[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 19]
[Senate]
[Pages 27564-27565]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                      THE PHONE BILL FAIRNESS ACT

  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, yesterday, I introduced the Phone 
Bill Fairness Act. Consumers across this country have to deal on a 
regular basis with telephone bills, and one thing they do understand is 
that telephone bills are very complicated and frustrating. But what 
they may not know is that telephone bills are, to them, more than just 
an annoyance--they may be costing them quite a lot of money. I want to 
address that issue very briefly.
  When the average consumer receives their phone bill, they don't get a 
sheet of paper; they get dozens of pages, with very small type, filled 
with confusing acronyms, complicated payment schemes, and sometimes 
even services they have not signed up for at all but for which they are 
being asked to pay. I imagine most consumers not only don't understand 
everything they have received, but after reading a few pages into their 
bill--if they do that--they give up and just hope, so-to-speak, they 
are getting what they want.
  Now, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was based on the idea 
competition and market forces would lead to lower prices and better 
service. We have begun to see the benefits of that act in certain 
respects. New companies and newly competitive incumbents have begun to 
reduce rates and offer innovative new services. That is to the good. 
The main beneficiaries of these improvements, however, have been 
business consumers. They have the expertise to analyze the 
bewilderingly complicated telecommunications market and to find out 
what are the best deals for them. That is exactly what they wanted 
because they have the size and scope to figure out what is going on and 
proceed to do what is in their best interest.
  But your average phone user does not have a team of lawyers or 
accountants who can pour over his or her phone bill to determine the 
plan or the company that will save them the most money, which is what 
competition is about; thus, they cannot use the market system to their 
financial advantage. Unfortunately, phone bills become so complicated, 
and the array of services and phone plans so bewildering, that it 
really does take lawyers and accountants to understand and maximize the 
benefits that are intended.
  So, on the one hand, the Telecommunications Act is working because it 
has created the opportunity for consumers to get lower rates and better 
service, but it is not working because it requires consumers to walk 
through a complicated and highly uncertain maze to finally get to that 
opportunity.
  Once simple choices about telephone service have become so 
complicated that even the Chairman of the FCC, Bill Kennard, who was 
our foremost expert on telecommunications matters, himself has 
expressed frustration over reading his own phone bill, I think we have 
something we need to consider.
  We may not be able to reduce the complicated nature of 
telecommunications competition, but at the very least we can provide 
residential consumers with a roadmap that leads them through the maze 
of telecommunications. We must give consumers help, guidance, and be 
helpful to them in making sure they can understand their telephone 
bills and the options they have in telephone service

[[Page 27565]]

so they can take advantage of the benefits of competition in the 
telecommunications world, just as businesses can do on a very regular 
basis.
  Therefore, the Phone Bill Fairness Act tries to do this by the 
following:
  First, we require all telephone companies to accurately describe 
charges that appear on bills. No one should be able to misidentify so-
called line items, especially by claiming they are ``federally 
mandated'' when they are not federally mandated.
  Secondly, our bill would require all telephone companies to tell 
their customers exactly what their average per-minute rate is for a 
month, so they can compare it to the rates of other companies. Is that 
so strange? Not at all. When a customer goes to a supermarket, they can 
look at unit prices for groceries and, thus, they can shop and compare. 
That allows them to buy what is best for them in terms of what they 
want, in terms of price and quality, and that is competition. Why can't 
we do this for telephone customers? The answer is, of course, we can.
  Thirdly, we would require that all telephone companies inform 
customers of their calling patterns in an understandable way. If 
customers know what they are paying and know what types of calls are 
most frequent, they will then be able to compare all of the different 
company plans and find the one that is right for them. Again, the 
Telecommunications Act of 1996 was about competition. This bill is 
about competition.
  Finally, the bill gives the Federal Communications Commission and the 
Federal Trade Commission the power to explore how to make phone bills 
easier to read so that we don't do it here in Congress, and to 
determine whether any telephone companies are committing fraud in their 
billing practices. I don't mean to suggest this is the common practice, 
but there are some small phone companies that do something called 
``slamming,'' and that is fraud. They charge people for things they 
have not, in fact, signed up for. That is fraud. The best defense 
against fraud is an informed consumer. Consumers cannot be well-
informed if they do not understand their phone bills. So this is all 
fairly logical and straightforward and, I think, in the interest of the 
Telecommunications Act and, more important, of the American people.
  Consumers are terribly frustrated with how confusing phone bills are 
today. When consumers get frustrated, they assume the worst. I believe 
we have an obligation to try to do something about all of this, and I 
believe we can. I still very much believe in the Telecommunications 
Act. I voted for it and participated in shaping it. I believe in the 
benefits of competition, but we need to make sure the benefits of 
competition reach everybody in the country--business consumers, 
residential consumers, and everybody. The first step to achieving this 
goal is making sure every consumer not only has the opportunity to get 
better rates and services but that they also have the knowledge and the 
power to actually get what they want at the lowest price.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative assistant proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kyl). Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from South Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the Chair.

                          ____________________