******************************************************** NOTICE ******************************************************** This document was converted from WordPerfect to ASCII Text format. Content from the original version of the document such as headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers will not show up in this text version. All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the original document will not show up in this text version. Features of the original document layout such as columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins will not be preserved in the text version. If you need the complete document, download the WordPerfect version or Adobe Acrobat version, if available. ***************************************************************** Federal Communications Commission DA 98-176 Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) Petition for Rulemaking ) NSD File No. L-98-07 Filed by Albert C. Kuelling ) MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER Adopted: February 2, 1998 Released: February 2, 1998 By the Chief, Network Services Division: I. INTRODUCTION 1. This Memorandum Opinion and Order addresses a Petition for Rule Making filed by Albert C. Kuelling, in which Mr. Kuelling proposes a national rule that call rejection be made available to all telephone users, at no charge, for calls made with privacy requested (e.g., by the caller dialing *67) or when calling party number (CPN) is unavailable (e.g., from a phone behind a private branch exchange system that does not pass end-user CPN). If call rejection were available, a called party would not receive calls that do not display the CPN. 2. The Commission's rules with respect to delivery of CPN and privacy functions are outlined in 47 C.F.R.  64.1601. Specifically, all carriers that use Signaling System 7 and software capable of blocking and unblocking CPN delivery are required to transmit CPN on interstate calls to interconnecting carriers. Additionally, when a caller dials *67 as the first three digits of a phone call, the terminating carrier may not reveal the caller's name or number to the called party. When a caller dials *82, on a line that is blocked from delivering CPN, the succeeding call will have CPN passed. 3. The Petitioner requests that the Commission impose two requirements on common carriers. The first request is that carriers make available anonymous and unavailable call rejection to all telephone users, and the second is that the service be offered at no charge. As discussed below, we deny the request that anonymous and unavailable call rejection be offered to all users, and we thus do not reach the question of funding for this service. II. DISCU SSION 4. The Commission adopted its caller ID rules after careful consideration of state regulations already in place, with the intention of preempting as few state practices, policies, statutes, and administrative regulations as possible, while establishing minimum nationwide standards that callers could expect from any phone. These policies strike a reasonable balance among significant competing interests, including reasonable privacy expectations and economic growth. Throughout the caller ID proceeding, the Commission has remained cognizant of a goal stated in the First Report and Order: We are reluctant to preempt state authority over intrastate communications, and will endeavor to accommodate state regulations whenever possible. State policies, however, must not frustrate the paramount federal interest in a cohesive interstate communications policy, and must not be allowed to infringe unreasonably upon the privacy interests of the citizens of other states. 5. While the Petitioner does state a concern for the privacy of called parties, we believe the decision to develop and implement functionality such as anonymous call rejection is a matter best left to local regulators, or local telephone companies themselves when not precluded by state or local laws or rules. During the caller ID proceeding, the Commission recognized that passage of CPN could invade the privacy of calling parties wishing to remain anonymous. In balancing the called party's right to know the identity of the calling party, it determined that the federal model governing passage of CPN should also offer the calling party a means of remaining anonymous. In implementing the caller ID regulations, the Commission recognized that this federal model preempted some states' policies, but was necessary to create a "simple, uniform interstate policy that reasonably balance[d] the privacy interests of calling and called parties." In recognition of the Commission's reluctance to preempt state authority whenever possible, we limit regulations affecting privacy of called and calling parties to those already set forth in 47 C.F.R.  64.1601. 6. The Petitioner also states a concern that telemarketers' phone numbers often appear as "unavailable" on caller ID units and that criminals may block their number so they may operate without being detected. The Petitioners' proposal, however, would not necessarily resolve those concerns. In recognition of technical limitations inherent in certain types of customer premises equipment as well as local telephone company switches, the Commission's caller ID rules only apply to carriers equipped with Signalling System 7 (SS7) call set up capability. The rules do not require carriers to equip themselves with SS7 technology, and thus parties receiving calls transported by carriers lacking SS7 might receive a message such as "unavailable" or "out of area." Similarly, calls that originate from pay phones or private branch exchanges (PBXs) that do not transmit end-user CPN are exempt from the regulations requiring delivery of CPN and blocking of CPN. Therefore, requiring unavailable call rejection on a nationwide basis could lead to rejection of calls that, through no action or "fault" on the part of the caller, do not pass the CPN because of technical limitations. Finally, the Commission's caller ID rules recognize the needs of law enforcement agencies. For example, when such agencies act in connection with legally authorized call tracing or trapping procedures, the rules governing blocking of CPN do not apply. 7. Because the Commission is sensitive to states' interests in protecting the privacy of their residents, and has, accordingly, limited its preemption of state laws and rules regarding caller ID services to the extent necessary to protect the privacy interests of interstate callers, we find that anonymous and unavailable call rejection is not a matter which the Commission should address with a rule of general applicability. Because we decline to issue a rule regarding anonymous and unavailable call rejection, we need not reach the issue of whether such a service should be offered to the public without charge. III. ORDERING CLAUSES 8. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to the authority delegated in Sections 0.91 and 0.291 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.91, 0.291, and pursuant to Section 1.407 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.407, that Albert C. Kuelling's Petition for Rulemaking is DENIED in all respects. 9. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Order is effective upon release. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Geraldine A. Matise Chief Network Services Division Common Carrier Bureau