Existing law requires the Public Utilities Commission to consider and adopt a code of conduct, associated rules, and enforcement procedures to govern the conduct of electrical corporations relative to the consideration, formation, and implementation of a community choice aggregation program. Existing law requires the commission to ensure that the code of conduct, associated rules, and enforcement procedures are implemented by no later than January 1, 2013.

This bill would make a nonsubstantive change to that provision.

Date of Hearing: May 4, 2016

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON UTILITIES AND COMMERCE

Mike Gatto, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 2795 (

Author:Lopez) – As Amended Ver:March 17, 2016

SUBJECT: Telephony: unlisted numbers

SUMMARY: Prohibits a telephone corporation from charging subscribers for not having their residential telephone number listed in a directory or publicly available directory assistance database.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Prohibits a telephone corporation selling or licensing lists of residential subscribers, from including the telephone number of any subscriber assigned an unlisted or unpublished access number. Specifies that a subscriber may waive all or part of the protection through written notice to the telephone corporation. (Public Utilities Code Section 2891.1)
2. Prohibits a provider of mobile telephony services, or any direct or indirect affiliate or agent of a provider, from providing the name and dialing number of a subscriber for inclusion in any directory of any form, or selling the contents of any directory database, or any portion or segment, from including the dialing number of any subscriber without first obtaining the express consent of that subscriber. (Public Utilities Code Section 2891.1)
3. Specifies that a subscriber may not be charged for making the choice to not have their name and mobile telephony dialing number listed in a publicly available directory assistance database. (Public Utilities Code Section 2891.1)

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown. This bill is keyed non-fiscal by the Legislative Counsel.

COMMENTS:

1. Author's Statement: "Generally, consumers have a difficult time fighting against large corporations that have unjust practices. This fee to keep a person's private information as 'unlisted' may be cost-prohibitive to low-income families and the elderly, who may live on fixed incomes. Many times, these monthly fees are added to a person's phone bill without their knowledge; often, this disadvantaged population rely and count every single cent to make ends meet. Furthermore, publications of 'unlisted numbers' is particularly dangerous for victims of domestic violence that have been enrolled in 'Safe at Home,' a program designed to protect victims and survivors of domestic violence, stalking, sexual assault or victims of elder abuse. This disclosure can lead to potentially dangerous consequences for these persons that pay a service to ensure their privacy and safety."
2. Background: In 2006, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) deregulated landline telephone services in order to promote a competitive environment. By deregulating, the CPUC chose not to constrain the price that telephone companies may charge for telephone services. The CPUC could still exercise its general regulatory authority to stop a rate increase, but there has been little indication that they would do so. The CPUC does not regulate wireless services, nor other Internet based voice service, such as Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) services. Smaller telephone companies continue to be regulated by the CPUC.
3. Unlisted and Unpublished Numbers: Most telephone companies provide subscribers with the option to unlist or unpublish their telephone numbers. Unlisted service is an option in which a subscriber may have their telephone number not listed in any directory, such as white pages. Unpublished service is an option in which subscribers may have their telephone numbers not listed in any directory or directory assistance, such as 4-1-1.

Before the CPUC deregulated local telephone services, AT&T charged $0.28 per month to have their telephone numbers unlisted/unpublished. After deregulation, AT&T charged $1.50 per month for unlisted services and $1.75 per month for unpublished services. According to AT&T, there is no charge for a new customer to initiate the service; however, it does charge existing customers $6.65 to initiate unlisted services in addition to the monthly recurring charge. There is no charge for limiting the information published in a directory, such as providing a customer's initials only aside from their full name, nor is there a charge for blocking a number from appearing on a Caller ID. However, according to The Utility Reform Network (TURN), AT&T currently imposes a $2.25 monthly charge for unlisted services and $4.95 monthly charge for unpublished services. Comcast charges a total fee of $3.50 per month to have a subscribers number unpublished, according to a recent settlement with the Attorney General over the publication of approximately 74,000 unlisted numbers.

Smaller companies that are still regulated by the CPUC are prohibited from charging subscribers a fee for unlisted numbers. Current law also prohibits providers of mobile telephony services, from including the dialing number of any subscriber in any directory without first obtaining the express consent of that subscriber. This bill extends the existing prohibition for mobile telephone services, to landline services. VoIP service providers are not affected by this bill.

This bill prohibits a telephone corporation from charging a subscriber for not having his or her residential telephone number listed in a directory or publicly available directory assistance database.

1. Price vs. Cost: It is unclear if the price of unlisting a number reflects the cost of doing so. The telephone industry argues that there are identifiable costs associated with unlisting a number and to keep it unlisted monthly. In addition, opponents argue that historically it has been government policy to promote the goal of universal service, access, and communication to promote economic development and communications between one another. However, as the number of landline subscribers continues to decrease, and the number of wireless and VoIP subscribers increase, and because current law already prohibits mobile telephone services from listing numbers without a subscriber's consent, the number of publicly listed numbers will naturally decrease as well.
2. Privacy and Safety: Although California law encourages customers to list their telephone numbers by requiring free directory listings and the distribution of free white pages directories, the California Constitution expressly guarantees an individual's right to privacy. If a subscriber chooses to have his or her telephone number unlisted, they have a right to do so, without being impeded by the cost of doing so. Unlisted services not only provide services for those seeking privacy, but also provide protections for individuals more susceptible to public safety dangers, such as law enforcement officials, prison guards, and crime victims.

According to the author, publications of "unlisted numbers" can lead to potentially dangerous consequences for these persons, such as domestic violence victims, that pay a service to ensure their privacy and safety. California's Safe at Home Program provides individuals, including victims of domestic violence and elder abuse, services to protect certain information from behind disclosed to other parties, including child information, mail forwarding, name change, voter registration, driving record suppression and internet disclosure prohibitions. It is unclear if such individuals are currently required to pay the fee to have their telephone numbers unlisted/unpublished. The author argues that the cost of being unlisted detrimentally affects such victims who may be elderly and low income, and live on fixed incomes.

1. Arguments in Support: According to The Utility Reform Network (TURN), the sponsor of the bill, "Since the [CPUC] voted to deregulate phone service in 2007, the monthly fee for the 'service' of not printing a subscriber's private contact information in public phone books has continued to increase. Customers pay each month to keep their personal information out of public databases not only to preserve their privacy, but to protect their safety … This publication of 'unlisted numbers' is particularly dangerous for victims of domestic violence that have been enrolled in 'Safe at Home,' a program designed to protect victims and survivors of domestic violence, stalking, sexual assault or victims of elder abuse. This disclosure can lead to potentially dangerous consequences for these persons that pay a service to ensure their privacy and safety. Furthermore, this service detrimentally effects the elderly and low-income which live on fixed incomes. Often times, these vulnerable populations are charged these fees unknowingly; where every cent is important to their daily lives. Telephone companies should not be allowed to profit by limiting or invading the right of privacy of vulnerable citizens of California."
2. Arguments in Opposition: According to AT&T, Frontier Communications, Consolidated Communications, and the California Cable & Telecommunications Association, "Government policy has long promoted the public distribution of telephone numbers through telephone directories… Historically, public policy and practice have promoted the telephone number and telephone network as means of communications and economic development. For decades, consumer have used directories to access numbers for government agencies, social services, businesses, friends and neighbors … AB 2795 is wrongly characterized as a privacy issue. Telephone numbers are not inherently private … Instead, AB 2795 is a misguided attempt at selective price regulation in a competitive industry."
3. Prior Legislation:

SB 437 (Pavley) 2009: Prohibits all telephone corporations, including cellphone companies, from charging customers for having a unlisted telephone number. Failed Passage in the Senate Energy, Utilities and Communications Committee.

SB 1423 (Kuehl) 2008: Prohibits all telephone company customers from charging for an unlisted telephone number. Died on the Senate Floor.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

The Utility Reform Network (Sponsor)

Consumer Federation of California

Opposition

AT&T

California Cable & Telecommunications Association

Consolidated Communications

Frontier Communications

Analysis Prepared by: Edmond Cheung / U. & C. / (916) 319-2083

Date of Hearing: April 27, 2016

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON UTILITIES AND COMMERCE

Mike Gatto, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 2795 (

Author:Lopez) – As Amended Ver:March 17, 2016

SUBJECT: Telephony: unlisted numbers

SUMMARY: Prohibits a telephone corporation from charging subscribers for not having their residential telephone number listed in a directory or publicly available directory assistance database.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Prohibits a telephone corporation selling or licensing lists of residential subscribers, from including the telephone number of any subscriber assigned an unlisted or unpublished access number. Specifies that a subscriber may waive all or part of the protection through written notice to the telephone corporation. (Public Utilities Code Section 2891.1)
2. Prohibits a provider of mobile telephony services, or any direct or indirect affiliate or agent of a provider, from providing the name and dialing number of a subscriber for inclusion in any directory of any form, or selling the contents of any directory database, or any portion or segment, from including the dialing number of any subscriber without first obtaining the express consent of that subscriber. (Public Utilities Code Section 2891.1)
3. Specifies that a subscriber may not be charged for making the choice to not have their name and mobile telephony dialing number listed in a publicly available directory assistance database. (Public Utilities Code Section 2891.1)

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown. This bill is keyed non-fiscal by the Legislative Counsel.

COMMENTS:

1. Author's Statement: "Generally, consumers have a difficult time fighting against large corporations that have unjust practices. This fee to keep a person's private information as 'unlisted' may be cost-prohibitive to low-income families and the elderly, who may live on fixed incomes. Many times, these monthly fees are added to a person's phone bill without their knowledge; often, this disadvantaged population rely and count every single cent to make ends meet. Furthermore, publications of 'unlisted numbers' is particularly dangerous for victims of domestic violence that have been enrolled in 'Safe at Home,' a program designed to protect victims and survivors of domestic violence, stalking, sexual assault or victims of elder abuse. This disclosure can lead to potentially dangerous consequences for these persons that pay a service to ensure their privacy and safety."
2. Background: In 2006, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) deregulated landline telephone services in order to promote a competitive environment. By deregulating, the CPUC chose not to constrain the price that telephone companies may charge for telephone services. The CPUC could still exercise its general regulatory authority to stop a rate increase, but there has been little indication that they would do so. The CPUC does not regulate wireless services, nor other Internet based voice service, such as Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) services. Smaller telephone companies continue to be regulated by the CPUC.
3. Unlisted and Unpublished Numbers: Most telephone companies provide subscribers with the option to unlist or unpublish their telephone numbers. Unlisted service is an option in which a subscriber may have their telephone number not listed in any directory, such as white pages. Unpublished service is an option in which subscribers may have their telephone numbers not listed in any directory or directory assistance, such as 4-1-1.

Before the CPUC deregulated local telephone services, AT&T charged $0.28 per month to have their telephone numbers unlisted/unpublished. After deregulation, AT&T charged $1.50 per month for unlisted services and $1.75 per month for unpublished services. According to AT&T, there is no charge for a new customer to initiate the service; however, it does charge existing customers $6.65 to initiate unlisted services in addition to the monthly recurring charge. There is no charge for limiting the information published in a directory, such as providing a customer's initials only aside from their full name, nor is there a charge for blocking a number from appearing on a Caller ID. However, according to the Utility Reform Network (TURN), AT&T currently imposes a $2.25 monthly charge for unlisted services and $4.95 monthly charge for unpublished services. Comcast charges a total fee of $3.50 per month to have a subscribers number unpublished, according to a recent settlement with the Attorney General over the publication of approximately 74,000 unlisted numbers.

Smaller companies that are still regulated by the CPUC are prohibited from charging subscribers a fee for unlisted numbers. Current law also prohibits providers of mobile telephony services, from including the dialing number of any subscriber in any directory without first obtaining the express consent of that subscriber. This bill extends the existing prohibition for mobile telephone services, to landline services. VoIP service providers are not affected by this bill.

This bill prohibits a telephone corporation from charging a subscriber for not having his or her residential telephone number listed in a directory or publicly available directory assistance database.

1. Price vs. Cost: It is unclear if the price of unlisting a number reflects the cost of doing so. The telephone industry argues that there are identifiable costs associated with unlisting a number and to keep it unlisted monthly. In addition, opponents argue that historically it has been government policy to promote the goal of universal service, access, and communication to promote economic development and communications between one another. However, as the number of landline subscribers continues to decrease, and the number of wireless and VoIP subscribers increase, and because current law already prohibits mobile telephone services from listing numbers without a subscriber's consent, the number of publicly listed numbers will naturally decrease as well.
2. Privacy and Safety: Although California law encourages customers to list their telephone numbers by requiring free directory listings and the distribution of free white pages directories, the California Constitution expressly guarantees an individual's right to privacy. If a subscriber chooses to have his or her telephone number unlisted, they have a right to do so, without being impeded by the cost of doing so. Unlisted services not only provide services for those seeking privacy, but also provide protections for individuals more susceptible to public safety dangers, such as law enforcement officials, prison guards, and crime victims.

According to the author, publications of "unlisted numbers" can lead to potentially dangerous consequences for these persons, such as domestic violence victims, that pay a service to ensure their privacy and safety. California's Safe at Home Program provides individuals, including victims of domestic violence and elder abuse, services to protect certain information from behind disclosed to other parties, including child information, mail forwarding, name change, voter registration, driving record suppression and internet disclosure prohibitions. It is unclear if such individuals are currently required to pay the fee to have their telephone numbers unlisted/unpublished. The author argues that the cost of being unlisted detrimentally affects such victims who may be elderly and low income, and live on fixed incomes.

1. Arguments in Support: According to The Utility Reform Network (TURN), the sponsor of the bill, "Since the [CPUC] voted to deregulate phone service in 2007, the monthly fee for the 'service' of not printing a subscriber's private contact information in public phone books has continued to increase. Customers pay each month to keep their personal information out of public databases not only to preserve their privacy, but to protect their safety … This publication of 'unlisted numbers' is particularly dangerous for victims of domestic violence that have been enrolled in 'Safe at Home,' a program designed to protect victims and survivors of domestic violence, stalking, sexual assault or victims of elder abuse. This disclosure can lead to potentially dangerous consequences for these persons that pay a service to ensure their privacy and safety. Furthermore, this service detrimentally effects the elderly and low-income which live on fixed incomes. Often times, these vulnerable populations are charged these fees unknowingly; where every cent is important to their daily lives. Telephone companies should not be allowed to profit by limiting or invading the right of privacy of vulnerable citizens of California."
2. Arguments in Opposition: According to AT&T, Frontier Communications, Consolidated Communications, and the California Cable & Telecommunications Association, "Government policy has long promoted the public distribution of telephone numbers through telephone directories… Historically, public policy and practice have promoted the telephone number and telephone network as means of communications and economic development. For decades, consumer have used directories to access numbers for government agencies, social services, businesses, friends and neighbors … AB 2795 is wrongly characterized as a privacy issue. Telephone numbers are not inherently private … Instead, AB 2795 is a misguided attempt at selective price regulation in a competitive industry."
3. Prior Legislation:

SB 437 (Pavley) 2009: Prohibits all telephone corporations, including cellphone companies, from charging customers for having a unlisted telephone number. Failed Passage in the Senate Energy, Utilities and Communications Committee.

SB 1423 (Kuehl) 2008: Prohibits all telephone company customers from charging for an unlisted telephone number. Died on the Senate Floor.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

The Utility Reform Network (Sponsor)

Consumer Federation of California

Opposition

AT&T

California Cable & Telecommunications Association

Consolidated Communications

Frontier Communications

Analysis Prepared by: Edmond Cheung / U. & C. / (916) 319-2083