FCC Dials a Wrong Number : Rules for Caller ID favor marketers over phone customers
Californians tilt toward privacy when it comes to their phone numbers, so it’s no surprise that 50% of phone customers pay extra to have unpublished or unlisted numbers. The state Public Utilities Commission figured that these people would prefer to retain that privacy when a new service that flashes the number of an incoming call becomes available in California. If only such common sense had prevailed in Washington. But no, the Federal Communications Commission overruled the PUC and sided with the phone companies and telemarketers, who want Caller ID to apply to all customers except those who specifically ask that it be blocked.
The FCC says it wants uniformity in Caller ID rules from state to state. California is the only state where the Caller ID service is yet to be implemented.
The PUC has reluctantly gone along with the FCC, after raising an unsuccessful challenge in the U.S. Supreme Court. But the state agency did require Pacific Bell and GTE to mount an aggressive educational campaign to inform customers that they must take action to block the disclosure of their numbers.
Caller ID benefits marketers and other clients who use the displayed numbers to produce demographic data or to identify callers before answering the phone.
Response to the Pacific Bell/GTE campaign has been so overwhelming in favor of blocking that the PUC voted unanimously last week to postpone the June 1 start of Caller ID. Pac Bell says it needs more time to send confirmation letters to customers who have asked for blocking. GTE is ready to offer Caller ID within California but is delaying start-up until June 15, when it can provide the service both within and outside of California.
About 50% of California’s 14 million residential phone users have demanded blocking. Nearly 90% of those have asked for complete blocking rather than the other option, which is selective blocking.
The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a ruling upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, said the FCC could preempt the state policy. A phone number is not a constitutionally protected privacy interest, the lower court ruled.
While phone numbers may not be legally shielded, the FCC and telephone companies could have made it easier to make them inaccessible to Caller ID. Customers say making the arrangements is annoying, and the paperwork is a pain for phone companies. It could have been avoided. Caller ID should begin with phone service customers making the choice to ask for the service, not to request to block it. The process is not customer-friendly. The PUC understood that. Why not Washington or the phone companies?
