FOR FCC RECORD ONLY
BEFORE THE
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
FCC 94-59
WASHINGTON, D.C.
IN THE MATTER OF )
)
Rules and Policies Regarding ) CC Docket No. 91-281
Calling Number Identification )
Service - Caller ID )
Due to technical difficulties, footnotes, tables & charts may be
dropped from this document. Entire document is available in Word
Perfect also.
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.
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 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
I. INTRODUCTION.
1. On October 23, 1991, the Commission issued a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking in this docket. 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. In the NPRM, the Commission sought to develop the most
effective policies to govern interstate calling party number
based services such as caller ID. The NPRM sought comment on
carriers' progress in deploying interstate caller ID service, and
the technical and public policy implications of dual federal and
state regulatory policies. 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
interstate 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 number
(CPN) based services, including interstate caller ID, must be
preempted. We amend Part 64 of the rules to require that common
carriers using Common Channel 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
require that terminating carriers providing calling party based
services, including caller ID, honor the privacy indicator. We
find that the costs of interstate transmission of CPN are de
minimis, and that the CPN should be transmitted among carriers
without additional charge. We also require that carriers
participating in the offering of any service that delivers CPN on
interstate calls inform telephone subscribers that the
subscriber's number may be revealed to called parties and
describe what steps subscribers 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
consent. Finally, we note that additional comments are sought
through a separate public notice in the Computer III Remand
Proceeding 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). 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 intrastate subscribers
and augment the available choices of existing 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. 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 service, business
fraud reduction, call routing, emergency dispatch, health care
services, telephone banking, home shopping, dealer locator, and
selective call message forwarding. McCaw states that caller
information will significantly improve cellular and other service
offerings because cellular subscribers pay for incoming calls.
Moreover, McCaw notes that ubiquitous caller ID will facilitate
cellular enhancements including conventional caller ID, more
responsive customer service, new cellular CPE voice synthesizers,
and service for roaming subscribers. SNET states that its
studies show that caller ID aids persons with hearing impairments
in answering calls; law enforcement in determining crank,
threatening, false alarm calls and emergency 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. Consumer 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 number
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 privacy, such as Call
Trace, are limited in scope and do not permit either the public
or service providers to take advantage 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 instantaneous. Service providers who respond to telephone
orders, such as stock brokers or parts and equipment dealers,
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 centers 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.
8. Many of these potential services would permit
transactions to occur more efficiently. In an economy that
averages 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 technological
innovation and new applications that will foster economic
efficiency and provide new employment, manufacturing and
investment opportunities.
9. None of these services and benefits are possible,
however, 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 service needs and by having
transactions completed more quickly and more accurately. As
workers and entrepreneurs, they benefit by having new employment
opportunities. Businesses benefit because they can complete
transactions more quickly, which can lower incremental costs of
transactions, potentially leading to savings for consumers.
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 providers will create incentives for
carriers who do not have SS7 networks to install them. This will
enhance the nation'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 technology 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 Commission
sought detailed comments on carriers' progress toward
establishing joint offerings of CPN-based services, and any
impediments that have been identified. 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 particular, varying
state regulatory responses to privacy issues appear to be
impeding the development of interstate services. 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 beneficial.
In addition to providing additional choices for consumers, such
services offer significant efficiency dividends for all users of
interstate telephone services. These efficiency gains promise to
lower incremental costs of interstate 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 requirements 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
introduction 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 LEC 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.
13. AT&T states that requiring IXCs to transmit interstate
CPN to LECs is unnecessary because the competitive market already
gives IXCs incentive to offer innovative interstate 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 investments in SS7 technology. Allnet
argues that the requirement 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 interstate
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 terminating LEC because it states the LEC 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 assert that an IXC's offering of the
calling party number should be available through all means of
interconnection to end users, including LECs, alternative local
service providers, or the IXC itself.
15. Nynex proposes that mandatory delivery of the calling
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 carriers 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 originating carrier
to the terminating carrier. In our 800 number portability
proceeding, major LECs filed access tariffs providing for 800
number portability using SS7 technology. 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 follow 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.
Similarly, the subsequent BellCore guidelines for SS7
interconnection with a BOC include CPN as an optional
parameter.
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 calling party number parameter
and its associated privacy indicator to connecting carriers on an
interstate call. Further, we amend the rules to prohibit
common carriers from modifying or overriding the privacy
indicator on an interstate call. We emphasize that carriers are
..........................................................................
Jonah Seiger, Project Coordinator
