Subject: Text of Ohio decree on Caller ID
Organization: Oak Road Systems, Cleveland Ohio USA
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 01:59:22 GMT
Followup-To: misc.consumers
These are extensive excerpts from the "Opinion and Order" entered
26 March 1992 by the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio in the combined
case on Caller ID (90-467-TP-ATA) and Automatic Callback (90-471-TP-ATA).
I think the Opinion and Order is worth quoting at length for several
reasons:
- It mentions many of the issues and gives the principal arguments
on both sides.
- It gives some interesting technical information about how the
services work.
- It says something quite different from what some news media
reported.
- Phone companies, citizens' groups, and utilities commissions in
other states will use it in making policy decisions.
The original was 42 pages, about 120K bytes (my estimate), so this
represents about 70% of the text. I've tried to edit impartially, but I
feel it's only honest to disclose my bias to you: I think Caller ID is
a good thing for telemarketers and a bad thing for their victims
including me, that it will not have the benefits the phone companies are
claiming for it, and that people who want to deal with harassing or
obscene calls would find Call Trace more effective than Caller ID.
Conscious of this bias (which the record amply supports, by the way),
I've tried to be evenhanded in editing the arguments for and against
Caller ID, removing only empty phrases and repetitive statements.
You'll see brackets used in four ways. First, they mark rephrasings for
brevity. Secondly, I insert some comments in the text; the first word
in the brackets is "Comment" to mark this. Thirdly, I've twice replaced
a long paragraph of less interesting testimony with a bracketed summary,
so marked. Finally, I have marked a few "[sic]"s where I'm pretty sure
something's wrong; sometimes I suggest a possible correct reading in
brackets. Where I omit words, I have used the ellipsis "..." I've done
two sorts of editing without special markings in the text: I've
corrected obvious typos (those that remain being mine), and I've omitted
almost all the citations on the assumption that the cited documents
won't be available to most of you.
The Opinion and Order generally uses the full name of something once,
with a short form in parens, then uses the short form thereafter. But
to make them easier to find, I've collected the principal acronyms and
abbreviations here at the front. In the text, I use the acronyms even
in places where the Opinion and Order uses the long forms.
ACB = phone company's Annoyance Call Bureau
ANI = Automatic Number Identification
CCS = Common Channel Signaling, "essential to" CLASS services; "CCS
is a network system that is separate from the voice portion of
the call."
CLASS="Advanced Custom Calling Services, which include Caller ID
and Automatic Callback" as well as Call Trace and Repeat Dialing
Cleveland = the City of Cleveland
CPE = Customer Premise Equipment
CPN = calling party's [telephone] number
ECPA= the U.S. Electronic Communications Privacy Act
IAM = "SS7 Initial Address Message which contains, in addition to
other information, the telephone numbers of the called and
calling parties."
IXC = Interexchange Carrier
Law Enforcement = "The Ohio Association of Chiefs of Police, the
Ohio State Highway patrol, the United States Treasury
Department, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms and, [sic]
the Fraternal Order of Police, Inc." [Comment: Whew! The
only reason I can imagine why these are lumped together is
that they had a lobbyist or counsel in common; but I didn't
think the Feds shared counsel with private parties.]
LEC = Local Exchange Company
NCMHS=North Central Mental Health Services
OAC = Ohio Administrative Code
OCC = Office of the Consumers' Counsel, an Ohio State agency that
represents consumers' interests before the PUCO
ORC = Ohio Revised Code, i.e. Ohio state law
ODVN= Ohio Domestic Violence Network
PUCO= Public Utilities Commission of Ohio
RTU = right-to-use [fee]
SS7 = Signaling System 7, "essential to" CLASS services; "SS7
governs the exchange of information and component interactions
of the CCS network."
Staff = the staff of the PUCO
Some of you may not want to read all of this text. (Some of you may not
want to read any of it. But in that case, you're probably not reading
these words :-) Following are the section heads in the Opinion and
Order, which may help you browse for just the sections that interest you.
I. History
II. Discussion
A. Description of Services
B. Issues
C. Privacy Concerns
1. Arguments by Ohio Bell and OCC
2. The Electronic Communications Privacy Act
3. State Statutory Provisions"
4. Conclusion on Privacy Concerns
D. Ohio Bell's Proposed Accommodation Plan ...
1. Ohio Bell's Position
2. Law Enforcement Concerns
3. Domestic Violence Concerns"
4. Governmental Agencies' Concerns
5. Deaf Community Concerns
6. Conclusion on Accommodation Plan
E. Blocking
1. Types of Blocking
2. Technical Aspects
3. Block-the-blocker
4. Automatic Callback
5. Parties' positions on blocking
6. Conclusion on blocking
F. Non-published-number service
G. Customer notice
H. Competitive/Non-competitive Issue
I. Costs
1. Staff Concerns
2. Economic Tests
3. Right-to-Use Fees
4. Conclusion on Costs
J. Alternative Services
K. Reporting Requirements
L. Marketing Studies
M. Telemarketing
N. Interexchange Carrier Issues
III. Summary of Conclusions
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
"OPINION AND ORDER
"The Commission, considering the applications filed March 20, 1990,
the local public hearings, the evidentiary hearing, and briefs of
counsel, and having determined that this matter should proceed directly
to opinion and order without the issuance of an attorney examiner's
report, issues its Opinion and Order.
[Comment: I omit the names of counsel, which appeared here.]
"I. History
"On March 20, 1990, the Ohio Bell Telephone Company filed
applications requesting that the Commission approve an amendment to its
tariff and grant it authority to provide Caller ID and Automatic
Callback. ...
"By motion filed April 30, 1990 ... Ohio Bell requested that Rule
4901:1-5-09(H), OAC, be modified or that Ohio Bell be granted an
exemption from this rule so that non-published telephone numbers could
be disclosed through Caller ID service. ...
"In its entry of April 11, 1991, the Commission also decided that
Caller ID and Automatic Callback may be unjust and unreasonable.
Therefore, [public hearings in July and August 1991; evidentiary hearing
11-30 Sept 1991; rebuttal hearing 7 Oct 1991]
"On March 10, 1992, Ohio Bell filed a letter modifying its no-
blocking position by offering to make free per-call blocking available
to all subscribers and free per-line blocking available to law-
enforcement and crisis-intervention agencies. ... Ohio Bell further
averred that, should the Commission accept [that] offer, the
Accommodation Plan proposed in the initial applications would be
replaced by per-line blocking. [Comment: See II-D below, "Ohio Bell's
proposed accommodation plan".]
"On March 16, 1992, [lots of parties filed a motion to strike Ohio
Bell's letter, saying among other things it should have come before the
hearings, and that it misrepresented the evidence to date. In a
footnote, the Commission said they didn't use the letter in reaching a
decision but "Ohio Bell can hardly be faulted for presenting a
compromise position for ... consideration."]
"II. Discussion -- A. Description of Services
"Caller ID is an optional service which allows a subscriber to
identify the telephone number of the calling party by means of a
customer-provided display terminal. Automatic Callback is also an
optional service which enables a subscriber to return the last call
received, whether or not it was answered. Ohio Bell initially requested
permission to offer both services without blocking.
"At the hearing, ... Ohio Bell offered the prefiled testimony
of Ms Rosemary Takacs [Ohio Bell project engineer, who] is responsible
for ... the deployment of [CCS and SS7], which are essential to [CLASS],
which include Caller ID and Automatic Callback. ...
"Ms. Takacs explained the technical features of how a call is pro-
cessed over [CCS/SS7]. When the calling party lifts the receiver and
dials a number, the calling party's central office switch selects a
circuit from the voice trunk and marks it busy. The originating switch
also creates an IAM [that includes the called and calling numbers]. The
IAM is routed through the system to the terminating central office.
When the terminating office receives the IAM, it identifies the incoming
circuit, marks it busy, and rings the called line if it is idle. The
terminating switch then sends a message to the originating switch to
indicate that the call has been set up. At the point when the
originating switch receives the message, the voice path is established.
Messages are routed through the system not only when the call is
answered, but while the call is in progress, and when the call is
terminated. The entire call set-up process, on average, requires only
0.2 seconds. The originating office and the terminating office must be
SS7 equipped. Moreover, the terminating office must be equipped with
the particular CLASS feature, e.g., Caller ID.
"If a call is made to a customer who subscribes to Caller ID, ...
[what happens depends on] whether the parties are served by the same ...
central office. If [so], the Caller ID software in the central office
switch pulls the CPN from switch memory. If [different] central
offices, the software obtains the CPN from the IAM. The ... CPN is then
displayed on the called party's display device after [transmission]
through the local loop. The number is displayed during the silence
between the first and second rings. For calls [not] from an SS7 central
office, the calling party's number [CPN] is not forwarded; instead an
"0" [sic; "O"?] for "out of area" appears on the customer's display. ...
"If a customer subscribes to Automatic Callback, ... the central
office switch obtains the CPN from the IAM and places it in a switch
memory slot associated with the subscriber's line. Each time a call is
received, ... the memory slot is updated with the most recent number.
If the call originates from [a non-SS7] office, the memory is updated
with an out-of-area indicator. When the subscriber dials the Automatic
Callback code, a query message is sent to request line status and
terminating information about the number in the memory slot. The office
which serves the number in the memory slot, in turn, responds with the
requested information. If the party's line is busy, periodic messages
will be sent to determine if the party's line is busy or idle. When the
party's line becomes idle, the Automatic Callback subscriber will be
notified, by a special ring, that the call can be set up. After the
subscriber answers the phone, a call will be set up to the called-back
customer.
"... Ohio Bell seeks to provide Caller ID and Automatic Callback in
Ohio for local, intraLATA, and state and interstate interLATA toll
calls. ... CPN will be passed for intraLATA 1+ calls where originating
and terminating offices are equipped with SS7 and the appropriate CLASS
features. For intraLATA 10XXX calls, ... CPN would not be passed
[b]ecause all Ohio Bell central offices are connected to IXC points of
presence by trunks equipped with multi-frequency signaling, which does
not pass the CPN, ... even if the originating and terminating offices
were equipped with SS7 and CLASS features or [sic] whether the call is
between an Ohio Bell office and a non-Ohio Bell office. For similar
reasons, ... [A]ll 1+ state and interstate interLATA calls are
connected to carriers by equal-access multi-frequency signaling, and
therefore CPN cannot be transmitted. Ms Takacs could not project when
Caller ID would become available for ... interLATA calling [but not]
until the LEC networks are connected to the 'intermediate networks' of
the IXCs. ... [T]he industry would have to determine how to [transmit]
CPN numbers on a uniform basis. At present, according to Ms Takacs, no
IXC has agreed to pass CPN. ..."
"II. Discussion -- B. Issues
"The commission finds that neither Caller ID nor Automatic Callback
is prohibited by law; however, upon reviewing the applications, the
Commission finds that the applications are unjust and unreasonable.
Nevertheless, with the implementation of appropriate safeguards for
caller privacy, as recommended in this Opinion and Order, Caller ID may
be rendered just and reasonable ... in accordance with ... section
4909.18, ORC.
"Several issues are raised by Caller ID and Automatic Callback and
have been briefed by the parties. Some of the more prominent are
whether the services are permissible under the federal and state consti-
tutions and wiretap laws, whether Caller ID would constitute a breach of
Ohio Bell's obligation to its non-published customers, whether Ohio
Bell's Accommodation Plan is sufficient to meet legitimate privacy
concerns, whether any of the various types of blocking should be imple-
mented, whether the cost studies adequately support the proposed pricing
schemes, whether Caller ID and Automatic Callback are competitive or
monopoly services, and whether Ohio Bell's proposed notification to its
customers is adequate. [Comment: These issues are discussed one by one
in the lettered sections that follow.]
"II. Discussion -- C. Privacy Concerns
"1. Arguments by Ohio Bell and OCC
"... In arguing that there is no violation of privacy, Ohio Bell,
citing U.S. Supreme Court precedent, contends that state action is
lacking in these proceedings [and cites] cases holding that mere
regulation is insufficient to constitute state action. ... Ohio Bell
stated that, even if the Commission were to find that state action
exists, Caller ID and Automatic Callback do not infringe upon federally
protected rights of privacy. Ohio Bell [says] there is no Ohio case law
granting individuals a constitutional right to make anonymous telephone
calls [and] that Caller ID does not violate Title III of the U.S. Omnibus
Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, the U.S. Electronic Communi-
cations Privacy Act, nor sections 2933.51-2933.65, ORC.
"OCC ... [responds] that Caller ID violates the Fourth Amendment of
the U.S. Constitution and Article 1 Section 14 of the Ohio Constitution.
... [and] that there is state action involved in this Commission's
review of Caller ID [since] the Commission, by conducting administrative
and local hearings, ... invokes constitutional standards. In addition,
OCC argues that Caller ID violates the ECPA and that the ECPA has
preempted state law as of October 2, 1986.
"II. Discussion -- C. Privacy Concerns
"2. The Electronic Communications Privacy Act
"The ECPA established a new chapter in Title II pertaining to pen
registers and trap-and-trace devices. A 'pen register' is defined by
statute as 'a device which records or decodes electronic or other
impulses which identify the numbers dialed or otherwise transmitted on
the telephone line ...' A 'trap-and-trace device' captures the incoming
electronic or other impulses which identify the originating number of an
instrument. Generally, the statute prohibits the use of pen registers
and trap-and-trace devices without a court order, unless used 1) by a
provider of electronic or wire communication service to protect its
operations or users of that service; 2) to record the fact that a wire
or electronic communication was initiated or completed in order to
protect providers and users from fraudulent, unlawful, or abusive use of
service; or 3) where the consent of the user of that service has been
obtained. 18 U.S.C. 3121
"Pursuant to the above statute, there is no violation of the statute
as long as one of the parties to a telephone conversation provides
consent. A customer, by purchasing Caller ID, clearly consents to the
service. Thus the Commission concludes that a subscriber of telephone
service, by purchasing CAller ID, consents to the use of a trap-and-
trace device pursuant to the third exception [above. Delaware and North
Carolina utilities commissions said the same in 1991.] Consequently,
there is no explicit ECPA prohibition against the use of Caller ID, or
like services, by telephone subscribers."
"II. Discussion -- C. Privacy Concerns
"3. State Statutory Provisions"
[Summary: Ohio's wiretap statute, 2933.51-2933.65 ORC, defines
"intercept" as the aural acquisition of contents of a wire or oral
communication. Since Caller ID shows a display and users don't receive
information through their ears, it's not prohibited by Ohio law.
Furthermore, the law says that "'interception device' does not include
any telephone facility used by a subscriber or a service provided by a
communications common carrier in the ordinary course of that carrier's
business." Finally, 2933.53(B)(4) says the wiretap law does not apply to
a person who "is a party to the communication or if one of the parties
has given the person prior consent." So Caller ID doesn't violate Ohio
state law.]
"II. Discussion -- C. Privacy Concerns
"4. Conclusion on Privacy Concerns
"Caller ID and Automatic Callback do not violate any state or
federal statutory provisions. ... Furthermore, because of the safeguards
to protect anonymity that must be employed pursuant to this Opinion and
Order, there is no need to discuss constitutional issues concerning
privacy and state action.
"II. Discussion -- D. Ohio Bell's Proposed Accommodation Plan ...
"1. Ohio Bell's Position
"... Joseph Rini, Assistant [V.P. Marketing] at Ohio Bell, ...
acknowledged [that] there are occasions when subscribers would want to
make anonymous telephone calls. ... Ohio Bell developed what it calls
the Accommodation Plan, which merely provides different methods for
placing a call without passing the CPN. ... Ms Gail Holmes, District
Manager of Community Relations [for Ohio Bell] ... said that during
[3/20/90 to about 5/17/90] Ohio Bell contacted various agencies ... to
determine what issues and concerns would be raised by Caller ID.
"Ms Holmes testified that a customer could use an Ohio Bell calling
card or a cellular telephone, or place a call through the operator to
prevent the disclosure of the originating telephone number. She [said]
the advantage is that a '0' for 'out of area' is displayed on the Caller
ID unit. Other methods ... were calling from a public telephone, using
a line which is not published or listed that is intended for outgoing
calls only, subscribing to Three-Way Calling to route calls through a
third-party number, and subscribing to Multi-Ring Service to identify
calls responding to the number displayed ...
" ... Ohio Bell's proposed Accommodation Plan would not be readily
advertised. However, if a customer were to call in with a concern, ...
the contents of the plan would be explained.
"... Robert A Fortescue [on tech staff at] Bellcore noted that New
Jersey Bell developed an accommodation plan [or] law enforcement and
women's shelters. ... [E]xample ... a rape crisis center where the
counselors were given access to telephones that could make outgoing
calls only. He noted that there has been no reported decrease in the
number of calls to hotlines and tip lines since the implementation of
Caller ID [and] stated that Caller ID [helps] law enforcement. ...
[Comment: Contrast with the second paragraph following.]
"II. Discussion -- D. Ohio Bell's Proposed Accommodation Plan ...
"2. Law Enforcement Concerns
"Frank G Forchione, the First Assistant Prosecutor [for the city of]
Canton Law Director, testified ... that he has prosecuted many
misdemeanors involving harassing and obscene telephone callers. [He
said] it would be very difficult to garner a conviction under Ohio law
utilizing the information obtained from the Caller ID display device
alone because of the evidentiary problems involved in establishing the
chain of custody. [Comment: In II-J below, "Alternative Services", the
Commission says "Call Trace appears to be a superior method of
prosecuting obscene and annoying telephone callers as openly admitted by
Ohio Bell (OBT Brief at 39)." See also II-G, "Customer Notice".]
"Westerville [suburb of Columbus] Police Chief Ronald Shaw ...
testified that, in his opinion, Caller ID will make undercover police
work more dangerous, more costly, and more inconvenient to accomplish.
... [H]e also believes that calls to 'tipster' lines will diminish.
The witness sees vigilantism as another problem associated with the
provision of CPN. Finally, [he] is concerned that Caller ID will
degrade the safety of Ohio Bell's non-published number service on which
many peace officers have come to rely.
"Because Ohio Bell has failed, in [his] opinion, to address
adequately law enforcement's concerns, Chief Shaw recommended that Ohio
Bell be required to provide universal per-line blocking for law
enforcement and some sort of blocking for the remainder of the
population. Furthermore, ... Chief Shaw also recommended that the
Commission establish a law-enforcement committee whereby Ohio Bell would
be obligated to work with law enforcement to address the ongoing
concerns that law enforcement has with telecommunications technology.
"II. Discussion -- D. Ohio Bell's Proposed Accommodation Plan ...
"3. Domestic Violence Concerns"
[Summary: David H Larsen, an M.S.W. licensed social worker, is
Program Director of The Family Violence Program, a unit of the Cuyahoga
County government, which includes Cleveland and many suburbs. He said
in his opinion Caller ID would increase danger for abused spouses who
have left the abusive partner and "should not be offered". But he said
he had not discussed his concerns with his counterparts in states with
Caller ID.]
"II. Discussion -- D. Ohio Bell's Proposed Accommodation Plan ...
"4. Governmental Agencies' Concerns
"... Susan E Axelrod, Director of the City of Cleveland Department
of Aging, discussed the impact of Caller ID on the elderly within
Cleveland. ... Ms Axelrod believed that Caller ID would prevent older
adults from contacting social-service agencies [to ask] whether they
qualify for certain programs. She also believed that Caller ID would
hamper the reporting of elder abuse and ... open up elders to telemar-
keting scams. ... [I]n her opinion, Ohio Bell's proposal to develop a
symbol for use in the telephone directory [by] agencies that do not
subscribe to Caller ID would not alleviate the concern [because] in her
experiences elderly adults are very suspicious of their privacy and that
this symbol would not be enough to overcome those suspicions. ... [P]er-
call blocking would not alleviate the witness' concerns because it is
difficult for some elderly citizens to remember the extra digits or to
dial the appropriate numbers for blocking.
"II. Discussion -- D. Ohio Bell's Proposed Accommodation Plan ...
"5. Deaf Community Concerns
"... Charles Williams, Program Chairperson of the Northeast Ohio
Senior Citizens of [sic] the Deaf, Inc., ... argued that Ohio Bell's
Accommodation Plan is not effective for the deaf community because all
of its provisions require the sense of hearing in one form or another.
On cross-examination, Mr Williams admitted that when a Telecommunications
Relay Service is established, whereby a call goes through an operator
center from a telecommunications device for the deaf, the number which
would show up on a Caller ID display device is the number of the
operator center. [Comment: No word on when such a center might be
established, or by whom.]
"II. Discussion -- D. Ohio Bell's Proposed Accommodation Plan ...
"6. Conclusion on Accommodation Plan
"Upon consideration of the Accommodation Plan prepared by Ohio Bell,
... the Commission finds that [it] is inadequate to meet the needs of
Ohio Bell's subscribers. Far from being a convenient alternative to
protect the safety and privacy of law-enforcement personnel, their
families, battered women, the deaf, and other members of the public who
have legitimate needs for privacy, the Accommodation Plan is nothing
more than a list of currently available services. All the services ...
impose a measure of inconvenience or additional expense upon subscri-
bers. Even though Ohio Bell claims to have met with representatives
from domestic violence shelters, law enforcement, crisis-intervention
programs, and mental-health and social-service agencies, few of these
groups lend support to the Accommodation Plan. Consequently, Caller ID
must be accompanied by some form of blocking.
"[In a footnote, the Commission "strongly urge Ohio Bell to take
steps to form" a committee "to provide law enforcement an opportunity to
discuss" "communications technology issues and their impact on law
enforcement" with "Ohio Bell and the Commission, ... and to [involve]
the Ohio Telephone Association and the Commission's staff."]
"II. Discussion -- E. Blocking
"1. Types of Blocking
"Blocking is another CLASS feature which is available in 1AESS,
5ESS, and DMS100 switches and which operates separately from Caller ID
and Automatic Callback. Blocking gives subscribers the ability to
change temporarily the public/private status of their telephone lines,
thus controlling transmission of the CPN to the called party. The
blocking software supports four types: ...
- "Universal per call: ... allows any subscriber in a CLASS-
equipped central office to use blocking at any time merely by
using the activation code. This ... will prohibit the forwarding
of the CPN for the next call only and will not work for subsequent
calls unless the activation code is again utilized.
- "Subscription per call: ... requires any customer [wanting] per-
call blocking to contact the telephone company business office
before blocking would be available. Once subscribed to, the
service would operate the same as described above.
- "Subscription per line: ... provides blocking for all calls
placed. A customer could subscribe to this service by contacting
the company's business office. Once the blocking feature is
placed on the customer's line, all calls placed from that
telephone line are private, unless a code is activated to forward
the CPN ... for that one particular call.
- "Universal per line: ... With this option, universal per-line
blocking would automatically be available when the CLASS services
are activated. Once activated, all calls on a particular line
would be blocked unless the subscriber dials *67 [rotary 1167] to
forward the CPN. ... The line would revert to private after each
call.
"II. Discussion -- E. Blocking
"2. Technical Aspects
"... Ohio Bell witness Rosemary Takacs [Comment: see II-A, "Descrip-
tion of Services", above] ... explained that in order to change the
subscriber line from public to private or vice versa, it would be neces-
sary to dial an activation code. The [current default] activation code
is *67 from a touch-tone [sic, lower case] telephone or 1167 from a
rotary telephone. ... [T]he subscriber would receive a confirmation
code, after which the call would be placed without disclosing the CPN.
When a telephone call is placed and blocking is instituted, a 'P' (for
private) will be displayed on the Caller ID device.
" ... in her opinion, universal line blocking would be more
difficult to institute than subscription blocking. ... The witness did
admit, however, that some telephone switches may permit encoding of sn
entire central office by one computer command. ... Takacs stated that
she did not know which type of blocking, universal or subscription,
would be more costly for the company. ... [But she felt] that it would
take longer to institute the requested services if some form of blocking
is also mandated. Specifically, she felt that it could take up to six
months after a Commission order for Ohio Bell to ... offer CLASS
services with blocking. Part of the delay would be attributed to the
testing of blocking ... and the installation of hardware to initiate a
voice prompt if someone dialed the wrong activation code. ..."
"II. Discussion -- E. Blocking
"3. Block-the-blocker
"[Also known as] unidentified call rejection, [t]his feature would
forward a call that had the CPN blocked to a recording which would
generally state that the person did not accept blocked telephone calls
and that the person should hang up and redial without blocking in order
to get through.
"II. Discussion -- E. Blocking
"4. Automatic Callback
"Blocking affects Automatic Callback in a different manner than it
does Caller ID. ... [T]here are two ... levels of Automatic Callback.
Level One ... merely entails returning the last incoming call regardless
of whether it was answered or not. This is the feature which Ohio Bell
seeks permission to implement. ... Level Two [if implemented] will
voice back the last incoming CPN before the call is returned. Ohio Bell
does not seek authority in this application to provide this feature.
Blocking only affects Level Two Automatic Callback. Should the person
initiating a call implement blocking prior to placing the call, the
Automatic Callback customer's central office will recognize that the
number was blocked and prohibit the software from voicing back the CPN.
Blocking does not, however, prohibit either type of Automatic Callback
from functioning.
"Another issue ... is the possibility of the CPN being revealed to
the Automatic Callback subscriber in a monthly billing statement.
Technically, this occurs because when a subscriber returns a call by
using Automatic Callback, the number will show up on a billing statement
if the Automatic Callback customer subscribes to local measured service
with billing-number detail. ... Even though this may be a billing
issue, the Commission believes, as discussed below, that disclosure of
the number must be prevented if the service is offered.
"II. Discussion -- E. Blocking
"5. Parties' positions on blocking
"Ohio Bell initially proposed to offer Caller ID and Automatic
Callback without any form of blocking. This position has been attacked
by the intervenors; however, among the parties, there are differing
positions. ... OCC argued in favor of per-line blocking on a default
basis with selective call unblocking for all non-published-number
customers, [and] per-call blocking [for other customers]. OCC believes
that per-line blocking with selective call unblocking should be made
available to all customers upon request. In all cases, OCC believes
that blocking should be made available free of charge.
" ... Ohio Bell witness Rini [Comment: See II-D above, "Ohio
Bell's proposed accommodation plan".] testified that blocking would
diminish the value and societal benefits of the service [leading to]
reduced demand for the service. ... Ohio Bell argued that in the GTE
Kentucky trial, in which subscription per-call blocking was ordered, 54%
of the subscribers had utilized per-call blocking. Ohio Bell also
claims that persons placing prank and obscene telephone calls will
continue to do so by initiating the blocking option if that feature is
ordered. [Comment: In II-J below, "Alternative Services", the
Commission says "Call Trace appears to be a superior method of
prosecuting obscene and annoying telephone callers as openly admitted by
Ohio Bell (OBT Brief at 39)." See also II-G, "Customer Notice".]
Finally, Ohio Bell claims that it is the societal norm to identify
oneself when placing a telephone call; therefore, Caller ID does nothing
more than is the current norm.
"Kurt Wesolek, Senior Analyst in the Planning Section of the
Commission's Telecommunications Division, ... was questioned on the
effects blocking would have on Automatic Number Identification (ANI),
Open Network Architecture (ONA), Integrated Switch Digital Network
(ISDN), and Simplified Message Desk Interface (SMDI) technology. Mr
Wesolek stated that these services would not be affected by blocking
because, functionally, [they] operate on a different technology than
does Caller ID.
"OCC presented Dr Mark Cooper, President of Citizens Research, ...
[who] averred that the introduction of per-call blocking should not
hamper the timeliness of the offering [of Caller ID] because the basic
technology to offer the blocking service was already built into the
switches. ... According to Dr Cooper, blocking does not have a
detrimental effect on the family of CLASS services except for Caller ID.
Therefore, other CLASS services such as Automatic Callback, Repeat
Dialing, and Call Trace could still be utilized by the end user.
"Dr Cooper disagreed with Ohio Bell's argument that evidence from
New Jersey [shows] Caller ID has caused a reduction of harassing and
annoying calls in that state. [Comment: See the sixth paragraph of the
next section for the Commission's conclusion on this.]
"On cross-examination, Dr Cooper admitted that, if enough subscribers
utilize per-line blocking, there can be a diminution in the value of
Caller ID. ... His suggestion, that non-published-number subscribers be
given per-line blocking by default, would raise the level of blocking to
approximately 25% of Ohio Bell subscribers [and] at the 25% level, the
value of the service may be harmed.
"II. Discussion -- E. Blocking
"6. Conclusion on blocking
"Having considered the arguments [on] blocking, ... and having
previously determined that additional safeguards are necessary to insure
that Caller ID and Automatic Callback are just and reasonable, we find
that, should Ohio Bell wish to offer CLASS services such as Caller ID,
where the CPN could be transferred, the company must: 1) make available
free universal per-call blocking to all subscribers; 2) for those
customers who subscribe to non-published-number service, at any time,
per-line blocking must be provided on a default basis without any
additional charges, unless the customer affirmatively chooses to have
free per-call blocking after being fully informed of the availability of
per-line and per-call blocking; and 3) subscription per-line blocking
must be made available for published customers at a charge equivalent to
non-published-number service rates (currently $1.10). Furthermore,
per-call unblocking capability must be made available to all per-line
blocking customers. [Comment: The following is a footnote in the
Order, referenced at this point in the text.] As noted in section K
[below], the Commission will monitor this service through Ohio Bell's
quarterly reports and reserve [sic] the right to modify these provisions
based on the actual experience with Caller ID. ... [A] similar
procedure was adopted in North Carolina. ...
"Published-number customers, should they choose to subscribe to
per-line blocking, would receive a new service on top of their basic
monthly telephone service. Therefore, we believe it is appropriate for
Ohio Bell to charge these customers a small recurring monthly charge.
Ohio Bell even submits in its initial brief that should blocking be
instituted, there should be a modest charge for the service. However,
the company did not submit any cost studies which would support a charge
for blocking. Therefore, we believe that a monthly recurring charge
equivalent to the monthly charge for non-published-number service is
appropriate. [Comment: A footnote at this point notes that Idaho
allows a "modest recurring charge for per-line blocking."]
"Although not addressed in these proceedings, we are aware of the
non-recurring charge in Ohio Bell's tariff for changing to published or
non-published service. As set forth in more detail below, we believe
that non-published-number subscribers expect privacy when they purchase
the service. Therefore, it would not be appropriate to charge these
subscribers a non-recurring charge _for_maintaining_the_status_quo._
[Comment: underlining in original] However, should a published
subscriber choose to purchase per-line blocking, it would be appropriate
for Ohio Bell to charge the subscriber a one-time non-recurring charge.
"The Commission is also aware that certain CLASS services, such as
Call Reject and Automatic Callback, with measured service and call
detail are unaffected by blocking. Both services have the potential for
disclosing the CPN. Consequently, if Ohio Bell wishes to offer these
services, it must take measures to preserve the privacy of callers.
"... [W]e believe we have reached a decision which makes Caller ID
available to those who wish to use it to screen obscene and harassing
calls [Comment: see next paragraph.], while at the same time protecting
the rights of all customers to selective anonymity through free per-call
blocking and the special interests of 521,731 Ohio Bell customers who
value their privacy enough to pay a premium for a non-published
telephone number.
"We are not swayed by Ohio Bell's arguments regarding the Kentucky
blocking statistics nor by the arguments regarding prank and obscene
telephone callers. We believe that the Kentucky results show that 54%
of the subscribers in that state utilized blocking at one time or
another, not that blocking was instituted on 54% of the telephone calls.
... [W]hile Ohio Bell continually points to the experience of New
Jersey as support for unblocked Caller ID, the Commission would note
that in New Jersey five other custom-calling features (including Call
Trace) were instituted at the same time as Caller ID and Automatic
Callback. Therefore, while the New Jersey experience may support the
argument that prank and obscene telephone calls decreased after the
institution of these services, it is impossible to determine which, if
any, custom-calling services contributed the most to the decline. In
fact, if anything, the New Jersey experience argues for the simultaneous
coffering [sic -- unless this is a technical term unknown to me, I
assume it's a typo for "offering"] of Call Trace, Call Reject, and
Caller ID as we recognize in Section J below.
"There is one further matter. ... OCC has requested that a service
called block-the-blocker be instituted [at the same time as] Caller ID
and Automatic Callback. There is no evidence in the record to suggest
that this service will be available in the near future, ... if ever. ...
We do not find it necessary to direct Ohio Bell to offer this type of
service at this time,, although we would encourage the company to
investigate the provision of this service as an additional feature that
its customers may be interested in obtaining.
"II. Discussion -- F. Non-published-number service
"Next we must turn to Ohio Bell's request for an exception or exemp-
tion from the minimum telephone service standard which, with exceptions,
generally prohibits the disclosure of non-published telephone numbers.
Specifically, Rule 4901:1-5-09(H), OAC, permits disclosure to the
following: (1) authorized local exchange company personnel; (2) the
subscriber's primary interexchange carrier, for billing purposes only
(where permitted by tariff); and (3) appropriate authorities for
inclusion in the 9-1-1 emergency services network. ...
"According to Ohio Bell witness Rini, non-published-number service
was never defined [to] guarantee anonymity while placing a telephone
call. In fact, according to the witness, non-published telephone
numbers, along with all CPN, are routinely ... passed on ... through
Automatic Number Identification (ANI) with Feature Group D service. ...
Ohio Bell submits that approval of Caller ID and Automatic Callback will
have no effect on the company's non-published-number service. The
company will continue to treat its non-published-number customers
exactly the same as in a pre-Caller ID environment.
"... there are 521,731 non-published-number subscribers in Ohio
Bell territories. These subscribers represent approximately 20% of Ohio
Bell's entire customer base. [Comment: contrast with the last
paragraph of section 5 above.] ... OCC and Law Enforcement ... state
that non-published-number customers are united in their belief that
Ohio Bell should not be given authority to disclose their telephone
numbers through Caller ID or Automatic Callback. ...
"For the reasons that follow, the Commission believes that it is not
appropriate to grant Ohio Bell's request for a waiver or exemption of
Rule 4901:1-5-09(H), OAC. Traditionally, non-published-number
subscribers have come to expect that, by purchasing this service from
Ohio Bell, their telephone numbers will only be disclosed in the three
limited circumstances found in [the Rule]. We find that this is not an
unreasonable assumption. In fact, contrary to Ohio Bell's argument, the
'contract' between the customer and Ohio Bell, by definition,
incorporates [the Rule]. Customers have taken service pursuant to that
contract and thus have come to expect privacy in return for their paying
a premium charge for non-published service. Undoubtedly, approval of
Caller ID and Automatic Callback without a form of line blocking
[Comment: not just any blocking, line blocking] would lead to a
diminution in the value of the non-published-number service, for which
subscribers currently pay a premium. Therefore, because we deem it to
be in the public's interest that customers can rely on a long-standing
service for which they pay a premium and have come to expect some
measure of anonymity as part of their 'contract' for non-published
service, we have found that non-published-number subscribers should
always be provided per-line blocking unless the subscribers make an
informed and affirmative decision to choose universal per-call blocking
as an alternative. ...
"II. Discussion -- G. Customer notice"
[Comment: I omit the testimony and present only the conclusion.]
"The Commission believes that, for Caller ID and Automatic Callback
to be just and reasonable, all customers need to learn of the changes
that these services will bring to the telecommunications network.
Therefore, at least for the review period discussed in more detail
below, Ohio Bell should [Comment: this means "must"] submit both its
notices and drafts of its advertisements about the service for prompt
Staff review ... at least 20 days prior to issuance.
In Ohio Bell's advertising of the services, the Commission wishes to
insure that the customer has _maximum_customer_choice_ as to the type of
service he or she wishes. [Comment: underlining in the original] Thus,
if Caller ID is offered, the company should equally promote Call Trace
and Call Reject as alternative means to deter harassing and obscene
calls. ... [T]o insure that all affected customers are adequately
informed about Caller ID and Automatic Callback, the first notice should
be sent to all Ohio Bell customers by direct mail or bill insert at
least 60 days prior to the availability of the services. The second
notice should be issued 30 days in advance to those customers in areas
where SS7 has been implemented. Twenty days before issuance of any
advertisements or notices, Ohio Bell must submit to the Staff its
notices."
"II. Discussion -- H. Competitive/Non-competitive Issue
"The burden of proof is on the applicant to show that a service is
competitive under the standards set forth in Case No. 84-944-TP-COI
(944) ..., April 9, 1985. Ohio Bell has argued in this proceeding that
alternatives do exist to Caller ID and Automatic Callback [so that] the
Commission should grant Ohio Bell the competitive treatment it seeks.
"Ohio Bell witness Rini testified that both Caller ID and Automatic
Callback are competitive services [because] other services and devices
... perform call screening and call management functions. As examples,
he mentioned answering machines, answering bureaus, voice messaging
services, Feature Group D Service, and a device which screens out all
but certain pre-selected telephone numbers. As for services that
compete with Automatic Callback, Mr Rini listed telephone answering
machines, telephones with redial functions, and automated dialers which
allow a caller to retrieve stored telephone numbers by entering the
first letters of a name. He also noted that new technologies like ISDN
and ONA, which have an independent number forwarding component, may
likewise compete with Caller and Automatic Callback.
"Mr Gordon Scherer, President of Scherers Communications, Inc, ...
believed that Ohio Bell's offerings should not be categorized as
competitive offerings because 'functional equivalents' do not currently
exist. ... [T]he witness pointed out that Mr Rini conceded in his
prefiled testimony that the prerequisite for the development of CLASS
services is the delivery of the calling number [which] is wholly
controlled by Ohio Bell. ...
"... Mr Wesolek, on behalf of Staff, recommended that Caller ID not
be considered a competitive service [since] Staff does not agree with
Ohio Bell that adequate substitutes to Caller ID currently exist. ...
Since Ohio Bell failed to provide appropriate substitutes or cross-
elasticity studies with potential substitutes, Staff concludes that
competitive treatment for Caller ID should be denied.
"However, because 'smart' CPE is capable of providing a techno-
logically equivalent and competitive alternative to Automatic Callback,
Staff did agree with Ohio Bell that this feature should be granted
competitive treatment under 944 if Caller ID is authorized by the
Commission on a generally unrestricted basis [which means] with no more
than per-call blocking.
"Conclusion on Competitive Issue"
"Having thoroughly examined the arguments on this issue, we find
that both Caller ID and Automatic Callback should be treated as non-
competitive services. Regarding Caller ID, Ohio Bell has failed to show
this Commission that functional equivalents exist to the proposed
service. Many of the services which Ohio Bell argues are substitutes
for Caller ID are additional services offered by Ohio Bell. When Ohio
Bell controls not only many of the alleged competitive services, as well
as access to the telephone network, it is not possible to find that
these alleged alternatives would provide competition for Caller ID. The
only remaining viable alternative, therefore, is the answering machine.
However, an answering machine operates much differently than does Caller
ID. For instance, the calling party decides whether to provide any
identifying information when an answering machine responds.
"Similarly, we do not agree with Ohio Bell's competitive-position
argument regarding Automatic Callback. In its [argument], Ohio Bell
uses the future tense when discussing alternatives which will exist to
Automatic Callback. While the absence of current competitive
alternatives may not be enough to forestall competitive treatment of the
proposed service, Ohio Bell admits that '[T]he only prerequisite to the
development of this technology is the delivery of the calling number...'
[Comment: ellipsis in original] However, what Ohio Bell fails to point
out is that the delivery of the CPN is a product of the Advanced Custom
Calling Software which is controlled by Ohio Bell. Furthermore,
Ameritech, the parent of Ohio Bell, did not see any direct competition
for Automatic Callback in March 1987 and Ohio Bell has not, in our
opinion, submitted any evidence to the contrary. [Comment: In other
words, the phone company argues that alternatives don't exist, then
changes its tune when its original story doesn't help its case.]
"II. Discussion -- I. Costs
"1. Staff Concerns
" ... Staff [first thought] Ohio Bell's cost studies [were adequate.
But] Staff later became concerned after reviewing the prefiled testimony
of Ohio Bell's witnesses which contains items not originally submitted
to Staff. [Staff is concerned about] joint product costs (right-to-use
fees), advertising expenses, and the Accommodation Plan. ... Staff is
especially concerned that, in a family of services such as Class, a
monopoly service such as Caller ID may lead to cross-subsidization of
other more competitive services. ...
"II. Discussion -- I. Costs
"2. Economic Tests
"To support the proposed pricing scheme of Caller ID and Automatic
Callback, Ohio Bell called as a witness Dr Kent A Currie [who] is
employed by Ohio Bell as a manager of cost methods. ... [Comment: the
proposed pricing scheme does not appear anywhere in the Opinion and
Order.] To determine if the services are cost compensatory at the
proposed prices, Dr Currie applied two cost tests: the long-run marginal
cost test and the total incremental cost (TIC) test. Some ... factors
... in the cost analysis were depreciation, federal income taxes, gross
receipts tax, one-time expenses, inflation factors, opportunity costs of
capital, maintenance expenses, mass-media advertising, and the
Accommodation Plan. ...
"II. Discussion -- I. Costs
"3. Right-to-Use Fees
"Dr Currie ... defined the RTU as a payment for the use of specific
functions ... implemented in computer software. [Generally,] the RTU
fee is paid to the equipment vendor only once by Ohio Bell for each
unit. ... In this instance, the RTU fees primarily involve payments for
the end office switches that provide CLASS services. ... Ohio Bell buys
its switches from three vendors: Northern Telecom, AT&T, and Siemens.
Each offers a different price structure and price level for CLASS RTU
fees. The Caller ID study included the RTU fee for Northern Telecom DMS
switches[, which is] based upon either the number of Caller ID lines
being furnished or the number of switches equipped with the service.
Only the Northern Telecom switch was included in the study because the
costs for CLASS services are product specific, except for Automatic
Callback which, according to Dr Currie, is packaged with Repeat Dialing.
"Dr Currie explained that cost studies involving RTU fees are
complicated by the fact that switch vendors sometimes structure their
fees so that a package of services is offered for less than the sum of
the individual package components. In this case, the product mix
includes Caller ID, Automatic Callback, and Repeat Dialing. [Comment:
Compare with the last sentence of the preceding paragraph.] Consequent-
ly, Dr Currie believes that it would be inappropriate to include the
product- specific cost for Caller ID as part of the total incremental
cost for the service.
"Applying the long-run marginal cost test and the total incremental
cost test, Dr Currie concluded that the family of CLASS services will be
cost compensatory in 10 years at the proposed tariff minimum rates.
[Comment: No figures were given anywhere in the Opinion and Order for
costs or prices of the services.]
"Staff believes that RTU fees, which make up a substantial amount of
the fixed costs of providing the CLASS services, have not been appropri-
ately allocated among the different features by Ohio Bell. ... [T]he
method chosen by Ohio Bell for allocating these fees places a dispropor-
tionate burden for recovering the fees on the least competitive service,
i.e., Caller ID. [Comment: This means that Staff thinks Ohio Bell's
cost studies exaggerate the cost of Caller ID and minimize the cost of
(unnamed) competitive services. Thus Ohio Bell would offer competitive
services at a price that was subsidized by Caller ID, gaining a
competitive advantage on those services.]
"According to Mr Wesolek, Staff has also reviewed Ohio Bell's
proposed cost studies which allegedly justify the competitive price
treatment Ohio Bell seeks for the proposed services. ... [After] Staff
originally reviewed the [cost studies], Ohio Bell has added advertising
expenses and expenses pertaining to the Accommodation Plan. Therefore,
Staff could not determine at the hearing whether Ohio Bell's proposed
prices were truly cost compensatory, especially at the minimum prices.
"II. Discussion -- I. Costs
"4. Conclusion on Costs
"On the issue of costs, we find ourselves faced with a very
difficult situation. Ohio Bell has submitted cost studies. ... Staff
... has shied away from its previous position that Caller ID and
Automatic Callback, at the price list level, are just and reasonable.
... Staff was the only party, other than Ohio Bell, which raised the
cost of the services as an issue and presented testimony. ...
"Staff suggested ... that we gather more information from Ohio Bell
and reopen this hearing. ... Ohio Bell posited that Staff's position is
not warranted because Staff was satisfied with the company's cost
studies and revenue projections. However, Staff became concerned about
the services being cost compensatory when Ohio Bell introduced
additional cost data on the costs for mass-media advertising and the
Accommodation Plan for Caller ID. [Comment: The next two sentences are
the complete text of a footnote referenced at this point in the Opinion
and Order.] We would note that such new information was provided to
Staff at the hearing, leaving them little time for review and analysis.
Last-minute submittals of cost information worked, in this case, to
delay the Staff's analysis and can only result in further delays in
getting CLASS services out to the public as promptly as possible.
"Having thoroughly reviewed all parties' concerns, we find that Ohio
Bell should re-evaluate its costing and pricing methodologies for both
Caller ID and Automatic Callback, taking into account all of the recom-
mendations submitted thus far in this Order, i.e., blocking, customer
notice, etc. If Ohio Bell wishes to proceed with the service, it should
submit updated tariff sheets, including proposed prices, to this
Commission concurrently with its applications for Call Trace and Call
Reject. These prices to be proposed by Ohio Bell for Caller ID and
Automatic Callback must, at a minimum, reflect a level of pricing which
covers the company's long-run marginal cost test and the total incre-
mental cost test. Staff was not unsatisfied with the original cost
studies submitted by Ohio Bell, nor was Staff greatly concerned with the
pricing of the services at the price list level. It was not until after
Ohio Bell introduced additional data relating to expenses for adver-
tising and the Accommodation Plan that Staff questioned the company's
cost studies. We will not pass on Staff's concerns about advertising
costs at this time. Nevertheless, as a result of the Commission's
order, the cost implications of blocking must be taken into account and
the cost studies periodically submitted must be reviewed by Staff in
light of these changes. The prices that Ohio Bell proposes to charge
for Caller ID and Automatic Callback should reflect that the joint and
fixed costs are recovered within 5 years of the services being offered,
not the 10-year period suggested by Dr Currie. Because the other
intervenors did not object to Ohio Bell's cost data, this matter is to
be handled solely between the company and the Staff subject, of course,
to Commission review.
"II. Discussion -- J. Alternative Services
"... OCC's proposal that ... Call Trace and Call Reject be offered
as alternatives to Caller ID ... [is] currently the subject of a pending
complaint case by OCC against Ohio Bell.
"Call Trace permits the called party to dial an access code which
signals the terminating central office's switched memory to retrieve and
transmit the last incoming CPN to a law-enforcement agency or the
company's Annoyance Call Bureau. Call Reject (or selective call
rejection as known by Bellcore) allows the customer to refuse future
calls from certain telephone numbers. [A] customer may input known
telephone numbers onto a restricted list or, after a call is received, a
number can be added to the restricted list by dialing an access code.
Ohio Bell posits that the same anonymity issue surrounding Caller ID and
Automatic Callback is involved in Call Reject. Specifically, in certain
Ohio Bell central office switches (5ESS and DMS100), the numbers
contained on a screening list will be voiced back to the customer when
the customer checks the contents of the list.
"Neither Call Trace nor Call Reject provides the same benefits as
Caller ID, according to Ohio Bell witness Rini. He believed that the
distinguishing feature is that Caller ID benefits the customer before an
annoying call is received (call management) and after a call is answered
(information that can lead to the reduction of annoying calls) [while]
Call Trace and Call Reject ... benefit the customer only after the call
is answered. Call Trace is not being offered at this time because of
technical aspects surrounding the transport of the captured CPN to the
appropriate authorized agency. Ohio Bell's current ... schedule [lists]
Call Trace in the second quarter of 1992. Call Reject ... is not
currently being offered because there is the same issue present with
passing the CPN to the Call Reject customer as is present with Automatic
Callback. Until the privacy/anonymity issue is resolved, Ohio Bell does
not wish to file for approval of this service.
"Dr Richard A Carroll, an Assistant Professor of Clinical Psychiatry
... at the University of Chicago Medical Center, testifying on behalf of
Ohio Bell, did not believe that Call Trace would be as valuable a tool
in preventing obscene calls because it lacks the immediacy of Caller ID.
... He also did not believe that Call Trace would be as helpful to the
victim since the victim could not confront the caller with identifying
information. Concerning harassing calls made as a result of domestic or
interpersonal disputes, Dr Carroll again believes that Caller ID would
be more effective than Call Trace. As examples, Dr Carroll noted that
Caller ID would allow a potential victim to screen calls or use the sys-
tem to document violations of injunctions against harassment. [Comment:
Contrast with the testimony of prosecutor Forchione under II-D-2 above,
"Law Enforcement Concerns".]
"Ms Patricia Steinbarger, Assistant Manager in the Residential
Service Center at Ohio Bell, testified that Caller ID would aid in
reducing the number of annoying or harassing calls in three ways: ...
deter harassing callers by making their identity more readily known; ...
[having] the telephone number of the calling party, the called party
would not have to experience several instances of harassment in order to
resolve the problem; ... immediate access to the calling number would
expedite ACB investigations. [Comment: This happens automatically with
Call Trace; see the second paragraph in this section.] She also noted
that Caller ID could afford customers, in some instances, the ability to
resolve the problem themselves by informing the caller that they will
provide the number to authorities. ...
"Ohio Bell employee Barbara Fruscella stated that Call Trace does
not necessarily lead to a reduction in the volume of annoyance calls.
Ms Fruscella relied on data from Bell South ... [which, she said, show]
that, while the volume of annoyance-type calls did not decrease, the
costs to the ACB did increase. For example, Ms Fruscella claimed that
Ohio Bell's current operations allow its customers to contact the ACB
only during regular business hours; however, ... Call Trace would
require that subscribers ... be able to contact the ACB at any time.
... This witness also posits that ... Bell South data [showed] customer
dissatisfaction with paying for Call Trace and not receiving any
immediate tangible outcome. The witness did admit, however, that Bell
Atlantic reported that customer satisfaction was somewhat better when
Call Trace was offered at the same time [as] Caller ID. ...
"Conclusion on Alternative Services
"Initially, we agree that Call Trace and Call Reject perform comple-
mentary functions not identical functions with Caller ID. We do,
however, envision positive benefits that both Call Trace and Call
Reject, given the appropriate safeguards, can give Ohio consumers. Call
Trace appears to be a superior method of prosecuting obscene and
annoying telephone callers as openly admitted by Ohio Bell (OBT brief
at 39). However, because of a technical problem with forwarding the
captured CPN, Ohio Bell [is not] seeking permission to offer Call Trace
at this time. Call Reject allows subscribers ... to stop unwarranted
[sic; unwanted?] return telephone calls from a person. In these ways,
both Call Reject and Call Reject appear to be positive features.
"On the other hand, Call Trace lacks the immediacy which may
discourage obscene telephone callers from making repeat telephone calls
in the short term. Similarly, unless one knows the CPN (which is
impossible without Caller ID), it is impossible for a Call Reject
customer to add the telephone number of an obscene or annoying caller to
a restricted list, unless the subscriber answers and listens to the
obscene or annoying call. [Comment: How would a subscriber _know_ that
a first-time call was obscene or annoying without answering and
listening to it? And Call Reject lets the called party reject all
future calls from the number without knowing what the number is.] In
comparison, a Caller ID subscriber can confront an obscene or annoying
caller with his [sic] CPN, thereby potentially discouraging future
calls, and refuse to answer a call from a return obscene caller but
still add that number to his/her restricted list through the provision
of Call Reject. Thus, it appears that all three CLASS features are
complementary.
"There is, at the present time, a privacy concern regarding ... Call
Reject which we believe the company should resolve prior to offering
this service: ... a Call Reject customer [might obtain] the CPN ...
whenever the customer reviews the screening list and that customer is
served by a 5ESS or DMS100 central office. Thus, as discussed elsewhere
in this Order, we are greatly concerned with the potential discovery
[sic; disclosure?] of CPN in situations when Call Reject is utilized.
"Fundamentally, the Commission believes that maximum customer choice
should be the hallmark of any CLASS services. Just as we have provided
a 'menu' of options for customers seeking anonymity through blocking, so
too should customers have available to them a variety of CLASS services
in order to deter harassing or obscene calls. We would not want
customers to subscribe to Caller ID simply because it is the only
service available. Nor would we want it to be advertised as 'the'
answer to obscene and harassing calls. In a similar vein, the company
should not, as OCC evidently argues, promote Call Trace and Call Reject
to the exclusion of Caller ID. For these reasons, if Caller ID is to be
offered by Ohio Bell, its offering shall be contingent upon its offering
Call Trace and Call Reject contemporaneously. Therefore, while it is
clear that Call Trace and Call Reject will provide additional benefits
to Ohio subscribers, we feel that it is incumbent upon Ohio Bell to file
complete applications, including cost studies, for these aforementioned
features prior to us granting approval of Caller ID. We also recognize
that, as presently configured, blocking will not always prohibit the
CLASS subscriber from having access to the CPN. ... Moreover, before
we will approve any CLASS feature, Ohio Bell should verify in each CLASS
application that is submitted ... that CPN will be protected in all
instances in which the calling party chooses to implement blocking.
"II. Discussion -- K. Reporting Requirements
"The Commission believes that it would be prudent to maintain a
review of these services in order to evaluate more clearly their
effectiveness and benefits [as in NC]. Accordingly, if Ohio Bell wishes
to offer Caller ID it must provide quarterly reports for [a year]
consisting of ...: a) the extent of usage of per-call blocking and
per-line blocking; b) an itemization of all revenues and expenses
associated with the service; c) the number of subscribers to the
service, both residential and business; d) the total number of
residential and business subscribers to each CLASS service; e) the total
number of residential and business subscribers with non-published
numbers; f) the number of subscribers who terminate the service and
their reasons for doing so, if known; g) information regarding the
deterrent effect that the service has on harassing and obscene calls;
and h) the number and type of telemarketers that subscribe to the
service.
"All quarterly report information, with the exception of [item b],
must be submitted to the Compliance Division of the Commission's
Consumer Services Department. Revenue and Expense information should be
submitted to the Telecommunications Division Staff. The Commission
reserves the right to modify any portion of this Order after the
completion of the [year] based on the information provided in the
quarterly reports and other available information.
"II. Discussion -- L. Marketing Studies
"To ascertain whether consumers would be interested in subscribing
to Caller ID and Automatic Callback, Ohio Bell conducted both quantita-
tive and qualitative research [whose results are] in a March 6, 1990,
Ohio Bell Caller ID Privacy Study (OCC Ex. 8). Generally, this study
finds that 1) a majority of Ohio Bell subscribers are not substantially
concerned with privacy as it relates to the telephone; 2) both published
and non-published customers are interested in Caller ID; 3) customers
recognize that blocking diminishes the value of the service; 4)
legitimate calls to police, fire, and medical emergency authorities
would not be affected; however, calls to hotlines where anonymity plays
a crucial role may be affected; and 5) almost half of all non-published-
number customers have purchased Caller ID to avoid prank or obscene
calls in New Jersey.
"OCC presented three witnesses to challenge the conclusions drawn by
Ohio Bell from the [above] research. The first ... was Dr Douglas
Ferguson, an Assistant Professor, School of Mass Communication, Bowling
Green State University. Dr Ferguson [testified that] focus-group
research is a discussion group that concentrates on a particular topic
or topics, is facilitated by a trained moderator, and typically [has]
8 to 12 participants. [It] depends heavily on a good focus moderator,
[who] is a passive and neutral facilitator of conversation and must keep
the participants on track.
"Dr Ferguson testified that focus-group research is not representa-
tive of public opinion but instead is rich in detail. A strength of
this approach is that it allows a response in the participant's own
words [without restricting to] categories as do telephone or mail
surveys. According to Dr Ferguson, Ohio Bell's focus-group research
was, logistically, planned correctly, but the results were tainted by
moderator bias. ... [T]he moderator for the Caller-ID focus groups
acted as a cheerleader for the service and, in some cases, actually
opposed negative comments made about the service. In addition, ...
Caller ID was defined from the perspective of the called party, not
[the] calling party. Thus, it would be difficult for ... participants
to envision negative aspects of Caller ID.
"In conclusion, Dr Ferguson posited that the moderator did a poor
job conducting the ... sessions and, because of this failure, any
positive conclusions used by Ohio Bell in its privacy study in support
of Caller ID are suspect. ... [T]he focus-group method could have proved
effective, if properly conducted, to point out to Ohio Bell potential
problems with Caller ID which needed addressed [sic] prior to filing the
application with the Commission. However, in his opinion, the focus
groups were not properly characterized to utilize this information.
"[Next] was Dr Sara Spears [of the same school, whose] primary
teaching responsibility is ... quantitative research methods to
undergraduate, masters, and doctoral level students, as well as advising
and supervising students who are conducting their own quantitative
research projects.
"Dr Spears evaluated and explained the mail survey [and] the afore-
mentioned Caller ID privacy study. According to [her], Ohio Bell
correctly utilized a systematic sample with a random start, non-
published-number customers were appropriately weighted, and Ohio Bell
correctly accounted for its corporate name by mailing half of the
questionnaires under a fictitious sponsor's name. [T]he major weak-
nesses ... are the unacceptably low response rate of 29.1%, the use of
questions which were clearly biased in favor of Caller ID, and that a
reinterpretation of the same data could lead one to very different
conclusions than those drawn by Ohio Bell. The witness ... would be
concerned if the results of this study were used to support a public-
policy decision.
"[Last was] Dr Mark Cooper, President, Citizens Research, Silver
Spring MD, [who] has testified extensively on ... CLASS-type services
before nine state public service commissions [and each house of
Congress]. Dr Cooper ... discussed ... state commission decisions
regarding Caller ID.
"Dr Cooper also challenged the New Jersey conclusions Ohio Bell
relied upon when it designed the offering in Ohio. First, Dr Cooper
disagreed with the argument that Caller ID has [reduced] obscene and
harassing calls. ... [T]he New Jersey evidence can not distinguish which
of the CLASS services accounted for the decline in annoyance-type calls.
... Any measurable decline in the number of reports to the telephone
company may reflect a change in the way the company handles complaints
or a displacement of such complaints to other agencies. Furthermore,
the witness believes that self-reporting statistics by any entity with a
stake in the outcome should make the Caller ID data suspect.
"Conclusions on Marketing Studies"
"While some subscribers may [want] Caller ID service, their number
does not appear to be as great as that represented by Ohio Bell. Upon
reviewing the evidence submitted in these proceedings, we agree with
OCC's general premise that the Ohio Bell evidence does seem to skew
somewhat the research that the company relied on when it filed the
applications. This decision should not be construed as suggesting that
Ohio Bell or any other telephone public utility can not rely on this
type of quantitative or qualitative research when considering the
provision of new telecommunication services. However, we encourage all
telephone public utilities utilizing this type of research to reflect
fully and accurately the results of their research and to at least
consider adjusting their tariff filings in accordance with those
responses before filing an application with the Commission.
"II. Discussion -- M. Telemarketing
"Some of the parties have argued that Caller ID, through its ability
to aggregate telephone numbers, will lead to a proliferation of tele-
marketers and a concomitant increase in 'junk' calls to telephone
subscribers. For example, Cleveland believes that telemarketers could
determine, through telephone numbers, the geographic location ... of
originating calls and that the destination of the call would reveal
interest in particular products. ... Cleveland [also] believes that
other data would be obtainable, such as addresses, credit history, and
other database information. The information resulting from telephone
numbers ... would be of value and sold to telemarketers. Cleveland is
particularly concerned that telemarketers may take advantage of its
older citizens, who are more vulnerable to high- pressure solicitation
activities and scams.
"Scherers [Comment: See II-H above, "Competitive/Non-competitive
Issue "] ... argued that there is no evidence ... that Caller ID will
lead to an increase in telemarketing and 'junk calls'. Gordon Scherer
testified that ANI is primarily used for demographic research, not for
purposes of calling back the captured number. He also testified that
businesses that obtain telephone numbers of potential customers through
advertisements and promotions would treat that information as proprie-
tary. As for the selling of lists, Mr Scherer indicated that currently
there are list-management companies that compile and sell lists relating
to a wide variety of topics. Consequently, he believes that Caller ID
would add little to the information that is already available. Further-
more, because Caller ID is local in its scope, he posited that Caller ID
may be economically unfeasible as a means to develop a marketable list.
"Ohio Bell, likewise, does not believe that Caller ID will lead to
telemarketing problems. ... [T]elemarketers would be more interested in
data containing demographic information, rather than mere telephone
numbers, and [they] already have ... readily available business
information. Relying on the new Jersey Caller-ID experience, Ohio Bell
stated that there is no evidence that the predicted telemarketing abuses
and increase in unwanted sales calls have occurred. According to Ohio
Bell, only 7% of the Caller ID customers in New Jersey are non-residence
customers, most of which are small businesses and municipalities.
"Conclusion on Telemarketing
"Obviously, Caller ID has its benefits in the realm of telemarketing.
... Caller ID could provide to many smaller, localized retail establish-
ments capabilities that have, up to now, been available only to those
large businesses that could economically justify the expense of Feature
Group D service, which contains a number identification component. On
the other hand, in light of the potential for abuses by telemarketers,
the Commission deems it necessary to institute additional measures to
protect subscribers from unwanted intrusions by telephone. As pointed
out by Gordon Scherer upon questioning by Chairman Glazer, telemarketers
should be prohibited from using blocking to conceal their identity.
Following up on this worthwhile suggestion, the Commission believes that
Ohio Bell, if it decides to offer Caller ID service, should in its
tariff prohibit the blocking of calls by telemarketers. Upon receiving
complaints that a telemarketer is blocking calls, Ohio Bell should
investigate and terminate service where appropriate. Ohio Bell should
also work with the Attorney General's office to identify potential
computer dialers should SB 93 pass the General Assembly.
"II. Discussion -- N. Interexchange Carrier Issues"
[Comment: The seven paragraphs of this section dealt exclusively
with Allnet's pending case on equal access and intraLATA competition
(Allnet v Ohio Bell, 86-771-TP-CSS). I have severely cut this section
because it seems to me to be a side issue. I present only parts of
paragraphs 5 and 6, and all of paragraph 7.] "...
"Allnet proposed that by permitting intraLATA competition, Ohio Bell
subscribers will have another alternative available to them besides Ohio
Bell's proposed Accommodation Plan to prevent the forwarding of CPN. ...
"Next, Allnet argued that Automatic Callback will strengthen Ohio
Bell's position as the monopoly intraLATA provider because intraLATA
toll calls made over Ohio Bell's toll network will be returned over the
same facilities, thereby depriving customers of even utilizing 10XXX to
access another toll carrier. We agree that this is an issue which will
have to be decided if Ohio Bell further pursues offering this service.
However, we do not need to address this issue at this time because there
is not enough connectivity between Ohio Bell central offices outside the
Cleveland and Columbus local calling areas to justify the implementation
of LATA-wide Automatic Callback. ...
"Conclusion on Interexchange Carrier Issues
"In conclusion, we note again that the issue of intraLATA competi-
tion is more appropriately the subject of Allnet's pending complaint
case. To decide the intraLATA competition issue in this case would, in
effect, inappropriately shift the burden of proof on the intraLATA
competition issue to Ohio Bell. This we hesitate to do. Therefore ...
we find that Allnet's arguments are inappropriate for consideration in
these proceedings.
"III. Summary of Conclusions
"In summary, the Commission finds that neither Caller ID nor Auto-
matic Callback are prohibited by law. However, upon review of Ohio
Bell's applications pursuant to Section 4909.18, ORC, the Commission
finds that the applications, as proposed, are unjust and unreasonable.
The services, however, may be rendered just and reasonable by the imple-
mentation of certain safeguards which will permit callers to preserve
their anonymity where circumstances warrant. It is the opinion of the
Commission that the Accommodation Plan is inadequate for this purpose
for reasons of expense and inconvenience. Because of the inadequacy of
the Accommodation Plan, some form of blocking must accompany Caller ID
and Automatic Callback. Specifically, if Ohio Bell wishes to offer
Caller ID and Automatic Callback, it must provide the following blocking
options: 1) make available free universal per-call blocking to all
subscribers; 2) for those customers who subscribe to non-published-number
service, both current and future, per-line blocking must be provided
automatically without any additional charges, or the customer may
affirmatively choose to have free per-call blocking after being fully
informed of the availability of per-line and per-call blocking; and 3)
subscription per-line blocking must be made available for published
customers at a charge equivalent to non-published-number service rates.
All blocking options must be accompanied by free per-call unblocking
capability.
"The Commission is also aware that certain CLASS services, such as
Call Reject and Automatic Callback, with measured service and call
detail are unaffected by blocking. Both services have the potential for
disclosing the CPN. Consequently, if Ohio Bell wishes to offer these
services, it must take measures to preserve the privacy of callers.
"Because Rule 4901:1-5-09(H), OAC, generally prohibits the disclosure
of non-published telephone numbers, Ohio Bell has requested a waiver or
modification of the rule in order to allow the disclosure of non-
published numbers through Caller ID. The Commission finds that Ohio
Bell's request should be denied. [Non-pub] subscribers pay a premium
for an increased level of privacy. To maintain the level of privacy to
which non-published customers have grown accustomed, the Commission
requires that per-line blocking, unless waived, be provided to
non-published subscribers. ...
"The implementation of these services should be preceded by actual
notice to the appropriate customers in the form of bill inserts or
direct mailing 30 and 60 days in advance of the service pursuant to the
directives of this Order. Twenty days before each issuance, Ohio Bell
must submit to the Staff its proposed notice and advertisements
concerning Caller ID.
"The evidence does not show that Caller ID and Automatic Callback
have functional equivalents. Therefore, Ohio Bell has failed to meet
its burden of proof as to the competitive status of these services. The
cost studies submitted by Ohio Bell did not account for blocking. Even
assuming the propriety of the cost information, it is impossible to
conduct a proper cost evaluation without accounting for the revenue
impact of blocking. Consequently, Ohio Bell should file updated tariff
sheets, including proposed prices. Pricing should be at a level to
insure that the services are cost compensatory and that the joint and
fixed costs are recovered within a five-year period.
"Owing to the complementary functions of Caller ID, Automatic
Callback, Call Trace, and Call Reject and desiring to provide telephone
service customers a variety of services to suit their particular needs,
the Commission believes that an offering of Caller ID must be contingent
upon an offering of Call Trace and Call Reject.
"To allow the Commission to obtain additional information about
these services, Ohio Bell, if it chooses to offer these services, will
be required to provide quarterly informational reports for a one-year
period. As a result of the identified problems with some of the
research methods used in Ohio Bell's marketing research studies, the
Commission is not convinced by Ohio Bell's marketing research findings.
Nor was Ohio Bell convincing in arguing that Caller ID would not give
rise to telemarketing abuses. It is expected that the quarterly reports
will provide additional and more reliable information concerning public
interest and telemarketing abuses.
"The Commission finds that the arguments raised by Allnet closely
approximate the issues which are the subject of its pending complaint
case. Consequently, findings on those issues shall be reserved for that
proceeding.
"Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law:
"1. On March 20, 1990, The Ohio Bell Telephone Company (Ohio Bell)
filed petitions seeking permission to amend its tariff in order to
provide Caller ID and Automatic Callback.
"2. By entry issued April 11, 1991, the Commission found that these
petitions may be unjust and unreasonable and, therefore, scheduled local
public hearings and an evidentiary hearing.
"3. By entries dated April 11, May 30, and August 27, 1991, the
Commission granted the following entities permission to intervene in
these proceedings: The Ohio Association of Chiefs of Police, the Ohio
State Highway Patrol, the United States Treasury Department, Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, and the Fraternal Order of Police, Inc.;
the American Civil Liberties Union on Ohio Foundation; Allnet Communica-
tions Services, Inc.; the Office of the Consumers' Counsel; the Ohio
Domestic Violence Network; the North Central Mental Health Services; the
City of Cleveland; and Scherers Communications, Inc.
"4. In addition, United Telephone Company's motion to intervene was
denied of August 23, 1991; however, United was not foreclosed from
filing an amicus-curiae post-hearing brief.
"5. Ohio Bell's April 30, 1990, request for a modification or
exemption from Rule 4901:1-5-09(H), OAC, was consolidated into these
proceedings by a Commission entry dated April 11, 1991.
"6. Local public hearings were held in these matters in Cleveland,
Columbus, Dayton, and Toledo on July 29, August 7, August 8, and August
13, 1991, respectively.
"7. Evidentiary hearings began in these matters on September 11 and
concluded on September 30, 1991. A rebuttal hearing was held on October
7, 1991.
"8. Ohio Bell, the Commission's staff, Law Enforcement, NCMHS, OCC,
Cleveland, ODVN, Allnet, and Scherers filed briefs and reply briefs. By
letter filed March 10, 1992, Ohio Bell modified its position on
blocking.
"9. Having thoroughly considered the evidence of record, the
Commission has determined that the applications, as filed, are unjust
and unreasonable.
"10. Ohio Bell's proposed applications may be just and reasonable if
the applicant modifies its tariff offerings to incorporate the
safeguards set forth in this Opinion and Order.
"It is, therefore,
"ORDERED, That Ohio Bell's applications for tariff amendments in
Case Nos. 90-467-TP-ATA and 90-471-TP-ATA are unjust and unreasonable as
presently filed. It is, further,
"ORDERED, That by making the modifications delineated in this
Opinion and Order the applications may be just and reasonable. It is,
further,
"ORDERED, That should Ohio Bell still wish to offer Caller ID and
Automatic Callback it should modify its applications in accordance with
the conclusions of this Opinion and Order. It is, further,
"ORDERED, That Ohio Bell's request for an exemption or modification
of the minimum telephone service standards is denied. It is, further,
"ORDERED, That copies of this Opinion and Order be served upon Ohio
Bell; [the intervenors listed above]; their respective counsel; and all
other interested persons of record.
"THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF OHIO -- Craig A Glazer,
Chairman; J Michael Biddison; Ashley C Brown; Jolynn Barry Butler;
Richard M Fanelly.
"Entered in the Journal MAR 26 1992 A True Copy; Gary E Vigorito, Secretary"
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cleveland, Ohio, USA brown@ncoast.org
TUCoPS is optimized to look best in Firefox® on a widescreen monitor (1440x900 or better).
Site design & layout copyright © 1986-2024 AOH
