CC Docket No. 91-281
Rules and Policies Regarding Calling Number Identification Service -- Caller ID
Adopted: May 4, 1995 Released: May 5, 1995
Comment Date: June 30, 1995
Reply Comment Date: July 28, 1995
By the Commission: Commissioner Barrett issuing a statement.
1. In this proceeding, we address petitions for reconsideration
of our decision in Rules and Policies regarding Calling
Number Identification Service - Caller ID.(n1) We also address
comments filed in response to the Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking in the same docket.(n2) Finally, we issue a Third
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to resolve issues raised
by Private Branch Exchange (PBX) telephone systems and
2. In the Report and Order, the Commission found that
passage over interstate facilities of the number of the
telephone from which a party called made possible a wide
range of services and, thus, promoting development of
such services is consistent with the Commission's responsibilities
under Sections 1 and 7 of the Communications Act. Specifically,
the Commission found passage of the calling party's number,
or CPN, could bring consumers rapid and efficient service
and encourage the introduction of new technologies and
services to the public.(n3) In particular, the Commission
found that CPN could enable service providers and consumers
to conduct transactions more efficiently.
The Report and Order offered some examples to illustrate how this would be achieved: computer services could recognize the calling party's number and either permit, or deny, access. Stockbrokers, travel agents, parts and equipment providers, and booksellers could route a call to a preprogrammed location closer to the calling party to expedite deliveries or services. Retailers could verify credit and billing information instantaneously. Customized services that depend on the caller's individualized preferences could be developed. The Commission observed that even small efficiencies on individual transactions become significant in an economy that averages more than one billion interstate calling minutes a day. These savings could lower service costs for suppliers, leading to lower prices for consumers.(n4)
3. The Commission identified other potential benefits,
and beneficiaries, from passage of CPN over interstate
facilities. These included the carriers with networks
able to pass CPN, which benefit from greater use of their
networks as new services are developed and as existing
services become more attractive to suppliers and consumers.
Carriers lacking the ability to pass CPN have incentives
to install it to remain competitive with carriers having
it. Entrepreneurs and employees benefit from new business
and employment opportunities. None of these benefits --
efficiency and productivity gains, infrastructure development
andnetwork utilization, or new service and employment opportunities
-- are possible unless CPN is passed among carrier networks.
4. For all these reasons the Report and Order established
federal policies to govern the passage of the calling party
number over interstate facilities. The Commission found
the establishment of federal policies necessary because
uncertainty created by their absence appeared to be impeding
the development of potentially valuable interstate services,
like those described in the preceding paragraphs. The two
areas of greatest uncertainty identified by the Commission
were (1) compensation issues related to passage of CPN
for interstate calls and (2) varying state requirements
intended to protect the privacy rights of calling and called
parties on interstate calls.(n5) In addition, concern that
lack of federal policy and varying state policies created
customer confusion influenced our decision to act.
5. As is explained below, we affirm our finding that common carriers, including Commercial Mobile Radio Service providers, with Signaling System 7 (SS7) call set up capability, must transport CPN on interstate calls without charge to interconnecting carriers. We clarify that we do not require carriers that do not have SS7 call set up capability to make the SS7 investments that would enable them to pass CPN. We modify our prior decision that carriers only provide privacy when a caller first dials *67. Specifically, we permit carriers to provide privacy on all calls dialed from a particular line where state policies provide, and the customer selects, that option, provided carriers permit callers to unblock calls from that line by dialing *82. Federal policy prohibits default per line blocking. Where state policies do not require or permit at the customer's election per line blocking, carriers are bound by the federal privacy protection model to provide privacy only where *67 is dialed. We require that hotel and motel lines comply with these policies as of the effective date of the new rules, December 1, 1995, while public payphones and partylines must comply with these policies by January 1, 1997. Additionally, we continue to exempt calls to emergency lines from our rules; that is, a carrier's obligation to honor caller privacy requests will be governed by state policies. We affirm our existing policies governing use of Automatic Number Identification, or ANI.(n6)
6. Furthermore, we require that when a caller requests that the name of the subscriber to the line from which he is calling be concealed, a carrier may not reveal that name to the called party. With respect to other services that use CPN and might identify the calling party, we require that when a caller requests privacy, a carrier may not reveal that caller's number or name, nor may the carrier use the number or name to allow the called party to contact the calling party. We continue to require that carriers with call set up capability that pass CPN or transmit ANI educate customers regarding how customers cancontrol the passage of CPN and ANI to the party they are calling. Additionally, we issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposing (1) that PBX systems capable of delivering CPN to the public switched telephone network also be capable of delivering a privacy indicator when the user of a telephone served by the PBX dials *67 and be capable of unblocking the line by dialing *82 and (2) that private payphones be subject to our caller ID rules. Finally, we extend the date to December 1, 1995 by which carriers with SS7 call set up capability must comply with our rules relating to passage of CPN associated with interstate calls.(n7)
A. Technology Advances Underlying CPN-Based Services
7. Historically, signaling information that enabled call
routing and billing was transmitted through multifrequency
in-band signaling on the same circuits used to connect
the calling and called parties.(n8) Beginning in the 1980s,
carriers worldwide began abandoning multifrequency in-band
signaling in favor of out-of-band signaling. With out-of-band
signaling, a packet network transmits signaling information
on circuits separate from the circuits used to connect
the calling and called parties. When compared to multifrequency
in-band signaling, out-of-band signaling allows carriers
to use their networks more efficiently. Efficiency gains
are realized since carriers can set up and release calls
more quickly. This increases the ratio of the time interoffice
circuits are in use carrying a conversation to the time
interoffice circuits are in the process of being connected
or disconnected. Additionally, out-of-band signaling enhances
flexibility in call handling and processing. It also
avoids certain kinds of fraud that could be used with multifrequency
signaling to defeat billing systems. The latest version
of out-of-band signaling, deployed in carrier networks
throughout the world, is Signaling System Seven, or SS7.
A SS7 message conveys information presented in digital
format to switches and other network elements. The message
is organized into an agreed format that consists of parameter
fields and subfields.
8. The Commission addressed issues in the Report and Order
that are raised by the presence of the CPN parameter field
in a SS7 call set up message. CPN is an optional parameter
of the "initial address message" or IAM,(n9) an SS7 ISUP(n10) message,
which is included in most calls. The IAM is a collection
of information critical to call routing and handling.
Industry standards bodies strictly control the information
that can be included in the IAM.
9. With multifrequency signaling, signaling information
capable of identifying the calling party generally was
not passed beyond the interexchange carrier (IXC), which
used the information primarily for billing purposes. SS7,
however, makes information identifying the calling party
available to the terminating carrier. By making minor
modifications to an individual's line, a terminating carrier
is able to provide the calling party's number to a called
individual between the first and second ring of the telephone.
The individual merely needs to install a device (which
may be incorporated into his or her telephone) to reveal
the calling party's telephone number. This service to
an individual receiving the calling party's number is often
called Caller Identification Service or "caller ID."
10. The SS7 protocol anticipates that there may be occasions
when the calling party does not wish to have the CPN revealed
to the called party. If a calling party dials *67 (or
1167 on a rotary phone), the switch recognizes this as
a request for privacy and sets a privacy indicator within
the SS7 message that will be used to set up the call.
When a terminating switch receives an SS7 message with
privacy requested, it will not pass the calling party number
to the called party. Instead, the called party would receive
a message that privacy has been requested.
11. Privacy may be achieved in ways other than by dialing
*67. For example, carriers can modify a calling party's
line so that the CPN on all calls from that line will be
concealed, without the need for the calling party to dial
*67. In addition, certain customer premises equipment
may be used to dial *67 automatically on all outgoing calls.
B. Policies Adopted in the Report and Order
i. Passage of CPN
12. In the Report and Order, the Commission found that
nearly all of the Bell Operating Companies now offer CPN
as a nonchargeable option in their SS7 access tariffs.
The American National Standard for Telecommunications -
Signaling System Number 7 (SS7) - Integrated Services Digital
Network, referred to as ANSI T1.113, 1988, includes CPN
as an optional parameter of a SS7 network. Because CPN
is an intrinsic part of SS7 call set up, and no cost is
associated with "filling" the CPN parameter of the SS7
message, the Commission found the cost to transmit CPN
for carriers having call set up capability is de minimis.
The Commission concluded that carriers capable of transmitting
call set up information should transmit CPN on interstate
calls to interconnecting carriers without charge to those
carriers. The Commission believed this decision would
resolve billing issues between local exchange and interexchange
carriers that seemed to be preventing the passage of CPN
on interstate calls.
13. The Commission recognized that passage of CPN could
invade the privacy of calling parties wishing to remain
anonymous. While the Commission recognized the privacy
right of the called party to know who is calling, it found
that the federal model governing passage of CPN should
also offer the calling party a means of remaining anonymous.
To craft a federal policy governing passage of CPN on
interstate calls that protected the reasonable privacy
expectations of both the calling and the called parties,
the Commission looked at the rules adopted by state policy
makers to protect the privacy of calling and called parties
on intrastate calls and the rationales underlying the states'
14. The Commission found that states have not adopted
a uniform policy in regulating intrastate CPN services
such as caller ID. Some states do not require carriers
to offer calling parties the ability to conceal their number,
apparently believing that the called party's right to know
who is calling is paramount. Some states require carriers
to allow callers to invoke privacy by dialing *67. Some
states not only require this, but also require carriers
to offer at least some customers the option of blocking
passage of CPN for all their calls, a service called "line
blocking." States requiring carriers to offer line blocking
differ in their definition of the subscribers to whom the
carriers must offer this option. Some allow any subscriber
to receive line blocking. Some limit its availability
to groups with "special needs," such as law enforcement
agencies or abuse shelters. Some permit carriers to charge
for line blocking, or only permit charges to specific categories
of subscribers electing line blocking, such as persons
who do not have an unlisted number. In some local networks,
dialing *67 on a line that has been blocked by the carrier
has the effect of unblocking the call, while in other networks,
dialing *82 is necessary to unblock a line.(n11) Some states
prohibit blocking passage of CPN from payphones, but some
require it, at least for certain payphones likely to be
used by persons who are abused. Because states also revise
their policies periodically, patterns different from those
we have just described are also possible.
15. The Commission concluded that interstate callers should
have a simple,uniform way of being assured privacy on an
interstate call.(n12) The Commission concluded that when interstate
callers dial *67, their CPN should not be revealed to the
called party. If they do not dial *67, interstate callers
would then know that their number may be revealed to a
called party equipped to receive CPN. The Commission found
this to be a simple, uniform interstate policy that reasonably
balances the privacy interests of calling and called parties.
Carriers were prohibited from charging calling parties
for providing this blocking capability and were ordered
to educate consumers regarding how they can prevent their
CPN from being revealed.
16. The Commission recognized that states' individual policies may, in some instances, be inconsistent with this federal model. The Commission therefore preempted state regulation of services based on CPN, such as caller ID that: 1) prohibits the offering of interstate CPN-based services; 2) requires blocking alternatives on interstate calls different from those adopted by the Commission; or 3) requires blocking systems that interfere with the use of *67 to achieve blocking on interstate calls.(n13)
iii. ANI Services
17. In the Report and Order, the Commission addressed
issues raised by services that use ANI, which pass the
telephone number to which a call is to be billed. Prior
to the deployment of SS7, carriers would use multifrequency
signaling to transmit ANI to IXCs. ANI's original purpose
was to enable carriers to bill customers for calls they
made. ANI, however, can also facilitate many of the services
made possible by CPN because ANI identifies the calling
party's billing number, which often, but not always, is
the same as CPN.(n14) Ordinarily, the IXC would not reveal
ANI to the terminating local exchange carrier (LEC) or
to called parties that the IXC served directly. As IXCs
recognized its value to businesses for identifying customers,
the carriers began offering ANI to those customers they
served directly who were paying for the call, such as,
subscribers to 800 service. Unlike CPN, carriers can not
block delivery of ANI over multifrequency signaling networks.
In SS7 networks, however, the charge number, which is equivalent
to ANI in multifrequency networks, and the calling party
number occupy different fields. Thus, the SS7 protocol
does permit the terminating carrier having call set up
capability to know when the calling party wants privacy,
because the CPN parameter field will indicate whether privacy
18. The Commission decided not to prohibit carriers from
sharing ANI information with 800 service customers, even
where a calling party requested privacy for his CPN.(n15) Itnoted
consumers' major concern about ANI services was reuse of
the calling party information by 800 service customers.
Accordingly, the Commission ruled that customer information
gained from ANI services could not be reused or sold without
the affirmative consent of the calling party. The only
exception was that the information could be used to offer
products or services to established customers where the
products or services are directly related to products or
services previously provided. Carriers providing ANI services
are required to include these restrictions in tariffs or
contracts that offer the services.
C. Matters Raised in the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
i. Other CPN-Based Services
19. In the Further Notice, the Commission asked commenters to respond to the tentative conclusion that policies governing CPN delivery should also apply to services delivering calling party name. It also asked whether the policies should be applied to other services, such as automatic call return or selective call forwarding.(n16)
20. Calling party name delivery provides the name of
the customer in whose name the calling line is listed.
When a called party subscribes to calling name service,
the customer name associated with the calling line is delivered
to the subscriber in the same manner as calling number.
A subscriber's customer premise equipment (CPE) then displays
the name associated with the calling line. To the end
user customer, calling name and number services appear
to work in a very similar manner.(n17) From a network perspective,
however, calling name delivery requires capabilities in
addition to those used for calling number delivery. When
a terminating switching office receives a call, it uses
the CPN from the incoming call to determine the name associated
with the calling line by accessing a remote data base through
a TCAP(n18) query or in limited cases by accessing a data base
resident in the switch. As in the case of calling number,
the switch then delivers the calling name to the called
party during the ringing cycle.
21. Call return service allows a called party to return
a call to a calling party by entering a feature code on
the phone (e.g. *69). For the service to function between
switching offices, CPN must be present in the IAM and TCAP
message capability must exist. When a customer invokes
call return, the serving switching office will examine
the contents of the incoming call memory slot(n19) to determine
the CPN of the last incoming call. If CPN is not in the
memory slot, the customer receives a message that the call
could not be returned. If CPN is in the memory slot, the
serving switch launches a TCAP message to determine the
status of the original calling party's line. If the line
is idle, the serving switch will set up a call and notify
the customer invoking the call return service that the
call is being completed. At that point, call processing
proceeds as though it were a normal call. Call return
service goes by many different names (e.g., Last Call Return,
Auto Call Return, Return Call), but the basic operation
of the service is the same.
22. There are numerous other CPN-based services such as
Selective Call Rejection and Selective Call Forwarding.
Commenters have suggested many other creative ways in
which CPN may be used to develop new services.
23. In the Report and Order, the Commission recognized that subscriber education is in the public interest and should be implemented with the introduction of interstate CPN-based services.(n20) The Commission also noted commenters' concern that callers be told that their billing numbers are identified via ANI-based services.(n21) Accordingly, the Commission concluded that carriers participating in the offering of services that deliver calling party number, including ANI or charge number, on interstate calls must tell their subscribers that their telephone numbers may be transmitted to a called party.(n22) In the Further Notice, the Commission asked whether it should prescribe in detail the form this education should take or whether it should prescribe precisely the responsibilities of the various carriers transmitting the information.(n23)
III. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION
A. Transmission of CPN
i. Interstate CPN Transmission Costs
24. Background. In the Report and Order, the Commission affirmed its tentative finding that the unimpeded flow of CPN throughout the network fosters fullest development of CPN-based services.(n24) It concluded that the cost to carriers of transmitting CPN on interstate calls is de minimis for access services using SS7 technology because SS7 standards include CPN as an optional parameter for call set up.(n25) Since carriers equipped with call set up capability do not need to make additional investments to be able to pass CPN, delivery of CPN would thus cause little incremental cost to carriers not currently recovered through tariffed offerings. The Commission amended its rules to require that not later than April 12, 1995, common carriers using SS7 and subscribing to or offering any service based on SS7 functionality transmit, without charge, the CPN parameter and the associated privacy indicator to connecting carriers on an interstate call.(n26)
25. Positions of the Parties. Several IXCs petition
the Commission to reconsider its decision to require carriers
to transmit CPN without compensation from connecting carriers.(n27)
They argue that such a requirement: violates the Fifth
Amendment because it unjustly deprives carriers of compensation
for services;(n28) is inconsistent with the Communications Act
because it unlawfully precludes IXCs from filing tariffs
that establish rates for the delivery of interstate CPN
to terminating LECs;(n29) and unfairly gives LECs a monopoly
windfall because IXCs do not have the same opportunity
as LECs to market CPN-based services.(n30) Basic equity and
fairness, they say, require that IXCs be able to charge
for the delivery of CPN.(n31) Sprint claims that while LECs
correctly point out that IXCs do have direct access to
customers on the terminating end for 800-type service and
can provide caller ID type services to such customers,
IXCs can do so only if the customer has a dedicatedaccess
arrangement.(n32) MCI disputes the LEC claims that IXCs can
simply raise their rates for existing services to recover
CPN delivery costs.(n33) Unlike the LECs, it says, IXCs operate
in a competitive environment where prices are determined
by marketplace forces. Accordingly, it says, rates for
one service cannot be easily raised to recover the cost
26. AT&T argues that the economic analysis underlying the Commission's "free passage" requirement arbitrarily ignores record evidence on IXC costs, is incomplete because it is based only upon a review of incremental costs, and is inconsistent with basic rules on cost allocation.(n34) AT&T asserts that the Commission fails to take into account enormous expenditures that have been made by IXCs to develop and deploy SS7 technology to enable them to accept and deliver interstate CPN.(n35) Furthermore, AT&T anticipates that fewer interstate calls will be completed once interstate caller ID is inaugurated, resulting in higher access costs for those calls actually completed. Ultimately, it says, the Commission's requiring free passage of CPN clashes with fundamental Commission policy favoring competition and will harm consumers by severely restricting IXCs' incentives to support feature-rich technology deployment in the future.(n36) AT&T also argues that the "free passage" requirement precludes IXCs from filing tariffs that establish rates for the delivery of interstate CPN to terminating LECs. The Commission, it says, provided no notice that it was considering such a restriction.(n37)
27. The LECs reject IXC arguments that free passage of CPN is unfair and gives LECs a monopoly windfall.(n38) First, they say, the passage of CPN is not a service, nor is it dependent on IXC "property".(n39) Instead, they argue, such passage is an aspect of fundamental common carriage -- the delivery of the message as received from one carrier,unadulterated, through to the terminating carrier.(n40) They say that IXCs have benefited from the LECs' free passage of CPN to them because the IXCs have been able to receive and use this information from the time carriers began to interconnect their SS7 networks several years ago.(n41)
28. Bell Atlantic says that while it would not be impossible to set up a regulatory regime in which parties paid for bits of signaling information they received, doing so would not serve the public interest because it would delay service deployment and add to its cost.(n42) LECs argue, that, in any event, any IXC charges to terminating LECs would be offset by the originating LEC charges to IXCs, thus eliminating any economic rationale for these charges.(n43)
29. LECs further argue that IXCs offer their customers services that use, deliver, or operate on ANI -- another form of calling number identification -- and that nothing in the Commission's decision precludes them from developing additional end user services based on the CPN parameter of the SS7 protocol.(n44) BellSouth claims, in fact, that ANI delivery services offered to end users by IXCs may compete directly with interstate end user calling number delivery services offered by the LECs. Thus, BellSouth claims that IXCs therefore have an incentive to charge LECs for CPN to increase LEC costs.(n45) SWBT argues that if IXCs believe they are not recovering enough for transmitting CPN, they should raise rates to their own customers.(n46)
30. Discussion. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm
our decision that carriers must pass CPN to connecting
carriers on interstate calls without charge.
31. Throughout this proceeding, commenters have overwhelmingly supported theconclusion that ubiquitous availability of CPN is in the public interest.(n47) As many parties recognize, interstate CPN is the foundation for many new telecommunications products and services that will benefit the American public in many ways.(n48) We adopted a federal policy on this matter because we found that uncertainty about carrier responsibilities was impeding the development of interstate services.(n49)
32. Widespread SS7 deployment supports nationwide availability
of CPN. SS7 makes possible during call set up, transmission
of CPN as part of the initial address message. The SS7
protocol anticipates passage of CPN where call set up capability
33. The basis for our conclusion that CPN should be
passed from carrier to carrier at no charge is that CPN
is an intrinsic part of SS7 call set up and that the costs
for transporting the CPN parameter for carriers equipped
with call set up capability are de minimis. Several IXCs
dispute this and urge us not to require them to pass CPN,
but instead allow them to pass this information selectively
to terminating LECs who either agree to pay for the CPN
or enter into some other reciprocal business arrangements
with these IXCs. We find their arguments are not persuasive.
34. First, IXCs cannot reasonably claim that free passage of CPN to connecting carriers denies them recovery of their SS7 deployment costs.(n50) The Commission has clearly stated that SS7 deployment represents a general network upgrade, the core costs of which should be borne by all network users.(n51) There is no evidence that IXC SS7 costs are not being recovered from the general body of network users. IXCs and LECs will therefore continue to recover their SS7 deployment costs through these charges, as well as throughCPN-based services that they offer to their end users.(n52) IXCs also can recover their SS7 deployment costs through greater network efficiencies that could result, for example, in lower access charges.(n53) Further, as SS7 is used to support emerging technologies such as advanced intelligent network and personal communications services, LECs and IXCs can both realize new revenues from new services and from greater utilization of their networks to cover the costs of SS7 deployment.(n54)
35. IXCs further argue that our decision improperly
denies them compensation for transmitting interstate CPN.
Again, however, they have not demonstrated that they are
incurring significant uncompensated costs to carry it.
Only AT&T, in an Ex Parte presentation made after the
official comment cycle ended, attempts to provide quantitative
data to support its assertion that costs IXCs incur to
deliver CPN are not de minimis.
36. AT&T does not question that it receives CPN without
a separate charge from LECs. Rather it alleges that the
costs it incurs annually for delivery of CPN are eleven
percent of its total interstate SS7 costs amounting to
$79.6 million. This figure, however, does not withstand
close scrutiny. First, AT&T's claimed annual interstate
CPN delivery expenses include network depreciation and
operating expenses associated with its SS7 network. These
costs are not caused by CPN transmission. AT&T, like all
major interexchange carriers, has incurred these expenses
to derive efficiencies and new services from out-of-band
signaling unachievable from in-band multifrequency signaling.
37. Second, AT&T's cost estimate relies, in part, on projections
made by Pacific in a Petition for Rulemaking to Amend Section
69.106 of the Commission's rules.(n55) In the Petition, Pacific
characterizes $.0162 as "the direct cost (plus overhead)
to set up a call." Pacific does not state that this figure
represents an SS7 cost. In any event, Pacific's number
is theoretical; it is not currently reflected in access
38. Thus, AT&T's cost analysis is based on rates that
Pacific might theoretically charge for services rather
than costs that AT&T actually incurs for call set up.
We believeAT&T's $79.6 million cost figure is unreliable
for other reasons, as well. AT&T assumes that SS7 costs
should be allocated among message parameters based upon
the relative numbers of bytes required to fill the field
associated with each. Assuming that this is a reasonable
allocation rule, AT&T argues that CPN passage accounts
for eleven percent of bytes. Even assuming the total number
of message parameters were relevant, which AT&T has not
demonstrated, AT&T's determination that CPN costs amount
to eleven percent of interstate SS7 expenses ignores the
fact that CPN represents but a very small part of the total
number of message parameters that are likely to be used
in IXC SS7 networks. For example, in deriving its percentage
factor, AT&T considers only the most basic "ISUP" call
set up parameters. It does not include other ISUP messages,
network management messages and TCAP messages routinely
used in SS7 signaling. While we have no information in
the record that enables us to determine how often these
messages occur in AT&T's network, we believe that including
such messages in its analysis would significantly reduce
AT&T's claimed "CPN as a Percent of SS7."
39. AT&T also has ignored the fact that IXCs typically
request LECs to provide both CPN and charge number parameters
when using SS7 to set up a call. Interface specifications
reflected in LEC access tariffs, for example, state that
when an IXC requests these parameters -- where charge number
and CPN are the same -- the CPN parameter alone is "populated"
in the IAM.(n56) In such situations, this means that an IXC
need carry only three, instead of twelve additional bytes
of signaling information. AT&T's calculations assume that
CPN passage requires carriage of twelve bytes in the IAM.
Although we cannot determine from the record how often
CPN and charge number are the same, some parties suggest
it occurs on thirty-five percent to ninety-five percent
of all initial address messages.
40. In any event, there is little reason to believe IXCs
would realize new revenue from bargaining with LECs over
passage of CPN, even if we agreed, as Sprint suggests,
that the cost standard applied to CPN should not be marginal
cost.(n57) Under Sprint's model, the initiating LEC would be
allowed to charge IXCs for providing CPN. There is no
reason to believe that IXCs could negotiate better rates
when selling CPN to terminating LECs than when buying CPN
from originating LECs.
41. Our policy does not deny IXCs the ability or incentive
to develop new SS7-based services. To the extent IXCs
believe LECs are better positioned to use CPN to develop
end user services, our policy creates incentives for IXCs
to develop competitive alternatives to LEC distribution
service. Indeed, as noted above, IXCs already provide
some of these services directly. Moreover, IXCs are free
to develop services based on CPN by reselling CPN acquired
42. Finally, no legal rights of IXCs are compromised by a federal rule that requires interexchange carriers to transmit signaling information received from originating carriers to terminating carriers. Because the IXCs are recovering the costs associated with their deployment of SS7 through rates for long distance services, they have no right under the Constitution or the Communications Act to be compensated again by LECs on the terminating end of calls on which CPN is passed. The CPN rule does not effect an unlawful taking of carrier property. The courts have made clear that the government may regulate rates "chargeable from the employment of private property devoted to public uses" and that "[s]o long as the rates set are not confiscatory, the Fifth Amendment does not bar their imposition."(n58)
43. Furthermore, in order to determine whether rates are
confiscatory, courts look at the end result, not at the
rate-setting methodo-logy.(n59) In this case, the overall rates
for long distance services certainly cannot be construed
as "confiscatory." In particular, it cannot be claimed
that the imposition of an additional requirement, resulting
in merely de minimis additional costs, renders a rate confiscatory.
Thus, the requirement that IXCs pass CPN to terminating
carriers does not amount to a taking under the fifth amendment.
Under the Communications Act carriers are entitled to
compensation; they are not entitled to unfettered discretion
as to the source of that compensation. Moreover, they
cannot claim they were without adequate notice that we
would adopt this policy. The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
in this proceeding documented that carriers were having
difficulty in resolving financial arrangements related
to passage of CPN.(n60) The Notice expressed Commission intent
to "resolve the legal, financial and technical issues implicated
by the delivery of an interstate caller ID service."(n61) The
Commission asked for comment on the extent to which carriers
had made progress in reaching agreements to provide service
jointly and any impediments to such agreements being negotiated.(n62)
Commenters responding to the NPRM fully briefed the Commission
on their respective positions; on reconsideration IXCs
have not provided new or different information on this
record that the Commission has not already considered.
44. Conclusion. We find our policy does not prevent
IXCs from recovering their SS7 development and deployment
costs. Our action here is consistent with our policies
governing LEC recovery of these costs, that is, that costs
that result in a general network upgrade ought to be borne
by all network users. It encourages more, not less, development
of new CPN-based services by removing uncertainty over
intercarrier compensation thatappears to have impeded their
development previously. Our policies prohibiting restriction
on resale of interstate service offerings mandate that
terminating LECs not impede the resale of interstate CPN-based
services.(n63) Resale of interstate CPN should facilitate competition
among carriers and the development of additional new services.
ii. Equipment Upgrades to Support CPN Delivery
45. Background. The Report and Order amended Section 64.1601(a) to require common carriers using SS7 and offering "any service based on SS7 functionality to transmit the calling party number associated with an interstate call to interconnecting carriers."(n64) The Commission stated that carriers were not required to invest in SS7 technology in order to facilitate delivery of CPN, and were only required to deliver it where doing so was technically feasible.(n65)
46. Positions of the Parties. Several petitioners request that the Commission clarify that SS7 can be used by carriers without the carrier being required to transmit CPN or provide blocking capabilities.(n66) Otherwise, they say, they would be forced to upgrade offices that have been equipped with SS7 for purposes other than CPN-based service deployment, such as 800 data base service.(n67)
47. Commenters addressing this issue argue that the existence of SS7 does not automatically guarantee the ability to transmit CPN and its associated privacy indicator.(n68) GTE, for example, says that in some of its central offices, 800 calls are routed to tandem switches where SS7 signaling is used only to determine proper routing of the call. In these situations, it says, multifrequency signaling is used between the end office and the tandemswitch, and other calls from those end offices do not use SS7 technology at all.(n69)
48. GTE maintains that the decision to deploy SS7 capability and the decision to install caller ID and call blocking software are separate and distinct investment decisions.(n70) GTE asserts that if the Order were to require full SS7 deployment at any location where SS7 were used for any purpose, no matter how incidental, all common carriers would be forced to reevaluate investment plans and possibly slow the deployment of CPN-based services due to increased costs.(n71) US WEST assumes that interstate passage of CPN and any attendant blocking is predicated on technical feasibility.(n72)
49. Discussion. We do not require carriers that do not have SS7 call set up capability to make the SS7 investments that would enable them to pass CPN. We attempted to make this clear by (1) stressing that carriers "are not required to invest in SS7 technology in order to facilitate delivery of the calling party number;" and (2) narrowly defining "Calling Party Number" to mean the subscriber line number or the directory number contained in the calling party number parameter of the call set up message associated with an interstate call on an SS7 network.(n73)
50. The mere presence of SS7 features in a network does
not bring with it CPN transmission functionality. Such
functionality requires specific SS7 call set up capability.
Moreover, because SS7 call set up capability already exists
in nearly all major carrier networks, nationwide deployment
of CPN services is possible. We see no reason to compel
further deployment at this time.
51. Our decision means that consumers served by carriers
not having SS7 call set up capability will be unable to
use the new and valuable services that interstate passage
of CPN makes possible until their carriers deploy this
capability. We assume that many of these customers currently
are not able to choose an alternate local exchange service
provider. Nevertheless, we believe that the benefits of
being able to pass and receive CPN and provide advanced
wireline and wireless services will motivate additional
service providers to make this investment. We expect
that carriers without SS7 call set up capability will feelincreasing
competitive pressure to deploy it. We encourage the deployment
of SS7 functionality sufficient to pass CPN wherever possible
in order to provide consumers the widest possible range
of CPN-based services.
B. Privacy: Blocking Mechanisms
52. We describe below how privacy interests have been
addressed in federal and state regulatory regimes. We
analyze the technological difficulties of reconciling state
rules that allow calling parties to protect their privacy
through per line blocking with federal requirements that
a party placing an interstate call may protect his privacy
by concealing CPN on only a per call basis. We reexamine
the *67 privacy model established in our rules in light
of new record evidence, find that it is not feasible to
have separate federal and state blocking regimes on the
same line, and adopt a model that requires *67 per call
blocking and *82 per call unblocking where state policies
permitting per line blocking are in effect. Finally, we
describe our limited preemption of existing state regimes.
53. Background. In the Report and Order, the Commission
determined that callers placing interstate calls should
be able to prevent delivery of their number to called parties
by dialing *67 on a push button telephone or by dialing
1167 on a rotary telephone.(n74) In reaching this conclusion,
the Commission balanced the calling party's privacy interests
against the efficiencies and benefits attendant to free
passage of CPN as well as the called party's privacy interests.(n75)
The Commission found that per line blocking was not the
best choice for a federal model because it was not the
most simple and uniform approach and because it unduly
burdened CPN-based services and called parties by failing
to limit blocking to only those calls for which the caller
wished to conceal his CPN. The Commission rejected arguments
that certain identified groups, such as domestic violence
or law enforcement agencies, should be allowed to subscribe
to per-line blocking,(n76) determining that designation of
a "general rule" -- as part of the federal model for caller
ID services -- to resolve problems for "special cases"
would not be optimal.(n77) It stated that individuals wishing
to block transmission of CPN on all originating calls could
do so by purchasing terminal equipment for as little as
$40.00 that automatically outpulsed *67 on each call.
54. The Commission noted that state regulatory regimes
for protecting the privacy of calling parties ranged from
no protection for callers to free per line or per call
blocking. It did not preempt any of these intrastate regimes.
It did, however, preempt states from:prohibiting per call
blocking for interstate calls; requiring a different blocking
alternative for interstate calls or prohibiting the offering
of CPN-based interstate services.
55. Positions of the Parties. Many parties petition
for reconsideration of the Commission's preemption decisions.
In particular, some states urge the Commission to endorse
state regulatory regimes for blocking that differ from
the federal model. They argue that a federal model that
only permits a customer to block passage of CPN on a per
call basis is technically incompatible with state models
that permit carriers to block all calls originating from
a particular line.(n78) NARUC argues that endorsing state policies
minimizes caller confusion because callers most likely
are aware of existing state requirements.(n79) California
urges that the Commission defer to state policies, except
where the state does not provide for a generally available
blocking option. In the latter case, it recommends that
the Commission adopt a minimum federal privacy standard.(n80)
California notes its regulatory policies provide for consumers
to elect per call blocking, per line blocking and "where
feasible," per line enabling using *82.(n81) Pacific states
caller ID service is not currently offered in California
because under California policy, subscribers who have an
unlisted line (forty-four percent of Pacific's subscribers),
and who do not elect per call blocking are automatically
provided per line blocking. It urges the Commission to
preempt California's per line default blocking policy for
unpublished and unlisted numbers.
56. In the event the Commission refuses to defer to state
policies, California offers a technical proposal to accommodate
differing federal and state blocking regimes on the same
line that it alleges requires minimal software changes
for carriers.(n82) Switch vendors, it claims, could incorporate
minor modifications into their current development cycles,
minimizing costs and causing only slight delay in meeting
the Commission's timetable for interstate CPN passage.
57. A number of exchange carriers also urge the Commission to defer to the blocking regime of the state in which the call originates and require the carrier in theterminating state to honor a privacy indicator that accompanies the interstate call.(n83) Still others advocate either: (1) deference to state blocking policy; or (2) federal preemption of existing intrastate rules developed to accommodate intrastate caller ID service.(n84) Some petitioners allege per line blocking is needed to minimize risks to health and safety.(n85)
58. Most parties agree that a system in which one jurisdiction permits only per line blocking while the other permits only per call blocking would be unworkable.(n86) Such blocking plans, Bell Atlantic says, would confuse consumers.(n87) Parties further argue that such dual blocking methods raise difficult technical problems for which the California technical proposal offers no practical solution. Many parties maintain that technology to accommodate such different interstate and intrastate blocking rules simply does not exist today.(n88) Sprint contends that LECs urging the Commission to defer to state preferences for per line blocking do so out of a concern for the burden on the local exchange industry that would result if subjected to a dual blocking standard.(n89)
59. BellSouth argues that California's technical proposal to accommodate such dual blocking would require substantial changes to existing SS7 industry standards.(n90) It says new standards would need to be developed, upon which the industry would need to agree, and that this would take a significant amount of time -- even assuming an expedited process. According to BellSouth, SS7 switch requirements would have to be developed and software created to instruct switches not only how to handle new values, but also how to handle communication with switches that are not upgraded. BellSouth claims that California's proposal also is incompatible with approved national and international standards for ISDN.(n91)
60. Some parties express concern that a dual blocking regime that permits per line blocking will undermine the value of CPN-based services to the public by increasing the number of calls for which calling party number is not passed.(n92) By contrast, the advantages of the blocking scheme adopted in the Report and Order, they say, are numerous. This blocking scheme, they say, provides nationwide uniformity, decreases confusion, frees telephone company resources to develop new CPN-based products and services, and avoids costly changes to the network.(n93) A number of parties that support a uniform blocking regime for interstate and intrastate calls say that a limited exception to a prohibition on per line blocking, to accommodate groups with heightened safety needs, would not unduly undermine the benefits of caller ID growth.(n94)
61. A primary mission of the Commission is to regulate
interstate and foreign communication by wire and radio
so as to make available to all the people of the United
States a rapid, efficient, Nation-wide, and world-wide
wire and radio communications service.(n95) In both this and
other proceedings, we have identified the introduction
of new technologies, the modernization of the nation's
telecommunications infrastructure, and the offering of
new services to the public as objectives essential to realizing
this statutory goal.(n96) The creation of a federal model governing
passage of CPN is part of this effort.
62. The federal model we adopted was designed to employ
a simple and uniform approach for the provision of CPN-based
services. It created a baseline of expectations and performances
associated with these services that sought to balance calling
and called party privacy needs and expectations. The model
facilitated the offering of CPN-based services byremoving
barriers to the introduction and financial success of such
services.(n97) Among such barriers was uncertainty over the
blocking policies that would govern an interstate call.
The Supreme Court has made clear that where necessary
to preserve Commission goals against conflicting state
rules that thwart valid federal communications policies,
the FCC may preempt state regulation if it is "not possible
to separate the interstate and intrastate components of
the asserted FCC regulation."(n98) As we discuss below, we
now conclude that CPN-based services are "jurisdictionally
mixed" services, and that it is impractical and uneconomic
to require the development and implementation of a dual
blocking capability on the same line that would permit
both the federal per call blocking system as adopted in
the Report and Order and state per line blocking systems.
In light of this, we have reexamined the *67 privacy model
established in the Report and Order and now modify it in
a way that will accommodate existing state per line blocking
regimes while still permitting us to realize our federal
policy goals of promoting the development of CPN-based
services, consumer choice and privacy.
ii. Technological Relationship Between Interstate and
Intrastate Caller ID
63. The record shows that both intrastate and interstate
CPN-based services depend on use of the SS7 call set up
protocol to pass CPN to the called party.(n99) Using this protocol,
a privacy indicator accompanies the CPN, and based on that
indicator, a terminating switch determines whether to deliver
the CPN to the called party whose line is equipped to receive
64. For the purpose of conveying a calling party's privacy
request, the privacy indicator may only have a "value"
of "on" or "off." This is populated either by a carrier
assigning the caller's line a value indicating "private"
(per line blocking); or, in the absence of this line assignment,
by the caller pressing *67 before any particular call to
request privacy on that call (per call blocking). Once
a determination is made on how the caller's line is categorized
-- either "private" to connote per line blocking or "public"
to connote per call blocking -- the switch cannot change
this determination as a function of the jurisdictional
nature of the call. The technology, in other words, does
not allow one blocking method, per line, to be used on
intrastate calls and another blocking method, per call,
to be used on interstate calls. We thus conclude that
caller ID service with its attendant privacy indicators
is a "jurisdictionally mixed" service.
iii. Dual Blocking Proposals
65. Some parties suggest that different state and federal caller ID privacy requirements can be accommodated by dual blocking mechanisms. We disagree. We believe the overwhelming majority of commenters in this proceeding have demonstrated that requiring only per call blocking for interstate calls while permitting per line blocking or no blocking on the same line for intrastate calls is not a practical option at this time. Switch vendors such as Northern Telecom, AT&T and Ericsson confirm that technological problems associated with implementing such a dual blocking regime make such dual blocking impractical.(n100)
67. Like the majority of commenters, we do not believe California's proposal can realistically be achieved by modest software changes as part of routine switch upgrades. First, California's proposal requires modifying existing subfields in the initial address message. These changes can only be made with the consent of industry standards bodies.(n101) Although estimates vary, the time needed to accomplish such change is not insignificant and some parties suggest it could take years.(n102) California's suggestion that changes can be effected within regular intervals planned for upgrading switch software fails to recognize the developmental work that must occur prior to a generic software release, the subsequent testing of software, or the changes that may result from that testing.(n103)
68. Moreover, even if U.S. Standards could be changed to accommodate California's proposal, those standards would then be different from those of other countriesunless international standards could be changed as well.(n104)
69. Assuming standards could be modified on an expedited schedule, and that no material disadvantage would attach to U.S. industry for having standards different from the rest of the world, new software would need to be developed to enable switches to transmit and accept the new codings.(n105) While it appears that the new software could be created to accommodate dual blocking for caller ID services, there remains, even so, the problem of switch processing of services reliant on earlier SS7 standards. For example, technical requirements and software would need to be modified for CLASS(n106) and ISDN features based on such standards. Nor is it clear what impact the California proposal would have on services currently being developed, also based on existing standards. Interworking problems created by the modification of the SS7 standards would also need to be monitored carefully.(n107)
70. Finally, at the terminating switch, the record indicates
that new tables would need to be built that would contain
the area codes of the state that the switch serves.(n108) The
terminating switch would also need to be modified so that
it could analyze the new CPN privacy indicators and respond
to the caller's privacy request. It is not clear whether
these new procedures in the terminating switch would affect
call processing or call set up time but switch manufacturers
suggest that they might.(n109) Moreover, we expect that customers
will be confused by the operation of California's dual
blocking proposal. They will need to remember that if
an interstate call made from a telephone having per line
blocking for intrastate calls is made, they need to dial
*67 if they wish to block their CPN. If customers fail
to dial the *67, they will receive no indication that their
number will be displayed.
71. California does not dispute the carriers' argument
that its solution would require modification of SS7 standards.
Instead, it argues that the "outcome ... of standards
debates is largely determined by LECs" and that LECs could
therefore dominate the standards arena to force an expedited
acceptance of the changes it proposes.(n110) Standards processes,
however, depend also on the consensus and participation
of switching and terminal equipment manufacturers, interexchange
carriers, consultants, and others. Even if we assume LEC
influence would be overwhelming in the national standards
process, we cannot assume the same influence in the international
standards process. The latter process draws world telecommunications
interests at least as influential as the LECs and with
often markedly different priorities.
72. We believe a requirement to modify current national
and international standards, to develop new switch software
for caller ID and many other CPN-based services, and to
deploy these non-trivial software changes, as well as the
time and expense associated with these activities, makes
California's proposal infeasible. Moreover, it is not
at all clear that California's proposal will have only
a "small" impact on switch operation. California provides
no development cost estimates in its proposal and there
is no other evidence in the record to suggest that it will
not be at least as high as the cost estimates for other
dual blocking systems. Those estimates range between $70
and $500 million for a major LEC.
Switch Manufacturers' Dual Blocking Proposals
74. Moreover, the dual blocking proposals presently conceived
by these switch vendors fail to address a number of issues
that could materially affect the availability of nationwide
calling party number based services. For example, it is
not clear to us how their blocking proposals, which require
the originating end office to distinguish between interstateand
intrastate calls, will enable the originating switch to
determine the jurisdictional status of such non-geographically
assigned Numbering Plan Areas (NPAs) as 500, 700, 800 and
900.(n113) Such codes do not provide information to the originating
switch about the geographical location of the called party.
This information can only be determined later in the call.
Thus the manufacturers' proposals would leave unserved
a sizable and growing field of numbers.
75. Even if such design problems could be resolved quickly, the record further indicates that additional time required for call processing using this technology would slow completion of almost every call.(n114)
76. Nor does the cost associated with developing dual blocking systems appear to be insignificant. While the manufacturers' cost estimates vary because of uncertainty in using yet undeveloped technical requirements, the costs of upgrading LEC networks to accommodate the dual regime could be as high as $70-$500 million for a major LEC.(n115)
77. We conclude on the basis of the record before us
that it is not feasible as a technological and economic
matter to develop a dual blocking system for CPN-based
services within a time frame consistent with our objectives.
While we are not prepared to say that dual blocking will
always be infeasible, we need not demonstrate absolute
future impossibility to justify federal preemption here.
We need only show that interstate and intrastate aspects
of a regulated service or facility are inseverable as a
practical matter in light of prevailing technological and
economic conditions.(n116) As explained in detail above, the
record demonstrates this. Furthermore, California's suggestion
that a regulatory proceeding of this kind is not the appropriate
forum to decide at the "bit level" how to implement dual
blocking regimes cannot release us from our obligation
to consider seriously anticipated difficulties associated
with record proposals for dual blocking. These difficulties
include risks of significant delay, costs, and other negative
effects on existing services. We may preempt inconsistent
state regulation that would "negate" the exercise of our
authority where, as here, the interstate aspects of the
matter cannot be severed from the regulation of the intrastate
aspects.(n117) As we now explain, however, we are modifying
our policy governing passage of CPN in a way that should
result in a much narrower preemption of state policies
than our decision in the Report and Order would have required.
We believe our revised policy shouldnonetheless ultimately
permit realization of our goals for interstate CPN-based
iv. Federal Preemption
78. Many commenters urge that we reconsider our policy
not to permit per line blocking options. They have persuaded
us that it is possible to accommodate per line blocking
permitted or required by a state without thwarting or unreasonably
impeding federal goals, if consumers always are able to
unblock their line by dialing *82.
79. Our primary objective in this proceeding is to remove
the uncertainty that is inhibiting the development of valuable
interstate services. Because the states differ significantly
on the extent to which and the method by which they require
the CPN of a calling party to be concealed, it is impossible
to accommodate all existing state approaches within a single
federal model. In selecting the *67 per call blocking
model, we chose a simple, uniform and inexpensive policy
that attempted to balance the privacy interests of the
calling and called parties. Unlike some states' policies,
it gave all callers an opportunity to conceal their CPN,
at no charge to the calling party. But unlike other states'
policies, it did not accommodate per line blocking. We
found per line blocking was not the best choice as a federal
policy model because it was not the most simple and inexpensive
choice and because it would restrict the development of
CPN-based services by not limiting CPN concealment to only
those circumstances where privacy is important to the calling
80. At the time we articulated that model, we believed
that it might be possible to develop a dual system that
could accommodate differing state and federal blocking
systems on the same line. However, given the evidence
presented in this record, we now believe that the creation
of a system in which one jurisdiction permits per line
blocking while the other permits only per call blocking
is not feasible as a technological and economic matter.
Accordingly, we have reexamined the *67 model to attempt
to reconcile federal interests with those expressed by
the states, paying special attention to the fact that many
consumers across the country have become accustomed to
a wide range of blocking options. In this regard, we have
taken special note of one regime proposed by California
-- uniform *67 for consumers who choose per call blocking
and uniform *82 unblocking for those that choose per line
blocking. This approach is only slightly more complicated
than the *67 blocking model and preserves a consumer's
ability to choose when to reveal and when to conceal CPN
under either blocking arrangement. Where a line is blocked,
this approach ensures the free transmission of CPN on a
per call basis, at the election of the calling party.
The decision to use *67 and *82, in short, maximizes consumer
choice, is the federal policy least disruptive to state
policies and goes the farthest to eliminate customer confusion.
81. Accordingly, we now modify our policy to adopt a model
that requires a carrier to offer *67 per call blocking
for every interstate call. We also require that carriers
enable customers to unblock passage of CPN on lines with
per line blocking by dialing *82. This approach should
obviate significant reeducation efforts in the twenty-four
states where per line blocking is generally available to
consumers. Although interstate callers still may notknow
whether the line they are calling from is blocked, they
are assured of CPN passage by first dialing *82, regardless
of the status of the line. In some states, dialing *67
now unblocks the line. Under our revised federal model,
this approach is preempted. Universal and exclusive use
of *82 to unblock avoids the risks of inadvertently defeating
a block by dialing *67.
82. The *82 feature also addresses our concern that consumers
not be deprived of the ability to reveal CPN when they
wish to do so. This maximizes the likelihood that the
interstate CPN-based services we expect will develop will
succeed or fail based on the calling party's choice whether
to reveal CPN. Although permitting universal per line
blocking is likely to be more frustrating to parties subscribing
to identification services -- most commenters agree that
the general availability of per line blocking makes these
services less valuable -- ultimately the success of the
services will depend on callers choosing to reveal their
number. Per line blocking simply offers calling parties
an additional way to conceal the calling number.
83. Our federal policy is thus modified to accommodate
state per line blocking policies as long as carriers offering
per line blocking also include *82 as an unblocking code.
We believe this approach is technically feasible because
the regime is in place in a number of jurisdictions.(n118) In
addition, commenters have not challenged California's representations
that the approach is technically and economically reasonable.
We will allow an initial period -- until December 1, 1995
-- for carriers to comply with the policy. Carriers able
to demonstrate a compelling need for more time may file
for waiver. Such waiver requests should set forth: (1)
the facts that demonstrate why the carrier is unable to
meet our compliance schedule; (2) the time within which
they will come into compliance; and (3) a proposed schedule
with milestones for meeting the compliance date.
84. Although we have modified our federal interstate policies to accommodate as many facets of states' caller ID policies as we can and still maintain our federal goals, there is one facet of California's intrastate policy -- its per line blocking default policy -- that we believe will impede the accomplishment of those goals. California has directed carriers within its jurisdiction to assume that unless a customer with an unlisted or nonpublished phone number(n119) affirmatively elects not to block passage of CPN for calls placed from thatnumber, the customer has chosen to have his line blocked. Pacific states, and California has not refuted, that California's caller ID policy makes the offering of caller ID in that state infeasible.(n120)
85. As an initial matter, it is not feasible to have
different default policies for interstate and intrastate
calls for the same reasons that it is not feasible to have
different blocking policies for interstate and intrastate
calls. Specifically, limiting the default provision to
intrastate application is as much a practical and economic
impossibility as providing separate privacy mechanisms
for each jurisdiction.(n121) As such, a per line default policy
would govern calls from both jurisdictions. Thus, passage
of CPN on interstate calls from California would automatically
be blocked if the caller has an unlisted or nonpublished
of CPN in the absence of an affirmative decision by the
calling party to invoke privacy. As a general matter,
our determination that intrastate and interstate privacy
mechanisms are inseverable, or jurisdictionally mixed,
has led us to modify our overall policy in order to accommodate
states with per line blocking systems. We do not preempt
state policies concerning per line blocking, but rather
modify our federal model to permit those regulatory regimes.
We do, however, in this one instance and in as narrowly
tailored fashion as possible, preempt this limited aspect
of California's per line blocking policy because it impedes
achieving our federal goals.(n122) Importantly, California's
customers may still choose to have per line blocking by
simply exercising their choice to do so. We are merely
saying that to accomplish per line blocking by default
rather than by customer choice conflicts with our federal
86. California's default policy thwarts and impedes our
federal goals for interstate CPN-based services. Initially,
to the extent California's default policy prevents the
deployment of calling party number identification services
in California, it deprives theresidents of, and callers
to, that state of access to the benefits we have determined
in this proceeding are associated with such interstate
services.(n123) It does this in a number of ways. First, unless
carriers in California enable the lines of residents in
that state to receive interstate CPN, these residents will
be unable to realize the efficiencies and new service opportunities
we believe will flow from interstate CPN-based services.
Second, callers to California from other states also would
be denied the benefits of these new services and opportunities
when they made calls to businesses or residents in California.
For example, callers to businesses would be subject to
longer order processing times, longer credit verification
processes, and more cumbersome call routing techniques.
Similarly, absent number identification services, callers
to residents are likely to have fewer completed calls than
if they are calling residents who are able to recognize
the calling party's number, and want to receive their call.
The negative impact on interstate CPN policies is exacerbated
because residents in California receive and transmit more
interstate calling minutes than the residents of any other
state.(n124) Depriving parties participating in those calls from
the benefits we anticipate of the deployment of interstate
CPN-based services necessarily thwarts and impedes the
accomplishment of our objectives, particularly the development
of interstate CPN-based services.
87. California's policy also deprives both parties on
an interstate call from California of choice, an important
element in our balancing of the rights and expectations
of the calling and called parties. First of all, we have
determined that as a matter of federal policy, the called
party should have access to incoming CPN unless the calling
party has exercised his right not to have his CPN revealed.
While we have carefully balanced the privacy interests
of the calling party with the expectation of the called
party to receive CPN, California's default policy upsets
this balance on an interstate call. It elevates the interest
of the calling party and thereby negates our federal privacy
policy concerning the rights of a called party on an interstate
call. California provides no evidence that a caller who
chooses to have an unlisted or nonpublished number also
wants per line blocking. It is not apparent that a customer
with an unlisted number, readily available through directory
assistance, would object to the passage of that same number
to a called party of his choosing when he makes a telephone
call. Indeed, while it appears that more than forty states
offer some level of per line blocking, no other state automatically
assumes callers with unlisted or nonpublishednumbers want
per line blocking.(n125) The record indicates that the general
availability of per line blocking adversely affects the
penetration of CPN-based services.(n126) Because we seek to make
interstate CPN-based services widely available, we are
reluctant to conclude, absent any supportive evidence,
that California's assumption is correct.
88. California also asserts that the preemption of
its default blocking requirement will potentially subject
carriers to civil tort liability for violation of the state
constitutional right of privacy.(n127) We do not here assess
whether California is legally correct on this point. This
argument, however, does not affect our decision to preempt
the default blocking requirement. The carriers themselves
have asked us to preempt, suggesting that they are prepared
to accept any risk of liability. Moreover, the carriers
have the responsibility, as well as the ability and the
incentive, to protect themselves against tort liability.
89. The California PUC asserts that "state telecommunications
privacy regulation is not subject to federal preemption."(n128)
The California PUC also asserts that preemption of default
line blocking for customers with nonpublished and unlisted
numbers would violate state and federal free speech rights
by "effectively compel[ling] and requir[ing] them to disclose
their unlisted telephone numbers on every call they make
as a condition of using the telephone."(n129) California alleges
a violation of a First Amendment right not to speak, as
well as a First Amendment right to speak anonymously, citing
cases under both the United States and California constitutions.(n130)
We do not agree with these arguments. Taken to their
logical extreme, California's arguments would require default
line blocking throughout the country if, in fact, the First
Amendment would be violated in the absence of such blocking.
We cannot accept such a conclusion.
90. First, we note that the federal cases on anonymity
cited by California appear inapposite. For instance, California
cites McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, ___ US ___,
63 USLW 4279 (Apr. 19, 1995), as evidencing a right to
speak anonymously that would be contravened by preemption
of the line blocking default. That case did not create
a generalized right to anonymity, however. Rather, the
Court applied "exacting scrutiny" in reviewing a statute
directed to core political speech (the distribution of
handbills addressing the merits of a school tax referendum),
stating that "no form of speech is entitled to greater
constitutional protection."(n131) The Talley case cited by California
similarly involved anonymous leafletting as a means of
political advocacy.(n132) The disclosure of one's telephone
number in the caller ID context is not analogous to such
"core political speech," and thus should not be subject
to the same level of exacting scrutiny.
91. Another important distinction is that both McIntyre
and Talley involved total bans on anonymous speech. As
to both the "right not to speak" and the "right to speak
anonymously," no customer in California will be compelled
to disclose his or her telephone number. Our decision
fully allows all California residents, consistent with
California policy, to block passage of CPN by choosing
either per call or per line blocking. All that is necessary
is that the customer make the decision to do so. California
asserts that, despite its extensive education requirements,
thirty percent of customers will not understand how to
block passage of CPN. The study cited by California, however,
was conducted in the context of telephone service generally.
In the case of caller ID, however, customers with unlisted
and nonpublished numbers have already demonstrated such
an interest in the privacy of their telephone numbers that
we find it implausible that nearly one-third of them would
ignore, or not understand, repeated bill inserts, and the
other educational requirements that California has imposed.(n133)
In fact, California asserts that customers with nonpublished
numbers are three times more likely than average to purchase
caller ID services,(n134) which suggests that these customers
are more aware of such services than the average subscriber,
and thus are more likely to understand the accompanying
blocking features. Thus, California's factual assertions
are speculative. We do not believe that the preemption
of California's per-line blocking default would "compel"
unwanted disclosure of telephone numbers.
92. Moreover, as we discuss in Section IV B, infra,
carriers are responsible for conducting effective education
programs. There is no evidence in the record that these
programs, which to date generally have been organized under
state guidelines orrequirements, have not been effective.
California has considerable discretion to assure that
its education programs, address unique situations in that
93. As for the California cases cited by the PUC, and
the PUC's own conclusions in its decision on caller ID
services offered in California, to the extent that the
California constitution does, indeed, require a per line
default blocking option for customers with unlisted or
nonpublished numbers, we nevertheless find it necessary
to preempt such regulation for the reasons stated above.(n135)
Under the circumstances here, we find authority to preempt
the state constitution, in addition to the regulations
of the PUC, where necessary. We deny California's request
that application of our rules in California be stayed pending
the opportunity for court review.
94. On a related matter, Pacific also suggests that
we preempt the offering of free per line blocking because
it thwarts our federal policy of promoting passage of CPN.
Based on the record, we do not find it necessary to preempt
state policies that require or permit free per line blocking
at this time. The cost of providing per line blocking
appears to be small for carriers having call set up capability,
and we believe that the interstate portion of these costs
would be de minimis. Given that we have required free
per call blocking and we have modified our privacy mechanism
to accommodate states that have per line blocking, permitting
per line blocking without a charge appears consistent with
our policies. One of our goals here is to preempt the
states as minimally as possible, and allowing states to
prohibit charging for a privacy mechanism that our rules
now permit does not rise to a level of intrusion on our
policies that could require preemption.
95. Our finding that it is not feasible to have separate
federal and state blocking policies also requires that
we preempt state policies that offer no blocking options
to callers. We preempt state requirements that per call
blocking be implemented by a means other than *67 or that
per call unblocking be implemented by a means other than
*82. We have tried to make our preemption of state policies
as narrow as possible. Our preemption here is consistent
with our earlier preemption of state policies that: (1)
prohibit the offering of interstate CPN-based service;
(2) require blocking alternatives on interstate calls different
from those adopted by the Commission; and (3) require blocking
systems that interfere with the use of *67 to achieve blocking
on interstate calls.
C. Application of Caller ID Rules
i. Wireless Services
96. Background. In the Report and Order the Commission did not exempt cellularcarriers from the requirement that carriers capable of passing CPN must do so. NYNEX commented at that time that technical standards for transmission of CPN between cellular and landline carriers still were being developed.(n136)
97. Positions of the Parties. Parties petition the Commission to clarify that its caller ID rules apply to all wireless carriers.(n137) SWBT argues that federal rules must include private mobile service providers, not just cellular carriers, to ensure availability of nationwide caller ID service.(n138) The U.S. Coast Guard asks whether the rules apply to satellite communications provided by INMARSAT and AMSC.(n139)
98. Commenters generally support the view that caller
ID rules should apply to all wireless carriers.(n140) While
SWBT does not dispute that FCC rules apply to wireless
carriers, it says that its cellular switches cannot currently
pass CPN because they lack necessary software that only
its switch vendors can provide. SWBT expects delivery
of that software before April 1995, but cautions that this
is not a certainty.
99. Wireless services providers further request clarification of the scope of our blocking requirements for their services.(n141) Nextel urges the Commission to preempt state regulation to the extent it interferes with federal rules intended to create a uniform framework for wireless delivery of caller ID.(n142) Nextel says that as a nationwide wireless communications service provider, it cannot efficiently operate its systems within a framework of fifty potentially different and conflicting regulatory schemes. SWBT seeks federal preemption of all state laws that regulate caller ID service provided by cellular and PCS services, claiming that these systems cross state boundaries and may not "know" which blocking method -- state or federal -- to employ.(n143)
100. Discussion. We clarify that our CPN rules apply
to all common carriers, bothwireline and wireless. It
is only through free passage of CPN across all types of
interconnecting interstate common carrier networks that
the advantages of CPN-based services will be fully realized.
Consistent with the Commission's determination that private
mobile radio service providers are not subject to common
carrier regulation, we do not apply our rules to these
service providers. The rules do apply to all Commercial
Mobile Radio Services (CMRS) and other wireless common
carriers.(n144) By applying the same rules to CMRS and wireline
carriers, we intend to remove the regulatory uncertainty
that appears to have impeded the development of interstate
101. Commenters have not urged us to treat wireless carrier services differently from wireline services, although the interests of wireless users may be different from the interests of wireline users.(n145) For example, cellular customers may have more incentive than wireline customers to block delivery of their CPN and thus a greater need for a simple uniform blocking policy.(n146) Without uniform treatment of carrier networks, a myriad of differing state and federal rules would create technical, operational and administrative problems for carriers that would delay development of CPN-based services. Moreover, we expect that the straightforward approach of applying the same rules to wireline and CMRS should reduce customer confusion. Finally, because development of CMRS SS7-based services has only begun, we anticipate that the articulation of a single rule will allow CMRS and equipment providers to plan their deployment of those services. For those CMRS carriers that are technically unable to pass CPN, there is no requirement that they do so. We recognize that investment in cellular networks' SS7 technology is occurring in stages and differs from network to network. A carrier's ability to transmit and receive CPN will depend upon the level of SS7 deployment within its network, the specific methods of interconnection,and type of software loaded into various switches. We require that CMRS providers comply with caller ID requirements with respect to roaming customers to the extent that it is technically and economically feasible to do so.(n147)
ii. Public Payphones, Hotel/Motel Services and Partylines
102. Positions of the Parties. Public payphone providers request that the Commission clarify whether privacy requirements for interstate calls apply to payphones. According to GTE, developing and installing the capability to meet such requirements will require costly network modifications.(n148) Pacific estimates that it would need several years to bring less than one percent of its payphones into compliance.(n149) Nevada Bell argues that blocking from payphones is inconsistent with state regulation.(n150) According to BellSouth, the privacy interests of those using payphones is not compromised by delivery of CPN because it cannot identify the calling party by geographic location.(n151)
103. By contrast, SAGE and SOAR strongly support per
line blocking for public telephones located at shelters
and domestic violence agencies.(n152) Shelters, it says, cannotadequately
monitor the use of public telephones and without per line
blocking, a resident or young child might unknowingly make
an unblocked call to an abuser, endangering shelter staff
104. Discussion. As we have stated throughout this proceeding,
passage of CPN can create risks to calling parties in circumstances
where they wish to prevent their numbers from being revealed.
We have crafted our federal policy to recognize the privacy
right of the called party to know who is calling, while
at the same time enabling the calling party to conceal
the telephone number from which he is calling. Having
one rule governing as many categories of subscriber loop
as possible minimizes customer confusion.
105. A number of LECs argue that we should not extend
a per call blocking requirement to payphones, telephones
in hotels or motels, or those connected to partylines.
BellSouth argues, for example, that whatever general "societal
expectation" of privacy our rules are designed to accommodate
should not extend to payphone users because delivery of
their station telephone number cannot identify them. We
cannot agree with the fundamental premise that these telephone
users have significantly different privacy expectations
than users of other services.
106. As SAGE and SOAR make clear, the effect of disclosure
of any type of identifying information in certain circumstances
can result not only in serious threats to the calling party's
security, but also can escalate into issues of life-threatening
proportion.(n153) For example, an abused woman may be in hiding
from her abuser, but might still need to contact him to
coordinate child support and visitation issues or to discuss
legal separation or divorce matters.(n154) If she makes a call
from an unblocked public telephone in a shelter or from
a motel where she is hiding, or from the partyline of a
friend, the abuser may be able to discern her approximate
location. An abuser may learn her approximate location
by recognizing the area code or the first three digits
of the local number or by returning a call to the location.
Although the record in this proceeding is limited regarding
the scope of risks, we cannot agree that callers using
payphones, hotel or motel lines or partylines do not have
privacy interests that should be respected in the federal
107. We are aware that meeting federal privacy requirements
for partylines and some payphones will require a financial
outlay by carriers. We expect, however, that they will
recover these costs from ratepayers. Moreover, carriers
have not shown why the reasonable privacy expectations
of those placing calls from payphones, hotel and motel
lines, or partylines should not receive the same protection
as residential telephone users receive. We find, moreover,
that in some circumstances, at least, users of these services
may need more protection. The public health and safety
concerns raised by SAGE and SOAR compel the requirement
we now impose.
108. We will give carriers until January 1, 1997 to provide
per call blocking and per line unblocking capability to
public payphones and to partyline telephones. It appears
that most public payphones already support per call blocking
and that a per line unblocking capability can be readily
deployed.(n155) This compliance date offers a reasonable time
for carriers to make necessary upgrades. Although callers
from these payphones will be at some risk of inadvertently
revealing their calling number until upgrades are completed,
invoking *67 on these phones will result in a fast busy
signal to the caller. Callers will receive at least some
notice from this signal that privacy is not being provided
on the call. Similarly, BellSouth notes it is phasing
out partyline service. Partyline callers also receive
a fast busy signal if *67 is dialed. Again, setting the
compliance date to January 1, 1997, appears to give sufficient
time for carriers to bring partyline customers the same
capabilities available to other callers if their CPN can
be passed on an interstate call. There is no evidence
in the record that hotel or motel telephones present unique
problems. Absent such evidence, we make them subject to
our general rule, with the PBX exception discussed below.
iii. Emergency Services
109. Background. The Commission established several limited exceptions to the requirement that carriers honor privacy requests. It concluded that caller ID services used solely in connection with legally authorized call tracing and trapping procedures did not need to honor privacy requests a customer made by dialing *67. The Commission also found that while blocking mechanisms do not stop passage of the calling party's number for Enhanced 911 services based on ANI technology, such mechanisms could jeopardize other emergency services that instead rely on SS7 caller ID services.(n156) The Commission concluded that to the extent that CPN-based services are used to deliver emergency services, federal privacy requirements should not apply to delivery of CPN to a public agency's emergency line, a poison control line, or in conjunction with 911 emergency services.(n157)
110. Positions of Parties. Several parties ask the Commission to reconsider its ruling that by dialing *67 customers should not be able to block CPN's delivery to a public agency's emergency line, a poison control line, or in conjunction with 911 emergency services. Carriers state that current blocking technology does not allow them to identify an emergency service provider so that they can ignore the privacy indicator.(n158) Parties generally agree that because E911 services that permit 911 service providers to determine the location of the caller generally rely on ANI and not CPN, location service is not jeopardized. They state, however, that developing a capability on a public agency's emergency service line or poison control line that would ignore or overrule a blocking instruction would require software development. Others argue that public safety questions such as this should be left to state policies.(n159)
111. Discussion. The rule adopted in Section 64.1601
requires that whenever CPN is delivered on a call, and
the calling party has dialed *67 on that call, carriers
must act in accordance with the customer's privacy request.(n160)
Exceptions were established for calls within private networks,
calls to emergency lines, or in connection with authorized
law enforcement trap and trace activity. In other words,
a request for privacy on these calls would not necessarily
be honored. We believe that whether calls to emergency
lines receive confidentiality is a public safety question
that is best left to state and local government authorities.
Consequently, we will continue to exempt calls to emergency
lines from the general federal requirement that carriers
must respect a caller's request that his calling party
number not be revealed.
D. ANI and Caller Privacy
112. Background. The Report and Order recognized that
IXCs were making calling parties' charge numbers available
to subscribers of 800 and 900 services. SS7 delivers both
CPN and charge number, which carries ANI information. Instead
of requiring IXCs to honor privacy requests relating to
CPN for ANI services, the Commission adopted controls on
the use subscribers could make of the information they
obtained from these services. The Commission stated that
carrier tariffs or contracts offering these services generally
must require that ANI customers not reuse information
without the permission of calling parties. ANI customers
could reuse the information to offer products or services
directly related to the original call.
113. Positions of Parties. CPSR argues that SS7 provides the calling party the ability to designate a preference for privacy. It argues that IXCs should not be free to ignorethese requests.(n161) Nevada contends that the Commission should prohibit the use of ANI information for any marketing unless customer consent has been obtained.(n162) AT&T states CPN is not, and may never be, ubiquitously available. It believes ANI services have contributed to efficiency and productivity, and that the Commission's rules strike the correct balance.(n163) IIA opposes the request of Nevada and others that the "directly-related" limitation on subsequent marketing be narrowly defined.(n164)
114. Discussion. The parties have not persuaded us to
modify our rules regarding ANI services. ANI information
may not be reused or resold for other purposes without
a caller's consent, even where the called party has paid
for the call. The called party is limited to using the
information only to market services directly related to
the subjects of the calls from which the ANI was obtained.
The burden in any complaint proceeding will be on the
marketer using ANI information to establish that the newly
offered product is directly related to prior transactions.
The customer can request not to be called in the future,
and the ANI service provider must honor that request.(n165)
This approach protects the interests of all parties.
IV. THIRD NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING
A. Private Branch Exchange Systems
115. Background. Private Branch Exchange (PBX) systems are customer-owned equipment that act as switches for telephones connected to them. The telephones connected to the PBX do not connect directly to telephone company facilities. Rather, they are connected to those facilities through the PBX. The Report and Order did not separately address PBX systems, but it did exempt CPN delivery services within a private network from the CPN policies adopted in the Order.(n166) It concluded that the privacy expectations of the calling party are different when the individual is placing calls terminating within a single private network.(n167)
116. Positions of the Parties. Northern Telecom states
that its PBX equipmentcannot currently provide per call
blocking with a *67 "privacy flag" and that reprogramming
to accomplish this would be costly.(n168) It maintains that
business services should not be subject to the same privacy
requirements as residential services because of differing
privacy expectations, and at the very least, existing PBX
sets should be exempted from such requirements through
a "grandfathering" provision.
117. Discussion. To this point this proceeding has dealt
with the obligations being imposed on carriers providing
interstate services. If PBX equipment can pass CPN to
the public switched network, but does not enable callers
using telephones connected to the PBX to indicate a privacy
request to switches in the public network, we believe it
creates risks to calling parties that need to be addressed
in this proceeding. As is the case with partyline and
payphone users, we reject the argument that parties making
calls through PBX equipment have no privacy expectations
or requirements. PBX systems are installed in many different
settings, including shelters for abused persons. PBX systems
not capable of activating the privacy indicator with *67
apparently return a fast busy signal to the caller. Although
risks to safety in these circumstances are somewhat attenuated,
we believe PBX systems should enable callers using them
to place a call passing through the public switched network
to conceal their calling number by dialing *67. Similarly,
we believe that parties should be able to pass their CPN
from lines that have been blocked should they choose by
118. We therefore issue a separate Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking proposing that PBX systems capable of delivering
CPN to the public switched telephone network also be capable
of: (1) delivering a privacy indicator when the user of
a telephone served by the PBX dials *67, and (2) unblocking
the transmission of their CPN when the user dials *82.
We ask parties commenting on this issue to provide a full
record upon which to base a reasonable timeframe to bring
PBX systems into compliance. At a minimum, we ask that
they answer the following questions: Approximately what
percentage of deployed PBXs are capable of supporting the
*67 blocking code and *82 unblocking code; What percentage
are not? Approximately how many lines are served by the
respective systems? What are the costs of retrofitting
deployed PBXs? What are the costs of conforming new, not
yet manufactured, equipment? What timeframe should be established
for retrofitting deployed equipment? What timeframe should
be established for conforming newly-manufactured equipment?
Who should bear the costs of retrofitting deployed equipment?
What public policy reasons would justify not requiring
deployed equipment to conform? If newly manufactured or
deployed equipment does not conform, should it be labeled
to inform users of its deficiencies? What are the costs
and benefits of requiring labeling?
B. Private Payphones
119. Background. Commenting parties do not generally
address the impact offederal privacy rules on private payphones.
Nevertheless, we are concerned, as with PBX equipment
-- both PBX and private payphones are CPE -- that if private
payphones pass CPN to the public switched network, but
do not enable callers to indicate a privacy request to
switches in the public network, risks are created to calling
parties that need to be addressed in this proceeding.
In addition, we are concerned that retrofitting operating
and already manufactured private payphones to comply with
federal caller ID rules may pose unique and costly problems.
Private payphones, unlike public payphones, may not be
capable of supporting blocking and unblocking through "universal"
changes at the central office. Instead, such changes may
need to be made "payphone by payphone" because all relevant
circuitry is contained in individual telephone instruments.
The costs for such retrofitting could be high.
120. Discussion. On the basis of the current record,
we cannot accurately address the overall impact of requiring
blocking and unblocking from private payphones. To
address these issues, we propose that private payphones
be subject to our caller ID privacy rules and ask commenters
to address the questions that we pose above in connection
with PBX systems capable of delivering CPN to the public
switched network and any others they consider relevant
to our making an informed decision that some or all private
payphones should be capable of supporting blocking and
IV. SECOND REPORT AND ORDER
A. Application of Caller ID Rules to Other CPN-Based Services
121. Background. In the Report and Order, the Commission tentatively concluded that its policies and rules governing delivery of calling party number should also apply to services delivering calling party name.(n169) It sought comment on this tentative conclusion and further sought comment on whether its privacy policies should extend to other services, such as those that permit subscribers automatically to return calls.(n170)
122. Positions of Parties. Most commenters support application
calling party name and number.(n171) They argue that the same
privacy considerations apply to each, and that using different
blocking schemes to protect privacy would only confuse
customers and increase carriers' costs.(n172) Currently, theysay,
carriers offer the same blocking options for both services.
123. COCC recommends that while a uniform policy should govern each, the applicable policy should be that of the states, not the Commission.(n173) PRC disagrees that there should be a uniform policy, arguing that the potential for abuse is greater when a party's name is delivered.(n174) ITAA opposes privacy protection for calling party name, which, it says, is a competitive enhanced service and should not be subject to regulation.(n175)
124. Commenters generally argue that privacy rules should apply to call return services but disagree on what those rules should be.(n176) COCC argues that when a calling party blocks passage of CPN, a called party attempting to use a call return service should not be allowed to return that call.(n177) Ad Hoc states that callers should be able to block automatic return call features on the same basis as they can block the CPN of the original call under our caller ID rules.(n178) COCC reports that US WEST offers call return services within Colorado and that a Colorado PUC order requires that such services be configured so as not to return calls on which callers have blocked their calling party number.(n179)
125. Others urge that called parties should be able to
return calls using call return services, regardless of
the privacy indicator. According to Bell Atlantic, privacy
concerns about call return service that CPN marked private
will be inadvertently disclosed are misplaced.(n180) It says
that it has been successfully offering the service for
years in areas that permit caller ID blocking.
127. Discussion. We conclude that when callers request
that their number not be revealed to the terminating called
party on an interstate call, it is reasonable to treat
their calling name similarly. Thus, we require carriers
not to reveal calling party name whenever a caller requests
that calling party number not be revealed. Revealing the
name of the person who subscribed to the line from which
a call is made is no different, in principle, from revealing
that party's telephone number. Accordingly, when calling
parties impose a block on the delivery of their calling
party number, we require that calling name, as well as
calling number be blocked.
128. Such regulatory treatment is consistent with the
current LEC practices. Either both pieces of information
are delivered or both are blocked. The single exception
is with respect to BellSouth in Tennessee. In Tennessee,
when privacy is indicated, the calling party number is
not delivered, but the calling name is.(n185) For the reasons
we describe in Section III, supra, it is not technically
and economically feasible to have a different state and
federal privacy regime operating on the same line in connection
with a CPN-based service that varies as a function of the
jurisdictional nature of the call. We must therefore
name delivery on calls in which callers have invoked privacy
on delivery of their calling party number. If our rules
governing carriers' obligations to conceal calling name
and number were different, we believe the result would
be unnecessary expense for carriers and increased confusion
for customers. Given our finding that different federal
and state blocking policies are not feasible, our preemptionhere
is consistent with our earlier preemption(n186) of state policies
that require blocking alternatives on interstate calls
different from those adopted by the Commission, and of
state policies that require blocking systems that interfere
with the use of *67 to achieve blocking on interstate calls.
129. While we apply the same privacy rules to calling
name and calling number, we do not believe that the same
rules governing CPN transport should apply to calling name
transport. Therefore, at this time we do not require that
carriers pass calling party name to interconnected carriers
without charge. Although the record is limited on this
matter, we reach this conclusion, in part, because the
mechanisms associated with the generation and delivery
of calling party name and number are substantially different.
The record indicates that while calling party number is
routinely included in the SS7 Initial Address Message,
calling party name is not.
130. Specifically, the record indicates that the costs
associated with transport of the name parameter may not
be de minimis. In contrast to caller ID service, which
requires only the transmission of calling party number,
to retrieve calling party name requires additional LEC/IXC
interconnection and data base capabilities.(n187) In order for
a LEC to provide calling party name service, the calling
party number must be routed to a centralized data base
in which that number is associated with a calling party
name. This query and information delivery requires a specific
TCAP/SS7 message. After the association is made, delivery
of the name is made to the terminating location.
131. Finally, while calling name service is currently offered only by a terminating LEC accessing a LEC data base, we expect that technological developments will take place, particularly in connection with increasing customer access to network functionality that may enable providers other than the LECs to offer this service. We do not wish to hamper creation of competitive data bases by imposing rules regarding transport of calling name. The enhanced or basic nature of services depending on CPN was not specifically addressed in the Further Notice, and the comments on this point are limited. On the basis of the record before us, however, and for purposes of this proceeding, we agree with Ameritech that because calling name delivery merely provides normal telephone company record information to help the called party customer identify the calling party before answering the call, it can be considered adjunct to basic service.(n188)
132. With respect to automatic call return service, we
find that callers requesting that their number not be revealed
should be able to block the automatic return call feature.
Without this requirement, a party can use an automatic
return call service to glean essential information about
the calling party that the calling party wishes not to
reveal. This is inconsistent with the basic tenet of our
caller ID rules -- that callers be allowed to keep their
telephone numbers private if they choose.
133. Allowing calling parties to block automatic call
return also meets the needs of special groups to prevent
their telephone numbers from being revealed without their
consent. For example, a victim of domestic violence staying
with a friend could call home to speak with her children
and even though she took care to block her calling party
number, an abusing spouse could learn of her location by
using automatic call return. The abusing spouse would
not need her phone number or address, he would need only
recognize the voice of the person answering the phone.
134. We believe that our privacy requirements will not
unreasonably burden carriers. While we recognize that
some carriers are currently offering call return service
that does not enable callers to block return calls, industry
standards do not require this particular configuration
of the service. As the experience of other carriers currently
offering call return service makes clear, the service can
be offered in such a way that the caller's privacy wishes
are honored. We require carriers to arrange their call
return services in such a manner that callers requesting
that their number not be revealed also be able to block
an automatic return call feature.
B. Educational Requirements
135. Background. In the Further Notice, the Commission required that any common carrier participating in the offering of services providing calling party number, ANI, or charge number on interstate calls must notify its subscribers, individually or in conjunction with other carriers, that their numbers may be revealed to called parties. Notice had to be made by April 12, 1995, and such times thereafter as required to ensure notice to subscribers. Notification had to inform subscribers how to maintain privacy (i.e., by dialing *67 or 1167). For ANI services, notice had to inform subscribers of the restrictions on the reuse or sale of subscriber information.(n189)
136. Positions of the Parties. Several parties argue that if the Commission defers to blocking choices made by the various states, very little additional education is required. Calling parties will know the same arrangements govern interstate calls that governintrastate calls.(n190) California argues that education should be done without any marketing activity, and that carriers should be held to specific public awareness goals that can be measured.(n191) Colorado urges the Commission to leave the specific requirements for education to the state commissions. Georgia Consumer Utilities Council urges the Commission to establish detailed guidelines defining the form education should take.(n192) The Privacy Rights Clearinghouse urges that "privacy rights impact statements" be prepared and provided to consumers before new CPN-based services are introduced.(n193)
137. A number of parties offer specific recommendations for education programs. Consumer Action urges that education be offered in a variety of languages, especially Chinese, English, Korean, Spanish and Vietnamese.(n194) It recommends that the Commission require carriers to establish an independent research firm to evaluate whether eighty-five percent of low income and limited English speakers are adequately informed. TURN argues any education program must be multifaceted and multilingual. It recommends notices in newspapers and announcements on radio and television, noting that not all consumers can read bill inserts.(n195) It recommends that final details of any information program be left to state commissions. AT&T believes that the Commission should actively participate in the creation and coordination of customer educational materials. It recommends that the Commission convene an industry panel to develop an educational message.(n196) Roseville Telephone Company supports the proposal, provided telephone companies are given the flexibility for tailoring individual messages.(n197) GTE believes it would be impossible for the Commission, or any joint industry effort, to craft a uniform message that could be used in all states without confusing some subscribers.(n198) Pacific rejects AT&T's call for an industry panel, but believes AT&T should share the costs of customer education with LECs. It notes IXCs benefit from passage of ANI. It says it has had experience working with IXCs to develop educational programs for 900 services, and has no objection to helping IXCs educateconsumers through bill inserts or other means.(n199)
138. US WEST argues there is no evidence that education campaigns already conducted, usually incorporating suggestions from state commissions and consumer advocacy groups, are deficient in scope or content.(n200) It says the Commission should accord carriers substantial leeway in the specifics of how they speak to their customers. NECA believes the current rules satisfactorily address concerns about consumer education regarding CPN services and privacy mechanisms.(n201) It argues the Commission does not usually provide detailed instruction on the form or substance of education.(n202) USTA believes the current rules give a carrier the flexibility to provide notice to customers in the most effective manner given the carrier's situation.(n203) Pacific argues that California has established a notification program so burdensome that no local exchange carrier in California offers caller ID services. Pacific's affiliate, Nevada Bell, does offer the service in Nevada, where it receives fewer than ten informal complaints annually. It asks that the Commission not micromanage carrier education efforts.(n204)
139. Discussion. We agree with those parties who argue
that detailed, Commission-prescribed education requirements
are not necessary. Many states require education, and
it is appropriate to draw on the experience that state
and carrier education efforts have developed. There is
no evidence in the record that these efforts have not been
effective. Section 64.1603 places the responsibility for
ensuring notice to subscribers that their number may be
revealed to a called party on the carriers participating
in calling party number, ANI or charge number services.(n205)
We expect carriers will adjust their educational messages
to meet local conditions to ensure notice is effective
for all blocking options, and we believe education efforts
developed at the state level will provide useful guidance
to carriers as they address local conditions. The rule
is clear that the obligation of providing adequate notice
is a continuing one. Our complaint process provides a
mechanism for assuring that carriers meet their obligations.
140. The FNPRM invited parties to provide joint education
proposals. No specific proposals have been submitted.
We again encourage carriers to work together to develop
effective education materials and strategies. It is in
their best interest to share information about effective
and efficient strategies to meet their obligations under
the rules. But the obligation to develop effective education
programs remains with the carriers. Each carrier has the
responsibility of demonstrating that whatever means it
uses are effective to inform consumers of the risks to
privacy and the mechanisms available to protect it. Specifically,
callers must know that unless they dial *67, CPN may be
passed, and unless they dial *82, CPN may not be passed.
These efforts must be completed not later than December
1, 1995 by carriers participating in the offering of services
providing calling party number, ANI, or charge number services.
V. Procedural Matters
A. Ex Parte
141. The Third Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is a non-restricted notice and comment rulemaking. Ex Parte presentations are permitted, except during the Sunshine Agenda period, provided they are disclosed as provided in Commission rules.(n206)
B. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
142. Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980,
5 U.S.C. § 601 et. seq., the following final analysis has
Need for and objective of the rules:
This Second Report and Order addresses comments filed
in response to the Further Notice concerning application
of federal caller ID rules to other CPN-based services
and Commission-prescribed educational requirements to support
consumer use of caller ID services. We apply the CPN privacy
policy to other CPN-based services so that when CPN is
marked private, it is neither revealed nor able to be used
to contact the caller in keeping with the basic tenet of
our caller ID rules that callers be allowed to keep their
telephone numbers private if they choose. We do not apply
CPN transport policy to other services because the costs
of using the facilities that support other services may
not be de minimis. We further find that more detailed,
Commission prescribed education requirements are not necessary
at this time because ongoing carrier efforts to educate
their customers about CPN services, developed in many cases
with state government participation appear to be effective.
Summary of issues raised by the public comments in response
to the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis:
Significant alternatives considered:
The Further Notice requested comments on several issues.
The Commission has considered all comments and has determined
that its caller ID policies are best served by the requirement
private, it is neither revealed nor able to be used to
contact the caller. It does not apply the CPN transport
policy to other services because the costs of using the
facilities may not de minimis.
143. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis on the
Third Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
C. Notice and Comment Provision
Pursuant to applicable procedures set forth in Sections
1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§
1.415 and 1.419, interested parties may file comments on
or before June 30, 1995 and reply comments on or before
July 28, 1995. To file formally in this proceeding, interested
parties must file an original and four copies of all comments,
reply comments, and supporting documents with the reference
number "CC Docket 91-281" on each document. Parties wanting
each Commissioner to receive a personal copy of comments,
should send comments and reply comments to the Office of
the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, Washington,
DC 20554. Comments and reply comments will be available
for public inspection during regular business hours in
the FCC Reference Center, Room 239, Federal Communications
Commission, 1919 M Street, N.W., Washington, DC. Copies
of comments and reply comments are available through the
Commission's duplicating contractor: International Transcription
Service, Inc. (ITS, Inc.), 2100 M Street, N.W., Suite 140,
Washington, DC 20037 (202/857-3800).
V. ORDERING CLAUSES
144. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, that pursuant to authority
contained in Sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 201-205 and 218 of
the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§
151, 154(i), 154(j), 201-205, and 218, that the petitions
for reconsideration and clarification of caller ID rules
ARE GRANTED, except to the extent indicated otherwise herein.
145. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the decisions and policies
adopted herein SHALL BE EFFECTIVE thirty days after the
date of publication in the Federal Register.
146. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 1, 4(i)
and (j), 201-205, 218 ofthe Communications Act as amended,
47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 154(i), 151(j), 201-205, and 218, that
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN of the proposed changes in policies
regarding the application of caller ID rules to PBX systems
and private payphones, and COMMENT IS INVITED on this proposal.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
William F. Caton
INITIAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS
Reason for Action
Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other Compliance Requirements
Federal Rules That Overlap, Duplicate or Conflict With
Description, Potential Impact, and Number of Small Entities
Any Significant Alternatives Minimizing the Impact on Small
Entities Consistent with the Stated Objectives
APPENDIX B: List of Parties
I. Reconsideration of the First Report and Order
(First Order Petitions):
Lynn Adelman, on behalf of fifteen Dane County Narcotics
Alabama Public Service Commission (Alabama PSC)
Allnet Communications Services, Inc. (Allnet)
AT&T Corp. (AT&T)
Attorney Generals of North Carolina, Florida, Arizona, Arkansas, Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Vermont, Wisconsin, and the Hawaii Office of Consumer Protection and National Association of Consumer Agency Administrators
Attorney Generals for the State of Texas (Texas AG)
Bell Atlantic Telephone Companies (Bell Atlantic)
BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. (BellSouth)
Boulder County Safehouse (BCSH)
Cable and Wireless, Inc. (Cable & Wireless)
California Alliance Against Domestic Violence (Ca AADV)
Cincinnati Bell Telephone Company (Cincinnati Bell)
Colorado Domestic Violence Coalition (CMVC)
Colorado Public Utilities Commission (CoPUC)
Competitive Telecommunications Association (CompTel)
Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (CPSR)
Consumer Advocate of Pennsylvania for National Association of State and Utility Consumer Advocates
Delaware Domestic Violence Task Force (DE-DVTF)
Domestic Violence Coalition on Public Policy (DVCOPP)
Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE)
Florida Public Service Commission (FLPSC)
Hawaii State Committee on Family Violence
Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission (IURC)
Iowa Coalition Against Sexual Assault (ICASA)
Iowa Coalition Against Domestic Violence (ICADV)
Iowa Utilities Board (Iowa) (IUB)
MCI Telecommunications (MCI)
National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC)
National Coalition Against Domestic Violence (NCADV)
National Telephone Cooperative Association (NTCA)
Nevada Bell (Nevada)
NEXTEL Communications (NEXTEL)
Northern Telecom Inc. (Northern)
NYNEX Telephone Companies (NYNEX)
Oregon Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence (OCADSV)
Pacific Bell (Pacific)
Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence (PCADV)
Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (PaPUC)
People of the State of California and the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California (California)
Public Service Commission of Nevada (NvPSC)
Public Service Commission of South Carolina (SCPSC)
Public Utility Commission of Ohio (OPUC)
Public Utility Commission of Texas (TxPUC)
Survivors Against Abuse and Growing in Educations and Sisters Overcoming Abusive Relationships (SAGE and SOAR)
Southwestern Bell Corporation (Southwestern Bell)
Sprint Corporation (SPRINT)
Spouse Abuse, Inc.
Texas Council on Family Violence (TxCFV)
United States Coast Guard (USCG)
US West Communications, Inc. (US West)
Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission (WUTC)
Women in Distress of Broward County, Inc. (WDBC)
Parties filing Comments on, or Oppositions to, First Order
Petitions, July 8, 1994
(First Order Oppositions):
Direct Marketing Association (DMA)
GTE Service Corporation (GTE)
New York Department of Public Service (NYDPS)
Roseville Telephone Company (Roseville)
SAGE and SOAR
Southern New England Telephone (SNET)
Southwestern Bell Telephone Company
United States Telephone Association (USTA)
Parties filing Replies to First Order Oppositions, First
Order Replies, August 17, 1994
(First Order Replies):
Puerto Rico Telephone Company (PRTC)
II. Further Notice Of Proposed Rulemaking
Ad Hoc Telecommunications Users Committee (Ad Hoc)
Bryan, Michael J.
Colorado Office of Consumer Counsel (COCC)
Georgia Consumers Utility Counsel
Information Technology Association of America (ITAA)
Jefferson County Police Department (JCPD)
Lewis River Telephone Company
National Exchange Carrier Association (NECA)
Pacific Bell and Nevada Bell
Pennsylvania Office of Consumer Advocate & Ohio Office of Consumer Counsel
Privacy Rights Clearinghouse (PRC)
Rochester Telephone Company
SAGE and SOAR
Toward Utility Rate Normalization (TURN)
Waite, Barbara L. (Pixie)
Parties filing Reply Comments on the Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, June 21, 1994
(FNPRM Reply Comments):
Information Technology Association of America (ITAA)
Lewis River Telephone Company
Pacific Bell and Nevada Bell
Western Rural Telephone Association (WRTA)
Part 64 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations (chapter
1 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part
64) is amended as follows:
1. The authority citation for Part 64 continues to read
Authority: Section 4, 48 Stat. 1066, as amended; 47 U.S.C.
154, unless otherwise noted. Interpret or apply secs.
201, 218, 225, 226, 227, 48 Stat. 1070, as amended, 1077;
47 U.S.C. 201-4, 218, 225, 226, 227 unless otherwise noted.
2. The table of contents for Part 64 is amended to read
§ 64.1602 Restrictions on use and sale of telephone subscriber
information provided pursuant to automatic number identification
or charge number services.
§ 64.1603Customer notification.
§ 64.1604Effective date.
3. Part 64 is amended to read as follows:
Subpart P - Calling Party Telephone Number; Privacy.
§ 64.1600 Definitions.
(a) Aggregate Information. The term "aggregate information"
means collective data that relate to a group or category
of services or customers, from which individual customer
identities or characteristics have been removed.
(b) ANI. The term "ANI" (automatic number identification)
refers to the delivery of the calling party's billing number
by a local exchange carrier to any interconnecting carrier
for billing or routing purposes, and to the subsequent
delivery of such number to end users.
(c) Calling Party Number. The term Calling Party Number
refers to the subscriber line number or the directory number
contained in the calling party number parameter of the
call set-up message associated with an interstate call
on a Signaling System 7 network.
(d) Charge Number. The term "charge number" refers to
the delivery of the calling party's billing number in a
Signaling System 7 environment by a local exchange carrier
to any interconnecting carrier for billing or routing purposes,
and to the subsequent delivery of such number to end users.
(e) Privacy Indicator. The term Privacy Indicator refers
to information, contained in the calling party number parameter
of the call set-up message associated with an interstate
call on an Signaling System 7 network, that indicates whether
the calling party authorizes presentation of the calling
party number to the called party.
(f) Signaling System 7. The term Signaling System 7 (SS7)
refers to a carrier to carrier out-of-band signaling network
used for call routing, billing and management.
§ 64.1601 Delivery requirements and privacy restrictions
(a) Delivery. Common carriers using Signaling System
7 and offering or subscribing to any service based on Signaling
System 7 call set up functionality are required to transmit
the calling party number associated with an interstate
call to interconnecting carriers.
(b) Privacy. Originating carriers using Signaling System
7 and offering or subscribing to any service based on Signaling
System 7 call set up functionality will recognize *67 dialed
as the first three digits of a call (or 1167 for rotary
or pulse-dialing phones) as a caller's request for privacy
on an interstate call. Such carriers providing line blocking
services will recognize *82 as a caller's request that
privacy not be provided on an interstate call. No common
carrier subscribing to or offering any service that delivers
calling party number may override the privacy indicator
associated with an interstate call. Carriers must arrange
their CPN-based services in such a manner that when a
caller requests privacy, a carrier may not reveal that
caller's number or name, nor may the carrier use the number
or name to allow the called party to contact the calling
party. The terminating carrier must act in accordance
with the privacy indicator unless the call is made to a
called party that subscribes to an ANI or charge number
based service and the call is paid for by the called party.
(c) Charges. No common carrier subscribing to or offering
any service that delivers calling party number may (i)
impose on the calling party charges associated with per
call blocking of the calling party's telephone number,
or (ii) impose charges upon connecting carriers for the
delivery of the calling party number parameter or its associated
(d) Exemptions. §64.1601 shall not apply to calling party
number delivery services (i) used solely in connection
with calls within the same limited system, including (but
not limited to) a Centrex, virtual private network, or
private branch exchange system;(ii) used on a public agency's
emergency telephone line or in conjunction with 911 emergency
services, or on any entity's emergency assistance poison
control telephone line; or (iii) provided in connection
with legally authorized call tracing or trapping procedures
specifically requested by a law enforcement agency.
§ 64.1602 Restrictions on use and sale of telephone subscriber
information provided pursuant to automatic number identification
or charge number services.
(a) Any common carrier providing Automatic Number Identification
or charge number services on interstate calls to any person
shall provide such services under a contract or tariff
containing telephone subscriber information requirements
that comply with this subpart. Such requirements shall:
(1) permit such person to use the telephone number and
billing information for billing and collection, routing,
screening, and completion of the originating telephone
subscriber's call or transaction, or for services directly
related to the originating telephone subscriber's call
(2) prohibit such person from reusing or selling the telephone
number or billing information without first (A) notifying
the originating telephone subscriber and (B) obtaining
the affirmative consent of such subscriber for such reuse
or sale; and
(3) prohibit such person from disclosing, except as permitted
by subparagraphs (1) and (2), any information derived from
the automatic number identification or charge number service
for any purpose other than (i) performing the services
or transactions that are the subject of the originating
telephone subscriber's call, (ii) ensuring network performance
security, and the effectiveness of call delivery, (iii)
compiling, using, and disclosing aggregate information,
and (iv) complying with applicable law or legal process.
(b) The requirements imposed under paragraph (a) shall
not prevent a person to whom automatic number identification
or charge number services are provided from using (1) the
telephone number and billing information provided pursuant
to such service, and (2) any information derived from the
automatic number identification or charge number service,
or from the analysis of the characteristics of a telecommunications
transmission, to offer a product or service that is directly
related to the products or services previously acquired
by that customer from such person. Use of such information
is subject to the requirements of 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.1200
§ 64.1603 Customer notification.
Any common carrier participating in the offering of services
providing calling party number, ANI, or charge number on
interstate calls must notify its subscribers, individually
or in conjunction with other carriers, that their telephone
numbers may be identified to a called party. Such notification
must be made not later than December 1, 1995, and at such
times thereafter as to ensure notice to subscribers. The
notification must be effective in informing subscribers
how to maintain privacy by dialing *67 (or 1167 for rotary
or pulse-dialing phones) on interstate calls. The notice
shall inform subscribers whether dialing *82 (or 1182 for
rotary or pulse-dialing phones) on interstate calls is
necessary to present calling party number to called parties.
For ANI or charge number services for which such privacy
is not provided, the notification shall inform subscribers
of the restrictions on the reuse or sale of subscriber
§ 64.1604 Effective Date
The provisions of Section 64.1600 and 64.1602 shall be
effective as of April 12, 1995. The provisions of Sections
64.1601 and 64.1603 shall be effective as of December 1,
1995 except for public payphones and partylines. For public
payphones and partylines sections 64.1601 and 64.1603 shall
become effective January 1, 1997.
I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 II. BACKGROUND A. Technology Advances Underlying CPN-Based Services . . . . . . . . . . . 7 B. Policies Adopted in the Report and Order i. Passage of CPN. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 C. Matters Raised in the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking i. Other CPN-Based Services. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 III. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION A. Transmission of CPN i. Interstate CPN Transmission Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 B. Privacy: Blocking Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 i. Federal Policy Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 C. Application of Caller ID Rules i. Wireless Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 D. ANI and Caller Privacy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 IV. THIRD NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING A. Private Branch Exchange Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 B. Private Payphones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 IV. SECOND REPORT AND ORDER A. Application of Caller ID Rules to Other CPN-Based Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 B. Educational Requirements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135 V. Procedural Matters A. Ex Parte. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141 B. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142 C. Notice and Comment Provision V. ORDERING CLAUSES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144 APPENDIX A APPENDIX B: List of Parties APPENDIX C
Footnote 1 Rules and Policies Regarding Calling Number Identification Service - Caller ID, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 9 FCC Rcd 1764 (1994) (hereinafter referred to as Report and Order or Order).
Footnote 2 Id.
Footnote 3 Id. at para. 9.
Footnote 4 Id. at paras. 8-9.
Footnote 5 Rules and Policies Regarding Calling Number Identification Service, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 6 FCC Rcd 6752, 6754 (1991) at para. 11 (hereinafter NPRM); Report and Order at para. 11.
Footnote 6 See infra paras. 17-18.
Footnote 7 On March 17, 1995 the Commission released an Order, Rules and Policies Regarding Calling Number Identification Service -- Caller ID, CC Docket No. 91-281, Order, FCC 95-119 (released March 17, 1995), staying the April 12, 1995 effective date of Sections 64.1601 and 64.1603 which had been established in the Report and Order.
Footnote 8 When a switch uses multifrequency signaling to establish a circuit connecting it to another switch, it outpulses sequences of tones representing the call set up information on the same circuit that is used to connect the calling and called parties. On all interoffice calls, the switch outpulses the address sequence, which contains the called party number. Depending on the circumstances, the switch may also outpulse the OZZ sequence and the ANI sequence. The OZZ sequence identifies the interexchange carrier and provides information about the call that is used to select the proper circuit. The ANI sequence contains the billing number for the party making the call and identifies the type of line (e.g., POTS line, Coin Line, Hotel/Motel line) used to place the call.
Footnote 9 The Initial Address Message (IAM) is contained in the ISDN User Part (ISUP) of the SS7 protocol. An IAM is the first SS7 message a switch transmits to begin establishing a circuit connection.
Footnote 10 ISDN User Part (ISUP) is a term defined by international standards bodies to describe a part of the SS7 protocol. The ISUP protocol defines the functions and signaling information to set up and release (i.e. disconnect) calls over circuit-switched connections.
Footnote 11 Report and Order at para. 47; para. 53, infra.
Footnote 12 Report and Order at paras. 34 and 47.
Footnote 13 Id. at para. 69.
Footnote 14 Typically, CPN and ANI are the same for residence telephone lines, while often in the case of business lines CPN and ANI are different.
Footnote 15 Report and Order at paras. 57-58.
Footnote 16 Id. at para. 50.
Footnote 17 Calling name may be delivered by itself or with calling number depending on the carrier's service offerings and the customer's service selections.
Footnote 18 "TCAP" or Transactional Capabilities Application Part is also part of the SS7 protocol. The TCAP protocol defines the functions and signaling information supporting the exchange of information for non-circuit-related applications. For example, in 800 data base service, a switch uses a TCAP message to query a data base to determine routing information based on the 800 number the calling party has dialed.
Footnote 19 An incoming call memory slot is associated with each subscriber line. Incoming call memory slots reside in a switch's memory and contain information regarding the last incoming call for a particular line. This information may include the CPN of the last incoming call.
Footnote 20 Report and Order at para. 59.
Footnote 21 Id.
Footnote 22 Id. at para. 60.
Footnote 23 Id.
Footnote 24 Id. at para. 23.
Footnote 25 Id.
Footnote 26 Id. at paras. 3 and 17; see note 7, supra.
Footnote 27 See, e.g., AT&T Petition at 1-14; MCI Petition at 1-3; Sprint Petition at 1-13.
Footnote 28 See, e.g., AT&T Petition at 10 n.16.
Footnote 29 See, e.g., Id. at 8.
Footnote 30 See, e.g., Id. at 11; MCI Petition at 2.
Footnote 31 See, e.g., MCI Petition at 3.
Footnote 32 Sprint Reply at 4 n.3; see also MCI Reply at 9-10.
Footnote 33 MCI Reply at 5.
Footnote 34 AT&T Petition at 3-8. AT&T estimated in an Ex Parte presentation that its annual interstate CPN delivery expense was $79.6 million dollars.
Footnote 35 Id. at 4-5.
Footnote 36 See, e.g., Id. at 3-11; MCI Petition at 3.
Footnote 37 AT&T Petition at 8 n.13.
Footnote 38 See, e.g., Bell Atlantic Comments at 2; BellSouth Comments at 7-8; GTE Comments at 9-15.
Footnote 39 See, e.g., US West Comments at 15.
Footnote 40 See US WEST Comments at 15; BellSouth Comments at 7 (IXCs must incur greater cost not to deliver CPN).
Footnote 41 See, e.g., Bell Atlantic Comments at 3; see also Pacific Comments at 12.
Footnote 42 See Bell Atlantic Comments at 3; see also GTE Comments at 9.
Footnote 43 See, e.g., SWBT Comments at 6; but see GTE Comments at 10.
Footnote 44 See, e.g., BellSouth Comments at 5-6. ANI is discussed at paras. 17-18, supra.
Footnote 45 BellSouth Comments at 6; see also GTE Comments at 15. But see Sprint Reply at 4 n.3.
Footnote 46 SWBT Comments at 7.
Footnote 47 See, e.g., Ad Hoc Petition at 8.
Footnote 48 See paras. 2-3, supra. Specific examples of such services being marketed by carriers today include Call Return, Priority Ringing, Selective Call Forwarding and Calling Name.
Footnote 49 Report and Order at para. 23.
Footnote 50 See AT&T Petition at 5-6.
Footnote 51 Provision of Access for 800 Service, Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration and Second Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 6 FCC Rcd 5422, 5428 (1991). This conclusion was based on findings that SS7 not only supports a number of new interstate and intrastate services, but also increases the efficiency with which carriers provide existing services. Although the focus of that order was costs incurred by local exchange carriers in deploying SS7 networks, the analysis also applies to interexchange carrier investment.
Footnote 52 For example, IXCs currently offer their own caller identification services through the delivery of ANI or CPN on 800 numbers.
Footnote 53 When compared to multifrequency signaling, SS7 signaling provides network efficiencies in establishing and releasing a call connection by more quickly connecting and disconnecting interoffice circuits before and after a call. Pacific Comments at 12.
Footnote 54 See, e.g., Pacific Comments at 12-13.
Footnote 55 Pacific Petition for Rulemaking to Amend Section 69.106 of the Commission's Rules at 6, filed June 30, 1994. Pacific Bell requests the rulemaking so that the switched access local switching rate will encompass a per message call set up charge in addition to the per minute usage charge.
Footnote 56 Common Channel Signaling (CCS) Network Interface Specification, Bellcore, TR-TSV-000905 (Issue 2, July 1993).
Footnote 57 Sprint Petition at 11-12.
Footnote 58 FCC v. Florida Power Corp., 480 U.S. 245, 253 (1987).
Footnote 59 See Duquesne Light Co. v. Barasch, 488 U.S. 299, 307-13 (1989); Federal Power Comm'n v. Hope Nat. Gas Co., 320 U.S. 591, 602 (1944).
Footnote 60 NPRM at para. 9.
Footnote 61 Id.
Footnote 62 Id.
Footnote 63 See Resale and Shared Use of Common Carriers Services and Facilities, 60 FCC 2d 261 (1976), modified on other grounds (Resale and Shared Use Reconsideration Order), 62 FCC 2d 588 (1977), aff'd sub nom. AT&T v. FCC, 572 F.2d 17 (2nd Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 875 (1978). See also Resale and Shared Use of Common Carrier Domestic Public Switched Network Services, 83 FCC 2d 167 (1980).
Footnote 64 Report and Order at para. 17 and Appendix C.
Footnote 65 Id. at para. 17.
Footnote 66 See, e.g., Allnet Petition at 3-5; Cable and Wireless Petition at 3-4; NTCA Petition at 2-4; Sprint Petition at 13-14.
Footnote 67 Sprint Petition at 13. In these instances, carriers use the TCAP capabilities of the SS7 protocol, which is different from the ISUP part of the protocol used for call set up and CPN passage. Carriers cannot use TCAP to transmit CPN. See discussion supra at para. 20.
Footnote 68 See, e.g., NTCA Comments at 2-3; GTE Comments at 20.
Footnote 69 GTE Comments at 18. Similarly, in twenty-one of its LEC offices, Sprint says that SS7 is used only for 800 data base service, and that current software cannot pass CPN. See also Sprint Petition at 13.
Footnote 70 GTE Comments at 20.
Footnote 71 Id. at 21; see also CompTel Reply at 1.
Footnote 72 US WEST Comments at 20, citing para. 17 of the Report and Order ("Carriers are only required to transmit the CPN and privacy indicator where technically feasible").
Footnote 73 Report and Order at para. 17; 47 C.F.R. 64.1600.
Footnote 74 Report and Order at paras. 68-69.
Footnote 75 The right of privacy is defined as "[t]he right to be let alone; the right of a person to be free from unwarranted publicity." Black's Law Dictionary 1195 (6th ed. 1990).
Footnote 76 Report and Order at para. 39.
Footnote 77 Id. at para. 40.
Footnote 78 See, e.g., California Petition at 3-4; Florida Petition at 8.
Footnote 79 NARUC Petition at 12.
Footnote 80 California Reply at 3.
Footnote 81 Id. at 6.
Footnote 82 California Petition at 7-10 and Appendix A. As we describe in more detail, infra, the proposal would rely on "unused" information bits in the SS7 IAM. The originating switch would add appropriate additional privacy information and the terminating switch would add software necessary to distinguish interstate from intrastate calls.
Footnote 83 See, e.g., NYNEX Petition at 3-4; Ameritech Petition at 3.
Footnote 84 See, e.g., GTE Comments at 3; US West Comments at 12-13.
Footnote 85 See, e.g., Domestic Violence Coalition on Public Policy Petition at 2; SAGE and SOAR Petition at 2, 5-11.
Footnote 86 See, e.g., Sprint Comments at 7-8; Bell Atlantic Comments at 4.
Footnote 87 Bell Atlantic Comments at 4 (to determine whether their number will be disclosed to the person they are calling consumers should not have to ask themselves: "Where am I? Is this call interstate or intrastate? Is there per line blocking already on this line?"); see also SWBT Comments at 8.
Footnote 88 See, e.g., US WEST Petition at 5.
Footnote 89 Sprint Comments at 7.
Footnote 90 See BellSouth Comments at 10; see also GTE Comments at 4.
Footnote 91 BellSouth Comments at 12.
Footnote 92 See, e.g., Pacific Comments at 2-3.
Footnote 93 See, e.g., Id.; AT&T Comments at 2-5; MCI Comments at 9.
Footnote 94 See, e.g., AT&T Comments at 2.
Footnote 95 47 U.S.C. § 151.
Footnote 96 See, e.g., Report and Order at paras. 11, 12; see also Telephone Company-Cable Television Cross-Ownership Rules, Sections 63.54-63.58, Second Report and Order, Recommendation to Congress, and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 7 FCC Rcd 5781, aff'd in part and modified in part, Memorandum and Order on Reconsideration, 10 FCC Rcd 244 (1994); see also 47 U.S.C. § 157.
Footnote 97 Report and Order at para. 11.
Footnote 98 Louisiana Public Service Comm'n v. FCC, 476 U.S. 355, 375 n. 4 (1986).
Footnote 99 See, e.g., US WEST Petition at 5.
Footnote 100 See US WEST Petition, Attachments A, B, and C (containing information from various vendors on the costs and time required to introduce dual blocking); see also Sprint Ex Parte Letter of February 9, 1995 (stating that dual blocking rules will not work).
Footnote 101 Telecommunications standards bodies develop recommendations that guide telecommunications service providers and manufacturers of equipment to provide interoperable telecommunications systems and equipment that support national and worldwide telecommunications services. For example, the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) through its Committee T1 develops technical standards and reports supporting the interconnection and interoperability of telecommunications networks.
Footnote 102 GTE Comments at 5-7.
Footnote 103 See, e.g., Id. at 6-7.
Footnote 104 See BellSouth Comments at 12. California's initial proposal for modifying the SS7 presentation subfield for the presentation status of CPN, we note, is not only incompatible with national standards, but also is incompatible with current international standards for ISDN Calling Line Identification.
Footnote 105 See, e.g., GTE Comments at 6; Pacific Bell Comments at 8-9 and Exhibit B.
Footnote 106 Custom Local Area Signaling Services (CLASS) represents a set of call management services on outgoing and incoming calls. Examples of CLASS services are caller ID, auto call return and selective call forwarding.
Footnote 107 For example, in the software development process requirements would need to address how an upgraded switch with the new coding capability interworks with a non-upgraded switch to honor the privacy request of the calling party correctly.
Footnote 108 These codes are sometimes referred to as NPA codes.
Footnote 109 See, e.g., US WEST Petition Attachment A (Input provided by Northern Telecom).
Footnote 110 See California Reply Exhibit B at 3.
Footnote 111 See, e.g., US WEST Petition Attachments A, B and C. Technical requirements would be based upon industry standards for dual blocking, which do not exist at this time.
Footnote 112 See SWBT and Northern Telecom Ex Parte Letter of February 8, 1995.
Footnote 113 By contrast, in California's dual blocking proposal, the terminating end office makes the determination between intrastate and interstate calls.
Footnote 114 See, e.g., GTE Comments at 7; AT&T Comments at 5, citing a BellSouth letter that dual blocking will increase call processing time.
Footnote 115 See, e.g., US WEST Petition at 7 n.10 and Attachment A; AT&T Petition at 11.
Footnote 116 See, e.g., People of California v. FCC, 39 F.3d 919 (9th Cir. 1994).
Footnote 117 Public Service Comm'n of Maryland v. FCC, 909 F.2d 1510, 1515 (D.C. Cir. 1990).
Footnote 118 Southwestern Bell and Bell Atlantic, for example, support it in several states. Southwestern Bell states that implementation of the approach in states that require some form of per line blocking is minimal.
Footnote 119 Unlisted numbers, as used by California, are those telephone numbers available only through directory assistance but that do not appear in the white section of the telephone directory or street address directory. Public Utility Commission of California, Decision 92-06-065, June 17, 1992. n. 23, citing Pacific Bell Schedule Cal. P.U.C. No. A5.7.1.B.1. Nonpublished telephone numbers are not listed in any telephone directory, street addressdirectory, or in the directory assistance records available to the general public. Id. n. 24, citing Pacific Bell Schedule Cal. P.U.C. No. A2.1.34.A.
Footnote 120 See, e.g., Pacific Comments at 5-7. See also GTE Ex Parte presentation, January 25, 1995, at 4 (caller ID service is not offered by GTE in California).
Footnote 121 See Public Utility Commission of Texas v. FCC, 886 F.2d 1325, 1332-1334 (D.C. Cir. 1989); North Carolina Utilities Commission v. FCC, 552 F.2d 1036, 1043 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 874 (1977); North Carolina Utilities Commission v. FCC, 537 F.2d 787, 791(4th Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1027(1976) (severability may be a practicable and economic impossibility).
Footnote 122 Louisiana Public Service Commission v. FCC, 476 U.S. 355 (1986); See also People of State of Cal. v. FCC, 905 F.2d 1217, 1243 (9th Cir. 1990);Public Service Commission of Maryland v. FCC, 909 F.2d 1510, 1516(D.C. Cir. 1990); (Order must be narrowly tailored to preempt only such state regulations as would negate valid FCC regulatory goals).
Footnote 123 As is noted in paragraphs 55 and 84 above, Pacific believes California's regulation of caller ID service, and in particular its default per line blocking requirement make the offering of the service in that state infeasible. Thus, the policy precludes intrastate as well as interstate service.
Footnote 124 In 1993, California accounted for more than thirty-six billion interstate calling minutes. New York, the next highest state, accounted for less than twenty-nine billion interstate calling minutes in 1993. Statistics of Communications Common Carriers (FCC, 1994) at p. 22.
Footnote 125 Pacific Bell Reply at 7. See also, NASUCA Petition at 13, citing NYPSC: "Per line blocking . . . generally reduces the number of calls to which [CPN] will be provided." 132 PUR 4th 525, 534-35 (NYPSC 1992).
Footnote 126 See, e.g., BellSouth Ex Parte presentation, February 10, 1995 (within BellSouth territory, the availability of free, per line blocking depresses the market for cpn based services: in North Carolina, with free per line blocking, Caller ID service is taken by one half of one percent of all line subscribers; in Tennessee, with no blocking, 8.5 percent of all eligible line subscribers take the service).
Footnote 127 California Ex Parte Letter, April 25, 1995, at 4.
Footnote 128 Id. at 4. California offers no support for this proposition.
Footnote 129 California Ex Parte Letter, April 27, 1995, at 2.
Footnote 130 Id., citing, inter alia, Talley v. California, 362 U.S. 60, 64 (1960); Pacific Gas & Elec. Co. v. Pub. Util. Comm'n of California, 475 U.S. 1, 10 - 11 (1987); Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises, 471 U.S. 524, 559 (1985).
Footnote 131 McIntyre, 63 USLW at 4283.
Footnote 132 Talley v. California, 362 U.S. 60.
Footnote 133 Carriers in California must, among other things, provide notification in multiple languages, use bill inserts, white pages, brochures and advertising, and conduct ongoing customer awareness surveys. CPUC Order (A-90-11-011, p.48).
Footnote 134 California Ex Parte Letter, April 27, 1995 at 3.
Footnote 135 Pacific disputes California's allegation that the CPUC found the California State Constitution requires a default per line blocking option. Pacific Ex Parte Letter, April 27, 1995 at 2.
Footnote 136 Report and Order at para. 15.
Footnote 137 See, e.g., SWBT Petition at 9; United States Coast Guard Petition at 1.
Footnote 138 SWBT Petition at 9; see also Nextel Petition at 3; McCaw Petition at 5.
Footnote 139 United States Coast Guard Petition at 1.
Footnote 140 See, e.g., Bell Atlantic Comments at 4.
Footnote 141 See, e.g., United States Coast Guard Petition at 1; SWBT Petition at 9.
Footnote 142 Nextel Petition at 6.
Footnote 143 SWBT Petition at 11. SWBT points out that cellular service areas extend across state boundaries.
Footnote 144 CMRS is defined as "any mobile service ... that is provided for profit and makes interconnected service available (A) to the public or (B) to such classes of eligible users as to be effectively available to a substantial portion of the public...." The term "interconnected service" means "service that is interconnected with the public switched network...." Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, Pub. L. No. 103-66, Title VI, § 6002(b)(3)(B), 107 Stat. 312, 392 (1993); see also, Section 20.3 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 20.3.
Footnote 145 The benefits of caller ID for CMRS customers are more complicated. For example, in order for a CMRS customer to be able to view the number of the incoming call, the customer must possess a phone with digital capabilities. Today most cellular customers possess cellular phones that use analog technology that cannot display the caller ID information.
Footnote 146 For example, cellular customers are usually billed for airtime charges on incoming calls. As such, cellular telephone users generally make their numbers available only to a limited number of people. This is an attempt to reduce the number of calls to their cellular number for which they would not want to pay. Thus, it is likely that cellular callers would be inclined to dial *67 and block delivery of their number to reduce the widespread distribution of their number.
Footnote 147 Roaming describes the situation which occurs when the subscriber of one CMRS provider enters the service area of another CMRS provider with whom the subscriber has no preexisting service or financial relationship and attempts either to continue an in-progress call, to receive an in-coming call or to place an out-going call. Interconnection and Resale Obligations Pertaining to CMRS, CC Docket No. 94-54, Second Notice of Proposed RuleMaking, FCC 95-149 (released April 20, 1995) at para. 45. CMRS providers providing service to a roaming customer from a different state are not subject to the per line blocking requirements of the roaming customer's home state. CMRS providers, however, are required to notify their customers that blocking requirements may differ when the customer is roaming outside the customer's home state.
Footnote 148 GTE Comments at iv, 24.
Footnote 149 Pacific Petition at 7. Pacific indicates that less than one percent of its pay telephones is served by switches that will not recognize *67 as the blocking indicator. Pacific plans to replace these switches by 1998 and seeks a waiver of the *67 rules for payphones served by these switches until that time. It indicates that in the absence of a waiver it will have to upgrade these switches, and finds little justification in the upgrade costs since the switches will soon be replaced.
Footnote 150 Nevada Bell Petition at 6-7; see also SWBT Petition at 7 (adding that providing blocking at payphones is inconsistent with the wishes of law enforcement officials).
Footnote 151 BellSouth Petition at 5.
Footnote 152 SAGE and SOAR Petition at 10.
Footnote 153 SAGE and SOAR Comments at 4.
Footnote 154 Id. at 9-10.
Footnote 155 Cincinnati Bell Comments at 2 (Cincinnati Bell currently has per call privacy option at public pay telephones served by DMS 10 and 1AESS central offices, which do not require separate software purchases to provide per call blocking for public payphones. With 5ESS switches, however, per call blocking at public payphones would require purchase of a separate switch feature, which CBT does not currently have.); See also Pacific Petition at 7 (less than one percent of its payphones are served by switches that do not recognize *67 as a blocking request).
Footnote 156 Report and Order at para. 37. Enhanced 911 (E911) may provide the telephone number and address of the location where the E911 call originated to the Public Safety Answering Point, or PSAP attendant. Currently, ANI is used most often to provide the telephone number and to facilitate accessing a data base to retrieve the caller's location, but CPN may be used in the future.
Footnote 157 47 C.F.R. § 64.1601(d); Report and Order at para. 37.
Footnote 158 See, e.g., Bell Atlantic Petition at 1; US WEST Petition at 3; Nevada Bell Petition at 3.
Footnote 159 See, e.g., NARUC Petition at 13; NASUCA Petition at 12; NYPDS Petition at 7.
Footnote 160 47 C.F.R. § 64.1601.
Footnote 161 See CPSR Comments at 1 and 9.
Footnote 162 See Nevada Comments at 3-4.
Footnote 163 See AT&T Comments at 16-20.
Footnote 164 IIA Comments at 3.
Footnote 165 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200.
Footnote 166 47 C.F.R. § 64.1601(d).
Footnote 167 Report and Order at para. 36.
Footnote 168 See Northern Telecom Petition at 3. A caller from a telephone linked to one of its PBXs, it says, will hear a "fast busy" tone if *67 is dialed.
Footnote 169 Report and Order at para. 50.
Footnote 170 Id.
Footnote 171 See, e.g., Ad Hoc Telecommunications User Group FNPRM Comments at 3; Pacific FNPRM Comments at 3; Sprint FNPRM Comments at 3; SWBT FNPRM Reply at 5; AT&T FNPRM Reply at 5.
Footnote 172 See, e.g., US WEST FNPRM Comments at 2; SWBT FNPRM Reply at 1.
Footnote 173 COCC FNPRM Reply at 4.
Footnote 174 PRC FNPRM Comments at 6.
Footnote 175 ITAA FNPRM Comments at 6.
Footnote 176 See, e.g., Ad Hoc FNPRM Comments at 5; BellSouth FNPRM Comments at 5; COCC FNPRM Comments at 3. But see US WEST FNPRM Reply at ii (stating that the Commission should not prescribe any particular privacy treatment with respect to auto call return).
Footnote 177 COCC FNPRM Comments at 3.
Footnote 178 Ad Hoc FNPRM Comments at 5.
Footnote 179 COCC FNPRM Comments at 3.
Footnote 180 Bell Atlantic FNPRM Comments at 2.
Footnote 181 US WEST FNPRM Reply at 6.
Footnote 182 See Sprint FNPRM Comments at 5-6.
Footnote 183 Bell Atlantic FNPRM Reply at 2.
Footnote 184 See, e.g., Ad Hoc FNPRM Comments at 4; AT&T FNPRM Reply at 5; Rochester Telephone FNPRM Comments at 2; Roseville Telephone FNPRM Reply at 5.
Footnote 185 BellSouth FNPRM Comments at 5 n.5. BellSouth states that in Tennessee, the Public Service Commission has required BellSouth to deliver the calling party's name to the called party, even if the caller has blocked delivery of the telephone number.
Footnote 186 Report and Order at para. 69.
Footnote 187 See, e.g., Sprint FNPRM Comments at 2.
Footnote 188 Carriers offer basic transmission services directly to their customers as part of their common carrier service. Services based on CPN, such as calling name and call return, may be offered as common carrier services if they facilitate the customer's use of the basic transmission channel. See, e.g., NATA Centrex Order, 101 FCC 2d 349, 361 (1985); North American Telecommunications Association, 3 FCC Rcd 4385 (1988).
Footnote 189 47 C.F.R. § 64.1603.
Footnote 190 See Colorado FNPRM Comments at 1; TURN FNPRM Comments at 2. (TURN states that if the Commission does not defer to state policies, extensive reeducation will be necessary. TURN FNPRM Comments at 6.)
Footnote 191 See California Petition at 2-3.
Footnote 192 GCUC FNPRM Comments at 3.
Footnote 193 PRC FNPRM Comments at 7.
Footnote 194 Consumer Action FNPRM Comments at 4.
Footnote 195 TURN FNPRM Comments at 7.
Footnote 196 AT&T FNPRM Reply at 1.
Footnote 197 Roseville Telephone Company FNPRM Comments at 4.
Footnote 198 GTE FNPRM Reply at 2.
Footnote 199 Pacific FNPRM Reply at 6.
Footnote 200 US WEST FNPRM Reply at iii.
Footnote 201 NECA FNPRM Comments at 3.
Footnote 202 Id., citing Policies and Rules Concerning Local Exchange Carrier Validation and Billing Information, 8 FCC Rcd 8798, 8806-7 (1993).
Footnote 203 USTA FNPRM Comments at 4.
Footnote 204 Pacific FNPRM Reply at 4.
Footnote 205 47 C.F.R. § 64.1603
Footnote 206 See generally, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.1202, 1.1203, and 1.1206(a).