******************************************************** 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 In the Matter of ) ) Telephone Number Portability ) CC Docket No. 95-116 ) Petition for Extension of the Deployment ) Schedule for Long-Term Database ) Methods for Local Number Portability, ) Phase I ) ) Southwestern Bell Telephone Company ) NSD File No. L-98-16 and Pacific Bell ) ORDER Adopted: March 31, 1998 Released: March 31, 1998 By the Chief, Network Services Division, Common Carrier Bureau I. INTRODUCTION 1. This Order addresses a petition, filed on February 20, 1998 by Southwestern Bell Telephone Company ("SWBT") and Pacific Bell ("Pacific") (collectively "the SBC Companies"), requesting extensions of the Commission's Local Number Portability Deployment Schedule. The SBC Companies also filed on February 20, 1998 a petition for waiver of the requirement, set forth in section 52.23(e) of the Commission's rules, that a company seeking to extend a number portability implementation deadline must do so at least 60 days in advance of that deadline. For the reasons discussed and to the extent provided below, the petitions are granted. II. BACKGROUND 2. An important provision of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 designed to foster meaningful facilities-based competition in the provision of local exchange service is section 251(b)(2)'s imposition of duty on all local exchange carriers to "provide, to the extent feasible, number portability in accordance with requirements prescribed by the Commission." The 1996 Act defines number portability as "the ability of users of telecommunications service to retain, at the same location, existing telecommunications numbers without impairment of quality, reliability, or convenience when switching from one telecommunications carrier to another." 3. In previous orders in this proceeding, the Commission has established rules to implement the obligations imposed by section 251(b)(2). Among these is a schedule for phased- in implementation by local exchange carriers of number portability throughout the 100 largest Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) in the country. In each phase, carriers must provide a long-term database method for number portability in switches located in specifically designated MSAs. The implementation deadlines are as follows: Phase I - March 31, 1998; Phase II - May 15, 1998; Phase III - June 30, 1998; Phase IV - September 30, 1998; Phase V - December 31, 1998. The Commission recognized that initial implementation of number portability may be time consuming, and sections 52.23(d) & (e) of the Commission's rules explain the circumstances and standards under which the implementation deadlines may be waived, stayed, or extended. 4. The SBC Companies seek a waiver of the Phase I implementation deadline until May 26, 1998. As outlined in detail below, the SBC Companies explain that the requested extension is justified because of problems recently discovered in vendor-provided Signal Transfer Point (STP) hardware and software upgrades needed to perform long-term number portability. They argue that additional time is needed "to address these problems and ensure the reliability of the public switched telephone network." As explained below, we find that good cause exists to grant an extension of the March 31, 1998 Phase I implementation deadline. III. THE SBC COMPANIES' PETITION 5. In their petition for extension of time, the SBC Companies explain that problems encountered with the STP used in their Signaling System 7 (SS7) network, make SWBT unable to meet the Phase I local number portability (LNP) implementation deadline for selected switches in the Houston, TX MSA. According to the petition, after a period of successful controlled laboratory testing of necessary hardware and software upgrades provided by DSC Communications ("DSC"), the SBC Companies began testing of the upgrades in their network with actual calls from other carriers' networks. A problem was encountered on January 21, 1998. When the Message Relay Service (MRS) function for Line Information Database (LIDB) queries was activated, the SBC Companies learned that the STP could not validate calling card queries from GTE's network after GTE upgraded its switches to support FCC-mandated carrier identification code expansion changes. If calling card queries can not be validated, substantial amounts of toll fraud could result. In addition, upon activating the same functionality in other STPs in their SS7 network on February 2, 1998, the SBC Companies discovered incompatibilities with certain advanced intelligent network (AIN) based services, which resulted in the misrouting of approximately 20,000 calls over a three-day period. The SBC Companies argue that an extension of the Phase I implementation deadline is necessary to address these problems and note that, through ex parte communications, they have kept the Commission apprised of their implementation schedule and the challenges they were facing. 6. The SBC Companies currently are testing new software which DSC delivered on February 17, 1998, and which DSC claims will cure the problems noted above. The SBC Companies note that the STP must be rigorously tested prior to LNP implementation because it is an integral part of the SS7 network, and that as part of this process they intend to repeat the full range of laboratory and network tests on DSC's new software release to ensure that the later version works properly. According to the SBC Companies, however, not enough time remains to complete testing and deployment of the new software in SWBT's Houston MSA switches prior to the Phase I implementation deadline of March 31, 1998. The SBC Companies state that testing of the new software will require three and one-half weeks of full regression testing followed by two weeks for network trials under loading conditions that simulate actual network conditions, or a "network soak." After lab testing has been completed, SWBT proposes to load the new software release in its network over a three week period so as not to compromise network integrity. After further intra-company and inter-industry testing to validate the MRS and location routing number functions and to ensure that no other network problems exist, SWBT plans to begin accepting LNP orders on May 15, 1998 with an implementation date of May 26, 1998. 7. Therefore, the SBC Companies seek an extension to May 26, 1998 for SWBT to complete Phase I LNP implementation in the Houston, TX MSA. IV. DISCUSSION 8. As a threshold matter, we consider the SBC Companies' request for a waiver of the requirement contained in section 52.23(e) that petitions for extension of LNP implementation deadlines must be filed at least 60 days before the deadline. Under section 1.3 of the our rules, the Commission may grant waivers "if good cause therefor is shown." The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has interpreted the section 1.3 standard so as to allow the Commission to grant a waiver if "special circumstances warrant a deviation from the general rule and such a deviation will serve the public interest." We find that the circumstances presented here satisfy the "good cause" requirement and that waiver of the 60-day requirement is warranted. The SBC Companies have kept the Commission informed on the progress of their implementation efforts, and as discussed below, we believe that the SBC Companies acted reasonably in their testing efforts and that the STP software problems they encountered were beyond their control. Further, we find that the public interest in ensuring the proper functioning of the SBC Companies' network will be served by granting the petition for waiver of the 60-day requirement. 9. With respect to the petition for extension of time of the Phase I implementation date, we note again that in the First Report and Order in this proceeding the Commission specifically contemplated that waivers of the number portability implementation deadlines may be needed, delegating to the Chief of the Common Carrier Bureau the authority to waive or stay any of the dates in the implementation schedule "as the Chief determines is necessary to ensure the efficient development of number portability, for a period not to exceed 9 months." The Commission's rules set forth the showing that must be made by a carrier seeking relief, as well as the standard ("substantial, credible evidence") that will be applied to any request for relief. 10. We find that the SBC Companies have made the requisite showing under section 52.23(e) for their request for relief from an implementation deadline. The petition for extension of time (1) documents the reasons why they are unable to meet the March 31, 1998 deadline; (2) explains in detail the efforts made by the SBC Companies to meet the implementation schedule; (3) identifies the switches for which extension is requested; (4) indicates the time required to complete deployment in the affected switches; and (5) proposes a new deadline that will not require any extension of the December 31, 1998 date for completing implementation of local number portability in the top 100 MSAs. 11. Some commenters argue that the SBC Companies should have begun live testing of the DSC-provided software earlier, thereby discovering the STP software problems sooner and making the requested extension unnecessary. As noted above, however, we find that the SBC Companies' testing process was not unreasonable. The SBC Companies state that they were "on target to meet the 3/31/98 Commercial Port Date for Phase I in Houston" until the STP software problems were discovered over a 2-week period in late January and early February. Commenters offer nothing concrete to refute this, and based on the record, we do not believe that the STP software problems were so foreseeable that the SBC Companies should be faulted for not anticipating them. 12. We also disagree with commenters who argue that the calling card validation and AIN call misrouting problems do not justify extending the LNP implementation deadline. These commenters claim that these problems either are not crucial to LNP implementation, can be addressed in other ways, or are the SBC Companies' fault. In delegating authority to the Bureau to grant extensions, the Commission clearly stated that our primary concern must be ensuring "the efficient development of number portability." In our view, this includes implementation of number portability in such a manner as to minimize the potential for disruption to network functions. Adding LNP functions to the network should not degrade or disable other functions. We conclude that the SBC Companies have presented substantial, credible evidence as required by section 52.23(e) to support their petition for extension of time and disagree with commenters who urge denial of the petition. We find that, under the circumstances presented here, the goal of efficient development of number portability will be best served by allowing the SBC Companies additional time to implement LNP in the Houston MSA. 13. Some commenters urge, if the Commission is to grant an extension, that it be shorter than that requested by the SBC Companies. We decline to do so. While we encourage all carriers to implement long-term number portability as soon as possible in all markets, we agree with the SBC Companies that rigorous intra-company and inter-industry testing of new STP software is needed to ensure efficient and problem-free implementation, especially in light of the problems encountered with the previous software version. We find that both the procedures and the timetable proposed by the SBC Companies for LNP implementation in the Houston MSA are reasonable under the circumstances presented here. We emphasize, however, that the SBC Companies should work to provide LNP in the Houston MSA sooner than May 26, 1998, if possible. V. CONCLUSION 14. Having determined that the SBC Companies have met the section 52.23(e) standards, that the circumstances presented warrant a deviation from the timetable set forth in the Appendix to Part 52, and that the public interest will be served by granting the SBC Companies additional time to complete Phase I of the implementation of local number portability in the Houston, TX MSA, we find that good cause exists to extend the section 52.23 timetable as requested by the SBC Companies. On the facts presented, we also find that good cause exists for waiver of the 60-day requirement contained in section 52.23(e). 15. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1.3 and 52.23(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.3 and 52.23(e), and by authority delegated in sections 0.91 and 0.291 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.91 and 0.291, that the SBC Companies' Petition for Waiver of 60 Day Requirement is GRANTED, and that the SBC Companies' Petition for Extension of Time is also GRANTED to the extent provided herein, thereby extending the date for the SBC Companies' Phase I implementation of LNP in the Houston, TX MSA to May 26, 1998. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Geraldine A. Matise Chief, Network Services Division Common Carrier Bureau