PUBLIC NOTICE Federal Communications Commission 1919 M St., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20554 DA 96-1695 October 10, 1996 COMMON CARRIER BUREAU SEEKS FURTHER COMMENT ON SPECIFIC QUESTIONS IN OSP REFORM RULEMAKING PROCEEDING In the Matter of Billed Party Preference for InterLATA 0+ Calls, CC Docket 92-77 Comment Date: November 13, 1996; Reply Comment Date: December 3, 1996 On June 4, 1996, the Commission adopted In the Matter of Billed Party Preference for InterLATA 0+ Calls, Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, CC Docket No. 92-77, 11 FCC Rcd 7274 (Second Further Notice). In the Second Further Notice, the Commission sought comment on, among other things, a proposed requirement that all providers of operator services at payphone and other aggregator locations (OSPs), before connecting any interstate 0+ call, orally disclose to the party to be billed for such a call the specific rate, as well as applicable aggregator surcharges or premises-imposed-fees (PIFs), if any, allowed by the OSP's contract with the aggregator at the particular location, that the billed party will be charged for the call. The Commission also sought comment on what alternatives to a billed party preference (BPP) system would serve the public interest with respect to charges for interstate 0+ calls from prison inmates. Comments and Reply Comments in response to the Second Further Notice were received on July 17, 1996 and August 16, 1996, respectively. Having reviewed the submissions, the Common Carrier Bureau seeks further comment on specific issues relating to the subjects previously noticed in this proceeding. Specifically, interested parties are invited to file comments in response to the attached list of questions. Commenters should restate and underline each question above their responses. Commenters also must provide a brief summary of their comments, not to exceed three sentences per question or three double-spaced pages in total, as a preface to their comments. The comments and comment summary should follow the order of the questions. Comments should be filed on or before November 13, 1996 and Reply Comments on or before December 3, 1996. Interested parties must file an original and four copies of their comments with the Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, Room 222, 1919 M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20554. Comments should reference CC Docket No. 92- 77. Parties should send one copy of their comments to the Commission's copy contractor,International Transcription Service, Room 140, 2100 M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20037. Comments will be available for public inspection during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Room 239, 1919 M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20554. Parties are also asked to submit comments on diskette. Such diskette submissions would be in addition to, and not a substitute for, the formal filing requirements addressed above. Parties submitting diskettes should submit them to Adrien Auger, Common Carrier Bureau, Enforcement Division, 2025 M Street, N.W., Suite 6008, Washington, D.C. 20554. Such a submission should be on a 3.5 inch diskette in an IBM compatible format using WordPerfect 5.1 for Windows software in a "read only" mode. The diskette should be clearly labelled with the party's name, proceeding, and date of submission. The diskette should be accompanied by a cover letter. For further information contact Adrien Auger, 202/418-0960. -FCC- ATTACHMENT 1. Are there any industries in which price disclosure to consumers at the point of purchase is not the normal practice? If so, what are those industries and what are the particular circumstances surrounding the developments of those industries? 2. What kinds of technologies (including payphone equipment and associated software) are currently available to provide on-demand call rating information for calls from payphones, other aggregator locations, and phones in correctional institutions that are provided for use by inmates? Commenters should discuss the anticipated declining cost of these technologies, assuming a wide-spread demand for these services. 3. Are there any telecommunications markets outside of the U.S. that already make use of price disclosure prior to call completion, for example, in the U.K.? If so, please provide the technological and financial details behind the implementation of these services and any indication as to the cost and benefits from the perspective of consumers. 4. Some commenters have claimed that price disclosure prior to call completion would create an unacceptable delay to consumers. Are there any studies that substantiate or dispute this contention and are those studies available? Are there any studies available that provide indications of consumer satisfaction or dissatisfaction with 0+ services provided in this fashion? 5. If some or all of embedded base equipment and software are incapable of providing audible notice to consumers for on-demand call rating, what time period would be reasonable for substituting equipment and software that is capable of doing so? 6. What percentage of interstate 0+ calls do calls from correctional institutions constitute, both in quantity and dollar volume, over the last 5 years? 7. What effects, if any, will the recent Report and Order in In the Matter of Pay Telephone Reclassification and Compensation Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Policies and Rules Concerning Operator Service Access and Pay Telephone Compensation, CC Docket Nos. 96-128, 91-35, FCC 96-388 (released September 20, 1996) have on this proceeding?