[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