FCC Record, Volume 4, No. 16, Pages 5921 to 6250, July 31 - August 11, 1989 Page: 5,930

                                
Federal Communications Commission Record

4 FCC Rcd No. 16

hanced services market is competitive will result in the
customer contacting competing ESPs, even if a BOC
makes an initial enhanced service solicitation.57
21. The Phase 11 Reconsideration again denied requests
to adopt the prior authorization rule for the BOCs, stating
that no party supporting such a change had offered any
new arguments demonstrating that the existing CPNI rule
should be replaced.58 However, we did adopt three modifications
to our existing rule proposed by the New York
Clearing House Association and the Committee of Corporate
Telecommunications Users (NYCHA/CCTU): (i)
each BOC must enclose a response form with the CPNI
notice; (ii) a customer's election to restrict its CPNI must
remain valid unless and until the customer specifically
revokes that choice; and (iii) the BOCs must accommodate
requests for partial or temporary restriction of
CPNI.59 In addition, we required the BOCs to honor
customer requests for restricted treatment of CPNI before
the BOCs send notice of CPNI rights, to mitigate concerns
about "inadvertent authorization by omission."60 We
required that BOC amendments to their ONA plans resolve
potential ambiguities that may arise over whether a
particular item of CPNI should be attributed to the ESP
who requests that access to its CPNI be restricted, or to a
customer of that ESP. We also required the BOCs to
describe more fully what constitutes the CPNI that they
will restrict pursuant to requests for confidentiality from
various types of ESPs.61
a. Positions of the Parties
22. ATSI petitions us to revise our CPNI rules to require
BOCs to obtain a customer's prior authorization
before permitting their enhanced services marketing personnel
to access that customer's CPNI. ATSI claims that,
even as modified in the Phase II Reconsideration, the
current CPNI rule denies ATSI's members the ability to
protect their own competitively sensitive information, is
discriminatory and anticompetitive, and violates users' legitimate
privacy interests.62 ATSI argues that the BOCs'
plan to classify a wide array of information as CPNI,
including messaging-related features such as call forwarding,
provide their enhanced service marketing personnel
with competitive advantages over competing ESPs in identifying
potential customers, designing specialized marketing
approaches, and determining a potential customer's
creditworthiness. ATSI further argues that BOCs can misuse
sensitive information about ESP operations that is
associated with the CPNI of an ESP's customers, not with
the CPNI of the ESP itself.63 ATSI also argues that the
modifications to the CPNI rule do not adequately protect
users' legitimate privacy interests,64 claiming that even if
BOC notification letters adequately described the information
at issue, many customers might not comprehend or
might ignore these letters, creating an incorrect assumption
that those customers do not desire to restrict access to
their CPNI.65
23. Telenet supports ATSI's petition. Telenet argues that
the current CPNI rule represents an anticompetitive
"double standard," in which competing ESPs are required
to obtain prior customer authorization to acquire CPNI,
but a BOC's enhanced service is accorded access to CPNI
unless the customer requests that it be restricted.66
24. All of the BOCs and AT