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