Caller I.D. remains on hold as California regulators confer with feds over new rules.

The California Public Utilities Commission has asked the Federal Communications Commission to hold off on making rules for the nationwide use of a service called Caller I.D. until California decides whether to allow the service.

Meanwhile, because of differences in state and federal regulations regarding intrastate and interstate calling, a number of California companies which subscribe to a special 800-service offered by long distance companies currently have access to basically the same information that Caller I.D. would provide.

The PUC is expected to vote this month on whether to allow Pacific Bell and GTE California to provide the service which allows customers to identify the telephone number of the person calling them -- by digital readout -- before they answer the phone.

An administrative law judge has ruled that the service would violate Californians' right to privacy under the state constitution, but commission members are not bound to follow the judge's decision.

The service is currently being offered in about 20 states and the FCC will try to decide how it should be offered nationwide, said Olga Magruder, an attorney with the Common Carrier Bureau of the FCC. At the request of the states of California and New York, which are both grappling with how the service should be implemented within state lines, the FCC has delayed the deadline on the comment period, the time individuals and agencies can register complaints and comments about the proposed rules, until later this spring, Magruder said.

"California wants to take a strong stand on any notion of how interstate Caller I.D. should be implemented," said Mark Fogelman, an attorney with the PUC. Commission members "don't think it's appropriate that an agency in Washington, D.C., should be telling Californians how the service should be offered" within state lines, he said.

Fogelman said state officials wanted to be able to comment in the national discussion, and asked for a postponement of the discussion until the PUC decision is made.

If the California decision does not conform with federal regulations, Fogelman said that the state might be willing to go to court to protect the California decision. Fogelman noted that in 1990 the state PUC sued the FCC and won in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, overturning an FCC ruling which would have outlined how California phone companies could provide enhanced phone services, such as computer services like Prodigy and Lexis.

"All I can tell you is the PUC will strongly resist attempts by the FCC to prohibit state regulations," Fogelman said.

Meanwhile, however, although Pacific Bell and GTE cannot offer Caller I.D. to residents and small businesses, California companies are now able to view the telephone numbers of customers who call their toll-free lines through a service provided by AT&T and other long distance companies.

Since 1988, AT&T has sold the service, called ANI (automatic number identification) to 100 companies nationwide, including California companies, as part of its toll-free line service, said Michael Tyler, manager of market strategy for AT&T Global Video Business Services.

Large companies, such as American Express Co., are using the service in conjunction with a computer system which allows telephone operators to pull up customer accounts on computer screens before they even answer the phone, Tyler said. Most of the companies using the service are large corporations, since the setup costs about $1 million, he said.

ANI uses a different type of technology than Caller I.D., and projects the billing number of the person calling the toll-free line on a computer screen to the 800-number operator, Tyler said. Caller I.D. taps into a different piece of information in the telephone line and projects the calling party's number, Tyler noted.

But since in most residences the billing number is the same as the calling number "for the most part it's the same information" as would be provided by the Caller I.D. service, Tyler said.

Pacific Bell officials think it is unfair that long distances companies can provide the service, but Pacific Bell, a utility governed by the PUC, cannot, said Ethan Thorman, product manager for Pacific Bell. The ANI feature provided by long distance companies is legal under federal regulations regarding interstate calling, Thorman noted.

"We've really been put at a competitive disadvantage and an ethical disadvantage," by the different rules, Thorman said. "We would like to have an even playing field with our 800-service."

Pacific Bell is unable to provide the service because there is a law in California that prohibits telephone companies from taking phone callers information without allowing them the ability to block the release of information, Thorman said.

Tyler admitted that although it is against the law, California businesses are likely using the ANI feature on information that is received from intrastate calls, such as calls made from Los Angeles to San Francisco. "We are not selling Caller I.D. information. We're only providing billing information that a business would get at the end of the month anyway," Tyler said.

As far as California businesses are concerned, "We don't have the ability of separating traffic jurisdictionally," he said.

Thomas Long, staff attorney for the consumer group Toward Utility Rate Normalization, which is opposed to Caller I.D., said that the ANI service is a problem that has consumer groups concerned. "The problem is it isn't technologically possible to block your number with ANI," Long said.

To accept Pacific Bell's fairness argument is unsupportable, Long said.

"Why approve this new technology that is only going to expand the universe of people who are going to capture telephone numbers and use them for telemarketing purposes? Two wrongs don't make a right."