BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 2795
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 4, 2016
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON UTILITIES AND COMMERCE
Mike Gatto, Chair
AB 2795
(Lopez) - As Amended 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number of any subscriber assigned an unlisted or unpublished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
AB 2795
Page 2
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
AB 2795
Page 3
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
AB 2795
Page 4
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.
4)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.
5)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
AB 2795
Page 5
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.
6)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
AB 2795
Page 6
lives. Telephone companies should not be allowed to profit by
limiting or invading the right of privacy of vulnerable
citizens of California."
7)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."
8)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:
AB 2795
Page 7
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
AB 2795
Page 8