[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 114 (Wednesday, June 15, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-14454]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: June 15, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 61, 64 and 69
[CC Docket No. 92-77, FCC 94-117]
Billed Party Preference for 0+ InterLATA Calls
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission [FCC].
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeks further
comment on whether the Commission should mandate a system of ``billed
party preference (BPP),'' whereby 0+ interLATA calls--that is, calls
made by entering a ``0'' followed by a long distance number--would be
routed automatically to the operator services provider preferred by the
party to be billed for the call. While the Commission found that the
available evidence indicated that the benefits of BPP--in the form of
more competitive service of consumers by operator service providers--
outweighed its costs, the Commission also found that some of the data
underlying its cost/benefit analysis were not as precise or as current
as it desired. Therefore, the Commission seeks additional updated data
and further comment on its analysis, as well as on a number of aspects
of how BPP might be implemented.
DATES: Interested parties may file comments on the Commission's billed
party preference proposal on or before July 8, 1994 and reply comments
on or before July 29, 1994.
ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 1919 M St., NW.,
Washington, DC 20554.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark S. Nadel, Policy and Program
Planning Division, Common Carrier Bureau, (202) 632-1301.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
In 1992, the Commission adopted Billed Party Preference for 0+
InterLATA Calls, CC Docket No. 92-77, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 7
FCC Rcd 3027, 57 FR 24574 (June 10, 1992), initiating a rulemaking
proceeding to consider the merits of an automated ``billed party
preference'' (BPP) routing methodology for 0+ interLATA traffic. The
Commission tentatively concluded that BPP is, in concept, in the public
interest, but sought comments on the costs and benefits of BPP as well
as on a number of aspects of how BPP might be implemented.
Summary of Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
This is a summary of the Commission's Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking in Billed Party Preference, CC Docket No. 94-77; FCC 94-117,
adopted May 19, 1994, and released June 6, 1994. The full text of this
Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during
normal business hours in the FCC Dockets Branch (room 230), 1919 M St.,
NW., Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may also be
purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, ITS, (202)-857-3800,
2100 M St., NW., suite 140, Washington, DC 20037.
Currently, interstate 0+ calls--that is, interstate calls that are
made by entering a ``0'' followed by a telephone number--are routed to
the operator services provider (OSP) selected by either the premises
owner or the provider of the phone. Under a system of Billed Party
Preference (BPP), such calls would be automatically routed to the OSP
preferred by the party to be billed for the call. While the Commission
found that the available evidence indicated that the benefits of BPP
outweighed its costs, the Commission also found that some of the data
underlying its cost/benefit analysis were not as precise or as current
as it desired. Therefore, the Commission seeks further comment on BPP.
The Commission found that BPP would provide three principal
benefits. First, it would facilitate access to the telephone network by
simplifying operator service calling, while guaranteeing that calls are
carried by the billed party's preferred carrier. Callers who currently
use access codes would no longer need to do so. Callers who do not use
access codes would no longer face the risk that their call would be
carried by an unfamiliar operator service provider with rates
considerably higher than the industry average. Based on data in the
Commission's November 1992 report issued pursuant to the Telephone
Operator Consumer Services Information Act, the Commission estimated
that BPP would likely enable consumers to save about $280 million per
year by avoiding operator service providers with rates higher than the
AT&T/MCI/Sprint average.
Second, the Commission found that BPP would force OSPs to refocus
their competitive efforts toward serving consumers rather than serving
aggregators, such as premises owners or payphone providers. The
Commission recognized that such a shift in competitive focus would
almost certainly eliminate the commissions that OSPs now pay to
aggregators for directing 0+ calls to them. Based on the available
data, it estimated that the elimination of commissions could save
operator service providers about $340 million per year on interLATA 0+
calls, thereby offsetting a substantial portion of the costs of BPP.
The Commission found, further, that a shift in competitive focus could
also foster lower prices and better service for consumers.
Third, the Commission noted that BPP would eliminate certain AT&T
advantages in the operator services market. For example, it would
enable AT&T's competitors to offer end users the same 0+ access as
AT&T. Finally, the Commission observed that BPP would reduce regulatory
costs, likely decrease the cost of collections and uncollectables, and
enhance the communications infrastructure.
On the other hand, the Commission also noted that BPP is an
expensive technology. It found that available data indicated that the
net cost of BPP for local exchange carriers (LECs) would be
approximately $380 million on an amortized unseparated cost basis, with
an additional estimated $35 million per year for OSP expenses. It
observed, however, that this estimate was based on data that was not as
precise as it could be.
Therefore, the Commission seeks comment on this analysis and asks
parties to submit additional, updated data to corroborate or refute it.
In addition, the Commission seeks comment on whether some or all of the
benefits of BPP could be achieved through alternative, less costly
measures.
The Commission also addressed how BPP should be implemented in the
event the Commission decides to mandate it. It tentatively concluded
that, if ordered, BPP should generally apply on a nationwide basis to
all interLATA 0+ and 0- calls. It seeks comment on the options
available to independent LECs for participating in BPP and on the costs
of such options. It also seeks additional comment on whether to exempt
all inmate telephones from BPP or at least those OSPs serving inmate
phones and charging rates below some designated level. It also asks
whether those providing LIDB queries should be required to tariff some
form of anti-fraud service.
The Commission continues to believe that BPP should be treated as a
new service for the purposes of price caps, but it seeks further
comments on whether the costs of BPP should be recovered solely from
BPP calls or all operator services calls.
The Commission tentatively concluded that if BPP is implemented
each LEC would be required to notify its subscribers of their right to
choose a 0+ carrier and to provide all subscribers with ballots for
doing so. Furthermore, it stated that it would permit such notification
to be made by either a separate mailing or a prominent billing insert.
It also tentatively concluded that customers who did not return a
ballot would be defaulted to their 1+ carrier, although it seeks
comments on this matter, particularly from consumers and their
representatives. The Commission seeks further information and comment
on how secondary carrier arrangements should be handled under BPP and
how call branding requirements should apply in a BPP environment.
With respect to line number calling cards, the Commission stated
that it would not be in the public interest to adopt a BPP design that
gave LECs or OSPs the exclusive ability to issue line number cards. It
seeks comment on the relative costs and benefits of permitting BPP to
employ a shared line number card option that only required 10-digit
screening in LIDB, versus a design that required 14-digit screening.
Finally, the Commission tentatively concluded that, if BPP is
implemented, it should accommodate commercial credit cards. It also
seeks comments on how soon BPP could be implemented if a final decision
mandating BPP is adopted.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Parts 61, 64 and 69
Communications common carriers, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Telephone.
Federal Communications Commission.
William F. Caton,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 94-14454 Filed 6-14-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-M
