From olsen@hing.lcs.mit.edu 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: <9303031451.AA05988@hing.LCS.MIT.EDU> To: ptownson@gaak.LCS.MIT.EDU 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 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, (202) 632-4887. 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, (202) 452-1422. 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