HOUSE BILL REPORT

SB 6745

As Amended by the House

BYSenators Williams and Benitz

Requiring disclosure of services provided by alternate operator services companies.

House Committe on Energy & Utilities

Majority Report:  Do pass. (13)

      Signed by Representatives Nelson, Chair; Todd, Vice Chair; Armstrong, Barnes, Brooks, Gallagher, Hankins, Jacobsen, Jesernig, May, Meyers, Unsoeld and S. Wilson.

House Staff:Fred Adair (786-7113)

AS PASSED HOUSE MARCH 5, 1988

BACKGROUND:

As a result of the Bell System divestiture, a number of companies are providing "alternate operator services" in order to connect callers to long distance service from customer-owned pay phones or phones in hotel rooms and hospitals.  Although some companies may charge several dollars to connect a caller to long distance from these phones, the customer is often unaware of the charge until it appears on the monthly bill from a local phone company.

SUMMARY:

The Utilities and Transportation Commission is to require that the provision of and charge for alternate operator services are disclosed appropriately to consumers.  Failure to disclose constitutes a violation of chapter 19.86 RCW, the consumer protection act.  Damages are presumed equal to the cost of the service provided plus two hundred dollars.  Additional damages must be proved.

Fiscal Note:      Not Requested.

House Committee ‑ Testified For:    Dick Barrett, Lodging Association of Washington (not pro or con; explained how alternate operator services work and came into being); Steve McLellan, Utilities and Transportation Commission (not pro or con; asked by Chairman to answer questions); Senator Al Williams, sponsor.

House Committee - Testified Against:      None Presented.

House Committee - Testimony For:    Lodging places became burdened with excessive guest calling, requiring great expense for elaborate telephone service capability.  Costs were set by lodging places both to limit excessive calling and to pay for extra telephone capability.  Some arrangements and charges were very expensive compared to routine long distance calling of the same distance and duration and the expense was not evident in any way to the caller beforehand.

House Committee - Testimony Against:      None Presented.