blake@pro-party.cts.com (Blake Farenthold) (04/10/89)
{{{ This is the first of three special issues of the [TELECOM Digest] }}} {{{ which are being posted in their original digest format. -chip }}} TELECOM Digest Sun, 9 Apr 89 01:46:44 CDT Special: FCC/AOS Regs - I Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Introduction: FCC/AOS Regs (TELECOM Moderator) FCC / AOS Regulations: Part 1 of 3 (TELECOM Moderator) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 9 Apr 89 1:45:52 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator <telecom@eecs.nwu.edu> Subject: Introduction: FCC/AOS Regs This three part special edition of [TELECOM Digest] brings you a complete transcription of the recent ruling by the Federal Communications Commission regarding Alternate Operator Services. I am grateful to Blake Farenthold for taking the time to prepare this and send it to the Digest. Parts 1 and 2 contain the text of the ruling by the Commission. Part 3 is the footnotes, referred to in the first two parts with the carot ^ symbol followed by a number, as in ^17. Because of software and mailer constraints pertaining to the mailing of Digests, it was necessary to break this special report into three parts. [TELECOM Digest] readers will receive three 'special editions' during the morning hours on Sunday. Readers of comp.dcom.telecom will see four messages in total; this introduction and the three messages which follow. {{{ Actually USENET readers will see three messages, with this }}} {{{ note included in the first message. -chip }}} This report is being sent as 'special edition' to the [TELECOM Digest] mailing list so that it can be archived separately as desired, without causing the digest serial numbers to be out of order in the process. After you have received all three parts, if you wish to keep this file for further reference, please take the three parts and combine in your editor and paste them all together again, minus the header at the top of each. Again, thanks go to Blake Farenthold for his research on this and his diligence in submitting the whole thing. Patrick Townson TELECOM Digest Moderator ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 Apr 89 16:15:37 CST From: Blake Farenthold <blake@pro-party.cts.com> Subject: FCC's AOS order With all the recent discussion in the digest about COCOTS and bum deals, I figured 'yall might be interested in what the FCC has had to say about the issue. Reprinted below is a copy of the FCC's AOS order. ____ cut here ___ Before The FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) DA 89-237 TELECOMMUNICATIONS RESEARCH AND ) ACTION CENTER AND CONSUMER ACTION ) ) Complainants, ) ) v. ) ) CENTRAL CORPORATION ) File No. E-88-104 INTERNATIONAL TELECHARGE, INC.; ) File No. E-88-105 NATIONAL TELEPHONE SERVICES, INC.; ) File No. E-88-106 PAYLINE SYSTEMS, INC.; AND ) File No. E-88-107 TELESPHERE NETWORK, INC. ) File No. E-88-108 Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ---------------------------- Adopted February 24, 1989; Released February 27, 1989 By the Chief, Common Carrier Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. We have before us a formal complaint filed by Telecommunications Research and Action Center ("TRAC") and Consumer Action ("CA") (together "TRAC/CA"), two not-for-profit consumer advocacy groups, against the above- named providers of alternative operator services (AOS). ^1 The complainants request that the Commission find the defendant AOS companies to be dominant carriers, revoke any operating authority under which the Defendants are operating, order them to cease and desist from offering service, and find that the rates and practices of the defendants are unjust and unreasonable in violation of Section 201(b) of the Act. For the reasons set forth below, the complaint is granted in part and denied in part. II. BACKGROUND 2. This complaint grows out of the activities of a new segment of the partially deregulated telecommunications industry, the "alternative operator services", or "AOS" providers' industry. ^2 Indeed, Commission policy encourages the entry of new competitors in interstate and international service markets. This open entry policy provides competitive prices and stimulates the introduction of innovative new service and consumer options. Generally, AOS companies lease long distance lines from interexchange carriers and combine that transport element with their own operator services. The AOS companies then enter into agreements with client companies, called "call aggregators", who typically are hotels, motels, hospitals, universities, airports, and other businesses and organizations that have telephones available to transient users. Under these agreements, the call aggregator's customers are automatically connected to the AOS provider when they make certain operator assisted long distance calls. ^3 In the case of such agreements, the telephones on the call aggregator's premises are said to be "presubscribed" to the particular AOS company. 3. An AOS company's operator services are generally associated with "O+" calls, _e.g._, collect, third-party billed, and credit card calls (including calls made with telephone company calling cards and major credit cards). ^4 For the services they provide, each AOS company charges its own rates, which in addition to a return on investment are allegedly designed to recover the costs of leasing the underlying long-distance transport, plus their own costs of providing the operator assistance. Local exchange carriers ("LECs") generally bill customers and collect payments for AOS companies in accordance with contracts between the AOS provider and the LEC or, in some instances, under intrastate rate schedules. Calls billed to a telephone company calling card will often appear on the user's monthly telephone bill. Calls billed to a bank or consumer credit card (e.g. MasterCard, Visa, etc.) appear on that credit card bill rather than on a monthly telephone bill. 4. In the aftermath of the AT&T divestiture and the ongoing changes in regulation of the telecommunications industry, consumers have understandably experienced a certain amount of confusion as the traditional ways of obtaining and using telephone service have given way to the sudden appearance of new options and alternatives in an increasingly competitive environment. So too has the advent of AOS brought with it its share of confusion and complaints. The Commission has received a large number of informal complaints involving AOS carriers, many of which involve the defendant companies. In many cases, consumers claim they were not adequately informed by the call aggregator or the AOS provider that their call would be handled by an AOS company or what charges would be incurred. In other instances, consumers complain that they were unaware of the existence of numerous AOS companies as opposed to traditional service providers. Since each AOS company charges its own individual rates, even when the caller uses another telephone company's calling card, and because of the rate variations that may result from technical anomalies such as "call splashing", ^5 some consumers have expressed surprise and confusion over their bills. Along with complaints about rate levels and improper billing, other informal complaints have arisen from the practice of "call blocking". ^6 In short, call blocking and splashing, coupled with the fact that many AOS companies charge rates higher than AT&T, have led to consumer dissatisfaction with some of the AOS providers and, in turn, to complaints such as the instant one. III. CONTENTIONS 5. The complainants, relying principally on the Commission's orders in the _Competitive Carrier_ proceeding ^7 argue that the defendant AOS companies fit the Commission's definition of a firm with market power and therefore should be regulated as dominant carriers. As dominant carriers, complainants contend, the defendants are providing services without the requisite authorization pursuant to Section 214 of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. section 214 ^8 and should be ordered immediately to cease and desist from providing such service. Complainants advance two arguments in support of their claim of market power. First, complainants cite what they perceive as the inability of market forces to constrain AOS rates and practices. They argue that because of a lack of factual information end-users are unable to make market decisions as to which carrier to use in certain circumstances and thus the defendants are able to charge prices above those of their underlying carrier, _e.g._, AT&T, MCI and US Sprint, without losing market share in these circumstances. Second, the complainants allege that the ability of the AOS providers and their call aggregators to control the facilities where calls are routed (_i.e._, the PBX equipment on the call aggregators' premises) and engage in call blocking clearly establishes that the defendants possess market power. Citing the Commission's _First Competitive Carrier Order_, the complainants contend that the exercise of control by the defendants over these bottleneck facilities is _prima facie_ evidence of their market power. ^9 6. As a separate but related matter, the complainants assert that the rates charged by defendants are exhorbitant [sic] and therefore unjust and unreasonable in violation of Section 201 of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. section 201. ^10 Complainants contend, in effect, that the Commission established a standard in _Competitive Carrier_ which provides that the underlying carriers' rates operate as a "just and reasonable" ceiling on the resellers' rates and that a reseller may not price its services above the underlying carrier. ^11 Complainants argue that since the rates charged by the defendants are in excess of those charged by AT&T, they must be found to be unjust and unreasonable within the meaning of Section 201. 7. An adjunct of complainants' market power contention is the claim that call splashing and call blocking are unreasonable practices. They contend that because AOS providers typically fail to identify themselves or notify consumers that they will pay rates higher than AT&T's, the effect of these practices is to leave uninformed or captive consumers ^12 with no practical alternative but to pay the higher rates. The Complainants argue that such practices are contrary to the public interest and provide adequate grounds to revoke the operating authority of the defendants. 8. The arguments advanced by the various defendants in response to the complainants' allegations are for the most part identical in their essentials. Therefore we will summarize the arguments as if they were part of the same pleading. Insofar as individual defendants set forth unique arguments, they are treated individually. The central thrust of the defendants' collective response is that: 1. they are not dominant carriers, since none of them possess market power over any bottleneck facility; ^13 2. no case has been made that their rates are unjust or un- reasonable ^14 and 3. they either do not engage in the practices that are alleged to be unlawful, or in those limited instances in which they do, such practices are not unjust or unreasonable. ^15 Moreover, the companies affirmatively assert that their presence in the marketplace is pro-competitive and that they now provide or are developing and will soon provide innovative services that AT&T does not provide, such as the use of bank credit cards, multilingual operators, voice messaging and voice mail. ^16 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest Special: FCC/AOS Regs - I *****************************