FCC March Caller ID Order (fwd)

[David Farber <farber () central cis upenn edu>]

From: carlp () teleport com (Carl B. Page)
Date: 06 May 94
Originally Posted On: comp.dcom.telecom


Private Unlisted Phone Numbers Banned Nationwide.
Law Enforcement Explicitly Compromised.
Women's Shelters Security Threatened.
Telephone Rules of 30 States Overturned.
Direct Marketing Association Anticipates Profit.


The FCC released its Report and Order And Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking of March 29th, 1994 (CC Docket No. 91-281)


With the arrogance that only federal bureaucrats can muster, the
Federal Communications Commission has turned the clock back on Calling
Number ID and privacy protection rules nationwide.


Have you ever had any trouble giving a direct marketer your phone
number?  You won't any more.  Your Per Line Caller ID blocking will be
banned, thanks to the FCC Order which preempts the privacy protections
provided by 30 states.


The order carefully enumerates the concerns of law-enforcement
agencies which need per-line blocking to do their jobs.  It mentions
the need Women's shelters have for per-line blocking.  (A matter of
life and death on a day-to-day basis) It mentions that the customers
who attempt to keep unlisted numbers confidential will be certainly be
thwarted.  (Can one train all kids and house-guests to dial *67 before
every call?  Can you remember to do it yourself?)


But the Order dismisses all of these problems, and determines that the
greatest good for the greater number will be accomplished if RBOC's
can profit a bit more by selling our numbers and if the direct
marketers have less trouble gathering them.


The FCC doesn't seem to trust consumers to be able to decide whether
they want per-line blocking.  It praises the $40 cost of an automatic
*67 dialer as an appropriate disincentive that will benefit the nation
by discouraging people's choice of per-line blocking.


There was one part of the order I was pretty happy about, until I read
it.  The FCC has also banned the sale of numbers gathered by 800-900
number subscribers using the ANI system, unless they obtain verbal
consent.  (Note that no rules prevent sale of numbers from the
presumably blockable CNID system.)  The problem is that the only
enforcement of the rule seems to be that the requirement must be
included in the fine print of the ANI sale contract between the
common-carrier and the ANI subscriber.  So it seems to be up to the
common-carrier to enforce a rule which is contrary to their financial
interest.  How can a person who suffers from publication or sale of
their number recover compensation?


The FCC is soliciting comments, due May 18th in their Further Notice
Of Proposed Rulemaking on two issues:


o       Whether the Commission should prescribe more precise educational
requirements.


o       Whether and how the policies adopted on caller ID should be
extended to other identification services, such as caller party name or
CPNI.


I can think of some suggestions ...




(arl
carlp () teleport COM  Public Access User --- Not affiliated with TECHbooks
Public Access UNIX and Internet in PDX at (503) 220-0636 (1200/2400, N81)