*Pages 1--2 from  Microsoft Word - 36518*
 NEWS  Federal  Communications  Commission  445  12  th  Street,  S.  W.  Washington,  D.  C.  20554  This  is  an  unofficial  announcement  of  Commission  action.  Release  of  the  full  text  of  a  Commission  order  constitutes  official  action.  See  MCI  v.  FCC.  515  F  2d  385  (D.  C.  Circ  1974).  News  Media  Information  202  /  418-  0500  Internet:  http://  www.  fcc.  gov  TTY:  1-  888-  835-  5322 
 For  Immediate  Release:  News  Media  Contact:  March  11,  2004  Rosemary  Kimball  at  (202)  418-  0511 
 e-  mail:  rosemary.  kimball@  fcc.  gov 
 FCC  SEEKS  COMMENTS  ON  IMPOSITION  OF  MANDATORY  MINIMUM  INFORMATION  SHARING  REQUIREMENTS  ON  TELCOS 
 Adjustments  to  Customer  Account  Record  Exchange  (CARE)  System  Could  Improve  Billing  Accuracy 


 Washington,  DC  –  The  FCC  has  asked  for  comments  on  whether  it  should  impose  mandatory  minimum  information  sharing  requirements  on  all  local  and  long-  distance  telephone 
 companies.  The  goal  is  to  increase  the  accuracy  of  billing  information  and  decrease  consumer  complaints. 


 Petitions  filed  on  September  5,  2002,  by  Americatel  and  on  November  22,  2002,  by  AT&  T,  Sprint  and  MCI  (jointly)  requested  changes  in  The  Customer  Account  Record  Exchange 
 (CARE)  system  to  reflect  changes  in  the  marketplace.  The  CARE  system  is  the  voluntary  industry  standard  for  exchanging  the  customer  information  necessary  to  establish  and  maintain 
 customer  accounts,  and  to  execute  and  confirm  customer  orders  and  customer  transfers  from  one  long  distance  carrier  to  another. 


 The  CARE  system  was  adopted  by  the  industry  after  the  break-  up  of  AT&  T.  Historically,  local  phone  companies  managed  the  exchange  of  customer  data  between  themselves 
 and  the  various  long  distance  carriers  that  were  competing  for  their  customers’  business.  When  a  customer  elected  to  change  long  distance  companies,  or  otherwise  changed  billing,  name  or 
 address  (BNA)  information,  the  local  phone  company  would  provide  CARE  data  to  the  appropriate  long  distance  company  to  ensure  seamless  provision  of  service  to  the  customer. 


 At  the  time  the  CARE  system  was  adopted,  the  existing  local  phone  companies,  for  the  most  part,  did  not  compete  for  long  distance  service,  and  local  markets  were  not  competitive. 
 Since  passage  of  the  1996  Telecom  Act,  the  increasing  number  of  customers  switching  local  phone  companies  has  affected  the  ability  of  long  distance  carriers  to  bill  for  long  distance 
 services  rendered  to  those  customers.  Although  most  local  and  long  distance  companies  participated  in  CARE  before  1996,  CARE  data  are  not  currently  exchanged  in  a  uniform  manner 
 now  that  the  number  of  local  phone  companies  has  increased  significantly.  This  often  leaves  long  distance  carriers  in  the  dark  as  to  whether  a  customer  remains  on  the  network,  has  switched 
 to  another  local  or  long  distance  company  or  has  made  changes  in  BNA.  The  end  result  can  be  customer  complaints  about  double  billing,  continued  billing,  cramming,  slamming  and  violations 
1
 of  the  Commission’s  truth-  in-  billing  requirements  when  they  do  not  receive  accurate,  timely  or  complete  information  regarding  their  customers’  accounts. 
 After  reviewing  the  comments  received  in  response  to  the  rulemaking  petitions,  the  Commission  determined  that  the  issues  would  be  more  appropriately  addressed  through  a  notice 
 and  comment  rulemaking  proceeding  than  by  an  immediate  ruling  on  the  petitions.  Therefore,  it  asked  for  comment  on  whether  imposing  mandatory  minimum  CARE  standards  on  all  local  and 
 interexchange  carriers  could  provide  consistency  within  the  industry  and  eliminate  a  significant  percentage  of  consumer  complaints  concerning  billing  errors.  The  Commission  asked  for 
 comment  on  how  extensive  the  billing  problems  described  in  the  petitions  are,  and  whether  they  are  sufficiently  pervasive  throughout  the  industry  to  warrant  regulatory  intervention  at  this  time. 
 The  Commission  said  it  believed  that  a  uniform  process  observed  by  all  regulated  entities  –  competitive  LECs,  incumbent  LECs  and  interexchange  carriers  alike  –  could  provide  a  better 
 framework  for  fair  and  consistent  enforcement  activity  by  the  Commission.  The  Commission  sought  comment  on  whether  these  billing  problems  may  also  arise  in  the  context  of  wireline-  to-wireless 
 number  porting,  and  on  proposals  for  addressing  any  such  issues  in  wireline-  to-  wireless  number  porting  situations. 


 Action  by  the  Commission  March  11,  2004,  by  Notice  of  Proposed  Rulemaking  (FCC  04-  50).  Chairman  Powell,  Commissioners  Abernathy,  Copps,  Martin  and  Adelstein. 
 -  FCC  – 
 CGB  Contact:  Nancy  Stevenson  at  (202)  418-  2512 
 CG  Docket  02-  386. 
2