NOTICE ********************************************************* NOTICE ********************************************************* This document was originally prepared in Word Perfect. If the original document contained-- * Footnotes * Boldface & Italics --this information is missing in this version The document format (spacing, margins, tabs, etc.) is changed too. If you need the complete document, download the Word Perfect version. For information about downloading documents (FTP) see file how2ftp. File how2ftp (.txt & .wp) is in directory /pub/Bureaus/Miscellaneous/Public_Notices/ ***************************************************************** ******** $/Memorandum Opinion and Order/Rules and Policies Regarding Calling Number Identification Service - Caller ID/$ $//400.64.1601, 400.64.1603, 400.64.1604//$ RECORD ONLY Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION DA 96-439 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: March 27, 1996 Released: March 29, 1996 By the Chief, Common Carrier Bureau: INTRODUCTION and BACKGROUND 1. On January 16, 1996, Sprint Communications Co. (Sprint) filed a petition for stay and waiver of the Commission's calling party number (CPN) delivery and privacy rules. The Commission's CPN delivery rules require that common carriers using Signaling System 7 (SS7), and offering or subscribing to any service based on SS7 call set up functionality, transmit the CPN associated with an interstate call to interconnecting carriers. The Commission's CPN privacy rules require, in part, that carriers must honor a caller's privacy request and that no carrier may override a caller's privacy indicator. On May 5, 1995, the Commission issued an Order on Reconsideration that affirmed these CPN delivery and privacy rules, and established an effective date for these rules of December 1, 1995. 2. On October 24, 1995, Sprint filed a petition requesting a waiver of the Commission's CPN delivery rule until March 31, 1996. In its waiver petition, Sprint stated that a waiver was needed to give it time to modify CPN delivery software in its switches because, in certain instances when CPN was not available to it, its switches would pass Automatic Number Identification (ANI) or charge number information in place of CPN. Subsequently, several other interexchange carriers identified similar problems in their networks and requested waivers. On November 30, 1995, the Commission provided the relief sought by Sprint and other interexchange carriers (IXCs) and stayed the effective date of Sections 64.1601(a) and 64.1603 of the Commission's rules until March 31, 1996 as applied to interexchange carriers that use certain switches. Specifically, the rules were stayed as applied to Digital Switch Corporation (DSC) and Northern Telecom, Inc. switches used by interexchange carriers that populate the CPN parameter with ANI or charge number information. 3. Sprint now seeks additional time to comply with the Commission's CPN delivery and privacy rules for two types of circumstances. First, Sprint requests either an extension of the existing stay or a waiver of the CPN delivery and customer notification rules contained in Sections 64.1601(a) and 64.1603 of the Commission's rules until April 30, 1996 to allow additional time to correct the switch problem that Sprint identified to the Commission in October 1995. It indicates that software modifications correcting its original problem are expected to be delivered by March 15, 1996. Sprint contends that, following this date, it needs six weeks, or until April 30, 1996, to properly install the software modifications. It claims that it and its vendor have been working diligently to correct the problem and that the testing and installation schedule it has established represents a highly expedited schedule for these activities. Thus, Sprint submits that the additional time it seeks would be in the public interest. 4. Additionally, Sprint indicates that after the Commission's stay was ordered, it discovered another circumstance in which a caller's privacy may be violated and it now requests a waiver related to this problem. This problem concerns calls placed to Sprint that require the assistance of a live operator. These calls are passed to "live operators" at Sprint operator centers over ISDN primary rate interface (PRI) trunks. Sprint indicates that because the ISDN PRI protocol does not contain a charge number field, Sprint populates the CPN parameter with ANI or charge number information that may be conveyed to its operator centers. Sprint states that the CPN information is then passed to the local exchange carriers with no privacy flag. It claims that this ISDN interface arrangement complicates software modifications to its switches, and the software modifications to correct the problem for "live operator" calls will not be delivered to Sprint until the middle of July. Thus, it contends that although it can modify its switches to correct the original problem by April 30, 1996, it cannot modify its switches for calls handled by "live operators" until July 31, 1996. Sprint contends that it is faced with two options: (1) delay the delivery of CPN on all calls to the LECs until the live operator problem can be fixed; or (2) commence delivery of CPN as soon as the mid-March 1996 software modifications can be tested and installed. Under the second option, ANI or charge number will be delivered as CPN to LECs, with no opportunity for a caller to prevent his or her number from being revealed, on calls passing through "live operators." 5. Sprint estimates that under the second option a caller's privacy would be violated in five out of a million calls. Sprint seeks to pursue the second option, and proposes that it be allowed to commence CPN delivery by April 30, 1996, but that it be granted a waiver of the prohibition against populating CPN with ANI or charge number information and no privacy flag, for calls traversing live operators, until July 31, 1996. Sprint indicates that it believes option two best balances the various equities involved, and under this option, it would include, in the customer notification required by Section 64.1603, a notice to customers that they may not be able to suppress delivery of their number if their call utilizes a live operator. If the Commission chooses not to grant the privacy waiver necessitated by option two, Sprint alternatively requests a waiver of the CPN delivery rules through July 31, 1996 under option one. DISCUSSION 6. The Commission may waive any provision of its rules, in whole or in part, if good cause is shown. An applicant for waiver must demonstrate that special circumstances warrant a deviation from the general rule and such deviation will serve the public interest. The Commission has delegated authority to the Common Carrier Bureau to rule on petitions for waivers and stays related to its caller ID rules. Acting pursuant to that delegated authority and after reviewing Sprint's petition, we hereby grant Sprint a waiver of the Commission's CPN delivery rules until June 1, 1996, subject to the conditions explained below. During this period Sprint should not pass CPN information until it has fixed both the original switch problem and the "live operator" problem. 7. We conclude that Sprint has demonstrated that technical problems within its network create special circumstances warranting deviation from our rules because those problems prevent Sprint switches from properly passing CPN and may result in the privacy of calling parties being compromised. This conclusion is consistent with the Bureau's previous recognition that unique technical problems constitute a special circumstance contemplated by Section 1.3 for the purposes of evaluating the appropriateness of granting a waiver. We conclude also that Sprint has demonstrated that the public interest would be served by granting it a waiver of our rules so that it not be required to pass CPN until June 1, 1996. In its December 1st Order, the Commission recognized that it was faced with an undesirable choice between (1) granting the requested waivers of IXCs and temporarily frustrating its federal objective of widespread CPN availability, or (2) denying the waivers and temporarily frustrating its federal privacy objectives. Given its careful balancing of privacy interests throughout this proceeding, the Commission chose to stay the effective date of its CPN rules because it found that, although its objective of widespread CPN availability would be temporarily delayed, compromising the privacy of callers would be unacceptable. It determined that suggestions by commenting parties that opposed the waivers provided inappropriate solutions because they placed unacceptable burdens on callers and a caller's privacy was still at risk of being compromised. These considerations continue to be valid, and therefore we grant Sprint a waiver that it not be required to pass CPN until June 1, 1996. 8. With respect to Sprint's waiver request for additional time until July 31, 1996, to correct its problem involving "live operators," we determine not to grant this additional time because (1) we find Sprint has provided inadequate information to allow a determination whether a waiver of our CPN rules until July 31, 1996 would be in the public interest, and (2) we believe Sprint may have adequate time to correct the "live operator" problem prior to the June 1, 1996 expiry of the waiver we now grant. Ordinarily, planning time on a non- expedited schedule for major network software upgrades is eighteen months. Here, Sprint has not indicated that the problems it is confronting require changes comparable to those incorporated in a major network software upgrade, and thus we believe the necessary software upgrade can be accomplished in much less time. Furthermore, Sprint has indicated that its vendor is working on an expedited schedule. Given that Sprint will have had eight months since identifying its technical problems to correct them and that the software changes here do not appear to be a major network upgrade, we believe that Sprint can expedite its development and deployment schedule to correct the "live operator" problem by June 1, 1996. Additionally, on June 1, 1996, the Commission's stay applicable to interstate calls made to and from California expires. We seek to avoid unnecessary customer confusion associated with interstate calls that do not contain caller ID information beyond this date. By granting this waiver until June 1, 1996 and denying Sprint's request for additional time, the major sources of customer confusion related to interstate caller ID will be eliminated as of June 1, 1996. 9. To assist the Bureau in tracking Sprint's diligence in complying with the Commission's rules, we condition the waiver we now grant on the following reports being filed with the Network Services Division of the Common Carrier Bureau. Not later than April 15, 1996 and again on May 10, 1996, Sprint should file a report that presents the information below: (1) The status of development and deployment of a software patch that corrects the original switch problem. This report should indicate the date by which Sprint will eliminate this problem from its network and the specific facts causing continued delayed implementation. (2) The status of development and deployment of a software patch that corrects the "live operator" problem. This report should indicate the date by which Sprint will eliminate this problem from its network and the specific facts causing continued delayed implementation. (3) If Sprint believes it will not be able to correct the "live operator" problem by June 1, 1996, it should provide the following information in the report due May 10, 1996: (a) an estimated date by which the "live operator" problem will be corrected; (b) what steps Sprint has taken to correct the "live operator" problem since it was identified; (c) the number of Sprint personnel assigned to correct the problem since it was identified; (d) the number of Sprint personnel and other resources necessary to have the problem corrected by June 1, 1996 and by the new estimated date specified in (a); (e) the type of the calls placed through a "live operator," that is, the percentage of "live operator" calls originated at a residence, payphones and elsewhere. If data are unavailable, Sprint should estimate the percentages and explain the basis for these estimates; and (f) an analysis of the ability of Sprint to have its "live operators" advise a caller that his or her telephone number may be revealed. This analysis should address Sprint's ability to provide such notification and Sprint's subjective assessment of the effectiveness of such an approach in preventing a caller's number from being revealed without his or her knowledge. 10. The analysis required by part (f) should address what alternatives (e.g., using another carrier, using a calling card, etc.) an operator might offer to the caller that does not want his or her number revealed. Additionally, this analysis should include discussion of alternatives that could ensure that a caller, who wishes to request privacy, will not incur additional costs to complete the call because of Sprint's technical problem. Finally, Sprint should provide additional alternatives regarding customer notifications that may be available to reduce or eliminate the probability that a caller's telephone number will not be revealed without the caller's knowledge. Given that the caller ID rules at issue here were first adopted in March 1994 and that Sprint has repeatedly requested for waiver of those rules, we believe such a reporting condition is necessary to ensure that Sprint complies with the Commission's caller ID rules in a manner consistent with the public interest. 11. Finally, in its December 1st Order, the Commission addressed the possibility of taking enforcement action against carriers not complying with its caller ID rules. Although it chose not to take enforcement action at that time, the Commission stated that if at the expiration of the stay it then granted, the IXCs had not corrected their technical problems, it would determine whether enforcement action, including monetary fines and other remedial measures, was appropriate. We do not find it necessary, at this time, to take enforcement action against Sprint. We find that, at least with respect to the original switch problem, Sprint appears to be diligently working to correct the problem. We, however, emphasize that the Commission will not tolerate repeated delays in achieving the Commission's CPN-related objectives. In its December 1st Order, the Commission made clear that using ANI or charge number to populate the CPN parameter without giving the caller the opportunity to request blocking would violate the Commission's rules. We reiterate that passage of CPN as a result of either the original switch problem identified by Sprint or its "live operator" problem would violate the Commission's caller ID delivery and privacy rules contained in Section 64.1601(a) and (b). The rules embody a fundamental Commission policy that the privacy interests of a calling party should not be violated. This policy was first enunciated in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in this docket issued by the Commission in 1991, and the rules at issue here, which require carriers to honor a caller's privacy request and not override the privacy indicator, were adopted in 1994 and have remained unchanged since that time. Sprint's failure to correct the original switch problem and the "live operator" problem by June 1, 1996 and to exhibit due diligence in complying with the Commission's rules, could lead to Commission enforcement action in the form of monetary fines, other remedial actions, or both. ORDERING CLAUSES 12. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.3 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.3, and 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 Sprint's request for a waiver of Section 64.1601(a) and Section 64.1603 of the Commission's rules IS GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. This waiver is effective until June 1, 1996, and is subject to the conditions specified herein. 13. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this order is effective upon release. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Regina M. Keeney Chief, Common Carrier Bureau