WPC 2B'J CourierCG TimesCG Times BoldCG Times ItalicE37XPCG Timeset 4M 518 LPT2m 518 lpt2)HPLA4MP0.PRSx  @\9aX@26 ZF Z13|w@HP LaserJet 4M 518 LPT2m 518 lpt2)HPLA4MP0.PRSXw PE37\9aXP8wC;,` ưX ",tB^ f ^;C]ddCCCdCCCCddddddddddCCdxN`xoCCCddCdoYoYFdo8Co8odooYNCodddYdddd4dddddCddddddddo8dddddYYYYYN8N8N8N8oddddooooddpddddxodddXXddXddXdddddooL8doddNorddo8PdN8ppoddXXdpLoNpLodPDdopoopodXYXodoodddCddCCCWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNdddCdUUddddddFddddFCCssd44ddzzddd~ooCsdF"dsd9dCCzCddoddCdYds`zUvdddCCCCzozoYNYYYN8YooYdYzzdzddYYzozzzNdzYzzzzCCdddddddzCzdYC\   pxtll\tll@\@\`L8wC;,><q*"xxxxWWxxxWWkkxxx><q*"xxxxWWxxxWWkkxxxqevt\tkVevttth555PP5GPGPG5PP,,P,|PPPP;>,PPtPPGGPGP*PPPPP5PPPPPPPPP,tGtGtGtGtGknGeGeGeGeG5,5,5,5,vPtPtPtPtPvPvPvPvPtPtGvPtPtPtPvP\PtFtPtFmFmFnPnPv`cFePePcFtPtPtPtPtPvPvP5,PPPP5PuYPPqPc-c:ePf0c-vP]vPvPsPtPtj:j:kPV=V=V=VPc:c-ePvPvPvPvPvPvPttPfFfFfFvPePvPVPePtP`5PP555WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNtttPPP5GAAPPPPPP8PPPP855SSP))PPbbyPPtP_YY5SP8"ttPtSttP厎.P55tbtttttttttt5PtPYPtkP5PtGP\t|httttttttttJttttttkb|tD_tttttttPtttttttGttttGtttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt5ttt5ttt5ttt5ttttttttttttttbeYbYkGe>hGvPtG5,qGkYYvGkPtGtb\PbPPeGtGkbtY|bbbtev5PtttbGbbbbu55PPPPtvPPPtttb5\PG5ؐJppZ`]mmVVjjvvsp}vvJv]VV3J3Jʀ}}}}}}}}M=f}dYYCCCCt~ezbk~ehvtC5qkvktts\zb~etkt|zb~CdzYzzzzCCdddddddzCsdYC\   pxtll\tll@\@\`L8wC;,M|kt|`|tYkttttk555PP5PYGYG8PY,5Y,YPYYG>5YPtPPGPPPP*PPPPP5PPPPPPPPY,tPtPtPtPtPttGkGkGkGkG>,>,>,>,tY|P|P|P|PtYtYtYtYtPtPtZ|P|PtPtP`YsPtPsPsFsFtPtPsmjFkPkPjF}P|P|P|P|P|Y|Y=,PYPP>Y\PP|Yj-j@kPk>k,sZsZtY}P|PvsFsFtPZ=Y>Z=YPj@j6kPtYsZtYtYsZtYttPjFkGjFtYkPtYYPkPtPm5PP555WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNtttPPP5PDDPPPPPP8PPPP855\\P))PPbbyPPtPeYY5\P8"ttPt\ttP厎.P55tbtttttttttt5PtPYPtkP5PtGP\t|nttttttttttMttttttkb|tD_tttttttPtttttttPttttPtttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt5ttt5ttt5ttt5ttttttttttttttbkYbYkGk>kG|GtG>,|GkYYtGkP|GtbbPbPPkGtGkbtY|bbbtk|>P|ttbGbbbbu55PPPPt|PPPtttb5bPG5ؐJppZ`]mmVVjjvvsp}vvJv]VV3J3Jʀ}}}}}}}}M=f}",tB^ f ^;C]ddCCCdCCCCddddddddddCCY~~vCN~sk~CCCddCtenve_tv5>qevt\tkVevttthYdYd4dddddCddddddddd8YYYYYY~Y~Y~Y~YC8C8C8C8ddddddddddYdddddsdXdXXXddx|X~d~d|XdddddddC8ddddCdoddd|8|H~d<|8dtddddHHdlLlLlLkd|H|8~ddddddddXXXd~ddkd~ddxCddCCCWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNdddCYQQddddddFddddFCChhd44ddzzdddvooChdF"dhd9dCCzCddoddCdYds]zUvdYYCCCCt~ezbk~ehvtC5qkvktts\zb~etkt|zb~CdzYzzzzCCdddddddzCsdYC\   pxtll\tll@\@\`L2f jny",tB^ f ^;C]ddCCCdCCCCddddddddddCCdxN`xoCCCddCtkttk`||>M|kt|`|tYkttttkdddd4dddddCddddddddo8dddddYYYYYN8N8N8N8oddddooooddpddddxodddXXddXddXdddddooL8doddNorddo8PdN8ppoddXXdpLoNpLodPDdopoopodXYXodoodddCddCCCWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNdddCdUUddddddFddddFCCssd44ddzzddd~ooCsdF"dsd9dCCzCddoddCdYds`zUvdddCCCCtkzbkkk|tN>|ktk|tzbzbktkt|zbNdzYzzzzCCdddddddzCzdYC\   pxtll\tll@\@\`L"i~'K2^$(:< ,x Y-ԍ AT&T Comments at 4. > 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  Y - &international call blocking was limited to locations "where technically feasible." x Yc- &ԍ AT&T Reply Comments at 5, citing Docket 9135 Reconsideration Order,  7 FCC Rcd at 4361. NATA claims  &+ that the potential gains in reduced fraud would justify a federal requirement making international  Y - &Jcall blocking available to all multiline business customers.D yx Y-ԍ NATA Reply Comments at 3. D Sprint contends that international  &Mcall blocking should be expanded to include calls to the 809 area code, which permits  Yy- &international calling to the Caribbean region.@y* x YT-ԍ Sprint Comments at 2. @ Another commenter argues against Sprint's  &Zproposal, 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  Y- &<traffic terminating in the region. x Y - &ԍ BellSouth Reply Comments at 2. BellSouth argues that calls to the 809 area code are  &placed using 1+ dialing, while calls subject to international call blocking uniformly employ the  &011 sequence. This difference in the dialing pattern creates a technological barrier to the ready incorporation of the 809 area code into the existing international call blocking service. TURN, a California consumer advocacy group, supports  &[making international call blocking services available to all residential and small business  Y- &;customers to the extent that it is technically and economically feasible. TURN states that there"G0*(("  &have been several instances in which immigrants have been declared legally responsible for huge  Y-telephone bills resulting from unauthorized calling.Cx Yb-ԍ TURN Reply Comments at 1.C pp  Y- : |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 nonaggregator business  Yv- &customers are not subject to toll fraud, this position is directly contradicted by the record in this  Y_- &proceeding and in other proceedings before the Commission.; _yx Y - &ԍ See Public Notice, Florida Public Service Commission Petition for Review of Tariff  Yt - &,Provisions Relating to Liability for Toll Fraud Charges, 8 FCC Rcd 2562 (1993) (establishing  Y_ - &;pleading cycle); Pacific Mutual Petition for Declaratory Ruling, File No. ENF 9107 (petition  YJ - &filed Jan. 30, 1991); Chartways Technologies, Inc. v. AT&T Communications, Memorandum  Y5- &,Opinion and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 2952 (Com.Car.Bur. 1991), Memorandum Opinion and Order,  &8 FCC Rcd 5601 (1993) ($82,000 of fraudulent calls made through complainant's PBX; much  Y - &of the traffic was to Pakistan); United Artists Payphone Corporation v. New York Telephone  Y- &Company and American Telephone and Telegraph Company, Memorandum Opinion and Order,  Y- &8 FCC Rcd 5563 (1993);  Public Notice Record on Toll Fraud to Remain Open, 7 FCC Rcd  Y- &6866 (1992) (related to the Commission's en banc hearing on toll fraud);  Public Notice,  Y- &Consumer Alert Toll Fraud, 6 FCC Rcd 2327 (1991); Public Notice, Consumer Alert  Y- &Telecommunications Toll Fraud, 7 FCC Rcd 3879 (1992); Public Notice, Consumer Alert Toll  Y- &Fraud Risks During the YearEnd Holiday Season, 7 FCC Rcd 8647 (1992). In addition to these  &petitions, several formal complaints are pending before the Common Carrier Bureau raising issues involving toll fraud experienced by both nonaggregator businesses and aggregators.; The record in this docket shows  &=that there is a very severe international toll fraud problem that adversely affects business  Y1- &customers.1x Y- &ԍ See note 14 supra; see also Comments of Leucadia National Corporation, File 93TOLL FRAUD01. We, therefore, have decided to require the LECs to offer their federally tariffed  Y - &international call blocking service on an unbundled basis^ x Yg- &ԍ We find that the bundled blocking approach suggested by GTE is unsatisfactory because  &-it would force residential customers to forego services they may want, such as directdialed international calling, in order to block services they do not want, such as 900 paypercall. ^ to all business customers, aggregators  &xand nonaggregators 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. "y0*((,"Ԍ Y-  : 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  Y- &zon 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.   X_- 2.` ` International Blocking for Residential Consumers  YH-  Y1- :  10.` ` Background: We note however, the Commission has recently received numerous  &Ycomplaints about calls that are directly dialed by domestic telephone subscribers to information  Y - &providers located in foreign countries that offer adultoriented information services.x x Y| - &ԍ In the first eight months of 1995, the Commission received an average of 65 complaints  &per month about international calls offering adultoriented information services. During this  &time period, the Commission also received an average of 272 letters per month period that either  &complained only about 800 paypercall services or about more than one type of paypercall  Y - &service (i.e., 800 and international) in a single letter. Many of these letters included complaints about international paypercall 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  &ipursuant to established settlement rates and procedures. The carriers terminating the calls to  &Jthese information providers profit from the influx of calls from the United States, especially in  YK-locations where accounting rates are above cost.  Y- :  11.` ` The problems created by adultoriented information services located in foreign  &countries arose after the Commission adopted rules in 1991 governing 900 and other information  Y- &services and only became apparent after the record in this proceeding had closed.x Y- &ԍ See Sections 64.1501 to 64.1515 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  64.1501 64.1515. The  &international calls evade important consumer safeguards in our "paypercall" and other rules,  &Jbecause they are offered at the tariffed rates and thus do not fit within the statutory definition  Y- &Jof "paypercall" in Section 228 of the Act.Xx x Y"- &ԍ 47 U.S.C.  228. Since the Commission's "paypercall" rules did not apply to their  &services, international information service providers were not required to comply with the  &consumer protections contained in these rules. These rules included such safeguards as, for  &example, the requirement that a subscriber's service could not be disconnected for failure to pay  &domestic information service charges. Also, LECs must offer a service that blocks these calls  Y'- &and must identify the calls separately on subscribers' bills.  See 47 C.F.R.  64.1501 "'0*(('"  &64.1515. Additionally, the Federal Trade Commission's "paypercall" rules require information  &providers to include a preamble explaining the cost of the call and to allow the caller to hang  Yb-up before charges commence. See 16 C.F.R  308.5(a) and (b).X The recently enacted Telecommunications Act of"M0*((~"  Y- &1996Mx Y- &ԍ Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56,  701(b)(2), to be  &wcodified at 47 U.S.C.  228 (1996). The act struck a provision of the Communications Act that  &excepted "any service the charge for which is tariffed" from the definition of "paypercall services."  amended Section 228(i)(2)Dx Yj -ԍ 47 U.S.C.  228 (i)(2).D to eliminate the "tariffed services" exception, which removes  &Kthe statutory barrier to application of rules on paypercall to such international information services.  Y- : A 12.` ` Unlike toll fraud, the use of international toll service to provide information  Y- &services appears to be a significant problem for residential customers and could be at least  Yv- &partially addressed by an international blocking service.Bvj x Y- &ԍ Such a service would block all directdialed calls to information services that are accessed  & through traditional international dialing sequences (011+ or 10XXX 011+) but would not block  &international information services that are accessed through other dialing patterns. For example,  &;this international blocking service would not block directdialed calls to information providers that do business from locations in the Caribbean (1+809 area code) or in Canada. B In light of the rapid growth in the  &availability of, and complaints about, international information services since comments were  YH- & last filed in this proceeding, we issued a Public Notice in March 1995 requesting further specific  Y3- &wcomments.  3x Y- &ԍ Public Notice, Request for Additional Comments on the Costs and Benefits of  Y- &International Blocking for Residential Customers, 10 FCC Rcd 4549 (March 24, 1995) (Public  Yw-Notice).  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.  Y - :  13.` ` Comments and Replies: Fifteen parties submitted comments in response to the  Y - &Public Notice.!v Fx Y"- &ԍ 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)"-' 0*((_'"  &and United and Central Telephone Companies (United & Central); Telecommunications Resellers  &Association (TRA); United States Telephone Association (USTA); US West Communications, Inc. (US West). Six of the commenting parties support the Commission's proposal to require" K!0*((="  &LECs to offer international call blocking to residential customers where technically feasible and  Y- &Leconomically reasonable.l"Kx Y-ԍ Ameritech; NAAG; POCA; PRTC; TRA; and Sprint and United & Central.l 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  Y- &paypercall market.M#x Yh -ԍ NAAG Comments at 8; TRA Reply at 9.M Additionally, two commenters supported international blocking for  &Yresidential consumers in the original proceeding, although they did not comment in response to  Y-the Public Notice.Q$yo Y -ԍ AT&T Comments at 3; TURN Reply at 1. Q   Ya- :  14.` ` Nine commenters oppose a requirement that LECs provide international call  YJ- &Yblocking service to residential customers.%J^ x YY- &ԍ Bell Atlantic; FPSC; GTE; MCI; NYNEX; Pacific; Southwestern Bell; USTA; and US West. These parties argue that the costs imposed on LECs  &Jwould substantially outweigh the benefits derived by residential subscribers for the prevention  Y - &of unauthorized international informationprovider calls.& x Y- &,ԍ Bell Atlantic Comments at 4; GTE Comments at 23; GTE Reply at 4; MCI Reply at 12;  &NYNEX Reply at 12; Pacific Bell Comments at 12; USTA Comments at 6; and US West Reply at 1011.  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  Y -for which the LECs claim there is little demand.' {x Y- &yԍ Bell Atlantic Comments at 5; GTE Comments 35; NYNEX Reply at 2; Pacific Bell  &-Comments at 23; USTA Comments at 67; and US West Reply at 10. For example, Pacific  &Bell projects that, based on its experience with 900/976 blocking service, international call  &blocking companywide will cost approximately $19.1 million. Pacific Bell Comments at 2.  &hGTE estimates that costs associated with providing minimal international directdialed blocking  &wcapability to residential customers at each end office within GTE's serving area would result in  &Lan unscheduled nearterm cost of approximately $545 million. GTE includes the cost of  &accelerated replacement of all switches that are not currently capable of providing international  &,blocking; it does not state what the cost would be if it were able to defer replacement of some  &switches under the "technically feasible and economically reasonable" standard. GTE Comments at 34. " F'0*((k "Ԍ  (#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 Y- &Zinclusive because it blocks all outgoing directdialed international calls from the customer's  Y- &Ypremises, not merely calls to international information providers,(x Y- &iԍ MCI Reply at 12; NAAG Comment at 8; Southwestern Bell Comments at 1; US West Reply at 23. and underinclusive because  &it would not reach international calls to information providers in countries within the North  Y_- &American Numbering Plan area (e.g., Caribbean and Canada), or those using 500, 700, or 800  YJ- &Yservices to connect the calls to international information providers.)Jbx Y] - &ԍ Bell Atlantic Comments at 34; FPSC Comments at 12; MCI Reply at 12; Pacific Comments at 2; Southwestern Bell Comments at 2; TRA Reply at 9. Commenters contend that  &international call blocking is a futile effort because information providers will continue to evade  &Jtechnical safeguards, just as they did when the Commission adopted its domestic "paypercall"  Y -rules to block access to 900 services.* x Y- &ԍ Bell Atlantic Comments at 34; FPSC Comments at 12; GTE Comments at 2; Pacific Comments at 3; Southwestern Bell Comments at 2.  Y -  : ^16.` ` Discussion: We recognize that international paypercall, including dialaporn,  &.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 paypercall services, and revisit this or other options if it appears that the  &jproblems consumers currently encounter with international paypercall 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.  X- B. X Whether OLS and BNS Services Must Be Tariffed at the Federal Level    (#  Y- : ]17.` ` Background. Aggregators typically obtain screening services to be associated with  &Jtheir 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 twodigit code  &(00 through 99) that indicates the nature of the originating line to the OSP. For example, the"9 *0*((="  Y- &[twodigit code, "27," is sent to the OSP when a call originates from a standard LEC coin  Y-telephone.Q+x Yb- &xԍ See letter from Marie Breslin, Bell Atlantic, to William Caton, Acting Secretary, FCC  YM- &at (July 23, 1993) (Bell Atlantic's July 1993 letter) (filed as ex parte communication in CC Docket 9135, providing information on ANI II and Flex ANI).Q Requests for new codes are considered by an industry group, the Exchange Carrier  Y- &Standards Association,i,Ox Y-ԍ Renamed the Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions.i and administered by the North American Numbering Plan Administrator  Y-(NANPA) at Bell Communications Research, Inc. (Bellcore).]-x Yl -ԍ See Bell Atlantic's July 1993 letter.]   (#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  &Yother 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  Y - &Kwe discuss our jurisdiction to require federally tariffed OLS and BNS services. Second, the  Y - &JLECs delivery of OLS and BNS screening information to OSPs is governed by federal tariffs.. x YP- &iԍ OLS information is provided under the LECs' tariffs for Feature Group D access, (see  Y;-note 52, supra ), and BNS information is provided as part of the LECs' LIDB service.   Y -  : 19.` ` Three technologies either deliver OLS service or could be used to do so. First,  &Yautomatic numbering identification information indicators (ANI II) is a widely used technology  Y- &Ythat sends a twodigit OLS code along with the ANI, which delivers the billing number for the  Yy- &originating line. Five codes are currently available through the ANI II technology.8/yQ x Y{- &zԍ Pacific Comments at 5; Bell Atlantic's July 1993 letter, attaching Bellcore Local  &Exchange Routing Guide, pages 14348 (complete list of all two digit codes that had been recommended by the Exchange Carrier Standards Association). 8 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  &Leach 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"| /0*(("  &;Flex ANI codes and NANPA recently assigned two new Flex ANI codes, 29 for prison/inmate  &jservice and 70 for private payphones. Under the less discriminating ANI II system, those  Y0 %! 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.  Y_0   20. ` ` BNS is a service that informs OSPs of billing restrictions that apply to the line  % to which a collect or thirdparty call is to be billed. OSPs order BNS service when they  Y10 % 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.  Y 0  21. ` ` Comments and Replies. The LECs generally oppose federal tariffing of OLS and  Y 0 % BNS services..0 x YP0 %` ԍ See Bell Atlantic Comments at 8 (but supports Commission's tentative finding that its  % LIDB service meets requirements for BNS); BellSouth Comments at 6; GTE Comments at 5; NYNEX Comments at 56; Rochester Comments at 4. . 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  Y{0 % state tariffs to make them uniform among the jurisdictions.=1{Mx Yy0ԍ GTE Comments at 5. = 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  Y60 %0 aggregators.|26x Y0 %! ԍ Southwestern Bell Comments at 45 ("OLS services, like calling card validation and BNS,  % should be federally tariffed"); GTE Reply at 34 ("GTE agrees with the parties who propose  %p using the LIDB feature OLNS as an alternative to federal tariffing of current OLS service offerings"). | 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  Y0 %@! tariffs satisfy minimum federal criteria.H3j x Y# 0ԍ BellSouth Reply Comments at 4.H Bell Atlantic and several other commenters state that  %0! OLS service is currently provided in the information indicator (II) digits that are normally sent  Y0 %` with ANI as part of Feature Group D service.4 x Y#0 % ԍ Bell Atlantic Comments at 5; USTA Reply at 6; BellSouth Comments at 5 (alludes to  % "current network limitations associated with Flex ANI"); APCC Reply at 2 (OLS is provided  %! to OSPs through the ANI II digits and the nonstandardized databases that are provided to very  % few OSPs pursuant to contract); Sprint Comments at 4 (describes the implementation of Flex  YJ'0 %0 ANI as "haphazard"). But see AT&T Reply at 8 (current originating screening provided"J'30*(('"  Y0 %! through Flex ANI digits). See also Request for Part 69 Waiver of Southwestern Bell Telephone  %P Company at 23 (filed June 28, 1995) (Southwestern Bell currently provides originating call processing and billing restriction information by ANI II digits).  Therefore, Bell Atlantic says, there is no" M40*(( "  Y0 %` separate OLS screening service to tariff at the federal level.G5Mx Y0ԍ Bell Atlantic Comments at 5. G Rochester, without citing any  %@ statutory or case law to support its position, argues that there is no jurisdictional basis for a  Y0 %" federal tariffing requirement.C6x Y 0ԍ Rochester Comments at 2. C 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  Y0 % advantage of the services that are available.j7x Y 0ԍ Pacific Reply Comments at 46; see also GTE Comments at 6.j GTE states that adding OLS to LIDB will save  Y0 % much expense by eliminating the need to implement new ANI II digits every time industry  Yv0forums develop such changes.:8vb x Y0ԍ GTE Reply at 4. :  YH0  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  Y 0 % services in geographical areas where they are not currently available through state tariffs.@9  x Y0ԍ APCC Comments at 46. @  %@! 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  Y 0 % minimize the cost of responding to toll fraud.: x YJ0 % ԍ Letter from James Bradford Ramsey, Deputy Assistant General Counsel, NARUC, to  Y30William F. Caton, Acting Secretary, FCC (July 21, 1993) (NARUC ex parte comments). AT&T supports federal tariffs for interstate  %  OLS and BNS services and contends that, in this instance, the Commission does not have  Y 0 %! explicit statutory authority to require that state tariffs comply with minimum federal standards.D; `x Y0ԍ AT&T Reply Comments at 7. D  % AT&T states, however, that requiring OSPs to obtain screening information through LIDB  % queries could significantly increase the cost of and the call setup time required for interstate  Yb0 %`" traffic when compared to the current originating screening services.;<bx Y$#0ԍ AT&T Reply at 8. ; Sprint argues that it would  %P" be cumbersome for the Commission to monitor compliance with its objectives through the review  Y40 % of tariffs filed in separate states and that such a system might provoke regulatory disputes  Y0between the federal and state regulators.@=x Y'0ԍ Sprint Comments at 3. @ "s=0*(( "Ԍ  Y0  23. ` ` Discussion. We conclude that OLS and BNS services should be federally tariffed.  Y0 %0 The record shows that the existing statetariffed screening services are not uniform and are  Y0 % frequently not available to all classes of aggregators.>x Y40 %! ԍ Further Reconsideration/Further NPRM, 8 FCC Rcd at 2866; see also Sprint Comments  % at 4 (not all LECs have implemented flexible automatic numbering identification (Flex ANI),  %! others have implemented it on a piecemeal basis); BellSouth Comments at 6 (Commission must consider current network limitations associated with Flex ANI).  The record shows that some of the  %p! LECs' statetariffed 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  Yv0 %P provided with types of lines that do not deliver appropriate OLS codes.?v6x Y] 0 %p! ԍ Further Reconsideration/Further NPRM, 8 FCC Rcd at 286667. The commenters stated  %! that some LECs assign a business class of service to private payphones. That would generally  %! result in the generation of an "00" code, which indicates that calls from the line need no special treatment.  In light of the  Y_0 %@" 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.  Y 0  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.   Y 0 % 152(a), gives the Commission jurisdiction over interstate communications. In California v.  Y 0 %0 FCC,x@ x Y0ԍ California v. FCC, 4 F.3d 1505 (9th Cir. 1993) (California II).x 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  %P! Commission must define BSEs based on their jurisdictional use and regulate only those that are  Y0 %0 actually used for interstate communications service.<AW x Y!0ԍ Id. at 1515.< 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. " A0*(("Ԍ Y0 ` 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  %p! 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  %p! 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 statetariffed OLS confirmation services have been offered since approximately  %p 1993 and are provided with current technology, primarily ANI II. The ANI II technology is  %0 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  Yy0 %@" requirement that the LECs provide federallytariffed 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 federallytariffed 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  Y0 %! much wider range of screening codes, to the LIDB database software by September of 1996.JBx Y0 " ԍ See ex parte letter from Alan Cort, NYNEX, to William Caton, Acting Secretary,  % Federal Communications Commission (June 16, 1995). NYNEX clarified that the software  YS0 % would be generally available from Bellcore in September 1996. See Request for Part 69  %" Waiver of Southwestern Bell Company, Petition for Waiver (filed June 28, 1995) Southwestern requested a waiver of Part 69 to allow it to provide OLS service through the LIDB database. J  %P! Once that capability is in place, statetariffed OLS confirmation services, to the extent they are  %p still desirable, could still be provided under the existing ANI II technology, while federally %0! tariffed OLS confirmation and delivery services could be provided through the OLS service in  Y0 %! the LIDB data base.C!x Y|0 "0 ԍ LECs could also choose to provide statetariffed OLS confirmation services through ANI II while providing such federallytariffed services through FlexANI. 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 federallytariffed 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 setup time they would experience on some calls. A  % LEC may obtain a temporary waiver of the requirement to provide federallytariffed OLS" C0*((@!"  %! confirmation and delivery services if it demonstrates that it would not be "technically feasible  %0! or economically reasonable" to provide the additional capabilities required by this Order. For  %0! example, if a LEC provides its statetariffed OLS screening service through FlexANI, it could  % obtain a waiver of the federaltariffing requirement if it could demonstrate that it was not  %! technically feasible or economically reasonable to establish a separate federallytariffed service, either through FlexANI or through LIDB, to serve interstate traffic.  Y_0  28.` ` The LECs generally oppose a requirement that they federally tariff their OLS and  YH0 % 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  Y 0 % 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  Y 0 % use."ND x YP0ԍ California II, 4 F.3d at 1507.N Federallytariffed OLS "confirmation services" will provide capabilities not available  Y 0 % through the statetariffed services.E {x Y0 %! ԍ See note 77, infra, for an example of how a statetariffed OLS service, provided through ANI II, and a federallytariffed service, provided through LIDB, could complement each other. 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.  YM0 @ 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 federallytariffed service, LIDB, that essentially fulfills our requirements for tariffing of  Y0 %! a BNS service so any additional cost to provide the required BNS service should be minimal.JFx Y0ԍ See  36, infra. J  %P Should the LECs choose to add federallytariffed 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  Y0 % exists.Gx Y' 0 %" ԍ Policies and Rules Concerning Local Exchange Carrier Validation and Billing Information  %0 for Joint Use Calling Cards, 6 FCC Rcd 3506, 3508 (1991) (LECs implemented LIDB to  % comply with certain requirements to provide certain services for LEC and joint use calling  Y"0cards.) See also, note 78, infra.  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  %0! be outweighed by the substantial savings from reductions in toll fraud that the implementation"g8 G0*(("  Y0 %p! of improved screening services is intended to produce.IHx Yy0ԍ  See  6, supra. I Additionally, AT&T's concerns about  Y0 % ! increases in call setup time on some calls, while legitimate, are outweighed by the benefits of  %p improved toll fraud prevention, provided that the LECs make reasonable efforts to minimize these delays.  Y0 ` 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  Y_0 % as are necessary to ensure that aggregators are not exposed to an undue risk of fraud."@I_{x Y 0ԍ 47 U.S.C.  226(g).@  % Because toll fraud on interstate and international traffic is a serious problem and because the  % statetariffed 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.  Xb0 "  C. XWhether the LECs Should Be Required to Provide An OLS Service with  XK0Discrete and Uniform Codes (#  Y40  Y0 @ 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  %P! 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  Y|0 %! 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  %P! 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  Y"0 %@! an OSP's ability to screen calls to prevent toll fraud. For example, if a LEC in one part of the  %p 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  Y!0 % flexibly and, therefore, new codes can be more easily added. Finally, some LECs have"!,I0*((@%"  %0! 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.  Y0 ` 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  Y0 % that the ANI II digits are uniform nationally, as they are administered centrally by Bellcore.JJx Y0ԍ Bell Atlantic Comments at 5 n.7.J  %0! 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  Y10 % individual LECs.K1yx Y[ 0 % ԍ At the present time, OSPs can only access these databases by entering into a licensing  % agreement with the LEC. Currently, the supplemental data bases do not appear to be widely  %! used; only one OSP has been licensed to obtain access to Bell Atlantic's data base. Bell Atlantic Reply Comments at 3.  These supplementary databases do not use uniform codes.:L1x Y0ԍ Id. at 6. : Four BOCs  %` indicate that they have contracted with Bellcore to develop a service that would incorporate  Y 0 %` information currently contained in the supplementary databases into their LIDB databases.M_ x YL0 %0! ԍ The LECs have not indicated how they intend to use this LIDB database to provide OLS  %! service. If, for example, they transmit an ANI II screening code with each call, the IXC or OSP  % would only need to consult the LIDB database for a portion of its traffic because it would be  %" able to determine which calls came from locations that have a relatively high potential for fraud.  %" If no ANI II screening code is initially transmitted with the calls, then IXCs or OSPs would need  %! to consult LIDB for every business, residential and aggregator call to determine whether special handling is required.   Y 0According to those carriers, that service will be available within two years.N x Y\0 % ԍ See BellSouth Comments at 7 n.10; NYNEX Comments at 4; Southwestern Bell  % Comments at 4; GTE Reply Comments at 34. NYNEX clarified that the software would be  Y00 % generally available from Bellcore in September 1996. See ex parte letter from Alan Cort,  % ! NYNEX, to William Caton, Acting Secretary, Federal Communications Commission (June 16, 1995).   Y 0  Y 0   33.` ` AT&T argues that the codes currently available through ANI II only provide OSPs  Y 0 %! 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  Y{0 %! prisons, college dormitories and hospitals ). AT&T contends that dividing the current codes into  Yd0 %0" more discrete categories would enable OSPs to identify categories of aggregators more precisely,"dN0*(("  Y0 %! which would greatly enhance the effectiveness of the LECs' OLS services.COx Yy0 %` ԍ AT&T Comments at 6. The "07" code, for example, indicates that special operator  % handling is required and could include aggregator phones as diverse as prison payphones,  % hospital rooms and private payphones. The code also provides no information about the type  %" of billing restriction that should apply to that line, such as "collect only" or no international sent  Y0paid calling allowed on a "00" call. See also AT&T Reply Comments at 9. C AT&T opposes the  %0" incorporation of OLS screening information into the LIDB database if that method would replace  Y0 % ! the OLS screening information that can be provided through Flex ANI.Px Y 0 %! ԍ AT&T Reply Comments at 8 (obtaining OLS through the LIDB data base would increase  % ! call setup times by more than 1.9 seconds per call on calls requiring a LIDB query and would  %P require the IXCs to incur the costs of a LIDB query each time they received an "07" code in order to obtain more detailed information about billing restrictions on the originating line). AT&T recommends  %! that the Commission promote industry arrangements to develop new information identifier (II)  Y0 %p codes for use with OLS services.CQ x Y0ԍ AT&T Reply Comments at 2.C Sprint strongly supports the Commission's proposal that  % nationwide uniform screening codes should be used and argues that the use of Flex ANI is  Yv0 % necessary to get the full range of screening codes.@Rv< x Yc0ԍ Sprint Comments at 4. @ 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  Y10 % reasonable requests for service.S1 x Y0  ԍ Id. at 4; see also NYNEX Comments at 3 (flexible ANI is available in certain end offices). APCC argues that all LECs should be required to use the  % ! same information digits to identify independent payphone lines because otherwise OSPs could  Y 0not properly identify the restrictions applicable to such lines, and thereby prevent fraud.>T x Y=0ԍ APCC Comments at 4. >  Y 0  !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  %P! 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  %p! 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":T0*(("  Y0 % identifies privately owned payphones_Ux Yy0  ԍ Comments in this proceeding, for example, indicate that some LECs provide business   service for privatelyowned payphones. The calls from those lines do not carry any codes  YK0indicating that special handling is required. See APCC Comments at 1. _ 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.   X0 "  D.X Whether the Commission Should Permit LECs to Provide BNS Service  Xv0Through the LIDB Data Base(#  X_0  YH0  "35. ` ` Comments and Replies. Bell Atlantic claims that BNS service is already available  Y10 %P! through its LIDB billing validation service, a federally tariffed offering.LV1Mx Y/0ԍ Bell Atlantic Comments at 6 n.13. L Pacific states that it  %p! would be sensible to provide BNS as part of LIDB because the BNS data is already in the LIDB  Y 0 %! database and is accessed in the same way as other LIDB data.hW x Y0ԍ Pacific Comments at 5; Southwestern Bell Reply Comments at 4. h 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  Y 0availability to aggregators.>X x Y0ԍ AT&T Comments at 8. >  Y0 P #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  Y0appropriate billing restrictions are associated with its line.Y9` x Y 0 % ԍ In the Further Reconsideration/Further NPRM, the Commission stated that independent  %! telephone companies could meet their obligation to provide BNS by making a bulk transfer of  Y!0 % data to a third party that would operate the BNS service on its behalf. See Further  Y"0 %! Reconsideration/Further NPRM, 8 FCC Rcd at 2867 n.44. Bell Atlantic interprets our previous  %! order as allowing any LEC to transfer its BNS data to a third party who would then operate the  Y$0 % BNS service on the LEC's behalf. See Bell Atlantic Comments at 7. We note that the cited  %! text, which permits independent LECs to enter into such arrangements, did approve the use of  % such arrangements by all LECs. We would have to consider such a proposal in a separate proceeding.  "aY0*(( "Ԍ X0ԙ E.XImplementation Issues Affecting Both OLS and BNS Services (#   X0 1. ` ` Limitations on Availability of Service (#`  Y0  Y0  $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  Yx0 % not restricted to any class of customer.nZxx Y0ԍ Further Reconsideration/Further NPRM, 8 FCC Rcd at 2865, 2867.n Several parties commented that LECs offer different  %! screening capabilities to aggregators than to OSPs and that the terms OLS and BNS do not have  YJ0 % a uniform meaning throughout the industry.f[vJ{x Yv 0 %0 ԍ Ameritech Reply Comments at 2; APCC Reply Comments at 1 (screening services  %`! provided to IXCs and OSPs on interstate and international calls are either provided by contract  % or federal tariff; the corresponding aggregator services are provided under state tariffs); Bell  % Atlantic Comments at 23 (LECs offer some screening services to aggregators and other  %@! screening services to IXCs; LECs have different names for the same services and similar names for different capabilities). f 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  Y 0 %! these services.`\ x Y0ԍ Bell Atlantic Comments at 4; Sprint Comments at 3 n.2.` In contrast, Pacific contends that the record is bereft of evidence that any class  Y 0 % of customers other than aggregators would want OLS or BNS services.@] j x Y 0ԍ Pacific Comments at 3.@ NYNEX claims that  %p 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 billedtothirdnumber 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  Y0should not be completed.?^ x Y^0ԍ NYNEX Comments at 5. ?  Yd0  %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  %P 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 Y0 % recurring charge, ensure that the codes assigned to their lines provide appropriate protection against fraudulent calling."~ ^0*(("Ԍ X0ԙ 2.` ` Bundling of Screening Services (#`  Y0  &39. ` ` Comments and Replies. The Commission also proposed in the Further  Y0 % 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  Yz0 %! unnecessary costs.B_zx Y0ԍ Pacific Comments at 56.B Southwestern Bell, however, offers BNS through its LIDB database, either  Yc0 %! separately or in conjunction with calling card validation, which is also offered through LIDB.G`cyx Y 0ԍ Southwestern's Comments at 3.G  % Pacific further states that there is no demand from aggregators for the kind of unbundling  Y50 % described in the Further Reconsideration/Further NPRM.Da5*x Y0ԍ Pacific Comments at 3, 5. D Pacific claims that requiring OLS  % and BNS services to be offered on an unbundled basis would consume a great deal of switch  Y 0 %! capacity.Wb x Y0ԍ Id. at 3; Pacific Reply Comments at 4. W 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  Y 0an unbundled basis.>c x Y0ԍ APCC Comments at 5. >  Y 0   '40.` ` Discussion. The bundling of services to aggregators is a complex issue. We  %0! are persuaded that requiring OLS services to be offered as separate, unbundled services would  %P unnecessarily consume scarce switch resources if, for example, OLS service were always  %P 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  Y0 %! as the LECs, would not be blocked from obtaining.bd? x Y0ԍ Further Reconsideration/Further NPRM at 2866 n.32.b 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  %P" 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"k d0*(("  %! show that it is not technically feasible or would be economically unreasonable to unbundle OLS  Y0service."ex Yb0 % ԍ LECs may, for example, request temporary permission not to unbundle if a lack of  % switch memory capacity in a particular switch type made it technically or economically  %@ unfeasible to provide this service on an unbundled basis. Of course, in such cases, the LEC  % would be required to unbundle if through replacement of the switch or for some other reason it later became technically and economically feasible to provide the service. "  Y0 P (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 thirdparty 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 perquery 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  %P! 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.  X 0X 3.X` ` Reasonableness of Rates (#`  Yy0  )42.` ` Comments and Replies. Finally, the Commission proposed to require OLS and  %p 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  Y0from both the federal and state tariffs and pay two separate charges for them.=fx Y0ԍ APCC Comments at 6.=   Y0   *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 onetime event. Therefore, it would  %" be appropriate to assess a nonrecurring 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  Y 0cost of obtaining screening services at the federal level should be modest. xxX ` ` " f0*((@!"  Y0J IV. CONCLUSION ă  Y0  +44.` ` In this Order, we require LECs to provide international blocking services to  %P 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 nonaggregators. Finally, we specify a rate structure for OLS and BNS services.  Yz0 ă  Yc0N3 V. ORDERING CLAUSES ă  Y60 @ ,45.` ` Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority contained in Sections 1, 4,  %! 201205, 218, 220 and 226 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  151, 154, 201205 and 226, that the policies and requirements set forth herein ARE ADOPTED.  Y0    -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.  Y0  .47. ` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 203 of the Communications  %p 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.  Y 0  /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 XX` ` X XXhhCXqX William F. Caton(#  Y%'0XX` ` X XXhhCXqX Acting Secretary  ) (# "%'f0*((+"Ԍ ` ` hhCq  Y0Z APPENDIX A ă  Y0List of Parties Filing Comments and/or Replies:  Yw0American Public Communications CouncilqX(APCC)(#  Y`0American Telephone & Telegraph Company(AT&T)  YI0Ameritech Operating Companies hhCXqX(Ameritech)(#  Y20Bell Atlantic Telephone CompanieshhCqh(Bell Atlantic)(#  Y 0BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc.qX(BellSouth)(#  Y 0GTE Service Corporation ` XhhCXq(GTE)(#  Y 0International Communications AssociationqX(ICA)(#  Y 0MCI Telecommunications Corporationqh(MCI)(#  Y 0North American Telecommunications Associationh(NATA)(# New York Telephone Company and New England Telephone and  Yz0Telegraph CompanyhhCq(NYNEX)  Yc0Pacific and Nevada Bell ` XhhCXqX(Pacific)(#  YL0Rochester Telephone Company hhCXqX(Rochester)(#  Y50Southwestern Bell Telephone CompanyqX(Southwestern Bell)(#  Y0Sprint Communications Corporationq(Sprint)  Y0Telecommunications Association hhCq(TCA)  Y0Toward Utility Rate Normalization hhCXqX(TURN)(#  Y0United States Telephone AssociationqX(USTA) (#  X}0 %@%  List of Parties Filing Comments and/or Replies in Response to the Public Notice of March  Xf024, 1995:  Y80Ameritech Operating CompanieshhCq(Ameritech)  Y!0Bell Atlantic Telephone CompanieshhCq(Bell Atlantic)  Y 0Florida Public Service CommissionhhCq(FPSC)  Y0GTE Service CorporationhhCq(GTE)  Y0MCI Telecommunications Corporationq(MCI)  Y 0National Association of Attorneys General (NAAG)  Y!0NYNEX Telephone Companies hhCq(NYNEX)  Y"0Pacific Bell CompanieshhCq(Pacific)  Y#0Pennsylvania Office of Consumer Advocate(POCA)  Yi$0Puerto Rico Telephone CompanyhhCq(PRTC)  YR%0Southwestern Bell Telephone Companyq(Southwestern Bell)  Y;&0Sprint Communications Company, L.P.q(Sprint)  Y$'0Telecommunications Resellers Associationq(TRA)"$'f0*((+"Ԍ Y0United and Central Telephone Companiesq(United)  Y0United States Telephone Associationq(USTA)  Y0US West Communications, Inc.hhCq(US West)