WASHINGTON-The U.S. Supreme Court declined last week to hear a case involving how telecommunications carriers use customer information, thereby allowing carriers to use the information as they see fit-for awhile, at least.
U S West Communications Inc. successfully argued last summer that the limits placed on customer proprietary network information, or CPNI, was an unconstitutional infringement on free speech. On Aug. 18, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit agreed by a vote of 2-1. The full panel affirmed the ruling in November by a vote of 6-5.
CPNI is the information telecom carriers collect about their customers, including name, address, billing and when and where calls are placed. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 required the Federal Communications Commission to develop rules to protect customers’ privacy in a competitive environment.
The FCC adopted rules in February 1998, but continued to refine them and so had not enforced them. Instead of appealing the decision, the commission decided to rewrite the rules to pass constitutional muster. They have yet to be proposed or released.
However, the Competition Policy Institute, a nonprofit organization that advocates for greater competition in telecommunications that is funded primarily by companies seeking entry into the local telephone service market, asked the Supreme Court to review the decision.
On the legislative front, Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.), who recently said he thought the court erred when it struck down the rules, introduced a bill that would modify the telecom act to require carriers to notify customers that they want to use their CPNI before any marketing campaign can begin. Customers would have 15 days to object to such marketing efforts.
Wireless carriers have argued they should be exempt from CPNI rules because they are already in a competitive environment unlike their landline colleagues. Prior to adopting the FCC’s rules, commercial mobile radio services carriers never had restrictions on the use of CPNI. Wireline carriers always have been restricted in how they can use the information, although the new rules were more stringent.
