

accept complaints reported recording and tracking the number and types 

of wireless phone service complaints they receive. Based on the responses 

 

59Consumer advocates are state-level officials, often within a state utility commission or 

office of the attorney general, that are designated by law to represent the interests of 

consumers before the commissions and courts. 

Page 26 GAO-10-34 Telecommunications
 

of commissions to our survey, they received a total of 8,314 wireless 

service complaints in 2008. 

Most State Utility 

Commissions Do Not 

Regulate Wireless Phone 

Service 

Most commissions do not regulate wireless phone service. As noted 

previously, under federal law, states may regulate “terms and conditions” 

of wireless phone service, although they are preempted from regulating 

rates and entry. In response to our survey, 19 commissions reported 

having rules (or regulations) for wireless phone service, either for 

telecommunications services generally, including wireless service, or 

wireless services specifically (see fig. 5). 

Page 27 GAO-10-34 Telecommunications
 

Figure 5: States with Rules that Apply to Wireless Phone Service 

States with rules for wireless phone service

Sources: GAO survey and Map Resources.

Mass. ( )

Pa.

Okla.

S.C.

N.Y.

R.I. ( )

Conn. ( )

N.J. ( )

Del. ( )

Md. ( )

D.C. ( )

Ore.

Nev.

Idaho

Mont.

Wyo.

Utah

Ariz. N.Mex.

Colo.

N.Dak.

Nebr.

Tex.

Kans.

Minn.

Iowa

Mo.

Ark.

La.

Ill.

Miss.

Ind.

Ky.

Tenn.

Ala.

Fla.

Ga.

N.C.

Va.

Ohio

N.H.

Mich.

Calif.

Wash.

Wis.

Maine

Vt.

W.Va.

Pa.

S.Dak.

Okla.

S.C.

N.Y.

Alaska

Hawaii

Note: We conducted our survey of state utility commissions from March 3, 2009, through April 1, 

2009, using a Web-based survey and subsequent follow-up with some states. We received 

responses from commissions in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. 

Few commissions have rules within the following five main areas related 

to the terms and conditions of wireless service we asked about in our 

survey: service quality, billing practices, contract or agreement terms and 

conditions, advertising disclosures, and disclosure of service terms and 

Page 28 GAO-10-34 Telecommunications
 

conditions.60 Specifically, the number of commissions that have rules in 

these areas ranges from 3 that have rules about disclosure of service terms 

and conditions to 15 that have rules about service quality (see fig. 6). 

While fewer than half of the commissions have wireless rules, most 

designate wireless carriers as eligible telecommunication carriers (ETC) to 

receive universal service funds for serving high-cost areas. Although ETC 

status is not required for a wireless carrier to operate in a high-cost area, it 

is required if the carrier wants to receive universal service funding. We 

previously reported that wireless carriers often lack the economic 

incentive to install wireless towers in rural areas where they are unlikely 

to recover the installation and maintenance costs, but high-cost program 

support allows them to make these investments.61 Most commissions place 

conditions on receiving these funds related to various aspects of service. 

Specifically, 41 commissions in our survey reported having processes to 

designate wireless carriers as ETCs, and 31 reported placing such 

conditions on carriers to receive these funds. For example, the Nebraska 

state commission requires designated wireless ETCs to submit reports 

about coverage, service outages, complaints, and their use of universal 

service funding. For each of the five main areas related to the terms and 

conditions of service we asked about, more commissions reported having 

conditions for wireless ETCs than rules for wireless carriers (see fig. 6). 

Such conditions would not apply to wireless carriers generally—only to 

those carriers designated as ETCs to provide services in high-cost areas. 

 

60Service quality includes call quality, coverage and network outage reporting requirements, 

and customer service, among other issues. We determined these categories based on input 

from the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners and the National 

Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates about potential areas related to the terms 

and conditions of service where state utility commissions may have regulations. These 

categories are similar to aspects of service we surveyed consumers about; however, we 

used different terms since the survey was geared toward a different audience. Also, we did 

not include advertising disclosures as a key aspect of service in our consumer survey 

because it is not an aspect of service a carrier provides to a wireless phone service user. 

61GAO-08-633. 

Page 29 GAO-10-34 Telecommunications
 

Figure 6: Number of State Utility Commissions with Wireless Rules and Wireless 

ETC Conditions for Main Areas Related to Terms and Conditions of Service 

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Number of state utility commissions

Source: GAO analysis of FCC data.

Wireless rules

Wireless ETC conditions

Disclosure of 

service terms 

and conditions

Advertising 

disclosures

Contract or 

agreement terms 

and conditions

Billing 

practices

Service 

quality

Main area

15

21

11 12

6

10

4

21

3

9

Note: We conducted our survey of state utility commissions from March 3, 2009, through April 1, 

2009, using a Web-based survey and subsequent follow-up with some states. We received 

responses from commissions in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. 

Few state utility commissions—five—reported taking enforcement action 

against wireless phone service carriers since the beginning of 2004. 

According to national organizations representing state agencies, states’ 

concerns about the cost of pursuing these issues in court have created a 

reluctance to do so. 

State utility commissions generally cannot regulate wireless phone service 

unless they are granted authority to do so by state law. According to our 

survey of state utility commissions, many state commissions do not have 

authority to regulate wireless phone service, and most that do have 

authority indicated that it is limited. Specifically, 21 commissions reported 

having authority to regulate wireless phone service, with 5 commissions 

indicating they have authority to regulate in all areas related to the terms 

Page 30 GAO-10-34 Telecommunications
 

and conditions of service (excluding those aspects of service preempted 

by federal law) and 16 indicating they have authority to regulate in some 

areas. Twenty-one commissions reported that they do not have wireless 

regulatory authority and another 9 commissions would not assert whether 

they did or did not have wireless regulatory authority for various reasons 

(see fig. 7).62 As discussed in the next section, according to some state 

officials, the lack of authority or limited authority in many states to 

regulate wireless phone service may be due to concerns about the lack of 

clarity in federal law regarding states’ authority to regulate wireless phone 

service. 

 

62For example, some commissions indicated their regulatory authority was unclear because 

either state law is unclear or their authority provided by federal law is unclear. 

Additionally, one commission noted that until there is a specific federal statute or rule that 

clarifies state authority, the commission would not make a determination if or how it 

would regulate wireless phone service. 

Page 31 GAO-10-34 Telecommunications
 

Figure 7: State Utility Commissions’ Authority to Regulate Wireless Phone Service 

Sources: GAO survey and Map Resources.

Ore.

Nev.

Idaho

Mont.

Wyo.

Utah

Ariz. N.Mex.

Colo.

N.Dak.

Nebr.

Tex.

Kans.

Minn.

Iowa

Mo.

Ark.

La.

Ill.

Miss.

Ind.

Ky.

Tenn.

Ala.

Fla.

Ga.

N.C.

Va.

Ohio

N.H.

Mass. ( )

Mich.

Calif.

Wash.

Wis.

Maine

Vt.

W.Va.

Pa.

S.Dak.

Okla.

S.C.

N.Y.

Alaska

Pa.

S.Dak.

Okla.

S.C.

N.Y.

Alaska

Hawaii

Authority to regulate some but not all aspects of wireless phone service (16 states)

Authority to regulate all aspects of wireless phone service (5 states)

Other (no response or authority unclear) (9 states)

No authority to regulate wireless phone service (20 states and the District of Columbia)

R.I. ( )

Conn. ( )

N.J. ( )

Del. ( )

Md. ( )

D.C. ( )

Note: We conducted our survey of state utility commissions from March 3, 2009, through April 1, 

2009, using a Web-based survey and subsequent follow-up with some states. We received 

responses from commissions in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Indiana is shown in this 

figure as not having authority to regulate wireless phone service but is shown in figure 5 as having 

rules that apply to wireless phone service. According to the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission, 

the commission has limited rules for carriers’ certification but does not have authority to regulate the 

terms and conditions of wireless phone service. 

Page 32 GAO-10-34 Telecommunications
 

State authority under federal law to regulate wireless phone service is not 

clear, based on the views of stakeholders we interviewed, court cases, 

FCC proceedings, a 2005 FCC task force report, and comments in our 

survey of state utility commissions. As discussed earlier, in 1993, Congress 

developed a wireless regulatory framework that expressly prohibited 

states from regulating the market entry or rates charged by wireless phone 

service carriers, while retaining states’ authority to regulate other “terms 

and conditions” of wireless service. In an accompanying report, Congress 

stated that “terms and conditions” was intended to include billing 

practices and disputes, as well as other consumer protection matters.63 The 

report further stated that examples of service it provided that could fall 

within a state’s lawful authority under “terms and conditions” were 

illustrative and not meant to preclude other matters generally understood 

to fall under “terms and conditions.”64 Despite this guidance, whether 

specific aspects of service are considered “rates” or “terms and 

conditions” has been the subject of disputes at FCC, in state regulatory 

bodies, and in the courts. For example, courts have recently been 

grappling with cases about whether billing line items and early termination 

fees are defined as “rates,” and are therefore not subject to state 

regulation, or as other “terms and conditions,” which may be regulated by 

states. Such cases have not resolved the issue, as courts have reached 

different conclusions about the meaning of these terms or await action by 

FCC. (See app. IV for examples of legal proceedings that address states’ 

authority to regulate terms and conditions of wireless phone service.) 

The Extent of States’ 

Authority to Regulate 

Wireless Phone Service 

under Federal Law Is 

Unclear 

FCC has provided limited guidance about the meaning of “terms and 

conditions.” The agency did offer preliminary observations in response to 

petitions states filed with FCC seeking to continue regulating wireless 

rates and in a few other proceedings.65 For example, in 1995, FCC noted 

that while states could not set or fix wireless rates in the future, they could 

process consumer complaints under state law because “terms and 

 

63H.R. Rep. No. 103-111 (1993). 

64H.R. Rep. No. 103-111 (1993). 

65Under the 1993 Act, states were allowed to petition FCC for authority to regulate wireless 

phone service rates. Shortly after the 1993 Act was enacted, eight states sought the right to 

continue regulating wireless rates. FCC denied all petitions from states seeking this 

authority. 

Page 33 GAO-10-34 Telecommunications
 

conditions” was flexible enough to allow states to continue in this role.66

FCC has also said that states may designate wireless carriers as ETCs and 

that states may impose consumer protection requirements on wireless 

carriers as a condition for ETC designation.67 In 1999, FCC concluded that 

billing information, practices, and disputes fall within these other terms 

and conditions.68 Subsequently, in 2005, as part of its truth-in-billing 

proceeding, FCC concluded that regulation of line items by states 

constituted rate regulation, thereby preempting state authority; however, 

this conclusion was rejected by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.69 In 

this proceeding, FCC also asked commenters to address the proper 

boundaries of “other terms and conditions” and to describe what they 

believe should be the roles of FCC and the states in defining carriers’ 

billing practices. However, this proceeding is still open, and FCC has taken 

no further action to define the proper role of states in regulating billing 

practices. 

The lack of clarity regarding states’ authority to regulate wireless service 

has led to delays in deciding some legal matters and some states’ 

reluctance to provide oversight. In some instances, when hearing cases 

involving early termination fees, courts have halted proceedings pending 

FCC’s resolution of its own proceedings examining whether such fees 

 

66In denying Connecticut’s petition to regulate wireless rates, FCC noted that consumer 

complaints may concern carriers’ practices separately and apart from their rates, such as 

customer billing practices, billing disputes, and other consumer matters, and therefore 

viewed “terms and conditions” as being flexible enough to allow the state to continue 

processing complaints related to such matters. See Petition of the Connecticut 

Department Public Utility Control to Retain Regulatory Control of the Rates of Wholesale 

Cellular Service Providers in the State of Connecticut, Report and Order, 10 FCC Rcd. 

7025 (1995). 

67Promoting Deployment and Subscribership in Unserved and Underserved Areas, 

Including Tribal and Insular Areas, Twelfth Report and Order, Memorandum Opinion and 

Order, and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 15 FCC Rcd. 12208, 12255, (2000) and 

Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd. 6371 

(2005). 

68Southwestern Bell Mobile Systems, Inc. Petition for a Declaratory Ruling Regarding the 

Just and Reasonable Nature of, and State Challenges to, Rates Charged by CMRS 

Providers when Charging for Incoming Calls and Charging for Calls in Whole-Minute 

Increments, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 14 FCC Rcd. 19898 (1999). 

69National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates v. FCC, 457 F.3d 1238, 

modified on reh’g 468 F.3d 1272 (11th Cir. 2006), cert. denied sub nom. Sprint Nextel v. 

National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates. 128 S. Ct. 1119(2008). 

Page 34 GAO-10-34 Telecommunications
 

should be defined as “rates” or “terms and conditions.”70 For example, in 

2008, rather than issue a ruling, a U.S. District Court in the state of 

Washington deferred to FCC a case against a wireless carrier involving 

early termination fees, citing FCC’s primary jurisdiction over the issue.71

According to FCC officials, when courts defer cases to FCC, the agency 

does not automatically address the issue, but requires that a party file a 

petition asking FCC to do so. Officials of national organizations 

representing state agencies and officials from state agencies we 

interviewed told us that some states are reluctant to regulate wireless 

phone service until their authority is clarified. This is due, in part, to the 

potential legal costs that could be incurred if their authority is challenged 

in court by the industry. Such reluctance may lead to less consumer 

protection in certain states that otherwise might issue regulations.72

As we have previously reported, to develop an efficient and effective 

regulatory framework, the appropriate roles of participants, including 

states, should be identified.73 Because of the lack of clarity noted above, 

various stakeholders have expressed a desire for clearer roles for FCC and 

the states in providing wireless phone service oversight. For example, 

officials of national organizations representing state agencies, as well as 

officials from state agencies we interviewed, told us that clarity from 

Congress or FCC about the scope of state authority in regulating wireless 

phone service is needed.74 Some industry representatives also told us that 

there should be better guidance on the respective roles of state and federal 

 

70Under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, courts may refer a matter extending beyond 

the conventional experiences of judges or falling within the realm of administrative 

discretion to an administrative agency with more specialized experience or expertise. 

71See Greene v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., Case No. C07-1563RSM, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12605 

(Feb. 7, 2008) citing Brown v. MCI WorldCom Network Servs., Inc., 277 F.3d 1166, 1172 

(9th Cir. 2002). 

72In a December 2008 letter to the presidential transition team, the National Association of 

Regulatory Utility Commissioners wrote that FCC should not limit states’ ability to address 

new consumer abuses or marketplace issues as they arise, saying states are almost always 

the first to provide relief when new abuses of individual or marketplace participants 

emerge. 

73GAO, Financial Regulation: A Framework for Crafting and Assessing Proposals to 

Modernize the Outdated U.S. Financial Regulatory System, GAO-09-216 (Washington, 

D.C.: Jan. 8, 2009). 

74These organizations are the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, 

the National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates, and the National Association 

of Attorneys General. 

Page 35 GAO-10-34 Telecommunications
 

agencies. A report by the FCC Wireless Broadband Access Task Force in 

2005 recommended that FCC further clarify states’ authority to regulate 

“terms and conditions,” saying ambiguity about this authority has resulted 

in several disputes at FCC, in state regulatory bodies, and in the courts, 

and has caused significant regulatory uncertainty that will adversely affect 

investment in and deployment of wireless networks and other services. In 

2005, CTIA–The Wireless Association petitioned FCC to declare that early 

termination fees are rates, and FCC sought comment on the petition.75

Recently, when CTIA–The Wireless Association withdrew its petition, four 

consumer groups opposed its withdrawal, hoping that FCC would offer 

some clarity on whether early termination fees are subject to state laws 

and regulations in order to help resolve some pending state lawsuits. 

State, consumer, and industry stakeholders hold varying views about how 

the meaning of “terms and conditions” should be clarified, which would 

affect states’ authority to regulate wireless phone service. Industry 

representatives argue that “terms and conditions” should be defined 

narrowly, which would preempt states’ ability to regulate aspects of 

wireless phone service that fall outside the definition. For example, 

industry representatives have stated that early termination fees and billing 

line items should be considered “rates,” rather than “terms and 

conditions,” which would preclude state utility commissions from 

regulating these aspects of service. In general, industry representatives 

have supported regulation at only the federal level, which they claim 

would avoid inconsistent state regulatory requirements they say would 

add to their costs. In contrast, state agency representatives and some 

consumer organizations have supported clarifying the meaning of “terms 

and conditions” to broadly encompass various aspects of wireless phone 

service, since they oppose efforts to preempt states’ regulatory authority. 

For example, state consumer advocates and consumer organizations have 

argued that aspects of service such as early termination fees and billing 

line items should fall within the definition of “terms and conditions” of 

service that states have authority to regulate. These representatives argue 

that states should have authority to create and enforce wireless phone 

 

75Additionally, SunCom, a wireless carrier, filed a similar petition in 2005 that FCC later 

dismissed at the carrier’s request. Another petition was filed by an opposing party who also 

joined in the request for dismissing the petitions. 

Page 36 GAO-10-34 Telecommunications
 

service regulations, since they claim states are better positioned to 

effectively address consumers’ problems.76

FCC’s Communication 

with State Utility 

Commissions Regarding 

Oversight of Wireless 

Phone Service Is 

Infrequent 

Based on the results of our survey of state utility commissions, 

communication between FCC and state commissions about wireless 

phone service oversight is infrequent. Eleven state commissions indicated 

they had communicated with FCC about wireless phone service oversight 

issues during the last 6 months of 2008, and 33 commissions reported they 

had no contact with FCC about wireless phone service oversight during 

that time.77 Four of the 11 state commissions reported having 

communication with FCC during that 6-month period about wireless 

phone service complaints the state commissions had received from 

consumers. State utility commission officials we interviewed in California, 

Nebraska, and West Virginia said there was a need for better 

communication between FCC and the states regarding wireless phone 

service oversight, and the National Association of Regulatory Utility 

Commissioners has called for more focused and routine dialogue between 

FCC and the states, including a formal process to discuss jurisdictional 

issues. 

While FCC officials told us they routinely coordinate with state utility 

commissions about the handling of wireless complaints, they have no 

written policies or procedures on how they communicate with the states 

about wireless phone service oversight issues. FCC officials do participate 

in monthly conference calls with state utility commissions and state 

attorneys general during which wireless phone service oversight issues 

can be discussed. However, the state utility commission organizer of this 

conference call told us that wireless issues are rarely discussed, in part 

because few states actively regulate wireless phone service. 

 

76Legislation proposed in Congress in 2007 sought to address the appropriate role of states 

in overseeing wireless phone service. For example, S. 2171 provided that states would not 

have authority to regulate wireless phone service terms and conditions, except pursuant to 

a law or regulation generally applicable to businesses in the state, while S. 2033 provides 

states with authority to enforce the federal standards the bill would create and expressly 

does not preempt states from providing additional protections to wireless phone service 

consumers. 

77State utility commissions were asked about their communication with FCC during the 6-

month period of July through December 2008. An additional seven commissions reported 

that they did not know if there had been communication with FCC about wireless phone 

service oversight. 

Page 37 GAO-10-34 Telecommunications
 

Communication between federal and state agencies that share oversight of 

a particular industry—such as between FCC and state utility 

commissions—can be useful for sharing expertise and information, such 

as data on consumer complaints that could be used to identify problems 

that may warrant regulatory oversight. As noted earlier, federal law 

provides that oversight of wireless phone service is a responsibility shared 

by FCC and the states. Also FCC, in issuing its rules for implementing the 

wireless regulatory framework created by the 1993 Act, agreed with a 

suggestion by the National Association of Regulatory Utility 

Commissioners that state and federal regulators should cooperate in 

monitoring the provision of wireless services and share monitoring 

information.78 We previously reported that collaboration between agencies 

tasked with shared responsibilities produces more public value than 

independent actions by such agencies.79 These practices include 

identifying and addressing needs by leveraging resources to support a 

common outcome and agreeing on roles and responsibilities in agency 

collaboration. Additionally, we have recently developed a framework with 

characteristics of an effective system for providing regulatory oversight.80

One characteristic of this framework is a systemwide focus—among both 

federal and state regulators—with mechanisms for identifying consumer 

concerns that may warrant regulatory intervention, while another 

characteristic is an efficient and effective system within which the 

appropriate role of the states has been considered, as well as how the 

federal and state roles can be better harmonized. Without effective 

communication between FCC and state regulators, FCC may not be able to 

ensure such focus and clear delineation of the federal and state roles. 

Without written policies and procedures for how FCC communicates with 

states about wireless phone service oversight, FCC may be missing 

opportunities to work with its state partners in conducting oversight, such 

as sharing complaint data that could be used for monitoring trends. This 

lack of communication may also limit FCC’s awareness of issues the states 

are encountering in their oversight of wireless carriers. Additionally, 

without clear awareness of state-level efforts, FCC may not be aware of 

 

78Implementation of Sections 3(n) of the Communications Act Regulatory Treatment of 

Mobile Survey, Second Report and Order, 9 FCC Rcd. 1411 (1994). 

79GAO, Results-Oriented Government, Practices That Can Help Enhance and Sustain 

Collaboration among Federal Agencies, GAO-06-15 (Washington , D.C.: Oct. 21, 2005). 

80GAO-09-216. 

Page 38 GAO-10-34 Telecommunications
 

inconsistencies among state oversight efforts that could indicate a need 

for changes in its regulations. 

Although the percentages of consumers dissatisfied with various aspects 

of their wireless phone service are small, these small percentages 

represent millions of people. By emphasizing its responsibility under the 

law to foster a competitive marketplace for wireless service, FCC has 

contributed to the industry’s growth and to innovative products and 

services that have benefited consumers. Nevertheless, FCC’s responsibility 

to protect consumers from harm remains critical, particularly given the 

growing numbers of wireless service consumers and the limited number of 

requirements governing key aspects of service that are currently of 

concern to consumers. 

Conclusions 

FCC’s processing of consumers’ informal complaints may be an important 

means for dissatisfied consumers to get help, but as long as FCC lacks 

clear outcome-related goals and measures for this process, consumers do 

not know what they can expect from it, and FCC cannot demonstrate its 

effectiveness in assisting consumers who need help. While most states 

accept wireless consumer complaints, many do not work with the carrier 

and the consumer to resolve those complaints, making FCC’s efforts an 

important resource for consumers in those states that do not accept or 

work to resolve complaints. However, if, as our survey of wireless users 

suggests, most consumers are not aware they can complain to FCC, those 

with problems may not know how to seek a fair resolution. Furthermore, 

without policies and procedures to monitor consumers’ concerns and 

thereby identify problems that may warrant regulatory or enforcement 

action, the FCC cannot ensure that consumers are adequately protected 

under the competitive deregulatory framework the agency has fostered. 

Finally, without clear guidance for states on the extent of their regulatory 

authority under federal law, or policies and procedures for how to 

communicate with states about wireless phone service oversight, FCC 

could be missing opportunities to partner with state agencies in 

developing an effective regulatory system. The lack of clarity about states’ 

authority may discourage some states from taking action to protect 

consumers. While FCC does have efforts to assist consumers, leveraging 

state resources by clarifying state authority would better ensure that 

identified problems can be addressed effectively at either the state or the 

federal level. Additionally, policies and procedures to guide how FCC and 

the states communicate would help ensure that FCC and the states are 

sharing information to guide their oversight. Improved communication 

Page 39 GAO-10-34 Telecommunications
 

between FCC and state regulators could help both parties ensure they are 

providing effective oversight with a systemwide focus and clearer roles 

enabling them to better identify trends in complaints and emerging 

consumer concerns that may warrant changes in regulation. 

We are making the following five recommendations to the Chairman of the 

Federal Communications Commission: Recommendations for 

Executive Action 

To improve the effectiveness and accountability of FCC’s efforts to 

oversee wireless phone service, direct the commission to 

1. clearly inform consumers that they may complain to FCC about 

problems with wireless phone service and what they can expect as 

potential outcomes from this process, and expand FCC’s outreach to 

consumers about these efforts; 

2. develop goals and related measures for FCC’s informal complainthanding efforts that clearly articulate intended outcomes and address 

important dimensions of performance; and 

3. develop and implement policies and procedures for conducting 

documented monitoring and analysis of consumer complaints in order 

to help the agency identify trends and emerging issues and determine 

whether carriers are complying with existing rules or whether new 

rules may be needed to protect consumers. 

To better ensure a systemwide focus in providing oversight of wireless 

phone service and improve FCC’s partnership with state agencies that also 

oversee this service, direct the commission to 

4. develop and issue guidance delineating federal and state authority to 

regulate wireless phone service, including pulling together prior 

rulings on this issue; addressing the related open proceedings on truthin-billing and early termination fees; and, if needed, seeking 

appropriate statutory authority from Congress; and 

5. develop and implement policies and procedures for communicating 

with states about wireless phone service oversight. 

We provided a draft of this report to FCC for its review and comment. FCC 

provided written comments, which appear in appendix V. FCC agreed with 

our recommendation on monitoring and had no position on the others, but 

Agency Comments 

Page 40 GAO-10-34 Telecommunications
 

noted it has started to take steps to address the issues we raise in our 

report. In particular, FCC noted that its August 2009 notice of inquiry 

sought comment on a number of issues related to the findings and 

recommendations in this report.81 The agency views this action as the first 

step in implementing several of the report’s recommendations. 

Regarding clearly informing consumers about its complaint process and 

expanding outreach to consumers, FCC noted that its notice of inquiry 

sought comment on whether the agency should take measures to ensure 

that consumers are aware of its complaint process. Additionally, FCC 

noted that it intends to do more to better inform consumers of its services 

to assist consumers, including making it clear that consumers can request 

that FCC mediate with their carrier on their behalf. Regarding developing 

goals and measures that clearly articulate the intended outcomes of its 

complaint-handling efforts, FCC noted that it already has some 

performance measures for these efforts and, that since the outcome of 

each complaint varies depending on its particular circumstances, the 

appropriate performance measures for this effort should measure its 

procedural aspects rather than its substantive outcomes. We note, 

however, that as we indicated in this report, it is not clear to consumers 

what they can expect from FCC’s complaint process. Articulating the 

intended outcome of this process—whether it be to help consumers 

resolve their problems, facilitate communication between carriers and 

consumers, or both—would provide consumers with a better 

understanding of the purpose of this effort, as well as help the agency 

better demonstrate results. Regarding our recommendation to develop and 

implement documented monitoring of its consumer complaints, FCC 

noted that it has been working to make improvements to its complaint 

database, including its analytical tools, which will facilitate such 

monitoring. 

Regarding the development of guidance delineating federal and state 

authority to regulate wireless phone service, FCC noted that, in response 

to its August 2009 notice of inquiry, the agency is currently updating the 

public record regarding its truth-in-billing rules and carriers’ early 

termination fees, and expects to use this as the basis for potential federal 

regulatory action, which could include delineating areas within the states’ 

authority that the record indicates should be addressed. Regarding 

 

81Consumer Information and Disclosure, Truth-in-Billing, and Billing Format IPEnabled Services, Notice of Inquiry, FCC 09-68 (2009). 

Page 41 GAO-10-34 Telecommunications
 

policies and procedures for communicating with states about wireless 

phone service oversight, FCC noted that it is always looking for new and 

better ways to communicate with its state partners and that its recent 

notice of inquiry also asks whether FCC can take further action to reach 

out to state, as well as federal, local, and tribal government entities. 

We also provided FCC a draft of this report’s related e-supplement, 

GAO-10-35SP, containing additional results of our surveys of consumers 

and state utility commissions. FCC indicated it did not have any comments 

in response to the e-supplement. 

As we agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents 

of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution of it until 30 days 

from the date of this letter. In addition, the report will be available at no 

charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov. 

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me 

at (202) 512-2834 or goldsteinm@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of 

Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page 

of this report. Contact information and major contributors to this report 

are listed in appendix VI. 

Mark L. Goldstein 

Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues 

Page 42 GAO-10-34 Telecommunications
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

Page 43 GAO-10-34 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

This report examines (1) consumers’ satisfaction with wireless phone 

service and problems they have experienced with this service, as well as 

the industry’s response to these problems; (2) the Federal Communication 

Commission’s (FCC) efforts to oversee services provided by wireless 

phone service carriers; and (3) state utility commissions’ efforts to oversee 

services provided by wireless phone service carriers. 

To respond to the overall objectives of this report, we interviewed FCC 

officials and reviewed documents obtained from the agency. We also 

reviewed relevant laws and FCC regulations. Additionally we interviewed 

individuals representing consumer organizations, state agencies, and the 

industry to obtain their views on wireless phone service consumer 

concerns and oversight efforts. Table 4 lists the organizations with whom 

we spoke. 

To obtain information about consumers’ satisfaction with wireless phone 

service and problems they have experienced with this service, we 

conducted a telephone survey of the U.S. adult population of wireless 

phone service users. Our aim was to produce nationally representative 

estimates of adult wireless phone service users’ (1) satisfaction with 

wireless service overall and with specific aspects of service, including 

billing, terms of service, carriers’ explanation of key aspects of service, 

call quality and coverage, and customer service; (2) frequency of problems 

with billing and call quality; (3) desire to switch carriers and barriers to 

switching; and (4) knowledge of where to complain about problems. 

Percentage estimates have a margin of error of less than 5 percentage 

points, unless otherwise noted. We conducted this survey of the American 

public from February 23, 2009, through April 5, 2009. A total of 1,143 

completed interviews were collected, and calls were made to all 50 states. 

Our sampling approach included randomly contacting potential 

respondents using both landline and cell phone telephone numbers. Using 

these two sampling frames provided us with a more comprehensive 

coverage of adult cell phone users than if we had sampled from only one 

frame. 

Because we followed a probability procedure based on random selections, 

our sample is only one of a large number of samples that we might have 

drawn. Since each sample could have provided different estimates, we 

express our confidence in the precision of our particular sample’s results 

as a 95 percent confidence interval. This is the interval that would contain 

the actual population value for 95 percent of the samples we could have 

drawn. As a result, we are 95 percent confident that each of the confidence 

intervals in this report will include the true values in the study population. 

 Telecommunications 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

Each sampled adult was subsequently weighted in the analysis to account 

statistically for all of the adult cell phone users of the population. The final 

weight applied to each responding adult cell phone user included an 

adjustment for the overlap in the two sampling frames, a raking 

adjustment to align the weighted sample to the known population 

distributions from the 2009 supplement of the U.S. Census Bureau’s 

Current Population Survey and the Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention’s 2008 National Health Interview Survey, and an expansion 

weight to ensure the total number of weighted adults represent an 

estimated adult population eligible for this study.1

We conducted an analysis of the final weighted estimates from our survey 

designed to identify whether our results contain a significant level of bias 

because our results inherently do not reflect the experiences of those who 

did not respond to our survey—i.e., a nonresponse bias analysis. We 

compared unadjusted weighted estimates and final, nonresponse-adjusted 

weighted estimates of the proportion of U.S. adults’ cell phone usage to 

similar population estimates from the 2008 National Health Interview 

Survey, which also includes questions about household telephones and 

whether anyone in the household has a wireless phone. While we 

identified evidence of potential bias in the unadjusted weighted estimate, 

the final weighting adjustments appear to address this potential bias, and 

we did not observe the same level of bias when examining the final 

weighted estimates. Based on these findings, we chose to include final 

weighted estimates at the national level from our survey in the report. In 

addition, we identified all estimates in the report with margins of error 

that exceeded plus or minus 5 percentage points and we did not publish 

estimates with a margin of error greater than plus or minus 9 percentage 

points. 

Telephone surveys require assumptions about the disposition of 

noncontacted sample households that meet certain standards. These 

assumptions affect the response rate calculation. For this survey the 

response rate was calculated using the American Association of Public 

Opinion Research (AAPOR) Response Rate 3, which includes a set of 

 

1

S.J. Blumberg and J.V. Luke, Wireless substitution: Early release of estimates from the 

National Health Interview Survey, January-June 2008, a report for the Centers for 

Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, Washington, D.C., 

Dec. 17, 2008. 

Page 44 GAO-10-34 Telecommunications
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

assumptions.2 Based on these assumptions, the response rate for the 

survey was 32 percent; however, the response rate could have been lower 

if different assumptions had been made and might also be different if 

calculated using a different method. We used random digit dial (RDD) 

sampling frames that include both listed and unlisted landline numbers 

from working blocks of numbers in the United States. The RDD sampling 

frame approach cannot provide any coverage of the increasing number of 

cell-phone-only households and limited coverage of cell-phone-mostly 

households (i.e., households that receive most of their calls on cell phones 

in spite of having a landline). Because of the importance of reaching such 

households for this survey about wireless phone service, we also used an 

RDD cell phone sampling frame. The RDD cell phone sampling frame was 

randomly generated from blocks of phone numbers that are dedicated to 

cellular service. About 43 percent of the completed interviews were from 

the RDD cell phone sample. 

Because many households contain more than one potential respondent, 

obtaining an unbiased sample from an RDD frame of landline numbers 

requires interviewing a randomly selected respondent from among all 

potential respondents within the sampled household (as opposed to 

always interviewing the individual who initially answers the phone). We 

obtained an unbiased sample by using the most recent birthday method, in 

which the interviewer asks to speak to the household member aged 18 or 

older with a wireless phone who had the most recent birthday. If the 

respondent who was identified as the member of the household with the 

most recent birthday was unavailable to talk and asked to schedule a 

callback, the call representative recorded the person’s name and preferred 

telephone number for the callback. There were also cases when a 

respondent from the cell phone sample asked to be called back on his or 

her landline. These respondents, if they completed the survey, were 

considered a completed interview from the cell phone sample. There were 

no respondent selection criteria for the cell phone sample; each number 

dialed from the cell phone sample was assumed to be a cell phone 

number, and each cell phone was assumed to have only one possible 

respondent to contact. 

 

2

The method we used to calculate the response rate, AAPOR Response Rate 3, uses a 

calculation that includes an estimate of the proportion of the sample that is eligible to 

complete the survey among those whose eligibility for the survey is unknown. The estimate 

is derived using a formula that includes the number of respondents interviewed, the 

number of respondents known to be eligible that were not interviewed, and the number of 

respondents contacted that were determined to be ineligible. 

Page 45 GAO-10-34 Telecommunications
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

The results of this survey reflect wireless phone users’ experience with 

their current or most recent wireless phone service from the beginning of 

2008 through the time they were surveyed. Not all questions were asked of 

all respondents. For example, questions about the prevalence of billing 

problems were asked only of respondents who indicated they were solely 

or jointly responsible for paying for their service. Additionally, satisfaction 

with wireless coverage for particular locations (i.e. at home, at work, and 

in a vehicle) was calculated only among respondents who indicated they 

used their wireless phone service in those locations. The survey and a 

more complete tabulation of the results can be viewed by accessing 

GAO-10-35SP. 

To identify the type and nature of problems consumers have experienced 

in recent years with their wireless phone service, we interviewed officials 

from FCC, consumer organizations, national organizations that represent 

state agency officials, and state agency officials from three selected 

states—California, Nebraska, and West Virginia—representing utility 

commissions, offices of consumer advocates, and offices of attorneys 

general (see table 4). We selected these states based on their varying 

geography, populations, region, and approaches to overseeing wireless 

phone service, as indicated in part by information obtained from national 

organizations representing state agency officials. We also interviewed 

officials from the four major wireless carriers, two selected smaller 

carriers that serve mostly rural areas, and wireless industry associations. 

In addition, we reviewed documents obtained from some of these sources. 

We also analyzed FCC’s wireless complaint data on complaints received 

from 2004 through 2008. We reviewed FCC’s processes for generating 

these data and checked the data for errors and inconsistencies. We 

determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this 

review. We also obtained the total number of wireless complaints received 

in 2008 by the 21 state utility commissions that record and track wireless 

phone service consumer complaints. While we did not assess the reliability 

of the state complaint data, we are providing the numbers of complaints 

states reported receiving for illustrative purposes. 

To identify major actions the industry has taken in recent years to address 

consumers’ concerns, we interviewed the industry organizations named 

above and reviewed related documentation (see table 4). We also 

requested service quality information from the four major carriers, 

including measures of network performance and the number and types of 

customer complaints. Carriers told us that this information is proprietary 

and sensitive, and as we did not obtain comparable information from all 

four carriers, we were not able to present any aggregate information based 

Page 46 GAO-10-34 Telecommunications
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

on these data. Additionally, we interviewed consumer, state, and federal 

stakeholders about the effectiveness of industry efforts to address 

consumers’ concerns (see table 4). 

To evaluate how FCC oversees wireless phone service, including the 

agency’s efforts to process complaints, monitor sources of information to 

inform policy decisions, and create and enforce rules, we interviewed FCC 

officials about these activities and reviewed related documentation 

obtained from these officials. We also reviewed relevant laws, regulations, 

and procedures, as well as FCC’s quarterly complaint reports, strategic 

plan, and budget with performance goals and measures. In addition, we 

reviewed requirements of the Government Performance and Results Act of 

1993 and our prior recommendations on performance goals and measures 

and determined whether FCC’s efforts to measure the performance of its 

efforts to process consumer complaints are consistent with these 

requirements and recommendations. We also interviewed consumer, state, 

and industry stakeholders about their views on FCC’s efforts to provide 

oversight (see table 4). We focused our review on FCC’s oversight of 

wireless phone service issues that have been major areas of concern for 

consumers in recent years, specifically targeting consumer protection 

efforts and those actions related to how wireless carriers interact with and 

serve their customers. We did not assess how FCC oversees a number of 

other facets of the wireless industry, including competition, spectrum 

allocation, licensing, construction, technical issues such as interference, 

public safety, or the agency’s obligations under the Telephone Consumer 

Protection Act and the Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited 

Pornography and Marketing Act. 

To describe state utility commissions’ efforts to oversee wireless phone 

service, we surveyed commissions in all 50 states and the District of 

Columbia. We conducted this survey from March 3, 2009, through April 1, 

2009. We received responses from all 51 commissions, which we obtained 

through a Web-based survey we administered and subsequent follow-up 

with some states. The survey and a more complete tabulation of the 

results can be viewed by accessing GAO-10-35SP. To obtain illustrative 

information about these issues, we interviewed state officials in public 

utility commissions, consumer advocate offices, and offices of attorneys 

general in three selected states (California, Nebraska, and West Virginia). 

Although we met with the offices of the state attorneys general in the three 

selected states and a national organization representing state attorneys 

general, we did not attempt to assess the full breadth of involvement of 

state attorneys general in addressing wireless phone service consumer 

concerns. 

Page 47 GAO-10-34 Telecommunications
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

Table 4: Organizations Interviewed 

National consumer organizations 

AARP 

Consumers Union 

Council of Better Business Bureaus 

State consumer organizations 

Consumer Action (California) 

The Utility Reform Network (California) 

Wireless phone service carriers 

AT&T 

nTelosa

Sprint 

T-Mobile 

Verizon 

Viaeroa

Wireless industry associations 

CTIA–The Wireless Industry 

PCIA–The Wireless Infrastructure Association 

Rural Cellular Association 

State agency associations 

National Association of Attorneys General 

National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners 

National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates 

State agencies 

California Office of the Attorney General 

California Public Utility Commissionb

Nebraska Office of the Attorney General 

Nebraska Public Service Commissionb

West Virginia Office of the Attorney General 

West Virginia Public Service Commissionb

Source: GAO interviews. 

a

We selected the two rural carriers, nTelos and Viaero, because they operated in two of our selected 

states and were referred to us by state officials we interviewed in these two states. 

b

At the three state utility commissions, we met with officials responsible for regulatory issues, 

consumer assistance, and consumer advocacy. 

Page 48 GAO-10-34 Telecommunications
Appendix II: Analysis of FCC Wireless Appendix II: Analysis of FCC Wireless Consumer Complaint Data 

Consumer Complaint Data 

Overall, the number of informal consumer complaints FCC has received 

about the service provided by wireless phone carriers has decreased since 

2004 (see table 5).1

 FCC received 20,753 complaints about the service 

provided by wireless phone carriers in 2008, the second-lowest total since 

2004. 

Table 5: Consumer Complaints FCC Received about Services Provided by Wireless Phone Service Carriers from 2004 

through 2008a

Complaint category 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Total (percent of total)

Billing and ratesb15,415 13,309 7,517 9,156 9,588 54,985 (43%)

Call qualityc3,131 3,932 2,116 2,612 2,476 14,267 (11)

Contract early terminationd4,119 3,821 1,623 1,643 2,105 13,311 (10)

Customer servicee2,038 3,472 2,176 3,602 472 11,760 (9)

Carrier marketing and advertisingf3,167 3,008 1,575 1,478 1,139 10,367 (8)

Number portabilityg4,962 838 379 483 605 7,267 (6)

Equipment 1,366 1,610 978 1,111 1,300 6,365 (5)

Otherh1,190 1,399 1,040 2,053 3,068 8,750 (7)

Total 35,388 31,389 17,404 22,138 20,753 127,072 (100%)

Source: GAO analysis of FCC data. 

Note: Percentages may not sum to 100 because of rounding. 

a

We analyzed FCC informal complaint data and excluded complaints unrelated to wireless phone 

service carriers, including nonwireless complaints that FCC categorized as wireless complaints and 

complaints about unsolicited telemarketing. FCC reported receiving more than 42,000 wireless 

complaints about unsolicited telemarketing in 2008. 

b

FCC’s billing and rates category includes complaints about credits, adjustments, and refunds; lineitem charges such as taxes and surcharges; charges for time spent talking on the phone; and service 

plan rates, among other issues. FCC also receives complaints about unauthorized or misleading 

charges, which we included with complaints about billing and rates in our analysis. 

 

1

FCC defines informal complaints as any correspondence or communication received via 

mail, fax, e-mail, or telephone from or on behalf of an individual that (1) identifies a 

particular entity under FCC’s jurisdiction, (2) alleges harm or injury, and (3) requests relief. 

FCC publishes a quarterly report on the number of top categories of complaints it receives 

about wireless phone service and other telecommunications services. Because of 

differences in how our analysis and FCC identify some complaints, the numbers of 

complaints in this table will not exactly match the number of complaints FCC publishes in 

its quarterly reports. FCC reviewed our method of categorizing complaints and indicated it 

was acceptable for our purposes. FCC also reports on the number and types of consumer 

inquiries it receives; however, we did not include these data in our analysis because of their 

informational nature. 

Page 49 GAO-10-34 Telecommunications 
Appendix II: Analysis of FCC Wireless 

Consumer Complaint Data 

c

FCC defines wireless “service related” complaints as including complaints about lack of coverage, 

telephone reception, and specific problems such as dead spots, dropped calls, and busy signals due 

to network congestion. We refer to these issues as “call quality.” 

d

Includes complaints about termination of wireless phone service by the consumer or by the carrier. 

e

Although FCC has not specifically identified customer service complaints in its quarterly reports of 

informal complaints from 2004 through 2008, FCC does have categories for such complaints in its 

data. 

f

According to FCC, carrier marketing and advertising complaints have to do with marketing and 

advertising practices of wireless phone service providers that include alleged misrepresentations. 

g

FCC promulgated rules in 2002 allowing customers to keep their phone numbers when switching 

between wireless carriers or between landline and wireless services. Carriers serving larger cities 

were required to implement the rules in 2003, and other carriers were required to do so in 2004. 

h

Our categorization of “other” complaints includes complaints FCC identified simply as “other,” 

complaints of identity fraud, and complaints in several other categories such as referrals to 

government agencies and disability issues. 

From our analysis of FCC data on complaints about the service provided 

by wireless phone carriers from 2004 through 2008, we identified specific 

problem areas that complaints cited within the major complaint 

categories: 

• Billing and rates: Within this category, specific issues consumers 

complained about included problems obtaining credits, refunds, or 

adjustments to their bills; charges for minutes talking on a wireless phone; 

recurring charges on their bills; rates; and unauthorized or misleading 

charges. Of the nearly 55,000 billing complaints FCC received during this 

period, there were 28,000 focused on obtaining credits, refunds, or billing 

adjustments. FCC also received almost 9,000 billing complaints about 

charges for minutes talking on a wireless phone. Additionally, there were 

more than 5,500 complaints about recurring charges on consumers’ bills 

and more than 5,500 complaints about the rates they received from their 

wireless service providers. Finally, our analysis of FCC’s data identified 

more than 2,100 wireless complaints concerning unauthorized, misleading, 

or deceptive charges (known as “cramming”). 

• Call quality: Within this category, the majority of consumers complained 

about three issue areas: the quality of wireless phone service in their local 

service area, the premature termination of calls (i.e., “dropped calls”), and 

the inability to use their wireless phone because of service interruption by 

wireless phone service providers. Specifically, of the more than 14,000 call 

quality complaints FCC received during this period, more than 7,300 were 

about the quality of wireless phone service in the local service area. FCC 

Page 50 GAO-10-34 Telecommunications
Appendix II: Analysis of FCC Wireless 

Consumer Complaint Data 

also received more than 3,200 complaints about dropped calls and more 

than 2,000 complaints about interruption of service by wireless service 

providers. 

• Contract early termination: This category includes termination of 

wireless phone service by the consumer or by the carrier. Nearly 12,000, or 

just under 90 percent, of all terms-of-service contract complaints FCC 

received were about termination by consumers prior to the end of a 

specified contract term, which would result in an early termination fee. 

• Customer service: Customer service complaints were the fourth largest 

category of complaints; however, FCC did not report customer service 

complaints as a top category of complaints in its quarterly reports from 

2004 through 2008. In comparison, FCC identified carrier marketing and 

advertising as a top category of complaint in each year from 2004 through 

2008, even though there were more customer service complaints in 2005, 

2006, and 2007. An FCC official told us they did not include customer 

service complaints in the quarterly reports because they fell within the 

“other” category, which FCC does not report. FCC also indicated that the 

large decrease in the number of customer service complaints from more 

than 3,500 in 2007 to fewer than 500 in 2008 was due in part to the agency’s 

redesign of its complaint forms, which allows for more accurate coding of 

complaints under specific topics rather than placing them in the “service 

treatment” category FCC uses to track customer service issues. 

Page 51 GAO-10-34 Telecommunications
Appendix III: Industry Actions to Address 

Wireless Consumer Concerns 

The wireless phone service industry has taken some actions to address the 

types of consumer concerns we identified. Specifically, in 2003, the 

industry adopted a voluntary code, and since then, carriers have taken 

other measures. Table 6 outlines how elements of the industry code and 

examples of subsequent major actions we identified among the four 

largest carriers correspond to the key areas of consumer concern we 

identified. 

Table 6: Industry Actions in Response to Key Areas of Consumer Concern 

Key area Nature of concerns 

2003 industry code 

requirementsa

Examples of recent actions 

reported by some or all major 

carriersb

Billing • Complexity of billing 

statements leads to lack of 

consumer understanding. 

• Bills contain unexpected 

charges and errors. 

• Separate charges for service 

retained by the carrier from 

taxes and fees remitted to 

government entities. 

• Provided customers with a draft 

bill or an estimate of their first 

bill when they sign up for 

service. Redesigned their bills 

to make them easier to 

understand. 

Terms of service 

contract or agreement 

• Consumers are subject to 

early termination fees, 

regardless of their reason for 

wanting to terminate service, 

effectively locking 

consumers into their 

contracts. 

• Consumers are not given 

enough time to try out their 

service before having to 

commit to the contract. 

• Carriers extend contracts 

when consumers request 

service changes. 

• Provide a 14-day period for 

consumers to try out service. 

• Confirm terms and conditions 

with a customer who agrees 

to a change in service that is 

bound by a contract 

extension. 

• Do not modify the material 

terms of contracts in a 

materially adverse manner 

without providing advance 

notice and allowing 

subscribers 14 days to cancel 

with no early termination fee. 

• Implemented policies to prorate 

early termination fees. 

• Offered noncontract options 

without early termination fees, 

such as prepaid or month-tomonth plans. 

• Allowed 30 days to try out 

service, during which time 

customers may cancel without 

paying an early termination fee 

(one carrier provided 30 days 

only in California and 20 days 

elsewhere). 

• Stopped extending contracts for 

some service changes. 

Explanation of service • Key aspects of service, such 

as rates and coverage, are 

not clearly explained to 

consumers at the point of 

sale (when they sign up for 

the service). 

• Disclose at the point of sale 

and on the carrier’s Web site 

information about rates and 

fees (including for initiation 

and early termination) and 

provide maps depicting where 

service is generally available, 

and provide contract terms. 

• Agree to provide specific 

disclosures in advertising. 

• Provided written explanations of 

service terms at the point of 

sale. 

• Redesigned statement outlining 

service terms and conditions to 

make it easier to understand. 

• Developed Web-based map 

tools that allow customers to 

research where coverage is 

available. 

Appendix III: Industry Actions to Address 

Wireless Consumer Concerns 

Page 52 GAO-10-34 Telecommunications 
Appendix III: Industry Actions to Address 

Wireless Consumer Concerns 

Key area Nature of concerns 

2003 industry code 

requirementsa

Examples of recent actions 

reported by some or all major 

carriersb

Call quality • Consumers experience 

dropped or blocked calls, as 

well as noise on calls that 

makes hearing calls difficult. 

• Consumers experience poor 

coverage, which in rural 

areas may be the result of 

lack of infrastructure and in 

urban areas stems from lack 

of capacity for peak call 

volumes. 

• No specific requirement other 

than to provide maps 

depicting service coverage. 

• Spent billions of dollars on 

network infrastructure in recent 

years.c

• Used information from network 

testing and feedback from 

consumers to inform decisions 

about upgrading wireless 

networks to improve coverage. 

Customer service • Consumers experience 

problems such as long waits, 

ineffective assistance, and 

insufficient resolution to 

problems. 

• Provide customers with 

contact information for ready 

access to customer service. 

• Respond to complaints 

forwarded by state or federal 

agencies within 30 days. 

• Implemented specific initiatives 

to improve the performance of 

their customer service 

representatives. 

Source: GAO analysis. 

a

Carriers that sign this voluntary code agree to abide by these requirements. Carriers submit 

information annually to CTIA–The Wireless Association to demonstrate compliance with the code. 

Association representatives told us that they review these materials internally to check compliance. 

b

Although we interviewed the four major carriers (AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile, and Verizon), we could not 

determine the full extent to which they have taken these actions because we could not obtain 

complete documentation from all of the carriers to confirm actions discussed. 

c

According to CTIA–The Wireless Association, the wireless industry spent an average of $24 billion 

annually between 2001 and 2007 on infrastructure and equipment to improve call quality and 

coverage. 

Page 53 GAO-10-34 Telecommunications
Appendix IV: E

FCC an

to Reg

xamples of Actions Taken by 

d Courts Regarding States’ Authority

ulate Wireless Phone Service 

Page 54 GAO-10-34 

Appendix IV: Examples of Actions Taken by 

FCC and Courts Regarding States’ Authority 

to Regulate Wireless Phone Service 

Federal law provides that while a state may not regulate a wireless 

carrier’s rates or entry, it may regulate the other terms and conditions of 

wireless phone service. Section 332(c)(3)(A) of title 47 of the U.S. Code 

does not define what constitutes rate and entry regulation or what 

comprises other terms and conditions of wireless phone service.1

 This has 

left it up to FCC and courts to further define which specific aspects of 

service fall within the scope of these respective terms. Recently, two areas 

have garnered much attention at FCC and in the courts—the ability of 

states to regulate billing line items and the imposition of early termination 

fees. However, clarity has not yet been achieved. 

Billing Line Items One area of disagreement is whether billing line items, such as surcharges 

and taxes that appear on consumers’ wireless bills, should be considered a 

rate or a term and condition of service. In 2005, under its truth-in-billing 

proceeding, FCC held that state regulations requiring or prohibiting the 

use of line items for wireless carriers constituted rate regulation and 

 

1

There is some legislative history on the meaning of “terms and conditions.” The House 

Report on the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (1993 Act), in which the 

amended language in Section 332 was enacted, states that “Section 332(c)(3) provides that 

state or local governments cannot impose rate or entry regulation on private land mobile 

service or commercial mobile services; this paragraph further stipulates that nothing here 

shall preclude a state from regulating the other terms and conditions of commercial mobile 

services. By ‘terms and conditions,’ the committee intends to include such matters as 

customer billing information and practices and billing disputes and other consumer 

protection matters . . . or such other matters as fall within a state’s lawful authority. This 

list is intended to be illustrative only and not meant to preclude other matters generally 

understood to fall under ‘terms and conditions.’” H.R. Rep. No. 103-111 at 211, 261 (1993). 

In 1999, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals noted that section 332(c)(3)(A) leaves its key 

terms undefined and does not state what constitutes rate regulation or what comprises 

other terms and conditions of wireless service. Cellular Telecomms. Indus. Ass’n v. FCC, 

168 F.3d 1332 (D.C. Cir. 1999). 

 Telecommunications 
Appendix IV: Examples of Actions Taken by 

FCC and Courts Regarding States’ Authority 

to Regulate Wireless Phone Service 

therefore were preempted.2 In the same proceeding, FCC solicited 

comments on the proper boundaries of “other terms and conditions” 

within the statute and asked commenters to delineate what they believe 

should be the relative roles of FCC and the states in defining carriers’ 

proper billing practices. The National Association of State Utility 

Consumer Advocates challenged FCC’s preemption finding in court, and 

the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (Eleventh 

Circuit) found that FCC had exceeded its authority.3

 Specifically, the court 

found that the presentation of a line item on a bill is not a “charge or 

payment” for service, but rather falls within the definition of “other terms 

and conditions” that states may regulate. 

Subsequent to the Eleventh Circuit’s ruling, the Western District Court of 

Washington rejected the Eleventh Circuit’s analysis and concluded that 

FCC did not exceed its statutory authority when it preempted line-item 

regulation and that line items are charges.4

 However, the United States 

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit) reversed the district 

court, finding that the Eleventh Circuit decision is binding outside of the 

Eleventh Circuit.5

 Furthermore, the Ninth Circuit stated that it agreed with 

the Eleventh Circuit’s determination that how line items are displayed or 

 

2

FCC created its truth-in-billing rules in 1999 in response to concerns about growing 

consumer confusion relating to billing for telecommunications service. Although the 

agency stated that these rules should apply to all carriers, it did not apply all of the rules to 

wireless carriers at that time. See Truth-in-Billing and Billing Format, First Report and 

Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 14 FCC Rcd. 7492 (1999). In 2005, FCC 

expanded the applicability of the truth-in-billing rules to wireless phone service carriers. In 

addition, as part of this proceeding, FCC addressed a Petition for Declaratory Ruling filed 

by the National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates seeking to prohibit 

telecommunications carriers from imposing any separate line items or surcharges on a 

customer’s bill that were not mandated or authorized by federal, state, or local law. See 

Truth-in-Billing Format; National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates’ 

Petition for Declaratory Ruling Regarding Truth-in- Billing, Second Report and Order, 

Declaratory Ruling, and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 20 FCC Rcd. 6448 

(2005) (Declaratory Ruling and/or Second Truth-in-Billing Order and/or Second Further 

Notice). Preemption is when federal law supersedes state law. 

3

National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates v. FCC, 457 F.3d 1238, 

modified on reh’g 468 F.3d 1272 (11th Cir. 2006), cert. denied sub nom. Sprint Nextel v. 

National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates. 128 S. Ct. 1119(2008). 

4

Peck v. Cingular Wireless, No. CV-06-00343-TSZ (W.D. Wash. Oct. 24, 2006); see, also, 

Hesse v. Sprint Spectrum L.P., No. C06-0592-JCC, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3885 (W.D. Wash., 

Jan. 18, 2007). 

5

Peck v. Cingular Wireless Services, Inc., 535 F.3d 1053 (9th Cir. 2008). 

Page 55 GAO-10-34 Telecommunications
Appendix IV: Examples of Actions Taken by 

FCC and Courts Regarding States’ Authority 

to Regulate Wireless Phone Service 

presented on wireless consumers’ bills does not fall within the definition 

of “rates.” 

FCC has not responded to these court decisions, nor has FCC concluded 

its truth-in-billing proceeding. While FCC has received comments on its 

2005 truth-in-billing proposal, it has taken no further action in this 

proceeding. Accordingly, the issue of how states may regulate billing line 

items remains unclear. In August 2009, as part of its effort to seek 

comment on a number of telecommunications consumer issues, FCC 

sought comment on the effectiveness of its truth-in-billing rules and 

whether changes in these rules are needed.6

Early Termination Fees Early termination fees are another area where the distinction between 

“rates” and “terms and conditions” is not clear. Wireless carriers routinely 

offer customers discounts on cell phones in exchange for the customer’s 

commitment to a 1- or 2-year contract. If the contract is canceled before 

the end of the contract term, the customer is generally charged a fee, 

commonly referred to as an early termination fee. 

The Western District Court of Washington, in recently considering an early 

termination fees case, noted that it is not clear whether a wireless service 

carrier’s early termination fees are within the preemptive scope of “rates 

charged” under the statute. The court noted that federal courts that have 

considered the matter appear to be split on the issue, citing the examples 

of a district court that found early termination fees to fall under “terms 

and conditions” and another district court that found them to be “rates 

charged.”7

 Because of the ongoing FCC efforts in this area, the Western 

 

6

Consumer Information and Disclosure, Truth-in-Billing, and Billing Format IPEnabled Services, Notice of Inquiry, FCC 09-68 (2009). 

7

Green v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., Case No. C07-1563RSM, United States District Court for the 

Western District of Washington, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12605 (Feb. 7, 2008). The cases the 

court cited were Phillips v. AT&T Wireless, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14544 (S.D. Iowa 2004), 

in which the court found that early termination fees are other terms and conditions and 

Chandler v. AT&T Wireless Services, Inc., 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14884 (S.D. Ill. 2004), in 

which the court found that early termination fees were rates charged.

Page 56 GAO-10-34 Telecommunications
Appendix IV: Examples of Actions Taken by 

FCC and Courts Regarding States’ Authority 

to Regulate Wireless Phone Service 

District Court of Washington halted its proceeding pending a 

determination from FCC about this issue.8

In 2005, FCC was drawn into this debate at the request of a South Carolina 

court. In February 2005, SunCom, a wireless carrier, at the request of the 

court, filed a petition with FCC on whether early termination fees are rates 

charged.9

 In May 2005, FCC released a public notice seeking comments on 

this matter.10 Subsequently, the parties to the litigation entered into a 

settlement agreement and jointly requested that FCC dismiss the matter 

without further review.11 FCC issued an order terminating the proceeding; 

however, the agency noted that it had a similar petition under review that 

it intended to address “in the near future.”12 The similar petition was filed 

by CTIA–The Wireless Association in March 2005, asking for an 

“expedited” ruling on whether early termination fees are rates.13 FCC 

sought comments on the matter from interested parties, who have 

submitted over 37,000 filings in this proceeding. 

In view of the growing concern over early termination fees and the 

number of complaints that FCC receives from consumers on this issue, 

FCC held a hearing in June 2008. At this hearing, expert panelists testified 

on the use of early termination fees by communications service providers. 

A year after the hearing, CTIA–The Wireless Association notified FCC that 

it was withdrawing its petition, citing the evolution of the competitive 

 

8

The court halted the proceeding under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, which allows a 

federal court to refer a matter falling “beyond the conventional experiences of judges” back 

to administrative agencies. See Green v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., Case No. C07-1563RSM, 

United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 

12605 (Feb. 7, 2008). Primary jurisdiction is properly invoked when a claim can be litigated 

in federal court but requires resolution of an issue of first impression or of a particularly 

complicated issue that Congress has committed to a regulatory agency. 

9

Debra Edwards v. SunCom, No. 02-CP-26-3539 (S.C.Ct. of Common Pleas, 15th Jud. Cir.), 

filed May 25, 2004. 

10There were 105 records filed in this proceeding. 

11See Letter from Michael D. Hayes and Michele Farquhar, Counsel for SunCom and Nate 

Fata and Kent Sinclair, Counsel for Debra Edwards, to Marlene H. Dortch, FCC, filed 

January 28, 2008. 

12SunCom Wireless Operating Company, L.L.C., Petition for Declaratory Ruling; Debra 

Edwards Cross-Petition for Declaratory Ruling, Order, 23 FCC Rcd. 4870 (2008). 

13See also Petition of the Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association for an 

Expedited Declaratory Ruling, WT Docket No. 05-194, filed March 15, 2005. 

Page 57 GAO-10-34 Telecommunications
Appendix IV: Examples of Actions Taken by 

FCC and Courts Regarding States’ Authority 

to Regulate Wireless Phone Service 

wireless marketplace as a reason for its withdrawal.14 However, the 

National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates, the National 

Consumer Law Center, U.S. Public Interest Research Group, and 

Consumers Union filed a joint response in opposition to the petition’s 

withdrawal, arguing that a ruling from FCC would help clarify this issue 

and help resolve some pending lawsuits about it.15 FCC has not responded 

to CTIA–The Wireless Association’s notice or the consumer advocates’ 

joint response. Thus, this is another area that remains unresolved. 

 

14Letter from Christopher Guttman-McCabe to Marlene H. Dortch, dated June 12, 2009. 

15Joint Response in Opposition to CTIA Withdrawal Notice, WT Docket No. 05-194, dated 

June 26, 2009. 

Page 58 GAO-10-34 Telecommunications
Appendix V: Comments from the Federal Appendix V: Comments from the Federal Communications Commission 

Communications Commission 

Page 59 GAO-10-34 Telecommunications 
Appendix V: Comments from the Federal 

Communications Commission 

Page 60 GAO-10-34 Telecommunications
Appendix V: Comments from the Federal 

Communications Commission 

Page 61 GAO-10-34 Telecommunications
Appendix V: Comments from the Federal 

Communications Commission 

Page 62 GAO-10-34 Telecommunications
Appendix V: Comments from the Federal 

Communications Commission 

Page 63 GAO-10-34 Telecommunications
Appendix V: Comments from the Federal 

Communications Commission 

Page 64 GAO-10-34 Telecommunications
Appendix VI: 

A

GAO Contact and Staff 

cknowledgments 

Page 65 GAO-10-34 

Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

Mark L. Goldstein, (202) 512-2834 or goldsteinm@gao.gov 

In addition to the individual named above, Judy Guilliams-Tapia, Assistant 

Director; Eli Albagli; James Ashley; Scott Behen; Nancy Boardman; Bess 

Eisenstadt; Andrew Huddleston; Eric Hudson; Mitchell Karpman; Josh 

Ormond; George Quinn; Ophelia Robinson; Kelly Rubin; Andrew Stavisky; 

and Mindi Weisenbloom made key contributions to this report. 

 Telecommunications 

GAO Contact 

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

(543220) 
GAO’s Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; 

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help 

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost 

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, GAO 

posts on its Web site newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, 

go to www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.” 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Phone The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s Web site, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information. 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, DC 20548 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548 

Public Affairs 

Please Print on Recycled Paper