[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 206 (Wednesday, October 23, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 54979-54980]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-27072]
[[Page 54979]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 64
[CC Docket No. 92-77; DA 96-1695]
Charges for Interstate Operator Services Calls From Payphones,
Other Away-from-home Aggregator Locations, and Collect Calls From
Prison Inmates
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule; further comment sought.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On June 4, 1996 the Commission sought comment on proposals
with regard to high charges paid by consumers for interstate operator
services from payphones and other aggregator locations and by persons
billed for interstate collect calls initiated by inmates of prisons and
other correctional institutions. In the Matter of Billed Party
Preference for InterLATA 0+ Calls, Second Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, CC Docket No. 92-77, 11 FCC Rcd 7274 (Second Further
Notice). The Commission therein authorized its Common Carrier Bureau to
obtain additional information if necessary for a more complete record.
Comments and reply comments in response to the Second Further Notice
were received on July 17, 1996 and August 16, 1996, respectively. In a
Public Notice released on October 10, 1996, the Bureau seeks additional
comment on a number of specific questions relating to this matter.
Additional comment is sought on specific questions in order to
supplement the record.
DATES: Comments are due on or before November 13, 1996. Reply comments
are due on or before December 3, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission,
Room 222, 1919 M Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20554.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Adrien Auger, Enforcement Division,
Common Carrier Bureau, (202) 418-0960.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Released: October 10, 1996.
Common Carrier Bureau Seeks Further Comment on Specific Questions in
OSP Reform Rulemaking Proceeding
In the Matter of Billed Party Preference for InterLATA 0+ Calls,
CC Docket 92-77.
Comment Date: November 13, 1996; Reply Comment Date: December 3,
1996. On June 4, 1996, the Commission adopted In the Matter of Billed
Party Preference for InterLATA 0+ Calls, Second Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, CC Docket No. 92-77, 11 FCC Rcd 7274 (Second
Further Notice), 61 FR 30581 (June 17, 1996). In the Second Further
Notice, the Commission sought comment on, among other things, a
proposed requirement that all providers of operator services at
payphone and other aggregator locations (OSPs), before connecting any
interstate 0+ call, orally disclose to the party to be billed for such
a call the specific rate, as well as applicable aggregator surcharges
or premises-imposed-fees (PIFs), if any, allowed by the OSP's contract
with the aggregator at the particular location, that the billed party
will be charged for the call. The Commission also sought comment on
what alternatives to a billed party preference (BPP) system would serve
the public interest with respect to charges for interstate 0+ calls
from prison inmates. Comments and Reply Comments in response to the
Second Further Notice were received on July 17, 1996 and August 16,
1996, respectively. Having reviewed the submissions, the Common Carrier
Bureau seeks further comment on specific issues relating to the
subjects previously noticed in this proceeding. Specifically,
interested parties are invited to file comments in response to the
attached list of questions. Commenters should restate and underline
each question above their responses. Commenters also must provide a
brief summary of their comments, not to exceed three sentences per
question or three double-spaced pages in total, as a preface to their
comments. The comments and comment summary should follow the order of
the questions. Comments should be filed on or before November 13, 1996
and Reply Comments on or before December 3, 1996. Interested parties
must file an original and four copies of their comments with the Office
of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, Room 222, 1919 M
Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20554. Comments should reference CC
Docket No. 92-77.
Parties should send one copy of their comments to the Commission's
copy contractor, International Transcription Service, Room 140, 2100 M
Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20037. Comments will be available for
public inspection during regular business hours in the FCC Reference
Center, Room 239, 1919 M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20554.
Parties are also asked to submit comments on diskette. Such
diskette submissions would be in addition to, and not a substitute for,
the formal filing requirements addressed above. Parties submitting
diskettes should submit them to Adrien Auger, Common Carrier Bureau,
Enforcement Division, 2025 M Street, N.W., Suite 6008, Washington, D.C.
20554. Such a submission should be on a 3.5 inch diskette in an IBM
compatible format using WordPerfect 5.1 for Windows software in a
``read only'' mode. The diskette should be clearly labelled with the
party's name, proceeding, and date of submission. The diskette should
be accompanied by a cover letter.
Federal Communications Commission.
William F. Caton,
Acting Secretary.
Attachment
1. Are there any industries in which price disclosure to consumers
at the point of purchase is not the normal practice? If so, what are
those industries and what are the particular circumstances surrounding
the developments of those industries?
2. What kinds of technologies (including payphone equipment and
associated software) are currently available to provide on-demand call
rating information for calls from payphones, other aggregator
locations, and phones in correctional institutions that are provided
for use by inmates? Commenters should discuss the anticipated declining
cost of these technologies, assuming a wide-spread demand for these
services.
3. Are there any telecommunications markets outside of the U.S.
that already make use of price disclosure prior to call completion, for
example, in the U.K.? If so, please provide the technological and
financial details behind the implementation of these services and any
indication as to the cost and benefits from the perspective of
consumers.
4. Some commenters have claimed that price disclosure prior to call
completion would create an unacceptable delay to consumers. Are there
any studies that substantiate or dispute this contention and are those
studies available? Are there any studies available that provide
indications of consumer satisfaction or dissatisfaction with 0+
services provided in this fashion?
5. If some or all of embedded base equipment and software are
incapable of providing audible notice to consumers for on-demand call
rating, what time period would be reasonable for substituting equipment
and software that is capable of doing so?
6. What percentage of interstate 0+ calls do calls from
correctional
[[Page 54980]]
institutions constitute, both in quantity and dollar volume, over the
last 5 years?
7. What effects, if any, will the recent Report and Order in In the
Matter of Pay Telephone Reclassification and Compensation Provisions of
the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Policies and Rules Concerning
Operator Service Access and Pay Telephone Compensation, CC Docket Nos.
96-128, 91-35, FCC 96-388 (released September 20, 1996), 61 FR 52307
(October 7, 1996) have on this proceeding?
[FR Doc. 96-27072 Filed 10-22-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
