*Pages 1--14 from  Microsoft Word - 30589*
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  203 
 Before  the  Federal  Communications  Commission 
 Washington,  D.  C.  20554 
 In  the  Matter  of 
 Forbearance  from  Applying  Provisions  of  the  Communications  Act  to  Wireless 
 Telecommunications  Carriers 
 )  ) 
 )  ) 
 )  ) 
 )  ) 
 ) 
 WT  Docket  No.  98-  100 
 SECOND  REPORT  AND  ORDER 
 Adopted:  August  7,  2003  Released:  August  20,  2003 
 By  the  Commission: 
 I.  INTRODUCTION 
 1.  In  this  Second  Report  and  Order,  we  decline,  with  two  limited  exceptions,  to  forbear  any  further  from  applying  provisions  of  the  Telephone  Operator  Consumer  Services  Improvement  Act 
 (TOCSIA)  1  to  commercial  mobile  radio  services  (CMRS)  aggregators  and  operator  service  providers  (OSPs).  On  July  2,  1998,  the  Commission  released  the  PCIA  Forbearance  Order  and  Notice.  2  In  the 
 PCIA  Forbearance  Order,  the  Commission  decided  to  forbear  from  applying  TOCSIA  provisions  that  require  CMRS  aggregators  and  OSPs  to  provide  unblocked  access  and  to  file  informational  tariffs.  3  In  the 
 Notice,  the  Commission  requested  comment  regarding  whether,  pursuant  to  Sections  10  and  332(  c)(  1)(  A)  of  the  Communications  Act  of  1934,  as  amended  (the  Act),  4  the  Commission  should  forbear  any  further 
 from  applying  TOCSIA  and  the  Commissions  implementing  regulations  5  to  CMRS  aggregators  and  OSPs.  6  In  this  Second  Report  and  Order,  we  forbear  from  applying  two  additional  TOCSIA  provisions: 
 (1)  the  requirement  that  CMRS  OSPs  regularly  publish  changes  in  their  operator  services,  and  (2)  the  requirement  that  CMRS  OSPs  and  aggregators  route  emergency  calls.  We  conclude,  based  on  the  record 
 in  this  proceeding,  however,  that  the  remaining  TOCSIA  provisions  and  our  implementing  regulations 
 1  47  U.  S.  C.    226. 
 2  Personal  Communications  Industry  Associations  Broadband  Personal  Communications  Services  Alliances 
 Petition  for  Forbearance  For  Broadband  Personal  Communications  Services,  Memorandum  Opinion  and  Order  and  Notice  of  Proposed  Rulemaking,  13  FCC  Rcd  16857  (1998)  (PCIA  Forbearance  Order  and  Notice),  recon.  denied, 
 FCC  99-  250  (rel.  Sept.  27,  1999).  Although  the  PCIA  Forbearance  Order  and  the  Notice  are  in  the  same  document,  we  refer  to  the  PCIA  Forbearance  Order  and  the  Notice  as  if  they  were  separate  documents. 
 3  See  PCIA  Forbearance  Order  and  Notice,  13  FCC  Rcd  at  16894,    75. 
 4  47  U.  S.  C.    160,  332(  c)(  1)(  A). 
 5  47  C.  F.  R.    64.  703    64.  709. 
 6  On  September  8,  2000,  in  the  First  Report  and  Order  in  this  proceeding  (First  Report  and  Order),  the  Commission 
 addressed  the  various  proposals  set  forth  in  the  comments  to  the  Notice  and  in  the  PCIA  Letters,  other  than  those  dealing  with  TOCSIA.  Forbearance  from  Applying  Provisions  of  the  Communications  Act  to  Wireless 
 Telecommunications  Carriers,  WT  Docket  No.  98-  100,  First  Report  and  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  17414  (2000). 
1
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  203 
 2 
 that  apply  to  CMRS  carriers  continue  to  be  in  the  public  interest.  7 
 II.  BACKGROUND 
 A.  Forbearance  Standard 
 2.  Pursuant  to  Section  10  of  the  Act,  the  Commission  is  directed  to  forbear  from  applying  any  regulation  or  provision  of  the  Act  to  a  telecommunications  carrier  or  service,  or  class  of 
 telecommunications  carriers  or  services,  in  any  or  some  of  its  geographic  markets,  if  we  determine  that: 
 (1)  enforcement  of  such  regulation  or  provision  is  not  necessary  to  ensure  that  the  charges,  practices,  classifications,  or  regulations  by,  for,  or  in  connection  with  that  telecommunications 
 carrier  or  telecommunications  service  are  just  and  reasonable  and  are  not  unjustly  or  unreasonably  discriminatory; 
 (2)  enforcement  of  such  regulation  or  provision  is  not  necessary  for  the  protection  of  consumers;  and 
 (3)  forbearance  from  applying  such  provision  or  regulation  is  consistent  with  the  public  interest.  8 
 B.  TOCSIA  Requirements 
 3.  There  are  two  categories  of  requirements  set  forth  in  TOCSIA  and  its  implementing  rules:  1)  rules  applicable  to  aggregators  and  2)  rules  applicable  to  OSPs.  Aggregators  are  defined  as 
 persons  or  entities  that  make  telephones  available  to  the  public  or  to  transient  users  of  their  facilities  for  interstate  telephone  calls  using  a  provider  of  operator  services.  9  Operator  service  providers  are  defined 
 as  common  carriers  that  provide  operator  services,  or  any  other  persons  determined  by  the  Commission  to  be  providing  operator  services.  10  The  aggregator  and  OSP  in  a  given  arrangement  may  be  the  same  entity, 
 or  they  may  be  different  entities. 
 4.  TOCSIA  and  the  Commissions  regulations  require  aggregators  to  post  the  following  information  on  or  near  the  telephone  instrument,  in  plain  view  of  consumers:  (a)  the  name,  address,  and 
 toll-  free  telephone  number  of  the  OSP  presubscribed  to  the  telephone;  11  (b)  a  written  disclosure  that  rates  for  service  are  available  on  request,  and  that  consumers  have  a  right  to  obtain  access  to  the  OSP  of  their 
 choice  and  may  contact  their  preferred  OSP  for  information  on  accessing  its  service  using  that 
 7  Although  the  record  in  this  proceeding  is  five  years  old,  no  party  has  provided  us  with  information,  during  this 
 period,  to  persuade  us  that  the  market  for  public  mobile  phones  has  changed  in  ways  that  make  application  of  TOCSIA  a  hardship  for  CMRS  service  providers.  Moreover,  to  the  extent  changes  have  occurred  in  the  public 
 mobile  phone  market  since  we  released  PCIA  Forbearance  Order  and  Notice,  nothing  in  the  record  leads  us  to  conclude  that  these  changes  are  relevant  to  the  issues  we  are  addressing  in  the  proceeding. 
 8  47  U.  S.  C.    160(  a).  In  determining  whether  forbearance  is  consistent  with  the  public  interest,  we  consider  whether 
 forbearance  will  promote  competitive  market  conditions,  including  whether  it  will  enhance  competition  among  existing  telecommunications  service  providers.  47  U.  S.  C.    160(  b). 
 9  47  U.  S.  C.  226(  a)(  2);  47  C.  F.  R.    64.  708. 
 10  47  U.  S.  C.    226(  a)(  9);  47  C.  F.  R.    64.  708(  l). 
 11  47  U.  S.  C.    226(  c)(  1)(  A)(  i);  47  C.  F.  R.    64.703(  b)(  1).  A  "presubscribed  OSP"  is  the  OSP  to  which  the  consumer  is 
 connected  when  the  consumer  places  a  call  using  a  public  telephone  without  dialing  an  access  code.  See  47  U.  S.  C.    226(  a)(  8);  47  C.  F.  R.    64.708(  h).  In  the  landline  context,  aggregators  generally  enter  into  a  contract  with  an  OSP  and 
 receive  a  commission  from  the  OSP  for  the  arrangement. 
2
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  203 
 3 
 telephone;  12  (c)  in  the  case  of  a  pay  telephone,  the  local  coin  rate  for  the  pay  telephone  location;  13  and  (d)  the  name  and  address  of  the  Commission.  14 
 5.  In  addition,  TOCSIA  and  the  Commissions  regulations  require  OSPs  to  identify  themselves,  audibly  and  distinctly,  to  the  consumer  at  the  beginning  of  each  telephone  call  and  before  the 
 consumer  incurs  any  charge  for  the  call.  15  They  must  also  disclose  immediately  to  the  consumer,  upon  request  and  at  no  charge  to  the  consumer,  a  quotation  of  their  rates  or  charges  for  the  call,  the  methods  by 
 which  such  rates  or  charges  will  be  collected,  and  the  method  by  which  complaints  concerning  such  rates,  charges,  or  collection  practices  will  be  resolved.  16  Further,  OSPs  must  permit  the  consumer  to  terminate  a 
 telephone  call  at  no  charge  before  the  call  is  connected  17  and  must  not  bill  for  unanswered  telephone  calls.  18  Also,  OSPs  must  not  engage  in  "call  splashing"  19  unless  the  consumer  requests  to  be  transferred 
 to  another  OSP,  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.  20  Further,  except  for  the  foregoing,  OSPs  must  not  bill  for  a  call  that  does  not  reflect  the  location  of  the  origination  of  the  call.  21  OSPs  also  must  audibly  disclose  to  consumers  how  to  obtain  the 
 price  of  a  call  before  it  is  connected.  22 
 6.  The  regulatory  scheme  of  TOCSIA  affirmatively  charges  OSPs  with  overseeing  aggregator  compliance  with  the  statute's  aggregator  disclosure  requirements.  23  In  addition,  the 
 Commission  requires  OSPs  to  regularly  publish  and  make  available  at  no  cost  to  inquiring  customers  written  materials  that  describe  any  recent  changes  in  operator  services  and  in  the  choices  available  to 
 consumers  in  that  market,  24  and  the  Commission  requires  OSPs  and  aggregators  to  ensure  immediate  connection  of  emergency  telephone  calls  to  the  appropriate  emergency  service  of  the  reported  location  of 
 12  47  U.  S.  C.    226(  c)(  1)(  A)(  ii);  47  C.  F.  R.    64.703(  b)(  2). 
 13  47  C.  F.  R.    64.  703(  b)(  3). 
 14  47  U.  S.  C.    226(  c)(  1)(  A)(  iii);  47  C.  F.  R.    64.703(  b)(  4). 
 15  47  U.  S.  C.    226(  b)(  1)(  A);  47  C.  F.  R.    64.703(  a)(  1). 
 16  47  U.  S.  C.    226(  b)(  1)(  C);  47  C.  F.  R.    64.703(  a)(  3). 
 17  47  U.  S.  C.    226(  b)(  1)(  B);  47  C.  F.  R.    64.703(  a)(  2). 
 18  47  U.  S.  C.    226(  b)(  1)(  F-  G);  47  C.  F.  R.    64.705(  a)(  1-  2). 
 19  "Call  splashing"  means  the  transfer  of  a  telephone  call  from  one  OSP  to  another  in  such  a  manner  that  the  subsequent 
 OSP  is  unable  or  unwilling  to  determine  the  location  or  the  origination  of  the  call  and  because  of  such  inability  or  unwillingness,  is  prevented  from  billing  the  call  on  the  basis  of  such  location.  47  U.  S.  C.    226(  a)(  3);  47  C.  F.  R.   
 64.708(  c). 
 20  47  U.  S.  C.    226(  b)(  1)(  H);  47  C.  F.  R.    64.705(  a)(  3). 
 21  47  U.  S.  C.    226(  b)(  1)(  I);  47  C.  F.  R.    64.705(  a)(  4). 
 22  47  C.  F.  R.    64.  703(  a)(  4);  See  Billed  Party  Preference  for  InterLATA  0+  Calls,  Second  Report  and  Order  and 
 Order  on  Reconsideration,  13  FCC  Rcd  6122  (1998). 
 23  47  U.  S.  C.    226(  b)(  1)(  D-  E);  47  C.  F.  R.    64.703(  e),  64.  704(  b),  64.705(  a)(  5). 
 24  47  C.  F.  R.    64.  707.  See  also  47  U.  S.  C.    226(  d)(  3)(  B). 
3
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  203 
 4 
 the  emergency,  if  known,  and,  if  not  known,  of  the  originating  location  of  the  call.  25 
 C.  PCIA  Forbearance  Order  and  Notice 
 7.  In  the  PCIA  Forbearance  Order  and  Notice,  the  Commission  addressed  a  forbearance  request  by  the  Broadband  Personal  Communications  Services  Alliance  of  PCIA  and  decided,  inter  alia,  to 
 forbear  from  two  provisions  of  TOCSIA  for  all  CMRS  OSPs.  26  One  of  the  TOCSIA-  related  provisions  from  which  the  Commission  decided  to  forbear  was  the  unblocked  access  provision,  which  allows 
 consumers  access  to  the  OSP  of  their  choice.  The  Commission  also  forbore  from  requiring  CMRS  OSPs  to  file  informational  tariffs.  However,  the  Commission  concluded  that  the  record  was  insufficient  to 
 support  forbearance  from  the  other  requirements  of  TOCSIA.  Moreover,  with  respect  to  TOCSIAs  disclosure  requirements,  the  Commission  declined  to  forbear  because  of  the  vital  information  that 
 disclosure  provides  to  consumers  and  because  there  is  no  record  evidence  that  these  requirements  impose  an  undue  burden  .  .  .  .  27  Also  in  the  PCIA  Forbearance  Order  and  Notice,  28  the  Commission 
 affirmed  on  reconsideration  the  GTE  Declaratory  Ruling.  29  Concurrently  with  the  release  of  the  PCIA  Forbearance  Order,  the  Commission  issued  the  Notice,  in  which  the  Commission,  inter  alia,  sought 
 specific  information  relevant  to  determining  whether,  and  in  what  respects,  the  Commission  should  forbear  from  applying  or  modifying  additional  TOCSIA  requirements  in  the  CMRS  context.  30 
 8.  GTE  Service  Corporation  (GTE)  31  and  PCIA  32  filed  comments  and  reply  comments  supporting  forbearance  from  application  of  the  TOCISA  provisions  to  CMRS  carriers.  Omnipoint 
 Communications,  Inc.  (Omnipoint)  filed  comments  regarding  TOCSIAs  application  to  calling  party  pays  (CPP)  services.  33  AT&  T  Wireless  Services,  Inc.  (AT&  T  Wireless)  filed  an  ex  parte  presentation  also 
 supporting  forbearance.  34  No  party  filed  comments  opposing  forbearance  in  general. 
 III.  DISCUSSION 
 9.  We  decline,  with  two  limited  exceptions,  to  forbear  from  applying  TOCSIA  provisions  to  CMRS  aggregators  and  OSPs.  We  generally  conclude  that  TOCSIA  and  our  implementing  regulations 
 continue  to  be  in  the  public  interest  in  that  their  provisions  ensure  that  transient  users  of  mobile  telephones  designed  for  public  use  enjoy  the  same  benefits  they  would  have  if  they  were  using  their  own 
 25  47  C.  F.  R.    64.  706.  See  also  47  U.  S.  C.    226(  d)(  3)(  A). 
 26  See  PCIA  Forbearance  Order  and  Notice,  13  FCC  Rcd  at  16894,    75. 
 27  PCIA  Forbearance  Order  and  Notice,  13  FCC  Rcd  at  16903,    96. 
 28  PCIA  Forbearance  Order  and  Notice,  13  FCC  Rcd  at  16899-  900,    87-  88. 
 29  In  the  GTE  Declaratory  Ruling,  the  Common  Carrier  Bureau  found  that  GTE  Airfone,  GTE  Railfone,  and  GTE 
 Mobilnet  are  subject  to  TOCSIA.  Declaratory  Ruling,  8  FCC  Rcd  6171  (Comm.  Carr.  Bur.  1993)  (GTE  Declaratory  Ruling).  The  Bureau  concluded  that  Airfone,  Railfone,  and  Mobilnet,  all  GTE  subsidiaries,  were 
 aggregators  within  the  meaning  of  TOCSIA  because  in  the  ordinary  course  of  [their]  operations,  [they]  make  []  telephones  available  to  the  public  or  to  transient  users  of  [their]  premises,  for  interstate  telephone  calls.  The 
 Common  Carrier  Bureau  also  found  that  it  was  immaterial  to  the  applicability  of  TOCSIA  that  these  telephones  are  not  at  fixed  locations,  and  that  the  telephones  provided  by  the  GTE  subsidiaries  are  not  courtesy  telephones,  because 
 the  consumer,  not  the  telephone  provider,  pays  for  the  cost  of  the  call.  30 
 PCIA  Forbearance  Order  and  Notice,  13  FCC  Rcd  at  16900-  10,    89-  110.  31 
 GTE  Comments  filed  August  3,  1998.  32 
 PCIA  Comments  filed  August  3,  1998.  33 
 Omnipoint  Comments  filed  August  3,  1998.  34 
 AT&  T  Wireless  Ex  Parte  filed  December  11,  2002. 
4
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  203 
 5 
 private  mobile  telephones. 
 10.  We  forbear,  however,  from  applying  two  TOCSIA  provisions  to  CMRS  aggregators  and  OSPs  where  the  risks  of  conflicting  mandates  compels  forbearance  and  to  ensure  clarity  for  public  safety. 
 Specifically,  we  forbear  from  requiring  CMRS  OSPs  to  regularly  publish  and  make  available  at  no  cost  to  inquiring  consumers  written  materials  that  describe  any  recent  changes  in  the  operators  services  and  in 
 the  choices  available  to  consumers.  We  find  that  forbearing  from  this  provision  is  in  the  public  interest,  because  other  TOCSIA  provisions,  particularly  the  call  branding  and  rate  disclosure  requirements, 
 provide  consumers  with  sufficient  information  to  ensure  that  rates  and  practices  are  just  and  reasonable  and  that  consumers  are  protected.  Also,  we  forbear  from  applying  emergency  call  routing  provisions  of 
 TOCSIA  to  CMRS  aggregators  and  OSPs.  We  find  that  forbearance  in  this  case  to  be  in  the  public  interest,  because  the  current  E911  rules,  which  apply  to  the  vast  majority  of  CMRS  carriers,  are  sufficient 
 to  protect  consumers. 
 11.  We  analyze  below  whether  the  case  for  forbearing  from  applying  specific  TOCSIA  provisions  currently  applicable  to  CMRS  aggregators  and  OSPs  meets  the  Section  10  forbearance 
 standard.  We  conclude,  based  on  this  record,  that  the  case  for  forbearing  from  applying  TOCSIA  provisions  applicable  to  CMRS  aggregators  and  OSPs  fails  to  satisfy  the  Section  10  forbearance  standard 
 in  all  but  two  cases    OSP  publication  of  changes  in  services  and  routing  of  emergency  calls  by  covered  CMRS  OSPs.  We  find  that  the  information  in  the  record  does  not  justify  a  departure  from  the 
 Commissions  1998  determination  that  grounds  do  not  exist  to  support  complete  forbearance  from  applying  all  of  the  provisions  of  TOCSIA  and  the  Commissions  implementing  regulations  to  CMRS 
 OSPs  and  aggregators.  35 
 A.  Aggregator  Disclosure 
 12.  Background.  Under  our  rules,  CMRS  aggregators  are  required  to  post  the  following  information  on  or  near  the  telephone  instrument,  in  plain  view  of  consumers:  (a)  the  name,  address,  and 
 toll-  free  telephone  number  of  the  OSP  presubscribed  to  the  telephone;  (b)  in  the  case  of  a  pay  telephone,  the  local  coin  rate  for  the  pay  telephone  location;  36  and  (c)  the  name  and  address  of  the  Commission.  37 
 13.  In  the  Notice,  the  Commission  tentatively  concluded  that  it  should  continue  to  require  some  form  of  disclosure  by  CMRS  aggregators  similar  to  that  mandated  by  TOCSIA.  38  The  Commission 
 noted,  however,  that  due  to  the  increasing  diminution  in  size  of  CMRS  telephone  devices,  it  may  be  impossible  to  post  all  of  the  required  information,  in  a  legible  fashion,  on  the  telephone  instrument  itself.  39 
 Accordingly,  the  Commission  tentatively  concluded  to  forbear  from  requiring  CMRS  aggregators  to  post  disclosure  information  "on  or  near  the  telephone  instrument,"  and  to  instead  permit  some  or  all  CMRS 
 aggregators  to  use  some  other  reasonable  means  of  disclosure.  40 
 14.  Discussion.  We  decline  to  adopt  our  tentative  conclusion  to  forbear  from  requiring  aggregators  to  post  disclosure  information  on  or  near  the  telephone  instrument,  in  the  CMRS  context. 
 We  recognize  that,  due  to  the  diminutive  size  of  many  mobile  phones  today,  the  requisite  legible 
 35  See  PCIA  Forbearance  Order  and  Notice,  13  FCC  Rcd  at  16900,    89. 
 36  47  C.  F.  R.    64.703(  b)(  3). 
 37  47  U.  S.  C.    226(  c)(  1)(  A)(  iii);  47  C.  F.  R.    64.703(  b)(  4). 
 38  PCIA  Forbearance  Order  and  Notice,  13  FCC  Rcd  at  16903,    96. 
 39  PCIA  Forbearance  Order  and  Notice,  13  FCC  Rcd  at  16903-  04,    97. 
 40  Id. 
5
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  203 
 6 
 disclosure  language  may  not  practically  fit  on  the  mobile  phone.  We  find  that  forbearance  in  this  case  is  unnecessary,  however,  because  it  is  entirely  practicable  to  post  disclosure  information  near  the 
 mobile  phone.  In  the  mobile  phone  context,  aggregators  will  be  in  compliance  with  TOCSIA  if  they  post  the  necessary  information  near  the  mobile  phone  so  that  it  is  received  by  and  can  be  kept  by  end-  user 
 customers.  For  example,  CMRS  aggregators  will  be  in  compliance  with  TOCISIA  if  they  give  printed  documentation  to  the  customer.  CMRS  aggregators  may,  for  example,  provide  the  required  information 
 to  the  consumer  at  the  point  of  establishing  a  contractual  relationship,  e.  g.,  at  the  car  rental  counter  or  concierge  desk.  41 
 15.  We  find  that  aggregator  disclosure  requirements  are,  at  a  minimum,  necessary  to  protect  consumers,  as  required  under  the  second  prong  of  Section  10.  We  continue  to  believe  that  these 
 requirements  provide  vital  information  to  consumers  of  telecommunications  services  designed  for  public  use,  and  there  is  no  evidence  in  the  record  that  these  requirements  impose  an  undue  burden  on 
 aggregators.  With  our  decision  here  not  to  forbear  from  enforcing  these  provisions,  we  ensure  that  customers  of  CMRS  aggregators  will  benefit  from  access  to  the  same  information  that  is  available  to 
 direct  customers  of  CMRS  providers,  including  the  identity  of  and  how  to  contact  the  underlying  service  provider,  how  to  obtain  information  on  rates,  and  how  to  lodge  complaints  about  service. 
 B.  OSP  Oversight  of  Aggregators 
 16.  Background.  Responsibility  for  enforcement  of  the  aggregator  disclosure  requirements  is,  in  addition  to  being  placed  on  the  aggregator  as  described  above,  placed  upon  the  OSP  used  by  the 
 aggregator.  Under  TOCSIA  and  our  implementing  regulations,  an  OSP  is  obligated  to  ensure,  by  contract  or  tariff,  that  each  aggregator  for  which  such  provider  is  the  presubscribed  provider  of  operator  services  is 
 in  compliance  with  the  aggregator  disclosure  requirements. 
 17.  In  the  Notice,  the  Commission  tentatively  concluded  that  it  should  retain  the  requirement  that  CMRS  OSPs  ensure  by  contract  or  tariff  that  aggregators  will  comply  with  the  disclosure 
 requirements.  42  PCIA  contends  that  the  realities  of  the  wireless  industry  make  OSP  oversight  impossible  because  CMRS  OSPs  typically  do  not  have  contracts  with  aggregators,  and  indeed  may  not  know  who 
 aggregators  of  their  services  are.  The  Commission  therefore  sought  comment  regarding  the  prevalence  of  contractual  arrangements  between  CMRS  aggregators  and  OSPs  and  on  whether  OSPs  that  do  not  have 
 contracts  with  their  aggregators,  or  do  not  know  who  their  aggregators  are,  should  be  exempt  from  the  oversight  requirement.  43 
 18.  Discussion.  Consistent  with  our  tentative  conclusion,  we  find  that  the  OSP  oversight  requirement  is  a  necessary  business  tool  to  ensure  that  aggregators  comply  with  their  TOCSIA 
 obligations.  In  situations  where,  for  example,  the  CMRS  carrier  agrees  to  a  contractual  arrangement  with  an  aggregator  whereby  it  directly  imposes  charges  upon  members  of  the  public,  we  find  no  basis  for 
 justifying  forbearance  from  TOCSIA.  Although  the  potential  for  abuse  has  been  claimed  to  come  from 
 41  We  note  that  before  TOCSIA  was  enacted,  we  proposed  to  afford  aggregators  the  option  of  meeting  their  disclosure 
 obligations  by  giving  printed  documentation  to  the  customer  in  person.  We  provided  as  examples  that  a  customer  at  a  hotel  or  a  patient  at  a  hospital  could  be  given  the  required  information  while  checking  in.  Policies  and  Rules 
 Concerning  Operator  Service  Providers,  Notice  of  Proposed  Rule  Making,  5  FCC  Rcd.  4630,  4632,    17  (1990)  (OSP  Notice).  These  examples,  however,  would  apply  only  in  the  wireless  context  to  CMRS  aggregators,  not  in  the  wireline 
 context.  We  will  continue  to  require  all  non-  CMRS  aggregators  to  comply  with  the  posting  requirement  of  47  C.  F.  R.    64.703(  b)  as  described  in  Policies  and  Rules  Concerning  Operator  Service  Providers,  Report  and  Order,  6  FCC  Rcd. 
 2744,  2759,    36  (1991)  (TOCSIA  Implementing  Order). 
 42  PCIA  Forbearance  Order  and  Notice,  13  FCC  Rcd  at  16905,    100. 
 43  Id. 
6
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  203 
 7 
 the  aggregator  because  it  is  the  aggregator  that  may  most  effectively  take  advantage  of  the  consumer,  in  this  particular  context  involving  the  existence  of  a  contractual  arrangement,  the  CMRS  OSP  may  wield  an 
 important  business  influence  over  the  aggregator.  Similar  to  the  wireline  context,  we  cannot  forbear  under  the  first  prong  of  Section  10  when  this  rule  requiring  such  a  business  influence  may  serve  to 
 prevent  potential  abuses  before  they  occur.  In  addition,  we  do  not  believe  this  business  function  to  be  insignificant  to  protecting  the  consumer  under  the  second  prong  of  the  Section  10  forbearance  standard. 
 19.  Under  TOCSIA,  each  OSP  must  ensure  by  contract  or  tariff  that  each  aggregator  with  which  it  has  contracted  is  in  compliance  with  its  disclosure  obligations.  44  In  the  absence  of  a  contract  or 
 tariff  with  an  aggregator  to  provide  OSP  services  or  knowledge  of  the  aggregators  activities,  the  OSP  is  not  responsible  for  ensuring  aggregator  compliance.  Section  226(  b)(  1)(  D)  requires  that  each  provider  of 
 operator  services  shall  ensure,  by  contract  or  tariff,  that  each  aggregator  for  which  such  provider  is  a  presubscribed  provider  of  operator  services  is  in  compliance  with  the  aggregator  service  provisions  of 
 TOCSIA.  This  provision  presupposes  the  existence  of  a  sufficient  nexus  between  aggregator  and  OSP  such  that  a  contract  or  tariff  would  be  the  appropriate  mechanism  on  which  to  base  the  oversight 
 requirement.  To  the  extent  that  a  CMRS  OSP  has  a  contractual  relationship  with  an  aggregator  of  its  service,  the  CMRS  OSP  must  have  a  provision  in  the  relevant  contract  requiring  aggregator  compliance 
 with  TOCSIA  and  the  Commissions  related  rules.  45  If  a  CMRS  OSP  lacks  a  contractual  relationship  with  an  aggregator  or  has  no  knowledge  of  the  aggregator,  the  statutory  text  does  not  require  such 
 oversight  by  the  CMRS  OSP.  Accordingly,  PCIAs  and  AT&  T  Wireless  concerns  that  it  would  be  impossible  for  a  CMRS  provider  serving  a  mobile  public  phone  roamer  to  enforce  compliance  by  the 
 owner  aggregator  of  the  mobile  public  phone  because  the  CMRS  provider  will  have  no  contractual  or  tariff  relationship  with  the  aggregator,  are  moot.  46 
 C.  OSP  Identification  and  Rate  Disclosure 
 20.  Background.  TOCSIA  and  our  regulations  also  impose  a  number  of  requirements  upon  CMRS  OSPs.  OSPs  must  identify  themselves,  audibly  and  distinctly,  to  the  consumer  at  the  beginning  of 
 each  telephone  call  and  before  the  consumer  incurs  any  charge  for  the  call,  a  practice  referred  to  as  call  branding.  47  OSPs  must  also  permit  the  consumer  to  terminate  a  telephone  call  at  no  charge  before  the 
 call  is  connected.  They  must  also  disclose  immediately  to  the  consumer,  upon  request  and  at  no  charge  to  the  consumer,  a  quotation  of  their  rates  or  charges  for  the  call,  the  methods  by  which  such  rates  or  charges 
 will  be  collected,  and  the  method  by  which  complaints  concerning  such  rates,  charges,  or  collection  practices  will  be  resolved.  Finally,  the  Commission  recently  added  a  requirement  that  OSPs  must 
 audibly  disclose  to  consumers  how  to  obtain  the  price  of  a  call  before  it  is  connected.  48 
 44  See  47  U.  S.  C.    226(  b)(  1)(  D). 
 45  Id.  In  1994,  the  Commission  adopted  a  mandatory  detariffing  policy  for  providers  of  domestic  CMRS  and 
 reiterated  its  conclusion  that  non-  dominant  carriers  are  unlikely  to  behave  anticompetitively,  in  violation  of  Sections  201(  b)  and  202(  a)  of  the  Act,  because  they  recognize  that  such  behavior  would  result  in  a  loss  of 
 consumers.  Implementation  of  sections  3(  n)  and  332  of  the  Communications  Act,  Regulatory  Treatment  of  Mobile  Services,  GN  Docket  No.  93-  252,  Second  Report  and  Order,  9  FCC  Rcd  1411,  1478  (1994),  citing,  Policy  and 
 Rules  Concerning  Rates  for  Competitive  Common  Carrier  Services  and  Facilities  Authorizations,  First  Report  and  Order,  85  FCC  2d  1,  31. 
 46  PCIA  Comments  at  9. 
 47  Call  branding  is  the  process  by  which  an  OSP  audibly  and  distinctly  identifies  itself  to  every  person  who  uses  its 
 operator  services.  OSP  Notice,  5  FCC  Rcd  at  4632.  The  OSP  is  required  to  brand  the  call  at  the  beginning  of  each  call  and  again  before  the  customer  incurs  any  charge  for  the  call.  See  47  C.  F.  R.    64.  703(  a),  64.  703(  c);  47  U.  S.  C. 
   226(  b)(  1)(  A).  GTE  Declaratory  Order,  8  FCC  Rcd  at  6172,  note  16.  48 
 47  C.  F.  R.    64.703(  a)(  4). 
7
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  203 
 8 
 21.  In  the  Notice,  the  Commission  sought  additional  comment  on  whether  the  OSP  disclosure  and  call  termination  requirements  are  unnecessary  to  protect  consumers  because  CMRS  providers'  rates 
 and  practices  are  reasonable,  competitive  market  forces  motivate  CMRS  providers  to  offer  services  at  reasonable  rates,  and  CMRS  providers  generally  disclose  rate  information  as  a  matter  of  sound  business 
 practice.  In  addition,  given  existing  billing  practices  in  the  CMRS  context,  it  sought  information  on  whether,  and  under  what  circumstances,  end  users  are  billed  by  aggregators,  OSPs,  or  both. 
 22.  Discussion.  We  decline  to  forbear  from  applying  these  TOCSIA  provisions  against  CMRS  aggregators  and  OSPs.  In  the  Notice,  the  Commission  asked  questions  designed  to  elicit  specific 
 information  relevant  to  determining  whether  and  in  what  respects  the  Commission  could  forbear  from  applying  these  provisions  to  CMRS  providers.  We  find  that  the  record  does  not  justify  deviating  from  the 
 Commissions  ruling  in  the  PCIA  Forbearance  Order  that  these  TOCSIA  provisions  should  apply  to  the  actions  of  CMRS  providers. 
 23.  In  the  PCIA  Forbearance  Order,  the  Commission  concluded  that,  based  on  the  record  at  that  time,  the  criteria  for  forbearance  from  applying  OSP  identification,  disclosure  and  call  termination 
 requirements  to  CMRS  OSPs  were  not  satisfied.  49  The  record  remains  insufficient  to  support  the  conclusion  that  enforcement  of  these  TOCSIA  requirements  is  not  necessary  to  ensure  that  the  charges 
 and  practices  are  just  and  unreasonable,  as  required  under  the  first  prong  of  Section  10.  PCIA  contends,  for  example,  that  the  Commission  should  forbear  from  enforcing  these  provisions  because  providers 
 typically  act  reasonably  and  disclose  their  rates  as  a  part  of  good  business  practices  and  that  deploying  call  branding  capabilities  is  expensive  and  confusing  to  consumers  in  a  roaming  context.  50  This  argument 
 in  support  of  forbearance,  however,  is  conclusory  and  not  fully  responsive  to  the  specific  questions  the  Commission  posed  in  the  Notice. 
 24.  Further,  the  record  is  insufficient  to  support  the  conclusion  that  enforcement  of  these  TOCSIA  requirements  is  not  necessary  to  protect  consumers,  as  required  under  the  second  prong  of 
 Section  10.  In  the  CMRS  context,  TOCSIA's  primary  requirement  is  that  an  OSP  identify  itself  and,  upon  request,  provide  information  about  rates  and  how  to  file  a  complaint  with  the  Commission.  This  branding 
 requirement  affords  clear  protection  to  consumers  by  ensuring  that  they  have  basic  information  needed  to  decide  whether  or  not  to  incur  charges  for  OSP-  supported  calls.  Removing  the  requirement  could  put 
 consumers  at  risk  of  not  having  access  to  this  information,  which  we  find  would  be  violative  of  the  consumer  protection  prong  of  Section  10. 
 25.  We  also  find  that  the  record  does  not  support  the  contention  that  requiring  CMRS  carriers  to  brand  calls  would  cause  customer  confusion  or  impose  unacceptably  high  costs  on  carriers.  PCIA 
 contends  that  branding  can  cause  customer  confusion  because  CMRS  providers  cannot  always  distinguish  between  calls  from  mobile  phones  designed  for  public  use  and  other  calls.  GTE  similarly  contends  that, 
 absent  an  ability  to  identify  a  call  as  originating  from  an  aggregator,  CMRS  carriers  would  have  to  brand  every  wireless  call  in  order  to  comply  with  TOCSIA  requirements.  51  We  are  not  persuaded  by  these 
 arguments.  First,  while  the  OSP  branding  requirement  of  TOCSIA  applies  to  calls  initiated  from  aggregator  locations  that  involve  automatic  or  live  assistance  to  the  consumer  to  arrange  for  billing  or  call 
 completion,  it  does  not  apply  to  calls  that  are  automatically  completed  with  billing  to  the  telephone  from  which  the  call  originated,  or  to  calls  that  are  completed  through  an  access  code  used  by  the  consumer, 
 with  billing  to  an  account  previously  established  with  the  carrier  by  the  consumer.  52  Accordingly, 
 49  See  PCIA  Forbearance  Order  and  Notice,  13  FCC  Rcd  at  16906,    102,  citing,  PCIA  Forbearance  Order  and 
 Notice,  13  FCC  Rcd  at  16898-  99,    86.  50 
 PCIA  Comments  at  13.  51 
 GTE  Comments  at  11.  52 
 47  U.  S.  C.    226(  a)(  7). 
8
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  203 
 9 
 TOCSIAs  branding  requirement  does  not  apply  to  the  vast  majority  of  wireless  calls  that  consumers  make  within  their  home  calling  areas,  which  are  typically  automatically  completed  and  billed  to  the 
 callers  telephone. 
 26.  Second,  we  are  not  persuaded  by  PCIAs  argument  that  the  branding  requirement  will  cause  confusion  or  be  unduly  burdensome  in  the  roaming  context.  In  most  cases,  roaming  is 
 accomplished  through  automatic  roaming  arrangements  that  provide  for  automated  completion  and  direct  billing  of  calls.  Thus,  as  in  the  case  of  automatically  placed  and  billed  calls  within  the  callers  home  area, 
 automatic  roaming  calls  are  not  subject  to  TOCSIA.  On  the  other  hand,  the  branding  requirement  does  potentially  apply  to  manual  roaming  calls  made  from  aggregator  phones,  because  such  calls  are  not 
 automatically  billed  to  the  originating  number  but  are  typically  paid  for  by  credit  card.  PCIA  asserts  that,  in  order  to  comply  with  this  requirement,  CMRS  OSPs  would  have  to  brand  all  roaming  calls  that  are  not 
 billed  to  the  originating  number,  53  without  knowing  whether  the  caller  is  using  an  aggregator  phone.  We  do  not  believe  this  to  be  a  significant  burden  for  several  reasons.  First,  because  manual  roaming  calls 
 make  up  a  small  percentage  of  all  wireless  calls,  the  number  of  calls  that  will  actually  require  branding  is  quite  small.  Further,  the  commenters  fail  to  explain  how  branding  all  manual  roaming  calls  would  result 
 in  significant  costs  to  carriers  or  customer  confusion.  Because  manual  roaming  calls  require  preliminary  communication  between  the  OSP  and  the  caller  to  arrange  for  credit  card  billing,  CMRS  OSPs  are  likely 
 to  identify  themselves  and  explain  their  billing  requirements  to  end-  user  customers  in  any  event,  and  we  believe  that  such  identifications  and  disclosures  can,  with  minimal  modifications,  be  made  to  comply  with 
 TOCSIA.  In  any  case,  we  believe  that  the  benefits  associated  with  requiring  compliance  with  TOCSIA  when  manual  roaming  calls  are  made  from  aggregator  phones  outweigh  the  potential  costs  that 
 commenters  have  suggested  would  be  associated  with  ensuring  such  compliance.  Moreover,  if  carriers  seek  to  avoid  unnecessary  branding  of  manual  roaming  calls  from  non-  aggregator  phones,  they  are  free  to 
 devise  and  implement  methods  to  distinguish  aggregator  from  non-  aggregator  calls. 
 27.  Finally,  GTE  argues  that  the  rate  disclosure  requirement  is  of  little  use  because  the  rates  charged  for  wireless  public  phones  are  typically  set  by  aggregators  and  that  the  OSP  rates  disclosed  by  the 
 OSP  would  be  only  a  portion  of  the  overall  rate  for  the  call.  54  GTE  is  mistaken  about  the  rate  disclosure  requirement.  The  OSPs  obligation  is  merely  to  inform  the  consumer  of  the  rates  it  bills  for  and  how  to 
 obtain  the  total  cost  of  the  call,  including  any  aggregator  surcharge.  The  OSP  is  not  obliged  to  guess  the  aggregators  rate  if  not  billed  for  by  the  OSP.  55  With  this  important  rate  information  from  the  aggregator 
 and  the  OSP,  the  consumer  can  make  an  informed  decision  as  to  whether  to  place  the  call.  56 
 D.  Call  Splashing 
 28.  Background.  TOCSIA  and  the  implementing  regulations  prohibit  OSPs  from  engaging  in  "call  splashing"  or  billing  for  a  call  that  does  not  reflect  the  originating  location  of  the  call  without  the 
 consumer's  informed  consent.  57  In  the  Notice,  the  Commission  sought  detailed  information  on  the  costs 
 53  PCIA  Comments  at  13. 
 54  GTE  Comments  at  8-  9. 
 55  47  U.  S.  C.    226(  b)(  1)(  C). 
 56  In  the  Notice,  the  Commission  sought  comment  on  TOCSIAs  provision  prohibiting  OSPs  from  billing  for 
 unanswered  telephone  calls.  See  PCIA  Forbearance  Order  and  Notice,  13  FCC  Rcd  at  16907-  8,    105.  We  find,  pursuant  to  47  U.  S.  C.    226(  b)(  1)(  F-  G)  and  47  U.  S.  C.    332(  c)(  8),  that  the  billing  for  unanswered  calls  provision  of 
 TOCSIA  does  not  apply  to  CMRS  carriers,  and  this  issue  is,  therefore,  moot  in  the  CMRS  context. 
 57  47  U.  S.  C.    226(  b)(  1)(  H-  I);  47  C.  F.  R.    64.  705(  a)(  3-  4).  "Call  splashing"  occurs  when  a  call  is  transferred  from  one 
 OSP  to  another,  and  the  second  OSP  cannot  determine  the  origination  point  of  the  call,  and  the  customers  bill  reflects  a  different  origination  point  (and  possibly,  different  charges).  47  U.  S.  C.    226(  a)(  3);  47  C.  F.  R.    64.708(  c).  Example: 
 (continued....) 
9
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  203 
 10 
 to  CMRS  OSPs  of  complying  with  the  call  splashing  prohibition  for  calls  made  through  aggregators  and,  to  the  extent  that  CMRS  providers  cannot  distinguish  between  customers  of  aggregators  and  other  users, 
 the  costs  of  complying  with  this  prohibition  on  other  calls  as  well.  58 
 29.  Discussion.  We  decline  to  forbear  from  applying  the  call  splashing  provisions  of  TOCSIA  against  OSPs.  In  the  Notice,  the  Commission  asked  questions  designed  to  elicit  specific 
 information  relevant  to  determining  whether  and  in  what  respects  the  Commission  could  forbear  from  applying  these  provisions  to  CMRS  providers.  We  find  that  the  record  does  not  justify  deviating  from  the 
 Commissions  ruling  in  the  PCIA  Forbearance  Order  that  these  TOCSIA  provisions  apply  to  the  actions  of  CMRS  providers.  In  response  to  our  request  for  comment,  PCIA  and  AT&  T  Wireless  submitted  no 
 cost  estimates,  and  simply  argued  that  because  of  flat  toll  pricing,  call  splashing,  even  if  it  occurred,  would  not  adversely  affect  charges  to  consumers  and  that  there  is  no  evidence  of  complaints  that  such  a 
 practice  has  been  a  problem  in  the  CMRS  context.  59  We  reject  PCIAs  and  AT&  Ts  contention  that  flat  toll  pricing  has  eliminated  all  possible  adverse  effects  of  call  splashing.  Even  today,  there  are  many 
 wireless  calling  plans  that  do  not  include  free  long  distance  service  and  therefore  providers  will  charge  distance  sensitive  rates  in  some  instances.  Moreover,  we  believe  that  any  costs  of  CMRS  OSPs  meeting 
 these  requirements  are  minimal. 
 30.  We  also  cannot  conclude,  based  on  this  record,  that  enforcement  of  these  TOCSIA  requirements  is  not  necessary  to  protect  consumers,  as  required  under  the  second  prong  of  Section  10. 
 Based  on  the  record  before  us  on  this  issue,  which  is  essentially  the  same  record  the  Commission  used  in  adopting  the  Notice,  we  make  a  finding  under  Section  10  that  the  prohibition  of  call  splashing,  unless  the 
 consumer  is  informed  and  consents,  continues  to  protect  consumers  from  being  billed  for  calls  that  do  not  reflect  their  originating  points  and  allows  consumers  to  make  an  informed  decision  to  have  calls  splashed. 
 31.  Further,  we  disagree  with  the  arguments  of  PCIA  that  a  lack  of  complaints  against  CMRS  aggregators  and  OSPs  necessarily  indicate  the  absence  of  a  problem  for  any  of  the  rules  to  address.  60  The 
 absence  of  complaints  filed  with  the  Commission  is  not  enough  to  support  full  forbearance  at  a  time  when  the  market  for  CMRS  activities  affected  by  TOCSIA  remains  limited.  Central  to  the  operation  of  the  OSP 
 rules  is  the  provision  of  information  to  the  consumer  that,  if  provided,  is  intended  to  obviate  the  need  for  complaints.  We  therefore  find  that  it  is  in  the  public  interest  to  continue  to  apply  this  requirement  to 
 CMRS  offerings  that  are  subject  to  TOCSIA  and  our  regulations. 
 (...  continued  from  previous  page)  A  consumer  in  a  hotel  in  Washington  D.  C.  wishes  to  place  a  call  using  a  calling  card  from  her 
 chosen  interexchange  carrier  (IXC)  to  Baltimore,  MD.  The  presubscribed  OSP  for  that  hotel  is  based  in  Chicago.  The  OSP  is  unable  to  accept  the  calling  card,  so  the  caller  asks  the  OSP  to  transfer  the 
 call  to  an  operator  of  her  chosen  IXC.  The  operator  of  the  consumers  carrier  of  choice  is  unaware  that  the  call  is  originating  in  Washington.  The  customer  is,  therefore,  billed  for  a  call  from  Chicago 
 to  Baltimore,  rather  than  from  Washington  to  Baltimore. 
 Call  splashing  is  allowed  when  the  consumer  requests  to  be  transferred  to  another  OSP,  the  consumer  is  notified  in  advance  that  the  rates  for  the  call  may  not  reflect  the  rates  from  the  actual  originating  location  of  the  call,  and  the 
 consumer  thereafter  consents  to  be  transferred.  See  47  C.  F.  R.    64.705(  a)(  3);  47  U.  S.  C.    226(  b)(  1)(  H). 
 58  PCIA  Forbearance  Order  and  Notice,  13  FCC  Rcd  at  16909,    107. 
 59  PCIA  Comments  at  14-  15. 
 60  PCIA  Comments  at  2. 
10
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  203 
 11 
 E.  OSP  Publication  of  Changes  in  Services 
 32.  Background.  Pursuant  to  the  relevant  provision  of  TOCSIA,  61  the  Commission  has  required  OSPs  to  regularly  publish  and  make  available  at  no  cost  to  inquiring  consumers  written  materials 
 that  describe  any  recent  changes  in  operator  services  and  in  the  choices  available  to  consumers  in  that  market.  62  In  the  Notice,  the  Commission  sought  comment  on  the  costs  and  benefits  of  requiring  CMRS 
 OSPs  to  publish  regular  reports  of  their  changes  in  light  of  the  nature  of  the  services  provided,  the  level  of  abuses,  and  carriers  customer  disclosure  practices. 
 33.  Discussion.  We  forbear  from  applying  the  OSP  publication  provision  of  TOCSIA  against  CMRS  OSPs.  In  this  instance,  we  find  that  enforcement  of  these  TOCSIA  requirements  is  not  necessary 
 to  ensure  that  charges  and  practices  are  just  and  reasonable  or  to  protect  consumers.  We  also  find  that  forbearance  from  applying  these  requirements  is  in  the  public  interest. 
 34.  As  service  providers  not  bound  by  rate  regulation  or  publication  requirements,  CMRS  carriers  are  generally  not  required  to  publish  their  rates  and  contract  terms  even  though  many  of  them  do 
 in  order  to  remain  competitive.  63  Singling  out  particular  CMRS  services    such  as  CMRS  OSPs    for  disparate  treatment  does  not  serve  the  public  interest.  Fluid  and  rapid  price  competition  has  long  typified 
 wireless  services.  This  is  especially  true  when  the  call  branding  and  rate  disclosure  requirements  of  TOCSIA  ensure  that  consumers  of  CMRS  OSP  services  are  given  the  CMRS  OSP  identification,  terms 
 and  rate  information  they  need  to  make  an  informed  decision  on  whether  to  place  a  call  on  a  CMRS  aggregator  phone.  More  specifically,  at  their  request,  consumers  will  be  informed  of  the  methods  by 
 which  such  rates  or  charges  will  be  collected  and  the  method  by  which  complaints  concerning  such  rates,  charges,  or  collection  practices  will  be  resolved.  The  consumer  would  also  be  informed  of  how  to  obtain 
 the  price  of  a  call  before  the  call  is  connected,  including  any  aggregator  surcharge.  64  We  conclude  that  these  call  branding  and  rate  disclosure  requirements,  which  require  CMRS  OSPs  to  provide  their  identity, 
 and  rate  or  charge  information,  is  sufficient  to  ensure  just  and  reasonable  charges  and  practices  from  CMRS  OSPs.  65  In  that  regard,  we  also  find  that  enforcement  of  the  OSP  publication  provision  is  not 
 necessary  for  the  protection  of  consumers  precisely  because  of  the  unique  incentives  CMRS  OSPs  have  to  advertise  their  services  and  make  information  important  to  consumers  available  as  a  matter  of  sound 
 business  practice.  66  In  addition,  we  find  that  there  are  important  public  interest  benefits  associated  with  reducing  regulatory  compliance  costs  (i.  e.,  those  costs  associated  with  the  creation  of  the  required  reports, 
 databases,  personnel  training,  mailing,  etc.),  in  light  of  the  fact  that  those  cost  reductions  can  be  translated  into  lower  prices  to  consumers.  67  Finally,  however,  we  encourage  CMRS  OSPs  to  provide  voluntarily  to 
 inquiring  consumers  information  that  describes  recent  changes  in  operator  services  and  in  the  choices  available  to  consumers  in  the  CMRS  OSP  market.  We  note  that  CMRS  OSPs  may  make  this  information 
 available  to  consumers  by,  for  example,  updating  information  on  their  websites. 
 61  47  U.  S.  C.  226(  d)(  3)(  B). 
 62  47  C.  F.  R.    64.707. 
 63  47  C.  F.  R.    42.11(  a).  This  is  contrasted  by  the  publication  requirements  imposed  on  wireline  carriers.  47  C.  F.  R. 
   42.  10  and  47  C.  F.  R.    42.  11.  64 
 47  C.  F.  R.    64.  703(  a)(  4).  We  also  note  that  the  aggregator,  in  its  disclosure,  will  provide  the  consumer  with  the  name  and  toll-  free  telephone  number  of  the  aggregators  OSP. 
 65  Often,  CMRS  OSPs  find  they  must  publish  their  rates  and  contract  terms  in  advertising  in  order  to  attract  new 
 customers  in  this  highly  competitive  market.  PCIA  Comments  at  16.  66 
 PCIA  Comments  at  15-  16.  67 
 See  PCIA  Comments  at  16. 
11
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  203 
 12 
 F.  Routing  of  Emergency  Calls 
 35.  Background.  TOCSIA  requires  that  the  Commission  establish  minimum  standards  for  providers  of  operator  services  and  aggregators  to  use  in  the  routing  and  handling  of  emergency  telephone 
 calls.  68  Under  our  rules  implementing  this  provision,  OSPs  and  aggregators  are  required  to  ensure  immediate  connection  of  emergency  telephone  calls  to  the  appropriate  emergency  service  of  the  reported 
 location  of  the  emergency,  if  known,  and  if  not  known,  of  the  originating  location  of  the  call.  69 
 36.  Under  the  Commissions  rules,  certain  mobile  wireless  licensees  are  required  to  implement  basic  911  and  enhanced  911  (E911)  services.  70  Cellular  licensees,  broadband  Personal 
 Communications  Service  (PCS)  licensees,  and  certain  Specialized  Mobile  Radio  (SMR)  licensees,  71  collectively  covered  carriers,  72    are  required  to  meet  basic  and  enhanced  911  service  requirements  for 
 completing  emergency  calls,  including  forwarding  all  911  calls  without  delay  73  and  relaying  a  callers  Automatic  Number  Identification  (ANI)  and  Automatic  Location  Information  (ALI)  to  the  appropriate 
 Public  Safety  Answering  Point  (PSAP).  74 
 37.  Discussion.  We  forbear  from  applying  the  emergency  call  routing  provision  of  TOCSIA  to  CMRS  aggregators  and  OSPs  because  the  current  E911  regulatory  regime,  which  applies  to  the  vast 
 majority  of  CMRS  OSPs,  is  clearer  and  more  comprehensive  than  the  TOCSIA  requirements  to  protect  consumers.  The  E911  rules  make  more  comprehensive  emergency  service  requirements  applicable  to 
 covered  CMRS  carriers  and  we  see  no  reason  to  also  apply  the  duplicative  and  potentially  confusing  and  conflicting  emergency  call  routing  requirements  that  are  a  part  of  TOCSIA.  In  applying  the 
 forbearance  standard,  we  first  find  that  enforcement  of  the  emergency  call  routing  provision  is  not  necessary  to  ensure  just  and  reasonable  charges  and  practices.  Due  to  the  potential  for  conflicting 
 requirements  and  confusion,  we  believe  our  current  E911  rules  better  define  a  standard  for  reasonable  practices  as  they  relate  to  call  routing.  Second,  we  find  that  enforcement  of  the  TOCSIA  emergency  call 
 68  47  U.  S.  C.    226(  d)(  3)(  A). 
 69  47  C.  F.  R.    64.  706. 
 70  See  Revision  of  the  Commissions  Rules  to  Ensure  Compatibility  With  Enhanced  911  Emergency  Calling 
 Systems,  CC  Docket  No.  94-  102,  Report  and  Order  and  Further  Notice  of  Proposed  Rulemaking,  11  FCC  Rcd.  18676  (1996)  (E911  First  Report  and  Order). 
 71  The  Commissions  E911  requirements  covered  only  SMR  licensees  that  held  either  licenses  or  authorizations  to 
 operate  800  MHz  or  900  MHz  service.  E911  First  Report  and  Order,  11  FCC  Rcd  18676,  18716-  18  at  paras.  80-  84.  Covered  SMR  also  included  those  800/  900  MHz  SMR  licensees  that  offered  real-  time,  two-  way  switched  voice 
 service  that  was  interconnected  with  the  public  switched  network,  either  on  a  stand-  alone  basis  or  packaged  with  other  telecommunications  services.  E911  First  Report  and  Order,  11  FCC  Rcd  18676,  18716-  18  at  paras.  80-  84. 
 72  Id.  at  18716-  18  paras.  80-  84. 
 73  See  E911  First  Report  and  Order,  11  FCC  Rcd  at  18692-  97  paras.  29-  42  (requiring  covered  carriers  to  transmit  all 
 911  calls  without  subjecting  them  to  any  call  validation  procedures).  Covered  carriers  are  defined  as  licensees  (1)  that  offered  real-  time,  two-  way  switched  voice  service,  interconnected  with  the  public  switched  network,  either  on  a 
 stand-  alone  basis  or  packaged  with  other  telecommunications  services;  (2)  whose  customers  clearly  expected  access  to  911  and  E911;  (3)  that  competed  with  analog  and  broadband  PCS  providers;  and  (4)  where  it  is  technically  and 
 operationally  feasible  to  provide  enhanced  911  service.  74 
 E911  First  Report  and  Order,  11  FCC  Rcd  18676,  18689-  18722  paras.  24-  91.  Recognizing  the  need  for  vigorous  implementation  of  the  E911  requirements,  the  Commission  adopted  a  phased  implementation  plan  for  the  covered 
 carriers.  Phase  I  implementation,  which  requires  a  covered  carrier  to  transmit  a  911  callers  call-  back  number  and  cell  site  to  the  appropriate  PSAP,  began  on  April  1,  1998.  See  47  C.  F.  R.    20.  18(  d).  Phase  II  implementation, 
 which  requires  a  covered  carrier  to  transmit  a  911  callers  location  information  to  the  appropriate  PSAP,  began  on  October  1,  2001.  See  47  C.  F.  R.    20.  18  (e),  (h). 
12
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  203 
 13 
 routing  provision  is  not  necessary  for  the  protection  of  consumers,  because  the  more  stringent  E911  requirements  will  continue  to  be  applicable  to  covered  CMRS  carriers.  In  this  regard  we  agree  with 
 PCIA  and  AT&  T  Wireless  that  the  rules  are  duplicative  and  the  E911  rules  should  preempt.  75  Finally,  we  find  that  forbearance  from  applying  TOCSIAs  emergency  call  routing  provision  is  consistent  with  the 
 public  interest  because  we  are  eliminating  redundant  obligations. 
 G.  Other  Issues 
 38.  Finally,  we  note  that  GTE  has  requested,  as  in  earlier  proceedings,  76  that  its  Airfone  and  Railfone  services  be  treated  differently  than  other  CMRS  providers  and  that  the  Commission  take  action 
 that  reflects  the  unique  character  of  its  services.  77  We  find  no  compelling  reason  to  reverse  our  decision  in  PCIA  Forbearance  Order  where  we  affirmed  the  decisions  in  the  GTE  Declaratory  Ruling  that 
 TOCSIA  applies  to  the  actions  of  certain  GTE  affiliates.  Consequently,  we  conclude  that  GTEs  Airfone  and  Railfone  services  must  comply  with  TOCSIA  provisions  fully. 
 39.  Omnipoint  argues  that  TOCSIA  should  not  apply  to  customer  notification  processes  associated  with  a  CMRS  calling  party  pays  (CPP)  service  or,  in  the  alternative,  the  Commission  should 
 forbear  from  such  regulation  of  CPP.  78  There  is  no  indication  in  this  record  or  in  our  experience  that  CPP  services  are  being  provided  by  any  CMRS  carriers.  Further,  on  April  9,  2001,  the  Commission 
 terminated  the  calling  party  pays  proceeding.  In  its  Termination  Order,  79  the  Commission  stated  that  regulations  were  not  necessary  to  govern  calling  party  pays  services  and  that  lower  prices  and  new  pricing 
 plans  offered  many  of  the  same  benefits  that  calling  party  pays  services  would.  80  The  Commission  also  stated  that  if  the  need  arose,  it  could  initiate  a  new  proceeding  and  gather  a  fresh  record  to  consider  rules 
 to  govern  the  offering  of  calling  party  pays  services.  81  In  light  of  this,  we  find  no  reason  to  resolve  Omnipoints  arguments  in  this  proceeding.  We  can  resolve  CPP/  TOCSIA  issues  if  and  when  we  initiate  a 
 new  calling  party  pays  proceeding. 
 75  Id. 
 76  See  PCIA  Forbearance  Order  and  Notice,  13  FCC  Rcd  at  16899-  900,    87-  88.  See  GTE  Declaratory  Order,  8 
 FCC  Rcd  at  6173,    8-  11,  31.  77 
 GTE  Comments  at  13.  Specifically,  in  the  Railfone  context,  GTE  urges  the  Commission  to:  1)  forbear  from  enforcing  the  call  branding  requirement;  2)  require  only  800  access;  and  3)  forbear  from  enforcing  the  requirement 
 that  OSPs  and  aggregators  ensure  the  immediate  connection  of  emergency  telephone  calls.  In  the  Airfone  context,  GTE  urges  the  Commission  to:  1)  find  that  Airfones  method  of  informing  customers  of  its  identity  is  sufficient 
 (GTE  claims  that  it  identifies  itself  to  callers  through  literature  made  available  to  passengers,  through  words  printed  on  handsets  or  appearing  on  LCD  screens,  and  through  seat  pocket  cards.);  2)  require  only  800  access;  and  3) 
 forbear  from  enforcing  the  requirement  that  OSPs  and  aggregators  ensure  the  immediate  connection  of  emergency  telephone  calls.  GTE  Comments  at  13. 
 78  Omnipoint  Comments  at  1. 
 79  Calling  Party  Pays  Service  Offering  in  the  Commercial  Mobile  Services,  WT  Docket  No.  97-  207,  Memorandum 
 Opinion  and  Order  on  Reconsideration  and  Order  Terminating  Proceeding,  16  FCC  Rcd  8297  (2001)  (Termination  Order). 
 80  Termination  Order,  16  FCC  Rcd  at  8304-  5,    24. 
 81  Id. 
13
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  203 
 14 
 IV.  ORDERING  CLAUSE 
 40.  Accordingly,  IT  IS  ORDERED  that,  pursuant  to  sections  4(  i),  4(  j),  10  and  11  of  the  Communications  Act  of  1934,  as  amended,  47  U.  S.  C.  sections  154(  i),  154(  j),  160  and  161,  this  Second 
 Report  and  Order  IS  ADOPTED. 
 FEDERAL  COMMUNICATIONS  COMMISSION 
 Marlene  H.  Dortch  Secretary 
14