[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 8 (Monday, January 13, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 1798-1799]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-00260]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Chapter I

[CC Docket No. 98-170, WC Docket No. 04-36; DA 19-1271; FRS 16334]


Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau Seeks Comment To Refresh 
the Record on Truth-in-Billing Rules To Ensure Protections for All 
Consumers of Voice Services

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission, via the Consumer and 
Governmental Affairs Bureau (Bureau), seeks to refresh the record on 
two issues related to the Commission's truth-in-billing rules. 
Specifically, the Bureau seeks additional comment on proposals to 
extend the truth-in-billing rules to providers of interconnected Voice 
over internet Protocol (VoIP) services and to require carriers to 
separate government-mandated charges from other charges on consumers' 
telephone bills. The Bureau also seeks additional comment on how to 
define ``government-mandated charge'' for these purposes.

DATES: Comments are due February 12, 2020, and reply comments are due 
March 13, 2020.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by CC Docket No. 98-170 
and WC Docket No. 04-36, by any of the following methods:
     Federal Communications Commission's Website: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Paper Mail: Parties who choose to file by paper must file 
an original and one copy of each filing. Filers must submit two 
additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number. 
Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial 
overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service 
mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, 
Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
     People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request 
reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language 
interpreters, CART, etc.) by email: [email protected] or phone: 202-418-
0530 or TTY: 202-418-0432.
    For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional 
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, contact Erica 
McMahon of the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-
0346 or [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Public 
Notice, in CC Docket No. 98-170, WC Docket No. 04-36; DA 19-1271, 
released on December 13, 2019. The full text of document DA 19-1271 
will be available for public inspection and copying via the Electronic 
Comment Filing System (ECFS), and during regular business hours at the 
FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW, Room 
CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. To request materials in accessible 
formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic 
files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or call the 
Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), or 
(202) 418-0432 (TTY).

[[Page 1799]]

    This matter shall be treated as a ``permit-but-disclose'' 
proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. 47 CFR 
1.1200 et seq. Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded 
that memorandum summarizing the presentations must contain summaries of 
the substance of the presentations and not merely a listing of the 
subjects discussed. More than a one or two sentence description of the 
views and arguments presented is generally required. See 47 CFR 
1.1206(b). Other rules pertaining to oral and written ex parte 
presentations in permit-but-disclose proceedings are set forth in Sec.  
1.1206(b) of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.1206(b).

Synopsis

    1. In the Public Notice, the Bureau seeks comment on several issues 
related to the Commission's truth-in-billing rules. Specifically, the 
Bureau seeks additional comment on proposals to extend the truth-in-
billing rules to providers of interconnected VoIP services and to 
require carriers to separate government-mandated charges from other 
charges on consumers' telephone bills.
    2. First, the Bureau seeks comment on extending the Commission's 
existing truth-in-billing rules, which currently apply only to wireline 
and wireless common carriers, to interconnected VoIP service providers. 
The Commission previously sought comment on this issue. See IP-Enabled 
Services, WC Docket No. 04-36, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, published 
at 69 FR 16193, March 29, 2004. The Bureau seeks to refresh the record 
in light of the increasing numbers of consumers who have replaced their 
traditional circuit-switched phone service with interconnected VoIP 
service. Would consumers of interconnected VoIP service benefit from 
the truth-in-billing rules? Would such rules aid consumers both in 
determining whether to subscribe to an interconnected VoIP service in 
the first place and, thereafter, in assessing a provider's ongoing fees 
and conditions vis-[agrave]-vis those of other providers? Would rules 
requiring that charges be clear and conspicuous enhance interconnected 
VoIP consumers' ability to detect erroneous charges and unauthorized 
changes in their service arrangements?
    3. If the Commission were to extend the truth-in-billing rules to 
interconnected VoIP services, what rules should it extend, i.e., those 
that currently are designed to apply to legacy wireline carriers or the 
more recent rules that apply to wireless carriers? In other words, what 
rules are appropriate for interconnected VoIP and how should they 
apply? And should the Commission take the opportunity to revisit the 
need for any possibly outdated rules? If so, the Bureau seeks comment 
on why any such rules no longer benefit consumers.
    4. Second, the Bureau seeks to refresh the record on whether the 
Commission should require all voice service providers to separate on 
consumer bills those line-item fees that are government-mandated from 
those that are not to the extent they include separate line items on a 
consumer's bill. See Truth-in-Billing and Billing Format, CC Docket No. 
98-170, CG Docket No. 04-208, Second Report and Order, Declaratory 
Ruling, and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, published at 
70 FR 30044, May 25, 2005. Would such an approach serve the 
Commission's historical truth-in-billing goal ``to aid customers in 
understanding their telecommunications bills, and to provide them with 
the tools they need to make informed choices in the market for 
telecommunications services''? If the Commission were to require such 
separation, what would be the most consumer-beneficial way to do so 
while minimizing regulatory burdens on voice service providers? Should 
the Commission consider steps beyond simple separation and require that 
different charges appear in a distinct section of the consumer's bill, 
one clearly labeled to show that it contains government-mandated 
charges? Some service providers promote all-inclusive prices, with no 
added line-item charges, for certain offerings. How should the 
Commission address government-mandated charges in this context?
    5. The Bureau seeks additional comment on how to define 
``government-mandated charge'' for these purposes. In the Truth-in-
Billing FNPRM, the Commission noted that mandated charges could be 
defined as those that providers are required by law to collect from 
consumers and remit directly to federal, state, or local governments, 
or could also include charges that providers are not required to 
collect from consumers but choose to do so through separate line items, 
to reimburse themselves for their own payments toward government 
programs. Under this definition, charges for universal service, state 
and local taxes, 911/E911, and other line-item fees should be 
considered government-mandated. The Bureau seeks further comment on how 
to define government-mandated charges.
    6. In contrast, most other line-item charges would not be 
considered government-mandated. For example, charges historically 
associated with network access, such as the Subscriber Line Charge and 
Access Recovery Charge; charges designed to recover the administrative 
or other costs for complying with federal and state law, such as a 
``Regulatory Fee'' or ``Regulatory Cost Recovery Charge;'' and charges 
to reimburse providers for more general operating costs, such as permit 
fees, application fees, or licensing fees, are not charges remitted to 
the government but are line items collected by carriers of their own 
volition. The Bureau seeks comment on whether such fees should be 
separated from government-mandated charges.
    7. The Commission's authority to adopt truth-in-billing rules for 
common carriers derives in large part from section 201(b) of the 
Communications Act to deter carriers from engaging in unjust and 
unreasonable practices.
    The Bureau seeks to refresh the record on the Commission's 
authority to extend the truth-in-billing rules to interconnected VoIP 
service providers, including both two-way and one-way interconnected 
VoIP services.

Federal Communications Commission.
Gregory Haledjian,
Legal Advisor, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau.
[FR Doc. 2020-00260 Filed 1-10-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P