******************************************************** 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. ***************************************************************** DA 97-293 Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSIONWashington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) Rules and Policies Regarding ) CC Docket No. 91-281 Calling Number Identification ) Service -- Caller ID ) MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER Adopted: February 6, 1997 Released: February 7, 1997 By the Chief, Network Services Division: I. INTRODUCTION and BACKGROUND 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 Office ("DCO") switches. For the reasons discussed below, we grant waivers for FTC in part, STTC, and TDS Telecom; deny the waiver requests of Germantown and Pine Belt; and dismiss the petitions of Lincolnville and Tidewater and of FTC in part. 2. Section 64.1601(b) prohibits carriers from revealing a caller's name or telephone number when the caller requests that information not be provided to the called party. Section 64.1601(b) of the Commission's rules provides that carriers employing Signaling System Seven ("SS7") must recognize *67 as a request for privacy on an interstate call. Additionally, Section 64.1601(b) requires that if a carrier offers per line blocking, it also must recognize *82 as a caller's request that the calling party's number be provided on an interstate call ("*82 requirement"). 3. In the November 30, 1995 Order, the Bureau stayed the application of the *82 requirement for all carriers, for calls originating on lines served by DCO switches, until January 1, 1997. This requirement was stayed in response to carriers that requested waivers on the grounds that the SSC generic switch software with *82 capability, Release 20, would not be available until June 1996. The Bureau also stayed the requirement that carriers provide customer notification regarding the *82 unblocking capability. Finally, the Bureau stayed the ban against using *67 as an alternative unblocking code. II. THE PETITIONS 4. FTC requests a temporary waiver of the *82 requirement until May 31, 1997. The carrier states that it has experienced repeated delivery delays of the software necessary to provide the *82 network function. FTC states that the switch vendor, SSC, could not make available the switch software in June, 1996, as originally planned. According to the carrier, the vendor now estimates that the Release 20 software will be available for installation February 18, 1997. The carrier also states that it plans to convert to the new software release by March 18, 1997. It requests a waiver until May 31, 1997 "[o]ut of an abundance of caution, and to ensure proper network testing." The carrier also seeks a waiver of the customer notification requirement. It states that the potential customer confusion arising from providing the *82 notification by January 1, 1997 would outweigh any benefit because *67 will continue to be used for per call blocking and per call unblocking. Finally, FTC requests a waiver of Section 64.1601(b) of the Commission's Rules as it applies to automatic call return ("ACR") services. 5. Germantown requests a waiver of the *82 requirement until December 31, 1998. In its petition, Germantown states that it cannot comply with the January 1, 1997 deadline due to "limitations in the current software used in [Germantown'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, Germantown 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 [Germantown] is possibly subject to further upgrades for other reasons in a short time frame." 6. Lincolnville and Tidewater jointly request a waiver of the *82 requirement until July 1, 1997. These carriers note that they have not deployed CLASS software in their respective DCO switches. They also state that they have not deployed Release 20 and thus their switches currently do not have *82 recognition capability. The carriers state that upgrading their current switches for CLASS and *82 capability is only economically sound if they can conduct ISDN upgrades simultaneously. They further state that the switch vendor, SSC, notified them on November 19, 1996 that it would make available ISDN upgrades for DCO switches. The carriers state that upon that notification they decided to upgrade their current switches and they plan to order the upgrades by the end of January, 1997. They also seek a waiver of the related customer notification requirement until July 1, 1997 to avert customer confusion. 7. Pine Belt requests a waiver of the *82 requirement until December 31, 1997. According to its petition, Pine Belt was unaware until early January, 1997, that the use of *67 to perform per call blocking and unblocking did not comply with Commission rules. The carrier states that it immediately asked the vendor for a cost estimate for a switch software upgrade. The carrier states, however, that it will either upgrade its current DCO switch or replace it entirely. It submits that "if it determines that replacement of current facilities is warranted, it will be wasteful and contrary to the public interest to incur the costs of investment in upgrades to its current switching facilities." Pine Belt states that a waiver until December 31, 1997 will ensure that it "is not required to make otherwise unnecessary investments in facilities which may be replaced." 8. STTC requests a waiver of the *82 requirement until July 31, 1997. The carrier states that until September, 1996, it believed that its current per call blocking and unblocking features would comply with Commission rules. It states that it discovered that *82 per call unblocking is required while reviewing switch upgrade information from SSC. STTC states that it determined in mid- October, 1996 to upgrade the software on its existing switches rather than purchase new switches. It states that it did not request the software until December, 1996 because it was "[u]naware that Siemens follows a lengthy formal process for placing orders..." According to STTC's petition, the vendor replied that it would take "...two to three weeks to provide a 'formal' proposal and price quote. Following STTC's receipt of the formal proposal, STTC could then officially place its order for the Release 20 software... [I]t would take approximately nineteen (19) weeks following [the vendor's] receipt of STTC's order to ship the software." STTC states that, under this schedule, it anticipates that it will be able to implement the software by June 30, 1997, and it requests a waiver until July 31, 1997, "[o]ut of an abundance of caution, and to ensure proper network testing..." 9. TDS Telecom requests a waiver until April 1, 1997 to comply with the *82 requirement on its DCO and EWSD switches and to notify its customers of per call unblocking functionality. The corporation lists the companies and their respective exchanges that will need to make a network upgrade. It states that "SSC was not able to meet TDS Telecom's request, in October 1996, that it complete software delivery and installation by the January 1 deadline. In each such case, SSC has promised a February, 1997 shipping date and a March 1997 activation date." III. DISCUSSION 10. The Commission may waive any provision of its rules, in whole or in part, if good cause is shown. 47 C.F.R. 1.3. We conclude that FTC, STTC, and TDS Telecom have shown good cause for a waiver of the *82 requirement and the concomitant customer notification rules. We recognize that these carriers have experienced various degrees of delay from the switch vendor, and that they are continuing with plans to upgrade their software in order to comply with the Commission's rules as soon as possible. We further find that FTC, STTC, and TDS Telecom made a good faith effort to obtain the *82 software in a timely fashion and that they plan to begin installing the software in early 1997. Additionally, a limited number of subscriber lines would be affected by each waiver. Under these circumstances, we conclude that granting the waivers will serve the public interest. 11. We find that TDS Telecom has expedited fully the ordering process and we note that its schedule includes software delivery in February, 1997 and activation of the software in March, 1997. Thus we grant TDS Telecom's waiver for the full amount of time requested, until April 1, 1997. This waiver is granted explicitly and exclusively for the exchanges delineated in TDS Telecom's petition. As stated in its petition, FTC expects to install the Release 20 software beginning March 18, 1997. We therefore give FTC until April 18, 1997 to comply with our *82 requirement. We dismiss as moot the portion of FTC's petition that requests an extension to comply with Section 1601(b) as it relates to the suppression of ACR service because the Common Carrier Bureau's December 23, 1996 Order stays until further notice the application of Caller ID rules to ACR service. We give STTC until June 30, 1997 to comply with the *82 requirement, which is STTC's own estimate of when it can complete the upgrade, given the vendor's estimated delivery schedule. Consistent with our previous waivers, the rule provision that would bar the carriers from using *67 as an unblocking device also is waived, for lines served by DCO or EWSD switches. We further waive our customer notification requirement regarding *82 unblocking capability, as it applies to the waivers granted in this order. 12. We deny Germantown's petition for a waiver because it has not demonstrated why it needs a waiver until December 31, 1998. In Wait Radio the court stated that "when an applicant seeks a waiver of a rule, it must plead with particularity the facts and circumstances which warrant such action." Germantown has failed to satisfy this burden. Although the carrier states that it "does not believe it is economically practical" for it to offer *82 capability on its DCO switch by the Commission's January 1, 1997 deadline, it fails to provide information to support this allegation. It does not delineate the specific circumstances that necessitate two years to complete a network upgrade. Further, Germantown's statement that it "is possibly subject to further upgrades for other reasons in a short time frame," is speculative and not supported. For example, Germantown fails to indicate what upgrades besides *82 software installation it must conduct on its DCO switches. Although a limited number of customers would be affected by a waiver in this case, the waiver would be for an extended period of time. Germantown does not justify why its customers should be denied the benefit of separate codes for per call blocking and per call unblocking, a benefit the Commission determined "maximizes consumer choice, is the federal policy least disruptive to state policies and goes the farthest to eliminate customer confusion." The Commission further supported this regime in stating that "[u]niversal and exclusive use of *82 to unblock avoids the risks of inadvertently defeating a block by dialing *67." 13. We also deny Pine Belt's petition. Pine Belt filed January 16, 1997, more than two weeks after the deadline to provide the *82 functionality. We conclude that it did not make a good faith effort to comply with Commission rules since it did not examine until early January, 1997 the *82 requirement, which was imposed in the May 5, 1995 Order and stayed in the November 30, 1995 Order for DCO switches. Further, Pine Belt fails to specify what actions it will be taking to comply with the *82 requirement. Instead, it requests one year to plan upgrades so that it is not "required to make otherwise unnecessary investments in facilities which may be replaced." It does not specify whether it plans to upgrade or replace its switches, nor does it indicate exactly when such a decision will be made. As with Germantown, Pine Belt does not justify why its customers should be denied the benefit of separate codes for per call blocking and per call unblocking for an extended period of time. 14. We dismiss the joint petition for waiver of Lincolnville and Tidewater as moot because the December 23, 1996 Order stays the application of Caller ID rules to LECs without CLASS software. We note that Lincolnville and Tidewater plan to implement Release 20 and CLASS software. To the extent that these carriers implement CLASS capability, they will have to recognize *82 per call unblocking concurrently in order to comply with Section 64.1601(b). 15. To assist the Bureau in monitoring the carriers' compliance with the Commission's rules, the waivers granted to FTC and STTC are conditioned on the carriers' filing a report with the Network Services Division. FTC shall file on April 1, 1997. STTC shall file on June 2, 1997. The reports shall contain the following information: (1) the status of operating (generic) software upgrades to the DCO switches; and (2) an updated implementation schedule, with explanation of any circumstances that may threaten timely implementation and corrective action being taken. No condition is imposed upon TDS Telecom because its waiver only extends to April 1, 1997. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 16. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to the authority delegated in Sections 0.91 and 0.291 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.91, 0.291, that the effectiveness of the Commission rules contained in Section 64.1601(b), which require a carrier to recognize *82 as a caller s request that privacy not be provided and bar a carrier from recognizing *67 as a caller's request that privacy not be provided, as these rules apply to lines served by DCO and EWSD switches, IS WAIVED until April 1, 1997 for TDS Telecom, until April 18, 1997 for FTC, and until June 30, 1997 for STTC. 17. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the effectiveness of the Commission s rule contained in Section 64.1603, which requires a carrier to provide customer notification regarding the *82 unblocking capability IS WAIVED until April 1, 1997 for TDS Telecom, until April 18, 1997 for FTC, and until June 30, 1997 for STTC. 18. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a request for a temporary waiver of the *82 requirement for Siemens Stromberg Carlson DCO and EWSD switches IS GRANTED until April 1, 1997 for TDS Telecom, until April 18, 1997 for FTC, and until June 30, 1997 for STTC. 19. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the waivers granted for TDS Telecom, FTC, and STTC are conditioned on the carriers' compliance with the requirements imposed by this Order. 20. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Germantown's and Pine Belt's requests for waiver of Section 64.1601(b) of the Commission's rules ARE DENIED. 21. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petition for temporary waiver of Lincolnville and Tidewater is dismissed as moot, and the portion of the petition of FTC that requests a waiver of the Caller ID rules as applied to the suppression of ACR is also dismissed as moot. 22. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this order is effective upon release. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Geraldine A. Matise Chief, Network Services Division Common Carrier Bureau