|
|
One of the most likely words describing the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC's) truth-in-billing guidelines this year has got to be 'broad.' The rules cover most everything for wireline and wireless carriers--from a bill's format to non-misleading charges to standardized labels. But ask carriers if they know what rules apply to them and they're not so sure. Then ask them about the state rules and what their effects are and they probably know even less. There basically are twin problems with the new guidelines, says Attorney Amy S. Gross, in-house counsel, consultant and publications manager at Technologies Management Inc., Winter Park, Fla., a consulting firm specializing in regulatory compliance issues. "It's implementation and timing," Gross says, "and that's just the beginning." X-CHANGE Washington Bureau Chief Kim Sunderland grilled Gross on the current regulatory landscape for truth-in-billing.
X: Do you think the FCC will revisit its 1999 billing guidelines to make them more Internet-friendly since a lot of billing is being done online?
Gross: The FCC's guidelines are really media- and format-neutral because they are so broad and general. In fact, the FCC went out of its way to emphasize it wanted to give carriers the flexibility to design their own billing formats and be creative. This is why it chose to adopt so-called broad binding principles instead of detailed rules to 'rigidly govern' billing practices. So I think an Internet bill could satisfy those guidelines as easily as a standard, printed bill. The bigger issues on Internet billing will probably arise on the state side, since most states have specific billing rules, and many of those rules refer to the mailing of bills--either in general terms, or with specific mention of the U.S. Mail. I'm not aware of any states that have looked specifically at whether e-mailing is the same as mailing, but this seems to be the more likely place for these Internet issues to arise. And, of course, both the FCC and the states are looking at the issue of the use
of e-mail to solicit and confirm carrier changes or preferred carrier freezes.
X: How will carriers handle this conflict between the states' rules and the federal rules?
Gross: The FCC explicitly said it was not preempting state rules and went further to say that states could adopt and enforce consistent rules, including additional requirements or more specific rules. So basically, carriers will have to be aware of both sets of rules and follow the more detailed ones. That will usually be the state rules. In places where there are obvious conflicts, for example where the state says to identify a charge as 'not regulated by this commission,' but the FCC considers that [to be] a vague description, carriers will have to make a risk assessment and go with their best business judgement.
X: What do you see as the biggest regulatory problem carriers face with the FCC's new billing guidelines?
Gross: The big problems are implementation and timing. We already have seen some of the RBOCs (regional Bell operating companies) and major long distance carriers ask for more implementation time and/or suggest that some of the rules cannot be implemented--particularly the requirement to distinguish between charges which can result in disconnection of local service and those which cannot. Other carriers have raised issues about the need to identify each new service provider or charge when it appears on the bill. Most of the implementation issues will arise from the fact that the rules are so broad--and so interpretation will be key. For instance, it's not clear how the new provider identification requirement should apply to repeat callers in dial-around or other casual calling situations. I [also] see FCC enforcement activities down the road as an issue. Carriers need to remember these broad guidelines are really codified FCC rules and can be enforced to the same extent as, say, the slamming rules. So the penalties for noncompliance are real and can be quite extensive.
X: Does third-party verification have a future?
Gross: I think so, and perhaps it's the wave of the future. For carriers, it's probably the most practical way to confirm a preferred carrier change or freeze, and it's accepted by virtually every state. In fact, California requires it for residential sales. Of course, the FCC has this issue teed up in its slamming FNPR [further notice of proposed rulemaking]. If they limit the ability of the telemarketer to connect the customer to the verifier, or find that automated, or scripted live third-party verification systems are not satisfactory, that could all change.
