NOTICE


*************************************************************************
             

                         NOTICE


*************************************************************************

This document was originally prepared in Word Perfect.  

If the original document contained--

                    *  Footnotes
                    *  Boldface & Italics

--this information  is missing in this version

The document format (spacing, margins, tabs, etc.) is changed too.

If you need the complete document, download the Word Perfect version.

For information about downloading documents (FTP) see file pnmc5021.

File  pnmc5021 (.txt & .wp) is in directory \pub\Public_Notices\Miscellaneous.

*************************************************************************
                                Before the
                     Federal Communications Commission
                          Washington, D.C. 20554

In The Matter of                     )
                                     )
Implementation of the                )              CC Docket No. 96-115
Telecommunications Act of 1996:      )
                                     )
Telecommunications Carriers' Use     )
of Customer Proprietary              )
Network Information;                 )
Use of Data Regarding Alarm Monitoring)
Service Providers                    )
                                     )



                            REPORT AND ORDER


   Adopted:  August 6, 1996                                      Released:  August 7, 1996

By the Commission:


                              I. INTRODUCTION

     1.     On May 17, 1996, the Commission released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
regarding certain customer information provisions in the Telecommunications Act of 1996.  In
addition to addressing the customer proprietary network information (CPNI) and subscriber list
information provisions set out in Section 222, the Notice also sought comment regarding how to
implement the restrictions on use of alarm monitoring data set out in Section 275(d).  Section
275(d) provides that "[a] local exchange carrier may not record or use in any fashion the
occurrence or contents of calls received by providers of alarm monitoring services for the
purposes of marketing such services on behalf of such local exchange carrier, or any other
entity."  Section 275(d) further provides that "[a]ny regulations necessary to enforce this
subsection shall be issued initially within 6 months after the date of enactment of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996."

     2.     In the Notice, we tentatively concluded that, for the purpose of the Section 275(d)
ban, a customer's authorization for a carrier to gain access to its CPNI under Section 222(c)(1)
does not extend to any records concerning the occurrence of calls received by alarm monitoring
service providers.  We noted that call content information is not considered CPNI, but that,
pursuant to Section 275(d), local exchange carriers (LECs) may not record or use information
about the content of calls received by alarm monitoring service providers in connection with
marketing such services.  We sought comment on what procedures LECs should develop to
comply with Section 275(d).  We also sought comment regarding the Commission's jurisdiction
over intrastate aspects of alarm monitoring data.

     3.     In this order, we affirm our tentative conclusion that customer authorization to
obtain access to CPNI pursuant to Section 222(c)(1) does not extend to any CPNI subject to the
Section 275(d) ban.  We conclude, however, that no regulations are necessary at this time to
implement or enforce Section 275(d).  We intend to address the other issues raised in the Notice
in a subsequent order in this proceeding.


                              II.  PLEADINGS

     4.     More than 50 parties submitted comments or reply comments in response to the
Notice.  Of these, eight parties addressed Section 275(d), some only in passing.  Parties
characterize Section 275(d) as a flat prohibition on the use of information regarding the
occurrence or contents of calls to alarm monitoring service providers for any marketing purpose,
and several describe the provision as self-executing and self-explanatory.  Other parties describe
the obligations imposed by Section 275(d) as independent of, and in addition to, those imposed
by Section 222.  A number of the commenters agree with the Commission's tentative conclusion
that a customer's authorization to obtain access to CPNI under Section 222(c)(1) does not extend
to information concerning the occurrence of calls received by alarm monitoring service
providers.  MCI states that data subject to the Section 275(d) prohibition may not ever be used
or disclosed by LECs, even if the alarm monitoring service provider appeared to approve such
disclosure.

     5.     A number of the commenters state that the Commission does not need to
promulgate regulations to enforce Section 275(d).  Ameritech argues that LECs already have
adequate procedures in place to guard against misuse of information concerning the occurrence
or contents of calls made or received by all LEC customers, not just alarm monitoring service
providers.  With respect to Section 275(d)'s application to call content, Ameritech argues that
there are already criminal sanctions against carrier disclosure of the contents of interstate
communications, so that further efforts or procedures to enforce Section 275(d) are unnecessary. 
SBC argues that the costs of complying with specific regulations would outweigh the benefits,
given that only a small percentage of alarm monitoring customers are identifiable as such to the
LEC.  

     6.     Two parties addressed the jurisdiction issue raised in the Notice, regarding whether
the data safeguards provisions of Section 275(d) or the CPNI provisions of Section 222 by
themselves give the Commission jurisdiction over both interstate and intrastate use and protection
of customer information.  Excel believes that those sections do confer upon the Commission
jurisdiction over both interstate and intrastate use of CPNI and similar information.  CaPUC
disagrees, and argues that neither the 1996 Act itself nor the Joint Explanatory Statement support
an interpretation that Section 275(d) or Section 222 confer upon the Commission jurisdiction over
intrastate aspects of customer information.  

     7.     Of the parties that commented on Section 275(d), only one, AICC, argued that the
Commission should adopt specific regulations.  AICC states that it represents the majority of the
alarm security services in the United States, and that its members are dependent on LECs for
essential services in order to provide their alarm monitoring services.  AICC asserts that there
are several ways in which a LEC could use information it receives through its provision of local
services to target alarm monitoring customers, including: 1) identifying users of private line alarm
circuits or derived local channel services; 2) canvassing subscribers' outbound call records to
identify calls to alarm providers' central stations; or 3) capturing customer telephone numbers
from records of the incoming calls received by an alarm provider.   AICC contests SBC's claim
that most alarm monitoring customers are "unknown" to the serving LEC, stating that LECs that
are aware of the telephone numbers of alarm monitoring central stations could easily identify the
subscribers making calls to such numbers.

     8.     AICC argues that the Commission should adopt several rules to implement Section
275(d).  First, AICC urges the Commission to adopt a rule which essentially restates the statutory
ban set forth in Section 275(d).  Second, AICC advocates a rule specifying that customer
approval of access to CPNI does not authorize carriers to obtain access to data covered by
Section 275(d).  Third, AICC recommends a rule requiring LECs to deny access to CPNI to
LEC personnel (or personnel of a LEC affiliate) with responsibility for the marketing of alarm
monitoring services, because CPNI may contain information covered by Section 275(d).  
Fourth, AICC argues that the Commission should adopt expedited procedures for complaints
alleging violations of Section 275(d), similar to the expedited procedures for complaints alleging
violations of Section 275(b) that the Commission is required to establish pursuant to Section
275(c).  In support of this argument, AICC asserts that Section 275(d) violations involve the
same competitive concerns as Section 275(b) violations and may cause immediate and irreparable
harm to alarm monitoring service providers.


                             III.  DISCUSSION

     9.     After review of the comments and replies received in this proceeding, we affirm
the tentative conclusions regarding Section 275(d) that we set out in the Notice.  Thus, we
conclude that Section 275(d) restricts LEC personnel from using information regarding "the
occurrence or content of calls received by providers of alarm monitoring services" for the purpose
of marketing their own alarm monitoring service, or an alarm monitoring service offered by
another affiliated or unaffiliated entity.  Information on the occurrence of such calls may
constitute CPNI, if it is made available to the LEC solely by virtue of the customer-carrier
relationship.  We affirm our tentative conclusion that, even if a carrier has received customer
authorization to obtain access to CPNI pursuant to Section 222(c)(1), such authorization does not
extend to any CPNI subject to the Section 275(d) ban, namely information concerning the
occurrence of calls received by alarm monitoring service providers used for marketing purposes. 
We note that four parties have specifically concurred with this conclusion, and no parties have
expressed disagreement with it.

     10.    Based on the record, we conclude that no regulations are necessary at this time to
implement or enforce Section 275(d).  Specifically, we decline to adopt any of the four rules
proposed by AICC.  The first such rule is a paraphrase of the prohibition set out in Section
275(d).  We conclude that codification of the statutory prohibition in such a rule is unnecessary
because the statutory prohibition is clear on its face.  The second proposed rule, specifying that
customer approval of access to CPNI does not authorize carriers to obtain access to data covered
by Section 275(d), merely restates an interpretation of the statute that we set forth as a tentative
conclusion in the Notice, and that we affirm in this order.  We do not see the need to codify this
interpretation in the form of an additional rule.  

     11.    The third rule proposed by AICC would require LECs to deny access to all CPNI
to personnel with responsibility for the marketing of alarm monitoring services, because the CPNI
may contain information covered by Section 275(d).  We decline to adopt this proposed rule. 
While AICC's proposed rule sets forth one method by which LECs may ensure that they are in
compliance with Section 275(d), there may be less burdensome methods of ensuring compliance
with the statute.  Further, AICC's proposed rule would extend beyond the statutory prohibitions
of Section 275(d).  Section 275(d) only restricts use of information (i.e., CPNI) related to the
occurrence of calls received by alarm monitoring service providers for the purpose of marketing
such services.  AICC's proposed rule, however, would prevent LEC (or LEC affiliate) alarm
monitoring marketing personnel from obtaining access to all CPNI for any purpose.  Section 222
sets forth limitations on the ability of telecommunications carriers, their affiliates, and unaffiliated
parties to obtain access to CPNI, and we conclude that it is not necessary to bar completely
certain of these entities from access to CPNI simply because they engage in marketing alarm
monitoring services.  Moreover, we conclude that it is more appropriate to examine whether any
restrictions on access to CPNI are necessary to effectuate the Section 275(d) prohibition at the
same time we examine whether to impose specific safeguards to protect against unauthorized
disclosure of restricted CPNI.  Thus, we leave this determination to our subsequent order in this
proceeding.

     12.    Finally, we decline in this order to adopt expedited procedures for complaints
alleging violations of Section 275(d), as suggested by AICC.  We expect to adopt expedited
procedures for complaints concerning violations of Section 275(b), as required pursuant to
Section 275(c), in a separate proceeding.  There is no similar statutory mandate to adopt
expedited procedures to enforce Section 275(d).  Moreover, we note that the statute only
mandates expedited review of Section 275(b) complaints "that result in material financial harm
to a provider of alarm monitoring service," whereas AICC proposes expedited review for all
Section 275(d) complaints.  We find no basis in the 1996 Act for adopting expedited procedures
specific to Section 275(d) complaints.

     13.    In addition, we decline to address any issues raised by parties related to the scope
of our authority over intrastate alarm monitoring data, in light of our decision not to adopt any
regulations to enforce Section 275(d).  We note that parties who have commented upon the
authority conferred on us by Section 275(d) have done so in conjunction with their analyses of
the authority conferred on us by Section 222.  We conclude that it would be more appropriate
to address all issues relating to the scope of our authority with respect to customer information
in our subsequent order in this proceeding.


                          IV.  PROCEDURAL ISSUES

     A.     Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

     14.    As required by Section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C.  603
(RFA), an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis was incorporated in the NPRM in this
proceeding.  The Commission sought written public comments on the proposals in the NPRM,
including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.  Because the Commission is not adopting
any regulations at this time to enforce Section 275(d) of the 1996 Act, no further Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis is required at this time.

     B.     Paperwork Reduction Act

     15.    As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L. No. 104-13, the
NPRM in this proceeding sought comment from the general public and the Office of
Management and Budget regarding the information collections contained in the NPRM.   Because
the Commission is not adopting any regulations to enforce Section 275(d) of the 1996 Act, no
further Paperwork Reduction analysis is required at this time.


                            V.  ORDERING CLAUSE

     16.    Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 1, 4, and 275 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  151, 154, and 275, the REPORT AND
ORDER is hereby ADOPTED.


                                   FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION



                                   William F. Caton
                                   Acting Secretary                                APPENDIX A

Comments

1.   AirTouch Communications Inc. (AirTouch)
2.   Alarm Industry Communications Committee (AICC)
3.   ALLTEL Telephone Services Corporation (ALLTEL)
4.   American Public Communications Council (APCC)
5.   America's Carrier's Telecommunication Association (ACTA)
6.   Ameritech
7.   Arch Communications Group, Inc. (Arch)
8.   Association of Directory Publishers (ADP)
9.   AT&T Corp. (AT&T)
10.  Bell Atlantic
11.  BellSouth Corp. (BellSouth)
12.  Cable & Wireless, Inc. (CWI)
13.  California Public Utility Commission (CaPUC)
14.  Cincinnati Bell Telephone Company (CBT)
15.  Competitive Telecommunications Association (CompTel)
16.  CompuServe Incorporated (CompuServe)
17.  Consumer Federation of America (CFA)
18.  Excel Telecommunications, Inc. (Excel)
19.  Frontier Corp. (Frontier)
20.  GTE Service Corporation (GTE)
21.  Information Technology Association of America (ITAA)
22.  Intelcom Group (U.S.A.), Inc. (ICG)
23.  LDDS WorldCom
24.  MCI Telecommunications Corp. (MCI)
25.  MFS Communications Company, Inc. (MFS)
26.  National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC)
27.  New York State Assemblyman Anthony J. Genovesi
28.  NYNEX Telephone Companies (NYNEX)
29.  Pacific Telesis Group (Pacific)
30.  Paging Network, Inc. (PageNet)
31.  Pennsylvania Office of the Consumer Advocate (PaOCA)
32.  Personal Communications Industry Association (PCIA)
33.  SBC Communications Inc. (SBC)
34.  Small Business in Telecommunications, Inc. (SBT)
35.  Sprint Corporation (Sprint)  
36.  Telecommunications Resellers Association(TRA)
37.  Teleport Communications Group Inc. (TCG)
38.  Texas Public Utility Commission (TexPUC)
39.  United States Telephone Association (USTA)
40.  U S WEST, Inc. (U S WEST)
41.  Virgin Islands Telephone Corporation (Vitelco)
42.  Washington Utilities Transportation Commission (WUTC)       
43.  Yellow Pages Publishers Association (YPPA)


Reply Comments

1.   Ad Hoc Telecommunications Users Committee, The California Bankers Clearing House
     Association, The New York Clearing House Association, and the Security Industries
     Association (Ad Hoc)
2.   ALLTEL
3.   AICC
4.   Ameritech
5.   Arch
6.   ADP
7.   AT&T 
8.   Bell Atlantic
9.   BellSouth
10.  CaPUC
11.  Competition Policy Institute (CPI)
12.  CompTel
13.  Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (CPSR)
14.  Direct Marketing Association (DMA)
15.  Equifax, Inc. (Equifax)
16.  GTE
17.  Information Industry Association (IIA)
18.  ITAA
19.  Intermedia Communications Inc. (ICI)
20.  LDDS WorldCom
21.  MCI
22.  MobileMedia Communications, Inc. (MobileMedia)
23.  National Telephone Cooperative Association and the Organization for the Promotion and
     Advancement of Small Telecommunications Companies (NCTA/OPASTCO)
24.  NYNEX
25.  Pacific
26.  SBC
27.  Sprint
28.  TRA
29.  USTA
30.  US WEST
31.  Wireless Technology Research (WTR)
32.  YPPA