FCC 94-59 Federal Communications Commission Record 9 FCC Red No. 8
Before the
Federal Communications Commission 
Washington, D.C. 20554
CC Docket No. 91-281
In the Matter of
Rules and Policies Regarding 
Calling Number Identification 
Service - Caller ID
REPORT AND ORDER AND FURTHER 
NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING
Comments due: May 18, 1994 
Replies due: June 21, 1994
Adopted: March 8, 1994; Released: March 29, 1994
By the Commission: Commissioner Barrett issuing a 
statement.
and Law Enforcement 35 
E. Privacy Protection Mechanisms, Further
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 38
1. Per Line Blocking for Specific Groups 39
2. Per Line Blocking Available to All
Subscribers 41
3. Operator Assisted Per Call Blocking 44
4. Automatic Per Call Blocking 45
5. Applicability to Additional Services 50 
F. ANI and Caller Privacy 51 
G. Subscriber Education, Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking 59 
H. CPNI and Subscriber Privacy 61 
I. Wiretap Statutes and Caller ID 62 
J. Relationship between Interstate and
Intrastate Caller ID 64
III. CONCLUSION 71
IV. PROCEDURAL MATTERS 73
V. ORDERING CLAUSES 77 
APPENDICES
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Title Paragraph
I. INTRODUCTION 1
II. DISCUSSION 
A. Calling Party Number Services Should be
Available to Interstate Subscribers Nationally
1. Risks and Benefits 4
2. Deployment by Carriers 10 
B. Transmission of the Calling Party
Number throughout the Network 12 
C. Costs of Interstate Transmission of Calling
Party Number 18 
D. Privacy Issues 24
1. Constitutional Issues 25
2. Public Policy and Privacy Mechanisms 31
3. Private Networks, Emergency Services
I. INTRODUCTION.
1. On October 23, 1991, the Commission issued a Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking in this docket. 1 More than 100 
parties filed comments, including local exchange carriers 
(LECs), interexchange carriers (IXCs), state governments, 
public interest organizations, trade associations, and private 
citizens.2
2. In the NPRM, the Commission sought to develop the 
most effective policies to govern interstate calling party 
number based services such as caller ID.3 The NPRM 
sought comment on carriers' progress in deploying inter 
state caller ID service, and the technical and public policy 
implications of dual federal and state regulatory policies.4 
We tentatively concluded that a federal model for the 
interstate delivery of the calling party's number is in the 
public interest, and necessary for the introduction of many 
valuable services, including interstate caller ID.
3. In this Order, we find that a federal model for inter 
state delivery of calling party number is in the public 
interest, that calling party privacy must be protected, and 
that certain state regulation of interstate calling party num 
ber (CPN)5 based services, including interstate caller ID, 
must be preempted. We amend Part 64 of the rules to 
require that common carriers using Common Channel
1 Rules and Policies Regarding Calling Number Identification 
Service, (NPRM), CC Docket No. 91-281, 6 FCC Red 6752 
(1991).
See Appendix B for a list of commenters and corresponding 
abbreviations used in this order.
3 Caller ID identifies the calling party's telephone number to 
the called party. As an intrastate service, caller ID allows sub 
scribers, when they receive local telephone calls, to have the 
local exchange carrier transmit to them the telephone number 
of the station originating the call. Called parties must subscribe 
to caller ID from the local telephone company and purchase or 
lease number identification devices, which are classified as cus 
tomer premises equipment (CPE). Technology now being de 
ployed   end-to-end interconnected Signalling System 7 (SS7) 
networks   can support an interstate caller ID service. This 
proceeding addresses issues in anticipation of interstate caller ID 
and other calling party number based services becoming avail 
able.
4 NPRM at para. 1.
5 The calling party number is the subscriber line number or 
the directory number contained in the calling party number 
parameter of the call set-up message associated with an inter 
state call using SS7. The calling party number parameter in 
cludes an associated privacy indicator.
1764
9 FCC Red No. 8 Federal Communications Commission Record FCC 94-59
Signalling System 7 (SS7) and subscribing to or offering 
any service based on SS7 functionality must transmit the 
calling party number parameter and its associated privacy 
indicator on an interstate call to connecting carriers. We 
also require that carriers offering CPN delivery services 
provide, at no charge to the caller, an automatic per call 
blocking mechanism for interstate callers. The rules re 
quire that terminating carriers providing calling party 
based services, including caller ID, honor the privacy in 
dicator. We find that the costs of interstate transmission of 
CPN are de minimis, and that the CPN should be transmit 
ted among carriers without additional charge. We also re 
quire that carriers participating in the offering of any 
service that delivers CPN on interstate calls inform tele 
phone subscribers that the subscriber's number may be 
revealed to called parties and describe what steps subscrib 
ers can take to avoid revealing their numbers. Further, we 
adopt rules to restrict the reuse or sale of information 
generated by automatic number identification (ANI) or 
charge number services, absent affirmative subscriber con 
sent. Finally, we note that additional comments are sought 
through a separate public notice in the Computer HI Re 
mand Proceeding on whether residential and small busi 
ness customers' privacy concerns warrant revision of the 
Commission's rules governing reuse and sale of customer 
proprietary network information (CPNI). 7 In the Further 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, we seek comment on 
whether more detailed customer education rules should be 
adopted. We also seek comment on extending the policies 
adopted herein to other services that might identify the 
calling party.
II. DISCUSSION.
A. Calling Party Number Services Should be Available to 
Interstate Subscribers Nationally.
4. Risks and Benefits. In the NPRM, the Commission 
stated its tentative view that the availability of interstate 
caller ID would enhance the value of the service to intra- 
state subscribers and augment the available choices of exist 
ing interstate services for all subscribers. The Commission 
noted that the ability to choose caller ID and other services 
that rely on access to the calling party's number should be 
available to interstate subscribers nationally.8 The majority 
of commenters supported this view and described in detail 
the potential benefits to the public of services based on the 
calling party's number.
5. In its comments, AT&T identified potential uses of 
interstate calling party number for such services as pay- 
per-view television, order entry/verification, voice message 
storage, secure computer access, customized customer ser 
vice, business fraud reduction, call routing, emergency dis 
patch, health care services, telephone banking, home 
shopping, dealer locator, and selective call message for 
warding. McCaw states that caller information will signifi 
cantly improve cellular and other service offerings because 
cellular subscribers pay for incoming calls. Moreover, 
McCaw notes that ubiquitous caller ID will facilitate cel 
lular enhancements including conventional caller ID, more 
responsive customer service, new cellular CPE voice syn 
thesizers, and service for roaming subscribers. SNET states 
that its studies show that caller ID aids persons with hear 
ing impairments in answering calls; law enforcement in 
determining crank, threatening, false alarm calls and emer 
gency dispatches; and hospital crisis centers in identifying 
and deterring nuisance calls.
6. In contrast, Colorado DVC asserts that caller ID is not 
in the public interest because of the threat it poses to the 
privacy and safety interests of the calling party. Colorado 
Consumer contends that call trace is the preferable service 
to stop obscene and harassing calls. Bell Atlantic replies 
that call trace will not work if another call is received 
before tracing is attempted, and that customers who have 
used both caller ID and call trace prefer the former. Con 
sumer Action, Washington UTC, and NYS Law agree with 
Colorado DVC that caller ID has little merit and may 
threaten public health and safety as well as jeopardize 
important privacy interests.
7. While we agree that passage of the calling party num 
ber does create risks of lost privacy, we must weigh these 
risks against the potential benefits brought by interstate 
services that passage of the calling party's number makes 
possible. Other services available to protect subscriber pri 
vacy, such as Call Trace, are limited in scope and do not 
permit either the public or service providers to take advan 
tage of beneficial services. The commenters briefly discuss 
some of these benefits. For example, computer systems 
could limit remote access only to previously approved 
calling numbers, with calling party number based services 
like caller ID making verification for access nearly in 
stantaneous. Service providers who respond to telephone 
orders, such as stock brokers or parts and equipment deal 
ers, could use the calling party's number to direct the call 
immediately to the appropriate department for service. 
Banks could program data sources to have customer profile 
information available as a call is answered. With interstate 
delivery of calling party number, calls to national service 
centers could be routed automatically to local service cen 
ters closest to the calling party. Consumers making orders 
could have their name, address and billing information 
verified instantaneously. Indeed, a significant number and 
kind of customized national services can develop as a result 
of instant recognition of the calling party.
6 Automatic Number Identification (ANI) based services were 
developed in the pre-SS7 (multifrequency) signalling environ 
ment as the billing telephone number of the calling party, and 
are transmitted primarily on toll/access calls on the trunk side 
connection of the LEG switch. The service is used by LECs and 
IXCs to identify telephone numbers for billing purposes, but has 
been made available to customers who subscribe to 800 and 900 
services. Delivery of ANI to a subscriber requires a dedicated 
line between the IXC and the business subscriber and is trans 
mitted directly to that subscriber, bypassing the terminating 
LEC. See NPRM at para. 5. Because it transmits essential billing 
information and predates SS7 technology. ANI is not blockable
in the same way as the calling party number in an SS7 net 
work. In an SS7 environment, ANI may be delivered via a 
charge number parameter, which does not contain a privacy 
indicator as does a calling party number parameter.
7 See Computer HI Remand Proceedings: Bell Operating Com 
pany Safeguards and Tier 1 Local Exchange Company Safe 
guards, 6 FCC Red 7571, 7605-14 (1991) (enhanced services 
CPNI rules).
8 Id. at para. 8.
1765
FCC 94-59 Federal Communications Commission Record 9 FCC Red No. 8
8. Many of these potential services would permit transac 
tions to occur more efficiently. In an economy that aver 
ages more than one billion interstate calling minutes a day, 
even small efficiencies on individual calls could become 
significant in the aggregate. Providing the public with rapid 
and efficient interstate telecommunications services is at 
the heart of our responsibilities, particularly if they can be 
provided at very little additional cost. As illustrated above, 
passage of the calling party number can promote tech 
nological innovation and new applications that will foster 
economic efficiency and provide new employment, manu 
facturing and investment opportunities.
9. None of these services and benefits are possible, how 
ever, unless the calling party number is passed freely 
among carrier networks. It is significant that the categories 
of those benefiting from these new opportunities are very 
broad. For example, consumers and individuals benefit by 
having additional options for meeting their customer ser 
vice needs and by having transactions completed more 
quickly and more accurately. As workers and entrepre 
neurs, they benefit by having new employment opportu 
nities. Businesses benefit because they can complete 
transactions more quickly, which can lower incremental 
costs of transactions, potentially leading to savings for con 
sumers. Telephone companies benefit by revenues from 
new services, and by greater use of their networks. Greater 
use of CPN based services by consumers and service pro 
viders will create incentives for carriers who do not have 
SS7 networks to install them. This will enhance the na 
tion's telecommunications infrastructure, to the benefit of 
all who use it. Most of the comments directed against our 
proposal in the NPRM are based on legitimate concerns 
that individuals have access to a means of protecting their 
privacy where doing so is important. We believe technol 
ogy can address these concerns regarding protections for 
individual privacy. Accordingly, we find that the potential 
benefits of services based on calling party number serve the 
public interest and affirm the NPRM's tentative conclusion 
that CPN-based interstate services such as caller ID should 
be available to interstate subscribers nationwide.
10. Deployment by Carriers. In the NPRM, the Commis 
sion sought detailed comments on carriers' progress toward 
establishing joint offerings of CPN-based services, and any 
impediments that have been identified.9 The record does 
not reflect extensive response to that inquiry. It appears 
that although the deployment of the necessary technology 
for interstate calling party number based services is well 
underway, other factors have impeded progress. In particu 
lar, varying state regulatory responses to privacy issues 
appear to be impeding the development of interstate ser 
vices. Moreover, commenters express concern that this lack 
of national uniformity in regulating interstate SS7 calling 
party number based services may eliminate a source of the 
revenues expected from such services. In their comments, 
Rochester, Ameritech, BellSouth, GTE, McCaw, and US 
West support a national policy for caller ID because federal 
standards are essential to achieve the goals of nationwide 
availability of calling party number based services. McCaw 
states that it supports a federal policy for caller ID and 
ANI that accommodates both state concerns and industry 
diversification and experimentation. In contrast, Allnet 
contends that there is no compelling federal interest to
promote nationwide availability of caller ID and that if 
there is a demand for interstate caller ID, market forces 
will assure its availability.
11. The record reflects that national policies on interstate 
CPN-based services such as caller ID are needed to reduce 
risks of stranded investment and to remove impediments to 
development of services consumers are likely to find bene 
ficial. In addition to providing additional choices for con 
sumers, such services offer significant efficiency dividends 
for all users of interstate telephone services. These effi 
ciency gains promise to lower incremental costs of inter 
state calling party number based services, including caller 
ID, and increase national productivity. Carriers may be 
wary to invest in technology or delivery systems that may 
later become incompatible with the varying state require 
ments or incapable of satisfying federal policy. Resolution 
of privacy, blocking, and preemption issues is necessary to 
enable the benefits of these services to occur. By removing 
impediments created by administrative uncertainty, we seek 
only to resolve those issues necessary for the efficient in 
troduction of the services. The effective date of the rules 
adopted here will be April 12, 1995, which should allow 
sufficient time for completion of any coordination or other 
arrangements, discussed infra, necessary for full compliance 
with the rules.
B. Transmission of the Calling Party Number throughout 
the Network.
12. In the NPRM, we tentatively concluded that the 
transmission of the CPN by the LEG to the IXC is an 
essential element of interstate CPN-based services such as 
caller ID. The Commission proposed that LECs should be 
required to provide CPN to IXCs as soon as technologically 
feasible and, similarly, that IXCs should be required to 
transmit CPN to terminating LECs. 10
13. AT&T states that requiring IXCs to transmit interstate 
CPN to LECs is unnecessary because the competitive mar 
ket already gives IXCs incentive to offer innovative inter 
state caller ID services to end users. Moreover, AT&T 
contends that such a requirement would deprive IXCs of 
the ability to earn revenues from their substantial invest 
ments in SS7 technology. Allnet argues that the require 
ment would compel all IXCs to participate in SS7 
interconnection, thus compromising network integrity.
14. Ameritech, Nynex, Pacific, Centel, and NTIA concur 
that the Commission should facilitate the provision of in 
terstate caller ID by requiring passage of the calling party's 
number between carrier networks without modification. 
MCI agrees that the Commission should require LECs to 
provide the CPN to IXCs, but it opposes any requirement 
that IXCs be required to transmit the CPN to the terminat 
ing LEC because it states the LEG would then be the lone 
provider of caller ID. In opposition, BellSouth contends 
that the transmission of the CPN is essential, and as part of 
SS7 does not require additional network processing by the 
IXC nor impose significant cost. Further, BellSouth argues 
that free delivery of the CPN to terminating LECs would 
not establish LECs as monopoly providers; rather, IXCs 
could develop competing CPN-based interstate services that 
bypass LECs as terminating carriers. NTIA and USTA as 
sert that an IXC's offering of the calling party number
9 NPRM at para. 11.
10 Id. at para. 12.
1766
9 FCC Red No. 8 Federal Communications Commission Record FCC 94-59
should be available through all means of interconnection 
to end users, including LECs, alternative local service pro 
viders, or the IXC itself.
15. Nynex proposes that mandatory delivery of the call 
ing party number parameter among all networks is in the 
public interest. Further, Nynex supports McCaw's proposal 
that technical standards for transmission of caller ID and 
ANI between cellular and landline carriers be developed." 
However, it notes that cellular carriers do not receive ANI 
from Nynex because transmission of ANI to cellular car 
riers is not technologically feasible.
16. We affirm our tentative finding that interstate CPN- 
based services such as caller ID will not be possible unless 
the calling party number is transmitted from the originat 
ing carrier to the terminating carrier. In our 800 number 
portability proceeding, major LECs filed access tariffs pro 
viding for 800 number portability using SS7 technology. 12 
Many Bell Operating Companies (BOCs) have filed access 
tariffs with CPN as a nonchargeable option. Calling party 
number is an element of access service in virtually all SS7 
access tariffs filed at the Commission and these tariffs fol 
low industry standards for SS7 interconnection. The 
American National Standard for Telecommunications - 
Signalling System Number 7 (SS7) - Integrated Services 
Digital Network, ANSI T1.113, 1988, includes calling party 
number as an optional parameter of an SS7 network. Simi 
larly, the subsequent BellCore guidelines for SS7 intercon 
nection with a BOC include CPN as an optional 
parameter. 13
17. We conclude that carriers should pass calling party 
number information where capable of doing so. In view of 
the foregoing, we amend Part 64 of the rules to require 
that not later than April 12, 1995, common carriers using 
Signalling System 7 and subscribing to or offering any 
service based on SS7 functionality must transmit the call 
ing party number parameter and its associated privacy 
indicator to connecting carriers on an interstate call. 14 Fur 
ther, we amend the rules to prohibit common carriers 
from modifying or overriding the privacy indicator on an 
interstate call. We emphasize that carriers are not required 
to invest in SS7 technology in order to facilitate delivery of 
the calling party number. Carriers are only required to 
transmit the CPN and privacy indicator where technically 
feasible. Because transmission of the calling party number 
requires SS7 technology, technical feasibility exists wher 
ever SS7 technology is used. We now turn to the issue of 
the costs associated with the transmission of the CPN.
C. Costs of Interstate Transmission of Calling Party Num 
ber.
18. Most IXC commenters contend that, if required to 
transmit the calling party number, IXCs should be com 
pensated for such transmission. AT&T avers that IXCs 
incur costs in acquiring and delivering interstate CPN and 
that its decision to invest in SS7 ( rested in part on the 
anticipation of revenue from new services such as caller 
ID. MCI concurs with AT&T and further contends that 
IXCs already pay for calling party numbers as part of 
feature group D switched access and are developing ser 
vices which will provide the called party with the calling 
party's telephone number. Allnet proposes that IXCs who 
do not voluntarily engage in forwarding caller ID should 
not bear any of the costs of deployment. Metromedia ar 
gues that carriers terminating calls should be responsible 
for billing those called parties subscribing to interstate 
caller ID where appropriate; terminating carriers should 
compensate IXCs passing the information.
19. Nynex believes that if the CPN is passed freely from 
carrier to carrier, then each carrier may use it to provide 
services to end users, consistent with cost-based rather than 
market-based pricing for Open Network Architecture ser 
vice offerings. Bell Atlantic agrees that if IXCs are allowed 
to charge for calling party number the cost to consumers 
will be unnecessarily increased. United States that a single 
price established in the local jurisdiction for all caller ID 
regardless of jurisdiction is appropriate. United cites to the 
precedent for local service pricing of custom calling fea 
tures like call forwarding of interstate toll calls.
20. SWB concurs with other commenters that CPN 
should be passed from carrier to carrier at no charge 
because it is an intrinsic part of SS7 call setup and no cost 
is associated with filling the calling party number param 
eter in the SS7 message. SWB disagrees with IXCs such as 
AT&T, MCI, and Allnet which assert that charging for 
passage of the CPN would permit them to share in rev 
enues from the LEC's services that depend on passage of 
the calling party number. In essence, states SWB, the IXCs 
want to charge for the passage but receive it free. SWB 
proposes that the Commission require passage at no charge, 
thus eliminating extra charges which would be passed on 
to consumers.
21. McCaw agrees with SWB that CPN should be passed 
free of charge. McCaw asserts that to encourage maximum 
possible participation of all carriers as co-equal carriers, the 
Commission should prohibit compensation among carriers 
that pass ANI or caller ID information because the costs of 
ANI and caller ID are recovered in the overall SS7 costs. 
Centel argues that IXCs should be prohibited from charg 
ing either the originating or terminating LEC for transport. 
Centel asserts that revenue sharing issues should be re 
solved between carriers, and notes that it would cost IXCs 
more to remove the CPN from their systems than to allow 
passage to terminating LECs.
22. CFA, Colorado DVC, Maryland PC, Michigan PSC 
and others argue that costs associated with caller ID should 
be borne by subscribers to the service. The Illinois CC 
notes that it has ordered that the costs of providing per call 
blocking be borne by those who subscribe to caller ID. IIA 
proposes that the per call blocking costs should be imposed 
upon the calling party on the theory that suppression of 
the calling number is a special service the cost for which 
should be borne by the party who chooses to invoke it. 
Consumer Action contends that LECs are improperly al 
locating the costs of the SS7 switches and supports this 
contention with data which it believes show that the body 
of ratepayers is subsidizing SS7-based service, which only 
benefits 5-6% of telephone customers.
11 See discussion of ANI in Section F, infra.
12 Provision of Access for 800 Service, 4 FCC Red 2824 (198Q), 
modified, 6 FCC Red 5421 (1991).
13 Common Channel Signalling (CCS) Network Interface 
Specification, Bellcore, TR-TSV-000905 (Issue 1, August 1989). 
See Appendix C.
1767
FCC 94-59 Federal Communications Commission Record 9 FCC Red No. 8
23. We find that the unimpeded flow of the calling party 
number throughout the network ensures the greatest diver 
sity of offerings to subscribers and eliminates costs that can 
delay or impede development of CPN based services. To 
the extent these services improve productivity, lower in 
cremental costs and create new employment, investment 
and other opportunities, they benefit a wide range of con 
sumers and producers. As noted above, industry standards 
already include calling party number as an optional param 
eter of an SS7 network, and the calling party number is an 
element of access service in virtually all SS7 access tariffs 
filed at the Commission. In most cases, SS7 signalling 
replaces older signalling methods used in an IXC network 
and provides benefits to the carrier such as more efficient 
call routing and reduced exposure to fraud. We thus con 
clude from the record before us that the costs of transmit 
ting CPN are de minimis, and that accordingly, the calling 
party number parameter and associated privacy indicator 
should be transmitted among carriers at no additional 
charge.
D. Interstate Caller ID Privacy Issues.
24. In the NPRM, we balanced the privacy interest of the 
called party against the privacy interest of the caller and 
proposed that interstate caller ID should include some 
measures to protect calling parties' privacy. We sought 
comment on whether these privacy interests are matters of 
public policy or are constitutional in nature. We noted that 
any regulatory response to protect the privacy interest of 
the calling party should take into account the public bene 
fits of caller ID and should not undermine the value of the 
service overall. 15 Most commenters agree that societal ex 
pectations of privacy require that interstate caller ID in 
clude some type of privacy protection mechanism.
25. Constitutional Issues. AT&T contends that the 
provision of interstate caller ID by private telephone com 
panies does not implicate the U.S. Constitution, which, 
AT&T argues, does not regulate private activity relevant to 
this proceeding. GTE concurs with AT&T and adds that in 
recent cases the courts found no state action was involved 
when a LEC refused to provide communications service or 
billing and collection service to dial-a-porn providers. 16 
Further, GTE argues that in Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 
735 (1979), (Smith), the U.S. Supreme Court held that 
there is no federal constitutional protection from disclosure 
of digits dialed on the network.
26. In opposition, Georgia CUC cites to testimony before 
the Georgia PUC that concludes that information is con 
stitutionally protected when a legitimate expectation exists 
that the information will remain confidential. 17 California 
PUC contends that there exists a non-frivolous claim that 
the First Amendment right to free speech includes a right 
of the calling party not to be compelled to disclose his or 
her telephone number. 18 Ohio OCC concurs that there is 
an identifiable federal constitutional privacy interest that 
includes telephone digits and supports this argument citing
Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965) (the right to 
make decisions about procreation) (Griswold), and Whalen 
v. Roe, 429 U.S. 589 (1977) (individual interest in avoiding 
disclosure of personal matters) (Whalen). Pennsylvania 
PUC states that the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania 
held that caller ID is per se unconstitutional under the 
Pennsylvania state constitution because of the theoretical 
risk that a caller wanting to remain anonymous would 
accidentally forget to use the available blocking feature.
27. The record and case law demonstrate that there is no 
federal constitutional bar to the offering by carriers of 
CPN-based services such as caller ID. In Smith, the Su 
preme Court held that there is no privacy right under the 
Fourth Amendment protecting telephone numbers from 
disclosure because the application of the Fourth Amend 
ment depends on whether first, the person invoking protec 
tion can claim that a "legitimate expectation of privacy" 
has been invaded by the government. In Smith, pen register 
records kept upon police request by a telephone carrier on 
calls made by a robbery suspect became evidence used to 
convict him on robbery charges. At issue was whether 
seizure by police of the record of phone numbers that the 
suspect called constituted a "search" for Fourth Amend 
ment purposes and thus required a warrant. The court's 
decision rested upon analysis of whether the individual 
exhibits an expectation that something will remain private, 
and second, whether the individual's subjective expectation 
of privacy is one which society is prepared to recognize as 
objectively reasonable. Smith at 740. The court held that 
the expectation of privacy for phone numbers is not one 
that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable, because 
when one voluntarily exposes his phone number to the 
telephone company's equipment, one assumes the risk that 
the company may reveal the number to others. Id. at 
743-45. The Court also drew a distinction between the 
content of a phone conversation and the number dialed 
and found that protecting the content is more important 
than the number dialed because phone numbers are not 
communication in and of themselves, but merely establish 
that communication has been attempted. Id. at 741.
28. The Pennsylvania state court ruling cited by the 
Pennsylvania PUC does not suggest otherwise. The Com 
monwealth Court struck down Pennsylvania PUC's order 
which had approved caller ID in part because the court 
found that, even with a blocking mechanism, caller ID 
violates Pennsylvania constitutional privacy rights.' 11 The 
constitutional privacy right asserted in Barosch rests on the 
court's interpretation of the Pennsylvania Constitution. Id. 
at 87, 89. However, the U.S. Constitution is not cited in 
Barasch as imposing any privacy right in a phone number; 
indeed, such an interpretation would be inconsistent with 
Smith. Moreover, on appeal, the Supreme Court of Penn-
15 NPRM at paras. 14-15.
16 GTE cites Dial Information Services Corp. of New York v. 
Thornburgh, 938 F.2d 1535 (2d Cir. 1991), (DISC), and Informa 
tion Providers' Coalition v. FCC, 928 F.2d 866 (9th Cir. 1991), 
(Information Providers).
17 Georgia CUC also cites Mangels v. Pena, 789 F.2d 836, 839 
(10th Cir. 1986), (Mangels).
18 California PUC cites Pacific Gas and Electric Co. v. Pub.
Util. Comm'n of California, 475 U.S. 1, 10-11 (1986) for the 
proposition that an individual's First Amendment right not to 
speak may not be vitiated as a condition for his/her use of the 
telephone network.
19 Barasch v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission , 576 A.2d 
79 (Pa. Cmwlth. May 30, 1990), aff'd sub nom, Barasch v. Bell 
Telephone Co. of Pennsylvania, 605 A.2d 1198 (Pa., March 18, 
1992) (Barasch).
1768
9 FCC Red No. 8 Federal Communications Commission Record FCC 94-59
sylvania held that caller ID violates the "trap and trace" 
provisions of the state wiretap law and did not address the 
constitutional privacy issue.20
29. GTE cites two cases (supra, note 16) in support of the 
principle that common carriers are private entities and 
thus no state interference with individual privacy rights is 
involved. DISC involves a challenge by dial-a-porn com 
panies to the Helms Amendment, 47 U.S.C.  223 (b) & 
(c), which allows phone companies to require dial-a-porn 
services to notify them that they will be providing indecent 
messages and/or to require dial-a-porn services to utilize 
independent billing. The Court of Appeals held that no 
prior restraint of free speech was created by the statute 
because no governmental action was involved. The statute 
merely permits phone companies to choose whether to 
provide billing services to dial-a-porn companies. Similarly, 
Information Providers involves a challenge to Section 223 of 
the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 C.F.R.  
64.201 (1991). The court held that carriers are private 
companies, not state actors, and are, therefore, not required 
to continue, restrict, or terminate services of particular 
users and that a carrier is free under the constitution to 
terminate service to dial-a-porn operators altogether. These 
cases generally support the proposition that when a carrier 
can choose whether to offer certain services, no state action 
is involved.
30. On the basis of this body of law and the record, we 
find that the offering of caller ID does not violate privacy 
rights protected by the U.S. Constitution.21 Constitutional 
protections of privacy relate to government action and no 
government action is involved here. Moreover, we find that 
federal courts have not, to date, recognized an individual 
privacy right in telephone numbers. 22
31. Public Policy and Privacy Mechanisms. The majority 
of commenters agree that the privacy interests associated 
with caller ID are a matter of public policy or societal 
expectation. California Consumer Affairs proposes that fed 
eral interstate caller ID policies must recognize that the 
governmental interest in protecting public health, safety 
and welfare dictates that some blocking option be available. 
NY Law Project underscores that with a relatively inexpen 
sive personal computer and a CD ROM reader, a business 
caller ID subscriber could access data bases and display a 
data profile of a caller even before the telephone is an 
swered, or while the call is in progress. SWB recognizes the 
need to protect the confidentiality of non-published num 
bers, undercover police officers, domestic violence shelters, 
and the integrity of hotlines. Massachusetts contends that 
the effective functioning of law enforcement in Massachu 
setts would be compromised if caller ID were offered with 
out a privacy protection mechanism. GTE, however, asserts 
that tariff language requires that the caller identify himself
to the called party.23 Nynex contends that caller ID re 
dresses a longstanding imbalance which favored the calling 
party because the called party had no information on 
which to decide whether or not to answer the telephone.
32. BellSouth proposes that with all number delivery, 
callers can protect their identity by calling from telephones 
not recognizable by the called party. BellSouth states it has 
developed specialized service offerings for the privacy con 
cerns of law enforcement and domestic violence shelters. 
Bell Atlantic also advocates unrestricted delivery on the 
premise that per call blocking is used infrequently and 
provides malicious callers the opportunity to continue to 
make harassing calls. MCI states that delivery of the calling 
party number should be unrestricted because unlimited 
availability of customer initiated blocking will undermine 
the service and diminish its value to the public. However, 
MCI concurs with BellSouth that limited blocking should 
be available to protect public safety groups. USCG pro 
poses that any blocking mechanisms not apply to calls 
made to United States Coast Guard emergency telephone 
numbers. USTA is in favor of unrestricted delivery of 
caller ID across all carrier networks, whether interstate or 
intrastate. However, USTA proposes that per call blocking 
for specific applications may be appropriate.
33. HA argues that unrestricted delivery of caller ID 
threatens a broader concept of information privacy   a 
right of the individual to control the dissemination of 
information about one's self and one's activities. Kentucky 
states that Bell Atlantic's claims of reduced harassing and 
obscene calls appear to be more a function of changes in 
the handling and routing of such calls than any real reduc 
tion on the actual placing of these calls. Ohio OCC states 
that unrestricted delivery of caller ID would undermine 
the ability of professionals who must work from their 
residence, and that public hearing testimony in Ohio re 
sounded with consumer objections to disclosure of non- 
published numbers.
34. Most commenters do not advocate completely 
unrestricted delivery. Even those commenters that advocate 
unrestricted delivery suggest a limitation on availability of 
the CPN under specific circumstances. In light of the ex 
tensive record before us, we conclude that a regulatory 
framework for interstate CPN-based services such as caller 
ID should include some type of privacy protection mecha 
nism. We affirm our prior tentative conclusion that the 
calling public has an interest in exercising a measure of 
control over the dissemination of telephone numbers that 
must be reflected in federal policies governing caller ID 
service. We discuss specific privacy mechanisms in Section 
E below.
20 In December of 1993, Title 66 of the Pennsylvania Consoli 
dated Statutes was amended to declare that caller ID is a lawful 
service if it permits a caller to withhold display of the caller's 
telephone number and other identifying information from the 
called party on both a per-call and per-line basis. See 66 PA. 
CONS. STAT. 2906 (1993).
21 Mangels, Griswold, and Whalen are inapposite. As the Court 
said in Mangels, "[tjhe legitimacy of any individual's expectation 
[of privacy] depends, at least in part, upon the intimate or 
otherwise personal nature of the material...." Mangels at 839. As 
the Court held in Smith, telephone numbers do not rise to a 
level of personal or intimate information.
22 The California PUC's reliance on Pacific Gas. v. California
to link caller ID services with a constitutionally protected right 
not to speak is misplaced. In Pacific Gas v. California the Court 
considered whether the California PUC could require a pri 
vately owned telephone utility to include in its billing envelopes 
speech of a third party with which the utility disagrees. The 
Court held that the California PUC's order impermissibly re 
stricted billing envelope access to only views with which the 
telephone utility disagreed. In no instance did the Court recon 
sider its prior holding in Smith that there is no constitutionally 
recognized expectation of privacy that attaches to phone num 
bers.
23 GTE cites, inter alia, GTOC Tariff FCC No. 2 Section 2.3.1; 
AT&T Tariff F.C.C. No. 1, Section 2.4. l.C.
1769
FCC 94-59 Federal Communications Commission Record 9 FCC Red No. 8
35. Private Networks, Emergency Services, and Law En 
forcement. AT&T proposes that there should be no 
blocking mechanisms prescribed for private or virtual pri 
vate networks because blocking on business services and on 
private networks would intrude on the rights of private and 
virtual private network owners to determine the amount of 
information delivered on internal calls carried on their 
networks. AT&T and GTE concur that business services do 
not commonly implicate personal safety concerns and in a 
business context, identification is expected. The NPRM 
sought comment on whether blocking mechanisms jeop 
ardize calling party identification by emergency services. 
USCG states that blocking mechanisms should not apply to 
calls made to emergency telephone numbers because they 
could degrade emergency service operations. Pacific Bell 
notes that emergency services could be affected where an 
individual calling line identification display device is being 
used in place of the standard public safety answering point 
console arrangement.
36. In the NPRM, we proposed that the privacy require 
ments adopted herein to address the privacy concerns with 
in the public network should not apply to communications 
within private or virtual private networks. We affirm that 
privacy expectations of the calling party are different when 
they arise in the context of internal calls within a single 
private network. Moreover, commenters did not dispute 
that caller ID systems raise very limited privacy expecta 
tions if used solely in connection with legally authorized 
call tracing and trapping procedures specifically requested 
by a law enforcement agency. We do not apply the privacy 
requirements adopted in this order to these narrow sets of 
circumstances.
37. The record indicates that blocking mechanisms do 
not affect Enhanced 911 services, which currently locate 
the calling party on emergency calls via ANI rather than 
SS7-based caller ID services, which include blocking 
mechanisms.24 However, as indicated by USCG and Pacific 
Bell, blocking mechanisms may jeopardize emergency ser 
vices which rely on caller ID and thus pose a serious threat 
to public health and safety.25 To the extent that CPN based 
services are used to deliver emergency services, we find 
that privacy requirements for CPN based services should 
not apply to delivery of the CPN to a public agency's 
emergency line, a poison control line, or in conjunction 
with 911 emergency services. We now turn to specific 
privacy protection mechanisms for assuring that the inter 
state public network includes a privacy protection option.
E. Privacy Protection Mechanisms, Further Notice of Pro 
posed Rulemaking.
38. The three privacy protection mechanisms prevalent 
at the state level are (1) per line blocking provided by the 
telephone company for specific groups (2) per line 
blocking provided by the telephone company for all cus 
tomers except those who want their telephone numbers to 
be delivered, and (3) per call blocking on an automatic or 
operator assisted basis. Additionally, these options can be 
offered in combination and free to the user or on a fee 
basis. In the NPRM, we sought comment on and analysis 
of the relative merits, technical feasibility and foreseeable 
costs to carriers and customers of establishing a require 
ment that interstate caller ID incorporate a per call 
blocking option.26 The record demonstrates ample support 
for the adoption of an automatic per call blocking require 
ment on interstate caller ID offerings. We discuss each 
alternative below and affirm the tentative conclusion 
reached in the NPRM that carrier provided per line 
blocking mechanisms are unduly burdensome. We affirm 
that automatic per call blocking is the most responsive 
alternative to the needs of calling and called parties for 
interstate calls. Finally, we request comment on whether, 
and how, these policies should apply to other services, such 
as delivery of the calling party name.
39. Per Line Blocking for Specific Groups. Pennsylvania 
PUC states that per call blocking should be available to all 
subscribers, but free per line blocking should be made 
available to groups that demonstrate a higher privacy need 
than the population at large. These groups include non 
profit, tax-exempt domestic violence agencies; home tele 
phone numbers of staff members of such agencies; federal, 
state and local law enforcement; and individuals who have 
a need for blocking to mitigate the risk of personal injury, 
as certified by a law enforcement agency. MCI proposes a 
limited blocking option to protect public safety groups. US 
West states that its experience with free per line blocking 
for "special needs" subscribers proved cumbersome and 
unfair because US West is uncomfortable with determining 
what groups or individuals have special needs.
40. Commenters that advocate the availability of per line 
blocking only for certain groups with heightened privacy 
needs do not address how this mechanism would be imple 
mented on an interstate basis. The two entities that could 
determine eligibility for privacy protection under this pro 
posal would be the carriers or the government. If the 
choice is left to the carrier or carriers offering interstate 
caller ID, the carrier must determine which individual 
subscribers are entitled to privacy protection. Issues that 
arise in this determination include: Do certain types of law 
enforcement personnel have greater needs than others? Do 
domestic violence shelters have greater needs than teenage 
runaway facilities? Do individuals who work for these or 
ganizations have needs? How would these individuals be 
identified? How would determinations be kept current? 
What appeal rights would be available? These social ques 
tions are generally not the type of issues resolved by car 
riers. We conclude, on the basis of this record, that per 
line blocking for a special needs category as a federal 
model is not optimal. It would unnecessarily increase the 
role of the federal government or carriers in making pri 
vacy choices for subscribers. Other regulatory alternatives 
to address privacy are available on a more equitable basis 
and do not unduly hamper the viability of CPN based 
services.
41. Per Line Blocking Available to All Subscribers. Con 
sumer Action contends that the only way to ensure that all 
residential customers do not involuntarily deliver their 
numbers to caller ID equipment is to require availability of 
per line blocking. Consumer Action supports its argument 
that per line blocking would not undercut the usefulness of 
caller ID by citing Centel's statement that, after 6 months 
of offering caller ID with a per line blocking option, there 
was no substantial decrease in individuals subscribing to
24 See, e.g., Nynex at 14, n.18.
25 See Appendix C,  64.1602(d).
26 NPRM at para. 20.
1770
9 FCC Red No. 8 Federal Communications Commission Record FCC 94-59
caller ID. Missouri Counsel states that the absence of free 
per line blocking effectively eliminates the protection that 
unlisted numbers provide.
42. DMA asserts that per line blocking would drive up 
the cost of service and further, that if per line blocking 
becomes widespread, direct marketers may be unable to 
use caller ID service for a substantial segment of their 
customer base, and smaller businesses may find the service 
unattractive. Rochester notes that in a survey it conducted, 
66% of respondents made 75% of their calls to people who 
already knew their telephone number, and 83% made at 
least 50% of their calls to people who knew their number. 
Rochester concludes that per line blocking is only margin 
ally useful and substantially degrades the value of caller ID 
by causing unnecessary blocked calls. USTA concurs that 
in the vast majority of calls, identification of the calling 
number is of little consequence to the calling party. AT&T 
points out that per line blocking destroys the lifesaving 
potential of caller ID for line blocked callers of emergency 
numbers such as police stations because a caller in distress 
may forget how to use the unblocking code.
43. In the NPRM, we tentatively concluded that per line 
blocking unduly burdens calling party number based ser 
vices overall by failing to limit its applicability to those 
calls for which privacy is of concern to the caller. The 
Commission noted that even in the case of law enforce 
ment personnel, there may be a need to maintain calling 
number privacy on some calls, but that the same number 
may be used to telephone other law enforcement per 
sonnel, victims of crimes, cooperative witnesses, and family 
or friends. The Commission asserted that in these types of 
calls, calling number privacy is not needed and calling 
number identification can actually be a valuable piece of 
information for both the caller and called parties. The 
record reflects the useful nature of CPN based services, and 
the comments of Rochester illustrate that callers are likely 
to be interested in blocking only a small percentage of 
their calls. The comments of USCG illustrate the useful 
ness of caller ID to emergency services. In contrast, Mis 
souri Counsel's analogy to unlisted numbers is inapposite 
because caller ID only permits parties called by the calling 
party to capture the calling party number, and then only if 
the calling party has not activated a per call blocking 
mechanism. We find that the availability of per call un 
blocking does not cure the ill effects of per line blocking. 
Moreover, in an emergency, a caller is not likely to re 
member to dial or even to know to dial an unblocking 
code. For the foregoing reasons, we find that a federal per 
line blocking requirement for interstate CPN based ser 
vices, including caller ID, is not the best policy choice of 
those available to recognize the privacy interests of callers. 
Thus, carriers may not offer per line blocking as a privacy 
protection mechanism on interstate calls. We agree that 
certain uses of captured calling numbers need to be con 
trolled, and address that issue infra.
44. Operator Assisted Per Call Blocking. There is little 
support in the record for operator assisted per call 
blocking. Live operator assisted blocking may have a 
chilling effect on callers who do not choose to disclose the 
calling number. Dialing three additional digits to invoke
privacy as is required with automatic per call blocking is 
much less cumbersome to the caller than having to con 
nect to a live operator and explain that the caller wishes to 
place an anonymous call. The practical effect of a system of 
operator assisted blocking appears to be that privacy is not 
invoked, based on the Canadian experience wherein out of 
one million calls, only two were blocked.27 We also note 
that live operator assisted blocking was not envisioned as 
part of the technology of caller ID during the SS7 stan 
dards setting process. The ANSI and Bellcore standards 
contemplate automatic per call or per line blocking. If the 
advanced technology of the network is capable of sustain 
ing an automated blocking function, it is not in the public 
interest to ignore the technology and require less efficient, 
more cumbersome live operator assistance.
45. Automatic Per Call Blocking. Under this approach, a 
caller dials a three digit code, e.g. *67 (or 1167 for rotary 
or pulse-dialing phones), to indicate that the calling num 
ber should be blocked. The majority of commenters sup 
porting a per call blocking system advocate an automatic 
free per call method. For example, the Ad Hoc Users and 
NTIA state that per call blocking best balances the privacy 
interests of both the calling and the called party. Although 
Bell Atlantic opposes blocking, it states that if the Commis 
sion decides to require blocking, per call rather than per 
line should be adopted. The IIA notes that several states 
already require free per call blocking. Further, IIA pro 
poses that the Commission take into account that con 
sumer expectations have solidified on this issue.
46. We agree with the majority of commenters that 
availability of automatic per call blocking best addresses 
the privacy needs of both the calling and called parties. We 
note that the majority of jurisdictions using this method on 
a local basis are using *67 (or 1167 for rotary or pulse- 
dialing phones) as the dialing digits and we adopt the same 
dialing method in our interstate rules. As discussed in the 
NPRM, a regulatory approach to privacy should not be so 
burdensome to the service that it destroys its value and 
thus fails to take into account the privacy needs of the 
called party. Per line blocking has this effect. On the other 
hand, a blocking mechanism should not be so difficult to 
invoke as to fail to recognize the legitimate privacy con 
cerns of some callers. Operator assisted blocking has this 
effect. The best balance for the competing interests of the 
calling and called parties is automatic per call blocking. 
The option of dialing a few additional numbers to invoke 
privacy when privacy is sought is a beneficial service that 
should be available to consumers. Similarly, caller ID is 
beneficial to the called party who should be able to receive 
the calling party number in all instances where identifica 
tion of the calling number is of no consequence to the 
caller or where the caller may desire identification.
47. The rules require per call blocking as the model for 
privacy protection on interstate calls. As a matter of sim 
plicity and uniformity, per call blocking allows callers to 
travel from phone to phone and make an informed privacy 
decision. Per line blocking may create caller confusion 
when a caller places a call from a phone over which the 
caller may be uncertain whether it is equipped with per 
line blocking. It appears that some carriers offering per call
27 See Bell Canada - Introduction of Call Management Service, 
Telecom Decision CRTC 90-10 (May 9, 1990). The Canadian 
Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission now re 
quires free automatic per call blocking; Bell Canada has dis 
continued free operator assisted per call blocking. See Call 
Management Service - Blocking of Calling Number Identification, 
Decision CRTC 92-7 (May 4, 1992).
1771
FCC 94-59 Federal Communications Commission Record 9 FCC Red No. 8
unblocking together with per line blocking use the same 
*67 code both for unblocking presubscribed privacy lines 
and for blocking lines that are not pre-blocked. Thus, a 
caller may inadvertently disable privacy protection by dial 
ing *67 (or 1167 for rotary or pulse-dialing phones) to 
invoke privacy from a phone that is already subscribed to 
per line blocking. A per call blocking system avoids this 
unintended result and allows callers to make decisions 
according to the unique calling circumstances of each call. 
Automatic per call blocking is easily used on a ubiquitous 
interstate basis, and eliminates customer confusion.
48. Our objective in this proceeding is to establish fed 
eral policies governing the passage by carriers of CPN on 
interstate calls. We believe carriers should provide callers 
the option of withholding their numbers from called par 
ties on a per call basis. It is important to note, however, 
that consumer choice is not limited to the options provided 
by carriers. Various companies have registered with the 
Commission, under provisions of Part 68 of our rules, 
equipment that, for example, automatically would insert a 
blocking prefix on each call going out over a particular 
line. Such devices are available for as little as $40.00 per 
unit. We believe general interstate passage of CPN through 
out the telephone network, except in those individual cir 
cumstances where privacy is important to the calling party, 
promises important efficiency and productivity gains for 
our economy. However, individuals wishing to install these 
devices and thereby screen all originating interstate calls 
may elect to do so.28 Such a choice may create caller 
confusion if others entitled to use the line are unaware of 
the purpose of the device, or may place health and safety at 
risk if the device conceals the calling party's location or 
identity from emergency services, but these are not harms 
to the network. Requiring callers seeking universal 
blocking to purchase such devices, however, ensures this 
choice is not made lightly.
49. The majority of commenters supporting per call 
blocking also propose that per call blocking be free to the 
calling party. We note that this is in keeping with the 
blocking policies adopted by the majority of states for 
intrastate calls. Per call blocking capability is an inherent 
capability of SS7 technology. The design of caller ID con 
templates the use of software programs that permit either a 
customer to activate a "block" on any particular call, or 
the central office to activate a block on the line. In no 
circumstance is the information actually "blocked" from 
the carrier; the terminating central office will receive the 
calling number. In addition, on all interstate calls handled 
by SS7, the call setup message contains a calling party 
number parameter that includes a privacy indicator. Under 
our rules, this "privacy flag" travels with the call setup 
message through to the destination central office of the 
terminating carrier. Thus, there are no significant addi 
tional SS7 costs associated with per call blocking. Several 
commenters note that there are costs associated with 
populating the privacy flag at the originating end and 
reading it and passing it on to the subscriber at the termi 
nating end. Our requirement that carriers transmit CPN 
includes the provision of per call blocking capability at the
originating end and of facilities that read and honor the 
privacy indicator at terminating end. Any blocking costs 
can be readily absorbed because the calling party number 
and privacy flag are integral elements of SS7. Moreover, we 
find that charging the caller for per call blocking beyond 
the costs of deploying SS7 would disrupt the balance that 
per call blocking establishes between the privacy interests 
of the caller and called party. Charging for per call 
blocking heightens the burden upon the caller to invoke 
privacy and does not appear to be necessary for the overall 
viability of the service.
50. Applicability to Additional Services. In addition to 
calling party number delivery, SS7 technology permits de 
livery of calling party name via an optional parameter that 
is separate from the calling party number parameter.29 We 
tentatively conclude that our policies for calling party 
number delivery should apply equally to services delivering 
calling party name, and we seek comment on this tentative 
conclusion. Commenters should address any differences 
that may exist in the privacy considerations that apply to 
calling party name delivery as opposed to calling party 
number delivery. Commenters should also address whether 
the policies for subscriber privacy should extend to other 
services, such as services that permit subscribers to auto 
matically return calls or to selectively forward calls.
F. ANI and Caller Privacy.
51. In the NPRM the Commission noted that interstate 
ANI, or its SS7 equivalent "charge number" parameter, 
already identifies the billing number of a call to interstate 
subscribers of ANI service, and is used by the LECs and 
IXCs for billing purposes. IXCs, however, sometimes de 
liver ANI to 800 and 900 service subscribers via a dedi 
cated line. The NPRM requested comment on whether 
there are privacy interests associated with the transmission 
of ANI to 800 and 900 service subscribers or information 
service providers, and if so, what approaches should be 
considered to address the issue. The Commission noted that 
one possible approach would be to require businesses to 
obtain the consent of the caller before revealing the caller's 
telephone number to any third party. In this order we 
adopt such an approach.30
52. The majority of commenters conclude that it is not 
technically feasible to block identification of ANI-based 
interstate calling number in the same way as SS7-based 
calling party number because it is the billing number that 
LECs must provide to IXCs. Allnet proposes that LECs be 
required to provide a privacy indicator with ANI. AT&T 
notes that ANI or the SS7 equivalent "Charge Number" do 
not currently have a privacy indicator that would signal the 
terminating carrier to block the passing of the billing tele 
phone number to the called party. AT&T concludes that 
blocking requirements adopted by the Commission should 
not extend to the delivery of ANI. Nynex notes that under 
its SS7 interconnection tariff, in those cases where the 
billing number and the CPN are the same, the calling party 
number parameter will provide the billing number and the 
charge number will not be sent. Nynex adds that, where
28 The policy underlying Part 68 registration of customer 
premises equipment is that consumers should be able to attach 
to the telephone network devices they find to be privately 
beneficial that are not publicly detrimental, in other words, that 
do not cause harm to the network.
29 State public utility commissions in Texas and Minnesota 
have approved calling party name and number delivery services. 
See National Association of Regulatory Utilities Commissioners 
Bulletin, May 24, 1993 and July 26, 1W3.
30 Id. at para. 29 and n.49.
1772
9 FCC Red No. 8 Federal Communications Commission Record FCC 94-59
there is a difference between the billing number and the 
calling party number, the charge number parameter will 
provide the billing number.
53. Citicorp contends that proposals to limit the use of 
ANI are contrary to the Communications Act's purpose of 
promoting new telecommunications technologies. Illinois 
CC states that ANI is needed to promote competition, and 
to restrict the use of ANI in any way would undermine 
this policy goal. Ad Hoc Users, ARINC, and Citicorp iden 
tify many beneficial uses of ANI transmission.31 Ad Hoc 
Users adds that these significant benefits are unfairly char 
acterized by NYS Law as a "plague of unsolicited market 
ing calls." It notes that prohibiting transmission of ANI 
would shut down existing ANI applications and would not 
allow new applications until SS7 interconnection of LECs 
with IXCs is almost ubiquitous.
54. IIA states that because the transmission of ANI can 
not be blocked, the focus must shift from whether the 
called party receives it to how the recipient uses the data. It 
states that questions presented by use of ANI data are 
transitional and ANI subscribers can be expected to mi 
grate to SS7-based caller ID. In the meantime, IIA proposes 
the Commission rely upon voluntary and industry initiated 
efforts to explain to consumers how information about 
them is gathered and used. NARUC argues that denying 
commercial ANI purchasers the information ANI provides 
will give carriers an incentive to expedite development of 
CPN based services. Baer, Colorado DVC, Consumer Ac 
tion, Michigan PSC, and others suggest that if the Commis 
sion allows for either per line or per call blocking, then it 
should also restrict the availability of ANI exclusively to 
LECs and IXCs. NTIA recommends that the Commission 
direct interested carriers and manufacturers to report on 
the modifications needed to implement caller blocking of 
ANI to the called party and formulate a plan for so modi 
fying existing ANI over a period of years. Sprint concurs 
that ANI should be subject to privacy indicators, insofar as 
technology permits.
55. Unlike the privacy indicator that can be placed on 
the calling party number with respect to caller ID, the 
calling party cannot place a privacy flag on ANI or its 
SS7-based equivalent, the charge number parameter. There 
fore, some parties suggest that the availability of ANI be 
restricted exclusively to LECs and IXCs, and should not be 
passed on to 800 and 900 service subscribers for billing, 
routing, or other purposes.32 Other commenters respond, 
however, that ANI is needed to sustain beneficial services 
currently offered.
56. We conclude that the public interest would be served 
by continuing to permit telephone companies to deliver 
ANI to 800, 900, and other business subscribers who pay
for transmission of the call. ANI has been available to these 
end users without a privacy mechanism for several years 
and, as indicated above, has spurred a multitude of benefi 
cial applications. While we are concerned that callers' rea 
sonable expectation of privacy not be violated, we do not 
believe that the public would be served by terminating all 
access to ANI by subscribers to 800 and 900-type services. 
Ad Hoc Users points out that ANI service permits the 
receipt of calling numbers in real time but would not 
usually provide information beyond that which such sub 
scribers will receive in any event on their telephone com 
pany bills because the called party pays for the call. It 
states that such realtime provision of ANI benefits calling 
parties by permitting a number of substantial customer 
service enhancements.
57. In weighing these various public interest concerns, 
we are aware that the continued deployment of SS7 
throughout the telephone networks makes available a 
blockable alternative to ANI.33 However, where the called 
party pays for the interstate call (e.g., 800 and 900 service 
subscribers), the situation is somewhat analogous to a col 
lect call regarding expectations of confidentiality by the 
calling party. We believe the best approach is to require 
education by the carriers (see Section G, infra) and to 
restrict how 800 and 900-type service subscribers may use 
ANI data. Resale of the ANI number to create marketing 
lists or other information about callers without their con 
sent has generated much of the opposition to the availabil 
ity of ANI. Bills to restrict such practices have been 
introduced in Congress and commenters in this proceeding 
have addressed the implications of unrestricted availability 
of information about callers. Colorado DVC, NTIA, and 
others urge the Commission to prohibit the resale or use of 
ANI for uses other than call management, billing, or cus 
tomer services employed directly by the subscriber to ANI 
end user services. To address these privacy concerns, we 
prohibit the reuse or sale of ANI information by 800, 900, 
and other service subscribers absent affirmative subscriber 
consent. We permit the use of ANI for call management 
and routing functions.34
58. Concerns also have been expressed regarding the use 
of ANI by 800 and 900-type service subscribers for solicita 
tion. For example, ANI can be used to place return calls to 
telephone customers who previously have contacted an 
ANI 800 or 900-type services subscriber. In this regard, 
Nynex proposes that use of ANI be limited to performing 
and verifying transactions requested by the caller. ARINC, 
on the other hand, argues that such a restriction would 
diminish too severely the value of ANI for businesses and 
customers. We conclude that an ANI services subscriber 
may use ANI to offer products or services to an established
31 Ad Hoc Users states that such applications include giving 
immediate medical assistance data to technicians who have been 
called by patients with pacemakers, use of ANI by investment 
firms as a check against fraud, use of ANI to process orders for 
pay-per-view cable television, routing of callers to specialized 
agents or announcements, business to business automated order 
ing and ANI-based employee dispatching. ARINC states that 
many airlines use ANI via their 800 service reservations net 
works to provide better service to regular customers, to verify 
telephone billings, to route calls among reservation centers, to 
detect fraud and to identify threatening calls. Citicorp notes that 
ANI can be used for customized customer services, telephone 
banking and home shopping, saving unnecessary holding time.
retrieval of a customer's prior transactions, service representa 
tive calling back when a customer is cut off, and triggering 
letters to poll customers to determine deficiencies of service.
32 E.g., Baer, Colorado DVC, Consumer Action, Michigan PSC.
33 In an SS7 environment, if the calling party number and the 
charge number of a telephone subscriber are identical, the CPN 
and its associated privacy indicator may be used for billing 
purposes. See Nynex at 5, n.3.
34 See Appendix C, Section 64.1602. See also 47 C.F.R. Section 
64.1504(c) (prohibits use of 800 service to provide information 
services unless the calling party has a "presubscription or com 
parable arrangement" with the information provider).
1773
FCC 94-59 Federal Communications Commission Record 9 FCC Red No. 8
customer that are directly related to products or services 
previously provided by the ANI services subscriber to that 
customer.35 ANI services subscribers may also wish to com 
pile ANI information in an aggregate form, either to im 
prove operations or as a marketing tool. Our rules permit 
disclosure of ANI information in aggregate form if it is 
compiled in a manner which precludes identification of 
individual telephone subscribers.
G. Subscriber Education, Further Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking.
59. In the NPRM, the Commission stated that carriers 
offering calling party number, or facilitating transmission 
of interstate caller ID, should be required to inform callers 
of the availability of the service, including instructing call 
ers how to implement any caller privacy mechanisms.37 
The Commission noted that no segment of the calling 
public can adequately control dissemination of the calling 
number under any regulatory structure if they are unaware 
that their calling number is being identified. The majority 
of commenters agreed that subscriber education is in the 
public interest and should be implemented with the in 
troduction of interstate calling party number based services, 
including caller ID. Commenters also expressed concern 
over the education of callers whose numbers are identified 
via ANI-based services.
60. We affirm our tentative conclusion that deployment 
of interstate calling party number services should be ac 
companied by consumer education regarding the availabil 
ity of identification services and how to invoke the privacy 
protection mechanism. The record indicates that consumer 
information is essential to public understanding of any 
privacy mechanisms associated with caller identification 
services. Accordingly, we amend our rules to require that 
carriers participating in the offering of services that deliver 
calling party number, including ANI or charge number, on 
interstate calls must notify their subscribers that their tele 
phone numbers may be transmitted to a called party.39 In 
addition, such carriers must inform their subscribers of the 
privacy mechanism available on interstate calls, and must 
explain how subscribers can activate the privacy mecha 
nism. Even though the ability of the caller to activate a 
privacy flag is not yet ubiquitous on calls to ANI or charge 
number services subscribers, ANI or charge number ser 
vices increasingly are offered through SS7 networks, and an
education effort will be most effective if it anticipates the 
greater availability of a privacy flag. For ANI or charge 
number services for which such privacy is not provided, 
the notification must inform telephone customers of the 
restrictions on the reuse or sale of subscriber information. 
We specifically request further comment on whether we 
should prescribe detailed instructions regarding what form 
education should take or prescribe more precisely respon 
sibilities of various carriers.40 We are particularly interested 
in specific joint industry education proposals (see com 
ments of HA, supra, para. 54).
H. CPNI and Subscriber Privacy.
61. Privacy issues are also raised by telephone com 
panies' use of customer proprietary network information, 
or CPNI.41 The Commission's current CPNI rules govern 
the BOCs' use of CPNI in marketing enhanced services 
and CPE.42 The CPNI rules are designed to balance consid 
erations of customer privacy, efficiency, and competitive 
equity. In recent months, however, the communications 
industry has witnessed large local exchange carriers' plan 
ning and entering into alliances, acquisitions, and mergers 
with non-telephone company partners.43 In this changing 
environment, access to CPNI among affiliated companies 
may heighten concerns. Thus, we will seek further com 
ment from the public on whether the existing CPNI safe 
guards will adequately meet customers' reasonable privacy 
expectations in the future. The CPNI rules are currently 
under reconsideration in the Computer III Remand Pro 
ceeding, and the privacy concerns related to CPNI are 
more appropriately addressed in that proceeding. There 
fore, we are releasing a public notice in CC Docket No. 
90-623 seeking further comment, particularly on the issue 
of residential and small business customers' CPNI-related 
privacy concerns.
I. Wiretap Statutes and Caller ID.
62. In the NPRM, the Commission noted that some 
parties suggest that caller ID may violate the Federal Wire 
tap Act (Wiretap Act), 18 U.S.C.  3121-3127 or the 
Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), 18 
U.S.C.  25II.44 Colorado DVC, DC OPC, NASUCA, and 
Ohio OCC reiterate this contention. Other commenters 
such as Allnet, (Bell Atlantic, Ameritech. and AT&T argue 
that caller ID is permissible under ECPA or the consent
35 The Commission's rules implementing the Telephone Con 
sumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA) prohibit calls by a tele 
phone solicitor to residential telephone subscribers who have 
asked that they receive no solicitation calls from that person or 
entity. We emphasize that these rules apply where the tele 
phone numbers of residential subscribers are obtained via caller 
ID, ANI or charge number services. See Section 64.1200 of the 
Commission's rules.
36 See Section 64.1602, Appendix C.L
37 NPRM at para. 23.38 Id.
39 See Section 64.1603, Appendix C.
40 Pacific Bell has expressed concern in ex parte comments to 
Commission staff that subscriber education requirements im 
posed by the state of California as a condition to the introduc 
tion of intrastate calling party number based services, like caller 
ID, are so burdensome to preclude, as an economic matter, 
offering of caller ID services in California. The record in this 
proceeding is not sufficient to resolve this issue. Carriers may 
present issues of state regulation of interstate service to the
Commission for consideration under the standards set forth in 
Louisiana Public Service Comm'n v. FCC, 476 U.S. 355 (1986). 
See also para. 70, infra.
41 CPNI encompasses any information about customers' net 
work services and their use of those services that a telephone 
company possesses by virtue of its provision of network services. 
See Filing and Review of Open Network Architecture Plans, 4 
FCC Red 1, 215 (1988).
42 See Computer III Remand Proceedings: Bell Operating Com 
pany Safeguards and Tier 1 Local Exchange Company Safe 
guards, 6 FCC Red 7571, 7605-14 (1991) (enhanced services 
CPNI rules); Furnishing of Customer Premises Equipment by 
the Bell Operating Telephone Companies and the Independent 
Telephone Companies, 2 FCC Red 143, 152-153 (1987) (CPE 
CPNI rules). These rules do not apply to independent LECs.
43 See, e.g., BellSouth's agreement in principle to acquire an 
interest in Prime Management Co.: US West's $2.5 billion in 
vestment in Time Warner Entertainment Co.; and NYNEX's 
agreement to invest $1.2 billion in Viacom.
44 NPRM at paras. 24-26.
1774
9 FCC Red No. 8 Federal Communications Commission Record FCC 94-59
provisions of the Wiretap Act as "trap and trace" devices. 
Pacific adds that caller ID is not the type of activity that 
Congress intended to include in ECPA. Pacific points out 
that trap and trace laws are designed to prevent surrepti 
tious wiretaps by the police and other parties and caller ID 
is not such a wiretap because it is a tariffed service offered 
uniformly and publicly to all customers.
63. In accordance with its statement in the NPRM that it 
would solicit the views and analysis of the Department of 
Justice, the Commission's General Counsel requested the 
Department of Justice's opinion on the issue. In its reply 
memorandum, the Department of Justice (DOJ) concludes 
that the federal wiretap statutes embodied in the Federal 
Criminal Code do not pose a barrier to interstate caller ID 
service. We adopt the Department's analysis and conclu 
sions on this issue, and are incorporating the Department's 
memorandum into this Report and Order. See Appendix 
D.
J. Relationship between Interstate and Intrastate Caller 
ID.
64. In the NPRM, the Commission sought comment on 
whether state policies concerning calling party number 
based services, including caller ID, negate or hinder the 
development of interstate caller ID. ANI, or both.45 In 
analyzing whether interstate and intrastate models may co 
exist harmoniously both legally and technologically, the 
Commission did not propose to preempt any specific state 
regulation governing intrastate caller ID. Rather, we found 
that it is necessary to review existing state policies individ 
ually in order to determine whether preemption is neces 
sary.46 Many commenters, including AT&T, GTE, and 
MCI, propose that the Commission use its authority to 
preempt the states if state regulations impede interstate 
caller ID offerings. Pacific concurs that the Commission 
may preempt state regulation of caller ID because the 
service is not separable into interstate and intrastate por 
tions and state regulation frustrates a valid federal policy.
65. Some commenters, including Ameritech, Sprint, Bell 
Atlantic, and BellSouth, contend that the terminating car 
rier should be required to honor any blocking indicators 
that are present on interstate calls on a per call basis. 
BellSouth proposes that the Commission should defer to 
each state's determination of blocking options available for 
calls originating in that state. Some commenters, including 
Colorado DVC, Connecticut, and Consumer Action, con 
cur that the Commission should defer to state policies on 
blocking because state regulators are more attuned to local 
factors including history, culture, custom and legal envi 
ronment. State commenters, including Indiana Utility 
Counsel, Illinois CC, and Missouri PSC, contend that pre 
emption is unwarranted and untimely because states should 
be able to develop standards that provide more, but not less 
privacy protection to consumers. NARUC argues that pre 
empting state caller ID policies is inappropriate from both 
a legal and policy perspective. NARUC proposes that the 
Commission devise a plan that carries out federal objectives
but can substantially coexist with various state blocking 
plans. Some commenters concur with NARUC and con 
tend that federal and state rules can coexist.
66. Many commenters, including AT&T and Pacific, con 
tend that existing technology renders it infeasible for 
carriers to comply with one set of blocking requirements 
for intrastate and a different set of standards for interstate 
caller ID. Allnet, NTI, and Bell Atlantic contend that 
privacy standards should apply to intrastate, interstate and 
international communications and that different standards 
would require more complex equipment. Specifically, Bell 
Atlantic asserts that substantial development and expense 
over several years would be necessary to accommodate 
differing interstate and intrastate standards.
67. Nynex, USTA, and SNET contend that different state 
and federal policies on caller ID create caller confusion, 
and that a uniform national policy for caller ID would 
minimize consumer confusion. The California PUC pro 
poses that the Commission, if it allows interstate caller ID, 
should not preempt more restrictive state privacy protec 
tions adopted for intrastate caller ID, and instead should 
defer to the more restrictive requirements in each of the 
states.
68. As is discussed in Section A, supra, interstate passage 
of calling party number serves the public interest by mak 
ing it possible for telecommunications service providers to 
offer beneficial new communications services that directly 
and indirectly can increase the business sector's efficiency 
and residential customers' access to information and other 
services. In this proceeding we will require carriers having 
SS7 capability to transmit CPN to interconnecting carriers. 
Recognizing that there may be situations in which the 
calling party wishes to preserve privacy, we establish *67 
(and 1167 for rotary or pulse-dialing phones) as the mecha 
nism by which this may be done on interstate calls. Car 
riers must honor a caller's choice to use this blocking 
mechanism. These policies strike a reasonable balance 
among significant competing interests, including reasonable 
privacy expectations and economic growth. Our approach 
ensures that the privacy rights of the caller are not un 
reasonably infringed upon by the policies of the state 
where the call terminates (in those states offering unlimited 
caller ID a blocking request from another state might not 
otherwise be honored) nor are the concerns of the called 
party unreasonably infringed upon by the policies of the 
state where the call originates (unqualified, free per line 
blocking likely would significantly increase the number of 
blocked interstate calls).
69. We are sensitive to states' interests in protecting the 
privacy of their residents, but note that limited preemption 
of state regulations is necessary in some instances to ensure 
that our goal of facilitating the development of interstate 
calling party number based services is not frustrated by 
inconsistent state law, and that state decisions with respect 
to caller ID or other calling party number based services 
do not infringe upon the privacy interests of parties in 
other states.47 Accordingly, we preempt state regulation of
45 NPRM at para. 34.
46 Id. at para. 30.
47 See City of New York v. FCC, 486 U.S. 57 (1984); Capital 
Cities Cable, Inc. v. Crisp, 467 U.S. 691 (1984). We conclude that 
the fact that the federal wiretap statutes do not, as a matter of 
federal criminal law policy, preempt states from adopting great 
er privacy protection measures, see United States v. Capra, 501
F.2d 267, 276 (2d Cir. 1974), cert, denied, 402 U.S. 990 (1975); S. 
Rep. No. 1097, 90th Cong., 2d Sess. 93 (1968), does not affect our 
authority to preempt as a matter of federal communications 
policy.
1775
FCC 94-59 Federal Communications Commission Record 9 FCC Red No. 8
caller ID or other calling party number based services as 
follows: states may not prohibit automatic per call blocking 
for interstate calls, require a blocking alternative for inter 
state calls different from the one adopted in this proceed 
ing, or prohibit the offering of interstate caller ID services. 
Thus, states may not prohibit carriers from offering inter 
state services based on calling party number, including 
caller ID service. States will not be able to require the use 
of digits other than *67 (or 1167 for rotary or pulse-dialing 
phones) for automatic per call blocking on interstate calls, 
nor require carriers offering or participating in the inter 
state transmission of calling party number to provide 
blocking systems that interfere with the use of *67 (or 1167 
for rotary or pulse-dialing phones) to achieve blocking. 
Preemption is necessary in these cases to ensure that state 
regulations do not interfere with the achievement of im 
portant federal objectives, and with the Commission's ex 
clusive jurisdiction over interstate communications.48
70. To the extent that inconsistent regulations cannot be 
accommodated simultaneously for interstate and intrastate 
caller ID services, some further preemption of state regula 
tions may become necessary.49 We will examine the need 
for such additional preemption on a case-by-case basis. For 
example, there may be cases in which state caller ID 
requirements applicable to intrastate calls would, as a prac 
tical matter, make it impossible for carriers to implement 
per call blocking for interstate calls. We are reluctant to 
preempt state authority over intrastate communications, 
and will endeavor to accommodate state regulations when 
ever possible. State policies, however, must not frustrate 
the paramount federal interest in a cohesive interstate com 
munications policy, and must not be allowed to infringe 
unreasonably upon the privacy interests of the citizens of 
other states.
III. CONCLUSION
71. Our goal in this proceeding is to establish a federal 
policy to govern the passage of calling party number 
among carrier networks. In this order we find that a fed 
eral model for interstate delivery of calling party number is 
in the public interest, that the model must protect calling 
party privacy, and that certain state regulations of interstate 
caller ID must be preempted. Accordingly, we amend Part 
64 of the rules to require that common carriers using 
Common Channel Signalling System 7 (SS7) and subscrib 
ing to or offering any service based on SS7 functionality 
must transmit CPN and its associated privacy indicator on 
interstate calls. We require that carriers offering CPN based 
services provide automatic per call blocking at no charge 
to interstate callers, and that the privacy indicator be hon 
ored by terminating carriers. We find that the costs of 
interstate transmission of CPN are de minimis, and that the 
CPN should be transmitted among carriers without addi 
tional charge. We require that carriers participating in the 
offering of any service that delivers CPN on interstate calls 
must inform telephone subscribers regarding the availabil 
ity of identification services and how to invoke the privacy 
protection mechanism. We also seek comment on whether 
more specific subscriber education requirements should be 
imposed. We restrict the reuse or sale of telephone num 
bers by subscribers to automatic number identification 
(ANI) or charge number services. We note that additional 
comments are sought in the Computer III Remand Proceed 
ing on whether residential and small business customers' 
privacy concerns warrant revision of the Commission's 
rules governing reuse and sale of customer proprietary 
network information (CPNI). Finally, we seek comment on 
extending the policies adopted herein to other services that 
might identify the calling party.
72. We expect the rules and policies adopted herein will 
support the efforts of carriers, standards setting bodies, 
states, CPE manufacturers, and others in providing CPN- 
dependent services in an efficient manner. In this federal 
model, we recognize the value and benefits to the public of 
interstate CPN services, we promote the transmission of the 
calling party number from the originating carrier to the 
terminating carrier, and we balance the reasonable privacy 
expectations of both the calling and the called party. The 
rules we adopt to govern services such as interstate caller 
ID service remove obstacles to their development posed by 
uncertainty and non-uniform state policies and should fa 
cilitate implementation of new and beneficial interstate 
services.
IV. PROCEDURAL MATTERS
73. Ex Pane Rules - Non-Restricted Proceeding. The Fur 
ther Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is a nonrestricted 
notice and comment rulemaking proceeding. Ex Pane pre 
sentations are permitted, except during the Sunshine Agen 
da period, provided they are disclosed as provided in 
Commission rules. See generally 47 C.F.R. Sections 1.1202, 
1.1203 and 1.1206(a).
74. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis: Pursuant to the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980. 5 U.S.C.  601 et seq., 
the following final analysis has been prepared:
I. Need for and objective of the rules:
This Report and Order adopts policies governing the 
transmission of the calling party number parameter and its 
associated privacy indicator on interstate calls. Several 
commenters to the NPRM in this proceeding have iden 
tified a number of potential uses for interstate calling party 
number based services, including caller ID, and have in 
dicated that it also will improve certain existing commu 
nication service offerings. We find that the potential 
benefits of interstate passage of calling party number far 
exceed any negative effects. We thus adopt the conclusion 
reached in the NPRM that interstate caller ID and other 
calling party number based services are in the public inter 
est and should be available to interstate subscribers nation 
wide pursuant to the policies and rules set forth in this 
order.
II. Summary of issues raised by the public comments in 
response to the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis:
No comments were submitted in direct response to the 
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.
48 We note that the Department of Justice memorandum, 
which also addresses preemption issues, is consistent with our 
analysis of preemption. See Appendix D at 9-13.
49 See generally, Louisiana Public Service Comm'n v. FCC; 
NARUC v. FCC, 880 F.2d 422 (D.C. Cir. 1989). See also para. 60. 
n. 38, supra.
1776
9 FCC Red No. 8 Federal Communications Commission Record FCC 94-59
III. Significant alternatives considered:
The NPRM in this proceeding requested comments on 
several proposals as well as the views of commenters on 
other possibilities. The Commission has considered all 
comments and has adopted regulations which require the 
passage of calling party number where SS7 is deployed, 
facilitate interstate calling party number based services, 
including caller ID, and implement federal policy on pri 
vacy.
75. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis on the Fur 
ther Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
An Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is contained 
Appendix A to this Report and Order and Further Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking.
76. Comment Dates
Pursuant to applicable procedures set forth in Sections 
1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  
1.415 and 1.419, interested parties may file comments on 
or before May 18, 1994 and reply comments on or before 
June 21, 1994. To file formally in this proceeding, inter 
ested parties must file an original and four copies of all 
comments, reply comments, and supporting documents 
with the reference number "CC Docket 91-281" on each 
document. If interested parties want each Commissioner to 
receive a personal copy of comments, interested parties 
must file an original plus nine copies. Interested parties 
should send comments and reply comments to the Office 
of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 
Washington, DC 20554. Comments and reply comments 
will be available for public inspection during regular busi 
ness hours in the FCC Reference Center, Room 239, Fed 
eral Communications Commission, 1919 M Street, N.W., 
Washington, DC. Copies of comments and reply comments 
are available through the Commission's duplicating con 
tractor: International Transcription Service, Inc. (ITS, Inc.), 
2100 M Street, N.W., Suite 140, Washington, DC 20037, 
(202) 857-3800.
V. ORDERING CLAUSES
77. Accordingly, It Is Ordered, that, pursuant to author 
ity contained in Sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 201-205 and 218, of 
the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 
 151, 154(i), 154(j), 201-205, and 218, Part 64 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations ARE AMENDED as 
set forth in Appendix C hereof, effective April 12, 1995.
78. It Is Further Ordered, that, pursuant to authority 
contained in Sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 201-205 and 218, of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  
151, 154(i), 154(j), 201-205, and 218, Further NOTICE OF 
PROPOSED RULEMAKING is hereby provided as in 
dicated above.
79. It Is Further Ordered, that, the Secretary shall cause 
a summary of this Report and Order and Further Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking to be published in the Federal Regis 
ter which shall include a statement describing how mem 
bers of the public may obtain the complete text of this 
Commission decision. The Secretary shall also provide a 
copy of this Report and Order Further Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking to each state utility commission.
80. For further information regarding this Report and 
Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, con 
tact Suzanne Hutchings, Common Carrier Bureau, Domes 
tic Facilities Division, (202) 634-1802.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
William F. Caton 
Acting Secretary
APPENDIX A
INITIAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS
Reason for Action
This rulemaking proceeding is initiated to obtain 
comment on whether the Commission should adopt rules 
providing for subscriber education on interstate calling par 
ty number delivery, and for the application of federal rules 
and policies for interstate calling party number delivery to 
interstate calling party name delivery.
Objectives
The Commission seeks to establish an environment in 
which interstate calling party number based services are 
made possible and advantages of a uniform regulatory 
framework are realized.
Legal Basis
The proposed action is authorized under Sections 1,4, 
201-205, 218 of the Communications Act of 1934, as 
amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154, 201-205, 218.
Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other Compliance Re 
quirements
This Further Notice seeks comment on whether more 
specific subscriber education requirements should be im 
posed on those offering calling party number based ser 
vices, and on whether and how rules and policies on 
interstate delivery of calling party number should apply to 
interstate calling party name delivery services.
Federal Rules Which Overlap, Duplicate or Conflict With 
These Rules
None.
Description, Potential Impact, and Number of Small En 
tities Involved
Rule revisions in this proceeding could affect carrier's 
offering of interstate calling party name and number based 
services such as caller ID service. After evaluating the 
comments and reply comments in this proceeding, the 
Commission will examine further the impact of any rule 
changes on small entities, and will set forth its findings in 
the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.
Any Significant Alternatives Minimizing the Impact on 
Small Entities Consistent with the Stated Objectives
The FNPRM solicits comment on any significant alter 
natives minimizing the impact on small entities consistent 
with the stated objectives.
1777
FCC 94-59 Federal Communications Commission Record 9 FCC Red No. 8
APPENDIX B
Commenters
AD HOC Telecommunications Users Committee (Ad 
Hoc Users) *
Aeronautical Radio, Inc. (ARINC) **
Alaska - Alaska Public Utilities Commission (Alaska 
PUC)
ALLNET (Allnet)
American Osteopathic Association (AOA) **
American Telephone & Telegraph (AT&T) *
Ameritech Operating Companies (Ameritech) *
Arizona Corporation Commission (Arizona CC) *
Baer, Joseph (Baer)
Bell Atlantic Telephone Companies (Bell Atlantic) *
BellSouth Corporation (BellSouth) *
Bliley, Representative Thomas Jr. et al. (Committee 
on Energy and Commerce)
California, Consumer Affairs of the State of (Califor 
nia Consumer Affairs) *
California Public Utilities Commission (California 
PUC) *
Central Telephone Company (Centel) * 
Citicorp (Citicorp) **
Colorado Domestic Violence Coalition (Colorado 
DVC)
Colorado Office of Consumer Counsel (Colorado 
Consumer) *
Connecticut, Attorney General for the State of (Con 
necticut)
Consumer Action (Consumer Action) * 
Consumer Federation of America (CFA)
Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility
(CPSR) *
Direct Marketing Association (DMA) *
District of Columbia, Office of the People's Counsel 
(DC OPC)
Georgia Consumer's Utility Counsel (Georgia CUC)
GTE Service Corp. (GTE) *
Illinois Commerce Commission (Illinois CC)
Indiana Office Of Utility Consumer Counselor (In 
diana Utility Counselor)
Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission (IURC) 
Information Industry Association (IIA) 
Iowa Office of Consumer Advocate (Iowa) * 
Jackson, Ms. Patricia L. (Jackson)
Kentucky, Attorney General of the Commonwealth 
(Kentucky)
McCaw Cellular Communications (McCaw) * 
Maryland People's Counsel (Maryland PC) *
Massachusetts, Office of the Attorney General (Mas 
sachusetts)
MCI Communications (MCI) * 
Medical Society of New Jersey (MSNJ) 
Metromedia (Metromedia)
Michigan Public Service Commission (Michigan 
PSC)
Missouri Office of the Public Counsel (Missouri 
Counsel)
Missouri Public Service Commission (Missouri PSC)
National Association of Regulatory Utility Commis 
sioners (NARUC)*
National Association of State Utility Consumer Ad 
vocates (NASUCA)*
National Telephone Cooperative Association (NTCA) 
(National
Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA)**
New York City, Department of Telecommunications 
& Energy (NYC Telecom)
New York, Public Utility Law Project, Inc. (NY Law 
Project)
New York State Consumer Protector Board (NYS 
Consumer)
New York State Department of Law (NYS Law) *
New York State Department of Public Service (NYS 
PSC) *
North Carolina, Attorney General (North Carolina)
Northern Telecom Inc. (NTI) *
NYNEX Telephone Companies (Nynex) *
Ohio, Office of the Consumer's Counsel (Ohio OCC)*
Ohio State University (Ohio State University) ** 
Pacific Bell and Nevada Bell (Pacific) *
Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (Pennsylva 
nia PUC)
Pilgrim Telephone (Pilgrim)
Project Designed Systems (PDS) **
Rochester Telephone Corporation (Rochester)
Southern New England Telephone Company (SNET)
Southwestern Bell Telephone Company (SWB) *
Sprint Corporation (Sprint) **
Telocator (Telocator)
Texas Office of Public Utility Counsel(Texas PUC)
Texas, State of (Texas)
United States Coast Guard (USCG)
United States Telephone Association (USTA) **
United Telecommunications Inc. (United)
US West (US West) **
Virginia State Corporation Commission (Virginia 
CC)
Washington Utilities And Transportation Commis 
sion (Washington UTC)
Yellow Pages Publishers Association (YPPA)
1778
9 FCC Red No. 8 Federal Communications Commission Record FCC 94-59
Numerous letters from individuals were also re 
ceived. All comments and letters were considered.
* also filed reply comments
** filed only reply comments
APPENDIX C
Part 64 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations 
(chapter 1 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations, 
part 64) is amended as follows:
1. The authority citation for Part 64 continues to read as 
follows:
Authority: Section 4, 48 Stat. 1066, as amended; 47 U.S.C. 
154, unless otherwise noted. Interpret or apply sees. 201, 
218, 225, 226, 227, 48 Stat. 1070, as amended, 1077; 47 
U.S.C. 201-4, 218, 225, 226, 227 unless otherwise noted.
2. The table of contents for Part 64 is amended by adding 
subpart P to read as follows:
Subpart P - Calling Party Telephone Number. Privacy.
 64.1600 Definitions
 64.1601 Delivery Requirements, and Privacy Restric 
tions
 64.1602 Restrictions on use and sale of telephone sub 
scriber information provided pursuant to automatic number 
identification or charge number services.
 64.1603 Customer notification.
 64.1604 Effective date.
3. Subpart P of Part 64 is added to read as follows: 
 64.1600 Definitions.
(a) Aggregate Information. The term 'aggregate in 
formation' means collective data that relate to a 
group or category of services or customers, from 
which individual customer identities or characteris 
tics have been removed.
(b) ANI. The term 'ANI' (automatic number iden 
tification) refers to the delivery of the calling party's 
billing number by a local exchange carrier to any 
interconnecting carrier for billing or routing pur 
poses, and to the subsequent delivery of such number 
to end users.
(c) Calling Party Number. The term Calling Party 
Number refers to the subscriber line number or the 
directory number contained in the calling party 
number parameter of the call set-up message asso 
ciated with an interstate call on a Signalling System 7 
network.
(d) Charge Number. The term "charge number" re 
fers to the delivery of the calling party's billing num 
ber in a Signalling System 7 environment by a local 
exchange carrier to any interconnecting carrier for 
billing or routing purposes, and to the subsequent 
delivery of such number to end users.
(e) Privacy Indicator. The term Privacy Indicator re 
fers to information, contained in the calling party 
number parameter of the call set-up message asso 
ciated with an interstate call on an Signalling System 
7 network, that indicates whether the calling party 
authorizes presentation of the calling party number 
to the called party.
(f) Signalling System 7. The term Signalling System 7 
(SS7) refers to a carrier to carrier out-of-band 
signalling network used for call routing, billing and 
management.
 64.1601 Delivery Requirements and Privacy Restrictions
(a) Delivery. Common carriers using Signalling Sys 
tem 7 and offering or subscribing to any service 
based on Signalling System 7 functionality are re 
quired to transmit the calling party number asso 
ciated with an interstate call to interconnecting 
carriers.
(b) Privacy. Originating carriers using Signalling Sys 
tem 7 and offering or subscribing to any service 
based on Signalling System 7 functionality will only 
recognize *67 dialed as the first three digits of a call 
(or 1167 for rotary or pulse-dialing phones) as a 
caller's request for privacy on an interstate call. No 
common carrier subscribing to or offering any ser 
vice that delivers calling party number may override 
the privacy indicator associated with an interstate 
call. The terminating carrier must act in accordance 
with the privacy indicator unless the call is made to a 
called party that subscribes to an ANI or charge 
number based service and the call is paid for by the 
called party.
(c) Charges. No common carrier subscribing to or 
offering any service that delivers calling party num 
ber may (i) impose on the calling party charges 
associated with per call blocking of the calling party's 
telephone number, or (ii) impose charges upon con 
necting carriers for the delivery of the calling party 
number parameter or its associated privacy indicator.
(d) Exemptions. 64.1601 shall,not apply to calling 
party number delivery services (i) used solely in con 
nection with calls within the same limited system, 
including (but not limited to) a Centrex, virtual pri 
vate network, or private branch exchange system; (ii) 
used on a public agency's emergency telephone line 
or in conjunction with 911 emergency services, or on 
any entity's emergency assistance poison control tele 
phone line; or (iii) provided in connection with le 
gally authorized call tracing or trapping procedures 
specifically requested by a law enforcement agency.
 64.1602 Restrictions on use and sale of telephone sub 
scriber information provided pursuant to automatic number 
identification or charge number services.
(a) Any common carrier providing Automatic Num 
ber Identification or charge number services on inter 
state calls to any person shall provide such services 
under a contract or tariff containing telephone sub 
scriber information requirements that comply with 
this subpart. Such requirements shall:
(1) permit such person to use the telephone number 
and billing information for billing and collection, 
routing, screening, and completion of the originating
1779
FCC 94-59 Federal Communications Commission Record 9 FCC Red NO. 8
telephone subscriber's call or transaction, or for ser 
vices directly related to the originating telephone sub 
scriber's call or transaction;
(2) prohibit such person from reusing or selling the 
telephone number or billing information without 
first (A) notifying the originating telephone subscrib 
er and (B) obtaining the affirmative consent of such 
subscriber for such reuse or sale; and
(3) prohibit such person from disclosing, except as 
permitted by subparagraphs (1) and (2), any informa 
tion derived from the automatic number identifica 
tion or charge number service for any purpose other 
than (i) performing the services or transactions that 
are the subject of the originating telephone subscrib 
er's call, (ii) ensuring network performance security, 
and the effectiveness of call delivery, (iii) compiling, 
using, and disclosing aggregate information, and (iv) 
complying with applicable law or legal process.
(b) The requirements imposed under paragraph (a) 
shall not prevent a person to whom automatic num 
ber identification or charge number services are pro 
vided from using (1) the telephone number and 
billing information provided pursuant to such ser 
vice, and (2) any information derived from the auto 
matic number identification or charge number 
service, or from the analysis of the characteristics of a 
telecommunications transmission, to offer a product 
or service that is directly related to the products or 
services previously acquired by that customer from 
such person. Use of such information is subject to 
the requirements of 47 C.F.R.  64.1200 and 
64.1504(c).
 64.1603 Customer notification. Any common carrier 
participating in the offering of services providing calling 
party number, ANI, or charge number on interstate calls 
must notify its subscribers, individually or in conjunction 
with other carriers, that their telephone numbers may be 
identified to a called party. Such notification must be made 
not later than April 12, 1995, and at such times thereafter 
as to ensure notice to subscribers. The notification shall 
inform subscribers how to maintain privacy by dialing *67 
(or 1167 for rotary or pulse-dialing phones) on interstate 
calls. For ANI or charge number services for which such 
privacy is not provided, the notification shall inform sub 
scribers of the restrictions on the reuse or sale of sub 
scriber information.
 64.1604 Effective Date
The provisions of Sections 64.1601 through 64.1603 shall 
be effective as of April 12, 1995.
1780
9 FCC Red NO. 8 Federal Communications Commission Record_________FCC 94-59
SEPARATE STATEMENT
OF 
COMMISSIONER ANDREW C. BARRETT
RE: Rules and Polices Regarding Calling Number Identification Service - Caller ID 
(CC Docket No. 91-281)
In tnis Report and Order, the Commission finds that a federal model for interstate delivery 
of a calling party number(CPN) is in the public interest, that calling party privacy must be 
protected, and that certain state regulation of interstate caller ID must be preempted. 
Accordingly, the Commission amends its rules to require that: (1) common carriers using 
Signalling System 7 (SS7) and subscribing to or offering any service based on SS7 functionality 
must transmit the CPN and its associated privacy indicator on an interstate call to connecting 
carriers; (2) carriers offering CPN delivery services provide, at no charge to the caller, and 
automatic per-call blocking mechanism, *67, for interstate callers; (3) terminating carriers 
providing CPN delivery services, including caller ID, must honor the *67 privacy indicator; and 
(4) carriers participating in services that deliver CPN on interstate calls must inform telephone 
subscribers that the CPN may be revealed to called parties and educate customers about how to 
obtain privacy. The Commission also adopts rules to address privacy concerns raised by the 
reuse or sale of information generated by automatic number identification (ANI), and seeks 
additional comment on whether the privacy concerns by residential and small business customers 
warrant revising the Commission's rules governing the reuse and sale of customer proprietary 
network information (CPNI). Finally, the Commission adopts a Further Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking to solicit comment on (1) whether the Commission should prescribe more precise 
educational requirements, and (2) whether and how the policies adopted on caller ID should be 
extended to other identification services, such as caller party name or CPNI.
I support this action because I believe that it balances the primary public policy 
considerations in this proceeding regarding how to facilitate the interstate transmission of CPN 
through services including caller ID while offering individuals an opportunity to protect their 
privacy. I write separately on this issue to underscore that the Commission must monitor the 
extent that the implementation of these rules effectively mitigates the confusion created by the 
varying state practices regarding the transmission of CPN and associated blocking procedures for 
intrastate calls. Admittedly, me Commission's actions will not explicitly preempt states on 
intrastate practices, but I am concerned that the combination of the federal policy for interstate 
calls and various intrastate practices may require some education for consumers. Accordingly, I 
believe that the Further Notice is an appropriate step toward prescribing more precise educational 
requirements, if necessary.
1781
FCC 94-59 Federal Communications Commission Record 9 FCC Red NO. 8
I also am interested in how states will resolve situations where: (1) states currently lack 
privacy capability, and will have to provide some equipment; and (2) states currently use per-line 
blocking for intrastate calls and will have to accommodate *67 blocking capability. I believe that 
the federal policy adopted today by the Commission is a minimally intrusive measure given the 
variety of state practices, and may manage the level of confusion for consumers most effectively 
compared to alternative approaches. Nonetheless, I will be interested in reviewing the practical 
effect of these rules.
1782