In developing our position on Calling Number ID, we conducted focus groups and sought the opinions of various audiences ranging from law enforcement agencies to hotline services and consumer groups. It readily became very clear that there are situations in which customers do not want their telephone numbers to be revealed. Examples of these include: •Individuals conducting business from their homes, such as psychiatrists, doctors or lawyers, may not want their home numbers disclosed. •An individual in a battered person's shelter who may want to call home without revealing the location to an abusive spouse. •Police or drug agency informants and individuals calling various hotlines may want to remain anonymous. Centel wants to be responsive to those customers who wish not to have their number identified on certain calls. IV. Optional Blocking Is Essential to the Balancing of Interests There is a conflict between making the benefits of Calling Number ID available and the need for some form of blocking the display of calling numbers. Centel believes offering optional Calling Number ID Block on a per-call basis to all customers resolves this conflict: blocking would be available to everyone without greatly diluting the benefits of Calling Number ID. Per-call blocking requires callers to select that option each time they wish to block. Therefore, Calling Number ID would not be blocked indiscriminately. But undercover policemen, hotline callers or abused spouse could block the delivery of their telephone numbers. They would not have to find a pay phone as no-blocking proponents would require. Customers do have various reasons for wanting to keep their telephone numbers private for certain calls. Centers approach gives them this choice. Nor does optional call blocking cloak the originating number of obscene or harassing calls. Customers with Return Call service have the option of returning an immediately preceding incoming call even if Calling Number ID Block had been used by the caller. Furthermore, the related Call Trace feature enables all customers, regardless of whether they subscribe to Calling Number ID and whether the caller used Calling Number ID Block, to immediately initiate a trace of obscene or harassing calls. Results of such a trace would be stored in the telephone company's switching office and would be released only to appropriate law enforcement authorities. Return Call and Call Trace can be effective deterrents to obscene and harassing callers even while optional call blocking preserves the privacy of other users. V.. Support of Slate Approaches to Calling Number ID Local service issues have traditionally been regulated at the state level, with the states often differing in their legislative and regulatory approaches. Because of this framework, Centel believes that Calling Number ID and related services also should be considered on a state-by-state basis. Moreover, valuable experience with the new technologies would be gained by permitting a variety of regulatory approaches across states. VI. Conclusion In conclusion, Centers approach would bring to customers the benefits of Calling Number ID while preserving the customer's right to choose whether to disclose his or her telephone number. The customer will have the choice - of the new services and of number disclosure. MM United States Telephone Association 900 19th street, Nw., suite soo Washington, DC. 20006-2105 (202) 835-3100 September 18, 1990 The Honorable Robert W. Kastenmeier 2328 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515-4902 Dear Chairman Kastenmeier: The Board of Directors of the United States Telephone "Caller*lD should not be the subject of federal As you proceed with your hearings and deliberations on these issues, we hope that you will be guided by this philosophy. The individual states and commissions have a rich history of encouraging technological development while protecting the rights of consumers. Caller*ID service has been deployed in a number of states, and the experience of the consumers in those states will provide important evidence as to the best way to maximize Caller*ID's benefits. We hope that you will allow the states the opportunity to fully study this issue and apply their expertise. Respectfully yours, JOHN SODOLSKI Michael Remington Prepared Statement Of Carol Knauff, Director, Intelligent Network Services, American Telephone & Telegraph Co. My name is Carol Knauff. I am the Director of Intelligent Network Services for AT&T. My organization is responsible for the development and marketing of enhanced network services for AT&T's business customers. Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony on H.R. 4340. AT&T recognizes that calling party identification services involve important public policy implications, and we welcome this chance to share our views on the subject. As calling party identification (CPID) services have become increasingly available to the American public, they have also been increasingly in the spotlight of public policy debate. These services, in which the caller's telephone number is displayed to the party receiving the call, are being provided to both business customers and consumers depending upon the deployment of the enabling technology. The display of the calling number, as the services have become more widespread, has raised some concerns about the privacy interests of both the party placing the call and the party receiving it. AT&T's involvement in privacy issues is not new. As a leader in the telecommunications industry, we have a firm policy to protect the privacy of the content of any information — voice or data — that is transmitted over our facilities. We remain committed to that policy in the future. We were also a leader of the coalition that helped to pass the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986. That coalition included the Bell operating companies, other industry participants, law enforcement agencies and the American Civil Liberties Union. We have also worked to educate and inform all interested parties about the technology under discussion today. The bill now before the Committee, The Telephone Privacy Act of 1990, would require that a telephone company that offers customers a calling party identification service must provide the calling party with the option of restricting the presentation of their phone numbers. This is sometimes called "blocking" the display of the calling number. AT&T believes that mandating nationwide blocking capability at this time would be premature and unwise. These services are still at the early stages of development, and there is simply not enough information available about them to permit the Congress to reasonably conclude that blocking is appropriate. Indeed, the available evidence points the other way. Where they have been introduced, the services have already demonstrated their value in enabling customers to offer new and more responsible services to their consumers, in sharply reducing the levels of anonymous obscene and harassing calls, and in the provision of 911 and |