7 FCC Red No. 3 Federal Communications Commission Record DA 92-120 Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of Amendments of Part 69 of the Commission's Rules Relating to the 'Creation of Access Charge Subelements for Open Network Architecture Filing and Review of Open Network Architecture Plans CC Docket No. 89-79 CC Docket No. 88-2 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Adopted: January 31, 1992; Released: January 31, 1992 By the Chief, Common Carrier Bureau: 1. In the Part 69/0NA Order, the Commission required the Bell Operating Companies (BOCs) to file federal tar­ iffs for the basic service elements ( BSEs) listed in their amended Open Network Architecture (ONA) plans. and to do so by November 1. 1991. 1 Although each BOC filed a set of ONA tariffs by that date. no BOC tariffed all of the BSEs listed in its amended plan. Each omitted at least one such service from its filing. but argued that the service should not be federally tariffed. both in the filing and in a separate formal waiver request.2 In the ONA Further Amendments Order, the Commission stated that it did "not look favorably upon the socs· withdrawal of services that were approved in their ONA plans." 3 There­ fore. we have denied more than one third of the BOCs" requests. and granted the BOCs' requests only where they have demonstrated with sufficient specificity that the ser­ vice should not be federally tariffed at this point in time. Moreover, nearly half of the waivers granted are only temporary, and the BOCs will be required to tariff these 1 Amendment of Part 69 of the Commission's Rules Relating to the Creation of Access Charge Subelements for Open Network Architecture: Policy and Rules Concerning Rates for Dominant Carriers. Report and Order & Order on Further Reconsider­ ation & Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, CC Docket Nos. 89-79 and 87-313, o FCC Red 4524 ( 1991) (Part 69/0NA Order); Filing and Review of Open Network Architec­ ture Plans, Memorandum Opinion and Order. CC Docket No. 88-2, Phase I, 5 FCC Red 3103 ( 1990) (BOC ONA Amendment Order), Erratum, 5 FCC Red at 4045, pets. for recon. pending, pets. for rev. pending, California v. FCC, (9th Cir. No. 90-70336).See also, Filing and Review of Open Network Ar­ chitecture Plans. Memorandum Opinion and Order. CC Docket No. 88-2. Phase I, FCC 91-382 (released December 19, 1991) ~ONA Further Amendments Order). " Oppositions to those waiver requests were filed by the Alarm Industry Communications Committee (AICC), the American Newspaper Publishers Association (ANPA). Independent Tele­ communications Network, Inc .• and MCI. Replies were filed by all seven BOCs as well as Prodigy Services Company (Prodigy). 3 ONA Further Amendments Order, at para. 10. 811 services in the near future. Another one third of the waiver requests we granted are for services that will be available, although not federally tariffed. These services will be offered as detariffed billing and collection services, through a different federally tariffed offering, or as com­ plementary network services (CNSs). For the reasons dis­ cussed herein. we grant the waiver requests of BellSouth. Southwestern Bell, and US West, with respect to all ser­ vices requested; deny Pacific Bell's request. with respect to all services requested; and grant in part and deny in part the requests of Ameritech. Bell Atlantic, and NYNEX. 2. While many of the waiver requests raise facts unique to one BOC. a number of others involve common con­ cerns. Therefore, we address two arguments made by sev­ eral BOCs before proceeding to address the specifics of each BOC's waiver request. A number of BOCs argue that a service is technically infeasible or that there is no demand for the service, and therefore they should not be required to file a federal tariff for the service. With re­ spect to these arguments, we note that the ONA orders directed that the BOC ONA plans include services that the BOCs identified as technically feasible and for which there was potential demand.4 The BOCs face a high hur­ dle to convince us that services that formerly were techni­ cally feasible are no longer feasible. despite the current environment of rapid technological progress in this in­ dustry. In addition. some BOCs try to distinguish between intrastate and interstate demand. claiming that while in­ trastate demand might justify filing state tariffs, it would not -- in the absence of expected interstate demand -­ justify the filing of federal tariffs. We do not accept this argument. The Commission has consistently required dual tariffing of BSEs listed in approved ONA plans.5 If a BOC included a service in its amended plans. based on ex­ pected demand. then it should give interstate users the opportunity to evaluate the benefits of the service in conjunction with its price. Ameritech 3. Ameritech requests a waiver to refrain from tariffing five services. We grant Ameritech ·s request with respect to three of the services and deny its request with respect to 4 The BOCs were required to include BSEs in their ONA plans "based on the expected market demand for such elements, their utility as perceived by enhanced service competitors. and the technical and costing feasibility of such bundling." Amend­ ment of Section M.702 of the Commission's Rules and Regula­ tions. CC Docket No. 85-229. Phase I, Report and Order. 104 FCC 2d !J58. 1065-66 ( 1986) (Phase I Order). reconsideration, 2 FCC Red 3035 ( l!J87) (Phase I Reconsideration). further reconsi­ deration, 3 FCC Red 1135 ( 1988) (Phase I Further Reconsider­ ation), second further recon .. 4 FCC Red 5!J27 ( 198!J) (Phase I Second Further Reconsideration) Phase I Order and Phase I Reconsideration Order vacated, California v. FCC, 905 F.2d 1217 (!Jth Cir. 1990); Phase 11. 2 FCC Red 3072 ( 1987) (Phase ll Order). recon., 3 FCC Red 1150 (1988) (Phase ll Reconsideration Order). Phase ll Order vacated California v. FCC, 905 F.2d 1217: petition for review of Phase ll Order and Phase ll Reconsider­ ation Order pending, BellSouth v. FCC (9th Cir. No. 88-7290. filed April 20, 1988). 5 See, e.g., Filing and Review of Open Network Architecture Plans. Memorandum Opinion and Order, 4 FCC Red l, 48-4!J ( 1988) (BOC ONA Order). DA 92-120 Federal Communications Commission Record 7 FCC Red No. 3 the other two for the reasons that follow.6 Ameritech seeks a waiver for two services that it states it is currently unable to offer as lineside BSEs, although it can offer them as trunkside BSEs. With respect to Reverse Billing (REVERSE BILLING ON CIRCUIT SWITCHED AC­ CESS). Ameritech's request indicates its intention to try to resolve this technical difficulty/ and there is no specific opposition to Ameritech's request to refrain from tariffing this service. Therefore, we grant this request, conditioned on Ameritech 's commitment to resolve the remaining difficulties and offer the service as a lineside BSE as soon as it is technically feasible. 4. As for Call Detail Recording (CDR) (CALL DETAIL RECORDING REPORTS), we note that other BOCs re­ quest waivers for this service, arguing that it is a detariffed billing and collection service. No one opposes those re­ quests and we grant them in this order, as discussed below. Ameritech, however. has apparently tariffed this service for use with its trunkside BSA. In the Ameritech ONA Tariff Order, we set for investigation the issue of whether Ameritech's CDR to 900 service can properly be tariffed in light of the Commission's Billing and Collection Order. 8 We grant Ameritech's waiver with respect to its lineside CDR service, pending the outcome of our inves­ tigation. If we conclude there that CDR should not be tariffed under the Commission's Billing and Collection Order we will expect Ameritech to detariff all of its CDR services. 5. Ameritech also asks to be permitted to withhold its tariff for Forwarding of Additional Dialed Digits (FADD) based on its two years of experience offering the service. Ameritech states that there is neither past nor anticipated demand for this service. MCI challenges this justification on general terms. 4 Although we look with disfavor on requests based on the argument that there is no demand. in this case Ameritech has two years of actual experience with the service. and no party has offered a specific challenge to Ameritech ·s claim. We therefore will permit Ameritech to withdraw this BSE. In the future. if there is a demand for this service, we expect that Ameritech will tariff it once again. 10 Ameritech also asks to reclassify Access to Extended Superframe Data Channel (EXTENDED SUPERFRAME CONDITIONING) as a "Basic Serving Arrangement (BSA) rather than a BSE. While Bell Atlantic. BellSouth. and US West all treat extended superframe conditioning as an alternative to dedicated high capacity digital access. we note that Southwestern Bell treats it as a BSE. There- 6 We also accept Ameritech 's explanation that it has filed a tariff for Ability to Reconfigure Networks (NETWORK RE­ CONFIGURATION) in its transmittal number 562. The format we use for identifying BSEs is to use the name employed by the particular BOC followed -- in parentheses and capital letters -­ by the generic name of the service (from the ONA Services Users Guide) if the name is different from the name employed bv the BOC. :" Ameritech Waiver Pet. at 4-5. 8 Ameritech Operating Companies Revisions to Tariff FCC No. 2. Open Network Architecture, Memorandum Opinion and Or­ der, DA 91-1633 (Comm.Carr.Bur. December 27, 1991); Detariffing of Billing and Collection Services. Memorandum Opinion and Order (Reconsideration). CC Docket No. 85-88, l FCC Red 445 (1986) (Billing and Collection Order). 9 MCI Opp. at 6. 1° For example. interested parties may use the 120-day process 812 fore. in the absence of specific evidence that this service does not meet our definition of a BSE, 11 we cannot find that Ameritech has made the showing necessary to justify its waiver request in this respect. 7. Finally, Ameritech requests permission not to file a tariff for its Notification of Subscriber Line Breaks (VER­ IFY INTEGRITY OF SUBSCRIBER LINES) service. The Alarm Industry Communications Committee (AICC) strongly objects to the withdrawal of this service, claiming that its representatives have worked long and hard with the Information Industry Liaison Committee (IILC) to produce functional specifications for a local loop break detection network capability. like this service, and that an acceptable descri~tion was adopted by the IILC on No­ vember 9, 1989.1" Furthermore, the AICC states that re­ presentatives from both the alarm and security industries have worked with the TlEl. l Committee of the Exchange Carrier Standards Association (ECSA) to develop a tech­ nical standard for this capability and it claims that the Committee has not found any aspect of the service to be "technically infeasible" due to equipment or other prob­ lems.13 The AICC states that access to this developing service technology. known variously as Derived Local Channel. Scan Alert. and Spread Spectrum Transmission Service is critically important to the alarm services in­ dustry.14 Moreover. the AICC also notes that its members have invested significant amounts of capital in the Ameritech technology. 15 8. Ameritech responds that the service sought by the alarm industry is not compatible with the evolving Ameritech network, as it is upgraded to include more fiber-based loop and digital loop carrier systems. 16 It ar­ gues that neither of the two technology platforms that support the service are compatible with its evolving net­ work, because one platform would require expensive plug-in retrofits and the other would re9~ire the develop­ ment of an entirely new retrofit method. 1 Ameritech adds that a large portion of its current exchange customers have been plagued by service difficulties with this service. and this has created higher than expected maintenance costs for Ameritech. In addition. Ameritech states that efforts to improve performance have met with little suc­ cess.18 Ameritech argues that this justifies the suspension of investment in the service. 9. We disagree. Ameritech certainly should upgrade its network in a timely manner according to its perceived needs. However. we cannot permit Ameritech planning to ignore the commitments that it made in its ONA plans, established by the Commission to request that Ameritech pro­ vide this. or any other service. See, Filing and Review of Open Network Architecture Plans, Memorandum Opinion and Order, CC Docket No. 88-2. Phase I, FCC 91-382. released Dec. 19, 1991, at n.24 & n.34. 11 BOC ONA Order, 4 FCC Red at 36. 1 ~ Alarm Industry Opp. at 6-7. 1 -' Id. at 7-8. 1 ~ Id. at 6, citing AICC's Pet. to Reject or Suspend Ameritech Transmittal No. 49CJ, Jan. 2, 1991. at 5-6. 15 Id. at 6-8. lh Ameritech Reply at 5 n. LO, citing Ameritech Reply to Pets. to Suspend or Reject Transmittal Nos. 499, 500 & 501. Jan. 14. 1991. at appendix 2, iii. I~ Id. 1 ~ Id. at iii-iv. 7 FCC Red No. 3 Federal Communications Commission Record DA 92-120 particularly the commitments to potential competitors that have expended significant sums in reliance on these commitments. If a network upgrade threatens the feasibil­ ity of a proposed ONA service, Ameritech must take all appropriate steps to permit the service to be offered in an alternative form that is satisfactory to its customers. The evidence that Ameritech has submitted does not convince us that Ameritech has taken those steps in this case. While Ameritech claims that it is working to accom­ modate the alarm industry, the AICC voices dissatisfaction with Ameritech's actions. Given that it is Ameritech that is seeking a waiver, it is Ameritech that has the burden of introducing sufficient evidence to show us that it is doing enough to accommodate the alarm industry. So far it has failed to do so. Bell Atlantic 10. Bell Atlantic requests a waiver for nine of its ser­ vices. and we grant six, at least partially, while denying the other three. First, we address Bell Atlantic's request to withdraw its Caller ID and Bulk Caller Line Identification (CALLING DIRECTORY NUMBER DELIVERY - VIA ICLID and BCLID) services. Bell Atlantic states that it cannot transmit the required calling party information to interexchange service providers because Common Chan­ nel Signaling (CCS) interconnection with those carriers is currently incomplete. In addition. Bell Atlantic observes that the FCC's Caller ID proceeding is likely to affect how Caller ID will be tariffed.14 11. With respect to the Caller ID proceeding, it is true that federal rules have not yet been adopted to govern the extent to which the information provided by this offering may be made available to end users or particular other parties. Nevertheless, we do not consider any potential resulting fluctuations in demand for the service to be a sufficient reason to permit the service to be withheld. We are more sympathetic to Bell Atlantic·s claim that these services cannot be fully implemented until CCS technol­ ogy is fully deployed. We agree with MCI that we should take into account the status of CCS implementation. w We will. therefore. permit Bell Atlantic to defer filing tariffs for these services until the deployment of CCS makes the offerings practical. 12. Bell Atlantic also requests permission not to tariff its Tandem Routing offering, arguing that the offerings would create a conflict with the Commission ·s current transport rules. 21 The current transport requirement pro­ hibits LECs from charging different rates for traffic routed through the tandem, and traffic not routed through the tandem. Thus, we agree with Bell Atlantic. NYNEX. US West. and MCI,22 that a special price for traffic routed through the tandem would be inconsistent with current 1 " Rules and Policies Regarding Calling Number Identification Service. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. CC Docket !Jl-281, 6 FCC Red 6752 ( 1991 ). 20 MCI Opp. at 7. 21 Bell Atlantic Waiver Pet. at 2. a MCI Opp. at 7. 23 Transport Rate Structure and Pricing. Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. CC Docket No. 91-213. 9 FCC Red 5341 (1991). 24 Bell Atlantic Waiver Pet. at 2. 25 MCI Opp. at 7. 813 transport rules. We therefore grant its waiver for this service, pending the outcome of the Transport proceeding. 23 13. Bell Atlantic also claims that tariffing its Alternate Traffic Routing (ALTERNATE ROUTING) BSE would be inconsistent with the current transport rules.24 al­ though NYNEX. Southwestern Bell, and US West have all filed tariffs to offer the service as a BSE. MCI supports Bell Atlantic on this request,25 but Bell Atlantic does not provide us with a clear explanation of why such a service would create a conflict with the Commission·s rules. We require a more detailed explanation of the perceived con­ flict before we would be willing to grant a waiver in this case. 14. Bell Atlantic also seeks to refrain from filing a generic rate for Statistical Multiplexer in the Central Of­ fice (STATISTICAL MULTIPLEXER). Bell Atlantic ar­ gues that customers require too many different variations of the service to make it practical to tariff a generic form of it. 26 No other BOC offers the service. and MCI states that if the service is available to individual customers, there is no need for a waiver.27 Under these circum­ stances. we will permit Bell Atlantic to refrain from filing a single generic rate, conditioned on our understanding that Bell Atlantic will offer the service on an individual case basis (ICB).28 15. Bell Atlantic offers a very different rationale for justifying the withholding of One Number Service (UNI­ FORM 7 DIGIT ACCESS NUMBER - REMOTE CALL FORWARDING). another service that no other BOC of­ fers. First. it argues that the NXX 890 is only available now in two states, and is unavailable for use in its other states. Moreover. Bell Atlantic argues that. even where it is available. this designated use would remove 10.000 numbers from the capacity of each area code (NPA). as contrasted to a proposed Advanced Intelligent Network (AIN) service. which will permit seven-digit number translation. Hence, Bell Atlantic states that it is phasing out this service in the two states where it is now available. Given Bell Atlantic's explanation and the lack of any specific opposition. we grant this waiver request. 16. Bell Atlantic asks to withdraw both Direct Inward Dialing Service (CALLED DIRECTORY NUMBER DE­ LIVERY VIA DID) and DID Trunk Queuing because, it claims. it cannot measure the usage of these services. 29 The American Newspaper Publishers Association (ANPA) and MCI question the relevance of this rationale.30 BellSouth offers the first service and US West proposes to offer both. We see no reason why Bell Atlantic should be unable to designate a billing surrogate for usage. There­ fore. we deny Bell Atlantic's request for a waiver with regard to these services. On the other hand. we approve Bell Atlantic·s unopposed waiver request regarding Call ~n Bell Atlantic Waiver Pet. at 7. ,- MCI Opp. at 7. ..!~ Once Bell Atlantic gains sufficient experience with this service to permit the development of averaged rates, it must file such rates. See Local Exchange Carriers' Individual Case Basis DS3 Service Offerings, CC Docket No. 88-136. Memorandum Opinion and Order, 4 FCC Red 8634. 8642 ( 1989). In the interim. Bell Atlantic should, nevertheless. offer this service in its tariff on an !CB basis. 24 Bell Atlantic Waiver Pet. at 4. .IO ANPA Opp. at 6; MCI Opp. at 6. DA 92-120 Federal Communications Commission Record 7 FCC Red No. 3 Detail Recording Reports, which Bell Atlantic claims is a detariffed billing and collection service, under the Com­ mission's Billing and Collection Order, discussed above. 31 MCI argues that BellSouth has failed to tariff two additional BSEs from its amended plans. MCI Opp. at h n.1-1, citing AT&T's Pet. for Suspension and Investigation. ONA Access Charge Tariff Filings, filed Nov. 26, [