This page is primarily intended for business customers of the phone company who signed up for long term contracts in 1996 or after. 

The Michigan Telecommunications Act of 1995 required the Michigan Public Service Commission ("MPSC") to promulgate rules "that establish privacy guidelines" and such rules shall provide "protections against the releasing of certain customer information and customer privacy intrusions.". The Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 contains rules concerning the release of Customer Proprietary Network Information ("CPNI").  Unfortunately, the MPSC rules did not adequately address the release of customer information. Violations of the Federal Telecom Act must be pursued with the FCC.  Based on my experience, that is an exercise in futility. 

Obviously it should be illegal for the phone company to use information regarding a specific customer if that information is private information known only by the phone company and the customer.  Such information that should be confidential is information on usage and contracts in force.  That information should only be available with the permission of the customer.  The phone company should not be able to use that information nor release that information to its "authorized representatives".

With the supposed advent of competition in 1996, a number of competitive providers of phone service emerged.  For one thing, they could offer to carry intralata toll traffic.  Known as zone, "local toll" or itemized, this was and continues to be very lucrative business for the phone company.

Did the phone company do anything to keep the intralata toll traffic and were its actions legal?

You be the judge.  If you signed a long term contract in 1996 or thereafter, I would like to hear from you.  I would like to know the circumstances.  I would like to know who approached you and what story you were told. 

My personal opinion is that the phone company provided confidential company specific information to phone company "authorized representatives."  This included customer specific information on existing contracts and usage.  The object was to rewrite existing contracts, if necessary, or to lock customers into long term contracts.  The contracts would contain minimum usage requirements and thus serve as a penalty if and when the customer sought to leave the phone company for a competitive provider. 

I have documented evidence that "authorized representatives" are able to access individual customer records.  I was told this verbally and have phone company records obtained in a case before the MPSC.  I believe the release of this information violated federal law and the intent of Michigan law even though the Commission never fulfilled its obligation.

If your company experienced similar activities,  please contact me.  The phone company actions cost the company I work for thousands of dollars.  If I can show a pattern of abuse, perhaps a group of companies will have more weight than a single voice.