WASHINGTON-The Federal Communications Commission reached a tentative agreement with state regulators on what type of notification will be heard when a person calls a calling-party-pays wireless subscriber, said Kris Monteith, chief of the policy division of the FCC’s Wireless Telecommunications Bureau.
It is really a “tentative agreement by the [National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners] members. The conference calls are really NARUC conference calls, where the [FCC] staff is acting as a facilitator … We are not agreeing to the language,” Monteith said.
CPP is similar to long-distance toll calling, where the person placing the call to a wireless subscriber pays for the call rather than the wireless subscriber. CPP is the norm in some countries, while American carriers traditionally have required the subscriber to pay all charges related to mobile-phone usage.
The Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association petitioned the FCC to allow nationwide CPP, claiming it would increase competition and wireless phone use. There are several trial programs under way.
The notification agreement-which was revealed in two ex parte memos filed Sept. 17 by Joseph A. Levin, senior economist in the WTB policy division, and David H. Siehl, staff attorney in the policy division-says callers will hear the following message:
“You are calling a customer of [wireless carrier name]. The customer has chosen to have callers pay for [INSERT all those elements that will be charged as a separate line item to the caller, such as airtime, roaming and long-distance]. If you complete this call you will be charged on your [INSERT where caller will be billed, such as local telephone bill, credit card bill, wireless carrier bill] $x.xx per minute, in addition to any charges by your chosen carrier for the local or toll call to reach this number. Press 1 if you agree to accept these charges, or hang up now to avoid any charges.”
This tentative agreement was met with some consternation from CTIA. In a letter to WTB Chief Thomas Sugrue, CTIA reminded the commission it said state regulators, industry representatives and consumer advocates were to be involved in negotiations on notification.
“To CTIA’s knowledge, no members of the wireless industry have been requested to provide input on the development of a consumer notification announcement. This directly contravenes the intent [of the NPRM],” said Brian Fontes, CTIA senior vice president for policy and administration.
CTIA since has been assured it will be involved in the notification negotiations.
“The letter served the purpose because I have been reassured the wireless industry will be part of the negotiation process and I am happy with that,” Fontes said.
Fontes said the trade association plans to share research with the FCC showing consumers want any notification to be brief.
The Personal Communications Industry Association also plans to address the notification issue in its reply comments, said Mary Madigan Jones, PCIA vice president for external affairs.
“We are going to be addressing [the issues raised in the ex partes] while we work on our replies. Notification needs to be simple. The whole notion that rates are a part of notification is problematic. If we are going to have rates in notification, the industry needs to be involved,” Jones said.
Reply comments are due Oct. 18.
The FCC said NARUC was driving the process in order to draft notification language prior to its annual meeting next month. Since the industry and consumer groups have expressed their desires on notification in comments, there did not seem to be a need to include them, Monteith said. The FCC expects to hold several separate meetings with the three groups as a final order is drafted, she said.
Billing
Notification is one of two items that go to the heart of CPP. The other issue is billing.
The importance of billing became apparent at PCS ’99, where it was the main issue discussed at a CPP seminar.
One of the panelists at the PCS ’99 session, Jim Schlicting, WTB deputy bureau chief, said those who want strong regulation on billing need to show how CPP is different from 900 toll calling.
In a recent interview, Schlicting said he raised the issue in New Orleans so parties will address it in their reply comments.
CPP is not the only issue
CPP is one of a list of issues the FCC plans to tackle in the next few months, and although it is important, it probably will be handled after items dealing with enhanced 911 cost recovery and auction rules for TV spectrum channels 60-69 are finished, said WTB Chief Thomas Sugrue.
Meanwhile the industry also will be deciding what, if anything, to do on the spectrum-cap issue and rules on disabilities access, Fontes said.
E911
Cost recovery often is cited as the reason E911 Phase I buildout has been largely unsuccessful. Wanting to avoid a similar result with Phase II, the FCC is expected to issue rules on Phase II cost recovery this fall.
Phase I required carriers to provide public safety answering points with call-back and cell-site or base-station information when 911 was dialed. The deadline for Phase I was April 1, 1998. To date, only a small percentage of customers have access to Phase I.
Phase II requires commercial mobile radio service carriers to provide PSAPs with automatic location information for wireless customers dialing 911.
In September, the FCC said carriers could implement Phase II using either network- or handset-based technologies.
The FCC does not want carriers to dally in making their technology choice. Carriers have until Oct. 1, 2000, to declare whether they will use network or handset-based solutions.
Once the decision is made, carriers will be on a track for compliance based on their technology choice.
To help carriers become familiar with real-world workings of the various technologies, CTIA on Oct. 1 released a request for qualifying proposals to implement the various technologies.
CTIA said the RFQP will help carriers understand how to most effectively meet the mandates set forth by the FCC for providing Phase II location information. The group expects to see a variety of approaches offered to meet the E911 requirements because the FCC is being flexible about its requirements.
Replies to the RFQP are due Dec. 10, CTIA said.
Channels 60-69
Congress is expected to direct the FCC to hold an auction during fiscal year 2000 for spectrum returned to the government as TV stations move from analog to digital. This will require the FCC to establish service and auction rules, hold an auction and collect the money before Sept. 30.
“We have to write the rules for auctioning the spectrum in 60-69 … it appears we will be directed by Congress to have an auction and have the money in the bank before September of next year,” Sugrue said.
