[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 62 (Friday, March 31, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16651-16652]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-7950]



-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
[CC Docket No. 91-35; DA 95-620]


Request for Additional Comments on the Costs and Benefits of 
International Blocking for Residential Customers; Pleading Cycle 
Established

March 24, 1995.
    Comments: April 24, 1995.
    Reply Comments: May 8, 1995.
    The Commission currently has under consideration in the above-
referenced docket issues concerning the provision by local exchange 
carriers (LECs) of a service that automatically blocks international 
calls.\1\

    \1\See policies and Rules Concerning Operator Service Access and 
Pay Telephone Compensation, CC Docket No. 91-35, Notice of Proposed 
Rule Making, 6 FCC Rcd 1448 (1991), Report and Order and Further 
Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 6 FCC Rcd 4736 (1991); Second Report 
and Order, 7 FCC Rcd 3251 (1992); Order on Reconsideration, 7 FCC 
Rcd 4355 (1992); and Order on Further Reconsideration and Further 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 8 FCC Rcd 2863 (1993) (Further 
Reconsideration and FNPRM).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the Further Reconsideration and FNPRM in CC Docket 91-35, the 
Commission request comment on whether it should require LECs to provide 
international blocking to residential customers in order to prevent 
toll fraud. Interested parties commented on this issue, and the LECs 
also provided general information above the costs and difficulties that 
they would incur to provide this service to residential customers. 
Parties then commented on the LECs' cost claims. Parties have not, 
however, commented about any benefits that residential customers may 
receive by using international blocking for purposes other than toll 
fraud prevention.
    Since this record was established, there has been a significant 
increase in the number of complaints the Commission has received about 
information services provided through international toll calls. Such 
calls are directly dialed by domestic telephone subscribers to 
information providers located in foreign countries who offer adult-
oriented information services. These services arose after the 
Commission adopted its ``pay-per-call'' rules in 1991 governing 900 and 
other information services.\2\ The use of international calls to 
provide domestic information services evades important consumer 
safeguards in our ``pay-per-call'' and other rules. Such safeguards 
include, for example, the requirement that LECs offer a service that 
blocks these calls and that they identify the calls separately on 
subscribers' bills. Moreover, the Federal Trade Commission's ``pay-per-
call'' rules require information providers to include a preamble 
explaining the cost of the call and to allow the caller to hand up 
before charges commence. See 16 C.F.R. Sec. Sec. 308.5 (a) and (b).

    \2\See Sections 64.1501 to 64.1515 of the Commission's rules, 47 
C.F.R. Sec. Sec. 65.1501-64.1515.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission hereby asks for comments on whether, and in what 
manner, residential customers would benefit from having the capability 
to block international calls. In particular, we request comments on 
whether residential customers would benefit from being able to block 
international calls in order to limit access to information services. 
We also solicit comments from the LECs on the costs that the LECs would 
incur to provide international blocking capability to 
[[Page 16652]] residential customers. The LECs' comments on costs 
should include the categories of costs (e.g., switching, 
administration, etc.) that would be incurred to provide international 
blocking capability to all residential customers. They should also show 
the extent to which those costs would be reduced by not providing 
blocking in areas in which it would not be technically feasible and 
economically reasonable to do so. For each instance in which a LEC 
claims that it would not be technically feasible and economically 
reasonable to provide residential blocking, its comments should specify 
the type of equipment, the number of end offices affected, the nature 
of the problem (i.e., inadequate switch memory) and the percentage of 
residential access lines that would not receive international blocking. 
Also, the LEC should provide a timeable indicating when, under its 
current investment plans, it would become technically feasible and 
economically reasonable to offer international blocking to residential 
customers from those end offices.
    Interested parties may file comments on these issues no later than 
April 24, 1995. Replies should be filed by May 8, 1995.
    An original and four copies of all comments and replies must be 
filed in accordance with Section 1.51(c) of the Commission's Rules, 47 
C.F.R. Sec. 1.51(c). In addition, one copy of each pleading must be 
filed with International Transcription Services (ITS), the Commission's 
duplicating contractor, at its office at 2100 M Street, N.W., Suite 
140, Washington, D.C. 20037 and one copy with the Chief, Tariff 
Division, Room 518, 1919 M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20554.
    For further information, contact Thomas G. David, Tariff Division, 
Common Carrier Bureau, (202) 418-1530.

Federal Communications Commission.
William F. Caton,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-7950 Filed 3-30-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-M