Limits certain charging practices by companies that provide prepaid telephone calling cards and increases fines for violations of limitation requirements
This bill amends New York’s Public Service Law to restrict certain billing practices by companies that provide prepaid telephone calling cards. It would prohibit providers from rounding usage charges up beyond the next minute, from charging minutes for calls that do not connect (including dropped calls, unanswered calls, and busy signals), and from advertising that a plan has no connection fee if it actually includes a disconnection fee.
The bill also increases enforcement penalties for violations of the prepaid calling card rules. Under the proposal, the Public Service Commission could assess up to $5,000 for a first violation and $10,000 for a second or subsequent violation, replacing the current lower penalty cap. The measure would take effect 120 days after becoming law.
The bill would amend section 92-f of the Public Service Law, adding new consumer-protection limits on prepaid calling card billing and advertising practices and strengthening the penalty structure for noncompliance. It would affect companies offering prepaid calling services and expand the Public Service Commission’s enforcement leverage, while directing collected penalties to the state general fund.
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee debate or votes, the measure appears to be framed as a consumer-protection bill with a straightforward regulatory purpose. The sponsor’s approach suggests support for clearer billing practices and stronger deterrence against deceptive or excessive charges, and there is no available evidence in the provided materials of organized opposition or controversy.
The main points of potential contention are the restrictions on how prepaid calling card companies calculate and advertise charges, especially the prohibition on rounding beyond the next minute and on charging for unconnected calls. Another possible point of dispute is the increased penalty amounts, which could be viewed by providers as more burdensome enforcement, while consumer advocates would likely see them as necessary to curb unfair billing practices. No specific objections or supporters are identified in the provided legislative history.