Telecom/1996-04-telecom-walnutcreek.iso/npa.900/800.collect.callbacks

Internet Message Format | 1993-03-03 | 41KB

From [e-mail] Wed Mar  3 09:51:11 1993
Received: from HING.LCS.MIT.EDU by gaak.LCS.MIT.EDU via TCP with SMTP
    id AA28006; Wed, 3 Mar 93 09:51:06 EST
Received: from [127.0.0.1] by hing.LCS.MIT.EDU with SMTP
    id AA05988; Wed, 3 Mar 93 09:51:00 -0500
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: 1-800 Collect Callbacks
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 03 Mar 93 00:20:55 CST."
Date: Wed, 03 Mar 93 09:50:59 -0500
From: James Olsen <[e-mail]>
Status: R

Here is the text of the FCC 900-number rulemaking order, as published
in the Federal Register.

56 FR 56160  NO. 212  11/01/91
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


  FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

  47 CFR Parts 64 and 68

  [CC Docket No. 91-65; FCC 91-299]

  Interstate 900 Telecommunications Services

  AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

  ACTION: Final rule.
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  SUMMARY: The Commission initiated this proceeding in Policies and Rules
  Concerning Interstate 900 Telecommunications Services, CC Docket No. 91-65,
  Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 56 FR 14049 (April 5, 1991). The Commission is
  adopting rules concerning interstate pay-per-call, including 900 services.
  This action is taken in response to citizen complaints about abuses in the
  interstate 900 services. The intended effect of the action is to provide
  consumers with the information they need in order to make informed choices
  about interstate pay-per-call services and to provide them with more
  effective redress in the event abuses do occur.

  EFFECTIVE DATE: December 2, 1991.

  FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:     Thomas G. David, Enforcement Division,
  Common Carrier Bureau, [phone].

  SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Report and
  Order in CC Docket No. 91-65 (FCC 91-299), adopted September 26, 1991, and
  released October 23, 1991. The full text of the Report and Order is available
  for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Dockets
  Branch, room 230, 1919 M Street, NW., Washington, DC. The complete text of
  this decision may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating
  contractor, Downtown Copy Center, 1114 21st Street, NW., Washington, DC
  20036, [phone].

  SUMMARY OF REPORT AND ORDER

  I. Background

    1. On March 14, 1991, the Commission proposed rules regarding interstate
  900 services, Policies and Rules Concerning Interstate 900 Telecommunications
  Services, CC Docket No. 91-65, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 6 FCC Rcd 1857,
  56 FR 14049 (April 5, 1991) (hereinafter NPRM). On September 26, 1991, the
  Commission adopted a Report and Order to address issues in the interstate
  pay-per-call industry, including services offered over 900 exchanges. The
  Report and Order, summarized here, amends part 64 of the Commission's rules
  by adopting provisions that set minimum requirements for the terms and
  conditions under which interexchange carriers (IXCs) and local exchange
  carriers (LECs) can provide transmission services for pay-per-call services.
  The Report and Order also amends part 68 of the Commission's rules to add a
  rule to regulate line seizing by automated dialers which deliver a recorded
  message.

  II. Discussion

  A. Definition of Pay-per-call

    2. Section 64.709 is added to implement the Commission's decision to apply
  the rules adopted in the Report and Order to all interstate pay-per-call
  services, not just those offered over the 900 exchange. It defines pay-per-
  call services to include telecommunications services which permit a large
  number of callers to access a single telephone number and for which the
  calling party is assessed, by virtue of completing the call, a charge that is
  greater than, or in addition to, the charge for the transmission of the call.
  It does not apply to charges that are made pursuant to a presubscription
  arrangement between the caller and the information provider.

  B. Limitations on the Provision of Pay-Per-Call Services

    3. Section 64.710 requires that common carriers provide interstate pay-per-
  call transmission services only under the terms and conditions required by
  Secs. 64.711 through 64.716. This requirement applies regardless of whether
  the services are provided under contract or tariff.

  C. Preamble

    4. Section 64.711 provides that all pay-per-call programs must begin with
  an introductory disclosure message which effectively notifies the caller of
  the cost of the call and provides a brief description of what the caller will
  receive. The rule prohibits any billing of charges to a caller until the
  preamble ends and requires that the caller have the opportunity to hang-up
  without incurring any charges. The preamble must be clearly understandable
  and audible and state the name of the information provider. Also, repeat
  callers may bypass the preamble, at their option, except when the price for
  the call has recently increased.
    5. In reference to Sec. 64.711(a), the Commission considered exceptions to
  the preamble requirement for polling, non-verbal, nominally priced and
  asynchronous programs. Most commenters favor excepting either polling or
  nominally priced programs, or both. Commenters' suggestions for a threshold
  for "nominally priced" programs range from $.50 to $10.00 per call for flat-
  rate calls and from no threshold to $5.00 per minute for usage sensitive
  calls. Section 64.711(a) allows an exception to the preamble requirement only
  when the charge to the caller is less than $2.00 for a flat-rate call. The
  rule does not permit an exception to the preamble requirement for usage
  sensitive services.
    6. Many comments on Sec. 64.711(a) focus on the requirement that the
  preamble disclose "average costs" of usage sensitive calls. Disclosure of all
  the charges for a pay-per-call program is in the public interest because it
  is the fundamental mechanism for providing consumers with the information
  they need to make an informed choice about a pay-per-call service, which may
  be costly. The Commission concludes that, for programs of determinable
  length, a more meaningful disclosure would be the total price necessary to
  obtain the full message. The benefits to consumers will outweigh the minimal
  difficulties that some information providers may have in implementing this
  disclosure requirement. Therefore, Sec. 64.711(a) of the rules is changed to
  state that preambles must disclose the total price of the call if there is a
  determinable length for the program. For programs without a determinable
  length, however, such as interactive or asynchronous programs, Sec. 64.711(a)
  of the rules does not require disclosure of either total or average costs.
    7. In commenting on Sec. 64.711(b), the Federal Trade Commission (FTC)
  cautions against requiring too detailed a disclosure of program content in
  the preamble and notes that a case-by-case review of programs may have
  certain advantages over an industry-wide rule. The FTC recommends that this
  provision be interpreted to require disclosure of only a brief description of
  the program content. Information providers that provide false or misleading
  information to consumers in advertising, preambles or information programs
  would be subject to investigation by the relevant regulatory authorities,
  including the FTC. Therefore, Sec. 64.711(b) of the rules requires only a
  general description such as "sports scores" or "stocks quotes" rather than a
  detailed description of all possible information, products or services that
  the consumer could receive by calling a particular number.
    8. Finally, Sec. 64.711(b) also requires that the preamble include the name
  of the information provider. This will provide important additional
  information to the consumer with little or no additional burden on the IXCs
  or information providers.
    9. With regard to Sec. 64.711(c), while recognizing that the rule may
  create some initial difficulties for certain carriers, the Commission finds
  that carriers should not be allowed to bill callers for the preamble portion
  of a pay-per-call service. The Commission finds the requirement to be
  consistent with consumer expectations and essential to prevent abusive use of
  the preamble requirement. Many commenters note that the proposed rule does
  not require any minimum period of time between the end of the verbal preamble
  warning and the beginning of billing. The Commission agrees with the
  commenters that callers must have a reasonable opportunity to disconnect
  before billing begins and modifies proposed Sec. 64.711(c) of the rules to
  provide that the program "must provide a reasonable opportunity for the
  caller to disconnect" before the signal tone or other identified event that
  indicates that billing will commence.
    10. With regard to proposed rule Sec. 64.711(d), the record shows that
  calls by children to 900 programs are a common cause of complaints by
  consumers. However, commenters contend that the "aimed at or likely to be of
  interest to" standard proposed in the NPRM is very broad. Many commenters
  also argue that the age standard is too high and should be reduced; twelve or
  younger was the most commonly suggested standard. Government agencies and
  consumer groups express contrary views on both these issues, arguing that the
  proposed standard should be retained or strengthened.
    11. The Commission must strike a balance between adverse effects on the
  industry and achieving adequate protection for children and their parents.
  Therefore, the Commission enacts Sec. 64.711(d) of the rules essentially as
  proposed; each pay-per-call program "aimed at or likely to be of interest to
  children under the age of eighteen" must state that the caller should hang up
  unless he or she has parental permission.
    12. Comments responding to proposed rule Sec. 64.711(e) were divided;
  commenters predominantly support the concept of a bypass mechanism for the
  preamble although a significant minority oppose it. Most of the comments on
  this issue center on the question of how the bypass mechanism would be
  disabled whenever the price of a program increased. Many commenters state
  that the rule proposed in the NPRM is not practical because it is not
  possible for many programs to determine whether a particular call is an
  individual's first call after a price increase. In response to the comments
  about the difficulty of applying the proposed standard, the Commission adopts
  the proposed bypass rule but modifies it as commenters suggest: the bypass
  mechanism must be disabled for thirty days after a program increases its
  price. However, any instructions on how to use the bypass mechanism must be
  at the end of the preamble or the end of the program.

  D. Identity of Information Provider

    13. The comments heavily favor proposed rule Sec. 64.712. Some commenters
  suggest changes in the rule; that the IXC be allowed to provide the name of
  the service bureau rather than the information provider or that only written
  requests would be honored. Other commenters, however, strongly support this
  proposed rule and agree that the focus should be on "whatever party is
  legally responsible"--to consumers and regulators--for the content of the 900
  service and the fulfillment of any commitments made by the program.
    14. Section 64.712, as adopted, requires the IXCs to provide identifying
  information about information providers upon verbal or written request. The
  burdens on the industry are very minor in comparison to the benefit to
  consumers. The Commission rejects the suggestion that it allow the IXCs to
  provide consumers with identifying information only about service bureaus or
  entities other than the information providers. The existing structure of the
  industry has afforded "a built-in shield between the unscrupulous marketers
  and the public." Therefore, it is important to allow individual consumers,
  consumer groups, and law enforcement agencies to identify information
  providers. This ruling does not prevent the IXC from providing additional
  information, such as the name and telephone number of a service bureau that
  is answering customer inquiries for the information provider. However, IXCs
  must, upon request, provide identifying information about information
  providers to consumers or other entities, including state or federal
  agencies, that request the information.
    15. Several government commenters argue that the Commission should require
  that the information be provided free, and in a timely manner. Therefore, the
  Commission orders that the information specified in Sec. 64.712 be provided
  at no charge to the requester, and that it be provided in a reasonable time,
  not exceeding three days. It is the Commission's expectation that this
  information shall, in all but exceptional cases, be provided with no delay.

  E. Regulation of Blocking

    16. Section 64.713, as adopted, requires that LECs, as part of their
  interstate access service, offer free blocking of interstate 900 services,
  where technically feasible, to all residential subscribers who request it.
  This free blocking is required on a one-time basis. The states are free to
  set reasonable, one-time, fees for subsequent blocking or unblocking requests
  by residential subscribers or for any blocking requests by commercial
  subscribers but may not charge monthly fees for such blocking. The LECs are
  not required to provide blocking for interstate pay-per-call services on
  exchanges other than 900. Finally, requests to remove 900 service blocking
  must be in writing.
    17. The comments are overwhelmingly in favor of the proposal to require
  LECs to block interstate 900 services upon the subscriber's request. There is
  significant comment, however, about what the phrase "technically feasible"
  means and how it should be applied. Section 64.713 will impose an obligation
  on LECs to provide subscribers, both residential and commercial, with the
  option to request blocking of 900 services where the existing switch will
  accommodate it. The Commission is not requiring that LECs accelerate their
  purchases of new equipment. Rather, the LEC must, when existing equipment is
  capable of providing blocking for 900 services, provide blocking. Also, in
  light of the technical difficulties which LECs would encounter in blocking
  non-900 pay-per-call services, the LECs are only required to provide blocking
  for pay-per-call services on the 900 exchange.
    18. The comments regarding proposed rule Sec. 64.713 generally favor free
  blocking for residential subscribers during an initial introductory period
  and when they first obtain service. There were many favorable comments on
  also making free blocking available when a subscriber first disputes or
  questions a 900 services charge, but this proposed requirement also
  stimulated the most negative comments. The Commission is persuaded that each
  residential subscriber should be offered one opportunity to block 900
  services upon request and at no charge. The LEC should, however, be able to
  charge residential subscribers a reasonable one-time fee for each subsequent
  request to unblock or re-block after he or she has been given one free block.
  Residential subscribers obtaining service at a new location, however, should
  be able to have free blocking of 900 services, even if they have previously
  exercised their one free option to block those services elsewhere.
    19. The Wisconsin Public Service Commission states that it has been their
  experience that minor children or other persons may impersonate the
  subscriber and request that a block be moved. In response to these comments,
  the Commission modifies Sec. 64.713 to provide that requests to remove 900
  blocking must be in writing.
    20. The NPRM also requested comment on whether blocking should be available
  at no charge to commercial, as well as residential subscribers. Comments are
  mixed on this issue. Generally, LECs advocate that commercial subscribers be
  charged for blocking. A blocking fee will encourage businesses that have
  customer premises equipment capable of blocking 900 services to use that
  capability and avoid imposing costs on the LECs. The Commission is persuaded
  that LECs should be able to recover some of the costs of blocking by imposing
  reasonable one-time charges on commercial subscribers. Therefore, Sec.
  64.713, as proposed, is modified to require the offering of one-time free
  blocking to residential, but not commercial, subscribers.
    21. Comments about technical problems associated with blocking center
  primarily around whether the LECs should be required to offer individual
  subscribers the capability of blocking 900 services on a number-specific,
  program-by-program basis. The Commission is persuaded that the practical
  difficulties and economic burden of blocking 900 services information
  programs on a number-specific, program-by-program basis outweigh any benefit
  that this capability would offer to consumers. Therefore, Sec. 64.713 will
  not be modified to require LECs to offer number-specific blocking of 900
  services at this time.
    22. Commenters suggest a variety of approaches for recovering the costs of
  the "free" blocking required under Sec. 64.713. The Commission will not alter
  the manner in which the LECs recover the costs incurred in blocking 900
  services at this time. The record indicates that where blocking is available,
  LECs recover those costs from IXCs, or from subscribers who do pay a blocking
  fee, or from ratepayers generally. Accordingly, certain costs incurred in
  providing the one-time free (to the residential subscriber) blocking required
  herein will be recovered through state-mandated procedures. The Commission
  declines to require that blocking costs be recovered solely through an
  interstate access tariff charge, as there is no evidence that the costs of
  blocking are significant and many states have ordered or allowed one-time
  free blocking. Thus, efforts to alter the cost recovery of this service would
  disrupt existing state procedures that, based on this record, apparently work
  satisfactorily.
    23. An issue which may commenters raise with regard to Sec. 64.713 is
  whether carriers and information providers should be allowed to block
  subscribers, without their consent, from receiving pay-per-call services
  because of their previous failure to pay for those services. Certain
  commenters argue that involuntary blocking 900 services should be available
  if the subscriber repeatedly makes 900 telephone calls and refuses to pay for
  them. The Commission is not taking any action at the federal level regarding
  such involuntary blocking at this time. Some states have procedures in place
  to place involuntary blocks on consumers who fail to pay for such services.
  No case has been made that these state statutes or regulations undercut any
  federal policy.

  F. Disconnection Restrictions

    24. Most commenters support the prohibition on disconnection of basic
  communications services that proposed Sec. 64.714 would impose when there is
  a dispute over the payment of pay-per-call charges. Some negative comments
  argue that this rule would require changes in LEC billing systems before the
  rule could be implemented. Restrictions on disconnection for failure to pay
  for 900 services are already required by the Commission for AT&T and have
  been imposed by many states. Section 64.714, as adopted, imposes a uniform
  national prohibiting cut-offs of basic exchange and interexchange service for
  failure to pay interstate pay-per-call service charges. The Commission
  determines that access to basic telecommunications services should not be
  jeopardized by non-payment of charges that are unrelated to transmission
  services. Basic communications services include both local exchange and
  interexchange services.

  G. Other Practices

  1. Terms and Conditions Regarding Quality

    25. With respect to claims that information providers deliberately provided
  poor quality services to increase their revenues, the commenters provide
  little evidence about such practices, although they frequently comment that
  such practices are reprehensible and should be prohibited. Because there is
  no significant record indicating that poor quality programs are other than
  sporadic, the Commission will not adopt a separate, specific rule on quality
  for pay-per-call services. However, Sec. 64.711(a) is modified to require
  that the preambles must be "clearly understandable and audible." Quality
  problems that affect the content of or charges for the program may be dealt
  with by the FTC or state agencies with jurisdiction over deceptive practices.

  2. Automated Collect Calls

    26. There was some evidence that the consumers were assessed pay-per-call
  charges for automated collect calls. In one instance, thousands of consumers
  were telephoned and, unless they rejected the call, were charged. The
  comments are largely in support of imposing restrictions on this practice.
  Section 64.715, as adopted, prohibits common carriers from providing
  transmission services for pay-per-call programs which initiate calls to
  consumers unless the party who is called has to take action that clearly
  indicates a desire to accept the charges for the collect pay-per-call
  service.

  3. Line Seizing

    27. Section 68.318(c) is adopted in response to comments regarding line
  seizure by automated dialing devices. The NPRM states that several
  manufacturers of autodialers claim that newer equipment disconnects
  immediately upon receiving a disconnect signal from the called party. The
  comments are divided on the issue of whether line seizing is a problem. One
  commenter argues that autodialers are used for many purposes other than
  soliciting for 900 services and that this issue should be considered in a
  separate proceeding because it is not primarily related to 900 services. It
  is also argued that the line seizure problem is confined to one type of
  autodialer technology, equipment that uses recorded messages in telemarketing
  solicitations. Various states have already enacted restrictions of their own.
  Section 68.318(c) of the rules, as adopted, requires prompt disconnection
  after the called party hangs up. However, it does not require disconnection
  within a set amount of time because the ability of the network to disconnect
  calls differs according to the type of equipment. The Commission is not
  requiring network upgrades to ensure compliance with this rule. Rather,
  autodialers which deliver a recorded message must use current capabilities to
  disconnect as promptly as is possible.

  4. Dispute Resolution

    28. The Commission considered, but declined to mandate, specific dispute
  resolution procedures. Industry commenters generally argue that their
  existing policies are adequate and that Commission action is not necessary.
  Government and consumer commenters generally advocate the adoption of
  specific refund requirements or complaint handling procedures. State policies
  or rules concerning dispute resolution are not preempted in this order.
  Moreover, in light of the other actions the Commission has taken to inform
  and protect consumers, the adoption of detailed federal dispute resolution
  procedures is unnecessary at the present time. The prohibition on
  disconnection of basic communications service will require information
  providers or carriers to pursue the collection of disputed 900 service
  charges, to the extent that they choose to do so, as private commercial
  disputes for which rules already exist. To the extent that state procedures
  do not thwart or impede the federal policies adopted herein, parties will
  also have those means to resolve pay-per-call services disputes.

  5. Dual-Tone, Multi-Frequency Tones

    29. Section 64.716, as adopted, prohibits carriers from providing
  transmission service to any pay-per-call program that employs tones generated
  in advertising to complete a call to the pay-per-call program. There is no
  record that this is a current practice, but the commenters almost universally
  state that there is no justification for it and that a ban would not harm
  legitimate businesses. The Commission finds that this practice has
  significant potential, if unchecked, to harm consumers, especially children
  too young to understand the concept that placing a call can involve a charge.

  H. Scope

    30. Section 64.709 was added to define the scope of these rules. The
  comments overwhelmingly support the position that the rules should apply to
  all interstate pay-per-call services, regardless of which exchange they are
  offered on. Some commenters object to the extension of jurisdiction over
  specific exchanges, such as 976, on the ground that interstate traffic is
  blocked from reaching those numbers. The IXCs are concerned about the
  implications for other, non-pay-per-call, services that they offer on 700 or
  other exchanges. The LECs also express concern about the difficulty that they
  would have in blocking or applying the disconnection rules to pay-per-call
  services offered over 700 or some other exchange.
    31. These proposed rules, except for Sec. 64.713, are modified to apply to
  all interstate pay-per-call services, including all interstate information
  services offered on a transactional basis, except as otherwise noted therein.
  Calls will be considered "complet[ed]" when charges are assessed, not when
  the entire information program has been provided. Presubscribed services,
  such as legal research services or other databases, are not required to
  comply with these rules because the consumer had an adequate opportunity to
  obtain information about the costs and benefits of the service at the time of
  presubscription. Collect information calls, to the extent they are permitted
  by these rules, are included in the definition of "pay-per-call" services.
  When a consumer takes affirmative action clearly indicating that it accepts
  the charges for such a collect call, the consumer's action changes him or her
  from the called party to the calling party for the purposes of this rule.
  Section 64.713, as adopted, continues to require that the LECs are only
  responsible for blocking interstate 900 calls because the LECs would
  encounter serious difficulties in blocking pay-per-call services on other
  exchanges. The fact that the rules are only applicable to interstate services
  should eliminate concerns about 976, 540 and other local services to the
  extent that they either do not carry pay-per-call services or do not allow
  interstate traffic to access them. Further, because the rules are limited to
  pay-per-call services, business services not offered on a pay-per-call basis
  will not be required to have a preamble. In adopting the modified rule, the
  Commission is eliminating the opportunity for pay-per-call services to avoid
  regulation by moving to other exchanges. The 900 exchange has all the
  attributes necessary for the provision of information services to the public,
  and the record shows no valid technical or legal reason why the public would
  better served by allowing interstate pay-per-call services to be free of
  regulation simply because they are on an exchange other than 900.

  I. State Regulation of 900 Services

    32. The record in this proceeding demonstrates that there is both
  interstate and intrastate 900 services traffic. The record further shows that
  the switches of the LECs are not capable of differentiating between
  interstate and intrastate 900 traffic. State legislatures and public
  utilities commissions have taken many actions designed to protect their
  citizens against abusive and deceptive practices by marketers which are
  potentially applicable to pay-per-call service. Some of the state
  requirements, however, are inconsistent with each other and with the federal
  requirements adopted in this Report and Order. However, interstate and
  intrastate pay-per-call 900 services must both use the same facilities and a
  single, nationwide number. With present technology, carriers are unable to
  jurisdictionally identify and apply different state and federal preamble
  requirements. The record establishes that neither the LECs, IXCs, nor
  information providers will know whether the call is intrastate and thus
  within the state's jurisdiction.
    33. In view of the foregoing characteristics of 900 pay-per-call services,
  the Commission concludes that it must preempt state-imposed preamble
  requirements. State efforts to impose preamble requirements on interstate
  pay-per-call service must be preempted to the extent that they would stand
  "as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and
  objectives of Congress." The objective of Congress involved in the present
  proceeding is the Title I obligation to "make available * * * a rapid,
  efficient, Nation-wide * * * communications service * * *." 47 U.S.C. 151.
  State requirements that additional or different material be presented in the
  preamble for a pay-per-call service will present such an obstacle to the
  Commission's Title I responsibilities because the state required preamble
  material would either have to be provided on both intra- and interstate
  calls, or carriers and information providers would have to develop and
  install technical means to identify inter- and intrastate traffic and apply
  different preambles. If the state preamble requirements were imposed on all
  calls, that action would impose a greater burden and would result in a
  different balance of interests than the federal requirements would impose. If
  different preambles could be applied to pay-per-call service that can be
  accessed on both an intrastate and interstate basis, the state requirements
  would result in wasteful and inefficient duplication of resources. The
  preamble requirement adopted herein is meant to establish a nationwide
  standard for educating consumers about the nature of the call being placed,
  and conflicting or additional state requirements would cause undue confusion
  and expense to all parties. In the present case, the same network and
  customer premises equipment processes both interstate and intrastate pay-per-
  call services. This preemption encompasses state-imposed preamble
  requirements purportedly limited to intrastate 900 services because, in the
  absence of the LECs', IXCs' or information providers' ability to identify
  intrastate 900 calls, effectuation of the state preamble requirement would
  necessarily require application of the state requirements to interstate 900
  services. Therefore, the Commission concludes that such state requirements
  would thwart or impede the federal policy and the balance that it has struck
  herein. See California v. FCC, 905 F.2d 1217 (9th Cir. 1990); NARUC v. FCC,
  880 F.2d 422 (D.C. Cir. 1989).

  III. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    34. Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, the Commission's
  final analysis is as follows:
    35. Need and purpose of this action. This Report and Order adopts
  regulations to protect consumers against unfair and deceptive practices which
  have occurred in the pay-per-call industry and to provide them with the
  information they need to make an informed purchase decision about these
  services.
    36. Summary of the issues raised by the public comments in response to the
  Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. No comments were submitted in
  response to the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.
    37. Significant alternatives considered and rejected. The initiating
  documents in this proceeding offered many proposals. The commenters supported
  the basic thrust of this proceeding but many suggested alternatives to the
  Commission's proposals. The Commission considered all of the alternatives
  presented in the proceeding and considered all of the timely filed comments
  directed to the various issues that were raised. After carefully weighing all
  aspects of the issues and comments in this proceeding, the Commission has
  taken the most reasonable course of action to protect consumers against
  unfair and deceptive practices in the pay-per-call industry and provide
  consumers with the information they need to make informed purchase decisions
  about these services.

  IV. Conclusion

    38. With this Report and Order, the Commission adopts rules that will
  facilitate consumer choice by requiring disclosure, in a clearly
  understandable and audible preamble, of the name of the information provider,
  the price, and a brief description of the product, service or information
  offered. The rules also require that the caller be given an opportunity to
  hang up, after obtaining that information, without being charged for the
  call. The rules provide for the exemption of nominally priced programs and
  allow bypass of the preamble for repeat callers. The Commission's rules also
  require a special warning on programs aimed at or likely to be of interest to
  children under the age of eighteen. The rules require the IXCs to provide the
  name, address and customer service telephone number of the information
  providers to whom they provide transmission service. The rules require the
  LECs to provide blocking of 900 calls for all subscribers, and free one-time
  blocking for 900 services for residential subscribers. The rules also
  prohibit carriers from disconnecting basic telecommunications services for
  failure to remit pay-per-call service charges. Finally, the rules also impose
  limits on automated collect calls, line seizure by autodialers, and the use
  of dual-tone, multifrequency tones in advertising for pay-per-call programs.

  V. Ordering Clauses

    39. Accordingly, It is ordered, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 201-
  205, and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. Secs.
  151, 154(i), 154(j), 201-205, and 403, that parts 64 and 68 of the
  Commission's Rules, 47 CFR parts 64 and 68, are amended as set forth in Rule
  Changes below.
    40. It is further ordered, That this Report and Order will be effective
  thirty (30) days after publication of a summary thereof in the Federal
  Register.

  List of Subjects

  47 CFR Part 64

    Communications common carriers, Computer technology, Telephone.

  47 CFR Part 68

    Communications common carriers, Communications equipment, Telephone.

  Federal Communications Commission

  Donna R. Searcy,

  Secretary.

  Rule Changes

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

  PART 64--[AMENDED]

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

    Authority: Sec. 4, 48 Stat. 1066, as amended; 47 U.S.C. 154, unless
  otherwise noted. Interpret or apply secs. 201, 218, 226, 48 Stat. 1070, as
  amended, 1077; 47 U.S.C. 201, 218, 226, unless otherwise noted.

    2. New Secs. 64.709 through 64.716 are added to subpart G to read as
  follows:

  Sec. 64.709  Definition of Pay-Per-Call Services.

    Pay-per-call services are telecommunications services which permit
  simultaneous calling by a large number of callers to a single telephone
  number and for which the calling part is assessed, by virtue of completing
  the call, a charge that is not dependent on the existence of a
  presubscription relationship and for which the caller pays a per-call or per-
  time-interval charge that is greater than, or in addition to, the charge for
  transmission of the call.

  Sec. 64.710  Limitations on the Provision of Pay-Per-Call Services.

    Common carriers may provide interstate transmission, under either contract
  or tariff, for pay-per-call services only under the terms and conditions
  required by Secs. 64.711 through 64.716 of this part.

  Sec. 64.711  Preamble.

    (a) Programs must begin with a clearly understandable and audible preamble
  that states the cost of the call. The preamble must disclose all per call
  charges. If the call is billed on a usage sensitive basis, the preamble must
  state all rates, by minute or other unit of time, any minimum charges and the
  total cost for calls to that program if the duration of the program can be
  determined. No preamble is required for programs with a flat-rate charge of
  $2.00 or less.
    (b) The preamble must state the name of the information provider and
  accurately describe the information, product or service that the caller will
  receive for the fee;
    (c) The preamble must inform the caller that billing will commence only
  after a specific identified event following the disclosure message, such as a
  signal tone, and must provide a reasonable opportunity for the caller to
  disconnect before that event;
    (d) The preamble associated with interstate pay-per-call offerings aimed at
  or likely to be of interest to children under the age of eighteen must
  contain a statement that the caller should hang up unless her or she has
  parental permission; and
    (e) A caller may be provided the means to bypass the preamble on subsequent
  calls, provided that the caller is in sole control of that capability, except
  that any bypass device shall be disabled for a period of thirty days
  following the effective date of a price increase for the pay-per-call
  service. Instructions on how to bypass must either be at the end of the
  preamble or the end of the program.

  Sec. 64.712  Identification of Information Providers.

    The carrier providing interstate transmission for pay-per-call services
  shall provide to consumers upon request the name, address and customer
  service telephone number of any information provider to whom the carrier
  provides such transmission service, either directly or through another entity
  such as a service bureau. The carrier shall provide that information at no
  charge and within a reasonable time upon verbal or written request.

  Sec. 64.713  Blocking of 900 Service.

    Local exchange carriers must offer to their subscribers, where technically
  feasible, an option to block interstate 900 services. Blocking is to be
  offered at no charge on a one-time basis to all residential telephone
  subscribers. For blocking requests not within the one-time option and for
  commercial subscribers, the local exchange carrier may charge a reasonable
  one-time fee for each such blocking request. Requests by subscribers to
  remove 900 services blocking must be in writing.

  Sec. 64.714  No Disconnection for Failure to Remit pay-per-call Service
  Charges.

    No common carrier shall disconnect, or order the disconnection of, a
  telephone subscriber's basic communications service as a result of that
  subscriber's failure to pay interstate pay-per-call service charges.

  Sec. 64.715  Automated Collect Telephone Calls.

    No common carrier shall provide transmission services for pay-per-call
  services originated by an information provider and charged to the consumer,
  unless the called party has taken affirmative action clearly indicating that
  it accepts the charges for the collect pay-per-call service.

  Sec. 64.716  Generation of Signalling Tones.

    No carrier shall provide transmission services for any pay-per-call service
  which employs broadcast advertising which generates the audible tones
  necessary to complete a call to a pay-per-call service.

  PART 68--[AMENDED]

    3. The authority citation for part 68 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: Secs. 4, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 208, 215, 218, 226, 313, 314,
  403, 404, 410, 602, 48 Stat., as amended, 1066, 1070, 1087, 1094, 1098, 1102,
  47 U.S.C. 154, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 208, 215, 218, 226, 313, 314, 403,
  404, 410, 602, unless otherwise noted.

    4. Section 68.318 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(2) to read as follows:

  Sec. 68.318  Additional limitations.

  * * * * *

    (c) * * *
    (2) Automatic dialing devices which deliver a recorded message to the
  called party must release the called party's telephone line promptly but in
  no event longer than current industry standards.

  * * * * *

  [FR Doc. 91-26500 Filed 10-31-91; 8:45 am]

  BILLING CODE 6712-01-M