-6-

While not exactly "Do Not Disturb" legislation,
California recently enacted a law pertaining to the sale of
lists by a telephone or telegraph company. 20/ Such lists may
not contain the telephone number of any subscriber assigned an
unpublished or unlisted access number,217 without his or her
consent. The law does not pertain to the provision of telephone
numbers to a collection agency, to the extent disclosures made
by the agency are supervised by the commission exclusively for
the collection of unpaid debts; to emergency service agencies
responding to a 911 call or communicating an imminent threat to
life or property: 22/ to lawful process under state or federal
law; to acts of a telco engaged in service provisioning or to
third parties for the limited purpose of providing billing
services. It also does not apply to transactions where the
information is provided to the commission.

In the 1988-89 Legislative Session in the US WEST
territory, a number of bills were introduced that would affect
telcos and/or ESPs regarding consumers and their purported
privacy interests. Oregon and Washington passed different forms
of "Do Not Disturb" legislation.23/

The following bills were not enacted. They either
failed to pass or are pending. Colorado H.B. 1338, which failed
to pass, would have required telcos to inform their commercial
and residential costumers of the provisions of the bill which
established a "right" of a residential customer to reject future
telephone solicitations from commercial entities and to
ascertain the source of the list which provided his/her name to
the entity making the instant solicitation. Utah D.B.1 is
pending. That act would provide for the regulation of
unsolicited consumer telephone calls to residential numbers by
allowing customers to have an extra line in the telephone
directory designating "no sales solicitation calls" and
providing a penalty for violation of the designation. In
Washington state a number of bills are pending: H.B. 1288
relates to lists and directories; H.B. 1555 relates to

20/ AB 936 becomes CAL. PUB. UTIL. CODES 2891.1.

21/ This phrase is defined to mean a "telephone, telex,
teletex, facsimile, computer modem, or any other code number
which is assigned to a subscriber by a" telco which "the
subscriber has requested that the [telco] keep in confidence."

22/ While the statute itself pertains to lists, not network
transmissions, some of the exemptions seem to pertain more to
network transmissions than to list uses.

23/ See discussion in primary Appendix D document.

-7

non-listed and non-published telephone numbers. The latter would prohibit telcos from disclosing non-listed phone numbers by any means, to any person or organization except in cases of life-threatening emergencies or in response to a court order. As presently worded, the bill would bar the passage of CPID-type information in the network.

New Mexico proposed an act relating to unsolicited facsimile messages, but it failed. Oregon hag bills introduced pertaining to unsolicited facsimile messages.247 In Washington, a bill pertaining to facsimile machines is pending.25/

24/ H.B. 2227 and S.B. 914.

25/ D.B.3.

Attached is the final resolution of the Technical Working Committee
issue number 018-TWC, titled "Ability to Control CNI Delivery."
This resolution was presented to the Inter industry Advisory Group
(IAG) at its February 21 meeting and to the full Information
Industry Liaison Committee (IILC) at its February 22 meeting where
it was adopted.

The Technical Working Committee Co-Moderators would like to thank
all those who contributed to achieving this consensus resolution,
especially Mark Lepak of Bellcore who acted as editor and
coordinator for the resolution paper.

William R. Allan
Co-Moderator

Ben Lisowski
Co-Moderator

Network CNI Control

Techniques and Capabilities

February 22, 1990

This document represents a consensus

of the Technical Working Committee

and the Information Industry Liaison Committee.

Network CNI
Control Techniques and Capabilities

1. Introduction

The Information Industry Liaison Committee (IILC) is an interindustry forum for the discussion and voluntary resolution of industry-wide concerns about the provision of Open Network Architecture (ONA) services and related matters. The IILC acts to facilitate the exchange of information about customer needs, network capabilities and the development of new ONA services. The IILC was established in 1988. Its members include local exchange carriers (LECs), enhanced service providers (ESPs), end users, interexchange carriers and equipment manufacturers.

This paper discusses the technical capabilities associated with controlling the delivery of Calling Number Identification (CNI) and Automatic Number Identification (ANT) to the called party. CNI can be defined as the calling party's directory number, ANI can be defined as the calling party's billing number. A customer's CNI and ANI are not always the same. In the case of multi-line service, for example, one ANI number may be used for several directory numbers.'

This paper is an IILC consensus report on the capabilities currently possible in the LECs' networks, to some degree, to control the delivery of CNI/ANI.

2. Related IILC Issues

The Technical Working Committee (TWC) of the IILC has been working on related issues since March 1988. The first of these was titled Uniform Provision of Calling Number Identification. The TWC found that the BOCs had each discussed one or more methods of delivering CNI or ANI to ESPs in the ONA plans they filed with the FCC. These delivery methods were also discussed in a paper and during a TWC workshop in June 1988 associated with the Uniform Provision of Calling Number Identification issue. The various signaling protocols discussed included Individual Calling Line Identification (ICLID), Bulk Calling Line Identification (BCLID), Simplified Message Desk Interface (SMDI), originating Feature Group D (FG D) protocol, and ANI via Q.931 protocol. The TWC also found, however, that while ISDN appeared to be the best long term solution, there was no uniform, ubiquitous method of delivery that would be offered in the short term.2 To address concerns regarding a short term solution, another issue, titled Uniform Delivery of Line-Side CNI in the Near Future, is currently being worked in the TWC.

This report is related to a third issue, titled Network CNI Control Techniques and Capabilities, which was introduced because of concerns about a number of state regulatory and legislative proceedings addressing the delivery of CNI or ANI and privacy/anonymity considerations. The intent of this report is to identify what the network is technically capable of doing now or in the near future with respect to selectively/and or generally restricting the delivery of CNI or ANI. This report does not imply that these restriction options are offered by any local exchange carrier. The Non-Technical Working Committee of the IILC has completed work on a fourth issue, titled Calling Party Identification - Privacy/Anonymity. This issue was raised as a result of the sensitivities of legislatures, regulators and members of the general public about the potential abuses and privacy concerns which might follow from the lack of controls over the use of calling party identification information.

1. Another distinction between CNI and ANI is that ANI, in some cases, may not be a dialable number.

2. Further information regarding the Uniform Provision of Calling Number Identification issue, including a paper describing the various signaling protocols in more detail than this paper, is provided in the issue reference material.