[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 62 (Friday, March 31, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16651-16652]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-7950]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
[CC Docket No. 91-35; DA 95-620]
Request for Additional Comments on the Costs and Benefits of
International Blocking for Residential Customers; Pleading Cycle
Established
March 24, 1995.
Comments: April 24, 1995.
Reply Comments: May 8, 1995.
The Commission currently has under consideration in the above-
referenced docket issues concerning the provision by local exchange
carriers (LECs) of a service that automatically blocks international
calls.\1\
\1\See policies and Rules Concerning Operator Service Access and
Pay Telephone Compensation, CC Docket No. 91-35, Notice of Proposed
Rule Making, 6 FCC Rcd 1448 (1991), Report and Order and Further
Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 6 FCC Rcd 4736 (1991); Second Report
and Order, 7 FCC Rcd 3251 (1992); Order on Reconsideration, 7 FCC
Rcd 4355 (1992); and Order on Further Reconsideration and Further
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 8 FCC Rcd 2863 (1993) (Further
Reconsideration and FNPRM).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Further Reconsideration and FNPRM in CC Docket 91-35, the
Commission request comment on whether it should require LECs to provide
international blocking to residential customers in order to prevent
toll fraud. Interested parties commented on this issue, and the LECs
also provided general information above the costs and difficulties that
they would incur to provide this service to residential customers.
Parties then commented on the LECs' cost claims. Parties have not,
however, commented about any benefits that residential customers may
receive by using international blocking for purposes other than toll
fraud prevention.
Since this record was established, there has been a significant
increase in the number of complaints the Commission has received about
information services provided through international toll calls. Such
calls are directly dialed by domestic telephone subscribers to
information providers located in foreign countries who offer adult-
oriented information services. These services arose after the
Commission adopted its ``pay-per-call'' rules in 1991 governing 900 and
other information services.\2\ The use of international calls to
provide domestic information services evades important consumer
safeguards in our ``pay-per-call'' and other rules. Such safeguards
include, for example, the requirement that LECs offer a service that
blocks these calls and that they identify the calls separately on
subscribers' bills. Moreover, the Federal Trade Commission's ``pay-per-
call'' rules require information providers to include a preamble
explaining the cost of the call and to allow the caller to hand up
before charges commence. See 16 C.F.R. Sec. Sec. 308.5 (a) and (b).
\2\See Sections 64.1501 to 64.1515 of the Commission's rules, 47
C.F.R. Sec. Sec. 65.1501-64.1515.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission hereby asks for comments on whether, and in what
manner, residential customers would benefit from having the capability
to block international calls. In particular, we request comments on
whether residential customers would benefit from being able to block
international calls in order to limit access to information services.
We also solicit comments from the LECs on the costs that the LECs would
incur to provide international blocking capability to
[[Page 16652]] residential customers. The LECs' comments on costs
should include the categories of costs (e.g., switching,
administration, etc.) that would be incurred to provide international
blocking capability to all residential customers. They should also show
the extent to which those costs would be reduced by not providing
blocking in areas in which it would not be technically feasible and
economically reasonable to do so. For each instance in which a LEC
claims that it would not be technically feasible and economically
reasonable to provide residential blocking, its comments should specify
the type of equipment, the number of end offices affected, the nature
of the problem (i.e., inadequate switch memory) and the percentage of
residential access lines that would not receive international blocking.
Also, the LEC should provide a timeable indicating when, under its
current investment plans, it would become technically feasible and
economically reasonable to offer international blocking to residential
customers from those end offices.
Interested parties may file comments on these issues no later than
April 24, 1995. Replies should be filed by May 8, 1995.
An original and four copies of all comments and replies must be
filed in accordance with Section 1.51(c) of the Commission's Rules, 47
C.F.R. Sec. 1.51(c). In addition, one copy of each pleading must be
filed with International Transcription Services (ITS), the Commission's
duplicating contractor, at its office at 2100 M Street, N.W., Suite
140, Washington, D.C. 20037 and one copy with the Chief, Tariff
Division, Room 518, 1919 M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20554.
For further information, contact Thomas G. David, Tariff Division,
Common Carrier Bureau, (202) 418-1530.
Federal Communications Commission.
William F. Caton,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-7950 Filed 3-30-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-M
