[Federal Register: August 17, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 158)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 48290-48291]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr17au05-13]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 51
[CC Docket Nos. 96-98, 96-115, 99-273; FCC 05-93]
Requirements for Nondiscriminatory Access to Directory Assistance
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Clarification.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document denies BellSouth Corporation (BellSouth) and SBC
Communications Inc.'s (SBC) joint request that the Federal
Communications Commission (Commission) reconsider the Commission's
conclusion that local exchange carriers (LECs) may not impose specific
contractual restrictions on competing directory assistance (DA)
providers' use of DA data obtained pursuant to section 251(b)(3) of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended. The Order on Reconsideration
(Order) clarifies that competing DA providers may not, however, use
data obtained pursuant to this section for purposes not permitted by
the Act, the Commission's rules, or state regulations. The Order also
denies petitioners' joint request that the Commission reconsider its
conclusion that LECs are required to provide nondiscriminatory access
to local DA data acquired from third parties. Finally, the Order denies
SBC's petition for reconsideration of the Commission's determination
that competing providers are entitled to nondiscriminatory access to
operator services (OS), DA and features adjunct to these services.
DATES: Effective September 16, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rodney McDonald, Attorney, Competition
Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, (202) 418-7513, or
William Dever, Deputy Chief, Competition Policy Division, Wireline
Competition Bureau, (202) 418-1578.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Order
on Reconsideration (Order) in CC Docket Nos. 96-98, 96-115, 99-273, FCC
05-93, adopted April 29, 2005, and released May 3, 2005. The complete
text of this document is available for inspection and copying during
normal business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals
II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC, 20554. This
document may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating
contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street, SW., Room
CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone (202) 488-5300, facsimile
(202) 488-5563, or via e-mail at FCC@BCPIWEB.COM. It is also available
on the Commission's Web site at http://www.fcc.gov.
Synopsis of the Order on Reconsideration (Order)
Background
1. Section 251(b)(3) of the Act imposes on LECs the ``duty to
permit all [competing] providers [of telephone exchange service and
telephone toll service] to have nondiscriminatory access to * * *
directory assistance.'' In the Local Competition Second Report and
Order (61 FR 47284-01, September 6, 1996), the Commission concluded
that section 251(b)(3) requires LECs to provide such competing
providers with access to DA equal to that which the LECs provide to
themselves, and that LECs treat all such competitors equally.
2. The Commission affirmed this conclusion in the subsequent SLI/DA
Order on Reconsideration and Notice (64 FR 51910-01, September 27,
1999) and determined that nondiscriminatory access under section
251(b)(3) of the Act requires that all LECs provide competing providers
of telephone exchange service and toll service with nondiscriminatory
access to the LECs' directory assistance databases. The Commission
further acknowledged that ``requesting carriers would not have
nondiscriminatory access to operator services and directory assistance
under section 251(b)(3) unless those carriers have access to adjunct
features such as rating tables and customer information databases.''
SBC filed a petition for clarification or reconsideration of some of
the Commission's conclusions in the SLI/DA Order on Reconsideration and
Notice (64 FR 51910-01, September 27, 1999).
3. In the SLI/DA First Report and Order (66 FR 10965-02, February
21, 2001), the Commission explained that section 251(b)(3) provides
competing DA providers with the same rights and obligations regarding
DA data as it does to the providing LECs and concluded that ``section
251(b)(3)'s requirement of nondiscriminatory access to a LEC's DA
database thus does not contemplate continuing veto power by the
providing LEC over the uses to which DA information is put.'' SBC and
BellSouth filed a joint petition for reconsideration and/or
clarification of certain conclusions made by the Commission in the SLI/
DA First Report and Order (66 FR 10965-02, February 21, 2001).
Discussion
4. In this Order, we address a joint petition for reconsideration
filed by SBC and BellSouth, and a separate petition for reconsideration
filed by SBC. We further clarify conclusions made in the SLI/DA First
Report and Order (66 FR 10965-02, February 21, 2001) and SLI/DA Order
on Reconsideration and Notice (64 FR 51910-01, September 27, 1999).
SBC/BellSouth request that the Commission reconsider its decision and
restrict the purposes for which competing DA providers may use DA
information, or alternatively establish that LECs may contractually
impose their own restrictions. In particular, SBC/BellSouth argue that
restrictions should include limits on resale and a prohibition on use
for purposes other than DA and DA-like services, such as sales
solicitation and telemarketing.
5. Contractual Restrictions on the Use of DA Information. We deny
SBC/BellSouth's petition for reconsideration of our determination
regarding the scope of competing DA providers' access to DA databases.
As we have previously noted, ``[s]ection 251(b)(3) does not, by its
terms, limit the use of directory assistance data solely to the
provision of directory assistance.'' As we have previously concluded,
``nondiscriminatory access'' under section 251(b)(3) means that
providing LECs must offer access equal to that which they provide
themselves. We recognize that further restrictions on resale and other
such use also might substantially increase the costs of providing
competitive DA services, thereby reducing the benefits to consumers of
competitive DA providers in the market.
6. We also agree with commenters that argue that the Commission
should not provide LECs with the authority to impose their own
restrictions on the purposes for which competing DA providers may use
DA information. We find that the imposition of such contractual
restrictions by the providing LEC is inconsistent with the
nondiscriminatory access requirements of section 251(b)(3).
7. We clarify, however, that no language in the SLI/DA First Report
and Order (66 FR 10965-02, February 21, 2001) was ever intended to
grant competing DA providers greater latitude in their use of DA data
than that permitted to providing LECs, or to permit competing DA
providers to use that data in a manner inconsistent with Federal or
state law or regulation. We again note that all qualified DA
[[Page 48291]]
providers, both providing LECs and competing DA providers, are subject
to state limitations regarding use of accessed directory information
(e.g., by prohibiting the sale of customer information to
telemarketers), as long as those state regulations are consistent with
the nondiscrimination requirements of section 251(b)(3) of the Act.
8. We also note that section 51.217(c)(3) of the Commission's rules
already balances the Commission's interests in ensuring
nondiscriminatory access to DA, and in protecting customer privacy. The
section indicates that even though a LEC shall not provide access to
the unlisted number of its customers, it must ``ensure that access is
permitted to the same directory information, including customer name
and address, that is available to its own directory assistance
customers.'' We clarify, however, that although competing DA providers
may be entitled to nondiscriminatory access to DA information, all
competing DA providers must adhere to the disclosed privacy requests of
LEC customers for all DA information obtained pursuant to section
251(b)(3). This means that, to the extent competing DA providers have
received notice of a LEC customer's privacy requests, they must comply
with such requests, and may not use or disclose any DA information that
a LEC's customer has requested that the LEC not use or make available.
9. We grant SBC/BellSouth's request insofar as they ask the
Commission to agree that there is no statutory basis for allowing DA
providers to use DA listings obtained pursuant to section 251(b)(3) of
the Act for directory publishing. SBC/BellSouth submit that permitting
such use would allow competing DA providers to avoid the statutory
distinctions between directory assistance and directory publishing
indicated by the separate treatment of these services under section
251(b)(3) and section 222(e) of the Act. We agree, and note that in the
SLI/DA First Report and Order (66 FR 10965-02, February 21, 2001), the
Commission found that although the underlying databases for the two
services are similar, they are not identical, and any seeming
convergence between DA and directory publishing is not strong enough at
this time to obviate the distinctions drawn by Congress in the Act.
10. Nondiscriminatory Access to Local DA Listings Acquired from
Third Parties. We are not persuaded by SBC/BellSouth's assertion that
in instances where more than one facilities-based LEC serves a local
area, LECs should not be required to provide nondiscriminatory access
to local DA listings purchased from third parties. Rather, we agree
that competitive DA providers are entitled to receive nondiscriminatory
access to a LEC's entire local DA database pursuant to section
251(b)(3) of the Act. We reaffirm that even though the Commission has
declined to require LECs to provide nondiscriminatory access to
nonlocal DA data, it has consistently required that LECs provide
nondiscriminatory access to all of their local DA database listings.
11. Nondiscriminatory Access to Operator Services, Directory
Assistance and Features Adjunct to These Services. Finally, we deny
SBC's separate petition for reconsideration of the Commission's
determination regarding the scope of competing DA providers' access to
operator services (OS), DA and the features adjunct to these services.
SBC specifically requests that the Commission find that section
251(b)(3) does not require that LECs provide ``unbundled'' access to
all of the facilities used to provide OS/DA services, including adjunct
features and software.
12. We acknowledge that carriers are no longer required to provide
OS/DA services as unbundled network elements (UNEs) under section
251(c)(3). We note, however, that in coming to the conclusion that UNE
access would no longer be necessary under that section, the Commission
specifically recognized the continued obligation to provide
nondiscriminatory access to OS/DA under section 251(b)(3). We reaffirm
the Commission's determination that requesting carriers would not have
nondiscriminatory access to operator services and directory assistance
under section 251(b)(3) unless those carriers have access to these
services in their entirety, including access to any adjunct features
such as rating tables and customer information databases necessary to
allow competing providers full use of these services.
Ordering Clauses
13. Accordingly, it is ordered that, pursuant to the authority
contained in sections 1, 4, 201, 222, and 251 of the Communications Act
of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154, 201, 222, and 251, this Order
on Reconsideration is adopted.
14. It is further ordered that Qwest Corporation's Request to
Withdraw its Pending Petition for Reconsideration is granted.
15. It is further ordered that the above mentioned Petition for
Clarification or, in the Alternative, Reconsideration filed by SBC/
BellSouth is granted in part and denied in part, to the extent
discussed herein.
16. It is further ordered that SBC Communications Inc.''s Request
to Withdraw Issue in Its Pending Petition for Reconsideration is
granted.
17. It is further ordered that the Petition for Clarification or,
in the Alternative, Reconsideration filed by SBC is denied, to the
extent discussed herein.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 05-16334 Filed 8-16-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P