Statement of Southwestern Bell Corporation Regarding Proposed Legislation on the Caller-ID Service Southwestern Bell welcomes this opportunity to articulate its views regarding the privacy issues which this committee is now addressing. We commend the committee for its foresight in identifying and addressing the potential conflict — seen by some — between the provision of Caller-ID and the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. Southwestern Bell anticipates that it will begin offering "Caller-ID" within the very near future — perhaps as soon as first quarter, 1991. An integral element of our Caller-ID service offering, to be submitted to state regulatory commissions for approval, will be the provision, at no cost or charge to the customer, of a per-call blocking capability. This per-call blocking capability will provide each customer the ability to select which calls that customer desires to remain unidentified to the called party. We believe offering Caller-ID in this manner provides a proper balance. First, this approach recognizes the value of Caller-ID to the called party in better managing the flow of communications into the home and business. Furthermore, this approach recognizes and respects the deeply-felt concerns of some of our customers who say they want a choice about whether their assigned telephone numbers are transmitted in readable form to persons they call. Such concerns are more obviously compelling for customers engaged in law enforcement duties, as well as service organizations such as "shelter" homes for battered women and children. We recognize also that other customers desire to maintain this element of their privacy less for social policy reasons than for preservation of the more traditional view of privacy, i.e., the "right to be left alone." Southwestern Bell believes that its policy regarding Caller-ID protects the concerns of the various segments of its customer body who are concerned about number delivery services. At the same time, however, the policy does not intrude either on those customers who affirmatively desire to transmit their telephone number with each new call they place, or on those customers who are truly indifferent to the issue one way or the other. Southwestern Bell anticipates that number delivery will still occur on a high percentage of calls, thereby accommodating the desire on the part of many of our customers to be able to identify the calling party. One aspect of our policy that warrants particular mention to this Committee is the fact that it was adopted by Southwestern Bell voluntarily, without the aid, direction or compulsion of legislative or regulatory pressure or mandate. This is, we believe, the better course. However, Caller-ID is but one type of number delivery service. Other number delivery services and/or name information services have been proposed by various providers in different parts of the country. To the extent that any oversight dealing with specific number delivery services is viewed as necessary or desirable, it may be appropriate for such terms or conditions to be imposed at the state level. However, the terms, conditions, and charges for provision of specific intrastate service offerings, such as Caller-ID, appear to be more properly matters of regulatory, rather than legislative concern. Such matters have traditionally been the purview of state commissions and there appears no need for preemptive legislative action as it relates to Caller-ID. Should the Committee determine that the provision of number delivery services causes unintended conflict with the Electronic Communication Privacy Act, the Committee should act to prevent such a result. Southwestern Bell will be pleased to work with the Committee to assure that any possible conflict such as this is resolved so that the provision of number delivery services cannot be interpreted to constitute the provision of — or engagement in — trap and trace or pen register activity as those terms are defined in the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. Trap and Trace or Pen Register devices and activity have been subject to legislative regulation for a considerable period of time and were recognized as legitimate subjects of national legislation. Southwestern Bell views number delivery services to be of an entirely different nature. Their regulation, as noted earlier, should be at the state level, reflecting values and concerns unique, perhaps, to a given state. Again, Southwestern Bell appreciates the opportunity to present its views to this Committee. We will be happy to assist the Committee in its consideration of this issue. |