International Call-Back Services

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[FCC 94-227]

International Call-Back Services

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Notice of solicitation of public comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Federal Communications Commission has expanded the scope

of the issues to be reconsidered in its grant of three applications for

authority to resell international switched services of other carriers

using a ``call-back'' configuration. The comments supporting an AT&T

petition for reconsideration in this proceeding raised issues involving

complex questions of international law, international comity and the

law of foreign countries, including the allegation that call-back

services employing an uncompleted call signaling configuration violate

international law. Therefore, the Commission is seeking additional

comments from the parties and members of the public on all of the

issues raised in the comments supporting AT&T's petition. The

Commission also is seeking the advice of the Department of State

regarding the issues of international law, international comity, and

the laws of foreign countries. Further, in order to augment the record

with respect to AT&T's assertion that uncompleted call signalling

violates the Federal wire fraud statute, the Commission will seek the

advice of the Department of Justice on this issue.

DATES: Comments are due October 14, 1994 and Reply Comments November

14, 1994.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Troy F. Tanner, Attorney, Common Carrier Bureau, (202) 418-1470.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

In the matter of: VIA USA, Ltd. Telegroup, Inc.; Applications

for Authority Under Section 214 of the Communications Act of 1934,

as amended, to operate as International Resale Carriers.

[File Nos. I-T-C-93-031 I-T-C-93-050]

Discount Call International Co.; Application for Authority Under

Section 214 of the Communications Act, as amended.

[File No. I-T-C-93-054]

Order

Adopted: September 2, 1994.

Released: September 12, 1994.

By the Commission:

1. On May 11, 1994, the Commission granted the above-referenced

Section 214 applications of VIA USA, Ltd., Telegroup, Inc., and

Discount Call International Co. to resell international switched

services of other carriers using a ``call-back'' configuration.\1\ This

service allows a customer in a foreign country to use foreign

facilities to dial a telephone number in the United States and receive

dial tone at a switch at the reseller's U.S. location, which the

customer can then use to place a call via an outbound switched service

of a U.S. carrier. The calls originating at U.S. locations are billed

at U.S.-tariffed rates.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\VIA USA, Ltd et al., 9 FCC Rcd 2288 (1994).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. AT&T petitioned to deny these applications alleging that this

service constitutes an unreasonable practice under Section 201 of the

Communications Act (``the Act'') and may constitute wire fraud. We

denied AT&T's petition.\2\ On June 10, 1994, AT&T filed a petition for

reconsideration asking us to find that uncompleted call signalling is

an unreasonable practice under Section 201(b) of the Act, is contrary

to the public interest standard of Section 214 of the Act, violates

Section 202(a) of the Act, and violates the Federal wire fraud statute,

18 U.S.C. 1343.\3\

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\See id.

\3\In order to develop a complete record on the issues raised by

AT&T's petition, we extended on our own motion for 30 days the time

for the filing of comments. ``Pleading Cycle Extended for Comments

on AT&T's Petition for Reconsideration of Commission Order

Authorizing Three International Resale Carriers Proposing to Provide

`Call-Back' Services,'' FCC Report No. I-6991 (released June 22,

1994) (hereinafter referred to as ``June 22 Public Notice'').

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. We received comments in support of AT&T's petition from MCI

Telecommunications Corporation (MCI), Sprint Communication Company L.P.

(Sprint), and The Regional Technical Commission on Telecommunications

of Central America (COMTELCA) and the National Telecommunications

Institute of Panama (INTEL) (collectively referred to as COMTELCA/

INTEL). Oppositions to AT&T's petition were filed by VIA USA, Ltd. (VIA

USA), Telegroup, Inc. (Telegroup) and the Telecommunication Resellers

Association (TRA).

4. Both VIA USA and Telegroup filed motions to strike the comments

filed by MCI, Sprint and COMTELCA/INTEL. AT&T, MCI, Sprint and

COMTELCA/INTEL opposed the motions to strike the supporting comments.

VIA USA and Telegroup argue in their motions that the comments

supporting AT&T's petition are untimely, procedurally defective

requests for the Commission to reconsider its initial grant of Section

214 authority to the above-captioned applicants. In particular, VIA USA

and Telegroup state that Section 1.106(g) of the Commission's Rules

only contemplates the filing of ``oppositions'' to petitions for

reconsideration, not comments in support of such petitions. Further,

they state that, in addition to repeating and expounding upon AT&T's

arguments in its petition, the COMTELCA/INTEL comments raise new issues

relating to the legality of call-back services under international law

and the law of foreign countries. Alternatively, VIA USA and Telegroup

contend that, if we do not grant their motions to strike, we should

extend the reply period several months because COMTELCA/INTEL have

raised new arguments not previously raised by any party, which

significantly expand the scope of the proceeding.

5. The comments supporting AT&T's petition raise issues involving

complex questions of international law, international comity and the

law of foreign countries. In particular, COMTELCA/INTEL raise the

argument that call-back services employing an uncompleted call

signaling configuration violate international law, i.e. Article 1.5 and

3.3 of the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) Regulations.\4\

In addition, COMTELCA/INTEL's comments also claim that the applicants

may not offer uncompleted call signalling services except pursuant to

appropriate operating agreements with foreign telecommunications

administrations. Moreover, COMTELCA/INTEL have submitted evidence as to

the effect that our authorization of this service may have on

international comity.\5\

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\4\In the initial proceeding, the record did not address the

argument that the proposed call-back services violated international

law. See VIA USA, Ltd. et al., 9 FCC Rcd at 2292, n. 37.

\5\COMTELCA/INTEL further contend that there are other forms of

call-back services that raise similar issues under international law

and the law of foreign countries which the Commission did not

address in its initial decision. For instance, COMTELCA/INTEL

reference the ``hot line'' method whereby a U.S. reseller

continuously places calls to the telephone of a subscriber located

outside the United States. The called party's telephone has a

disconnected ringer. When the called party wants to access a U.S.

dial tone to place an international call to a U.S. location or

elsewhere, he or she simply picks up the receiver and ``answers''

one of several thousand continuous calls made to that particular

phone during the day and receives a dial tone at the reseller's U.S.

location. COMTELCA/INTEL assert that the international law and

public interest issues raised by this practice should be addressed

in this proceeding, or, alternatively, should be addressed in a

rulemaking proceeding that covers the full range of issues raised by

the proliferation of call-back methods used to provide U.S. dial

tone to foreign parties.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. We conclude that the issues raised in the comments supporting

AT&T's petition merit examination. Therefore, we will, on our own

motion, seek additional comment from the parties and members of the

public on all of the issues raised in the comments supporting AT&T's

petition.

7. Because we have decided on our own motion to expand the scope of

this reconsideration proceeding, we find that the motions to strike the

supporting comments of MCI, Sprint and COMTELCA/INTEL are moot. These

supporting comments address the issues which we will be examining, and

therefore will be made part of the record. We will, however, grant VIA

USA's and Telegroup's alternative request that we further extend the

period for filing comments. In addition, we will seek the advice of the

Department of State regarding the issues of international law,

international comity, and the laws of foreign countries. Further, in

order to augment the record with respect to AT&T's assertion that

uncompleted call signalling violates the federal wire fraud statute, we

also will seek the advice of the Department of Justice on this issue.

Finally, as noted above, because of the general importance of the

issues in this case, we will entertain additional comments from all

interested members of the public as well as from the parties to this

proceeding.

8. This Section 214 proceeding will continue to be conducted as a

non-restricted proceeding in which written and oral ex parte contacts

are permitted, but subject to disclosure. See 47 CFR Part 1206.

9. Accordingly, it is ordered that the comments of MCI, Sprint and

COMTELCA/INTEL are accepted into the record of this proceeding, and

Telegroup's and VIA USA's motions to strike the comments are dismissed

as moot.

10. It is further ordered that this proceeding is opened to the

general public and interested persons are invited to file comments on

any of the issues raised in AT&T's petition or the supporting comments

by October 14, 1994, and reply comments by November 14, 1994.

11. It is further ordered that the Secretary shall serve a copy of

this Order on each party to this proceeding by certified mail.

Federal Communications Commission.

William F. Caton,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 94-23102 Filed 9-16-94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712-01-M