$// Letter, Oncor v. ACUTA, File IC-94-15325, DA 95-432 //$
$/ 0.291 Delegated authority /$
///newjob///
$///DA 95-432  3-7-95///$     
                     Federal Communications Commission
                          Washington, D.C.  20554



                               March 6, 1995
Released: March 9, 1995


Mr. Greg Casey
Senior Vice President
Oncor Communications, Inc.
6707 Democracy Boulevard
Bethesda, Maryland  20817

Dear Mr. Casey:

     This is a letter of admonition issued to Oncor
Communications, Inc. (Oncor) in connection with the informal
complaint filed by Mr. Randal Collett of the Association of
College and University Telecommunications Administrators (ACUTA) 
(File No. IC-94-15325).  In his complaint, Mr. Collett states
that Oncor is promoting a service whereby an individual dials the
Oncor access code (10658), plus 0, and then a Canadian number to
reach an information provider.  According to the complainant, no
operator asks for billing information, and the call is apparently
billed to the originating telephone on the basis of Automatic
Number Identification (ANI).  Mr. Collett states that this
situation has the potential to be financially disastrous to the
ACUTA members, who allow students to use 10XXX0+ access to their
long distance carriers.

     The Enforcement Division's staff served ACUTA's letter on
Oncor.  Your company responded on November 16, 1994 and did not
dispute the availability of the calling sequence that Mr. Collett
described.  Oncor states that a consumer who wishes to place an
international call over Oncor's network would dial 10 "followed
by Oncor's access code of 6580...."  Oncor's response states that
this access method "is designed for direct dialed calls by
residential subscribers."   The letter, however, does not address
the concern raised by Mr. Collett regarding calls from aggregator
locations, other than an offer by Oncor to block calls at the
subscriber's request.  For the reasons set forth below, we
conclude that Oncor's procedure for handling 10XXX0+ calls is
inconsistent with the Commission's rules and policies regarding
operator services and toll fraud. 

     In CC Docket No. 91-35, the Commission required aggregators
to selectively unblock 10XXX access codes so that consumers could
use this dialing sequence to reach interexchange carriers.  See
Policies and Rules Concerning Operator Service Access and Pay
Telephone Compensation, Report and Order and Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, 6 FCC Rcd 4736 (1991).  Aggregators were
allowed to block 10XXX dialing sequences that always result in
billing to the originating telephone, such as 10XXX1+, but were
required to unblock 10XXX calls that are delivered to a carrier's
operator services.  Traditionally, 10XXX0+ calls have resulted in
interception by the carrier's operator to determine how the call
should be billed, and to observe any billing restriction codes
that are delivered with the call.  The Commission subsequently
delayed in part the 10XXX unblocking requirement to ensure that
aggregators were not exposed to toll fraud associated with
selectively unblocking 10XXX access.  By using a non-industry
standard for handling 10XXX0+ calls, however, Oncor has thwarted
the Commission's efforts to unblock 10XXX access in a way that is
readily understandable and fair to both consumers and
aggregators.   

     The provision of 106580+ access without operator
interception, with the cost of the call billed to the originating
number, is an invitation to toll fraud from aggregator locations. 
As you know, the Commission has concluded that carriers have an
obligation to prevent toll fraud.  In cases where the carrier was
in the best position to prevent fraud but failed to take
reasonable steps to prevent the fraudulent calls, the Commission
will not impose liability on the subscriber of the originating
phone.  Cf. United Artists Payphone Corp. v. New York Tel. Co.
and American Tel. & Tel. Co., 8 FCC Rcd 5563, 5566 n.44 (1993)
(carriers must take appropriate action to prevent fraudulent
calling).  It is not sufficient for Oncor to offer to block
10XXX0+ calls from individual aggregator locations at the request
of the aggregator.  The obligation on Oncor in the first instance
is to comply with the Commission's efforts to prevent toll fraud
by taking reasonable preventive steps before the fraudulent calls
are made. In this case, that obligation is not to bill 10XXX0+
calls using ANI.  It is an unreasonable practice to require all
aggregators to conform to Oncor's nonstandard access arrangement,
with blocking of that access available only on request.  

     Accordingly, Oncor is directed to immediately stop allowing
10XXX0+ calls to be billed to the originating telephone, and, for
such calls, to immediately implement operator intervention that
will obtain billing information by means of a valid calling card. 
Please respond within five days of the date of this letter
confirming Oncor's compliance with this requirement.

                                   Sincerely,


          
                                   Gregory A. Weiss
                                   Acting Chief
                                   Enforcement Division
                                   Common Carrier Bureau 

cc:  Randal Collett