Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!killer!vector!telecom-gateway From: blake@pro-party.cts.com (Blake Farenthold) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: FCC / AOS Regulations: Part 2 of 3 {{{ SPECIAL ISSUE }}} Message-ID: <808@vector.Dallas.TX.US> Date: 9 Apr 89 23:35:03 GMT Sender: news@vector.Dallas.TX.US Lines: 230 Approved: telecom-request@vector.dallas.tx.us X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@vector.dallas.tx.us X-TELECOM-Digest: TELECOM Digest Special: FCC/AOS Regs - III {{{ This is the last of three special issues of the [TELECOM Digest] }}} {{{ which are being posted in their original digest format. -chip }}} TELECOM Digest Sun, 9 Apr 89 02:12:49 CDT Special: FCC/AOS Regs - III Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson FCC / AOS Regulations: Part 3 of 3 (Blake Farenthold) [Moderator's Note: This concludes the special three part mailing. You should have received two prior sections, each dated about 30 minutes apart from me Sunday morning. Now take the three parts in your editor; cut out this additional header information, and paste the three parts together and save them out for reference/reading at your leisure. PT] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 9 Apr 89 1:29:17 CDT From: Blake Farenthold Subject: FCC's AOS Order - Footnotes (Part 3 of 3) Footnotes: 1. The defendants referred to herein are as follows: Central Corporation ("Central"); International Telecharge, Inc. ("ITI"); National Telephone Services, Inc. ("NTS"); Payline Systems, Inc. ("Payline"); and Telesphere Network, Inc. ("Telesphere"). In addition to defendants' answers, other pleadings filed in this matter include: a Motion to Respond in Consolidated Manner and Clarify Pleading Schedule, a Motion to File Late Pleading Schedule, a Motion to File Late Pleading, a Reply to Answers to Complaint and Petition to Revoke Authority to Operate, a Motion to File Corrected Copy, and a Corrected Copy of the Reply to Answers to Complaint and Petition to Revoke Authority to Operate filed by TRAC/CA; an Opposition to TRAC/CA's Motion to Reply in Consolidated Manner and Clarify Pleading Schedule, and a Motion to Dismiss filed by Telesphere. TRAC/CA's Motions were granted on September 13, 1988. _Order_, DA 88-1432. Finally, the State of Connecticut Office of Consumer Counsel filed a Petition to Intervene on August 31, 1988 for the purpose of monitoring the proceeding. We grant the motion. 2. As the AOS industry has grown, some participants have objected to the term "alternative" since it implies, they argue, that their companies are defined only in the context of being an alternative to AT&T. In response, they have urged the substitution of the acronym "OSP" (for "operator service provider") for AOS. While noting the concerns of those members of the industry who prefer the term "OSP" industry, the more prevalent AOS acronym will be used in this proceeding. 3. AOS providers may also provide operator services for other interexchange carriers under contract. 4. While the complaints only address "O+" calls, the issues and remedies are equally applicable to "1+" calls, which include calls from coin operated telephones which are paid in cash, so-called "sent paid" telephone calls. 5. Call splashing occurs when a caller requests a transfer from an AOS company operator to his preferred interexchange carrier. Since the call is handed off to the preferred carrier in the city where the AOS company's operations center and switch are located, the point from which the call will be billed will often be different from the caller's originating location, and the call may be billed at a rate different than the caller may have anticipated. 6. Call blocking refers to the process of screening the calls dialed from the presubscribed telephone for certain predetermined numbers, and preventing or "blocking" the completion of calls which would allow the caller to reach a long distance telephone company different from the AOS company. 7. _Policy and Rules Concerning Rates for Competitive Common Carrier Services and Facilities Authorization_: _Notice of Inquiry and P roposed Rulemaking_, 77 FCC2d 308 (1979) ("_Notice_"); _First Report and Order_, 85 FCC2d 1 (1980) ("First Competitive Carrier Order"); _Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking_, 84 FCC2d 445 (1981) ("_Further Notice_"); _Second Report and Order_, 91 FCC2d 59 (1982) ("_Second Competitive Carrier Report_"), _recon. denied_, 93 FCC2d 59 (1983); _Fourth Report and Order_, 95 FCC2d 55 (1983) ("_Fourth Competitive Carrier Order_"); _Fifth Report and Order, 98 FCC2d 119 (1984) ("_Fifth Competitive Carrier Order_"); _Sixth Report and Order_, 99 FCC2d 1020 _vacated and remanded sub nom._, MCI v. FCC, 765 F.2d 1186 (D.C.Cir.1985). 8. Section 214 provides in pertinent part: No carrier shall undertake the construction of a new line or of an extension of any line, or shall acquire or operate any line, or extension thereof, or shall engage in transmission over or by means of such additional or extended line, unless and until there shall first have been obtained from the Commission a certificate that the present or future public convenience and necessity require or will require the construction, or oper- ation, or construction and operation, of such additional or extended line. 9. _First Competitive Carrier Order_ at 21. 10. Section 201(b) provides that: All charges, practices, classifications, and regulations for and in connection with such communications service shall be just and reasonable, and any such charge, practice, classification, or regulation that is unjust or unreasonable is hereby declared to be unlawful. 11. _Complaint_ at para. 15. 12. The Complainants maintain that any suggestion that the informed consumer can find another telephone is not feasible. The Complainants state that it is virtually impossible for many consumers (hospitalized patients, college students in a dorm where all telephones are presubscribed to the AOS service, etc.) to gain access to a non- presubscribed telephone. Complaint at para. 22. 13. _See_, _e.g._, ITT Answer at 16-17, Appendix A at pp. 20-21; Payline Answer at 13; Telesphere Answer at 14; NTS Answer at 16. 14. _See_, _e.g._, Central Answer at 5; Telesphere Answer at 5-6; ITT Answer at 7, 19; Payline Answer at 15. 15. NTS Answer at 11-12; Payline Answer at 17-19; ITT Answer at 20-21; Central Answer at 4-5. 16. Central makes the additional claim that it is a carrier described in Section 2(b)(2) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. section 152(b), and as such, is not subject to the Commission's Section 208 complaint procedures. No support is provided for their claim that they are a 2(b)(2) carrier and we find it to be without merit. 17. The _Second Competitive Order_ defines resellers as those carriers which do not own any transmission facilities but obtain basic communications services from underlying carriers for resale purposes. 91 FCC2d at 70. 18. _First Competitive Carrier Order_ at 29. 19. We note that complainants have not placed any specific information into the record regarding the identification of underlying carriers, but have assumed in most cases that it is AT&T. 20. Contrary to complainants' contention, the Commission did not establish a standard in the _Second Competitive Carrier Order_ which requires that resellers price their services at a level no higher than the underlying carrier's rates. Rather, the Commission noted that the underlying carrier's rates, which are constrained by Sections 201-205 of the Act, would effectively discipline a reseller's rates because, if "a reseller were to set its price above the rates of the underlying carrier or competing carriers, its customers would be expected to migrate to these other services." _Second Competitive Carrier Order_ at 69. We find that the basis of the "AOS problem" is not their rates per se, but the practices involving lack of notice and blocking that restrict a customer's ability to "migrate to these other services [of competing carriers]", as we contemplated in the Competitive Carrier proceeding. It is these restrictive practices that we proscribe in this Order. 21. _First Competitive Carrier Order_ at 20. 22. _Id_. 23. _Second Competitive Carrier Order_ at 70-71. Section 203(a) of the Act requires common carriers, with limited exceptions, "to file and keep open for public inspection" schedules showing all charges for interstate and foreign wire or radio communications. 24. _Id_. at 70. 25. The Bureau's Informal Complaints and Public Inquiries Branch has received approximately two thousand complaints and inquiries regarding AOS rates and practices since January 1988. 26. _See_, _e.g._, Central Answer at 5; ITI Answer at 5. 27. _See_ Central Answer at 5. Branding is the process or procedure used by a carrier, in this case the AOS provider, to identify itself to every person who uses its service. 28. See _e.g._, Payline Answer at 22; Telesphere Answer at 18. 29. _See_, NTS Answer at 20. 30. _See_, _e.g._, Telesphere's Answer at 14, where Telesphere states that Telesphere "does not control the handling of calls by call aggregators" and NTS' Answer at 16, where NTS states that "it does not block calls that reach its network" and that it "does not request or require call aggregators that are its customers to block calls made to other carriers and divert them to NTS." 31. We note that some companies claim to use call blocking to prevent fraudulent use of the network. Companies who wish to argue that such blocking should be permitted are free to seek a waiver of the "no blocking" requirement accompanied by the requisite showing that such a waiver is warranted. Absent the grant of such a waiver, companies may not engage in blocking. 32. See, NTS Answer at 18. 33. Payline Answer at 17-19. 34. Payline Answer at 19. 35. We note that NTS filed with the Commission a petition seeking a Commission declaration that AT&T be required to establish through rates for transferred calls and a division of charges as a solution to call splashing. _See_ "Petition for Order to Require AT&T to Establish a Through Rate and Reasonable Division of Charges," File No. ENF-89-02, filed November 15, 1988. We are in no way prejudging our review of the positions set forth in that proceeding. 36. Many of the problems associated with call splashing may be eliminated when call blocking ceases, since customers will be able to dial their carrier of choice directly. ================================= [Moderator's Note: All the thanks for this effort belong to Blake, who can be contacted at the addresses below if you wish to drop a note of thanks to his attention. PT] ty!blake ARPA: crash!pnet01!pro-party!blake@nosc.mil INET: blake@pro-party.cts.com Blake Farenthold | CIS: 70070,521 | Source: TCX023 P.O. Box 17442 | MCI: BFARENTHOLD | GEnie: BLAKE San Antonio, TX 78217 | BBS: 512/829-1027 | Delphi: BLAKE ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest Special: FCC/AOS Regs - III *****************************