The California Attorney General’s office is harshly criticising a proposed ‘‘bill of rights’’ for telecommunications users, qsaying some of its provisions aren’t enforceable and might undermine existing consumer protections.In a 40-page document filed with the California Public Utilities Commission, Attorney General Bill Lockyer says a draft proposal authored by former Commissioner Susan Kennedy and CPUC President Michael Peevey recommends only a limited number of consumer protections, and might compromise already ‘‘well-established consumer protection laws and regulations’’.Commissioners are scheduled to vote on the proposal on Thursday. Kennedy, now chief of staff for California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, cannot vote on the proposal. She declined to comment on the AG’s filing. Peevey’s office did not return phone calls Friday.Lauren Garner, a spokeswoman for Cingular Wireless, said she hadn’t seen the document and couldn’t comment. Officials at Verizon Wireless could not be reached for comment.Kennedy and Peevey offered the draft late last month, emphasising that it was designed to help prevent fraud by educating consumers and establishing a fraud-prevention office within the PUC. It’s aimed primarily at the cellular phone industry but also includes provisions for landline phone companies.The draft replaced a much tougher bill of rights adopted in May 2004 after a four-year proceeding. That proposal would have required cellular phone companies to give customers 30 days to evaluate their service and cancel without penalty. It also required phone companies to make their bills easier to read, and to meet a four-hour window for service calls.Peevey and Kennedy succeeded in getting the proposal sidelined last January, arguing that companies didn’t have time to implement its regulations, and that it could stifle competition by driving some small telecommunications companies out of California.But Lockyer’s office said the new proposal falls short in several areas. ‘‘The Draft offers no real enforceable consumer protections, and certainly, no new protections against ‘fraud,’ as suggested by the title,’’ the document said.Attorney General spokesman Tom Dresslar said existing state laws offer stronger consumer protection than what’s contained in the proposal. In the filing, the attorney general’s office said it fears the proposal could encourage legal challenges from phone carriers on the grounds that the weaker PUC consumer protection rules should be applied.For example, Dresslar said, the Kennedy-Peevey proposal only protects the privacy of phone customers’ financial and personal information, but not their calling records. Since state law offers stronger protections, he said, ‘‘Why even leave the issue open for debate?’’Mindy Spatt, a spokesperson for The Utility Reform Network, or TURN, a consumer advocacy group, said she hadn’t seen the attorney general’s filing, but her group continues to oppose the Kennedy-Peevey proposal. ‘‘It completely ignores concerns people have been bringing to the commission,’’ Spatt said.Dresslar said it wasn’t unusual for the attorney general’s office to file comments with the PUC. He said the office was heavily involved in drafting the original ‘‘bill of rights’’ but didn’t take part in writing the Peevey-Kennedy replacement. — NYT
