NOTICE ********************************************************* NOTICE ********************************************************* This document was originally prepared in Word Perfect. If the original document contained-- * Footnotes * Boldface & Italics --this information is missing in this version The document format (spacing, margins, tabs, etc.) is changed too. If you need the complete document, download the Word Perfect version. For information about downloading documents (FTP) see file how2ftp. File how2ftp (.txt & .wp) is in directory /pub/Bureaus/Miscellaneous/Public_Notices/ ***************************************************************** ******** $// Third R&O; Pay Telephone Compensation; CC Dkt. 91-35; FCC 96-131 //$ $/ 47 U.S.C. Section 151, 154, 201-205 and 226 /$ TRANSMITTED FOR FCC RECORD ONLY FCC 96-131 Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. In the Matter of ) ) Policies and Rules Concerning ) CC Docket No. 91-35 Operator Service Access and ) Pay Telephone Compensation ) ) THIRD REPORT AND ORDER Adopted: March 25, 1996; Released: April 5, 1996 By the Commission: TABLE OF CONTENTS Paragraph No. I. INTRODUCTION 1-2 II. BACKGROUND 3 III. DISCUSSION 4-43 A. Whether International Call Blocking Should Be Available to Non-Aggregators 4-16 B. Whether OLS and BNS Services Must Be Tariffed at the Federal Level 17-30 C. Whether the LECs Should Be Required to Provide An OLS Service with Discrete and Uniform Codes 31-34 D. Whether the Commission Should Permit LECs to Provide BNS Service Through the LIDB Data Base 35-36 E. Implementation Issues Affecting Both OLS and BNS Services 37-43 1. Limitations on Availability of Service 37-38 2. Bundling of Screening Services 39-41 3. Reasonableness of Rates 42-43 IV. CONCLUSION 44 V. ORDERING CLAUSES 45-48 APPENDIX A List of Parties Filing Comments and/or Replies I. INTRODUCTION 1. The Commission instituted this proceeding, CC Docket No. 91-35, to implement the provisions of the Telephone Operator Consumer Services Improvement Act. In the first phase of this proceeding, the Commission required all operator services providers (OSPs) to establish an 800 or 950 access code dialing number within six months, determined that competitive payphone owners should be compensated for access code calls and ordered all call aggregators to unblock 10XXX access over time. We, however, refrained from requiring local exchange carriers (LECs) to offer blocking and screening services. In our Docket 91-35 Reconsideration Order, we ordered LECs to offer, pursuant to interstate tariffs, services that would block international direct-dialed sequences (011+ and 10XXX- 011+), but did not require the LECs to make that service available to customers other than aggregators. We also required the LECs to offer two tariffed screening services, originating line screening (OLS) and billed number screening (BNS). These services enable OSPs to determine whether there are billing restrictions on lines to which a caller may seek to bill a call. The Commission, however, did not expressly require in that order that those screening services be federally tariffed. In the Further Reconsideration/Further NPRM, the Commission subsequently affirmed the requirement that LECs offer OLS and BNS services and tentatively found that Bell Atlantic's federally tariffed LIDB service fulfills its obligation to provide a BNS service. The Further NPRM requested further comment on three major issues: (1) whether the Commission should require the LECs to extend their international blocking services to non-aggregator business subscribers and to residential subscribers; (2) whether the Commission should affirm its tentative conclusion that BNS and OLS services should be tariffed at the federal level; and (3) whether proposed standards regarding availability to all customers, unbundling and rate levels should be applied to OLS and BNS services provided by the LECs. 2. Twelve parties filed comments and 15 parties filed replies on the questions raised in the Further NPRM. Those parties, and their abbreviations, are listed in Appendix A. II. BACKGROUND 3. In implementing TOCSIA, the Commission was required to establish procedures so that consumers calling from aggregator telephones could reach the OSP of their choice. The Commission required aggregators to provide access through the 10XXX code. Unlike other forms of access code dialing (950 or 800), 10XXX access code dialing allows callers to obtain access to a non-presubscribed carrier and place a direct-dialed call that is charged to the originating line. Aggregators were concerned that 10XXX access would subject them to an increased risk of toll fraud, which, TCA estimates, costs carriers and consumers approximately $4 billion per year. International calling constitutes a large portion of the toll fraud that payphone operators experience. In response to these concerns, the Commission required the LECs to make an optional service available to aggregators that would enable them to block direct-dialed international calls originating from their telephones. The Commission also required the LECs to provide two screening services, OLS and BNS, that would enhance an operator's ability to detect potentially fraudulent calls. III. DISCUSSION A. Whether International Call Blocking Should Be Available to Non- aggregators 1. International Blocking for Non-Aggregator Businesses 4. Background. When a customer subscribes to a LEC international call blocking service, all direct-dialed (011+ or 10XXX 011+) international calls are stopped at the LEC switch, while normal domestic direct-dial sequences (1+ and 0+) are not affected by international blocking. Calls to international numbers placed from such locations must be handled by an operator, who can screen calls to ensure that they are properly billed. The LECs filed tariffs offering this service, but some LEC tariffs restricted its availability to aggregators. The Further NPRM in this proceeding invited comments on whether the Commission should require this service to be extended to non-aggregator business and residential customers. 5. Comments and Replies. Some of the LECs contend that international toll fraud is not a problem for non-aggregators, including business and residential customers, and, therefore, there is no need to make international call blocking available to them. Several LECs comment that they have experienced little demand for the international call blocking services that they currently offer. BellSouth, NYNEX and Pacific claim that making international call blocking available to non-aggregators would require a time-consuming and costly effort that could prematurely deplete switch memory capacity. BellSouth is particularly concerned about the impact of providing such service to residential customers. GTE suggests that the Commission could reduce the cost and technical problems associated with extending the availability of international blocking to non-aggregator customers by allowing LECs to bundle international blocking services with blocking for other services, such as 900 pay-per-call. 6. ICA, which represents large telecommunications users, expresses a contrary view, stating that "ICA members, and the telecommunications business customer community at large, would be significantly benefitted in their efforts to control fraud" by the widespread availability of international call blocking services. ICA claims that the average toll fraud incident exceeds $130,000 and that PBX-type fraud in the United States costs between $500 million and $2 billion annually. NATA, an association of customer premises equipment (CPE) vendors and telecommunications users, maintains that since customers who wish to make legitimate international calls can still do so by using a calling card, the benefit of providing the blocking service outweighs any inconvenience to customers. NATA also argues that LECs lack an incentive voluntarily to make the international call blocking service available to all customers because LECs generally do not bear the costs of fraudulent calls and they collect access charges from interexchange carriers (IXCs) for fraudulent calls. 7. AT&T strongly supports the extension of international blocking services to residential and business subscribers, where technically feasible, noting that federal tariffing of this service without restriction on who may use it would make this important fraud control tool more widely available to end users. AT&T further contends that the LECs' estimates of the cost of providing international call blocking services are based on the assumption that they will have to provide it universally. AT&T maintains that the Commission's requirement to provide international call blocking was limited to locations "where technically feasible." NATA claims that the potential gains in reduced fraud would justify a federal requirement making international call blocking available to all multi-line business customers. Sprint contends that international call blocking should be expanded to include calls to the 809 area code, which permits international calling to the Caribbean region. Another commenter argues against Sprint's proposal, stating that there are technical problems that prevent blocking of an area code and suggests that, alternatively, country codes should be assigned to Jamaica and the Dominican Republic, two countries that the commenter alleges account for a large percentage of fraudulent traffic terminating in the region. TURN, a California consumer advocacy group, supports making international call blocking services available to all residential and small business customers to the extent that it is technically and economically feasible. TURN states that there have been several instances in which immigrants have been declared legally responsible for huge telephone bills resulting from unauthorized calling. 8. Discussion. The issue of toll fraud, and particularly international toll fraud, has come before the Commission in many contexts and long has been a source of considerable concern to this agency. Although some commenters have argued that non-aggregator business customers are not subject to toll fraud, this position is directly contradicted by the record in this proceeding and in other proceedings before the Commission. The record in this docket shows that there is a very severe international toll fraud problem that adversely affects business customers. We, therefore, have decided to require the LECs to offer their federally tariffed international call blocking service on an unbundled basis to all business customers, aggregators and non-aggregators alike, where technically feasible and economically reasonable. In some instances the technical capability to provide international blocking does not currently exist. For example, some central offices may not have the technical capability to provide international blocking. Where LECs replace switches in such central offices in the normal course of their investment programs, it may then be "technically feasible and economically reasonable" for LECs to provide this international blocking service. 9. Another issue concerns whether to require the LECs to block calls to the 809 area code as part of the international blocking service required by this order. We find that the record on this issue is not adequate, in light of the technical feasibility questions raised in the comments. We, therefore, decline, at this time, to require the LECs to expand their international blocking service to include the 809 area code. We believe that such a service would be useful in preventing toll fraud and we encourage LECs to offer it on a voluntary basis. 2. International Blocking for Residential Consumers 10. Background: We note however, the Commission has recently received numerous complaints about calls that are directly dialed by domestic telephone subscribers to information providers located in foreign countries that offer adult-oriented information services. The information providers advertise the services in U.S. publications, and callers dial the number as they would any other international number and are billed by their presubscribed carrier at the tariffed rate in the normal course of business. Although the information providers receive no compensation directly from the U.S. carrier, we understand that they receive from the foreign terminating carrier a portion of the proceeds paid by the U.S. carrier to the foreign carrier pursuant to established settlement rates and procedures. The carriers terminating the calls to these information providers profit from the influx of calls from the United States, especially in locations where accounting rates are above cost. 11. The problems created by adult-oriented information services located in foreign countries arose after the Commission adopted rules in 1991 governing 900 and other information services and only became apparent after the record in this proceeding had closed. The international calls evade important consumer safeguards in our "pay-per-call" and other rules, because they are offered at the tariffed rates and thus do not fit within the statutory definition of "pay-per-call" in Section 228 of the Act. The recently enacted Telecommunications Act of 1996 amended Section 228(i)(2) to eliminate the "tariffed services" exception, which removes the statutory barrier to application of rules on pay-per-call to such international information services. 12. Unlike toll fraud, the use of international toll service to provide information services appears to be a significant problem for residential customers and could be at least partially addressed by an international blocking service. In light of the rapid growth in the availability of, and complaints about, international information services since comments were last filed in this proceeding, we issued a Public Notice in March 1995 requesting further specific comments. Specifically, we asked LECs to comment on the costs they would incur to provide international call blocking service to residential customers and to show the extent to which those costs would be reduced by not providing blocking in areas in which it would not be technically feasible and economically reasonable to do so. 13. Comments and Replies: Fifteen parties submitted comments in response to the Public Notice. Six of the commenting parties support the Commission's proposal to require LECs to offer international call blocking to residential customers where technically feasible and economically reasonable. Two of the six parties, however, claim that international call blocking is not the most effective protection for the subscriber against abuses in the international pay-per-call market. Additionally, two commenters supported international blocking for residential consumers in the original proceeding, although they did not comment in response to the Public Notice. 14. Nine commenters oppose a requirement that LECs provide international call blocking service to residential customers. These parties argue that the costs imposed on LECs would substantially outweigh the benefits derived by residential subscribers for the prevention of unauthorized international information-provider calls. LECs argue that in order to implement international call blocking service and ensure its availability to all residential customers, they must update databases with new line class codes, accelerate switch replacement, deplete switch memory, and incur substantial labor and administrative costs to provide a service for which the LECs claim there is little demand. 15. Although LECs are the primary opponents of international call blocking for residential subscribers, the Florida Public Service Commission and MCI also oppose such a requirement. Most of the commenters acknowledge that international call blocking is both over-inclusive because it blocks all out-going direct-dialed international calls from the customer's premises, not merely calls to international information providers, and under- inclusive because it would not reach international calls to information providers in countries within the North American Numbering Plan area (e.g., Caribbean and Canada), or those using 500, 700, or 800 services to connect the calls to international information providers. Commenters contend that international call blocking is a futile effort because information providers will continue to evade technical safeguards, just as they did when the Commission adopted its domestic "pay-per-call" rules to block access to 900 services. 16. Discussion: We recognize that international pay-per-call, including dial-a-porn, services currently are a significant concern for residential consumers. The record in this proceeding, however, does not clearly establish that international blocking for residential consumers would be either technically feasible or economically reasonable or that it would be effective in helping such consumers limit access to international information services. We conclude that, for the present time, the better course would be to monitor the level of complaints about international pay-per-call services, and revisit this or other options if it appears that the problems consumers currently encounter with international pay-per-call services continue unabated. We will not, therefore, require the LECs to provide international blocking to residential customers at this time. We do not intend, by this decision, to discourage LECs from deploying this feature if they conclude that it is technically feasible and economically reasonable to provide it. B. Whether OLS and BNS Services Must Be Tariffed at the Federal Level 17. Background. Aggregators typically obtain screening services to be associated with their telephone lines. OSPs order the delivery of OLS data when they purchase access service. OLS services give the OSP information concerning the subscriber's line from which a call originates, which the OSP can use in processing the call. OLS service sends a two- digit code (00 through 99) that indicates the nature of the originating line to the OSP. For example, the two-digit code, "27," is sent to the OSP when a call originates from a standard LEC coin telephone. Requests for new codes are considered by an industry group, the Exchange Carrier Standards Association, and administered by the North American Numbering Plan Administrator (NANPA) at Bell Communications Research, Inc. (Bellcore). 18. The OLS and BNS services each perform two functions; first, the assignment of screening codes to customer lines and, second, the delivery of screening codes to OSPs. With respect to the first function, the LECs have generally assigned BNS and OLS codes to aggregators and other customers under state tariffs. This function, which allows aggregators and other end users to confirm that appropriate codes are assigned to their lines, will be referred to as OLS and BNS "confirmation services." We are primarily concerned with these services when we discuss our jurisdiction to require federally tariffed OLS and BNS services. Second, the LECs delivery of OLS and BNS screening information to OSPs is governed by federal tariffs. 19. Three technologies either deliver OLS service or could be used to do so. First, automatic numbering identification information indicators (ANI II) is a widely used technology that sends a two-digit OLS code along with the ANI, which delivers the billing number for the originating line. Five codes are currently available through the ANI II technology. Some common ANI II codes are: 00, to indicate plain old telephone service (POTS), no special treatment needed; 02, ANI failure; 06, Hotel/Motel when room is not automatically identified; and 07, special operator handling required. New codes, however, cannot be added to the ANI II technology without rewriting the generic switch software and installing the revised version in each switch. The second technology that can be used to provide OLS services is flexible automatic numbering identification (Flex ANI). Flex ANI is more versatile and easily changed than ANI II, but less widely deployed. Flex ANI codes are generated by databases, generally located in end offices, and new codes can be added to the databases without having to rewrite or install different generic switch software. Like ANI II, Flex ANI provides two digit codes that identify the nature of the originating line. Flex ANI can provide all of the codes available through ANI II while also providing additional codes. There are approximately 80 assignable Flex ANI codes and NANPA recently assigned two new Flex ANI codes, 29 for prison/inmate service and 70 for private payphones. Under the less discriminating ANI II system, those phones would generally be included in the larger 06 or 07 categories. The third technology is the line information data base (LIDB). LIDB is offered through regional data bases called service control points (SCPs), which provide a variety of database services. Although LIDB is not currently capable of providing OLS, several LECs are planning to modify LIDB to do so. 20. BNS is a service that informs OSPs of billing restrictions that apply to the line to which a collect or third-party call is to be billed. OSPs order BNS service when they purchase LIDB service. The Further Reconsideration/Further NPRM invited comments on our tentative conclusion that OLS and BNS services must be tariffed at the federal level. 21. Comments and Replies. The LECs generally oppose federal tariffing of OLS and BNS services. They argue that these services are traditionally provided through state tariffs and they express concern that aggregators may engage in "tariff shopping" if similar screening services are available through both state and federal tariffs. GTE argues that federal tariffing would impose an unnecessary administrative burden on it because it would have to revise its state tariffs to make them uniform among the jurisdictions. Southwestern Bell, however, supports the federal tariffing of OLS service that is provided to OSPs through the LIDB database. Southwestern Bell opposes federal tariffing of OLS confirmation services for aggregators. As an alternative to federal tariffing, BellSouth suggests that the Commission establish a certification procedure to ensure that OLS and BNS services offered through state tariffs satisfy minimum federal criteria. Bell Atlantic and several other commenters state that OLS service is currently provided in the information indicator (II) digits that are normally sent with ANI as part of Feature Group D service. Therefore, Bell Atlantic says, there is no separate OLS screening service to tariff at the federal level. Rochester, without citing any statutory or case law to support its position, argues that there is no jurisdictional basis for a federal tariffing requirement. Pacific asserts that OSPs do not need any new services to reduce toll fraud and that the problem is that some OSPs have made a business decision not to take advantage of the services that are available. GTE states that adding OLS to LIDB will save much expense by eliminating the need to implement new ANI II digits every time industry forums develop such changes. 22. APCC, an organization of independent public payphone providers, claims that federal tariffing of screening services is needed to create uniformity and to establish those services in geographical areas where they are not currently available through state tariffs. NARUC, which represents state public utility regulators, states that it has adopted a resolution that toll fraud prevention programs should be offered under state tariff to customers in order to minimize the cost of responding to toll fraud. AT&T supports federal tariffs for interstate OLS and BNS services and contends that, in this instance, the Commission does not have explicit statutory authority to require that state tariffs comply with minimum federal standards. AT&T states, however, that requiring OSPs to obtain screening information through LIDB queries could significantly increase the cost of and the call set-up time required for interstate traffic when compared to the current originating screening services. Sprint argues that it would be cumbersome for the Commission to monitor compliance with its objectives through the review of tariffs filed in separate states and that such a system might provoke regulatory disputes between the federal and state regulators. 23. Discussion. We conclude that OLS and BNS services should be federally tariffed. The record shows that the existing state-tariffed screening services are not uniform and are frequently not available to all classes of aggregators. The record shows that some of the LECs' state-tariffed OLS services are restricted to some classes of aggregators, or bundled with other services that make them less desirable to aggregators or, in some cases, aggregators are provided with types of lines that do not deliver appropriate OLS codes. In light of the seriousness and magnitude of the toll fraud problem, we find that the services offered under state tariffs are not always adequate to meet the needs of OSPs in their efforts to prevent interstate toll fraud. 24. We disagree with Rochester's unsupported assertion that the Commission lacks the authority to require federal tariffing of BNS and OLS services. As the Commission previously noted in this proceeding, Section 2(a) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C.  152(a), gives the Commission jurisdiction over interstate communications. In California v. FCC, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit considered a challenge to several Commission orders in the Open Network Architecture proceeding. The Commission had required that LECs federally tariff all Open Network Architecture Basic Service Elements (BSEs) that are technically compatible with interstate access services. In rejecting California's challenge, the court stated that, by requiring the tariffing of these BSEs, the Commission did not preempt the states from regulating intrastate services, but merely established the interstate part of a dual regulatory structure. The court also rejected California's argument that the Commission must define BSEs based on their jurisdictional use and regulate only those that are actually used for interstate communications service. In the instant proceeding, we adopt a federal tariffing requirement for OLS and BNS services used in conjunction with interstate toll services. This action does not preempt the states from regulating OLS and BNS services used in conjunction with intrastate services. Therefore, we have ample authority to require federal tariffing of OLS and BNS services. 25. The BNS confirmation service that this Order requires LECs to add to their federal LIDB tariff is simply a modification of the LECs' existing federal tariffs for LIDB service. This Order only requires the LECs to modify their existing federal LIDB tariffs to allow aggregators to confirm that the BNS screening codes, which are already being entered in the LIDB database for the provision of a federally tariffed service, are appropriate. The OSP will be able to determine the jurisdictional nature of the call at the time it initiates the query to the BNS service in the LIDB database. It can then direct interstate and international calls to the federally tariffed BNS service in the LIDB database. This Order does not preclude the states from requiring, or the LECs from offering, BNS service under state tariff for the screening of intrastate telecommunications services. 26. The only OLS functions that have been tariffed at the state level are confirmation services that allow the aggregator or other customer to have appropriate OLS codes assigned to their lines. The state-tariffed OLS confirmation services have been offered since approximately 1993 and are provided with current technology, primarily ANI II. The ANI II technology is only capable of offering five codes at the present time and we do not believe that it will be economically feasible for the LECs to provide additional OLS codes with that technology. Our requirement that the LECs provide federally-tariffed OLS confirmation and delivery services will require the LECs to implement additional capabilities not currently present in either their state-tariffed confirmation services or their federally-tariffed delivery services, specifically a separate code for private payphones and such other codes as are necessary to identify other categories of aggregator locations. The LECs plan to add OLS screening capability, which can provide a much wider range of screening codes, to the LIDB database software by September of 1996. Once that capability is in place, state-tariffed OLS confirmation services, to the extent they are still desirable, could still be provided under the existing ANI II technology, while federally-tariffed OLS confirmation and delivery services could be provided through the OLS service in the LIDB data base. The OSP would know the jurisdiction (interstate or intrastate) at the time it was processing the call and could direct OLS screening queries on interstate calls to the federally-tariffed OLS service provided through the LIDB database. 27. We believe that the benefits of improved toll fraud prevention that would result from implementation of additional OLS screening codes would outweigh the additional expense that the OSPs would incur and the added call set-up time they would experience on some calls. A LEC may obtain a temporary waiver of the requirement to provide federally- tariffed OLS confirmation and delivery services if it demonstrates that it would not be "technically feasible or economically reasonable" to provide the additional capabilities required by this Order. For example, if a LEC provides its state-tariffed OLS screening service through Flex-ANI, it could obtain a waiver of the federal-tariffing requirement if it could demonstrate that it was not technically feasible or economically reasonable to establish a separate federally-tariffed service, either through Flex-ANI or through LIDB, to serve interstate traffic. 28. The LECs generally oppose a requirement that they federally tariff their OLS and BNS services because they claim it would encourage "tariff shopping." The fact that, as a result of this Order, similar services may be tariffed at both the state and federal levels does not limit our jurisdiction to require federal tariffing of these services. In California v. FCC, the Ninth Circuit rejected this argument, stating that "the potential problem of tariff shopping, however, cannot deprive the FCC of jurisdiction to regulate services based on potential interstate use." Federally-tariffed OLS "confirmation services" will provide capabilities not available through the state-tariffed services. We believe that tariff shopping for OLS confirmation services will be reduced because aggregators and other customers will have to consider both the features offered by the federal and state services, as well as their prices. Many customers may find that they have a need for both services. 29. NARUC expresses concern about the potential for increased costs that a requirement to tariff OLS and BNS services at the federal level might create. LECs already offer a federally-tariffed service, LIDB, that essentially fulfills our requirements for tariffing of a BNS service so any additional cost to provide the required BNS service should be minimal. Should the LECs choose to add federally-tariffed OLS confirmation and delivery services to LIDB, the incremental cost would include additional software and administration and should be relatively modest because much of the infrastructure required to provide these services already exists. We recognize that LECs may incur some additional costs if they tariff these services at both the state and federal levels. We believe, however, that any incremental costs of providing federally tariffed OLS and BNS services, whether incurred by LECs or OSPs, would be outweighed by the substantial savings from reductions in toll fraud that the implementation of improved screening services is intended to produce. Additionally, AT&T's concerns about increases in call set-up time on some calls, while legitimate, are outweighed by the benefits of improved toll fraud prevention, provided that the LECs make reasonable efforts to minimize these delays. 30. Moreover, Section 226(g) of the Communications Act authorizes us to require federal tariffing of OLS and BNS services by directing that we take "such actions or measures as are necessary to ensure that aggregators are not exposed to an undue risk of fraud." Because toll fraud on interstate and international traffic is a serious problem and because the state-tariffed OLS and BNS services do not provide either an adequate variety of codes or uniform screening services available to all classes of aggregators in all areas of the country, we find that federally tariffed services are necessary to assure effective toll fraud prevention for aggregators on interstate and international traffic. Our decision does not preempt states from requiring or administering tariffs for screening services applicable to intrastate traffic. There is no basis in the record in this proceeding for concluding that such state tariffing is inconsistent with our federal tariffing requirement for screening services provided in connection with interstate telecommunications services. C. Whether the LECs Should Be Required to Provide An OLS Service with Discrete and Uniform Codes 31. Background. As discussed above, OLS information can be provided either through automatic number identification information indicators (ANI II), flexible automatic number identification (Flex ANI) or, in the future, through enhancements to the LIDB database. Under ANI II, one of a limited set of two digit codes that are included in the data stream is sent from the LEC's originating switch to the OSP when a call is set up. These two digit codes identify the line by the nature of the originating location, such as a business, a hotel, or a LEC payphone. When an OSP receives a call, it can use the information about the nature of the originating location (i.e., whether prison inmate telephone or hospital room telephone, although ANI II cannot provide that level of detail) to determine whether to allow the call to be billed to the originating line or to require another form of payment, such as a telephone company credit card. Uniform assignment of these codes throughout the country may also significantly affect an OSP's ability to screen calls to prevent toll fraud. For example, if a LEC in one part of the country includes private payphones in the "00" code while other LECs use that code only to indicate regular business and residential lines, an OSP may not be able to prevent calls from being billed to the payphone line instead of to the caller. Flex ANI is similar to ANI II, but has the capability to deliver a greater variety of two digit codes because it is provisioned more flexibly and, therefore, new codes can be more easily added. Finally, some LECs have developed supplemental databases for their own use that store information about both the type of line and the billing restrictions that may apply to particular lines. 32. Comments and Replies. The Commission requested comments on whether LECs should be required to assign OLS codes in a nationally uniform manner. Bell Atlantic asserts that the ANI II digits are uniform nationally, as they are administered centrally by Bellcore. Bell Atlantic alleges, however, that when an OSP needs more information, for example, about the reasons for the assignment of an "07" code (special operator handling required), it must consult supplementary "screening tables" or databases that have been developed separately by individual LECs. These supplementary databases do not use uniform codes. Four BOCs indicate that they have contracted with Bellcore to develop a service that would incorporate information currently contained in the supplementary databases into their LIDB databases. According to those carriers, that service will be available within two years. 33. AT&T argues that the codes currently available through ANI II only provide OSPs with general information about the line from which a call originates (e.g., whether it is a line that requires special operator handling, a category that could include entities as diverse as prisons, college dormitories and hospitals). AT&T contends that dividing the current codes into more discrete categories would enable OSPs to identify categories of aggregators more precisely, which would greatly enhance the effectiveness of the LECs' OLS services. AT&T opposes the incorporation of OLS screening information into the LIDB database if that method would replace the OLS screening information that can be provided through Flex ANI. AT&T recommends that the Commission promote industry arrangements to develop new information identifier (II) codes for use with OLS services. Sprint strongly supports the Commission's proposal that nationwide uniform screening codes should be used and argues that the use of Flex ANI is necessary to get the full range of screening codes. Sprint states, however, that not all LECs have implemented Flex ANI and, some that have, have done so on a piecemeal basis. Sprint urges the Commission to encourage the prompt implementation of industry agreements upon reasonable requests for service. APCC argues that all LECs should be required to use the same information digits to identify independent payphone lines because otherwise OSPs could not properly identify the restrictions applicable to such lines, and thereby prevent fraud. 34. Discussion. We require the LECs to federally tariff OLS services that provide a discrete code to identify privately owned payphones and such other codes as are necessary to identify other categories of aggregator locations. The screening services currently available to aggregators have several deficiencies. First, they lack uniformity. The record shows that different LECs are assigning different OLS codes to payphones. This lack of uniformity among LECs creates serious problems for OSPs as they process interstate and international traffic. We find that, in order to prevent toll fraud, it is essential that all LECs use the same OLS codes for the same types of aggregator telephones. Another problem with the existing screening services is that each code covers many different classes of service. OLS services must separate classes of service into categories that are narrowly defined to enable OSPs to identify the different types of originating lines. Specifically, the LECs must provide a screening code that discretely identifies privately owned payphones and must provide such other codes as are necessary to identify various other types of aggregator locations. Because of the limitations on the number of codes available through it, we do not believe that the ANI II technology will be capable of providing adequate protection against toll fraud. D. Whether the Commission Should Permit LECs to Provide BNS Service Through the LIDB Data Base 35. Comments and Replies. Bell Atlantic claims that BNS service is already available through its LIDB billing validation service, a federally tariffed offering. Pacific states that it would be sensible to provide BNS as part of LIDB because the BNS data is already in the LIDB database and is accessed in the same way as other LIDB data. AT&T supports federal tariffing of BNS services and agrees that the LECs' current LIDB databases are sufficient to satisfy this requirement, provided the LIDB offerings are modified to remove restrictions on their availability to aggregators. 36. Discussion. No commenters disputed our tentative conclusion that the Bell Atlantic BNS service offered through the LIDB database meets our requirement that LECs federally tariff a BNS service. With regard to BNS, we find that the services currently offered by the LECs through LIDB are generally adequate to satisfy our requirements for a BNS service, provided that the LECs take all reasonable steps necessary to ensure that the database operates reliably, and contains current and accurate information. Further, as discussed in the following section, the LEC must provide a means for the aggregator or other customer to ensure that appropriate billing restrictions are associated with its line. E. Implementation Issues Affecting Both OLS and BNS Services 1. Limitations on Availability of Service 37. Comments and Replies. The Further Reconsideration/Further NPRM asked for comment on whether OLS and BNS services for interstate traffic must be generally available and not restricted to any class of customer. Several parties commented that LECs offer different screening capabilities to aggregators than to OSPs and that the terms OLS and BNS do not have a uniform meaning throughout the industry. Bell Atlantic argues that the screening services are designed to meet the needs of OSPs and that end users, such as aggregators, have no use for these services. In contrast, Pacific contends that the record is bereft of evidence that any class of customers other than aggregators would want OLS or BNS services. NYNEX claims that it currently makes billed number screening available under state tariffs to all classes of customers. It states that a customer wishing to prevent collect or billed-to-third-number calls from being billed to its telephone may simply request BNS from NYNEX. That customer's number is added to the LIDB database, which will then indicate to operators that such calls should not be completed. 38. Discussion. Much of the debate regarding whether OLS and BNS services should be generally available and not restricted to one class of customers stems from confusion about the precise nature of the screening service that LECs would be required to provide to aggregators. It is clear that an aggregator that only makes pay telephones on its premises available to the public has no need to receive OLS screening digits or to perform a BNS query; that information is needed by the OSP that routes the traffic. Such an aggregator, however, does have a compelling need to assure that appropriate screening digits or billing restrictions are associated with its lines. This Order simply requires them to file federal tariffs for those services and to provide in their tariffs that aggregators or other customers can, for a modest non-recurring charge, ensure that the codes assigned to their lines provide appropriate protection against fraudulent calling. 2. Bundling of Screening Services 39. Comments and Replies. The Commission also proposed in the Further Reconsideration/Further NPRM to require OLS and BNS services to be provided as discrete, unbundled services. Pacific argues that BNS provided through the LIDB database is inherently bundled with other LIDB data and that requiring unbundling from LIDB would impose unnecessary costs. Southwestern Bell, however, offers BNS through its LIDB database, either separately or in conjunction with calling card validation, which is also offered through LIDB. Pacific further states that there is no demand from aggregators for the kind of unbundling described in the Further Reconsideration/Further NPRM. Pacific claims that requiring OLS and BNS services to be offered on an unbundled basis would consume a great deal of switch capacity. APCC states that OLS and BNS are sometimes bundled into the basic service offered to independent payphone providers and that these services are more expensive when offered on an unbundled basis. 40. Discussion. The bundling of services to aggregators is a complex issue. We are persuaded that requiring OLS services to be offered as separate, unbundled services would unnecessarily consume scarce switch resources if, for example, OLS service were always included when an aggregator subscribed to a payphone line. The record in this proceeding shows, however, that LECs have frequently bundled OLS in a way that discourages aggregators from subscribing to it. If, for example, a LEC combined OLS services with 1+ blocking a payphone aggregator subscribing to those services could be placed at a competitive disadvantage because the aggregator could be forced to forego revenue that other payphone providers, such as the LECs, would not be blocked from obtaining. We do not believe that it is in the public interest to require an aggregator to take a bundled service that puts it a competitive disadvantage when compared with other payphone providers. Therefore, we will require the LECs to provide OLS service on an unbundled basis. A LEC will only be able to provide OLS on a bundled basis if it makes a showing that such bundling will not place aggregators at a competitive disadvantage. Additionally, even if bundling would put aggregators at a competitive disadvantage, LECs may be temporarily excused from their obligation to unbundle if they can show that it is not technically feasible or would be economically unreasonable to unbundle OLS service. 41. Since BNS services, when delivered through LIDB, do not consume switch memory, we will require LECs to unbundle the BNS service that they provide to aggregators or other customers. A customer's decision to decline to accept collect or third-party billed calls on its line should not be dependent on whether the customer agrees to purchase other features or services in a package. Also, we are not requiring LECs to unbundle the BNS services that they provide to OSPs. LIDB offers credit card validation and BNS services as a package. Since both of these services are charged primarily on a per-query basis, OSPs will only have to pay for those aspects of the service that they use. We are persuaded that the difficulties of requiring LECs to unbundle BNS service provided to OSPs from their existing LIDB service would outweigh the benefits. We, however, note that Southwestern Bell is able to provide BNS and credit card validation services on an unbundled basis through LIDB. 3. Reasonableness of Rates 42. Comments and Replies. Finally, the Commission proposed to require OLS and BNS services to be provided at reasonable rates. Although APCC does not express concern about the level of the rates for federally tariffed services, it does argue that we should avoid creating a system in which payphone providers have to purchase identical screening services from both the federal and state tariffs and pay two separate charges for them. 43. Discussion. We would not expect that most LECs would have to incur any significant additional investment or expense in order to comply with the requirement to provide federally tariffed BNS and OLS confirmation screening services. With regard to both OLS and BNS, the designation of billing restrictions on a line is a one-time event. Therefore, it would be appropriate to assess a non-recurring charge on aggregators or other customers that only want to ensure that the OLS or BNS designation for their line will indicate the billing restrictions that apply to that line. We conclude that carriers should be able to comply with the requirement for these new services at a modest cost. This rate structure should mitigate any concerns that APCC may have about paying duplicate charges at the state and federal level because the incremental cost of obtaining screening services at the federal level should be modest. IV. CONCLUSION 44. In this Order, we require LECs to provide international blocking services to business customers, where technically feasible and economically reasonable. We do not, however, require the LECs to provide such blocking for residential consumers at this time. Also, we require LECs to tariff, at the federal level, BNS and OLS screening services that allow aggregators to ensure that the proper screening codes are associated with their telephone lines. The OLS service must deliver a code that discretely identifies private payphones and such other codes as are necessary to identify other categories of aggregator locations. We emphasize again that it is important for LECs to use uniform codes for the OLS services the provide. We require the LECs to unbundle their OLS "confirmation services," unless they can show that bundling would not place aggregators at a competitive disadvantage or that it is not technically feasible or would be economically unreasonable to unbundle OLS service. We require that LECs unbundle the BNS service they provide to aggregators under federal tariff and make that service available to both aggregators and non-aggregators. Finally, we specify a rate structure for OLS and BNS services. V. ORDERING CLAUSES 45. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority contained in Sections 1, 4, 201-205, 218, 220 and 226 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  151, 154, 201-205 and 226, that the policies and requirements set forth herein ARE ADOPTED. 46. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Order will be effective thirty (30) days after a summary of its contents is published in the Federal Register. 47. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 203 of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C.  203, each of the LECs SHALL FILE revisions to their federal tariffs, reflecting the requirements of this order to provide international blocking service for non-aggregator business customers and Billed Number Screening (BNS) service within 60 days after the effective date of this Order. 48. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 203 of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C.  203, each of the LECs SHALL FILE tariff revisions, reflecting the requirements of this order to federally tariff Originating Line Screening (OLS) service, no later than December 1, 1996. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION William F. Caton Acting Secretary APPENDIX A List of Parties Filing Comments and/or Replies: American Public Communications Council (APCC) American Telephone & Telegraph Company (AT&T) Ameritech Operating Companies (Ameritech) Bell Atlantic Telephone Companies (Bell Atlantic) BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. (BellSouth) GTE Service Corporation (GTE) International Communications Association (ICA) MCI Telecommunications Corporation (MCI) North American Telecommunications Association (NATA) New York Telephone Company and New England Telephone and Telegraph Company (NYNEX) Pacific and Nevada Bell (Pacific) Rochester Telephone Company (Rochester) Southwestern Bell Telephone Company (Southwestern Bell) Sprint Communications Corporation (Sprint) Telecommunications Association (TCA) Toward Utility Rate Normalization (TURN) United States Telephone Association (USTA) List of Parties Filing Comments and/or Replies in Response to the Public Notice of March 24, 1995: Ameritech Operating Companies (Ameritech) Bell Atlantic Telephone Companies (Bell Atlantic) Florida Public Service Commission (FPSC) GTE Service Corporation (GTE) MCI Telecommunications Corporation (MCI) National Association of Attorneys General (NAAG) NYNEX Telephone Companies (NYNEX) Pacific Bell Companies (Pacific) Pennsylvania Office of Consumer Advocate (POCA) Puerto Rico Telephone Company (PRTC) Southwestern Bell Telephone Company (Southwestern Bell) Sprint Communications Company, L.P. (Sprint) Telecommunications Resellers Association (TRA) United and Central Telephone Companies (United) United States Telephone Association (USTA) US West Communications, Inc. (US West)