******************************************************** NOTICE ******************************************************** This document was converted from WordPerfect to ASCII Text format. Content from the original version of the document such as headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers will not show up in this text version. All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the original document will not show up in this text version. Features of the original document layout such as columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins will not be preserved in the text version. If you need the complete document, download the WordPerfect version or Adobe Acrobat version, if available. ***************************************************************** Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 DA 96-2169 In the Matter of) )CC Docket No. 91-35 Policies and Rules Concerning) Operator Service Access and )CCB/CPD File No. 96-18 Pay Telephone Compensation )CCB/CPD File No. 96-25 )CCB/CPD File No. 96-32 Petitions Pertaining to Originating) Line Screening Services) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Adopted: December 20, 1996; Released: December 20, 1996 By the Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1.In this Memorandum Opinion and Order, we grant in part various requests by LECs to extend or waive the requirement that they file federal tariffs offering enhanced originating line screening ("OLS") service by December 23, 1996. Specifically, we grant Southwestern Bell Telephone Company ("SWBT") and GTE Service Corporation ("GTE") their requested extensions from December 23, 1996, until February 28, 1997. We also grant the LECs listed in the Appendix an extension until August 1, 1997, to file such federal tariffs. Finally, as described below, we grant LECs an extension to file tariffs offering enhanced OLS service from any non-digital or non-equal access end offices until six months after the date the LEC receives a bona fide request (BFR) from an interexchange carrier ("IXC") or Operator Service Provider ("OSP") to receive enhanced OLS service from such a non-digital or non-equal access end office. II. BACKGROUND 2.In the Enhanced OLS Service Order, the Commission required LECs to file federal tariffs offering certain enhanced OLS service no later than December 1, 1996. The Enhanced OLS Service Order provided that LECs could make such enhanced OLS service available through either flexible automatic numbering identification (Flex ANI) or a line information database (LIDB). A number of LECs filed tariffs on or before December 1, 1996, offering enhanced OLS service. The Enhanced OLS Service Order further provided that a LEC could obtain a temporary waiver of the December 1, 1996, filing requirement if it demonstrated that it would not be "technically feasible or economically reasonable" to provide OLS service. In response to the large number of LECs seeking extension or other waiver of this filing requirement, we granted requesting LECs on November 29, 1996, an extension until December 23, 1996, in order to permit further consideration of the questions raised. III. EXTENSIONS OF TIME AND WAIVERS TO PROVIDE ENHANCED OLS SERVICE A. Pleadings 3.LECs petitioning for an extension or other waiver of the December 1, 1996, tariff deadline raise a number of different issues regarding the technical feasibility and economic reasonableness of compliance with that tariffing requirement. Some LECs that have chosen to use LIDB to comply with the tariff requirement claim that it is not technically feasible for them to provide OLS service because their LIDB providers do not yet offer this service. Accordingly, these LECs request extensions until their providers develop the ability to offer LIDB-based OLS service. Other LECs contend their LIDB provider has decided not to provide OLS service and seek additional time to formulate their plans. In addition, some LECs simply seek more time to implement LIDB-based OLS service. Finally, some LECs that intend to use LIDB to provide OLS service if required seek waiver pending receipt of a BFR to provide OLS service. 4.Among LECs that have chosen to use Flex ANI, some contend that they need more time to make Flex ANI available on some or all of their switches. Like the LECs choosing LIDB, some of these LECS seek waivers asserting that it is not yet economically reasonable for them to offer OLS service and argue that the Commission should waive the tariff filing requirement until the LEC receives a BFR to provide it. Although the specific bases for petition vary, the common justification for such petitions is that the cost of adding Flex ANI to some or all of their end offices solely to provide the required OLS service is prohibitive. Some of the LECs that already have Flex ANI installed at some of their end offices submit that the limited demand for OLS service demonstrates that it would not be economically reasonable to require upgrade of their remaining offices in order to install Flex ANI unless and until a BFR for OLS service is received. Similarly, smaller LECs that use older, less sophisticated switches face significant expense to upgrade them in order to install Flex ANI. Other petitioners claim no demand for OLS service is anticipated. Several of these petitioners claim that they can offer OLS service within nine months of a BFR. 5. APCC disputes claims that there is no demand for enhanced OLS service and maintains that the reason independent payphone providers have not requested it is because they have not been informed of its availability. AT&T does not oppose requests for brief extensions of time, such as SWBT's request for a 90 day extension, but opposes extensions for longer periods, especially requests from several LECs to defer the offering of enhanced OLS service generally until nine months after receipt of a BFR. APCC maintains that timely offering of such OLS service through Flex ANI may be imperative for IXCs to comply with the compensation and non-discrimination provisions of the Commission's recent Payphone Order. APCC states that Order will increase demand from PSPs and IXCs for screening services. Accordingly, APCC opposes waivers that would permit delays in universal implementation of Flex ANI to provide OLS service. B.Discussion 6. In the Enhanced OLS Service Order, the Commission required LECs to file tariffs offering enhanced OLS service but provided that LECs could obtain a temporary waiver if it was not currently technically feasible or if it was not economically reasonable for LECs to offer such services. 7. We conclude, first, under the standards established by the Commission, that certain temporary waivers are justified for those LECs that have chosen to provide enhanced OLS service through LIDB but whose LIDB system or LIDB provider is not yet ready to offer enhanced OLS service capability. We find that it would not be economically reasonable to require these LECs to make other arrangements to provide enhanced OLS service for a limited period of time before their LIDB system or vendor is able to offer enhanced OLS service. Upgrading end offices to FLEX ANI, for example, would be unnecessarily costly in order to provide enhanced OLS service on a temporary basis. Similarly, requiring such LECs to enter new contracts with other LIDB providers solely to offer OLS service on a temporary basis is not a practical alternative. Accordingly, we will grant these LECs a waiver to allow them additional time to provide enhanced OLS service through their current LIDB systems or LIDB providers. We grant SWBT and GTE their requests for a three-month extension to offer enhanced OLS service using LIDB. For other LECs who have sought extensions in light of their plans to employ LIDB to provide enhanced OLS service, we find that an extension until August 1, 1997 will afford reasonable time for those LECs to arrange either to obtain enhanced OLS service capability through LIDB or to provide enhanced OLS service through Flex ANI, while not unduly compromising the public interest objectives of provision of enhanced OLS service. Arguments in favor of extensions beyond August 1, 1997, are conclusory and do not counter-balance the public interest benefits of making enhanced OLS service available, as required by the Commission. SNET has not shown, for example, that it is economically unreasonable for it to participate in the provision of enhanced OLS service. We find its bare allegations regarding the lack of private payhones in Connecticut unpersuasive, particularly in view of SNET's projected relatively modest company-wide cost of upgrading its LIDB system to provide this service. We urge carriers and LIDB providers to undertake steps to ensure that OLS service becomes available through LIDB in advance of that date so that carriers can promptly file federal tariffs making it available. Accordingly, we will grant these LECs a waiver until August 1, 1997, to file tariffs offering enhanced OLS service. 8. We will also grant a waiver until August 1, 1997, to those LECs seeking waiver or extension of the tariff filing requirement for end offices where they plan to offer enhanced OLS service through Flex ANI. The record indicates that, while it is technically feasible to add Flex ANI to most, if not all, LEC end offices, adding this technology to all such end offices can entail significant expenditures. This extension will afford these carriers additional time to make the necessary arrangements without unduly delaying the provision of enhanced OLS service. This extension to August 1, 1997, will also facilitate administration of, and compliance with, enhanced OLS service requirements because LECs must meet the same deadline regardless of whether they ultimately choose to provide enhanced OLS service through LIDB or Flex ANI. Thus, under the foregoing waivers, all LECs that have requested an extension, whether they choose to provide OLS service through LIDB or Flex ANI, are afforded an extension until August 1, 1997. These LECs are listed in the attached Appendix. 9. Finally, the record also indicates that there are a limited number of LECs that are unable to provide enhanced OLS service at some end offices through LIDB because their LIDB provider has affirmatively chosen not to provide it, and for whom providing enhanced OLS service through Flex ANI from those end offices could be costly because the end office is a non-equal access office or a non-digital office. In light of the significant costs that the LECs estimate would be required to upgrade these offices, we conclude it would be economically unreasonable in those circumstances for a LEC to incur the costs of an end office upgrade in order to provide enhanced OLS service in the absence of a request from an IXC or OSP to obtain OLS service from that end office. Accordingly, we will grant a waiver to these LECs to permit them to file a tariff offering enhanced OLS service no later than six months after the date that the LEC receives a BFR to provide enhanced OLS service from an end office that is either non-digital or non-equal access. This will assure that enhanced OLS service is provided where it is requested while avoiding significant upgrade expenditures where there is no demand for this service. A six month period should provide sufficient time for LECs to upgrade once a BFR is received. This waiver applies to any LEC with respect to each non- equal access or non-digital end office, regardless of whether that LEC has requested a waiver. This will assure that our OLS service tariff requirements do not impose an unreasonable economic impact on small LECs, who are most likely to have non-digital or non- equal access end offices and for whom upgrade expenditures could have a greater relative impact than such expenditures would have on larger LECs. Because the scope of this proceeding is limited to making OLS service available to IXCs and OSPs to facilitate prevention toll fraud, we will limit eligibility to make BFRs to IXCs and OSPs. 10.We are not persuaded by arguments that waivers of indefinite or lengthy duration should be granted, or that no carrier should be required to file a tariff for OLS service unless a BFR is received. Apart from the specific arguments discussed above, we find LECs have made only generalized allegations in support of these requests, which do not show the technical infeasibility or economic unreasonableness of providing OLS service in a timely fashion as envisioned by the Commission. Accordingly, we deny these requests and limit our waivers to those described above. 11. In addition, we are also aware that some LECs have neither tariffed enhanced OLS service in accordance with the Enhanced OLS Service Order nor requested waiver of that filing requirement. To enable such LECs to bring themselves promptly into compliance with the Enhanced OLS Service Order, we extend, on our own motion, the tariff filing deadline through January 8, 1997, to enable such LECs to file the necessary tariff revisions. 12. Finally, we find that the limited waivers we grant here will not unduly hamper the efforts of IXCs to use enhanced OLS service to protect against toll fraud or the implementation of per-call payphone compensation. On the first issue, we note that some LECs state that they plan to continue to offer current ANI as part of Feature Group D. Thus, our waivers will permit current toll fraud mechanisms to remain in place while providing limited extensions for certain LECs to provide enhanced OLS service. On the second, our waivers also permit the provision of enhanced OLS service within the time frames contemplated by the Commission for possible use in connection with per-call compensation requirements for payphone service providers established in the Payphone Order. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 13. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, that the requests for extension or other waiver of the December 1, 1996, tariff filing deadline for enhanced originating line screening service filed by the local exchange carriers listed in the Appendix ARE GRANTED to the extent discussed above and are otherwise DENIED. 14. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 1.3 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.3, that all local exchange carriers are granted a waiver to file tariffs offering enhanced originating line screening service from any non-digital or non- equal access end office from six months from the date of a bona fide request to provide that service from such an end office. 15. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 1.3 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.3, that all local exchange carriers that have not filed required tariffs offering enhanced originating line screening service and that have not sought extension or other waiver of that tariff filing requirement, ARE GRANTED a waiver of that filing requirement until January 8, 1997. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION A. Richard Metzger, Jr. Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Appendix (filing dates in parenthesis) Southern New England Telephone Company (SNET) (7/3/96) Southwestern Bell Telephone Company (SWBT) (9-19-96) Pacific Bell and Nevada Bell (Pacific/Nevada) (10-15-96) BellSouth Corp./BellSouth Telecommunications (10/31/96), Supplement to (11/7/96), Amended (12/5/96) NYNEX Telephone Companies (NYNEX) (10/11/96) GTE Service Corporation (10/11/96) Rochester Telephone Corp./Frontier Telephone Cos. (10/14/96) N.E. Louisiana Telephone Company, Inc. (10-15-96) joined by: The Chillicothe Telephone Company Delcambre Telephone Company, Inc. Campti Pleasant Hill Telephone Company Aliant Communications Co. (10-15-96) GVNW Inc. Management (GVNW) (10/15/96), (10/24/96) on behalf of: Alhambra-Grandfork Telephone Co. Ayrshire Farmers Mutual Telephone Company C-R Telephone Company Cass County Telephone Company Citizens Telephone Company East Ascension Telephone Company Egyptian Telephone Cooperative Assn. El Paso Telephone Company Flat Rock Telephone Company Grafton Telephone Company Gridley Telephone Company Harrisonville Telephone Company Home Telephone Company Kerman Telephone Company La Harpe Telephone Company Leaf River Telephone Company Madison Telephone Company McNabb Telephone Company Montrose Mutual Telephone Company Moultrie Independent Telephone Company Oneida Telephone Exchange Roosevelt County Rural Telephone Corp. Sierra Telephone Company Shawnee Telephone Company Union Telephone Company Wabash Telephone Company Webb Dickens Telephone Corporation West River Telecommunications Coop. Woodhull Community Telephone Company Yates City Telephone Company Yelm Telephone Company Lafourche Telephone Co. (10-15-96) Puerto Rico Telephone Co. (10-15-96) US West Communications (US West) (10/15/96) amended (11/19/96) National Exchange Carrier Association, Inc. (NECA) (10/15/96) Ameritech Operating Companies (Ameritech) (10-17-96) Star Telephone, Inc. (10-18-96) Sprint Local Telephone Companies (10/24/96) Virgin Islands Telephone Co. (10/28/96) Illinois Consolidated Telephone Company (11/1/96) Cameron Telephone Company (11/15/96) joined by: Cameron Telephone Company - Texas Elizabeth Telephone Company Twin Lakes Telephone Cooperative Corporation Cathey Hutton & Associates (10/31/96) on behalf of: Alenco Communications, Inc. Arkansas Telephone Company, Inc. Beehive Telephone Company, Inc. Big Bend Telephone Company, Inc. Blossom Telephone Company, Inc. Brazos Telephone Cooperative, Inc. Brazos Telecommunications, Inc. Cap Rock Telephone Cooperative, Inc. Central Arkansas Telephone Coop. Chickasaw Telephone Company China Telephone Company Comanche County Tel. Co., Inc. Community Telephone Company, Inc. Cumby Telephone Cooperative, Inc. E.N.M.R. Telephone Cooperative, Inc. Eastex Telephone Cooperative, Inc. Five Area Telephone Coop., Inc. Georgetown Telephone Company Goodman Telephone Company, Inc. Lipan Telephone Company Mid-Plains Rural Tel. Coop., Inc. Muenster Telephone Corp. of Texas North Central Telephone Cooperative, Inc. North Texas Telephone Company Oklahoma Telephone & Telegraph Ozark Telephone Company Peoples Telephone Coop., Inc. Pioneer Telephone Cooperative, Inc. Plant Telephone Company Reserve Telephone Company, Inc. Riviera Telephone Company, Inc. Santa Rosa Telephone Coop., Inc. Scott County Telephone Company Seneca Telephone Company, Inc. Shidler Telephone Company South Arkansas Telephone Company Southwest Arkansas Tel. Coop., Inc. Standish Telephone Company 'Star Telephone Company Valliant Telephone Company West Plains Telecommunications, Inc. Wes-Tex Telephone Cooperative, Inc. West Texas Rural Tel. Coop., Inc. XIT Rural Telephone Coop., Inc. DuBois Telephone Exchange, Inc. (November 18, 1996) Matanuska Telephone Association, Inc. (11/6/96) Pacific Telecom, Inc. (11/8/96) RT Communications, Inc. (11/27/96) St. Joseph Telegraph and Telephone Com. (11/12/96) joined by: Gulf Telephone Company Florala Telephone Company Copper Valley Telephone Cooperative, Inc. (12/16/96) joined by: Northland Telephone Company of Vermont Northland Telephone Company of Maine Sidney Telephone Company Sunflower Telephone Company, Inc. Bluestem Telephone Company Odin Telephone Exchange, Inc. Big Sandy Telecommunications, Inc. Accipiter Communications, Inc. (12/19/96) joined by: Cassadaga Telephone Corporation Chautauqua & Erie Telephone Corporation Colorado Valley Telephone Cooperative, Inc. Deerfield Farmers' Telephone Company Dunkirk & Fredonia Telephone Company Farmers Telephone Cooperative, Inc. Germantown Telephone Company, Inc. Hart Telephone Company Lackawaxen Telephone Company Lincolnville Telephone Company, Inc. Margaretville Telephone Company, Inc. Mid-Missouri Telephone Company Mid-Rivers Telephone Cooperative New Paris Telephone, Inc. Northeast Florida Telephone Company, Inc. Perry Spencer Rural Telephone Cooperative, Inc. Poka Lambro Telephone Cooperative, Inc. Rhinelander Telephone Company, Inc. Ringgold Telephone Company Smithville Telephone Company Tidewater Telecom, Inc.