WPC 2BJZ Courier3|vw RomanTimes New Roman BoldTimes New Roman ItalicCG TimesHP LaserJet 5Si Rm 221al) RM 221HPLAS5SI.PRSx  @\!'^X@2#6?F ZD3|vphoenix#Xv6X@CX@#HP LaserJet 5Si Rm 221al) RM 221HPLAS5SI.PRSx  @\!'^X@CourierTimes New RomanTimes New Roman BoldTimes New Roman Italic2UvpV la8DocumentgDocument Style StyleXX` `  ` a4DocumentgDocument Style Style . 2kkcvsa6DocumentgDocument Style Style GX  a5DocumentgDocument Style Style }X(# a2DocumentgDocument Style Style<o   ?  A.  a7DocumentgDocument Style StyleyXX` ` (#` 2st ) BibliogrphyBibliography:X (# a1Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers:`S@ I.  X(# a2Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers C @` A. ` ` (#` a3DocumentgDocument Style Style B b  ?  1.  2  Q   a3Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers L! ` ` @P 1. ` `  (# a4Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers Uj` `  @ a. ` (# a5Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers _o` `  @h(1)  hh#(#h a6Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersh` `  hh#@$(a) hh#((# 28  h ha7Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberspfJ` `  hh#(@*i) (h-(# a8Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersyW"3!` `  hh#(-@p/a) -pp2(#p Tech InitInitialize Technical Style. k I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 Technicala1DocumentgDocument Style Style\s0  zN8F I. ׃  2jx&a5TechnicalTechnical Document Style)WD (1) . a6TechnicalTechnical Document Style)D (a) . a2TechnicalTechnical Document Style<6  ?  A.   a3TechnicalTechnical Document Style9Wg  2  1.   2sga4TechnicalTechnical Document Style8bv{ 2  a.   a1TechnicalTechnical Document StyleF!<  ?  I.   a7TechnicalTechnical Document Style(@D i) . a8TechnicalTechnical Document Style(D a) . 23eADoc InitInitialize Document Stylez   0*0*0*  I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)DocumentgPleadingHeader for Numbered Pleading PaperE!n    X X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:39\5:(z7Right Par 6Right Par 67` hp x (#X` hp x (#0X` hp x (#0` hp x (#Right Par 7Right Par 78` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (#Right Par 8Right Par 89` hp x (#X` hp x (#0X` hp x (#0` hp x (#Document 1Document 1:` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (#2>;$9<$;=l>>l>Technical 5Technical 5;` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#Technical 6Technical 6<` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#Technical 2Technical 2= Technical 3Technical 3> 2E?$&?@lJAA$AB$CTechnical 4Technical 4?` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#Technical 1Technical 1@ Technical 7Technical 7A` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#Technical 8Technical 8B` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#2KC0FDFEGFIWP Heading 2WP Heading 2C44#6X@C@##Xv6X@CX@#WP Heading 1WP Heading 1D44#6X@C@# #Xv6X@CX@#toc 1toc 1E` hp x (#!(#B!(#B` hp x (#toc 2toc 2F` hp x (#` !(#B` !(#B` hp x (#2TGLHUM\WNzYtoc 7toc 7K toc 8toc 8L` hp x (#!(#!(#` hp x (#toc 9toc 9M` hp x (#!(#B!(#B` hp x (#index 1index 1N` hp x (#` !(# ` !(# ` hp x (#2`O[P]Qv`Rl|`index 2index 2O` hp x (#` !(#B` !(#B` hp x (#toa headingtoa headingP` hp x (#!(# !(# ` hp x (#captioncaptionQ _Equation Caption_Equation CaptionR 2JeSraTlaUcVdendnote referenceendnote referenceS footnote textfootnote textT` hp x (#4 <DL!#XP\  P6QXP##C\  P6QP#4 <DL!` hp x (#HeadingChapter HeadingUJ d  ) I. ׃  Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersV>a݅@  I.   X(# 2'kW|eXfKfKhSubheadingSubheadingW0\ E A.  head1 #X'd#2p}wC@ #"i~'^:DPddDDDdp4D48dddddddddd88pppX|pDL|pp||D8D\dDXdXdXDdd88d8ddddDL8ddddX`(`lD4l\DDD4DDDDDDdDd8XXXXXX|X|X|X|XD8D8D8D8ddddddddddXdbdddpdXXXXXlX~|X|X|X|XdddldldD8DdDDDdplld|8|P|D|D|8dvddddDDDpLpLpLpl|T|8|\ddddddl|X|X|Xd|DdpL|Dd~4ddC$CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxH\dDXddddd8@d<@d<DDXXdDDxddxHxxHvppDXd<"dxtldpxxd"i~'^:DpddȨDDDdp4D48ddddddddddDDpppd|Ld|pȐD8DtdDdpXpXDdp8Dp8pdppXLDpdddXP,PhD4htDDD4DDDDDDdDp8dddddȐXXXXXJ8J8J8J8pddddppppddpddddzpdddXXhXXXXXdddhdptL8LpLDLpphhp8ZDP8pppddƐXXXpLpLpLphfDtppppppȐhXXXpDppLDd4ddC6CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxHjdDddddddvvv,v6X@`7N@7jC:,ynXj\  P6G;XP7nC:,><q*"xxxxWWxxxWWkkxxx-   X- I. INTRODUCTION and BACKGROUND ă  X-  1.` ` The Commission has received several requests for waiver of the *82 unblocking   requirement for calls that originate on Siemens Stromberg Carlson ("SSC") Digital Community  X-  Office ("DCO") switches._nC X--  j#XP\  P6QynXP#э Sioux Valley Telephone Company and Hills Telephone Company ("Sioux Valley and Hills")   ?filed a joint petition for waiver on October 22, 1996. Twin Lakes Telephone Cooperative   Corporation ("Twin Lakes") filed a request for waiver on November 19, 1996. Pond Branch   Telephone Company, Inc. ("Pond Branch") filed a request for waiver on December 6, 1996. The   Middleburgh Telephone Company ("Middleburgh") filed for waiver on December 9, 1996. Craw  Kan Telephone Cooperative, Inc. ("CrawKan") and Northland Telephone Company of Vermont ("Northland") filed for waivers on December 17, 1996.  For the reasons discussed below, we grant waivers for Pond Branch,   [Twin Lakes, Sioux Valley and Hills, CrawKan, and Northland. We deny Middleburgh's waiver request.  Xo-   XX-  ~2.` ` Section 64.1601(b) prohibits carriers from revealing a caller's name or telephone  XA-  [number when the caller requests that information not be provided to the called party.nAnC X#-#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#э 47 C.F.R.  64.1601(b). n Section   =64.1601(b) of the Commission's rules provides that carriers employing Signaling System Seven"* H-''oo"  X-  ("SS7") must recognize *67 as a request for privacy on an interstate call.YnC Xy-#XP\  P6QynXP#э Id.Y Additionally, Section   64.1601(b) requires that if a carrier offers per line blocking, it also must recognize *82 as a  X-caller's request that the calling party's number be provided on an interstate call._{nC X-#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#э Id._  X-   3.` ` In the November 30, 1995 Order the Bureau stayed the application of the *82   jrequirement for all carriers, for calls originating on lines served by DCO switches, until January  Xv-  1, 1997.#v.nC XU -  #XP\  P6QynXP#э See In the Matter of Rules and Policies Regarding Calling Number Identification Service  X@ -ԩ Caller ID, 11 FCC Rcd 1743, 1749 (1995) ("November 30, 1995 Order"). # This requirement was stayed in response to carriers that requested waivers on the   kgrounds that the generic switch software with *82 capability ("*82 software") would not be  XH-  Kavailable until June 1996.qHnC X-#XP\  P6QynXP#э Id. at 174549.q The Bureau also stayed the requirement that carriers provide customer  X1-  notification regarding the *82 unblocking capability.n1}nC X_-#XP\  P6QynXP#э Id. at 1749.n Finally, the Bureau stayed the ban against  X -using *67 as an alternative unblocking code.l 0 nC X-#XP\  P6QynXP#э Id.l  X -  X -2,II. THE PETITIONS Ã  X -  Q 4.` ` Sioux Valley and Hills request a waiver of the *82 requirement for three years.>  nC XR-  #XP\  P6QynXP#э Sioux Valley and Hills originally requested a waiver of the *82 request for an indefinite   amount of time. The carriers later submitted a supplement to their petition limiting their request to three years. >   The carriers state that they would have to invest $53,000 to upgrade their switches to provide  X-  0subscribers with *82 capabilities. fnC X-  #XP\  P6QynXP#э The carriers state that the switch software vendor increased its estimate from $30,000 to  X -$53,000. See Sioux Valley and Hills petition at 2. They argue that their subscribers can use *67 as an   unblocking device and that the switch software necessary to permit customers to use *82 does   not contain any other features that are of interest to Sioux Valley and Hills. They add that only   M74 of their 7,500 subscribers have per line blocking and would therefore use the *82 per call   >unblocking function, and that these 74 subscribers make very little use of the *82 function.   [Finally, the carriers argue that they should not be required to invest in the *82 software for the   same reasons that carriers are not required to purchase SS7 technology to comply with the Caller" H-''ooF" ID rules.  X-  X-  Q 5.` ` Twin Lakes requests a waiver of the *82 requirement until February 28, 1997 in   yorder for the vendor to complete the *82 software installation on its DCO switches. The carrier   states that although it asked SSC to provide a proposal for upgrading its switches in June 1996,   -when the *82 software first became available, SSC did not provide a proposal for upgrading Twin   Lakes' DCO switches until August 1996. The carrier argues that it cannot meet the January 1,   l1997 deadline because of the delay caused by SSC. Twin Lakes states that *82 software   installation is scheduled to begin on January 7, 1997, for one DCO switch. It adds that installation on the remaining five DCO switches will begin on January 21, 1997.  X -   6.` ` Pond Branch states that it needs a waiver of the *82 requirement until December   31, 1997 in order to replace its DCO switches. It notes that it plans to transfer all of its customer   Llines to a new network starting January 1997. Pond Branch states that it would cost $67,000 to   [upgrade its current switches to enable customers to have per call unblocking capabilities. The   /carrier notes that only 240 of its 14,000 customers have subscribed to per line blocking and   !would therefore need per call unblocking. Finally, the carrier states that it would not be   ["economically practical" for it to invest in such an upgrade prior to installing the new network.  XK-   7.` ` Middleburgh requests a waiver of the *82 requirement until December 31, 1998.   LMiddleburgh states that it cannot comply with the January 1, 1997 deadline due to "limitations   in the current software used in [Middleburgh's] DCO switch ... ". The carrier states that it "is   in the process of reevaluating its current network in order to provide the best service to its   customers and also comply with the federal and state rules." The carrier "estimates that a   decision with regard to a network upgrade will be made by year end, 1997 ... ". Finally,   Middleburgh states that it does not believe that it is "economically practical ... for the company   \to incur an estimated cost of $40,000 to comply with the Commission's Caller ID rules, when  X-[Middleburgh] is possibly subject to further upgrades for other reasons in a short time frame."""  Xe-   8.` ` Northland and CrawKan request waivers of the *82 requirement because they plan   to upgrade their DCO switches to SSC generic operating software Release 21, when it is released   in late 1997. Northland states that Release 21 will support ISDN and *82, and that the latest SSC   switch software, Release 20, does not have any other features that "are of interest to [it]."   Northland further states that it will save the "added labor expense that would have resulted from   doing two upgrades instead of one." CrawKan adds that it will cost $96,000 to upgrade its three   host switches to support the use of *82. CrawKan states that only 43 of its 15,700 subscribers   have requested per line blocking. It also argues that "it would be unreasonable to require [it] to purchase this upgrade.""! H-''oo "  X- 3 III. DISCUSSION ă  X-  29.` ` The Commission may waive any provision of its rules, in whole or in part, if good  X-  cause is shown. 47 C.F.R. 1.3.j nC X4-  #XP\  P6QynXP#э See also Northeast Cellular Telephone Co. v. FCC, 897 F.2d 1164, 1166 (D.C. Cir. 1990)   [(waiver appropriate if special circumstances warrant a deviation from the general rule and such deviation will serve the public interest). j We find that Twin Lakes and Pond Branch have shown good   cause for a waiver in this case. We agree that it would be inefficient for Pond Branch to conduct   extensive software upgrades on switches that it plans to replace in 1997. This decision is   consistent with the Bureau's October 4, 1996 Order where it granted a waiver to Pacific Bell on   the grounds that "it would be inefficient for Pacific Bell to conduct extensive software upgrades  XH-  on switches that it [planned to] replace by June 1997." HMnC XF -  #XP\  P6QynXP#э See Rule and Policies Regarding Calling Number Identification Service Caller ID, Order, CC Docket No. 91281, released October 4, 1996 ("October 4, 1996 Order").  We note that, as with Pacific Bell, Pond  X1-  ZBranch is "in the process of changing its Siemens StrombergCarlson DCO switches..."t 1nC X-#XP\  P6QynXP#э See Pond Branch petition at 2.t We find   that Twin Lakes made a good faith effort to obtain the *82 software in a timely fashion and that   {it plans to begin installing the software by January 21, 1997. Further, a limited number of   subscriber lines would be affected by the waivers. Under these circumstances we conclude that granting the waivers will serve the public interest.  X -  p10.` ` We find also that granting Sioux Valley and Hills, Northland, and CrawKan   additional time to install the *82 software will serve the public interest. We conclude, however,   that these carriers are only granted a waiver of the *82 requirement until July 1, 1997. We find   Lthat a six month waiver of the *82 requirement will limit the amount of time that subscribers are   without *82 per line unblocking capability, and still provide time for Sioux Valley and Hills,   -Northland, and CrawKan to upgrade their switches. Although the carriers state that subscribers   ycould rely on *67 to unblock their lines, we note that in the May 5, 1995 Order, the Commission   addressed the same argument raised by various carriers, including Sioux Valley and Hills, and   found that using *67 and *82 "maximizes consumer choice" and "eliminates customer  X-  [confusion."nC X% -  !#XP\  P6QynXP#э See Rules and Policies Regarding Calling Number Identification Service Caller ID,   KMemorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration, Second Report and Order and Third Notice  X!-of Proposed Rulemaking, 10 FCC Rcd 11700, 11728 (1995)("May 5, 1995 Order").  The Commission also found that "universal and exclusive use of *82 to unblock  X-  avoids the risks of inadvertently defeating a block by dialing *67."c! nC X$-#XP\  P6QynXP#э Id. at 11729.c Finally, we note that the   Commission has previously addressed, and rejected, arguments that carriers should not be required" H-''oop"   lto invest in *82 software since the Commission does not require carriers to invest in SS7  X-technology.{nC Yb-#Xw PE37|XP#э See November 30, 1995 Order at 1750. {  X-  11.` ` We recognize that Sioux Valley and Hills, Northland, and CrawKan will incur   some costs in providing subscribers with *82 capabilities. We find, however, that although the   carriers provide some evidence to support their arguments, they have failed to provide sufficient   evidence to warrant waivers for the length of time that they request. We note that Sioux Valley   and Hills raise the same economic feasibility arguments in this proceeding as they raised in their   request for waiver of the December 1, 1995 deadline for complying with these rules. The Bureau   explicitly rejected these arguments, finding that the carriers had provided "scant" evidence to   ksupport their claims that it is economically infeasible to deploy software supporting the *82  X - xunblocking capability.` {nC X/-#XP\  P6QynXP#э Id. ` The Bureau noted that "while some [carriers] provided limited  xxinformation regarding the cost of upgrading their software" the carriers failed to "indicate whether  x\they will obtain other capabilities" through installing *82 software "beyond the unblocking  X - x[capability."Y .nC X-#XP\  P6QynXP#э Id.Y In this proceeding, the carriers provide cost information and identify the number  xof subscribers affected, but once again have failed to provide specific information on the  xcapabilities that the software upgrades will provide. The carriers state that Release 20 has no  xfeatures of interest to them, other than *82 functionality, but they fail to identify these feature  x=nor explain why they would not use them. Further, the carriers have had ample time to comply  xwith the *82 requirement because the Commission had previously stayed the rules for one year  xin its November 30, 19995 Order. Thus, in light of our careful balancing of privacy interests of  xcalling and called parties and our objective of having uniform blocking and unblocking  X- xjcapabilities, we find that the carriers arguments are not sufficient to justify long term waivers.onC Y-#Xw PE37|XP#э See Id.o  xConsequently, we grant Sioux and Hills, Northland, and CrawKan a waiver until July 1, 1996  xto come into compliance with our rules, but we do not anticipate future waivers for these carriers.  X- ` x12.` ` We deny Middleburgh's petition for a waiver because it has not demonstrated why  X- x?it needs a waiver until December 31, 1998. In Wait Radio the court stated that "when an  xapplicant seeks a waiver of a rule, it must plead with particularity the facts and circumstances  Xe- xwhich warrant such action."enC X#-#XP\  P6QynXP#э Wait Radio v. Federal Communications Commission, 418 F.2d 1153, 1157 (1969). į Middleburgh has failed to satisfy this burden. Although the carrier  xstates that it was "economically infeasible" for it to offer *82 capability on its DCO switches by  xthe Commissions January 1, 1997, it fails to provide information to support this allegation, such"7E H-''oo"  x?as the number of switches that it would have to upgrade or what specific circumstances  xnecessitate two years to complete the software installation process. Further, Middleburgh's  X- xstatement that it "is possibly subject to further upgrades for other reasons in a short time frame,"tnC XK-#XP\  P6QynXP#э See Middleburgh petition at 2.t  xis speculative and not supported by a description of specific circumstances. For example,  xyMiddleburgh fails to indicate what upgrades it must conduct on its DCO switches, besides *82  xsoftware installation. The carrier also fails to specify why it must complete the "other" upgrades  xin a "short time frame." Middleburgh does not even provide the number of subscribers that  xwould be affected by a grant of its waiver request. We therefore deny Middleburgh's request for a waiver.  X - ` x13.` ` Consistent with our previous waivers, the rule provision that would bar the carriers  x[from using *67 as an unblocking device also is waived, for lines served by DCO switches. We  xfurther waive our customer notification requirement regarding *82 unblocking capability, as it applies to the waivers granted in this order.  X - ` _x14.` ` To assist the Bureau in monitoring the carriers' compliance with the Commission's  xzrules, these waivers, with the exception of Twin Lakes, are conditioned on the carriers' filing  xreports with the Network Services Division. Pond Branch shall file reports on April 1, 1997, July  x1, 1997, and October 1, 1997. Sioux Valley and Hills, Northland, and CrawKan shall file  x\reports on March 3, 1997 and May 1, 1997. Reports shall contain the following information:  xK(1) the status of any DCO switch replacements; (2) the status of any operating (generic) software  xupgrades to the DCO switches; and (3) an updated implementation schedule, with explanation of  xany failures to meet the previous schedule and corrective action being taken. No condition is imposed upon Twin Lakes because its waiver only extends to February 28, 1996.  X-  X-IV. ORDERING CLAUSES ă  X- ` `x15.` ` Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to the authority delegated in Sections  x0.91 and 0.291 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.91, 0.291, that the effectiveness of the  xCommission rules contained in Section 64.1601(b), which require a carrier to recognize *82 as  xa caller s request that privacy not be provided and bar a carrier from recognizing *67 as a  xcaller's request that privacy not be provided, as these rules apply to lines served by DCO  x]switches, IS WAIVED until February 28, 1997 for Twin Lakes, until July 1, 1997 for Sioux Valley and Hills, Northland and CrawKan, and until December 31, 1997 for Pond Branch.   x16. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated in Sections 0.91 and  x@0.291 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.91, 0.291, that the effectiveness of the  xCommission s rule contained in Section 64.1603, which requires a carrier to provide customer  x\notification regarding the *82 unblocking capability IS WAIVED until February 28, 1997 for  xMTwin Lakes, until July 1, 1997 for Sioux Valley and Hills, Northland and CrawKan, and until"#{H-''ooe"" December 31, 1997 for Pond Branch.  X- ` ax17.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a request for a temporary waiver of the *82  x/requirement for Siemens Stromberg Carlson DCO switches IS GRANTED until February 28,  x1997 for Twin Lakes, until July 1, 1997 for Sioux Valley and Hills, Northland and CrawKan, and until December 31, 1997 for Pond Branch.  X_- ` nx18.` ` Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to the authority delegated in Section 0.91  xof the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.91 and Section 0.291 of the Commission's rules, 47  x2C.F.R.  0.291, that Middleburgh's request for waiver of Section 64.1601(b) of the Commission's rules IS DENIED.  X - ` `x19.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the waivers granted for Sioux Valley and Hills,  xNorthland, CrawKan, and Pond Branch are conditioned on the carriers' compliance with the requirements imposed by this Order.  X-x20.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this order is effective upon release. x` `  hhFEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION x` `  hhGeraldine A. Matise x` `  hhChief, Network Services Division x` `  hhCommon Carrier Bureau  >e<#Xv6X@CX@#