Boyle believes the Truth-in-Billing issue is “just obvious to me. One of the best lobbyists I ever knew said ‘on the side of the cereal box they give you a list of what’s in the box, including the number of calories.’ That is how simple a phone bill should be.” Boyle claims consumers are confused when they look at their bills and see all of the taxes and fees carriers collect. For example, she cites Universal Service Fund contributions that nearly every telecommunications consumer pays, and are largely distributed to subsidize rural wireline telecommunications.
Consumer Protection
Most state regulators see some role for the states in regulations related to consumer protection. Washington State’s Jones says that in the future states will probably continue to be involved in regulating consumer affairs and ETCs, with less involvement in other issues. “In the area of consumer affairs, we get 150 to 250 calls per month from consumers with complaints,” he says (Editor’s note: The most recent FCC report on consumer com-plaints shows the commission received 28 percent fewer wireless-related complaints from the third to fourth quarters in 2005).
The calls relate to billing, service coverage, slamming, and cramming, continues Jones. The Washington State Commission has no authority to act on complaints, but it does record details and refer the calls to the state attorney general’s office.
On the other side of the question, some regulators oppose state regulation on principle. “Frankly, I believe there are other means for customer complaints,” says Connie Hughes, a Commissioner on the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities. “The number one thing people can do is to get a different service. That’s what a competitive mar-ketplace offers. And that is what the wireless industry offers. How many different phones and service packages are on the market today? I prefer competition to heavy-handed regulatory schemes.”
Hughes maintains that the wireless industry is a major economic force in the country, and that consistent regula-tion and legislation is needed to allow it to raise the vital capital necessary to fulfill its potential in the future.
“Remember that communications is the backbone of the economy, so why isn’t this consideration a part of an economic development tool in states? Why not have incentive programs, rather than saying if you want to do business in XYZ state, you have to do ABC? That is unattractive to me.”
While regulators try to determine their appropriate role, Clark believes a paper entitled “Federalism and Telecom,” prepared about six months ago by a group of NARUC members, sheds proper light on the issue.
“We shouldn’t try to pick winners and losers in the marketplace. Intrastate and interstate jurisdictionalism doesn’t work anymore. Once you decide what to regulate, you might have to draw back from some regula-tions because it makes sense to do that in a competitive marketplace.”
Clark continues, “I think states will probably have some sort of consumer protection role in telecom generally. But you don’t imagine everything that could go wrong and regulate based on that. This makes a lot of sense to me, certainly in the sense of the wireless model.”
