NOTICES
Petition for Regional Implementation of Permanent Local Number Portability; Doc. No. P-00961103
[27 Pa.B. 2605] Public Meeting held
May 8, 1997Commissioners Present: John M. Quain, Chairperson; Robert K. Bloom, Vice Chairperson; John Hanger; David W. Rolka; Nora Mead Brownell
Order By the Commission:
By this Order, the Commission is establishing guidelines for local number portability. This matter is before the Commission because of a petition filed by MCI Telecommunications Corporation captioned ''Petition for Regional Implementation of Permanent Local Number Portability''. Briefly, number portability is the ability of telecommunication customers to retain, at the same location, their existing telephone numbers (without any decline in quality, reliability or convenience) when they switch from one telecommunication carrier to another. 47 U.S.C. § 153(a)(46). This terminology is known in the industry as ''service provider portability''. True ''geographic'' number portability (that is, the ability of a customer to retain a telephone number while moving throughout the country) is beyond the scope of this Order.
In response to this petition, on January 7, 1997, the Commission entered an order which established a Task Force to make initial recommendation on matters relating to local number portability (LNP). We note that the FCC requires the implementation of permanent LNP in the Philadelphia Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) by March 31, 1998, and in the Pittsburgh MSA by June 30, 1998. First Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration (First Reconsideration Order) CC Docket No. 95-116, FCC 97-74 (released March 11, 1997) clarifying In the Matter of Telephone Number Portability, First Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, (LNP Order) CC Docket No. 95-116, FCC 96-286 (released July 2, 1996). LNP implementation is also required in other Pennsylvania MSAs at future dates.
By Secretarial letter dated January 7, 1997, the Commission notified the telecommunications industry of the establishment of this Task Force and invited all interested parties to present their positions on various LNP issues. This Task Force was also charged to examine intraLATA presubscription/dialing parity issues, which will be addressed in another Commission order at the Docket Nos. P-00961103 and I-00940034. Task Force meetings were held on January 17, February 5 and March 14 of 1997. These meetings were attended by representatives of telecommunication interexchange carriers (IXCs), incumbent and competitive local exchange carriers (ILECs and CLECs), the OCA, the Pennsylvania Telephone Association (PTA) and Commission staff.
During these meetings, the Task Force members discussed various LNP matters in an attempt to reach a consensus on technical and policy issues. To better analyze the various industry positions, and because the industry was unable to reach total consensus, Commission staff requested that industry representatives draft a report (IXC report) on the various LNP issues. In addition, the PTA drafted a dissenting paper on these issues. The following is a summary of the party positions and the Commission's decision on those addressed LNP issues. However, we will continue to monitor all ongoing governmental and industry LNP implementation activities which are related to these and other issues.
Scope of LNP Implementation
On this issue, all Task Force Members assert that the Commission should implement LNP on a regional basis, rather than on a Pennsylvania-only basis. The Commission agrees with the Task Force members on this issue. The FCC's LNP Order recommended the creation of regional databases for the administration of LNP, and regional databases are the most economical and efficient option for Pennsylvania telecommunications carriers and their customers. The fixed costs of the database services would be spread across a larger customer base, and the regional method eliminates duplication of fixed database costs for the individual states. Regional databases will also allow individual carriers to avoid the deployment of multiple number portability databases over various geographic areas.
Choice of Regional LNP Administrator
The FCC's LNP Order directed the North American Numbering Counsel (NANC) to select independent, non-governmental entities to serve as LNP administrators (LNPAs). NANC has until May 1, 1997, to select LNPAs to administer the regional databases (47 C.F.R. § 52.25(c)), and has not yet acted. However, extensive efforts to implement LNP are already underway by the Mid-Atlantic Carrier Acquisition Company (MCAC), a limited liability corporation originally formed in Maryland in 1995 to address regional LNP issues. Task Force members disagree on the actual authority of MCAC to contract for and supervise a neutral LNPA, when MCAC has no official recognition or approval from NANC.
To comply with the FCC's LNP Order, an LNPA must:
A. select the network architecture to be used;
B. prepare a Request for Proposal (RFP) for the creation of an LNP database and distribute the RFP to vendors;
C. review the submitted bid proposals; and
D. select the vendor who must then test and perfect the database system.
All parties agree that MCAC has already performed many actions to develop permanent LNP for the Mid-Atlantic region. The IXCs note that MCAC has already completed the above steps A through C, and has selected a vendor. This industry faction wants the Commission to mandate that Pennsylvania LECs either join or become participants with MCAC to implement LNP in an efficient manner. They note that NANC has not completed any of the above steps to procure the LNPA. These Task Force members also aver that it is likely that NANC will approve MCAC as the proper entity to procure the LNPA, and that the FCC's implementation deadline provides NANC with insufficient time to establish a different approach to LNP implementation.
In contrast, the PTA notes that MCAC is not yet recognized by the FCC or NANC to perform the tasks to procure an LNPA. PTA wants the Commission to mandate that telecommunication providers only use a regional LNP database and LNPA which are approved by NANC.
We recognize that MCAC has not yet received official authorization from NANC to procure a regional LNPA. There is the risk that MCAC will never receive this authorization. However, as the deadlines for LNP implementation approach, the Commission cannot continue to wait for NANC to act. It would be an inefficient use of time and resources to duplicate MCAC's efforts at this point. If NANC were to select a different entity to establish or procure an LNPA, this new entity could ''build'' upon MCAC's accomplishments. Therefore, we will continue to work with MCAC to further the goals of LNP, and we direct Pennsylvania LECs to work similarly with MCAC. We do not mandate that LECs must contractually join MCAC, only that they participate in MCAC's efforts.
On a related matter, PTA also asserts that LECs should be permitted either to enter into direct service contracts with the ultimate database provider or subcontract with a Commonwealth service provider who has a direct service contract with the database provider. However, the IXCs note that this situation could allow for the misuse or unauthorized resale of the database information.
We agree with PTA on this point. The contract already in place between MCAC and the database vendor allows telecommunications companies (telcoms) to contract directly with the vendor, but at the same contract price that MCAC has with the vendor. At this time, we do not believe that any telcom which directly contracts with the database vendor would receive any competitive advantage over telcoms who deal through MCAC for database access. However, an aggrieved party always has the ability to come before the Commission to complain about access or competitive difficulties.
In response to security concerns, we believe that adequate protections can be incorporated in the database system to prevent the unauthorized access and use of the information. For example, telcoms can contract with an appropriate third-party entity to guard the database so that telcoms can only access their own information.
Implementation Methodology
The Task Force members have examined the issue of implementation methodology, and all members agree that the Location Routing Number (LRN) architecture should be used to establish LNP. (LRN is a method that routes calls to a centralized database containing information on ported telephone numbers). Additionally, the FCC appears to have adopted the LRN method in its First Reconsideration Order (Paragraphs 46 and 47). We agree with the parties, and will direct that telcoms use LRN methodology to establish LPN.
Looking to another implementation issue, PTA requests that the Commission allow telecommunications carriers to accomplish permanent LNP through the use of existing direct call routing techniques, or by contracting with another service provider to tandem switch ported number calls directly to the ported number's serving switch. PTA avers that this procedure would allow cost effective permanent LNP in rural areas for those carriers without Signaling System 7 (SS7) and permanent LNP capabilities. The IXCs agree that carriers without SS7 capability should be permitted to contract with other carriers to obtain this capability.
We will allow carriers without SS7 capability to contract with other carriers to obtain this technology. Additionally, we will allow the use of existing direct call routing for permanent LNP. This is not an interim method to provide LNP. Rather, this is an efficient method for smaller telcoms to provide LNP, and is a proven method currently in use to provide 800 service.
Cost Recovery
Turning to the issue of cost recovery, all parties note that the FCC has not yet issued a final cost recovery methodology for the expense of LNP deployment. In its LNP Order, the FCC described various recovery methods but failed to decide on any particular approach. The FCC is expected to issue comprehensive guidance on this recovery matter in mid 1997.
All parties assert that the Commission need not consider any cost recovery issues until the FCC acts on this matter. The PTA asserts that it is ''premature'' for carriers to track these implementation costs. In contrast, the IXCs assert that the Commission should require incumbent LECs to track their LNP deployment costs in preparation for ultimate FCC action on this matter. We believe that this is a logical suggestion. Although we presently do not mandate any specific tracking mechanism, we hereby direct LECs to track their LNP implementation costs to ensure the availability of this information in the future.
Rural Carriers Switches and MSAs
The PTA also discussed the issue of rural service area carriers who have limited subscriber lines in one of the 100 Metropolitan Service Areas (MSAs) in which LNP is mandated. PTA asserts that if these carriers otherwise fit within the rural exemption for permanent LNP deployment, then these carriers should be granted an exception from the requirements of LNP implementation. The FCC has acted on this matter, requiring that LECs only need to provide number portability (within the 100 largest MSAs) in those switches for which a competing carrier has made a specific request for LNP. First Reconsideration Order, paragraph 60.
Subsequent to the FCC's First Reconsideration Order, on March 24, 1997, PTA filed additional comments regarding this Commission's role in evaluating specific LNP requests for particular switches. These comments were well reasoned and were not challenged by the other Task Force members. However, these comments request that the Commission undertake particular actions (relating to LNP implementation) which are more properly addressed in the context of specific LNP requests or disputes. While we will not discuss the specific actions requested by PTA at this time, we will follow the FCC's mandate that within the 100 largest MSAs, LECs only need to provide LNP on those switches which another carrier has specifically requested the provision of number portability.
E911/911 Issues
The Commission, as well as all involved parties, recognize the importance of maintaining an effective E911/911 system in conjunction with LNP. Task Force members note that industry standards are under current development at both the National and regional level. These standards will require timely notification of all ported number activity and accurate (and secure) record keeping by carriers. The members ask that the Commission implement the 911 industry standards once these standards are finalized by the industry, the Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials and the National Emergency Number Association.
The Mid-Atlantic LNP Regional Operations Team, a consortium of industry and government representatives (including representatives from this Commission), has held regular meetings to address E911/911 issues. Important issues are the concern that additional service providers will negatively impact database integrity, the ability of 911 operators to handle the increased work activity caused by LNP, the potential that increased 911 trunk traffic will overload 911 trunks, and the need for law enforcement personnel to quickly identify the service providers of individuals.
We will continue to monitor the development of E911/911 industry standards and the resolution of issues, and we will implement these standards as soon as practicable; Therefore,
It Is Ordered That:
1. Jurisdictional telecommunications companies implement LNP on a regional basis.
2. LECs operating in this Commonwealth cooperate with MCAC as appropriate to further the goals of LNP.
3. Telecommunications carriers without Signaling System 7 (SS7) capability may contract with other carriers to access this technology.
5. Telecommunications companies operating in this Commonwealth use Location Routing Number architecture to establish LNP.
4. Telecommunications carriers without SS7 capability may use existing direct call routing techniques to provide permanent LNP.
6. LECs operating in this Commonwealth track LNP implementation costs.
7. LECs operating in this Commonwealth only need to provide number portability, within the 100 largest MSAs, in those switches for which a competing carrier has made a specific request for LNP.
8. This order shall be served upon all Task Force Members.
9. A copy of this Order shall be forwarded to the Pennsylvania Bulletin for publication.
JOHN G. ALFORD,
Secretary
[Pa.B. Doc. No. 97-859. Filed for public inspection May 23, 1997, 9:00 a.m.]
No part of the information on this site may be reproduced for profit or sold for profit.This material has been drawn directly from the official Pennsylvania Bulletin full text database. Due to the limitations of HTML or differences in display capabilities of different browsers, this version may differ slightly from the official printed version.
