Local Number Portability Workshop

1
Local Number PortabilityWorkshop

• Convention Center
• San Diego, CA
• February 23, 2004

2
Local Number PortabilityWorkshop

• Michael K. Kurtis
• Bennet Bennet, PLLC
• Jeffrey Smith
• OPASTCO
• San Diego, CA
• February 23, 2004

3
Introduction

• Deadlines and Obligations
• Confusion and Finger Pointing
• Wireless-to-Wireless Porting Order
• Wireline-to-Wireless Porting Order
• Challenges to FCC Porting Orders
• Additional Issues

4
Glossary

• Bona Fide Request (BFR)
• Local Exchange Routing Guide (LERG)
• Location Routing Number (LRN)
• Local Service Request (LSR)
• Wireless Port Request (WPR)
• Number Portability Administration Center (NPAC)
• Old Service Provider (OSP), also donor carrier
• New Service Provider (NSP), also recipient carrier

5
Deadlines -- CMRS Carriers

• Inside Top 100 MSAs
• November 24, 2003 if received a request by Feb
  24, 2003
• Additional switches in 30-180 days depending on
  upgrade
• Outside Top 100 MSAs
• Later of May 24, 2004 or
• Six months after receiving a request
• Top 100 MSAs keep changing -- your RSA may be in
  a top 100 MSA.

6
Deadlines -- CMRS Carriers

• All CMRS carriers must support roamers with
  pooled or ported numbers.
• Disagreement over what this means

7
Deadlines -- Local Exchange Carriers

• Inside Top 100 MSAs
• Already implemented, or
• Within 30-180 days of receipt of a BFR depending
  on level of switch upgrade needed, or
• Two Percent Carriers who had not received a BFR
  for number portability from either a wireline
  carrier prior to May 24, 2003 or from a wireless
  carrier that has a point of interconnection or
  numbering resources in the rate center where the
  LECs numbers are provisioned have a stay until
  May 24, 2004 from complying with WLNP
  requirements.

8
Deadlines -- Local Exchange Carriers

• The FCC is seeking comment on a Petition filed by
  the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities seeking
  delegated authority to immediately implement
  wireless local number portability in four New
  Jersey counties located outside of the top 100
  Metropolitan Statistical Area
• Comments due February 24, 2004
• Reply comments due March 9, 2004

9
Deadlines -- Local Exchange Carriers

• Outside Top 100 MSAs
• Later of Six months after receiving a BFR or
• May 24, 2004 -- to port to wireless carriers that
  do not have a point of interconnection or
  numbering resources in the rate center where the
  customers wireline number is provisioned.

10
Deadlines Obligations

• What is a Bona Fide Request (BFR)?
• In its Fourth Report Order on Number
  Portability, the FCC said that a specific
  request must
• Request portability
• Identify the geographic area
• Give a Tentative date by which requesting carrier
  intends to port
• W-to-W, Need not be much more than than a wet
  napkin

11
Deadlines Obligations

• What is a Bona Fide Request (BFR)?
• Rural LECs/wireless have asserted that, bona
  fide requests must also
• Require local interconnection
• Require rate center overlap
• Wireless carrier must actually provide service
• To date, the FCC rejected these requirements as
  conditions for carriers requesting LNP.

12
Deadlines Obligations

• FCCs Intermodal Porting Order requires that the
  CMRS carrier provide coverage to the LEC rate
  center and limits porting of LEC numbers to
  within the same LATA.
• The BFR should confirm compliance with these
  obligations

13
Deadlines Obligations

• Some blanket requests (Sprint/Verizon?) may be
  too general to meet the FCCs specific request
  language!

14
Deadlines Obligations

• Porting triggers pooling obligations.
• All carriers are required to participate in
  pooling in accordance with the national rollout
  schedule, regardless of whether they are required
  to provide LNP.
• The FCC recognized however, that implementing
  pooling, without first implementing LNP, can be
  burdensome on rural and small carriers.
• The FCC issued specific exemptions as follows

15
Deadlines Obligations

• EXEMPTED FROM POOLING
• Rural telephone companies that have not received
  a request to provide LNP
• Tier III wireless carriers that have not received
  a request to deploy LNP
• Carriers operating in rate centers within the
  largest 100 MSAs, where they are the only service
  provider receiving numbering resources
• Once an exempted carrier has received a request
  to provide LNP, that carrier must participate in
  pooling where it is deployed.

16
Confusion and Finger Pointing

• CTIA Petitions
• Rate Center Petition (Intermodal Competition)
• LEC must port if wireless service overlaps rate
  center.
• SLA Only--No Interconnection or Local POP
  required.
• Implementation Petition
• Porting Interval
• Type 1 Numbers
• No local interconnection
• Roaming support

17
WLNP Porting Orders

• In response to these petitions, the FCC provided
  separate wireless-to-wireless and
  wireline-to-wireless guidance related to porting
  issues.
• October 7, 2003 -- Wireless-to-Wireless Porting
  Order released by FCC.
• November 10, 2003 -- Wireline-to-Wireless Porting
  Order released by FCC.

18
Wireless-to-Wireless Porting Order

• Ostensibly only addresses wireless-to-wireless.
• Wireless carrier may not impose restrictions on
  porting beyond necessary customer validation
  procedures.
• Cant delay port because of
• customer contract or
• early termination fee

19
Wireless-to-Wireless Porting Order

• Requesting carrier need not
• enter into an interconnection agreement with the
  donor carrier,
• directly interconnect with the donor carrier, nor
  
• maintain numbering resources in the same rate
  center
• Where carriers cant agree on terms, they must
  port without conditions.

20
Wireless-to-Wireless Porting Order

• May not refuse a request to provide WLNP on the
  basis of the lack of proximity of the requesting
  carriers switch to the porting out carriers
  switch.
• The requirements of our wireless LNP rules on
  wireless carriers do not vary depending on how
  calls to the number will be rated and routed
  after the port occurs.
• Rate centers not relevant to wireless carriers.

21
Wireless-to-Wireless Porting Order

• FCC forgot that half the calls to wireless
  numbers are landline-originated.
• Wireless-to-wireless raises same issues as
  landline-to-wireless.
• Order effectively mandates location portability.
• FCC did not deal with transport issue.

22
Wireline-to-Wireless Porting Order

• Addressed intermodal wireline-to-wireless porting
  issues.
• Intermodal porting was required where the
  requesting wireless carriers coverage area
  overlaps the geographic location in which the
  customers wireline number is provisioned, so
  long as the porting-in carrier maintains the
  numbers original rate center designation after
  the port.

23
Wireline-to-Wireless Porting Order

• Requesting carrier need not
• enter into an interconnection agreement with the
  donor carrier,
• directly interconnect with the donor carrier, nor
  
• maintain numbering resources in the same rate
  center
• Where carriers cant agree on terms, they must
  port without conditions

24
Wireline-to-Wireless Porting Order

• Wireline carriers may not require wireless
  carriers to enter into interconnection agreements
  as a precondition to porting between the
  carriers.
• Interconnection agreements for intermodal
  porting are not necessary for the protection of
  consumers.
• Declined to address legitimate LEC concerns
  related to the transport costs associated with
  the routing of numbers ported to wireless
  carriers located beyond the LECs service area.

25
Local Interconnection
Toll Network
T
RLEC
RMSC

• RSA

Rate Pt. And NXX Code
26
No Local Interconnection or Numbers
Toll
T
T
RLEC
Rating Pt. And NXX Code
LC MSC
RMSC

• RSA

Rating Pt. And NXX Code
MSA/MTA/BTA
27
No Local Interconnection or Numbers
Toll
T
T
RLEC
Number Ported
LC MSC
RMSC

• RSA

MSA/MTA/BTA
28
(No Transcript)
29
No Local Interconnection or Numbers

• What happens to a call to ported number?
• Several possibilities exist
• Dropped call(FCC says No)
• Call interruptYou must first dial a 1 (FCC
  says No)
• Routed to pre-subscribed IXC--Customer gets a
  surprise toll bill (FCC says No)
• Rural carrier eats the transport costs

30
No Local Interconnection or Numbers

• Impact of porting with no local interconnection
  or numbers is
• Massive customer confusion, or
• Subsidy from rural CMRS and LECs to save
  construction costs for large carriers rural
  subscribers who dont port end up paying for
  those who do!

31
One-way Porting

• One-Way Porting
• Rural carrier must port but not large carrier

Urban Rate Center Pt.
Rural Rate Center Pt.
RSA
MSA
MTA/BTA
32
Challenges to FCC Porting Orders

• Four independent telephone companies are
  challenging the Wireless-to-Wireless Porting
  Order in the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit
  (DC Circuit).
• OPASTCO and NTCA are challenging the
  Wireline-to-Wireless Porting Order in the DC
  Circuit.
• CenturyTel/USTA are also challenging the
  Wireline-to-Wireless Porting Order in the DC
  Circuit, but for different reasons.
• Six independent LECs also challenge
  Wireline-Wireless Order

33
Response to FCC Porting Orders

• Wireless-to-Wireless Porting Order challenge
• Wireless Order raises same issues as the
  Intermodal Order
• Rural LECs must transport local traffic outside
  of their service areas without mechanism for
  recovering cost
• Requiring Wireless-Wireless porting with NO
  geographic limitation amounts to location
  portability
• FCC arbitrarily failed to address transport and
  intercarrier compensation
• Porting Orders may amount to a taking

34
Response to FCC Porting Orders

• OPASTCO and NTCA Wireline-to-Wireless Porting
  Order challenge
• Commission failed to comply with the Regulatory
  Flexibility Act (RFA) before imposing the
  wireline-to-wireless number portability
  requirements. The RFA requires that, prior to
  enacting any new regulatory requirements,
  government agencies must conduct a proceeding to
  consider the impact that the proposed rules would
  have on small businesses.

35
Response to FCC Porting Orders

• OPASTCO and NTCA Wireline-to-Wireless Porting
  Order challenge
• Federal Small Business Administration (SBA) is
  preparing to file an amicus curiae (friend of the
  court) brief with the D.C. Circuit in support of
  the OPASTCO and NTCA.
• Hearing dates for the case have yet to be
  determined.

36
Response to FCC Porting Orders

• CenturyTel/USTA Wireline-to-Wireless Porting
  Order challenge
• FCC failed to comply with the Administrative
  Procedure Act (APA) before imposing the
  wireline-to-wireless number portability
  requirements. The APA requires that, prior to
  enacting any new regulatory requirements,
  government agencies must conduct a notice and
  comment cycle.
• Intermodal porting, as adopted, is
  anti-competitive and discriminates against
  wireline carriers.

37
Additional Issues

• Porting Interval
• Type 1 interconnection
• Query responsibility
• E911
• Cost recovery

38
Porting Interval

• Wireless-to-Wireless Porting Order
• Strongly encouraged carriers to complete simple
  ports within a 2 1/2 hour porting interval.
• 2 ½ hrs is a feasible industry standard
• Indicated that taking longer than that time may
  be unreasonable under the Act.

39
Porting Interval

• Wireline-to-Wireless Porting Order
• FCC asked whether LEC 4-day porting interval
  should be shortened.
• Most commenters said no because
• Of the few rural carriers that have already
  become LNP-capable, most do not currently possess
  customized, automated LNP support systems, due to
  the small amount of LNP activity they get.
• Rural carriers dont have large staff to support
  porting 24 x 7 x 365.
• Additional investment needed to complete
  relatively few ports in a shorted time frame
  could create a severe economic hardship for rural
  carriers and the customers they serve.

40
RWWG WLNP Guidelines

• Rural Wireless Working Group (RWWG)
• NTCA
• OPASTCO
• Rural Telecommunications Group
• Bennet Bennet, PLLC
• Kurtis Associates, P.C.
• Blooston, Mordkofsky, Dickens, Duffy and
  Prendergast

41
Porting Interval

• RWWG Guidelines
• Porting requests will be processed during
  standard business days and hours of operation
  (exclude weekends and holidays)
• LSR or WPR received after 300 pm next day
• ICP response is 8 hours
• 3 days to complete port

42
Porting Interval (Number Portability
Administration Center Service Management System)

• Neustar NPAC/SMS User Registration Connectivity
  Profiles contain the following carrier operating
  choices and should be completed by rural wireless
  carriers as shown below to maintain LEC porting
  interval flags in the NPAC/SMS and as adopted
  in the RWWG WLNP Guidelines
• This Company will operate as a
• ? Wireline (Rural Wireless Carrier)
• ? Mobile / Wireless
• ? Other

43
Type 1 Interconnection

• Wireless-to-Wireless Porting Order
• Took no action regarding porting of Type 1
  wireless numbers
• Found that carriers are migrating Type 1 to Type
  2 or are otherwise developing solutions to port
  Type 1 numbers
• BellSouth will be migrating or Porting numbers to
  wireless carriers
• Watch out for per number charge for porting a
  block

44
Type 1 Interconnection

• Arguably, must port Type 1 numbers as any number
• Requires migration, or LEC cooperation in porting
  process
• LECs may not charge for blocks of numbers

45
Query responsibility

• N minus 1 (N-1) carrier must query
• Can arrange with LEC to perform query
• Can default-route to LEC
• LEC can bill back query service charge
• LEC can block traffic if impacts network
  reliability

46
Default-Routed traffic

• Century argues that LEC should be able to
  default-route call to OSP

47
Default-Routed traffic?
Toll
T
T
RLEC
Number Ported
LC MSC
RMSC

• RSA

MSA/MTA/BTA
48
Default-Routed traffic?

• Makes no sense
• Can wireless OSP query and route inbound traffic?
• Wireless OSP incurs query and transit/transport
  charges
• Can OSP bill-back to originating LEC?
• Can OSP block the traffic?

49
Impact on E911

• Mixed service period
• May not be able to deliver call-back number
• Muleta letter
• FCC rules recognize this
• Porting interval should be shortened
• But, what about impact on 911 database

50
Cost Recovery -- CMRS

• Carriers not subject to rate-of-return or price
  cap regulation
• Any lawful manner consistent with Act.
• Some carriers running afoul of consumer
  protection laws.

51
Cost Recovery -- ILECs

• ILECs recover through
• Monthly end-user (EU) charge(s) and
• Query Service Charge

52
Cost Recovery--ILECs

• ILECs
• May not recover from other carriers through
  interconnection or resale.
• CMRS carriers are co-carriers.
• May not recover through access charges.
• Rural LECs that do not provide LNP, but that
  provide service under EAS may recover N-1 query
  and admin expenses from end users.
• LECs may incur costs even if not porting out
  numbers.

53
Local Number Portability

• Questions
• Michael K. Kurtis
• Bennet Bennet, PLLC
• Jeffrey Smith
• OPASTCO