******************************************************** 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 97-1381 Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, 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: July 2, 1997Released: July 2, 1997 By the Chief, Network Services Division: I. INTRODUCTION 1. On December 2, 1996, Western Iowa Telephone Association ("Western Iowa") filed a petition for waiver of the Commission's Caller Identification ("Caller ID") rules. Specifically, Western Iowa requests a waiver of the automatic call return blocking requirements until March 31, 1997 for two of its switches, and until January 1, 2000 for its other six switches. On May 16, 1997, Western Iowa filed a motion for leave to file a supplement to its waiver request, and a supplement to its waiver request. For the reasons discussed below, we dismiss in part, and deny in other respects Western Iowa's waiver request. Finally, we grant Western Iowa's motion for leave to file a supplement to its waiver request. II. BACKGROUND A. Caller ID Rules 2. The Commission's Caller ID rules took effect, with limited exceptions, on December 1, 1995. Those rules require common carriers using Signaling System 7 ("SS7") to transmit the calling party number ("CPN") to interconnecting carriers on an interstate call. Those rules also require common carriers to notify subscribers that their telephone numbers may be identified by the calling party. 3. In addition to CPN transmission and subscriber notification requirements, the Commission developed rules to protect the privacy of the called and the calling party. Section 64.1601(b) requires carriers to recognize *67 as a request for privacy. Dialing *67 before placing a call, referred to as per call blocking, allows subscribers to block their numbers from transmission to the public switched network. Carriers must also recognize *82 as a request that the CPN be transmitted on an otherwise blocked line. Per call unblocking allows subscribers that have permanently blocked lines ("per line blocking") to unblock their lines on a per call basis, thus allowing passage of the CPN. Section 64.1601(b) also prohibits carriers from revealing the calling party's name or number, and prohibits carriers from allowing the called party to return automatically the call (via Automatic Call Return, or "ACR"), when the original calling party invokes privacy. 4. 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 generic switch software with *82 capability ("*82 feature") 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. 5. In the October 30, 1995 Order, we stayed the application of the Caller ID rules to call return services until January 1, 1997. The Commission issued the stay in response to new information that carriers could incur unnecessary costs if the Commission required carriers to implement ACR blocking prior to having addressed issues raised by BellSouth. On December 23, 1996, the Commission issued a further stay until further notice of the ACR blocking requirement. In March 1997, the Commission required carriers to comply with the ACR blocking requirement by September 25, 1997. B. Western Iowa's Petition 6. Western Iowa requests a waiver of the automatic call return ("ACR") blocking requirement until March 31, 1997 for two of its switches. Western Iowa states that it is in the process of upgrading these switches and needs additional time to complete the changes. Further, Western Iowa requests a waiver of the ACR blocking requirement for its other six switches until January 1, 2000. The carrier argues that its other six switches serve a significantly fewer number of access lines, and that it would cost approximately $130,000 to support call return blocking. It adds that only eleven of its subscribers served by these six switches have call return blocking. Western Iowa asserts that the software upgrades would provide "very limited additional functionality" in addition to Caller ID services. The carrier states also that it expects that it will need to upgrade its software or replace its hardware by January 1, 2000. Given that it would be economically infeasible for it to comply with the call return blocking requirement by the Commission's January 1, 1997 deadline, argues Western Iowa, grant of a waiver in this case would be consistent with previous Commission orders in which application of Caller ID rules was stayed or waived where the stay or waiver affected only a few subscribers and the cost of compliance with Caller ID rules would impose financial hardship on smaller carriers. Similarly, Western Iowa contends that grant of its waiver request would be consistent with a Commission decision to grant a waiver request where software upgrades would provide limited additional functionality, and a carrier needed an extension of time to make other upgrades, "rather than immediately upgrad[ing] software at costs that outweigh the benefits." Finally, Western Iowa argues that grant of a waiver in this case would be consistent with previous Commission decisions to grant waivers "where provision of a service would not be economically feasible." 7. In its supplement, Western Iowa argues that, if the Commission granted its waiver request, the impact on a caller's privacy would be minimal. Specifically, Western Iowa states that, although "some of the eleven customers who subscribe to call return service may return some calls to callers who had requested privacy," the number of times calling party number (CPN) may be passed is small. Western adds also that waiver is warranted here because it has only one central office technician, the cost of compliance is substantial, and the waiver would be of limited duration. III. DISCUSSION 8. We dismiss as moot the portion of Western Iowa's petition that requests an extension to comply with Section 64.1601(b) as it relates to suppression of ACR service because the Commission's March 25, 1997 Order stays until September 25, 1997 the application of Caller ID rules to ACR service. We deny Western's Iowa's petition for a waiver of the ACR blocking requirement because it has not demonstrated why it needs a waiver until January 1, 2000. 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." Western Iowa has failed to satisfy this burden. Although the carrier argues that it would not be economically feasible for it to offer ACR blocking by the Commission's January 1, 1997 deadline, it fails to provide information to support this allegation, nor has it supplemented its filing to demonstrate why it cannot comply by September 25, 1997, the current effective date of the ACR requirement. It does not delineate the specific circumstances that necessitate three years to complete a network upgrade. Further, Western Iowa's assertion that it may perform other upgrades to its software or replace its hardware is speculative and unsupported. For example, Western Iowa fails to indicate what upgrades besides ACR blocking installation it must conduct on its 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. We therefore deny Western Iowa's request for a waiver. 9. In response to the carrier's argument that a waiver in this case would be consistent with previous decisions to grant stays or waivers, the carrier does not provide sufficient justification for an extension of the ACR deadline. The fact that Western Iowa will incur some costs in upgrading its software, standing alone, does not warrant grant of a waiver in this case. Western Iowa correctly states that the Bureau has granted waivers of implementation of Caller ID and various other requirements. In these cases, however, the carriers had started to implement the requirements, and had demonstrated that, due to technical limitations, vendor delays, or lack of manufacturer support, an extension of time was necessary. We also point out that in some instances where we have granted waivers, the carriers had started to upgrade their software, and had made good faith efforts to comply with our rules as soon as possible. We therefore concluded that it would be inefficient for the carriers to conduct upgrades on switches that it would soon replace. In this case, however, Western Iowa provides only vague assertions concerning whether it will upgrade its software. Finally, we note that the waivers were granted in those cases for only a limited amount of time, whereas Western Iowa seeks a three year extension. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 10. 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 portion of the petition of Western Iowa that requests a waiver until March 31, 1997 of the Caller ID rules as applied to the suppression of ACR is DISMISSED as moot, and is otherwise DENIED in all respects. 11. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this order is effective upon release. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Geraldine A. Matise Chief, Network Services Division Common Carrier Bureau