doing it on a per-call basis makes good business sense, and it makes good sense for the consumer simply because I do not think consumers want to have every call that they make blocked. And so they would have to consciously determine when to unblock it more so than when to block it, and I believe the blocking times are more infrequent.

Senator LEAHY. I understand a local company has made the recommendation-I believe Senator Kohl referred to it-that you make a call through the operator to block the transmission of your number. I get the image of people totally isolated from concern for their customers, sitting in that company and thinking how smart they were to come up with what has to be one of the most cumbersome, silly, stupid ideas I have heard of. I give it the benefit of the doubt, and am not suggesting how I might vote on such a thing, if that were necessary. It sounds like those individuals had visions of the early rural days with somebody turning a crank and saying, "Hello, Central." I know that from movies, Herb. I am not[Laughter.]

The technology does not require you to do that, does it?

Dr. GUITON. No, you do not have to do that. That was an option that was always available certainly in my discussions with the telephone companies. It is that-what was different was that they gave a discount on the cost of operator assisted calls. And I think this is indicative of what is happening within about 22 different States now, and that is the debate is taking place, consumers are making their voices heard, and the industry is trying to respond in ways that make good sense for them.

Senator LEAHY. Well, they make themselves look a little bit silly when they respond that way, in my opinion. But tell me, eventually, do we end up with 50 different laws, or do we pass one Federal law?

Dr. GUITON. Well, I believe it should continue the process that is being played out. It is my belief that it would be in the best interest of industry to make the adjustments themselves because it is going to be extremely cumbersome and costly to have 50 different states with 50 different types of regulation. And so the reason that I have advocated for industry to take the responsible approach is because this is just the beginning of technology. We could see ourselves having to legislate every new thing that came on line. So I would like to see their sensitivity heightened. I would like to see them responsive to consumers, and I would like for them to make the necessary adjustments so that every time they come up with a new technology, we do not have to go through this. It is in their best interest, and it is in the best interest of consumers, and I think they need to be responsible.

Senator LEAHY. I am fortunate to have a superb staff here who does a great deal of work on this issue. When they start giving me information about the amount of information the telephone company or any of these other companies have on an individual, it is chilling.

Dr. GUITON. Sure.

Senator LEAHY. Do you think that average consumers have any thought about how much is known about them? I understand that one of the major credit card companies with an 800 number

thought it was a nice tactic to answer your call by saying your name. For example, they would say, "Hello, Dr. Guiton," before you ever identified yourself. And the consumer reaction was so adverse that they stopped doing that. They still know who is callingthe name appears on their computer screen. Do you think most people even begin to know the information about them that is stored in these computers?

Dr. GUITON. Well, I think they have not known. I think there is a growing awareness because of the great deal of attention that is being given to the fact that this information is being collected at unusual times, and that is demonstrated by certainly a number of the letters and calls that we get in our office, and that is why I believe it is critical for consumers to understand how and when information is being collected on them so that they can protect themselves as well because they also bear some responsibility. You know they should know that if they call from anyplace other than home that that company cannot automatically pull up their address and information on them.

There are a number of things that consumers should know, and we think that a very strong consumer education component needs to be implemented as new technology comes along. I think the important thing is that we provide consumers with maximum choices and those who choose to have the services that all of this information gathering gives them have that right, but those who choose not to also have the right to opt out.

Senator LEAHY. Well, the telephone is such a connection. I could not help but think the other night, when I got one of those recorded messages, that they obviously have done some demographic work.

Dr. GUITON. Sure.

Senator LEAHY. They know what area they are calling. In some cases they know the economic bracket and even have some general idea of the type of shopping we might do. But I cannot turn the darn recorded message off. And it makes me begin to wonder who has the proprietary interest in the phone number? Is it the person who has the number or is it the phone company? What do you think?

Dr. GUITON. Well, that is an argument that is being debated on a number of fronts.

Senator LEAHY. Have you any feelings on that?

Dr. GUITON. I do have feelings on that.

Senator LEAHY. Do you want to give us some of your feelings? [Laughter.]

We will not tell anybody what you say.

Dr. GUITON. You will not tell anyone what I said. OK. Great. No, I think that there is a balance that needs to be struck there. I personally feel that my telephone number is my telephone number to give out when I choose, and I also think that I have a right to know when people are using my telephone number for other purposes. And if they let me know what those purposes are that I might not be as apprehensive. I believe that is what we learned from the Lou Harris poll just recently. The consumers are pretty pragmatic about their privacy concerns if you are up-front with

them. The thing that bothers me is that somehow or other we find many times that industry fails to be up-front with consumers.

And I do not think that it is gross neglect. I think it is just an assumption that what they are providing makes such good sense, and it is so useful that why should the consumer care. And we know that that is not the case. And that is why it is important that they be more responsive and that we understand how to protect ourselves as well.

Senator LEAHY. Doctor, I appreciate your testimony. I find it refreshing. I yield to Senator Kohl.

Senator KOHL. Thank you, Chairman Leahy, and it is very nice to have you here, Dr. Guiton.

Dr. GUITON. Thank you.

Senator KOHL. I would like to focus again on a point that I raised in my opening statement. You saw the ad-and if you want to hold it up, Tracy-you are consumer affairs specialist for the president. You saw the ad that telephone companies are running to market caller-ID and they advertise it primarily as protection against threatening and anonymous phone calls.

Now as I said, there is a technology available, call-trace, callblock, and call-return. Call-trace refers simply by pressing three digits or something like that on your telephone, you can refer any phone call harassing, threatening to the authorities for action. Call-block, you press three other digits, and that telephone number can never be called to you again. Somebody calls you, you press call-block, and they cannot call you back. Call-return allows you to automatically return a phone call to a threatening or a harassing phone caller. That has got nothing to do with caller-ID. That is another service that can be offered at whatever price. I am not even sure what that price is.

Now, if those services are presently available, what do you think about telephone companies who are offering a brand new service at fairly expensive rate called caller-ID to handle threatening and obscene phone calls?

Dr. GUITON. Well, before responding to that, I would just like to tell you that my colleagues and I want to express to you that we know that this was an important day for you and we regret that Keenen Peck is not with us, but we appreciate the opportunity to have worked with him.

Senator KOHL. Thank you.

Dr. GUITON. In responding to your question, I believe that the ads, as you have indicated, I believe they probably tell consumers about one-third of the story. That is that yes, it can be useful in that regard. What is missing is that the things that can be done that override caller-ID such as someone using a pay phone or using another phone that is not connected to that particular harasser certainly exists, and I think that it would be unfair to give consumers a feeling that somehow or another they are going to be totally safe if they have caller-ID and that it will take care of all of those problems.

So I encourage them to really be forthcoming in terms of what the drawbacks for the technology are. Consumers should be fully educated on that. The other thing that I believe is important for consumers to know that some already have the technology avail

able to them without subscribing. Pat Faley, sitting to my right, learned just by calling the telephone company that she already has call-trace in her area, and that if she had a harassing call all she had to do was know to push a star and two digits and that call would be forwarded to the telephone companies for capture and then to the law enforcement agencies.

So I think it is very important that advertising be forthcoming and that consumers be as well informed about the other options as possible. I know the arguments about call-trace not being as effective. We have done a poll of law enforcement agencies in different parts of the country to learn what their practices are and what they prefer, and we believe that there should be a strong educational component that lets the consumer know all of the technology that is available. Caller-ID does provide a very good service and will be very useful for some people. And so, again, we are talking maximum consumer choices, but informed consumer choices.

Senator KOHL. Just one last question. Pat, you might answer this. You have call-trace?

Ms. FALEY. Yes, I do.

Senator KOHL. Would you guess that with the availability of calltrace to handle threatening, obscene phone calls that you and others might see the need for a brand new expensive or whatever caller-ID service to be vastly reduced?

Ms. FALEY. I really cannot make a judgment on the cost of the service. I think that call-trace and, as Dr. Guiton said, the survey that we did indicated that the law enforcement officials would definitely prefer the hard copy data that call-trace provides to investigate and prosecute a case. So we do know that they would prefer that information, and I would have to defer to their judgment since I am not an expert.

Senator KOHL. Thank you. I have no other questions. Unless you have other comments you would like to make?

Senator LEAHY. Thank you.

Dr. GUITON. Thank you for letting us join you.
Senator LEAHY. Thank you all very much.

On our next panel we have James Cullen, the president and CEO of New Jersey Bell; John Stangland, the assistant vice president for product development and management of Pacific Bell; and S.E. Leftwich, the chairman of Central Telephone Co. Gentlemen, we are delighted to have you here.

PANEL CONSISTING OF JAMES G. CULLEN, PRESIDENT AND CEO, NEW JERSEY BELL; JOHN STANGLAND, ASSISTANT VICE PRESIDENT, PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT AND MANAGEMENT, PACIFIC BELL; AND S.E. LEFTWICH, CHAIRMAN, CENTRAL TELEPHONE COMPANY

STATEMENT OF JAMES G. CULLEN

Mr. CULLEN. Thank you, Senator. I think the most important point I want to make here today is that in Bell Atlantic, we have over 22 years of very successful experience with caller-ID service. That is success measured in terms of meeting the needs of more than 120,000 caller-ID customers in addressing the wide range of problems caused by anonymous calls. These are serious problems.

There are false fire alarms, bomb threats to schools, obscene calls, threatening, harassing calls.

We are all aware, I think, that women are frequently the victim of these abuses. Some may not be aware that they also affect children and the elderly. In New Jersey, for example, a 7-year-old Passaic girl was so terrorized by obscene calls directed toward her that she was afraid to go to school. Caller-ID solved that problem. In Newark, an elderly woman had been victimized for years by harassing calls. With the introduction of caller-ID, which by the way she didn't even subscribe to, the calls virtually stopped.

This is just one indication of the strong deterrent value and the broad public benefit that the mere existence of unrestricted callerID provides. Our essential concern with per-call blocking is that it would allow a cloak of anonymity to be given back to malicious callers, obscene callers, and again, leave many of our customers unprotected. Some have suggested that call-trace might be just as effective as caller-ID in dealing with these serious abuses. A recent Bell Atlantic survey of New Jersey Bell caller-ID customers shows otherwise. Of those customers who have used both services, the vast majority found caller-ID more helpful because it allows them to screen their calls and deal with the problems without getting anyone else involved.

While call-trace is valuable for many people, it places a tremendous additional burden on local police and law enforcement organizations and more importantly on the victims themselves. Bell Atlantic favors unrestricted caller-ID because it restores full accountability when using the telephone network. We believe it is the right thing to do. Customer experience with caller-ID in the real world demonstrates that the hypothetical problems with this service simply do not exist. We also believe that there is no need for national legislation. The problems and the abuses which caller-ID addresses are local problems. And States should continue to have the ability to adopt regulatory policies which they believe are best suited to the needs of their residents.

And finally we do agree with the police chiefs in Vermont who have said, and I quote:

The blocking alternative that has been suggested by some opponents of these services would virtually render them useless and would do more to preserve the rights of those who abuse the privilege of phone service than it would to protect the innocent.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cullen follows:]

41-419-91 – 2