CCC   PPPPP   U    U    CCC       N    N  EEEEE  W  W  W   SSS
 C   C  P    p  U    U   C   C      NN   N  E      W  W  W  S   S
C       P    P  U    U  C           N N  N  E      W  W  W  S
C       PPPPP   U    U  C           N N  N  EEE    W W W W   SSS
C       P       U    U  C           N  N N  E      WW   WW      S
 C   C  P       U    U   C   C      N   NN  E      W     W  S   S
  CCC   P        UUUU     CCC       N    N  EEEEE  W     W   SSS
             California Public Utilities Commission
505 Van Ness Avenue, Room 5301            San Francisco, CA 94102
CONTACT: Dianne Dienstein                 June 7, 1995  CPUC - 50
         415-703-2423

              CPUC APPEALS FCC CALLER ID DECISION

    The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) today
appealed the recent Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
Caller ID decision in the U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco
claiming it puts the privacy of millions of Californians at risk.
    A phone customer who purchases Caller ID service is able to
see the phone number of whoever is calling on a small screen
attached or built in to the phone - unless the caller blocks
disclosure of the number.
    The CPUC's existing Caller ID rules satisfy the state
constitutional right of privacy by protecting Californians who
pay an extra monthly charge for unlisted phone numbers to ensure
their privacy and safety.  They include police agencies and
undercover police officers, victims of domestic violence and
operators of shelters for such victims, single women, the elderly
and children, people who wish to keep their names, addresses and
telephone numbers from the mailing lists and databases of
telemarketers and direct mail marketers, people who are fearful
of technology, the developmentally disabled, people who wish to
choose those to whom they give their private phone numbers and
people who simply wish to be left alone.
    California has the highest number of unlisted subscribers in
the U.S.  In the state's ten largest cities, more than 60 percent
of phone subscribers have chosen to have unlisted numbers.
    The CPUC authorized and encouraged California phone companies
to offer the service in 1992, but with blocking options to
protect all Californians.  The phone companies, however, withheld
the service and instead urged the FCC to reduce CPUC-established
                            - more -
privacy protections.  While the recent FCC decision upheld most
CPUC protections, it overruled one the CPUC deems extremely
important for Caller ID -- the automatic blocking default for
unlisted subscribers.
    The CPUC rules required any company with the capability of
offering Caller ID to allow customers with unlisted phone numbers
to automatically have disclosure of their number blocked unless
they requested otherwise.  Customers could override the blocking
to reveal their number for a call by dialing *82 before the
number they call.  The CPUC rules also required phone companies
to allow any customers dissatisfied with their initial blocking
option one free change of blocking option.
    The phone companies argued to the FCC that the CPUC
requirement of automatic number blocking for unlisted subscribers
who don't contact the phone company to request blocking would
make offering Caller ID not profitable.  CPUC staff estimates
that once Caller ID is offered, Pacific Bell - California's
largest local phone company - stands to make tens of millions of
dollars per year initially from the service, with its profits
increasing over time.
    The FCC ruled that customers with unlisted numbers who do not
contact the phone company to request that their number be blocked
on all calls must dial *67 before each call they make to block
disclosure.  The CPUC is appealing the FCC decision because the
CPUC believes no matter how comprehensive a consumer education
program, many Californians with unlisted phone numbers will not
find out how to protect their privacy under Caller ID, and their
number will be disclosed without their knowledge or consent each
time they make a phone call.  The privacy of as many as 3 million
Californians with unlisted numbers could be jeopardized.
    CPUC studies suggest that even with the CPUC's customer
education requirements, more than 30 percent of California
telephone subscribers won't receive notice about Caller ID or
know their number is being disclosed or what they must do to
prevent disclosure.  Worse, some California phone companies are
arguing that these customer notice and education requirements
should be reduced.  Customers with unlisted numbers who fail to
receive notice will continue to pay extra for an unlisted number
not realizing that with Caller ID, it no longer protects their
privacy.                                             ###