**Before the**

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

In the Matter of )

)

Billed Party Preference for ) CC Docket No. 92-77

InterLATA 0+ Calls )

**SECOND ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION**

**Adopted: December 5, 2001 Released: December 12, 2001**

By the Commission:

# INTRODUCTION

1\. In 1998, the Commission addressed the problem of widespread consumer
dissatisfaction with the high rates charged by many operator services
providers (OSPs) for calls from public phones and other aggregator
locations such as hotels, hospitals, and educational institutions.[^1]
At that time, an away-from-home caller who dialed "0" followed by an
interexchange number typically did not know what rates the particular
OSP would be charging. The Commission responded to this problem in the
*Second Report and Order* by adopting price disclosure rules that apply
to providers of interstate operator services from such phones and to
providers of inmate operator services from phones set aside for use by
inmates at correctional institutions.[^2] These rules were designed to
ensure that consumers receive sufficient information about the rates
they will pay for operator services at public phones and other
aggregator locations, thereby fostering a more competitive OSP
marketplace. In this Order, we largely affirm those rules and dispose of
outstanding petitions for reconsideration. We make several minor
modifications and clarifications to the rules.

2\. Specifically, we clarify that the price disclosure rules apply to
all interstate non-access code operator service calls, even those that
are initiated by dialing 0-, if the consumer will be liable for
interstate operator service charges for such calls. We confirm that
section 226 of the Communications Act requires price disclosure for *all
interstate* non-access code operator service calls and therefore decline
to exempt interstate intraLATA toll calls from the price disclosure
obligation under our rules. We also clarify that the disclosure of price
information is limited to those charges that are billed by, or on behalf
of, the interstate operator service provider and amend the rules
accordingly. In view of the statutory definition of "consumer" in the
context of operator services, we retain the requirement that oral rate
information must be provided to both parties on a collect call. Finally,
we amend the rules to reflect the finding in the *Second Report and
Order* that, in a bill-to-third-number situation, the rate disclosure
option must be offered to the party to be billed, if the OSP contacts
that person to secure approval for billing, as well as to the caller.
These minor clarifications and changes will better ensure the
effectiveness of the rules in enabling consumers to take advantage of
competition in the operator services marketplace, while minimizing
administrative burdens.

**II. BACKGROUND**

3\. The Commission has long been concerned about consumer
dissatisfaction over high charges and certain practices of many OSPs
with respect to calls from public phones at away-from-home aggregator
locations. OSPs have historically competed with each other to receive
operator service calls by offering commissions to payphone or premises
owners on all such calls from a public phone. In exchange for this
consideration, premises owners have agreed to designate a particular OSP
as the presubscribed interexchange carrier (PIC) serving their
payphones. Many OSPs using this strategy agreed to pay very high
commissions to both premises owners and sales agents who sign up those
premises owners and have claimed, as a consequence, that they had to
impose very high usage charges on consumers placing calls from
payphones. While this process generated added revenues for premises
owners and sales agents, it forced callers to pay exceptionally high
rates. As a result, some callers began to use access codes, such as 800
numbers, to reach their preferred, lower-priced OSPs and to avoid the
payphone\'s presubscribed OSP. Because payphone owners and other
aggregators did not earn commissions on these so-called \"dial around\"
calls until relatively recently, many aggregators blocked the use of
access codes from their phones.[^3]

4\. In 1990, Congress provided the Commission and consumers with tools
to address these practices, through the passage of the Telephone
Operator Consumer Services Improvement Act of 1990 (TOCSIA or Section
226 of the Communications Act.).[^4] Under TOCSIA and the Commission's
implementing rules, an aggregator must, among other things, permit
consumers to use an OSP of their choice by dialing an 800 or other
number to reach that OSP, rather than having to use the OSP the
aggregator has selected as its PIC for long-distance calls.[^5] The
Commission also mandates, in accordance with TOCSIA, that each OSP
"brand" its calls, that is, \"identify itself, audibly and distinctly,
to the consumer at the beginning of each telephone call and before the
consumer incurs any charge for the call.\"[^6] In 1996, in response to
the forbearance provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996,[^7]
the Commission sought comment on whether to forbear from applying the
informational tariff filing requirements it had imposed under Section
226, [^8] as well as whether to require all OSPs to disclose their rates
on all 0+ calls.[^9] Based on that record, the Commission adopted its
*Second Report and Order*.

5\. In the *Second Report and Order*, the Commission amended its rules
to require, *inter alia*, that operator service providers (OSPs)
"\[d\]isclose audibly and distinctly to the consumer, at no charge and
before connecting any interstate, domestic, interexchange, non-access
code operator service call, how to obtain the total cost of the call,
including any aggregator surcharge, or the maximum possible total cost
of the call, including any aggregator surcharge, before providing
further oral advice to the consumer on how to proceed to make the
call."[^10]

6\. The oral price disclosure rule also requires OSPs to instruct
consumers that they may obtain applicable rate and surcharge quotations
for 0+ calls either by, at the option of the OSP, dialing no more than
two digits or remaining on the line. [^11] The Commission further
amended its rules to require "all providers of operator services from
inmate-only telephones to identify orally themselves to the party to be
billed for any interstate call and orally disclose to such party how,
without having to dial a separate number, it may obtain the charge for
the first minute of the call and the charge for additional minutes,
prior to billing for any interstate call from such a telephone."[^12]

7\. The Commission ordered that the disclosure rules would become
effective generally on July 1, 1998. The Commission extended the
compliance date until October 1, 1999, for those carriers using
store-and-forward payphones[^13] to provide operator services and stated
that it would consider waiver requests on a specific factual showing of
good cause.[^14]

8\. Thereafter, Ameritech (now operating as SBC) petitioned for a stay
of the new oral price disclosure rules to the extent that the *Second
Report and Order* could be deemed to apply to interstate intraLATA toll
services.[^15] In petitions for clarification or reconsideration,
Ameritech and US West, Inc. (now operating as Qwest) asked the
Commission to clarify, or, alternatively, to rule on reconsideration,
that these rules do not apply to interstate intraLATA service.[^16]
Because these petitions were pending and would not be resolved by the
July 1, 1998 effective date, the Common Carrier Bureau (the Bureau)
found that it would be in the public interest for the Commission to
determine, prior to the compliance deadline, the applicability of the
rules to interstate intraLATA toll operator services. For this reason,
the Bureau stayed these requirements with respect to such intraLATA
calls until 60 days after the release of an order addressing
Ameritech\'s and US West\'s petitions.[^17] Seven other petitions for
clarification and/or reconsideration of the price disclosure
requirements were timely filed.[^18]

**III. DISCUSSION**

#### **Applicability of Rules to LECs and IntraLATA Calls**

9\. We affirm the application of our price disclosure rules to local
exchange carriers (LECs) when they provide interstate operator services
within their region. We note that the TOCSIA expressly defines "operator
services" to include "*any* interstate telecommunications service" that
meets specified criteria.[^19] Thus, there is no basis in the statute
for exempting LEC-provided interstate operator services, which meet the
statutory criteria, from the disclosure requirements.[^20] We disagree
with US West's contention that LECs should be exempt from these rules
because they have never been seen as the source of the kinds of problems
that TOCSIA was intended to address.[^21] While there may have been
relatively few complaints about interstate operator services provided by
LECs, this may reflect the fact that LECs have not traditionally
provided extensive interstate operator services. In view of the
statutory language, and in the absence of forbearance, we do not believe
a blanket exemption for LECs providing interstate operator services is
warranted simply because companies other than LECs have been the primary
subjects of complaints about high rates.

10\. Some petitioners and commenters assert that we should decline to
apply our price disclosure requirements to interstate intraLATA toll, or
isolated so-called "bubble LATA" calls for various reasons.[^22] For
example, Ameritech claims that its operator switches cannot distinguish
between interstate and intrastate intraLATA traffic for this purpose and
that, as a result, it would have to apply a price disclosure requirement
in an overinclusive manner to all intraLATA calls.[^23] We recognize
that most intraLATA toll calls are intrastate calls within the
jurisdiction of the respective state regulatory agencies. We further
note that many states have responded to consumer concerns over high
rates and surcharges with regulations that cap rates of operator
services providers and/or prohibit premises-imposed fees (PIFs).[^24] As
commenters assert, requiring price disclosures may indirectly impose
additional obligations with respect to all intrastate calls even though
there are a relatively small number of interstate intraLATA toll
calls.[^25] Commenters also assert that added expense may be required to
ensure that consumers using operator services for interstate intraLATA
calls receive price disclosures.[^26] Ameritech claims that the history
of this proceeding demonstrates that the Commission did not intend to
apply the oral disclosure rule adopted in the *Second Report and Order*
to any intraLATA calls.[^27] Finally, Ameritech contends that the
legislative history of TOCSIA supports its view that Congress did not
intend for the statute to apply to interstate intraLATA calls, but only
to interstate interLATA calls, despite the fact that the statute only
uses the term "interstate."[^28]

11\. Because the statute requires price disclosures to be made for *any*
interstate operator service calls, we believe that exempting interstate
intraLATA calls from our price disclosure requirement would be
inconsistent with the statutory language, and we decline to do so.[^29]
We will, however, grant US West's request for an additional six months
after the release of this ruling[^30] to come into compliance with the
price disclosure requirement for interstate intraLATA calls.

### B. Disclosure of Premises-Imposed Fees

12\. We amend our rules to make clear that the only charges that an OSP
must disclose to a consumer upon request are those that the OSP, or its
billing agent, will bill the consumer, including any location-specific
charge or premises-imposed fee (PIF) charged by the OSP, and not those
charged separately by the premises owner or aggregator.[^31] Our rules
already require aggregators to disclose charges they impose and collect
independently of OSPs, such as a hotel surcharge billed by a hotel.[^32]
PIFs often vary widely among locations and premises owners. OSPs often
are unaware of the specific surcharges imposed by aggregators, such as
hotels, motels, and hospitals, on their guests for phone calls from
their rooms. Further, depending on the particular facts and
circumstances, aggregators could be subject to regulation as common
carriers if they impose per call charges on interstate calls. For these
reasons, the Commission has not required informational tariffs filed by
OSPs to specify any PIF other than those directly billed and collected
from consumers by the OSP, or its billing agent. Accordingly, we clarify
that the tariff and rate disclosure requirements apply only to PIFs and
other charges collected from consumers by the OSP, or any other entity
that bills and collects on behalf of the OSP.[^33] We can revisit this
determination, upon complaint or on our own motion, if we find that
practices of OSPs allow aggregators to impose excessive or otherwise
unreasonable surcharges on interstate calls.[^34]

**C. Applicability of Rate Disclosure Rules to Collect Calls**

13\. We reject the requests by AT&T and SBC that we only require oral
rate disclosures to be made to the party responsible for payment for
collect calls, and not to the party initiating the call.[^35] We note,
rather, that Congress expressly requires that disclosures be made to the
"consumer," which it defines as "a person initiating any interstate
telephone call using operator services." [^36] Under our current rules,
the definition of "consumer" includes both parties to a collect
call.[^37] Because we find that the statute specifies that callers
making collect calls must receive rate disclosures, we do not eliminate
that portion of the requirement. Furthermore, we observe that parties
initiating collect calls have the option of selecting among OSPs, so
requiring rate disclosures to them can help them make informed
selections. Thus, for purposes of the rate disclosures required of the
presubscribed OSP under TOCSIA, we will continue to define the term
\"consumer\" to include both parties to a collect call.

### D. Applicability of Rate Disclosure Rules to Bill-to-Third-Number Calls

14\. We make a minor amendment to our rules with respect to
bill-to-third-number calls when an OSP contacts the party to be billed
to secure billing approval. For such calls, the rules currently only
require disclosures to the caller, even if that person is not the party
responsible for payment of the charges. [^38] Although, in the *Second
Report and Order*, the Commission stated that it would "require OSPs to
make *additional oral disclosure at the point of purchase* of 0+
calls,\"[^39] the rules were not amended to reflect this requirement in
the context of bill-to-third-number calls. To address this discrepancy,
we amend the definition of "consumer" so that the oral rate disclosure
requirement, in situations involving bill-to-third-number calls, will
include the party to be billed if the OSP contacts that person to secure
approval for billing. In any case, the OSP must provide the rate
disclosure option to the caller, as required by the statute.[^40] We
note that, in the context of inmate operator services, the Commission
defines the term "consumer" as \"the party to be billed,\" which would
include persons liable for bill-to-third-number calls, if any.[^41] Our
amendment regarding bill-to-third-number calls will help ensure that
consumers have the ability to make informed choices about the rates of
OSPs and providers of inmate operator services.[^42]

### E. Rate Disclosure in Calls by Prison Inmates

15. We retain the requirement of oral rate disclosure for operator
    service calls from inmates in correctional institutions. We reject
    the requests by US West that we vacate the Commission's decision to
    apply our rules to inmate calling or significantly modify those
    rules. As US West acknowledges, both of its proposed modifications
    are significantly flawed.[^43] US West suggests that we permit
    carriers to use a "generic" system upgrade that would provide a
    price quote for the highest possible rate the call might entail or,
    alternatively, that we designate a separate phone number for rate
    quotes. [^44] We believe that each of these alternatives will fail
    to meet an important goal. US West suggests the first option, the
    "generic" system upgrade, because it believes such an approach would
    be less expensive than implementing a system capable of providing
    the more specific rate disclosures required by the current rules.
    However, as US West observes, this approach would not provide
    accurate rate quotes, and excessive quotations might unnecessarily
    discourage calling.[^45] Permitting the provision of inflated rate
    quotes in an inmate environment where OSPs face no competitive
    pressures[^46] would be inconsistent with our statutory obligation
    to "ensur\[e\] that consumers have the opportunity to make informed
    choices" in using operator services to place interstate telephone
    calls.[^47] US West proposes the second modification option, the
    designation of a separate phone number for rate quotes from inmate
    phones, as another way to minimize the expense of compliance with
    the current rules. The drawback of this modification option, as US
    West also notes, is that it would "open up" the inmate calling
    system by giving inmates direct access to "live outside lines,"
    thereby threatening security. [^48] We agree that taking this
    approach could compromise the special security measures the
    Commission has acknowledged that inmate calls require.[^49] Because
    these two alternatives are problematic, US West urges us to vacate
    the rate disclosure requirement for operator service calls from
    inmates in correctional institutions and handle complaints about
    excessive rates for such calls on a case-by-case basis.[^50] We find
    that US West has not undermined the reasoning underlying the
    application of the rate disclosure rules to inmate calls, and we
    decline to vacate our rules. We recognize that, unlike persons
    making calls from aggregator locations, inmates typically do not
    have the option of dialing around the presubscribed IXC. In the
    *Second Report and Order*, the Commission concluded that recipients
    of collect calls from inmates \"require additional safeguards to
    avoid being charged excessive rates from a monopoly provider.\"[^51]
    The Commission adopted price disclosure rules for providers of
    inmate operator services that are similar to those applicable to
    OSPs in order to \"eliminate some of the abusive practices that have
    led to complaints.\"[^52] Finally, while Citizens United For
    Rehabilitation of Errants (CURE) asks us to require OSPs to provide
    copies of informational tariffs to prisons and other consumers,
    [^53] we agree with MCI that informational tariffs are already
    available and that prison officials can easily provide them to
    prisoners.[^54]

### F. Rate Disclosure in Air-to-Ground Calls

16\. We also retain the requirement of oral rate disclosure for
air-to-ground calls. One of the principal reasons underlying the
adoption of the rate prompt requirement was to ensure that prospective
away-from-home callers are reminded of their right to obtain rate
quotations from the presubscribed OSP because its rates generally are
not posted at the aggregator location. Although AT&T asserts that oral
rate disclosure for air-to-ground calls is unnecessary because airplane
passengers typically sit for at least one hour with rate information
directly before them,[^55] we find that the record is insufficient to
support a finding that the applicable rates, including any surcharge
billed and collected by the OSP, for air-to-ground operator services
always are posted on or near the telephone instrument. Furthermore, for
collect calls, such posting would not apprise the called parties, who
are responsible for paying for the calls, of their right to know the
price of a call at the time of purchase.[^56]

**G. Use of Visual Rates Display**

17\. We decline to issue the ruling US West seeks that would permit OSPs
to provide the rate quotation visually, if their embedded equipment and
future business plans make oral presentations expensive.[^57] US West
asserts that an oral alert tone, followed by a visual rate display on
the caller's phone (*e.g*., a visual display on the payphone), would
enable OSPs to convey rate information effectively without incurring
burdensome costs.

18\. We disagree. The visual rate display on the telephone would provide
rate information only to the caller, not to the called party. As
previously noted with respect to inmate calls, as well as
bill-to-third-number calls in certain circumstances, the consumer to
whom the disclosure must be made is \"the party to be billed,\"[^58]
which typically is not the caller. In the case of collect calls (and
certain types of bill-to-third number calls), under our rules, the
"consumer" who must receive the required notice includes both the party
called and the caller.[^59] Furthermore, US West does not explain how
persons with impaired vision would access the information in a visual
rate display.[^60] Accordingly, we will retain the requirement that the
rate disclosure must be oral.

**H. 0- Calls**

19\. We clarify that the oral price disclosure requirement does not
apply to a 0- call, unless the local operator routes the call to an IXC
that completes an interstate non-access code toll call from an
aggregator or prison location. As noted by both Bell Atlantic and
BellSouth, the *Second Report and Order,* as originally adopted by the
Commission, required OSPs to advise consumers how to obtain rate
information for \"any interstate, domestic, interexchange 0+
call.\"[^61] As they further note, the Bureau subsequently issued an
erratum, which, among other things, replaced the term "0+ call" with the
phrase "non-access code operator service call,\"[^62] in order to make
the terminology in our rules more uniform.[^63] Bell Atlantic and
BellSouth express concern that the change in wording from \"0+ calls\"
to \"non-access code operator service calls\" could be interpreted as
making a substantive change regarding "0-" calls. They observe that
expanding the disclosure requirement to cover \"0-\" calls *(i.e*.,
calls that merely require the caller to enter or dial \"0\"), would be
contrary to the express language of the *Second Report and Order*.[^64]
AT&T asks the Commission to clarify that the erratum was not intended to
override the text of the *Second Report and Order,* and it notes that
such an interpretation would be inconsistent with the intent of this
proceeding manifested in its title.[^65]

20\. As is clear from the text of the *Second Report and Order*, the
Commission intended the new price disclosure rules to apply to
interstate 0+ calls from aggregator locations and prison inmates.[^66]
The Commission stated that \"\[a\] 0+ call occurs when the caller enters
"0" plus an interexchange number, without first dialing a carrier access
code . . . . \"[^67] On the other hand, a 0- call occurs when the caller
only dials 0, which routes the call to an operator for assistance in
making local calls. We never intended our rules to cover such intrastate
calls. As we said above, however, our oral price disclosure prompt
requirement is applicable if the local operator should route the call to
a carrier that completes an interstate non-access code toll call from an
aggregator or prison location.[^68] To alleviate any possible confusion
on this issue, we hereby clarify that these rules *are* applicable to
the carrier that provides an interstate call, or if consumers otherwise
would be liable for interstate operator services charges.

**I. AT&T\'s 2000 and 1000 Public Phone Sets**

21\. We grant AT&T's request for clarification regarding the
applicability of the rules to approximately 8,700 of its Public Phone
2000 and Public Phone 1000 sets, which permit callers to \"swipe\" their
calling or credit cards into the card-reading devices of the
phones.[^69] This type of phone stores the card digits until after the
caller dials the phone number of the called party and forwards them
through the network at the same time that the caller would otherwise
hear the announcement regarding the availability of rate
information.[^70] We agree with AT&T that, under such circumstances, the
phones qualify as "store-and-forward" payphones for purposes of the
operator service rate disclosure rules.[^71]

**J. Other Changes to Text of the Rules**

22\. Because a new Commission bureau, the Consumer Information Bureau,
is now the appropriate recipient of consumer complaints about OSPs, we
are amending section 64.703(b)(4) to require the new bureau's name and
address to be posted on payphones in future postings. We are mindful of
the need to avoid any unnecessary burdens on current payphone operators,
and we therefore will not require them to correct their existing
postings until they must replace those postings for other reasons. We
will also ensure that consumer complaints sent to the old address (the
Common Carrier Bureau's Enforcement Division, which no longer exists)
will continue to be delivered to the Consumer Information Bureau.

23\. We have deleted the term \"domestic\" from the text of our rules.
The rules are not applicable to foreign calls, but only to interstate
calls, and the term \"domestic,\" which is not defined in the
Communications Act, is redundant.[^72] We also have deleted the term
\"interexchange\" because not all interstate interexchange calls are
long-distance toll calls covered by the rules.[^73] By deleting these
superfluous terms, we do not intend to change the scope or extent of our
rules as clarified here.

24\. Finally, as suggested by the CURE,[^74] we are revising the text of
the rule applicable to providers of inmate operator services to more
closely parallel the language of the comparable requirements for OSPs.
This revision merely clarifies that each provider of inmate operator
services must identify itself and disclose, audibly and distinctly to
the consumer, at no charge, and before connecting any interstate,
non-access code operator services call, how to obtain the total cost of
the call, including any surcharge or premises-imposed fee, or the
maximum possible total cost of the call, including any such surcharge or
fee. The required oral disclosure must instruct consumers that they may
obtain applicable rate and surcharge quotations either, at the option of
the provider of inmate operator services, by dialing no more than two
digits or by remaining on the line. As the CURE and the Inmate Calling
Service Providers Coalition observe, this editorial change does not
affect the substance of the rule.[^75] For the reasons discussed above,
we do not permit OSPs to use generic, maximum call prices for inmate
calls, where they would not have a competitive incentive to provide more
accurate prices.[^76]

**IV. CONCLUSION**

25\. We believe that the clarifications and amendments adopted in this
Order will make our price disclosure rules for operator services even
more effective, while removing uncertainty and minimizing administrative
costs.

**V. ORDERING CLAUSES**

26\. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j),
226, and 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§
151, 154(i), 154(j), 226, and 405, that the petitions for clarification
or reconsideration filed on April 9, 1998, by Ameritech, AT&T, Bell
Atlantic, BellSouth, Citizens United for Rehabilitation of Errants,
Inmate Calling Service Providers Coalition, One Call Communications,
Inc., US West, Inc., Cleartel Communications, Inc., Operator Services
Company, and Teltrust Communications Services, Inc. ARE GRANTED IN PART
AND DENIED IN PART to the extent discussed above.

27\. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the provisions of sections 64.703(a)(4),
64.703(b)(4), 64.708(f), 64.709(a), 64.710(a)(1), 64.710(b)(1), and
64.710(b)(4) of the Commission\'s Rules ARE AMENDED as set forth in
Appendix A, effective 30 days from publication of the text in the
Federal Register, except that the oral rate disclosure requirement of
section 64.703(a)(4) shall not apply to interstate intraLATA operator
services until six months after this order's release.

28\. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission\'s Consumer Information
Bureau, Reference Information Center, SHALL SEND a copy of this Second
Order on Reconsideration, including the Supplemental Final Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis, as set forth in Appendix C, to the Chief Counsel
for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Magalie Roman Salas

Secretary

**APPENDIX A**

**[Rule Amendments]{.underline}**

**PART 64 - MISCELLANEOUS RULES**

**RELATING TO COMMON CARRIERS**

Part 64 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as
follows:

1\. The authority citation for Part 64 continues to read as follows:

AUTHORITY: 47 U.S.C. 151,154, 201, 202, 205, 218, 220, and 332 unless
otherwise noted. Interpret or apply sections 201, 218, 225, 226, 227,
229, 332, 48 Stat.1070, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 2201-204, 208, 225, 226,
227, 229, 332, 501 and 503 unless otherwise noted.

2\. Part 64, Subpart G, is amended by deleting the phrase "domestic,
interexchange" in the first sentence of Section 64.703(a)(4), by adding
three sentences at the end of Section 64.703(a)(4), by replacing the
word "intestate" with the word "interstate" in Section 64.703(b)(2), and
by replacing the text of Section 64.703(b)(4), to read as follows:

§64.703 Consumer information.

(a) Each provider of operator services shall:

\* \* \* \* \*

\(4\) Disclose, audibly and distinctly to the consumer, at no charge and
before connecting any interstate non-access code operator service call,
how to obtain the total cost of the call, including any aggregator
surcharge, or the maximum possible total cost of the call, including any
aggregator surcharge, before providing further oral advice to the
consumer on how to proceed to make the call. \* \* \* The phrase "total
cost of the call" as used in this subsection means both the variable
(duration-based) charges for the call and the total per call charges,
exclusive of taxes, that the carrier, or its billing agent, may collect
from the consumer for the call. It does not include additional charges
that may be assessed and collected without the involvement of the
carrier, such as a hotel surcharge billed by a hotel. Such charges are
addressed in paragraph (b) of this section.

\(b\) Each aggregator shall post on or near the telephone instrument, in
plain view of consumers:

\* \* \* \* \*

\(2\) Except for CMRS aggregators, a written disclosure that the rates
for all operator-assisted calls are available on request, and that
consumers have a right to obtain access to the interstate common carrier
of their choice and may contact their preferred interstate common
carriers for information on accessing that carrier's service using that
telephone.

\* \* \* \* \*

\(4\) The name and address of the Consumer Information Bureau of the
Commission (Federal Communications Commission, Consumer Information
Bureau, Consumer Complaints -- Telephone, Washington, D.C. 20554), to
which the consumer may direct complaints regarding operator services. An
existing posting that displays the address that was required prior to
the amendment of this rules (*i.e.*, the address of the Common Carrier
Bureau's Enforcement Division, which no longer exists) may remain until
such time as the posting is replaced for any other purpose. Any posting
made after the effective date of this amendment must display the updated
address (*i.e*., the address of the Consumer Information Bureau).

3\. Part 64, Subpart G, is further amended by revising the second
sentence and adding a third sentence to Section 64.708(f) so that it now
reads as follows:

§ 64.708 Definitions

\* \* \* \* \*

\(f\) *Consumer* means a person initiating any interstate telephone call
using operator services. In collect calling arrangements handled by a
provider of operator services, the term consumer also includes the party
on the terminating end of the call. For bill-to-third-party calling
arrangements handled by a provider of operator services, the term
consumer also includes the party to be billed for the call if the latter
is contacted by the operator service provider to secure billing
approval.

4\. Part 64, Subpart G, is further amended by adding the words \"or on
behalf of\" after \"by\" and deleting the words \"or any other entity\"
in Section 64.709(a) to read as follows:

§ 64.709 Informational tariffs.

\(a\) Informational tariffs filed pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 226(h)(1)(A)
shall contain specific rates expressed in dollars and cents for each
interstate operator service of the carrier and shall also contain
applicable per call aggregator surcharges or other per call fees, if
any, collected from consumers by, or on behalf of, the carrier.

5\. Part 64, Subpart G, is further amended by substituting the following
for Section 64.710(a)(1):

§ 64.710 Operator services for prison inmate phones.

(a) Each provider of inmate operator services shall:

\(1\) Identify itself and disclose, audibly and distinctly to the
consumer, at no charge and before connecting any interstate, non-access
code operator service call, how to obtain the total cost of the call,
including any surcharge or premises-imposed-fee. The oral disclosure
required in this subsection shall instruct consumers that they may
obtain applicable rate and surcharge quotations either, at the option of
the provider of inmate operator services, by dialing no more than two
digits or by remaining on the line. The phrase "total cost of the call,"
as used in this subsection, means both the variable (duration-based)
charges for the call and the total per call charges, exclusive of taxes,
that the carrier, or its billing agent, may collect from the consumer
for the call. Such phrase shall include any per call surcharge imposed
by the correctional institution, unless it is subject to regulation
itself as a common carrier for imposing such surcharges, if the contract
between the carrier and the correctional institution prohibits both
resale and the use of pre-paid calling card arrangements.

6\. Part 64, Subpart G, is further amended by deleting the phrase
\"domestic, interexchange\" in Sections 64.710(b)(1) and 64.710(b)(4).

# APPENDIX B

##### Parties Filing Petitions and Responsive Pleadings

American Public Communications Council (APCC)

Ameritech (now a SBC company)

AT&T

Bell Atlantic (now known as Verizon)

BellSouth

Cleartel Communications, Inc., Operator Service Company, and Teltrust
Communications Services, Inc. (Joint Petitioners)

Citizens United for Rehabilitation of Errants (C.U.R.E.)

The Competitive Telecommunications Association (CompTel)

Gateway Technologies, Inc.

Inmate Calling Service Providers Coalition (ICSPC)

Intellicall, Inc.

LCI International Telecom Corp. (LCI)

MCI Telecommunications Corporation (MCI) (now known as MCI Worldcom
Communications)

One Call Communications, Inc., d/b/a OPTICOM

Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, Pacific Bell, and Nevada Bell (SBC
Companies)

US West, Inc. (now known as Qwest)

# 

# APPENDIX C

## Supplemental Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

1\. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA),[^77] a Final
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) was incorporated in the *Second
Report and Order*.[^78] The Commission received no written public
comments on the FRFA. This Supplemental Final Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis (Supplemental FRFA) conforms to the RFA, as amended by the
Contract With America Advancement Act of 1996 (CWAAA), Pub. L. No.
104-121, 110 Stat. 847 (1996). The Commission is issuing this *Order on
Reconsideration* to clarify and amend rules it previously adopted in the
*Second Report and Order* to protect consumers from excessive charges in
connection with interstate non-access code operator services for
payphone and prison inmate calls. Those rules sought to ensure that
consumers are aware of their right to ascertain the specific cost for
such calls so that they may hang up before incurring any charge that
they believe is excessive.

**A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Second Order on Reconsideration**

2\. In the 1996 Act, Congress sought to establish \"a pro-competitive,
de-regulatory national policy framework\" for the United States
telecommunications industry. One of the principal goals of the telephony
provisions of the 1996 Act is promoting increased competition in all
telecommunications markets, including those that are already open to
competition, particularly long-distance services markets.

3\. In this *Second Order on Reconsideration,* we grant, in part,
several petitions seeking clarification of rules the Commission adopted
in its *Second Report and Order*, requiring carriers to orally disclose
to consumers how to obtain the charges for operator services for
interstate calls from aggregator locations and from prison inmate-only
telephones. The objective of the rules previously adopted, and as
clarified and amended in this Order, is to further implement the
national telecommunications policies embodied in the 1996 Act and to
promote the development of competitive, deregulated markets envisioned
by Congress. In doing so, we are mindful of the balance that Congress
struck between this goal of bringing the benefits of competition to all
consumers and Congressional concern toward the impact of the 1996 Act on
small business entities.

B. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by the Public In Response to the
FRFA

4\. In the reconsideration petitions received by the Commission, no
petitioner commented on the previous FRFA.

C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which
Rules Will Apply

5\. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and, where
feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be
affected by the revised rules.[^79] The RFA defines a \"small business\"
to be the same as a \"small business concern\" under the Small Business
Act, 15 U.S.C. § 632, unless the Commission has developed one or more
definitions that are appropriate to its activities.[^80] A \"small
business concern\" is one that: (1) is independently owned and operated;
(2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) meets any
additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration
(the SBA).[^81] The SBA has defined a small business for North American
Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes 51331 and 51333 (Wired
Telecommunications Carriers and Telecommunications Resellers) to be
small entities when they have no more than 1,500 employees.[^82] In the
FRFA, we discussed generally the total number of telephone companies
falling within these categories and estimated the number of carriers
falling within relevant subcategories. Those sub-categories consisted of
telephone companies, wireline carriers and service providers,
interexchange carriers, resellers, operator service providers, and local
exchange carriers. [^83] Except for updating the Operator Service
Providers category in the following paragraph, we incorporate by
reference that discussion into this Supplemental FRFA.

6\. [Operator Service Providers]{.underline}. According to the most
recent *Trends in Telephone Service* data, 21 carriers reported that
they were *primarily* engaged in the provision of operator
services,[^84] but many other carriers provide operator services as a
secondary business. Carriers engaged in providing interstate operator
services from aggregator locations (OSPs) currently are required under
Section 226 of the Communications Act, and the Commission's rules and
orders, to file and maintain informational tariffs at the Commission.
The number of such tariffs on file thus appears to be the most reliable
source of information regarding the number of OSPs nationwide, including
small business concerns, that will be affected by decisions and rules
adopted in this Order. As of September 1, 2000, approximately 725
carriers had informational tariffs on file at the Commission. Although
it seems certain that some of these carriers are not independently owned
and operated, or have more than 1,500 employees, we are unable at this
time to estimate with greater precision the number of OSPs that would
qualify as small business concerns under SBA\'s definition.
Consequently, we estimate that there are 725 or fewer small entity OSPs
that may be affected by the amended rules adopted in this Order.

D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements

7\. The rule amendments adopted in this Order clarify the current
requirement that certain carriers disclose audibly to consumers how to
obtain the price of a call before it is connected. Nondominant
long-distance carriers, including small nondominant interchange
carriers, currently are required to provide oral information to
away-from-home callers, advising them how to obtain the cost of an
interstate non-access code call, and similarly to disclose to the party
to be billed for collect calls from telephones set aside for use by
prison inmates how to obtain the cost of the call before they may be
billed for such calls. The rule amendments adopted in this Order should
not substantially affect the manner in which OSPs and providers of
service from correctional institutions have been required to operate
since the rules went into effect on July 1, 1998 (and with respect to
store-and-forward telephones, on October 1, 1999). The changes, as noted
throughout the text, are mere clarifications. For instance, even when we
amend our rules to require disclosures to third parties when OSPs
contact those parties to secure approval for bill-to-third number calls,
this merely addresses a discrepancy that existed between the Order and
the Commission rules.

8\. The rules adopted require that hundreds of non-dominant,
long-distance carriers continue to disclose information regarding their
rates, as well as any related fees they collect on behalf of the owners
of the premises where the telephone instrument is located. Small
entities may continue to feel some economic impact in additional message
production, recording costs, and equipment retrofitting or replacement
costs due to these policies and rules. Small providers of operator
services also may experience greater live operator costs initially until
automated terminal equipment and network systems are modified to replace
the need for intervention of live operators.

E. Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered

9\. In this section, we describe the steps taken to minimize the
economic impact of our decisions on small entities, including the
significant alternatives considered and rejected. To the extent that any
statement contained in this Supplemental FRFA Appendix is perceived as
creating ambiguity with respect to our rules or statements made in this
Order, the rules and statements set forth in the Order control.

10\. Previously, in the *Second Report and Order*, we carefully
considered and rejected several alternatives to the price disclosure
requirements and rules adopted therein, as modified herein, finding them
more burdensome to carriers. For example, we rejected a proposed billed
party preference routing system, which would have seamlessly routed
calls to the callers preferred carrier, due to its estimated
implementation cost of one billion dollars. The costs of hardware and
software upgrades would have been particularly burdensome to small
carriers. We also rejected a benchmark pricing system that would have
required small carriers to carefully monitor the rates of the three most
popular carriers. Furthermore, we limited our disclosure requirements so
that they would not apply to those types of calls for which they
appeared unnecessary. This order attempts to clarify and fine tune those
distinctions so that disclosure requirements only apply where we believe
they are in the public interest. Thus, the rules, as clarified and
modified herein, are applicable only to limited interstate, non-access
code calls from payphones, or other aggregator locations, and from
inmate phones in correctional institutions. They are not applicable to
international calls, intrastate calls, and calls made by callers from
their regular home or business. The rules also are inapplicable to calls
that are initiated by dialing an access code prefix, such as 10-10-XXX
or 1-800-XXX-XXXX, whereby callers can circumvent placing the call
through the long-distance carrier that is presubscribed for that line.

11\. Furthermore, although we find that the law requires rate
disclosures to be made for interstate intraLATA calls, we are delaying
the effective date of that requirement for 6 months. We believe that a
6-month delay should give the affected parties ample opportunity to come
into compliance with this requirement.

12\. In addition, a new bureau, the Consumer Information Bureau, is now
the appropriate recipient of consumer complaints, rather than the Common
Carrier Bureau's Enforcement Division, which no longer exists. While we
will require the new bureau's name and address to be posted on payphones
in future postings, we have acted to avoid any unnecessary burdens on
current payphone operators. We will require them to make the appropriate
correction whenever they next revise their postings, but we are not
requiring them to replace their postings now. Instead, we are ensuring
that mail sent to the old address will continue to be delivered to the
Consumer Information Bureau.

13\. We believe that our action requiring carriers to orally disclose
how to obtain the price of their interstate non-access code operator
services at the point of purchase will continue to facilitate the
development of increased competition in this segment of the interstate
market, thereby benefiting all consumers, some of which are small
business entities. Specifically, we find that the rules adopted herein
with respect to interstate non-access code operator services will
continue to enhance competition among OSPs, promote competitive market
conditions, and achieve other objectives that are in the public
interest, including establishing market conditions that more closely
resemble an unregulated environment.

F. Report to Congress

14\. The Commission will send a copy of this Supplementary Final
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, along with this Order on
Reconsideration, in a report to be sent to Congress pursuant to the
Congressional Review Act, *see* 5 U.S.C. § 801(a)(1)(A). In addition,
the Commission will send a copy of the Order on Reconsideration,
including the Supplemental FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of
the Small Business Administration. A copy of the Order on
Reconsideration and this Supplemental FRFA will also be published in the
Federal Register. *See* 5 U.S.C. § 604(b).

[^1]: OSPs include all carriers that routinely provide interstate
    collect calls, credit card calls, and/or third-party billing calls
    from aggregator locations, including hotels providing automated
    billing. *Policies and Rules Concerning Operator Service Providers*,
    6 FCC Rcd 2744, 2755 (1991). Under the Communications Act of 1934,
    as amended (the Communications Act), an aggregator is "any person
    that, in the ordinary course of its operations, makes telephones
    available to the public or to transient users of its premises, for
    interstate telephone calls using a provider of operator services."
    47 U.S.C. § 226(a)(2).

[^2]: *Billed Party Preference for InterLATA 0+ Calls,* Second Report
    and Order and Order on Reconsideration*,* 13 FCC Rcd 6122 (1998)
    (*Second Report and Order*).

[^3]: *Id.* at 6127-6128. Today, payphone owners are compensated for
    such dial around calls. *See* 47 CFR § 64.1300 *et seq.*

[^4]: Pub. L. No. 101-435, 104 Stat. 986 (1990) (codified at 47 U.S.C. §
    226).

[^5]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 226(c)(1)(B) (providing that each aggregator
    must "ensure that each of its telephones presubscribed to a provider
    of operator services allows the consumer to use '800' and '950'
    access code numbers to obtain access to the provider of operator
    services desired by the consumer . . . "). *See also* 47 C.F.R. §
    64.704 (requiring the unblocking of "800" and "950" access codes as
    well as \"equal access\" codes (101-XXXX numbers)).

[^6]: 47 C.F.R. § 64.703(a)(1). Section 226(b)(1) of the statute
    provides that

    IN GENERAL. -- Beginning not later than 90 days after the enactment
    of this section, each provider of operator services shall, at a
    minimum --

    identify itself, audibly and distinctly, to the consumer at the
    beginning of each telephone call and before the consumer incurs any
    charge for the call;

    permit the consumer to terminate the telephone call at no charge
    before the call is connected;

    disclose immediately to the consumer, upon request and at no charge
    to the consumer---

    a quote of its rates or charges for the call;

    the methods by which such rates or charges will be collected; and

    the methods by which complaints concerning such rates, charges, or
    collection practices will be resolved;

    ensure, by contract or tariff, that each aggregator for which such
    provider of operator services is in compliance with the requirements
    of subsection (c) and, if applicable, subsection (e)(1);

    withhold payment (on a location-by-location basis) of any
    compensation, including commission, to aggregators if such provider
    reasonably believes that the aggregator (I) is blocking access by
    means of "950" or "800" numbers to interstate common carriers in
    violation of subsection (c)(1)(B) or (ii) is blocking access to
    equal access codes in violation of rules the Commission may
    prescribe under subsection (e)(1);

    not bill for unanswered telephone calls in areas where equal access
    is available;

    not knowingly bill for unanswered telephone calls where equal access
    is not available;

    not engage in call splashing, unless the consumer requests to be
    transferred to another provider of operator services, the consumer
    is informed prior to incurring any charges that the rates for the
    call may not reflect the rates from the actual originating location
    of the call, and the consumer then consents to be transferred; and

    except as provided in subparagraph (H), not bill for a call that
    does not reflect the location of the origination of the call.

    47 U.S.C. § 226(b)(1).

[^7]: Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56
    (1996).

[^8]: *Billed Party Preference for InterLATA 0+ Calls*, Second Further
    Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 11 FCC Rcd 7274, 7295-7296 (1996).

[^9]: *Id.* at 7283.

[^10]: *Second Report and Order*, 13 FCC Rcd at 6170 (adopting 47 C.F.R.
    § 64.703(a)(4)). *See also* 47 U.S.C. § 226(b)(1)(C) (quoted in n.6,
    *supra*).

[^11]: 47 C.F.R. § 64.703(a)(4). A 0+ call occurs when the caller enters
    a \"0\" plus an interexchange number, without first dialing a
    carrier access code. An access code is a sequence of several
    numbers, *e.g.*, 10-10-XXX, that connects the caller to the
    interexchange carriers associated with that number sequence. The
    term \"0+ calls" as used herein means non-access code operator
    service calls from aggregator locations, and includes 00 calls if
    the consumer would be liable for interstate service charges. Our
    rules currently avoid use of the term \"0+\" to ensure that no OSP
    or aggregator circumvents the intent of our rules by instructing
    callers at an aggregator or prison location to enter a number other
    than 0 to make what otherwise would be a 0+ call.

[^12]: *Second Report and Order*, 13 FCC Rcd at 6157 (adopting 47 C.F.R.
    § 64.710).

[^13]: A store-and-forward payphone, or \"smart\" payphone, is
    essentially an automated operator system contained in the payphone
    itself.

[^14]: *Second Report and Order*, 13 FCC Rcd at 6139.

[^15]: Ameritech Emergency Petition for Stay, filed April 9, 1998. *See
    infra* note Error: Reference source not found.

[^16]: Ameritech Petition for Clarification or Reconsideration, filed
    April 9, 1998; US West, Inc. Petition for Clarification or Waiver
    or, in the Alternative, for Clarification and Reconsideration, filed
    April 9, 1998.

[^17]: Order, 13 FCC Rcd 12576, 12587 (Chief, Com.Car.Bur. 1998). The
    Bureau also granted certain petitioners limited waivers or
    extensions of time within which to come into compliance with the new
    disclosure requirements, especially with respect to collect call and
    inmate operator services. *Id.*

[^18]: The other petitions were filed by AT&T, Bell Atlantic (now
    operating as Verizon), BellSouth, Citizens United For Rehabilitation
    of Errants (CURE), Inmate Calling Service Providers Coalition
    (ICSPC), One Call Communications, Inc., d/b/a OPTICOM, and jointly
    by Cleartel Communications, Inc., Operator Services Company, and
    Teltrust Communications Services, Inc. The parties that filed
    comments are listed in Appendix B.

[^19]: Section 226(a)(7) of the statute provides that

    > The term "operator services" means any interstate
    > telecommunications service initiated from an aggregator location
    > that includes, as a component, any automatic or live assistance to
    > a consumer to arrange for billing or completion, or both, of an
    > interstate telephone call, through a method other than --

    automatic completion with billing to the telephone from which the
    call originated; or

    completion through an access code used by the consumer, with billing
    to an account previously established with the carrier by the
    consumer.

    47 U.S.C. .§ 226(a)(7).

[^20]: *Id.*

[^21]: US West Petition at 5-7**.**

[^22]: *See*, e.g., US West Petition at 9; Ameritech Petition at 17-19.
    An example of an interstate, intraLATA toll call is a non-exchange
    call across a state line that is within a Local Access and Transport
    Area (LATA), such as a toll call from East St. Louis, Illinois to
    St. Louis, Missouri. These are also known as \"bubble LATA\" calls.
    *See* Ameritech Tariff F.C.C. No. 4, Original Pages 98-101. A LATA
    is defined in Section 3(25) of the Communications Act as a
    contiguous geographic area:

    > \(A\) established before the date of enactment of the
    > Telecommunications Act of 1996 by a Bell operating company such
    > that no exchange area includes points within more than 1
    > metropolitan statistical area, consolidated metropolitan
    > statistical area, or State, except as expressly permitted under
    > the AT&T Consent Decree; or
    >
    > \(B\) established or modified by a Bell operating company after
    > such date of enactment and approved by the Commission.

    47 U.S.C. § 153(25).

[^23]: *See* Ameritech Petition at 19.

[^24]: ICSPC is concerned about certain statements in the *Second Report
    and Order* to the effect that it would be contrary to our policies
    of encouraging competition in all telecommunications markets for the
    ratepayers of interstate operator services to subsidize intrastate
    services. *See* ICSPC Petition for Partial Reconsideration or
    Clarification, filed Apr. 9, 1998; s*ee also Second Report and
    Order*, 13 FCC Rcd at 6154-55, 6157. ICSPC asserts that, to the
    extent that such statements may sanction noncompensatory state
    rates, the Commission's policy of barring cross-jurisdictional
    subsidization is inconsistent with its obligation under section 276
    of the Communications Act to ensure that inmate calling service
    providers are fully compensated for all calls. ICSPC Petition at 4.
    We clarify that the *Second Report and Order* was not addressing
    state issues, such as whether intrastate rates or intrastate rate
    caps reasonably allow for recovery of the costs of providing
    intrastate services, but rather the reasonableness of interstate
    rates and the extent of hidden or unjustified cross-subsidization of
    intrastate rates by interstate ratepayers that may exist.

[^25]: *See, e.g.,* Ameritech Petition at 17 (\"only about one percent
    of Ameritech\'s 0+ traffic is intraLATA interstate.\"); US West
    Petition at 6 (interstate intraLATA operator services \"amounts to
    only 3.4% of our toll traffic, with an even less amount being
    generated by 0+ coin or aggregator calling.\").

[^26]: For example, US West asserts that it might cost millions of
    dollars for it to fully comply with a requirement to provide rate
    disclosures for bubble LATA OSP calls. US West Petition at 7-9.

[^27]: Ameritech Petition at 5-13. Ameritech also asserts that
    application of these requirements to intraLATA services would
    "undermine the Commission's pro-competitive goals and policies"
    because of the measures that competitive LECs would need to
    undertake to permit Ameritech operators to handle the OSP calls
    appropriately. Ameritech Petition at 16-20.

[^28]: Ameritech Petition at 7.

[^29]: *See* 47 U.S.C. .§ 226(b)(1)(C)(i) (requiring "each provider of
    operator services" to make rate disclosures available to consumers).
    *See also* 47 U.S.C. .§ 226(a)(7) (defining "operator services" as
    "*any interstate* telecommunications service initiated from an
    aggregator location that includes, as a component, any automatic or
    live assistance to a consumer to arrange for billing or completion,
    or both, of an *interstate* telephone call" if the service is not
    automatically completed and billed to the originating telephone or
    completed through an access code with previously-established billing
    to the consumer's account) (emphases added).

[^30]: US West Petition at 3, 9.

[^31]: *See* AT&T Petition for Clarification and/or Reconsideration,
    filed Apr. 9, 1998, at 3 (seeking clarification that it need not
    inform customers about charges that hotels, motels, hospitals, or
    other similar entities will collect directly from persons who use
    their telephone equipment through the use of separate billing
    arrangements). *See also, e.g.,* Ameritech Petition at 20-23; Bell
    Atlantic Petition for Clarification, filed Apr. 9, 1998, at 3;
    BellSouth Petition for Clarification, filed Apr. 9, 1998, at 3 n.7,
    SBC Companies comments at 4-5, US West Petition at 10-12.

[^32]: 47 C.F.R. § 64.703(b)(2) (requiring aggregators, among other
    things, to post on or near the telephone \"a written disclosure that
    the rates for all operator-assisted calls are available on request .
    . . .\").

[^33]: *See* Appendix A, Sections 64.703(a), 64.709(a).

[^34]: Through their contracts with their aggregator customers, OSPs are
    able to exercise some degree of control over the level of per call
    surcharges that may be imposed on end users.

[^35]: *See* AT&T Petition at 2; SBC Companies comments at 5.

[^36]: 47 U.S.C. .§ 226(a)(4).

[^37]: Section 64.708(f) of our rules currently states that "*Consumer*
    means a person initiating any interstate telephone call using
    operator services. In collect calling arrangements handled by a
    provider of operator services, both the party on the originating end
    of the call and the party on the terminating end of the call are
    consumers under this definition." 47 C.F.R. .§ 64.708(f).

[^38]: *Id.*

[^39]: *Second Report and Order*, 13 FCC Rcd at 6134-359 (emphasis
    added). *See also* *id*. at 6140 (\"We have determined that
    disclosure of rate information at the point of purchase will better
    enable consumers to make informed decisions and also further
    competition in the OSP marketplace.\")

[^40]: *See also* 47 U.S.C. .§ 226(a)(4) (defining "consumer" as "a
    person initiating any interstate telephone call using operator
    services.")

[^41]: 47 C.F.R. § 64.710(b)(1) (\"*Consumer* means the party to be
    billed for any interstate . . . call from an inmate telephone\").
    Because of security and fraud concerns, providers of inmate operator
    services generally limit the types of calls that may be made from
    phones used by prison inmates.

[^42]: *Second Report and Order*, 13 FCC Rcd at 6134-35, 6140-41, 6148,
    6157-58, 6168.

[^43]: US West states that it "propose\[s\] certain alternatives, but
    believe\[s\] that neither would satisfactorily address the
    Commission's or the public's concern in an appropriate \[manner\]."
    US West Petition at 17. It urges the Commission to use a
    case-by-case approach to address excessive charges in the context of
    inmate calls. *Id*. at 17-19.

[^44]: US West Petition at 17-19.

[^45]: *Id.*

[^46]: Recognizing the security needs of prisons, the Commission does
    not require them to grant inmates access to multiple OSPs. *Second
    Report and Order*, 13 FCC Rcd at 6156**.**

[^47]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 226 (d)(1)(B).

[^48]: US West Petition at 18-19.

[^49]: *See, e.g.,* *Second Report and Order*, 13 FCC Rcd at 6155-56.

[^50]: US West Petition at 17, 19.

[^51]: *Second Report and Order*, 13 FCC Rcd at 6157.

[^52]: *Id.*

[^53]: Citizens United For Rehabilitation of Errants (CURE), Petition
    for Reconsideration, filed April 9, 1998 at 8-9.

[^54]: MCI comments, filed May 6, 1998 at 4.

[^55]: AT&T Reply, filed May 18, 1998, at n.4.

[^56]: As noted previously, the Commission's rules define the
    "consumer," in the context of a collect call, to denote both the
    caller and the party who is receiving -- and paying for -- the call.
    *See* 47 C.F.R. § 64.708(f).

[^57]: US West Petition at 13-15. US West states that enhancing the
    visual chip currently incorporated into its store-and-forward or
    "smart" payphones would cost approximately \$1.8 million, while
    moving from a visual rate quotation to an oral one would cost
    approximately \$2.7 million. *Id.* at 15.

[^58]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 64.710(b)(1); *see also* ¶¶ 14-15, *supra.*

[^59]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 64.708(f); *see also* ¶¶ 13-14, *supra.*

[^60]: Section 255(d) of the Act provides that providers of
    telecommunications service \"shall ensure that the service is
    accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities, if
    readily achievable.\" 47 U.S.C. § 255(d). Section 255(c) provides
    that manufacturers of telecommunications equipment or customer
    premises equipment \"shall ensure that the equipment is designed,
    developed, and fabricated to be accessible to and usable by
    individuals with disabilities, if readily achievable.\" 47 U.S.C. §
    255(c). *Implementation of Sections 255 and 251(A)(2) of the
    Communications Act of 1934, as Enacted by the Telecommunications Act
    of 1996*, Report and Order and Further Notice of Inquiry, FCC 99-181
    (rel. Sept. 29, 1999), 64 Fed. Reg. 63235 (Nov. 11, 1999) (*Section
    255 Order*)*. Cf.* Section 255 Order at n.29 (observing that the
    Access Board guidelines would require solutions to be evaluated
    based on whether they required vision or could provide auditory
    information in visual form.)

[^61]: Bell Atlantic Petition at 2-3, BellSouth Petition at 1-2.

[^62]: *Billed Party Preference for 0+ InterLATA Calls*, Erratum ¶ 6
    (Com. Car. Bur. Feb. 12, 1998).

[^63]: *See* n.11, *supra*.

[^64]: *See Second Report and Order*, 13 FCC Rcd at 6168 (the rules are
    inapplicable to 0- calls); *id*. at 6133 n.55 (the rule is
    inapplicable to 0- and 00 calls, which already afford callers the
    opportunity to obtain rate quotes).

[^65]: AT&T Comments on Petitions for Reconsideration at 3.

[^66]: *Second Report and Order*, 13 FCC Rcd at 6133, 6157.

[^67]: *Id*. at 6123 at n.2. *See AT&T\'s Private Payphone Commission
    Plan*, 3 FCC Rd 5834, 5837 (Chief, Com. Car. Bur. 1988) (0+ service
    is an operator-assisted service that enables consumers to complete a
    telephone call).

[^68]: *Second Report and Order*, 13 FCC Rcd at 6170.

[^69]: AT&T Petition at 4.

[^70]: AT&T states that, in other circumstances, when these phones\'
    store-and-forward capabilities are not being used, the rate
    information message will be provided as on all other aggregator
    phones. *Id.*

[^71]: Store-and-forward telephones that did not comply with the new
    rate disclosure requirement had to be retrofitted or replaced by no
    later than October 1, 1999.

[^72]: *See* 47 U.S.C. §153(22) (defining \"interstate communication\").

[^73]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 221(b) which provides, in pertinent part, that:

    > nothing in this Act shall be construced \[sic\] to apply, or to
    > give the Commission jurisdiction, with respect to charges,
    > classifications, practices, services, facilities, or regulations
    > for or in connection with wire, mobile, or point-to-point radio
    > telephone exchange service, or any combination thereof even though
    > a portion of such exchange service constitutes interstate or
    > foreign communication, in any case where such matters are subject
    > to regulation by a State commission or by local governmental
    > authority.

    47 U.S.C. § 221(b). *See also* 47 U.S.C. §§ 153(47), (48)
    (definitions of the terms \"telephone exchange service\" and
    \"telephone toll service,\" respectively).

[^74]: CURE Petition at 5-7.

[^75]: ICSPC comments at 3-4.

[^76]: *See* ¶ 15, *supra.*

[^77]: ^1^ *See* 5 U.S.C. § 604**.** The RFA, *see* 5 U.S.C. § 601 *et.
    seq.*, has been amended by the Contract With America Advancement Act
    of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-121, 110 Stat. 847 (1996) (CWAAA). Title II
    of the CWAAA is the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness
    Act of 1996 (SBREFA).

[^78]: ^2^ *Second Report and Order*, 13 FCC Rcd 6122, 6157 (1998).

[^79]: 5 U.S.C. § 603(b)(3).

[^80]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 601(3) (incorporating by reference the
    definition of "small business concern" in 15 U.S.C. § 632). Pursuant
    to 5 U.S.C. § 601(3), the statutory definition of a small business
    applies "unless an agency after consultation with the Office of
    Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and after opportunity
    for public comment, establishes one or more definitions of such term
    which are appropriate to the activities of the agency and publishes
    such definition(s) in the Federal Register."

[^81]: Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. § 632 (1996).

[^82]: 13 C. F. R. § 121.201.

[^83]: *Second Report and Order*, 13 FCC Rcd at 6161-6164.

[^84]: FCC, Common Carrier Bureau, Industry Analysis Division, *Trends
    in Telephone Service*, Table 16.3 (December 2000).