******************************************************** 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. ***************************************************************** Federal Communications Commission DA 97-1788 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) Services -- Caller ID) ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION Adopted: August 20, 1997Released: August 21, 1997 By the Chief, Common Carrier Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. This Order on Reconsideration addresses petitions for reconsideration and waiver filed by Germantown Telephone Company ("Germantown") and Middleburgh Telephone Company ("Middleburgh"). In May 1995, the Commission adopted rules to require that carriers pass the calling party number ("CPN") for interstate calls and provide caller ID education. On November 30, 1995, the Bureau stayed until January 1, 1997 the application of the *82 unblocking requirement for calls originating on lines served by Siemens Stromberg Carlson's ("SSC") Digital Community Office ("DCO") switches. Germantown filed a December 6, 1996 petition requesting that it be excused from complying with the *82 unblocking requirement until December 31, 1998. On December 9, 1996 Middleburgh filed a similar petition making a request identical to Germantown's. The Network Services Division ("NSD") denied each waiver request because petitioners failed to demonstrate why they needed waivers until December 31, 1998. Middleburgh and Germantown filed petitions for reconsideration and waiver on December 31, 1996, and February 18, 1997, respectively. Specifically, petitioners request reconsideration of the December 23, 1996 Order and the February 7, 1997 Order; petitioners also amend their petitions by requesting that they not have to comply with the *82 unblocking requirement until December 31, 1997 instead of December 31, 1998 as originally requested. For the reasons discussed below, we deny the petitions for reconsideration and waiver. II. BACKGROUND 2.Section 64.1601(b) of the Commission rules prohibits carriers from revealing a caller's name or telephone number when the caller requests that such information not be revealed to the called party. Section 64.1601(b) provides that carriers using 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. 3.In the November 30, 1995 Order, the Bureau stayed until January 1, 1997 application of the *82 unblocking requirement for calls originating on lines served by DCO switches. This stay was granted because the generic switch software with *82 capability ("*82 software") was not available until June 1996. The Bureau also stayed the requirement that carriers provide customer notification regarding the *82 unblocking capability. 4.In the December 23, 1996 Order, NSD denied Middleburgh's petition for waiver of the *82 unblocking requirement because Middleburgh did not demonstrate why it needed a waiver until December 31, 1998. Specifically, NSD found that the carrier failed to provide sufficient information to support its allegation that it would be "economically infeasible" for it to offer *82 capability by January 1, 1997. NSD also concluded that Middleburgh's statement that it could possibly be subject to "further upgrades for other reasons in a short time frame," was speculative and vague. For example, the carrier did not indicate what other upgrades, in addition to *82 software installation, were required for its DCO switches. 5.Similarly, in the February 7, 1997 Order, NSD denied Germantown's petition which also requested a waiver of the *82 unblocking requirement until December 31, 1998. NSD concluded that Germantown did not sufficiently support its allegation that it was not economically practical for it to offer *82 capability on its DCO switch by the Commission's January 1, 1997 deadline. NSD also found Germantown's statement that it was "possibly subject to further upgrades for other reasons in a short time frame" speculative and vague. Further, NSD stated that, although a limited number of subscribers would be affected by a waiver, the impact on subscribers of any waiver would be significant because the waiver would be for an extended period of time. III. THE PETITIONS 6.Middleburgh now requests a waiver of the *82 requirement until December 31, 1997. Middleburgh argues that, because of "limitations in the current software" used in its DCO switch, it cannot comply with the January 1, 1997 deadline. Middleburgh asserts also that only 550 of its 5940 customers, fewer than 10% of its total access lines, would be affected by grant of a waiver. Middleburgh adds that to provide subscribers with *82 functionality it would have to purchase a "generic upgrade for its host switch" at a cost of $40,000. Consequently, Middleburgh contends that it is not economically feasible to invest in such an upgrade until it has had an opportunity to "reevaluate its current network." Middleburgh states that it will soon make a decision regarding a network upgrade, but provides no date by which such decision would be made. Middleburgh also contends that, though it made an October 1996 request to its switch vendor, SSC, regarding the switch upgrade, as of December 31, 1996 it had not received SSC's proposal. Middleburgh notes that it takes approximately 6 to 18 months from the date a proposal is received to complete an upgrade. 7.Germantown also requests a waiver of the *82 requirement until December 31, 1997. Germantown states that it cannot comply with the *82 unblocking requirement by the January 1, 1997 "due to limitations in the current software" used in its switch. The carrier estimates that only 224 of its 2483 customers, fewer that 9% of its access lines, would be affected by grant of a waiver, and that "it would be required to purchase a generic upgrade for its host switch." Germantown adds that it is currently reevaluating its network to offer "the best and most economical service to its customers," and that it would not be economically feasible for it to spend approximately $40,000 to upgrade its switch until it has had an opportunity "to reevaluate its current network." Finally, Germantown estimates that a switch upgrade would take 6 to 18 months from the time it receives a proposal from SSC. IV. DISCUSSION 8.We deny Middleburgh's and Germantown's waiver requests. The Commission may waive any provision of its rules, in whole or in part, if good cause is shown. For example, 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." In Northeast Cellular, the court noted that a waiver is appropriate if special circumstances warrant a deviation from the general rule and such deviation will serve the public interest. Consistent with Wait Radio and Northeast Cellular, the Bureau has granted waivers of the *82 unblocking requirement when carriers have made a good faith effort to secure the needed software upgrades and show why the requested waiver period is necessary. 9.Middleburgh and Germantown make two arguments in support of their waiver requests. First, petitioners assert that given the estimated number of customers that would be affected by a waiver, it would not be economically practical to upgrade their respective switches until each had an opportunity to "reevaluate" its current network and determine the most cost effective way to comply with the Commission's rules. Second, the petitioners contend that it could take between 6 and 18 months to complete an upgrade. Middleburgh adds that at the time of filing this reconsideration, Middleburgh still had not received a response from SSC. 10.Middleburgh and Germantown, however, have failed to satisfy Wait Radio or Northeast Cellular. Consequently, they fall short of the standards under which other *82 waivers have been granted. In response to the petitioners' first argument, we acknowledge that Middleburgh and Germantown will incur some costs in upgrading their switches to provide subscribers with *82 unblocking capability; but this alone does not demonstrate that such costs rise to the level of economic infeasibility. The petitioners' offer scant evidence supporting their position that it is economically infeasible for them to offer *82 capability on their DCO switches by the Commission's January 1, 1997 deadline. For example, neither carrier indicates whether it has plans for upgrades other than *82 software installation, whether it plans to replace switches, when decisions regarding such plans would be made. It is possible that an upgrade to the *82 software would provide petitioners other capabilities beyond the *82 unblocking capability, and that such additional capabilities are part of petitioners' network upgrade plans; neither petitioner addresses this point, however. Although petitioners contend that a small percentage of their customers would be affected by their waiver requests, this percentage is not so small that it alone determines the question of economic infeasibility. Thus, in light of our careful balancing of privacy interests of calling and called parties and our objective of having uniform blocking and unblocking capabilities, we find petitioners' arguments of economic infeasibility speculative and insufficient to justify their waiver requests. 11.With regard to the second of petitioners' arguments, we find that Middleburgh and Germantown have not made good faith efforts to comply with the Commission's rules in a timely manner. When the Bureau has previously granted waivers to carriers that have experienced delays from the switch vendor, the carriers either had plans to upgrade their software or had already initiated software installation. By contrast, Middleburgh and Germantown provide only vague assertions that they are in the process of reevaluating their networks, and that a decision concerning upgrades to the network will soon be made. Further, although Middleburgh seems to suggest that SSC has been slow to provide Middleburgh with an upgrade proposal, we do not find that this justifies grant of reconsideration in this case. The carrier has had ample time to comply with the *82 requirement because the Commission had previously stayed the rules for one year in its November 30, 1995 Order. Thus, the carriers' vague assertions regarding a network upgrade and Middleburgh's statement concerning delays from the switch vendor do not justify grant of reconsideration. We therefore deny Middleburgh's and Germantown's requests for waiver. 12.Our experience from previous proceedings indicates that carriers have been able to come into full compliance with our Caller ID requirements within five months of the grant of a waiver. Accordingly, we hereby order Middleburgh and Germantown to comply with the Commission's *82 unblocking requirement by January 28, 1998. In addition, we caution Middleburgh and Germantown that failure to comply with the *82 unblocking requirement may result in enforcement proceedings. To assist the Bureau in monitoring the carriers' compliance with the Commission's rules, we require Middleburgh and Germantown to file progress reports with the Network Services Division on November 11, 1997, December 11, 1997, and January 6, 1998. These reports may be in the form of a letter, and shall contain the following information: (1) the status of any DCO switch replacements; (2) the status of any operating (generic) software upgrades to the DCO switches; and (3) an updated implementation schedule, with explanation of any failures to meet the previous schedule and corrective action being taken. V. ORDERING CLAUSES 13.Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to the authority delegated in Section 0.91 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.91, and Section 0.291 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.291, that Middleburgh's petition for reconsideration and waiver of Section 64.1601(b) of the Commission's rules IS DENIED. 14.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the authority delegated in Section 0.91 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.91 and Section 0.291 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.291, that Germantown's petition for reconsideration and waiver of Section 64.1601(b) of the Commission's rules IS DENIED. 15.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that Middleburgh and Germantown file progress reports with the Network Services Division as described by this Order. 16.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that this order is effective upon release. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Regina M. Keeney Chief, Common Carrier Bureau