[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 144 (Thursday, July 25, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 38605-38642]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-18477]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 20 and 52
[CC Docket No. 95-116; FCC 96-286]
Telephone Number Portability
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On June 13, 1995, The Commission adopted a notice of proposed
rulemaking (CC Docket No. 95-116) regarding telephone number
portability . The First Report and Order released July 2, 1996,
promulgates rules and regulations implementing the statutory
requirement that local exchange carriers (LECs) provide number
portability as set forth in section 251 of the Telecommunications Act
of 1996 (1996 Act). The Report and Order mandates the implementation of
number portability by LECs, consistent with the procompetitive goals of
the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Concurrently with the adoption of
the Report and Order, the Commission adopted a Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking which is published elsewhere in this issue.
EFFECTIVE DATE: August 26, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jason Karp, Attorney, Common Carrier
Bureau, Policy and Program Planning Division, (202) 418-1517, or Mindy
Littell, Attorney, Common Carrier Bureau, Policy and Program Planning
Division, (202) 418-1394. For additional information concerning the
information collections contained in this Report and Order contact
Dorothy Conway at 202-418-0217, or via the Internet at dconway@fcc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's First
Report and Order adopted June 27, 1996, and released July 2, 1996. The
full text of this First Report and Order is available for inspection
and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center
(Room 239), 1919 M St., NW., Washington, DC. The complete text also may
be obtained through the World Wide Web, at http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/
Common Carrier/Orders/fcc96286.wp, or may be purchased from the
Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Service,
Inc., (202) 857-3800, 2100 M St., NW., Suite 140, Washington, DC 20037.
Pursuant to Section 251, the Report and Order establishes performance
criteria for acceptable long-term number portability methods and
requires all LECs to begin deploying number portability in the 100
largest Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) no later than October 1,
1997, and to complete deployment in those MSAs by December 31, 1998, in
accordance with a phased schedule. Number portability must be provided
in these areas by all LECs to all telecommunications carriers,
including commercial mobile radio services (CMRS) providers. In
addition, pursuant to the Commission's independent authority under
sections 1, 2, 4(i) and 332 of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, the Report and Order requires all cellular, broadband personal
communications services (PCS) and covered Specialized Mobile Radio
(SMR) service providers to be able to deliver calls from their networks
to ported numbers anywhere in the country by December 31, 1998, and
requires cellular, broadband PCS and covered SMR customers to be able
to move their own numbers to other carriers by June 30, 1999. In the
Report and Order, the Commission delegates responsibility to the North
American Numbering Council (NANC) to oversee the initial administration
of the system of regional databases which will be used by carriers to
provide number portability. Pursuant to the 1996 Act, the Commission
also requires LECs to provide currently available number portability
measures upon specific request from another carrier until long-term
number portability is available. However, the Report and Order
concludes that CMRS providers need not provide such measures due to
technical considerations specific to the CMRS industry. In addition,
consistent with section 251(e)(2) of the Telecommunications Act of
1996, the Report and Order sets forth principles that ensure that the
costs of currently available measures are borne by all
telecommunications carriers on a competitively neutral basis, and
permits states to utilize various cost recovery mechanisms, so long as
they are
[[Page 38606]]
consistent with these statutory requirements.
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis:
As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the Report and Order
contains a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis which is set forth in
Appendix C to the Report and Order. A brief description of the analysis
follows.
The rules adopted in this Report and Order are necessary to
implement the provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996
requiring LECs to offer number portability, if technically feasible.
Although there were no comments submitted in response to the
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis set forth in the Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, the general comments of Chief Counsel for Advocacy
of the United States Small Business Administration (SBA) generally
supported the actions of the Commission in the Report and Order.
However, in their general comments filed prior to the passage of the
1996 Act, some LECs suggested that the Commission should neither adopt,
nor direct the adoption of, number portability without performing a
thorough cost/benefit analysis--a course of action which may result in
less of an impact on small entities. However, after passage of the 1996
Act, most parties agreed that the 1996 Act clearly directs the
Commission to implement long-term number portability.
The statutory meaning of the term ``small business'' is one which
(1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its
field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria
established by the Small Business Administration (SBA). According to
SBA's regulations, entities engaged in the provision of telephone
service may have a maximum of 1,500 employees in order to qualify as a
small business concern. 13 CFR 121.201. This standard also applies in
determining whether an entity is a small business for purposes of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The rules adopted by the Commission governing long-term number
portability apply to all LECs, including incumbent LECs as well as new
LEC entrants, and also apply to cellular, broadband PCS, and covered
SMR providers. According to the SBA definition, incumbent LECs do not
qualify as small businesses because they are dominant in their field of
operation. However, the rules may have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small businesses insofar as they apply to
telecommunications carriers other than incumbent LECs, such as new
entrant LECs, as well as cellular, broadband PCS, and covered SMR
providers. Based upon data contained in the most recent census and a
report by the Commission's Common Carrier Bureau, the Commission
estimated that 2,100 carriers could be affected. This estimate was
derived based on an analysis using census data on the number of firms
with fewer than 1,000 employees and subtracting the number of incumbent
LECs (as established by an FCC report). For a detailed analysis, see
Appendix C of the Report and Order.
There are several reporting requirements imposed by the Report and
Order which will likely require the services of persons with technical
expertise to prepare the reports. First, carriers participating in a
field test in the Chicago, Illinois, area are required to file with the
Commission a report of their findings within 30 days after completion
of the test. Second, after December 31, 1998, long-term number
portability must be provided by LECs outside of the 100 largest MSAs
within six months after a specific request by another
telecommunications carrier in which the requesting carrier is operating
or plans to operate. The specific request must contain certain
information. Third, state regulatory commissions must file with the
Commission a notification if they opt to develop a state-specific
database in lieu of participating in a regional database system.
Carriers that object to a state decision to opt out of the regional
database system may file with the Commission a petition for relief.
Fourth, the item requires any administrator selected by a state prior
to the release of the Report and Order, that wishes to bid for
administration of one of the regional databases, must submit a new
proposal in accordance with the guidelines established by the NANC.
Fifth, the Report and Order requires carriers that are unable to meet
the deadlines for implementing a long-term number portability solution
to file with the Commission at least 60 days in advance of the deadline
a petition to extend the time by which implementation in its network
will be completed. Finally, we require an industry body known as the
Industry Numbering Committee (INC) to file a report with the Commission
on the portability of non-geographic numbers assigned to LECs within 12
months after the effective date of the Report and Order.
The Commission's actions in this Report and Order will benefit
small entities by facilitating their entry into the local exchange
market. The record in this proceeding indicates that the lack of number
portability would deter entry by competitive providers of local service
because of the value customers place on retaining their telephone
numbers. These competitive providers, many of which may be small
entities, may find it easier to enter the market as a result of number
portability which will eliminate this barrier to entry.
In general, the Commission has attempted to keep burdens on local
exchange carriers to a minimum. For example, the phased deployment
schedule requires long-term number portability to be implemented
initially in the 100 largest MSAs, and then elsewhere upon a carrier's
request. The provision of currently available measures is conditioned
upon request only. In addition, the Commission has attempted to
minimize the impact of our rules upon cellular, broadband PCS, and
covered SMR providers, which may be small businesses, by not requiring
such carriers to offer currently available number portability measures.
Similarly, paging and messaging service providers, which may be small
entities, are required to provide neither currently available measures
nor long-term number portability under our rules. The regulatory
burdens imposed are necessary to ensure that the public receives the
benefit of the expeditious provision of service provider number
portability in accordance with the statutory requirements.
Paperwork Reduction Act
Public reporting burden for the collections of information is
estimated as follows:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated
number of
respondents
Information collections Estimated avg. hours per response (all are one-
time only
responses)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Field test report........................... 20 hours per respondent (joint response).......... 11
[[Page 38607]]
Requests for long-term number portability in 3 hours........................................... 80
areas outside the 100 largest MSAs.
State notification of intention to ``opt 3 hours........................................... 5
out'' of regional database system.
Carrier petitions challenging state decision 10 hours.......................................... 2
to ``opt out'' of regional database system.
Proposal to administer database(s).......... 160 hours......................................... 1
Petitions to extend implementation deadline. 10 hours.......................................... 8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Annual Burden: 735 hours.
Frequency of Response: All collections of information require one-
time only responses.
These estimates include the time for reviewing instructions,
searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data
needed, and completing and reviewing the collections of information.
Send comments regarding these burden estimates or any other aspects of
the collections of information, including suggestions for reducing the
burden, to the Federal Communications Commission, Records Management
Branch, Room 234, Paperwork Reduction Project, Washington, DC 20554 and
to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project,
Washington, DC 20503.
Synopsis of First Report and Order
I. Introduction
1. We initiated this proceeding on July 13, 1995, when we adopted a
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeking comment on a wide variety of
policy and technical issues related to telephone number portability (60
FR 39136 (August 1, 1995)). Since our adoption of the NPRM, the
Telecommunications Act of 1996 became law. Section 251, added by the
1996 Act, requires all local exchange carriers (LECs), both incumbents
and new entrants, to offer number portability in accordance with
requirements prescribed by the Commission. On March 14, 1996, the
Common Carrier Bureau released a Public Notice seeking comment on how
the passage of the 1996 Act may have affected the issues raised in the
NPRM (61 FR 11174 (March 19, 1996)). Comments in response to the Public
Notice were received on March 29, 1996, and reply comments were filed
on April 5, 1996. In addition, efforts to implement number portability
at the state level have progressed since adoption of the NPRM.
2. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 establishes ``a pro-
competitive, de-regulatory national policy framework'' that is intended
to ``promote competition and reduce regulation * * * to secure lower
prices and higher quality services for American telecommunications
consumers and encourage the rapid deployment of new telecommunications
technologies.'' The statute imposes obligations and responsibilities on
telecommunications carriers, particularly incumbent local exchange
carriers, that are designed to open monopoly telecommunications markets
to competitive entry and to promote competition in markets that already
are open to new competitors. In particular, section 251(b) imposes
specific obligations on all local exchange carriers to open their
networks to competitors. The Act envisions that removing legal and
regulatory barriers to entry and reducing economic impediments to entry
will enable competitors to enter markets freely, encourage
technological development, and ensure that a firm's prowess in
satisfying consumer demand will determine its success or failure in the
marketplace. In implementing the statute, the Commission has the
responsibility to adopt the rules that will implement most quickly and
effectively the national telecommunications policy embodied in the 1996
Act. Number portability is one of the obligations that Congress imposed
on all local exchange carriers, both incumbents and new entrants, in
order to promote the pro-competitive, deregulatory markets it
envisioned. Congress has recognized that number portability will lower
barriers to entry and promote competition in the local exchange
marketplace. In its report, the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation concluded that the ``minimum requirements [for
interconnection set forth in new section 251(b), including number
portability,] are necessary for opening the local exchange market to
competition.'' Likewise, the House of Representatives Committee on
Commerce determined that ``the ability to change service providers is
only meaningful if a customer can retain his or her local telephone
number.''
3. In this Order, we promulgate rules and regulations implementing
this congressional directive. Although we decline to choose a
particular technology for providing number portability, we establish in
this Report and Order performance criteria that any long-term number
portability method selected by a LEC must meet. Pursuant to the
statutory requirement in section 251 to provide number portability, we
require all LECs to begin to implement a long-term service provider
portability solution that meets our performance criteria in the 100
largest Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) no later than October 1,
1997, and to complete deployment in those MSAs by December 31, 1998, in
accordance with a phased schedule set forth below. Number portability
must be provided in these areas by all LECs to all telecommunications
carriers, including commercial mobile radio services (CMRS) providers.
4. The statute explicitly excludes CMRS providers from the
definition of local exchange carriers, and therefore from the section
251(b) obligations to provide number portability, unless the Commission
concludes that they should be included in the definition of local
exchange carrier. Our recent Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on
interconnection issues raised by the 1996 Act sought comment generally
on whether, and to what extent, CMRS providers should be classified as
LECs. Because we conclude that we have independent authority under
sections 1, 2, 4(i), and 332 of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, to require cellular providers, broadband personal
communications services (PCS), and covered Specialized Mobile Radio
(SMR) providers to provide long-term service provider portability, we
need not decide here whether CMRS providers must provide number
portability as local exchange carriers under section 251(b). We require
all cellular, broadband PCS, and covered SMR providers to have the
capability of delivering calls from their networks to
[[Page 38608]]
ported numbers anywhere in the country by December 31, 1998, and to
offer service provider portability, including the ability to support
roaming, throughout their networks by June 30, 1999.
5. We conclude that a system of regional databases that are managed
by an independent administrator will serve the public interest. We
direct the North American Numbering Council (NANC) to provide initial
oversight of this regional database system. We direct the NANC to
determine the number and location of the regional databases and to
select one or more administrators responsible for deploying the
database system. Any state that prefers to develop its own statewide
database rather than participate in a regionally-deployed database,
however, may opt out of its designated regional database and implement
a state-specific database. We will retain authority to override a
state's decision to develop a statewide database if an affected carrier
can demonstrate that the state's proposal would significantly delay
deployment of a long-term method or impose unreasonable costs on
affected carriers.
6. Until long-term service provider portability is available, we
require LECs to provide currently available number portability
measures, such as Remote Call Forwarding (RCF) and Direct Inward
Dialing (DID), upon specific request from another carrier. We conclude,
however, that commercial mobile radio service providers need not
provide such measures due to technical considerations specific to the
CMRS industry. We enunciate principles that ensure that the costs of
currently available measures are borne by all telecommunications
carriers on a competitively neutral basis, and we conclude that states
may utilize various cost recovery mechanisms, so long as they are
consistent with these statutory requirements. We decline at this time
to require the provision of either service or location portability. We
conclude that, while the statute requires LECs to implement 500 and 900
number portability, there is insufficient record evidence to determine
whether LEC provision of portability for 500 and 900 numbers is
technically feasible. As a result, we refer the issue to the Industry
Numbering Committee (INC), which must report its findings to the
Commission within 12 months of the effective date of this Order.
Finally, we adopt a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking regarding
cost recovery for long-term number portability.
II. Background
A. Telecommunications Act of 1996
7. New section 251(b)(2) of the Communications Act of 1934, as
added by the 1996 Act, directs each local exchange carrier ``to
provide, to the extent technically feasible, number portability in
accordance with requirements prescribed by the Commission.'' The 1996
Act defines the term ``local exchange carrier'' as:
any person that is engaged in the provision of telephone exchange
service or exchange access. Such term does not include a [commercial
mobile service provider,] as defined under section 332(c), except to
the extent that the Commission finds that such provider should be
included in the definition of such term.
The 1996 Act defines ``number portability'' as ``the ability of
users of telecommunications services to retain, at the same location,
existing telecommunications numbers without impairment of quality,
reliability, or convenience when switching from one telecommunications
carrier to another.''
8. The 1996 Act defines the term ``telecommunications carrier'' as
``any provider of telecommunications services, except that such term
does not include aggregators of telecommunications services (as defined
in section 226).'' The term ``telecommunications service'' is defined
by the 1996 Act as ``the offering of telecommunications for a fee
directly to the public, or to such classes of users as to be
effectively available directly to the public, regardless of the
facilities used.'' Because the 1996 Act's definition of number
portability requires LECs to provide number portability when customers
switch from any telecommunications carrier to any other, the statutory
obligation of LECs to provide number portability runs to other
telecommunications carriers. Because CMRS falls within the statutory
definition of telecommunications service, CMRS carriers are
telecommunications carriers under the 1996 Act. As a result, LECs are
obligated under the statute to provide number portability to customers
seeking to switch to CMRS carriers.
9. In addition to the duties imposed by section 251(b) on all LECs,
section 251(c)(1) imposes upon incumbent LECs, inter alia, the ``duty
to negotiate in good faith * * * the terms and conditions of agreements
to fulfill'' the section 251(b) obligations, including the duty to
provide number portability. An incumbent LEC is defined as a carrier
that was providing exchange access service in a particular area on
February 8, 1996, and was a member of the National Exchange Carrier
Association (NECA) pursuant to Sec. 69.601(b) of the Commission's
regulations. The 1996 Act creates an exemption from the obligations of
section 251(c) for rural telephone companies, and allows LECs with
fewer than two percent of the nation's subscriber lines to petition a
state commission for suspension or modification of the application of
sections 251(b) and (c).
10. Section 251(e)(1) reinforces the Commission's authority over
matters relating to the administration of numbering resources by giving
the Commission exclusive jurisdiction over those portions of the North
American Numbering Plan (NANP) that pertain to the United States. This
subsection also requires the Commission to ``create or designate one or
more impartial entities to administer telecommunications numbering and
to make such numbers available on an equitable basis.'' Moreover,
section 251(e)(2) provides that the cost of ``number portability shall
be borne by all telecommunications carriers on a competitively neutral
basis as determined by the Commission.''
11. Finally, new section 271(c)(2)(B) establishes a ``competitive
checklist'' of requirements that the Bell Operating Companies (BOCs)
must meet to provide in-region interLATA services. One of the
requirements that the BOCs must satisfy is the provision of ``interim
number portability through remote call forwarding, direct inward
dialing trunks, or other comparable arrangements, with as little
impairment of functioning, quality, reliability, and convenience as
possible'' until the Commission issues regulations pursuant to section
251 to implement the statute's number portability requirements. Section
271(c)(2)(B)(xi) directs the BOCs to comply fully with the regulations
implemented by the Commission.
B. Proposed Number Portability Methods
12. Because most telephone numbers within the NANP are associated
with a particular switch operated by a particular service provider,
they currently cannot be transferred outside the service area of a
particular switch or between switches operated by different service
providers without technical changes to the switch or network. Several
methods exist, or are being developed, to provide telephone number
portability. These methods generally consist of two types: database and
non-database methods.
[[Page 38609]]
1. Database Methods
13. Several industry participants have proposed methods for
providing service provider portability that use databases containing
the customer routing information necessary to route telephone calls to
the proper terminating locations. All these methods depend on
Intelligent Network (IN) or Advanced Intelligent Network (AIN)
capabilities. Before the release of our NPRM, AT&T proposed a Location
Routing Number (LRN) method to the Industry Numbering Committee (INC),
an industry body that provides an open forum to address and resolve
industry-wide issues associated with the non-policy-related planning,
administration, allocation, assignment, and use of numbering resources
within the NANP area. Since it proposed LRN to the INC, AT&T has
continued to develop and refine this method. Essentially, LRN assigns a
unique 10-digit telephone number to each switch in a defined geographic
area. The location routing number serves as a network address. Carriers
routing telephone calls to customers that have transferred their
telephone numbers from one carrier to another perform a database query
to obtain the location routing number that corresponds to the dialed
telephone number. The database query is performed for all calls to
switches from which at least one number has been ported. The carrier
then would route the call to the new carrier based on the location
routing number.
14. MCI, DSC Communications, Nortel, Tandem Computers, and Siemens
Stromberg-Carlson have developed a method referred to as the Carrier
Portability Code (CPC) method. This method operates in a similar manner
to LRN. Under CPC, however, the database associates the dialed
telephone number with a 3-digit carrier portability code identifying
the particular carrier to whom the dialed number has been transferred,
rather than a particular switch. As described below, many of the
parties in this proceeding and staff of some state commissions consider
the CPC method to be an interim database solution.
15. Stratus Computer and US Intelco have developed another database
method commonly referred to as Local Area Number Portability (LANP).
This method uses two ``domains'' of 10-digit numbers to route telephone
calls to customers that have transferred their numbers to new carriers
or new geographic locations. Specifically, LANP assigns a ten-digit
customer number address (CNA) to each end user; this is the number that
callers would dial to place telephone calls to the particular end user.
It also assigns each customer a 10-digit network node address (NNA)
that identifies where in the telephone network to reach the particular
end user. Both the CNA and the NNA are stored in routing databases so
that carriers can determine from the dialed telephone number where in
the network to reach the called party.
16. GTE has proposed both on the record in this proceeding and
before the INC what it refers to as the Non-Geographic Number (NGN)
method. While this method uses a database, it operates in a
fundamentally different manner from CPC, LRN, and LANP. The NGN method
would provide service provider and location portability to end users by
assigning them non-geographic telephone numbers, such as an INPA
(interchangeable numbering plan area) code that has been assigned for
non-geographic numbers. Telephone calls to such end users would be
routed in much the same way as toll free calls are today, by performing
a database query to determine the geographic telephone number
corresponding to the dialed non-geographic telephone number, and
routing the call to the appropriate geographic number.
17. Pacific Bell has proposed a triggering mechanism which operates
in conjunction with the same addressing scheme utilized in AT&T's LRN
method. This mechanism, called Query on Release (QOR) or Look Ahead,
determines under what circumstances a database query is performed.
Under QOR, the signalling used to set up a telephone call is routed to
the end office switch to which the dialed telephone number was
originally assigned (the release switch), i.e., according to the NPA-
NXX of the dialed number. If the dialed number has been transferred to
another carrier's switch, the previous switch in the call path queries
the database to obtain the routing information. The call is then
completed to the new carrier's switch.
18. Another number portability method triggering mechanism that is
similar to QOR is Release-to-Pivot (RTP). RTP differs from QOR in that
when a number has been ported from the release switch, the release
switch--rather than the previous switch in the call path--returns the
address information necessary for routing the call. The information
regarding where to route the telephone call, if the number has been
transferred, may be contained either in the release switch or an
external database.
2. Non-Database Methods
19. In our NPRM, we discussed two currently available methods of
providing service provider portability that do not use databases:
Remote Call Forwarding and Flexible Direct Inward Dialing. These
methods are commonly referred to as ``interim measures.'' While most
LECs currently are able to port numbers to other service providers
using these methods, they suffer from certain limitations that make
them unsuitable for long-term number portability. RCF redirects calls
to telephone numbers that have been transferred by essentially placing
a second telephone call to the new network location. DID routes the
second call over a dedicated facility to the new service provider's
switch, instead of translating the dialed number to a new number.
20. In the NPRM, we also discussed three derivative methods of RCF
and DID (enhanced remote call forwarding, route index/portability hub,
and hub routing with AIN), all of which require routing incoming calls
to the terminating switch identified by the NPA-NXX code of the dialed
phone number. Unlike RCF and DID, they use LEC tandem switches to
aggregate calls to a particular competing service provider before those
calls are routed to that provider. In addition, LECs in several states
reportedly are providing Directory Number Route Indexing (DNRI), which
first routes incoming calls to the switch to which the NPA-NXX code was
originally assigned, then routes ported calls to the new service
provider either through a direct trunk or by attaching a pseudo NPA to
the number and using a tandem, depending on availability.
C. Current State Efforts
1. State Task Forces and Implementation
21. Parties to this proceeding report that several states have
established task forces of industry participants or are otherwise
beginning to investigate the development and implementation of long-
term number portability methods. Those states include: Alabama,
Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Illinois,
Indiana, Kansas, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Oregon,
Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. Of these
states, the task forces in Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Illinois,
Maryland, and New York have all selected AT&T's Location Routing Number
method for implementing service provider number portability in areas
within their states'
[[Page 38610]]
boundaries. In addition, the state commissions of Colorado, Georgia,
Illinois, Maryland, New York, and Ohio have adopted the recommendation
of their staff and task forces to implement LRN. Parties to this
proceeding assert, moreover, that state task forces or commissions in
other states, such as Indiana, Michigan, and Wisconsin, as well as in
Canada, are utilizing the results of the Illinois task force's efforts
in the area of number portability.
22. Several states have set implementation schedules for the
portability methods they have selected. Switch vendors have committed
to make available LRN software to carriers in Illinois in the second
quarter of 1997. Colorado, Illinois, and Georgia plan to begin
deploying LRN in mid-1997. New York also expects LRN to be generally
available for installation in that state in mid-1997, though deployment
in certain AT&T switches is expected to begin earlier. Maryland plans
to begin implementing LRN by no later than the third quarter of 1997.
According to NARUC, Colorado similarly expects LRN availability in the
second quarter of 1997 (but plans to monitor switch vendor progress and
reevaluate this time frame in the third quarter of 1996). Ohio will use
a LRN number portability workshop, to be established within 120 days of
the issuance of its June 12, 1996 Order, to establish the time frame
and manner of the implementation of LRN in Ohio. Michigan has ordered
that implementation of long-term number portability in Michigan start
at the same time that implementation begins in Illinois. The Illinois
and Maryland task forces are examining various implementation issues,
including a deployment schedule, cost recovery, billing and rating, and
service management system (SMS) administration. The Illinois task force
selected an SMS provider in April 1996. The Maryland and Colorado task
forces have been planning to release their requests for proposals for
their SMS administrators in the second quarter of 1996.
2. State Trials
23. Two states have conducted or are conducting number portability
trials. As we described in the NPRM, ten companies, working with the
New York Department of Public Service (NY DPS), jointly initiated two
number portability trials, one in Rochester and another in Manhattan.
The companies originally planned to test the LANP method of Stratus
Computers and US Intelco in Rochester, but that trial was canceled. The
Manhattan trial, testing the CPC method, began in early February of
this year. The New York DPS, however, now considers CPC to be, at best,
an interim method and has changed the trial's emphasis from the
technical aspects of the method to the operational and administrative
aspects of the intercompany procedures that are required to change a
customer from one local exchange provider to another. MCI, one of the
original proponents of CPC, no longer views CPC as a viable long-term
method.
24. A group of telecommunications service providers conducted a
technical trial of the LANP method in Seattle, Washington, during 1995.
That trial ended in December 1995. The objective of the technical trial
was to identify the technical, operational, and administrative issues
that arise when a telephone number is not associated with a specific
geographic location. Because the trial revealed certain technical and
operational difficulties with the LANP technology, the Washington task
force on number portability declined to adopt LANP. The Washington
Utilities and Transportation Commission has not adopted LANP, and the
companies involved in the trial have ceased advocating LANP.
3. State Interim Measures
25. Carriers are providing interim portability measures in a number
of states, either voluntarily or pursuant to state commission orders.
According to NARUC and other parties to the proceeding, LECs are
providing RCF, DID, and/or other comparable arrangements in Arizona,
California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana,
Iowa, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New York, Ohio,
Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Washington,
Wisconsin, and Wyoming. According to USTA, Alabama and Minnesota are
considering interim portability requirements, while North Carolina
requires carriers to negotiate interim portability as part of their
interconnection agreements.
III. Report and Order
A. Importance of Service Provider Number Portability
1. Background
26. In the NPRM, we tentatively concluded that number portability
benefits consumers of telecommunications services and would contribute
to the development of competition among alternative providers of local
telephone and other telecommunications services. With respect to
service provider portability, we sought comment on the effects that
local number portability, or lack thereof, would have on the local
exchange marketplace. Specifically, we sought comment on the value
consumers place on their telephone numbers, the deterrent effect that a
lack of number portability would have on consumer decisions to change
service providers, and any resultant effect on competition between
incumbent local service providers and new competitors in local markets.
2. Discussion
27. Since we adopted the NPRM, Congress passed the 1996 Act, which
requires all LECs to ``provide, to the extent technically feasible,
number portability in accordance with requirements prescribed by the
Commission.'' The 1996 Act defines number portability as ``the ability
of users of telecommunications services to retain, at the same
location, existing telecommunications numbers without impairment of
quality, reliability, or convenience when switching from one
telecommunications carrier to another.'' Accordingly, we hereby modify
our proposed definition of number portability to conform to the
statutory definition of number portability and note that the statutory
definition of this term is synonymous with the NPRM's definition of
``service provider portability.''
28. Although some incumbent LECs assert that local exchange market
competition will develop without number portability, the record
developed in this proceeding confirms the congressional findings that
number portability is essential to meaningful competition in the
provision of local exchange services. Several state commissions have
also recognized the significant role that number portability will play
in the development of local exchange competition. We, therefore, affirm
our tentative conclusion that number portability provides consumers
flexibility in the way they use their telecommunications services and
[[Page 38611]]
promotes the development of competition among alternative providers of
telephone and other telecommunications services.
29. We note that several studies described in the record
demonstrate the reluctance of both business and residential customers
to switch carriers if they must change numbers. For example, MCI has
stated that, based on a nationwide Gallup survey, 83 percent of
business customers and 80 percent of residential customers would be
unlikely to change local service providers if they had to change their
telephone numbers. Time Warner Holdings states that consumers are 40
percent less likely to change service providers if a number change is
required. Citizens Utilities notes that approximately 85 percent of the
discussions that its subsidiary, ELI, has with potential customers
about switching providers end when those potential customers learn that
they must change their telephone numbers. The study commissioned by
Pacific Bell concludes that, without portability, new entrants would be
forced to discount their local exchange service and other competing
offerings by at least 12 percent below the incumbent LECs' prices in
order to induce customers to switch carriers due to customers'
resistance to changing numbers.
30. The ability of end users to retain their telephone numbers when
changing service providers gives customers flexibility in the quality,
price, and variety of telecommunications services they can choose to
purchase. Number portability promotes competition between
telecommunications service providers by, among other things, allowing
customers to respond to price and service changes without changing
their telephone numbers. The resulting competition will benefit all
users of telecommunications services. Indeed, competition should foster
lower local telephone prices and, consequently, stimulate demand for
telecommunications services and increase economic growth.
31. Conversely, the record demonstrates that a lack of number
portability likely would deter entry by competitive providers of local
service because of the value customers place on retaining their
telephone numbers. Business customers, in particular, may be reluctant
to incur the administrative, marketing, and goodwill costs associated
with changing telephone numbers. As indicated above, several studies
show that customers are reluctant to switch carriers if they are
required to change telephone numbers. To the extent that customers are
reluctant to change service providers due to the absence of number
portability, demand for services provided by new entrants will be
depressed. This could well discourage entry by new service providers
and thereby frustrate the pro-competitive goals of the 1996 Act.
B. The Commission's Role
1. Background
32. In the NPRM, we tentatively concluded that the Commission has a
significant interest in promoting the nationwide availability of number
portability due to its impact on interstate telecommunications. We
based this interest on four grounds: (1) Our obligation to promote an
efficient and fair telecommunications system; (2) the inability to
separate the impact of number portability between intrastate and
interstate telecommunications; (3) the likely adverse impact deploying
different number portability solutions across the country would have on
the provision of interstate telecommunications services; and (4) the
impact that number portability could have on the use of the numbering
resource, that is, ensuring that the use of numbers is efficient and
does not contribute to area code exhaust.
33. In the 1996 Act, Congress expressly assigned to the Commission
exclusive jurisdiction over that portion of the NANP that pertains to
the United States. Moreover, Congress directed the Commission to
prescribe regulations for LEC provision of number portability: Section
251(b)(2) requires carriers ``to provide, to the extent technically
feasible, number portability in accordance with the requirements
prescribed by the Commission.''
2. Positions of the Parties
34. Prior to passage of the 1996 Act, some LECs asserted that the
Commission should neither adopt, nor direct the adoption of, number
portability without performing a thorough cost/benefit analysis. Most
parties, however, now agree that the 1996 Act clearly directs this
Commission to implement long-term number portability. Moreover, some
parties contend that this mandate reflects the fact that Congress has
weighed the costs and benefits of implementing number portability. USTA
adds, however, that the Commission may consider economic efficiencies
in determining what rules to implement.
34. Several commenters, while agreeing that the Commission should
take a leadership role, urge us to leave certain implementation issues
to the states. USTA advocates allowing the states to determine their
own deployment schedules. The California PUC asserts that the
Commission's jurisdiction over number portability is not exclusive, and
that states must be allowed to implement number portability methods
that are most compatible with local exchange competition in each state.
3. Discussion
36. We believe that Congress has determined that this Commission
should develop a national number portability policy and has
specifically directed us to prescribe the requirements that all local
exchange carriers, both incumbents and others, must meet to satisfy
their statutory obligations. Section 251(b)(2) requires LECs ``to
provide, to the extent technically feasible, number portability in
accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Commission.''
Moreover, section 251(e)(1)'s assignment to the Commission of exclusive
jurisdiction over that portion of the NANP that pertains to the United
States gives us authority over the implementation of number portability
to the extent that such implementation will affect the NANP. Consistent
with the role assigned to the Commission by the 1996 Act, the record
developed in this proceeding overwhelmingly indicates that the
Commission should take a leadership role with respect to number
portability. We, therefore, affirm our conclusion that we should take a
leadership role in developing a national number portability policy. We
further note that, in light of Congress's mandate to us to prescribe
requirements for number portability, it is not necessary to engage in a
cost/benefit analysis as to whether to adopt rules that require LECs to
provide number portability in the first instance. We may consider
economic and other factors, however, when determining the specific
requirements in such rules.
37. The 1996 Act directs this Commission to adopt regulations to
implement number portability, and we believe it is important that we
adopt uniform national rules regarding number portability
implementation and deployment to ensure efficient and consistent use of
number portability methods and numbering resources on a nationwide
basis. Implementation of number portability, and its effect on
numbering resources, will have an impact on interstate, as well as
local, telecommunications services. Ensuring the interoperability of
networks is essential for deployment of a national number portability
regime, and for the
[[Page 38612]]
prevention of adverse impacts on the provision of interstate
telecommunications services or on the use of the numbering resource. We
believe that allowing number portability to develop on a state-by-state
basis could potentially thwart the intentions of Congress in mandating
a national number portability policy, and could retard the development
of competition in the provision of telecommunications services.
C. Performance Criteria for Long-Term Number Portability
1. Background
38. In the NPRM, we sought comment on what long-term number
portability methods would be in the public interest. Specifically, we
sought comment on various number portability proposals offered by
different industry participants, including proposals by AT&T, MCI
Metro, Stratus Computer and US Intelco, and GTE. We also sought comment
on the extent to which these proposals would support certain services
that we deemed important. We tentatively concluded that any method
should support operator services and emergency services because they
are critical to public safety and are important features of the public
switched network. We also tentatively concluded that any number
portability proposal should efficiently use telephone numbers. In
addition, we discussed and sought comment on which of three call
processing scenarios (i.e., which carrier performs the database query
in a database method), or any alternative, would best serve the public
interest. We sought comment on whether telephone numbers should be
portable within local calling areas, throughout a particular area code,
state-wide, regionally, nationwide, or on some other basis, and how the
geographic scope of portability would impact different types of
carriers and their billing systems. We also asked whether number
portability could be provided nationwide without significant network
modifications.
2. Positions of the Parties
39. Performance criteria versus selection of architecture.
Commenting parties differ on whether the Commission should establish
performance criteria or guidelines that any number portability method
must meet, or require the implementation of one national portability
method. Many parties, including several state regulatory agencies,
cable interests, and LECs, favor establishment of broad guidelines and
interoperability criteria for implementing a long-term portability
method. NYNEX maintains that this approach would encourage cooperative
industry resolutions for a true number portability method and would
properly account for legitimate state interests in the deployment of
number portability. NYNEX further claims that guidelines would allow
the Commission to ensure the implementation of compatible methods, with
seamless call flows and service operation, without expending scarce
resources by focusing on the detailed implementation of every method in
each region of the country. The California Department of Consumer
Affairs contends that the 1996 Act's pro-competitive policies mandate
that the portability method adopted be flexible and allow for future
innovation. GTE urges the Commission to determine the type of routing
information to be employed, but leave selection of the triggering
mechanism to the individual carriers. SBC Communications asserts that
section 251(d)(1) only requires the Commission to outline principles
for a long-term method within six months of enactment of the 1996 Act,
not to adopt a specific method.
40. Conversely, some parties contend that requiring a single,
national method would avoid the implementation of numerous inconsistent
and inefficient approaches, and the need for carriers to adapt to
different requirements in different states. Jones Intercable argues
that allowing number portability to develop state-by-state would give
the incumbent LECs the opportunity to delay development of local
exchange competition. BellSouth and Nortel argue that a single long-
term method is necessary to minimize the costs of implementation,
operation, and maintenance; to protect billing systems against problems
created by use of differing SS7 parameters; and to foster network
integrity. PCIA claims that a state-regulated market would inhibit
development of a nationwide wireless network. Arch/AirTouch Paging adds
that deployment of different portability methods would adversely impact
interstate telecommunications. Bell Atlantic and PCIA argue that a
national method is more likely to conserve scarce numbering resources.
Bell Atlantic further claims, however, that each individual carrier
should be allowed the flexibility to utilize whatever architecture or
technology within its own network best enables that carrier to
implement whatever national method is selected. Moreover, some parties
urge the Commission to select a particular method to be implemented
nationwide, while others advocate allowing the industry to select the
specific method.
41. Commenting parties suggest numerous performance criteria with
which any long-term number portability method must comply. These
include: (1) The ability to support emergency services, i.e., 911 and
enhanced 911 (E911) services; (2) the ability to support existing
network services and capabilities, (e.g., operator and directory
services, vertical and advanced services, custom local area signaling
services (also known as ``CLASS''), toll free and pay-per-call
services, and intercept capabilities); (3) efficient use of numbering
resources; (4) no initial change of telephone numbers; (5) no reliance
on network facilities of, or services provided by, other service
providers (e.g., incumbent LECs) in order to route calls; (6) no
degradation in service quality or network reliability (e.g., no
significant increase in call set-up time); (7) reliance on existing
network infrastructure and functionalities to the extent possible; (8)
equal application to both incumbents and new entrants (i.e., carriers
who receive ported numbers must also provide portability); (9) no
proprietary interests or licensing fees; (10) the ability to migrate to
location and service portability; and (11) no adverse impact in areas
where portability has not been deployed.
42. Call processing scenarios. In the NPRM, we discussed three call
processing scenarios. They were: (1) The terminating ``access''
provider (TAP) scenario, under which the database query is performed by
the terminating access provider (usually the incumbent LEC, who
recovers interstate access charges from interexchange carriers (IXCs)
for terminating traffic under our existing access charge regime); (2)
the originating service provider (OSP) scenario, under which the
originating service provider performs the database query; and (3) the
``N minus 1'' (N-1) scenario, under which the carrier immediately prior
to the terminating service provider performs the database query or dip.
In addition, ITN suggests a ``first-switch-that-can'' approach, under
which the first switch that handles the call and has the capability to
do the database dip performs the query.
43. Pacific Bell and Bell Atlantic recommend that carriers should
be permitted to choose a call processing scenario to enable them to
implement the QOR triggering mechanism in addition to LRN. These
parties assert that QOR would eliminate unnecessary database queries,
thereby decreasing the number of databases necessary to
[[Page 38613]]
provide number portability and the transmission capacity between
switches and databases. In contrast, AT&T argues against allowing
carriers to choose a call processing scenario, such as QOR, because
doing so would delay deployment of a long-term number portability
method and would result in significant network interoperability issues.
MCI opposes implementation of QOR because it forces competitive LECs to
rely on the incumbent LEC's network and results in inefficient routing.
AT&T and MCI also argue against use of the RTP or QOR triggering
mechanisms because they treat transferred and non-transferred numbers
differently, and significantly increase post-dial delay and the
potential for call blocking.
44. Most of the parties that favor the Commission's selection of a
particular call processing scenario prefer the N-1 scenario because
they believe it allows database queries to be made at the most
efficient points in the process of routing telephone calls. In
contrast, ITN states that use of the N-1 scenario may hinder the
evolution from localized to national number portability environments.
BellSouth contends that the Commission need not select a particular
scenario because all four triggering mechanisms (OSP, TAP, N-1, and
Look-Ahead) could exist simultaneously through engineering and business
arrangements. Citizens Utilities and NCTA oppose the TAP scenario
because it requires routing most calls to the incumbent LEC networks,
thus denying terminating access charges to competitive providers.
45. Rating and billing. Several LECs, MCI, and MFS contend that any
long-term method should preserve existing rating and billing systems to
minimize costs and impact. Conversely, AT&T and Florida PSC argue that
any long-term method should permit flexible rating and billing schemes.
Pacific Bell, US West, and BellSouth also argue that the Commission
must in this proceeding address billing problems, including issues
relating to proper mileage, rating, calling cards, and billing format.
3. Discussion
46. Performance criteria versus selection of architecture. We
conclude that establishing performance criteria that a LEC's number
portability architecture must meet would better serve the public
interest than choosing a particular technology or specific
architecture. First, we believe that to date there appears to be
sufficient momentum to deploy compatible methods, if not an identical
method, nationwide. Every state that has selected a particular
architecture for implementation within its state boundaries has
selected the same method, LRN, and numerous states are reportedly
following suit. With the exception of some of the incumbent LECs, most
parties that advocate selection of a particular method at this time are
also supporting the LRN method. Under these circumstances, mandating
the implementation of a particular number portability architecture, or
mandating that the same architecture be deployed nationwide, appears
unnecessary. Second, such a mandate might actually delay the
implementation of number portability. We are reluctant, based on the
record in this proceeding, to select one of the proposed long-term
methods. According to a number of parties, none of the currently
supported methods, including LRN, has been tested or described in
sufficient detail to permit the Commission to select the particular
architecture without further consultation with the industry. If,
however, we were to direct an industry body to recommend a specific
number portability architecture, it would likely delay the
implementation of number portability that already is underway in
several states, and would create significant uncertainty for those
switch vendors currently modifying switch software to accommodate LRN.
Third, dictating implementation of a particular method could foreclose
the ability of carriers to improve on those methods already being
deployed or to implement hybrid (but compatible) methods.
47. We believe that our establishment of criteria for long-term
number portability methods, however, will ensure an appropriate level
of national uniformity, while maintaining flexibility to accommodate
innovation and improvement. The deployment of a uniform number
portability architecture nationwide will be important to the efficient
functioning of the public switched telephone network and will reduce
the costs of implementing number portability nationwide by allowing
switch vendors to spread the costs of development over more customers.
Moreover, a uniform deployment will allow switch manufacturers to work
toward a single standard, thus avoiding the situation where different
manufacturers partition the market among different methods.
48. Performance Criteria. We thus adopt the following minimum
criteria. Any long-term number portability method, including call
processing scenarios or triggering, must:
(1) Support existing network services, features, and capabilities;
(2) Efficiently use numbering resources;
(3) Not require end users to change their telecommunications
numbers;
(4) Not require telecommunications carriers to rely on databases,
other network facilities, or services provided by other
telecommunications carriers in order to route calls to the proper
termination point;
(5) Not result in unreasonable degradation in service quality or
network reliability when implemented;
(6) Not result in any degradation of service quality or network
reliability when customers switch carriers;
(7) Not result in a carrier having a proprietary interest;
(8) Be able to accommodate location and service portability in the
future; and
(9) Have no significant adverse impact outside the areas where
number portability is deployed.
We discuss each of these performance criteria in turn below.
49. First, we require that any long-term method support existing
network services, features, or capabilities, such as emergency
services, CLASS features, operator and directory assistance services,
and intercept capabilities. The 1996 Act requires that consumers be
able to retain their numbers ``without impairment of quality,
reliability, or convenience when switching from one telecommunications
carrier to another.'' Moreover, customers are not likely to switch
carriers and retain their telephone numbers if they are required to
forego services and features to which they have become accustomed.
Thus, any long-term method that precludes the provision of existing
services and features would place competing service providers at a
competitive disadvantage.
50. The public interest also requires that service provider
portability not impair the provision of network capabilities that are
important to public safety, such as emergency services and intercept
capabilities. In our proposal to ensure that PBXs and CMRS providers
support enhanced 911 services, we reaffirmed that 911 services enable
telephone users to receive fast response to emergency situations, and
that broad availability of 911 and E911 services best promotes ``safety
of life and property through the use of wire and radio communication.''
In addition, the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act
requires telecommunications carriers generally to provide capabilities
that enable secure, reliable, and non-intrusive law enforcement
interception of call setup information and call content so that law
enforcement agencies can intercept and monitor calls when necessary.
[[Page 38614]]
51. Second, we require that any long-term method efficiently use
numbering resources. Telephone numbers are the means by which
commercial and residential consumers gain access to, and reap the
benefits of, the public switched telephone network. In recent years,
the explosive growth of wireless services has caused an equally
dramatic increase in the consumption of telephone numbers. Indeed, in
January 1995, carriers began to deploy interchangeable NPA (INPA) codes
because all NPA codes had been exhausted. The anticipated shortage of
numbers has prompted several BOCs to propose the use of area code
overlays. The increased use of overlays and area code splits has
resulted in both industry and consumer inconvenience and confusion. The
consumption rate of NANP resources is likely to accelerate with the
entry of new wireline and wireless carriers. Thus, we conclude that
deploying a long-term number portability method that rapidly depletes
numbering resources would undermine the efforts of the industry, the
states, and the Commission to ensure sufficient numbering resources.
52. Third, deployment of a long-term method should not require
customers to make any telecommunications number change. The 1996 Act
mandates that end users be able ``to retain * * * existing
telecommunications numbers * * * when switching from one
telecommunications carrier to another.'' Requiring any number change
would contravene this basic requirement. Congress noted that the
ability to switch service providers is only meaningful if customers can
retain their telephone numbers.
53. Fourth, we require that any long-term method ensure that
carriers have the ability to route telephone calls and provide services
to their customers independently from the networks of other carriers.
Requiring carriers to rely on the networks of their competitors in
order to route calls can have several undesirable effects. For example,
dependence on the original service provider's network to provide
services to a customer that has switched carriers contravenes the
choice made by that customer to change service providers. In addition,
such dependence creates the potential for call blocking by the original
service provider and may make available to the original service
provider proprietary customer information. Moreover, methods which
first route the call through the original service provider's network in
order to determine whether the call is to a ported number, and then
perform a query only if the call is to be ported, would treat ported
numbers differently than non-ported numbers, resulting in ported calls
taking longer to complete than unported calls. This differential in
efficiency would disadvantage the carrier to whom the call was ported
and impair that carrier's ability to compete effectively against the
original service provider. Finally, dependence on another carrier's
network also reduces the new service provider's ability to control the
routing of telephone calls to its customers, thus inhibiting its
ability to control the costs of such routing. For these reasons, a
long-term number portability method should not require dependency on
another carrier's network. We note that this criterion does not prevent
individual carriers from determining among themselves how to process
calls, including a method by which a carrier voluntarily agrees to use
the original service provider's network.
54. We recognize that this criterion will effectively preclude
carriers from implementing QOR. Those carriers that oppose QOR argue
that it would treat ported and non-ported numbers differently, force
reliance on the incumbent LEC's network, increase post-dial delay and
the potential for call blocking, result in inefficient routing, create
significant network interoperability issues, and delay deployment of a
long-term number portability method. There is little evidence in the
record to support the claim that allowing carriers to implement QOR
would result in significant cost savings. Pacific Bell submitted
summary figures indicating that it would save approximately $14.2
million per year assuming that 20 percent of subscribers port their
numbers if it implemented QOR. These savings, which represent less than
0.2 percent of Pacific Bell's total annual operating revenues, appear
insignificant in relation to the potential economic and non-economic
costs to competitors if QOR is used. According to AT&T, using QOR on
Lucent switches is more cost effective only if less than 12 percent of
subscribers have ported their numbers. Similarly, AT&T asserts that
using QOR on Siemens switches is more cost effective only if less than
23 percent of subscribers have ported their numbers. In addition,
because carriers using QOR may be required to send a QOR message to
another carrier's switch to determine if a customer has transferred the
number, the second carrier must have the ability to recognize and
respond to the QOR message, which also may increase its costs. Based on
the record before us, we conclude that the competitive benefits of
ensuring that calls are not routed through the original carrier's
network outweigh any cost savings that QOR may bring in the immediate
future.
55. Fifth, as a general matter, we require that the implementation
of any long-term method not unreasonably degrade existing service
quality or network reliability. Consumers, both business and
residential, rely on the public switched telephone network for their
livelihood, health and safety. Jeopardizing the reliability of the
network would stifle business growth and economic development, and
endanger individuals' personal safety and convenience. Consumers, both
business and residential, have also come to expect a certain level of
quality and convenience in using basic telecommunications services. We
note that this Commission has repeatedly affirmed its commitment to
maintaining service quality and network reliability. We, therefore,
require that any long-term method of providing number portability not
cause any unreasonable degradation to the network or the quality of
existing services. This requirement extends to degradation that affects
carriers operating, and end users obtaining services, outside as well
as within the area of portability.
56. Sixth, once long-term number portability is implemented, we
require that customers not experience any degradation of service
quality or network reliability when they port their numbers to other
carriers. We reiterate that the 1996 Act requires that consumers be
able to retain their numbers ``without impairment of quality,
reliability, or convenience when switching from one telecommunications
carrier to another.'' We interpret this mandate to mean, at a minimum,
that when a customer switches carriers, that customer must not
experience a greater dialing delay or call set up time, poorer
transmission quality, or a loss of services (such as CLASS features)
due to number portability compared to when the customer was with the
original carrier.
57. Seventh, we require that no carrier have a proprietary interest
in any long term method. A telecommunications carrier may not own
rights to, or have a proprietary interest in, number portability
technology. We believe that the requirement in the 1996 Act that the
costs of number portability be borne on a competitively neutral basis
precludes carrier ownership of the long-term method, and their
collection of licensing or other fees for use of the method. In
addition, it would be competitively unfair if a LEC providing
portability
[[Page 38615]]
were to benefit directly, through licensing fees or a proprietary
interest, from its competitors' use of portability. We note that one of
the first criteria required by the Illinois task force in selecting a
number portability method was that it be non-proprietary.
58. Eighth, we require that any long-term method be able to
accommodate service and location portability in the future. Although we
do not at this time mandate provision of service or location
portability, we recognize that service and location portability have
certain benefits, and we may take steps to implement them in the future
if demand for these services develops. As our society becomes
increasingly mobile, the importance that consumers attribute to the
geographic identity of their telephone numbers may change. It is,
therefore, in the public interest to take steps now to ensure that we
do not foreclose realization of future economies of scope.
59. Finally, we require that any long-term method not have a
significant adverse impact on carriers operating, and end users
obtaining services, outside the area of number portability. We believe
it is fundamentally unfair to impose any new or different obligations
on carriers and customers that do not benefit from service provider
portability. Indeed, we are adopting a phased approach to
implementation so that number portability is available only in the most
populous local markets where competition already has begun to develop
or is likely to develop in the near term.
60. We do not believe it is necessary to require that a long-term
method utilize existing network infrastructure and functionalities to
the extent possible, as some commenting parties have suggested.
Minimizing the costs of implementing a long-term method should be in
the best interests of all the parties involved in such implementation.
This conclusion is also consistent with our tentative conclusion that
the carrier-specific costs that are not directly related to number
portability must be borne by the individual carriers. Thus, existing
local service providers have an incentive to minimize the extent of the
necessary modifications and upgrades, as well as the costs of
implementing number portability-specific software. Moreover, while new
entrants may not need to modify existing networks, they must deploy and
build networks with at least the same capabilities as those of the
incumbents if they are to provide number portability.
61. We also decline to require carriers that receive ported numbers
also to provide portability because we believe the 1996 Act renders
such a requirement unnecessary. Specifically, section 251(b)(2) imposes
a duty to provide number portability on all LECs--incumbents as well as
new entrants. In light of the fact that the 1996 Act applies this duty
across all LECs, establishing a reciprocity performance criterion would
be needlessly redundant.
62. Call processing scenarios. We decline to specify the carrier
that must perform the database query in a database method, because we
recognize that individual carriers may wish to determine among
themselves how to process calls under alternative scenarios. We
therefore leave to local exchange carriers the flexibility to choose
and negotiate the scenario that best suits their networks and business
plans, as long as they act consistently with the requirements
established by this Order. While our criterion requiring carriers to be
able to route calls and provide service independently from other
carriers' networks may preclude unilateral use of the TAP scenario by a
particular carrier, there may be instances where carriers agree to use
the TAP scenario, or where the terminating provider is the only carrier
capable of performing the database query. In those instances, our
performance criterion would not preclude use of the TAP scenario.
63. Rating and billing. Finally, we decline to regulate the rating
and billing of local wireline calls to end users in connection with a
long-term number portability method. Traditionally, the billing and
rating of local wireline calls--including the establishment of mileage
standards, procedures for calling cards, and billing format--have been
left to the purview of the states and the carriers themselves. While
several parties have raised rating and billing questions with regard to
number portability, we believe that such issues are more properly
addressed by the states.
D. Mandate of Number Portability
1. Background
64. In the NPRM, we sought comment on the estimated time to design,
build, and deploy a long-term service provider number portability
system. We also requested that parties address what network and other
modifications would be necessary to effect the transition to
portability. The 1996 Act mandates that all LECs ``provide, to the
extent technically feasible, number portability in accordance with
requirements prescribed by the Commission.''
2. Position of the Parties
65. Mandate Implementation By A Date Certain. The competitive local
exchange providers generally contend that the Commission should mandate
the availability of number portability by a date certain. The incumbent
LECs, however, caution the Commission not to act with undue haste by
mandating the implementation of number portability by a date certain.
Indeed, BellSouth claims that the 1996 Act's omission of a deadline for
implementation indicates Congress's intent not to require a date
certain at this time. It adds that the industry must first give careful
attention to developing an implementation checklist that will ensure
that the necessary tasks for the implementation are properly identified
and performed. Instead of establishing a mandatory implementation date,
some LECs contend that the Commission should direct an industry body,
such as the INC, to determine the most appropriate schedule for
deployment of a long-term solution. Other commenters argue that the
implementation schedule should be determined by state regulatory
bodies. Pacific Bell warns that a Commission-mandated solution at this
time would be premature and cites a late proposal introduced by ITN as
an illustration that the optimal solution may not yet have been
introduced.
66. The wireless industry offers various implementation plans. For
instance, PageNet urges the Commission to establish federal guidelines
for number portability, and at a specified time in the future, to
evaluate the industry's standards using the guidelines through a notice
and comment proceeding. However, Omnipoint believes the Commission
should act more aggressively in mandating service provider portability
by a date certain.
67. Time Estimates for Deployment. Parties differ on their
estimates for deployment. AT&T asserts that virtually all of the
equipment vendors participating in the Illinois number portability task
force indicate that they can provide most upgrades necessary to
implement LRN by the second quarter of 1997. As noted above, Illinois,
Georgia, and Colorado plan to deploy LRN in mid-1997. New York also
expects to deploy LRN in mid-1997, though deployment in certain AT&T
switches is expected to begin earlier. Michigan has ordered that
implementation of long-term number portability in Michigan start at the
same time that implementation begins in Illinois. BellSouth, however,
estimates that three to five years are required to deploy a
[[Page 38616]]
number portability system that addresses all the necessary issues.
68. Parties also differ on the interpretation of ``technically
feasible'' as that term is used in section 251(b)(2) of the 1996 Act.
GTE argues that the term should not be equated with ``technically
possible'' because cost and timing considerations cannot be separated
from the concept of technical feasibility. GTE also maintains that no
long-term solution proposed is currently technically feasible, since
they all require further information on costs, operation, and
reliability. Bell Atlantic contends that deploying a system that is
technically feasible, but inefficient, may not be consistent with
Congress's goal of a ``rapid, efficient'' telecommunications system.
Bell Atlantic and BellSouth also claim that LRN is merely a call
handling protocol, as opposed to a technical solution for number
portability.
69. In contrast, Time Warner Holdings and Cox argue that
``feasible'' must be given common dictionary meaning--``capable of
being done, executed or effected''--and does not mean ``commercially
available.'' Time Warner Holdings points out that equal access and 800
number portability proved to be technically feasible even when they
were not commercially available. Time Warner Holdings claims, moreover,
that LECs control commercial availability because vendors will not
develop and manufacture portability methods until LECs demand them.
Similarly, Sprint argues that technically feasible does not mean that
every operational and regulatory issue must be resolved before any
decision on national number portability can be made. Sprint further
claims that Congress's use of the phrase ``technically feasible''
precludes any consideration of economic feasibility. AT&T and MCI argue
that LRN is technically feasible, although they do not explicitly
address the precise meaning of the statutory language.
70. Phased Implementation. Most parties addressing the
implementation of number portability caution against a flash-cut
approach (i.e., deployment nationwide simultaneously). USTA argues that
because section 251(b)(2) only requires provision of number
portability, not deployment of the necessary software and network
upgrades, LECs need only deploy portability upon a bona fide request.
Most parties, however, recommend that service provider portability be
deployed on a per-market basis within a period of time specified by the
Commission. For example, Competitive Carriers proposes that service
provider portability be implemented in the 100 largest MSAs within 24
months of this Order. Similarly, Sprint proposes that the Commission
adopt a phased approach requiring local service providers to deploy a
long-term solution upon receipt of a bona fide request from a certified
carrier: (1) In the top 100 MSAs by the end of fourth quarter 1997; (2)
in the next 135 MSAs, within 3-4 years after this Order is issued; and
(3) within any remaining areas, beginning in the fifth year after this
Order is issued. Omnipoint maintains that service provider portability
should be made available in the top 100 MSAs between October of 1997
and October of 1998, while GO Communications proposes implementation of
service provider portability in the major metropolitan areas by early
1997. MFS supports a final cut-over in the 100 largest MSAs by October
1997, with an initial cut-over in the top 35 MSAs on March 31, 1997. It
adds that, in order to deploy this capability as competition develops
in specific markets, number portability should be implemented by LECs
within 18 months of activation of an NXX code in the Local Exchange
Routing Guide (LERG) and assignment to a competitor. AT&T has indicated
that LRN deployment could begin in the third quarter of 1997 in one MSA
in each of the seven BOC regions, followed by deployment in at least
three additional MSAs per region during both fourth quarter 1997 and
first quarter 1998. Once this initial phase is completed, AT&T suggests
that the Commission could require LRN to be deployed in at least four
additional MSAs during both second and third quarters 1998, or 105 MSAs
total. AT&T's proposed plan would result in deployment of LRN software
in a total of 7 MSAs in third quarter 1997, 21 additional MSAs in
fourth quarter 1997, 21 additional MSAs in first quarter 1998, 28
additional MSAs in second quarter 1998, and 28 additional MSAs in third
quarter 1998. AT&T further asserts that its proposed schedule would
require major switch manufacturers to update switch software at a rate
of 53 switches per week, and that one major switch manufacturer has
claimed that it alone can update 50 switches per week. MCI urges that
number portability be deployed in the top 100 MSAs, by population, over
a 10 month period beginning no later than June 30, 1997. After
implementation is complete in the initial 100 MSAs, MCI recommends that
the remaining MSAs be converted based on written requests from carriers
filed with the Commission, which may order implementation in a
particular MSA to be completed within six months of the request. MCI
and Time Warner Holdings also support the notion of requiring number
portability implementation within six months of a request of a
telecommunications carrier. Finally, Ameritech argues it is premature
to set a deployment schedule for LRN because there are several
operational issues yet to be resolved. It further argues that schedules
proposed by various carriers are too aggressive and exceed the
resources of the industry.
71. Switch vendors assert that LRN software will be generally
available for service providers to deploy in 1997. Lucent Technologies
plans general availability of LRN software for March 21, 1997, for its
1A ESS switch; March 31, 1997, for its 5ESS-2000 switch; and May 1,
1997, for its 4ESS switch. Lucent asserts that, after the new software
becomes generally available, it will be able to support up to 50
software release updates per week for the 5ESS and 1A ESS switches for
North America (each release update upgrades the software for one
switch). Nortel states that its LRN software will be available in the
second quarter of 1997 for its DMS-100, DMS-200, and DMS-500 switches,
and will be available in the third quarter of 1997 for its DMS-10 and
TOPS switches. Siemens Stromberg-Carlson asserts that its LRN software
will be available for testing on its EWSD switch in its Release 14.E
generic in October 1996, and will be generally available in the first
quarter of 1997. Siemens further claims that upgrades to EWSD switches
deployed within the top 100 MSAs can be completed within five months of
the date of general availability. Ericsson asserts that its LRN
software for Ericsson SCPs will be generally available in the second
quarter of 1997, and that its LRN software for Ericsson SSPs will be
generally available in the third quarter of 1997. Ericsson expects that
6-7 switch upgrades can be accomplished each week, with each upgrade
taking 3-4 days.
72. The Illinois Commerce Commission argues that a phased
approach--implementing number portability in those areas where local
competition is developing--may be more cost-effective and more feasible
technically than a nationwide uniform deadline. Similarly, US West
contends that a nationwide uniform deadline for service provider
portability is neither practical nor necessary due to differing levels
of competition. Sprint asserts that a phased implementation will
accommodate the concerns of the small LECs, arguing that a phased
approach best balances the need for rapid deployment with the capital
constraints facing individual carriers. Nextel asserts that a phased
approach is more efficient
[[Page 38617]]
because it results in the introduction of number portability where the
demand for service provider portability is greatest. Bell Atlantic and
US West contend that state agencies should determine when and where
service provider portability should be introduced within their
respective jurisdictions. Alternatively, US West suggests that the
Commission could use the same approach to implementing service provider
portability that it adopted in implementing equal access for
independent LECs.
73. Rural and Small LEC Exemption. In comments filed prior to
passage of the 1996 Act, GVNW, TDS Telecom, NECA, and OPASTCO argue
that, if the Commission mandates the implementation of number
portability, it should exempt small and rural LECs from such a mandate.
GNVW, NECA, and NTCA claim that the demand for service provider
portability is significantly less in areas served by rural and small
LECs because local exchange competition is not likely to develop there
soon, if at all.
3. Discussion
74. Section 251(b) requires that all local exchange carriers, as
defined by section 153(26), ``provide, to the extent technically
feasible, number portability in accordance with requirements prescribed
by the Commission.'' We believe that requiring implementation of long-
term number portability by a date certain is consistent with the 1996
Act's requirement that LECs provide number portability as soon as they
can do so and will advance the 1996 Act's goal of encouraging
competition in the local exchange market. The record indicates that at
least one long-term method will be available for deployment in mid-
1997.
75. We decline the suggestion of some parties that we direct an
industry body to determine an appropriate implementation plan. The INC
has been analyzing the issues surrounding number portability for over
two years. Delegating responsibility for number portability
implementation to an industry group such as the INC would unnecessarily
delay implementation of number portability. Similarly, we reject
BellSouth's arguments in favor of delaying implementation for three to
five years. We believe such a delay is inconsistent with the 1996 Act's
requirement that LECs make number portability available when doing so
is technically feasible, as well as with the pro-competitive goals of
the 1996 Act, and would not serve the public interest.
76. Carriers filing comments in this proceeding have suggested
various deployment schedules, with most suggesting deployment within
two years of a Commission order or sooner. According to current
schedules in Illinois, Georgia, Colorado, Maryland, and New York,
AT&T's LRN method is scheduled for deployment (most likely excluding
necessary field testing) beginning in mid-1997. Thus, the record
indicates that one method for providing number portability will be
available in mid-1997.
77. Pursuant to our statutory authority under the 1996 Act, we
require local exchange carriers operating in the 100 largest MSAs to
offer long-term service provider portability commencing on October 1,
1997, and concluding by December 31, 1998, according to the deployment
schedule set forth in Appendix F of the Report and Order. We require
deployment in one MSA in each of the seven BOC regions by the end of
fourth quarter 1997, 16 additional MSAs by the end of first quarter
1998, 22 additional MSAs by the end of second quarter 1998, 25
additional MSAs by the end of third quarter 1998, and 30 additional
MSAs by the end of fourth quarter 1998. As a practical matter, this
obligation requires LECs to provide number portability to other
telecommunications carriers providing local exchange or exchange access
service within the same MSA. This schedule is consistent with switch
vendor estimates that software for at least one long-term number
portability method will be generally available for deployment by
carriers around mid-1997, and with the schedule proposed by AT&T. One
major switch manufacturer has claimed that it alone can support the
deployment of number portability software in 50 switches per week. We
conclude that a schedule consistent with AT&T's proposed schedule,
which would require all of the major switch manufacturers collectively
to update switch software at a total rate of 53 switches per week,
appears workable.
78. We note that, in establishing this schedule, we have relied
upon representations of switch vendors concerning the dates by which
the necessary switching software will be generally available. As a
result, our deployment schedule depends directly upon the accuracy of
those estimates and the absence of any significant technical problems
in deployment. We delegate authority to the Chief, Common Carrier
Bureau, to monitor the progress of local exchange carriers implementing
number portability, and to direct such carriers to take any actions
necessary to ensure compliance with this deployment schedule. We expect
that the industry will work together to resolve any outstanding issues,
technical or otherwise, which are involved with providing long-term
number portability in accordance with our requirements and deployment
schedule. We note that while we prescribe the time constraints within
which LECs must implement number portability, we strongly encourage
carriers to provide such portability before the Commission-imposed
deadlines.
79. In addition, we direct the carriers that are members of the
Illinois Local Number Portability Workshop to conduct a field test of
LRN or another technically feasible long-term number portability method
that comports with our performance criteria concluding no later than
August 31, 1997. We select the Chicago area for the field test because
the record indicates that the Illinois workshop was responsible for
drafting requirements for switching software currently being developed
by switch manufacturers. Because of the significant work which has been
done on behalf of the Illinois workshop, we believe the Chicago area is
the best site within which to conduct a field test. The field test
should encompass both network capability and billing and ordering
systems, as well as maintenance arrangements. We delegate authority to
the Chief, Common Carrier Bureau, to monitor developments during the
field test. We further direct that the carriers participating in the
test jointly file with the Bureau a report of their findings within 30
days following completion of the test. While we do not routinely order
field testing of telecommunications technologies as part of rulemaking
proceedings, we have a significant interest in ensuring the integrity
of the public switched network as number portability is deployed
nationwide. We believe a field test will help to identify technical
problems in advance of widespread deployment, thereby safeguarding the
network.
80. After December 31, 1998, each LEC must make long-term number
portability available in smaller MSAs within six months after a
specific request by another telecommunications carrier in the areas in
which the requesting carrier is operating or plans to operate.
Telecommunications carriers may file requests for number portability
beginning January 1, 1999. Such requests should specifically request
long-term number portability, identify the discrete geographic area
covered by the request, and provide a tentative date six or more months
in the future when the carrier expects to need number
[[Page 38618]]
portability in order to port prospective customers.
81. We believe that this deployment schedule is consistent with the
requirements of sections 251(b)(2) and (d), which give the Commission
responsibility for establishing regulations regarding the provision of
number portability to the extent technically feasible. As the record
indicates, long-term number portability requires the use of one or more
databases. Such databases have yet to be deployed. As indicated above,
the methods for providing long-term number portability that would
satisfy our criteria require the development of new switching software
that is not currently available, but is under development. The record
indicates, however, that at least one method of long-term number
portability will be technically feasible by mid-1997. Requiring number
portability to be fully operational in the largest 100 MSAs by December
31, 1998, would allow a reasonable amount of time to install the
appropriate generic and application software in the relevant switches.
Moreover, such a phased deployment is preferable to implementing
nationwide number portability simultaneously in all markets (or
implementing this service in multiple large MSAs at the same time)
because a phased deployment would be less likely to impose a
significant burden on those carriers serving multiple regions of the
country. Specifically, our phased approach spreads the implementation
over 15 months, thus easing the burden on carriers serving multiple
regions by limiting the number of MSAs in which implementation is
required during a particular calendar quarter. In addition, the burden
on such carriers should be less than that upon carriers in smaller
markets because the latter may be required to undertake hardware
upgrades whereas larger carriers may already have upgraded their
switches. Our phased approach would also avoid the potential strain on
vendors caused by implementation in all the largest 100 MSAs on or
around a single date, as well as help to safeguard the integrity of the
public switched telephone network.
82. In addition, we believe that our phased implementation of long-
term number portability is in the public interest and supported by the
record. Our phased deployment schedule takes in account the differing
levels of local exchange competition that are likely to emerge in the
different geographic areas throughout the country. Thus, our deployment
schedule is designed to ensure that number portability will be made
available in those regions where competing service providers are likely
to offer alternative services. We believe that competitive local
service providers are likely to be providing service in the major
metropolitan areas soon. In those areas beyond the 100 largest MSAs,
however, the actual pace of competitive entry into local markets should
determine the need for service provider portability. We therefore agree
with those parties that argue that, in markets outside of the 100
largest MSAs, long-term number portability should be deployed within
six months of a specific request from another telecommunications
provider. We believe a six-month interval is appropriate given the more
significant network upgrades that may be necessary for carriers
operating in these smaller areas.
83. We note that the 1996 Act exempts rural telephone companies
from the ``duty to negotiate * * * the particular terms and conditions
of agreements to fulfill the (interconnection) duties'' created by the
1996 Act, including the provision of number portability, and that
carriers satisfying the statutory criteria contained in section 251(f)
may be exempt from the obligations to provide number portability as set
forth herein. In addition, section 251(f)(2) permits a LEC with fewer
than two percent of the country's total installed subscriber lines to
petition a state commission for suspension or modification of the
requirements of section 251. In our recent notice of proposed
rulemaking implementing sections 251 and 252 of the Communications Act,
we address the application of this statutory exemption, and we believe
that specific application of such provisions is best addressed in that
proceeding. We intend to establish regulations to implement these
provisions by early August 1996, consistent with the requirements of
section 251(d).
84. In our Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Billed
Party Preference (BPP), we stated that the Commission would further
consider the feasibility of implementing BPP in the upcoming proceeding
to implement the 1996 Act's local number portability requirements in
section 251(b)(2). We recognize that our deployment schedule may have
implications for the provision of BPP, the ability of a customer to
designate in advance which Operator Service Provider (OSP) should be
billed when that customer makes a call from a pay telephone. This
capability may involve querying a database, similar to the proposed
long-term number portability methods. In the BPP Second Further Notice
(61 FR 30581 (June 17, 1996)), we noted that the record indicated that
the cost of BPP would likely be substantial, and we sought comment on
the costs of requiring OSPs to disclose their rates for 0+ calls in a
variety of circumstances. In that NPRM, we reaffirmed our belief that
BPP would generate significant benefits for consumers, but stated that,
at this time, unless local exchange providers were required to install
the facilities needed to perform database queries for number
portability purposes, the incremental cost to query the database for
the customer's preferred OSP would outweigh the potential incremental
benefits that BPP would provide. While we continue to recognize the
benefits that could be achieved through such an approach, we note that
creating the capability for all LECs to query OSP databases would
require a uniform deadline to nationwide number portability which, for
the reasons discussed above, is not in the public interest.
Nonetheless, as indicated by our deployment schedule, LECs in the 100
largest MSAs will be required to install the capability to query number
portability databases by December 31, 1998, which could then
potentially be utilized for BPP in those markets.
85. Finally, we delegate to the Chief, 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
(i.e., no later than September 30, 1999). In the event a carrier is
unable to meet our deadlines for implementing a long-term number
portability method, it may file with the Commission, at least 60 days
in advance of the deadline, a petition to extend the time by which
implementation in its network will be completed. We emphasize, however,
that carriers are expected to meet the prescribed deadlines, and a
carrier seeking relief must present extraordinary circumstances beyond
its control in order to obtain an extension of time. A carrier seeking
such relief must demonstrate through substantial, credible evidence the
basis for its contention that it is unable to comply with our
deployment schedule. Such requests must set forth: (1) The facts that
demonstrate why the carrier is unable to meet our deployment schedule;
(2) a detailed explanation of the activities that the carrier has
undertaken to meet the implementation schedule prior to requesting an
extension of time; (3) an identification of the particular switches for
which the extension is requested; (4) the time within which the carrier
will
[[Page 38619]]
complete deployment in the affected switches; and (5) a proposed
schedule with milestones for meeting the deployment date.
E. Database Architecture and Administration
1. Background
86. In the NPRM, we sought comment on the type of database
architecture that would best serve the public interest and the
technical feasibility of deploying a single national database or a
series of regionally distributed databases. We also sought comment on
the type of information that should be contained within such
database(s) and who should have access to such database(s). Finally, we
sought comment on administration of the number portability database(s),
i.e., who should administer and maintain the database(s), how should
they be funded, how should the administrator(s) be selected, and what
responsibilities should the administrator(s) be given.
2. Position of the Parties
Many parties assert that any long-term number portability solution
will require the use of one or more databases. Jones Intercable states
that use of a database solution: (1) Makes numbering information
available to numerous competing carriers; (2) provides the platform to
offer other types of number portability; and (3) permits the deployment
of other advanced services. ACTA, AT&T, and Citizens Utilities assert
that the database architecture of a long-term solution should resemble
the architecture used for the toll free database, but with databases
distributed on a regional basis. US Intelco and MCI note that multiple,
regional databases, rather than one national database, will be
necessary to process the data for all portable geographic numbers. Only
Scherers Communications claims that a single national database will be
able to accommodate all portable numbers, geographic and non-
geographic, and will ensure consistency and cost efficiency.
88. AT&T and several BOCs support the ability of individual
carriers to download information from the regional databases to routing
systems associated with their own networks, i.e., downstream databases.
Several other parties add that access to the regional databases must be
open, and carriers, individually or collectively, must be permitted to
develop routing databases that obtain information from the regional
databases. ITN contends that an architecture of regionally-deployed
SCPs which correspond to blocks of NPA-NXXs would give carriers the
option of maintaining their own customer records or having a third
party provider perform such functions. It adds that such openness in
data management will help ensure number portability to all service
providers, including providers of service to end users and various
other intelligent network service providers.
89. Almost all parties, incumbent LECs and new entrants, support
administration of the database(s) by a neutral third party. MFS adds
that the operator of a number portability database must not be able to
gain a competitive advantage by manipulating the data or controlling
access to the database. ACTA urges that the database administrator be a
non-profit organization selected through a competitive bidding process
that excludes LECs and IXCs, with responsibilities established by the
North American Numbering Plan Administrator (NANPA).
90. Competitive Carriers assert that the database(s) should include
only service provider portability-specific information, and that the
carriers using the database should be responsible for the integrity of
these data. Teleport claims that an industry group should determine the
contents of any distributed databases, subject to the Commission's
criteria. The Texas Advisory Commission also asserts that the
database(s) should easily integrate with 911 databases.
3. Discussion
91. Section 251(b) directs the Commission to establish requirements
governing the provision of number portability without specifically
addressing the appropriate database architecture necessary for long-
term number portability. We find that an architecture that uses
regionally-deployed databases best serves the public interest and is
supported by the record. The deployment of multiple regional databases
will facilitate the ability of LECs to provide number portability by
reducing the distance that such carriers will have to transmit carrier
routing information. This, in turn, should reduce the costs of routing
telephone calls based on such data. Moreover, a nationwide system of
regional databases would relieve individual carriers of the burden of
deploying multiple number portability databases over various geographic
areas. A regionally-deployed database system will ensure that carriers
have the number portability routing information necessary to route
telephone calls between carriers' networks, and will also promote
uniformity in the provision of such number portability data. We agree
with those parties arguing that one national number portability
database is not feasible. The potential amount of information that such
a database would be required to process would, according to parties in
this proceeding, likely become overwhelming as number portability is
deployed nationwide.
92. We also conclude that it is in the public interest for the
number portability databases to be administered by one or more neutral
third parties. Both the record and the Commission's recent decision to
reorganize the administration of telephone numbers under the NANP
support neutral third party administration of these facilities. We also
note that section 251(e)(1) requires the Commission to ``create or
designate one or more impartial entities to administer
telecommunications numbering and to make such numbers available on an
equitable basis.'' Neutral third party administration of the databases
containing carrier routing information will facilitate entry into the
communications marketplace by making numbering resources available to
new service providers on an efficient basis. It will also facilitate
the ability of local service providers to transfer new customers by
ensuring open and efficient access for purposes of updating customer
records. As we stated above, the ability to transfer customers from one
carrier to another, which includes access to the data necessary to
perform that transfer, is important to entities that wish to compete in
the local telecommunications market. Neutral third party administration
of the carrier routing information also ensures the equal treatment of
all carriers and avoids any appearance of impropriety or anti-
competitive conduct. Such administration facilitates consumers' access
to the public switched network by preventing any one carrier from
interfering with interconnection to the database(s) or the processing
of routing and customer information. Neutral third party administration
would thus ensure consistency of the data and interoperability of
number portability facilities, thereby minimizing any anti-competitive
impacts.
93. We hereby direct the NANC to select as a local number
portability administrator(s) (LNPA(s)) one or more independent, non-
governmental entities that are not aligned with any particular
telecommunications industry segment within seven months of the initial
meeting of the NANC. Selection of the LNPA(s) falls within the duties
we established for the NANC in the
[[Page 38620]]
Numbering Plan Order (60 FR 38737 (July 28, 1995)) and the NANC
Charter. The NANC charter describes the scope the NANC's activities:
The purpose of the (NANC) is to advise the (Commission) and to
make recommendations, reached through consensus, that foster
efficient and impartial number administration. The (NANC) will
develop policy on numbering issues, initially resolve disputes, and
select and provide guidance to the North American Numbering Plan
Administrator.
The fundamental purpose of the NANC is to act as an oversight committee
with the technical and operational expertise to advise the Commission
on numbering issues. The Commission has already directed the NANC to
select a NANPA. We believe the designation of a centralized entity to
select and oversee the LNPA(s) is preferable to ensure consistency and
to provide a national perspective on number portability issues, as well
as to reduce the costs of implementing a national number portability
plan.
94. We believe that the NANC is especially well-situated to handle
matters relating to local number portability administration because of
its similarity to the administration of central office codes. Both
functions rely heavily on the use of databases, and both involve
administration of NANP resources, only at different levels.
Administration of number portability data is essentially the
administration of telephone numbers (as opposed to NXX codes) between
different carriers.
95. We believe that the NANC should determine, in the first
instance, whether one or multiple administrators should be selected,
whether LNPA(s) can be the same entity selected to be the NANPA, how
the LNPA(s) should be selected, the specific duties of the LNPA(s), and
the geographic coverage of the regional databases. Once the NANC has
selected the LNPA(s) and determined the locations of the regional
databases, it must report its decisions to the Commission. The NANC
should also determine the technical interoperability and operational
standards, the user interface between telecommunications carriers and
the LNPA(s), and the network interface between the SMS and the
downstream databases. Finally, the NANC should develop the technical
specifications for the regional databases, e.g., whether a regional
database should consist of a service management system (SMS) or an SMS/
SCP pair. In reaching its decisions, the NANC should consider the most
cost-effective way of accomplishing number portability. We note that it
will be essential for the NANPA to keep track of information regarding
the porting of numbers between and among carriers. We thus believe it
necessary for the NANC to set guidelines and standards by which the
NANPA and LNPA(s) share numbering information so that both entities can
efficiently and effectively administer the assignment of the numbering
resource. For example, the NANC might require that the databases easily
integrate with 911 databases.
96. We recognize that authorizing the NANC to select a LNPA(s) may
have an impact on Illinois's April 1996 selection of Lockheed-Martin as
the administrator of the Illinois SMS, as well as the Maryland and
Colorado task forces' plans to release their RFPs for their SMS
administrators in the second quarter of 1996. Therefore, in light of
these and other ongoing efforts by state commissions, we conclude that
any state that prefers to develop its own statewide database rather
than participate in a regionally-deployed database may opt out of its
designated regional database and implement a state-specific database.
We direct the Chief, Common Carrier Bureau, to issue a Public Notice
that identifies the administrator selected by the NANC and the proposed
locations of the regional databases. A state will have 60 days from the
release date of the Public Notice to notify the Common Carrier Bureau
and NANC that the state does not wish to participate in the regional
database system for number portability. Carriers may challenge a
state's decision to opt out of the regional database system by filing a
petition with the Commission. Relief will be granted if the petitioner
can demonstrate that the state decision to opt out would significantly
delay deployment of permanent number portability or result in excessive
costs to carriers. We note that state databases would have to meet the
national requirements and operational standards recommended by the NANC
and adopted by this Commission. In addition, such state databases must
be technically compatible with the regional system of databases and
must not interfere with the scheduled implementation of the regional
databases.
97. We further note that any administrator selected by a state
prior to the release of this Order that wishes to bid for
administration of one of the regional databases must submit a new
proposal in accordance with the guidelines established by the NANC. We
emphasize that nothing in this section affects any other action that
the Commission may take regarding the delegation and transfer of
functions related to number administration. We delegate authority to
the Chief, Common Carrier Bureau, to monitor the progress of the NANC
in selecting the LNPA(s) and in developing and implementing the
database architecture described above.
98. We believe that telecommunications carriers should have open
access to all regional databases. Just as we conclude all carriers must
have equal access to any long-term number portability method, and that
no portion of a long-term number portability method should be
proprietary to any carrier, we further conclude that all carriers must
have equal and open access to all regionally-deployed databases
containing number portability-specific data. Allowing particular
carriers access to the databases over others would be inherently
discriminatory and anti-competitive. All carriers providing number
portability need to have access to all relevant information to be able
to provide customers with this important capability. We thus conclude
that the 1996 Act, in addition to general rules of equity and
competitive neutrality, requires equal and open access to all
regionally-deployed databases for all carriers wishing to interconnect.
99. We believe that, at this time, the information contained in the
number portability regional databases should be limited to the
information necessary to route telephone calls to the appropriate
service providers. The NANC should determine the specific information
necessary to provide number portability. To include, for example, the
information necessary to provide E911 services or proprietary customer-
specific information would complicate the functions of the number
portability databases and impose requirements that may have varied
impacts on different localities. For instance, because different
localities have adopted different emergency response systems, the
regional databases would have to be configured in such a fashion as to
provision the appropriate emergency information to each locality's
particular system. Similarly, special systems would need to be
developed to restrict access to proprietary customer-specific
information. In either instance, the necessary programming to add such
capabilities to the regional databases would complicate the
functionality of those databases.
100. Because we require open access to the regional databases, it
would be inequitable to require carriers to disseminate, by means of
those databases, proprietary or customer-specific information. We
therefore contemplate that the regional
[[Page 38621]]
deployment of databases will permit individual carriers to own and
operate their own downstream databases. These carrier-specific
databases will allow individual carriers to provide number portability
in conjunction with other functions and services. To the extent that
individual carriers wish to mix information, proprietary or otherwise,
necessary to provide other services or functions with the number
portability data, they are free to do so at their downstream databases.
We reiterate, however, that a carrier may not withhold any information
necessary to provide number portability on the grounds that such data
are combined with other information in its downstream database; it must
furnish all information necessary to provide number portability to the
regional databases as well as to its own downstream database.
101. Carriers that choose not to access directly the regional
databases or deploy their own downstream databases can seek access to
the carrier-specific databases deployed by other carriers. The
provision of access to network elements and facilities of incumbent
LECs is addressed in our proceeding implementing section 251 of the
Communications Act. We believe the issue of access to incumbent LECs'
carrier-specific databases by other carriers for purposes of number
portability is best addressed in that proceeding. Parties may negotiate
third-party access to non-incumbent LECs' carrier-specific databases on
an individual basis.
102. In the Numbering Plan Order, we concluded that the Commission
should invoke its statutory authority to recover its costs for
regulating numbering activities, including costs incurred from the
establishment, oversight of, and participation in the NANC. The
Commission is required to institute a rulemaking proceeding annually to
adjust the schedule of regulatory fees to reflect its performance of
activities relating to enforcement, policy and rulemaking, user
information services, and international activities, pursuant to the
relevant appropriations legislation. Therefore, we intend to include
the additional costs incurred by the Commission related to NANC and
regulating number portability in the fiscal 1997 adjustment of the
schedule of regulatory fees. In that proceeding, we will assess the
nature and amount of the additional burdens imposed by the activities
authorized here, and all interested parties will be afforded an
opportunity to comment.
F. Currently Available Number Portability Measures
1. Background
103. In the NPRM, we discussed certain currently available number
portability measures that LECs can use to provide service provider
number portability. We focused on RCF and DID and acknowledged that the
use of either method for number portability has significant
limitations. We sought comment on the costs of implementing these
measures, and on their limitations and disadvantages. We also requested
that parties discuss whether these currently available measures can be
improved so that they are workable, long-term solutions, and if so, at
what cost. Finally, we sought comment on how the costs of providing
service provider portability using RCF and DID should be recovered.
2. Implementation of Currently Available Number Portability Measures
a. Positions of the Parties
104. Commenting parties, with the exception of several of the
incumbent LECs, generally agree that the technical limitations
described in the NPRM render the interim measures unacceptable in the
long term. Indeed, many parties point out additional disadvantages of
RCF and DID, such as: Longer call set-up times, incumbent access to
competitors' proprietary information, complicated resolution of
customer complaints, increased potential for call blocking, and
substantial costs to new entrants. Bell Atlantic counters that calls
forwarded by RCF in its network can support CLASS features if the co-
carrier has modern digital switching equipment and common channel
signalling, and it adds that there is no limit on the number of calls
RCF can handle simultaneously.
105. Many of the new entrants, nevertheless, urge the Commission to
require incumbent LECs to provide interim measures until a long-term
solution is implemented. These carriers generally caution that use of
interim solutions should not delay implementation of a permanent
solution. While acknowledging that RCF and DID are already technically
feasible and generally available, several LECs argue that the
Commission need not take action on interim measures. They generally
focus, instead, on phasing in a long-term solution.
106. AT&T and MCI initially argued for using a medium-term database
solution, namely, the Carrier Portability Code (CPC) method, because of
its advantages over RCF or DID, but subsequently favored implementing
LRN as soon as possible. NYNEX and SBC Communications claim that
adopting CPC as an interim solution would result in wasted and
duplicative efforts. They note that CPC fails to support certain
services, such as ISDN calls, pay phone calls, and CLASS features when
customers place a call into an NXX from which a number has been
transferred to a different service provider, and that CPC may prevent
an operator from identifying the switch serving a ``ported'' number,
thereby interfering with busy line verification of that line.
107. Potential new entrants into the local exchange market
generally contend that requiring interim number portability is
consistent with the 1996 Act. Indeed, MFS maintains that the 1996 Act
requires immediate implementation of interim measures until long-term
portability is implemented. Teleport notes that the Bell Operating
Companies, at least, are required to provide interim number portability
as a condition of entry into the interLATA market. MCI agrees that
interim measures should be made available until long-term portability
is implemented, and argues that section 4(i) of the Communications Act
authorizes the Commission to perform any acts ``necessary and proper''
to execute section 251(b)(2), and that such authority is pre-existing
and remains in effect. ALTS contends that Congress clearly contemplated
that the Commission should require interim measures until long-term
portability is available because otherwise BOCs could satisfy the
competitive checklist of section 271(c)(2)(B)(xi) for entry in
interLATA services without providing any form of number portability.
AT&T argues that interim arrangements are incapable of preserving the
functionality for long-term number portability required by the 1996
Act, but should be provided until long-term number portability can be
deployed.
108. US West, in contrast, asserts that the Commission's
jurisdiction over interim measures is unclear because sections 153(30)
and 251(b)(2), giving the Commission jurisdiction over number
portability, appear to include only permanent portability. Cox and NCTA
claim that the interim measures do not satisfy the ``without impairment
of quality, reliability, or convenience'' standard in the definition of
number portability in 47 U.S.C. section 153(30).
109. Several of the cable interests argue that, although section
271(c)(2)(B)(xi) allows the BOCs initially to satisfy the competitive
[[Page 38622]]
checklist for entry into interLATA services by providing only interim
measures, the BOCs are also required to provide long-term portability
to fulfill the checklist requirements. Moreover, Cox and Time Warner
Holdings warn that the Commission will lose its leverage to encourage
prompt implementation of long-term portability once the BOCs are
permitted to provide in-region interLATA services pursuant to section
271. NCTA asserts that, since section 271(c)(2)(B)(xi) distinguishes
between ``interim'' measures and ``regulations pursuant to section 251
to require number portability,'' the portability required by section
251 is long-term number portability. CCTA urges the Commission to
review and require BOC progress toward deployment of a long-term method
when BOCs apply for in-region interLATA market entry, and to deny a BOC
application if the BOC tries to delay implementation of long-term
portability. Cox goes further and argues that, after the Commission
adopts number portability rules, BOCs must implement long-term service
provider portability, not just interim measures, before they can obtain
interexchange and manufacturing relief under section 271 because
interim measures do not satisfy section 251. In response, Ameritech
contends that provision of interim measures, and later compliance with
the Commission's portability rules, satisfies the BOC checklist and
notes that section 271(d)(4) directs the Commission not to limit or
extend the checklist terms.
b. Discussion
110. The 1996 Act requires that carriers ``provide, to the extent
technically feasible, number portability in accordance with the
requirements prescribed by the Commission.'' Number portability is
defined in the 1996 Act as ``the ability of users of telecommunications
services to retain, at the same location, existing telecommunications
numbers without impairment of quality, reliability, or convenience when
switching from one telecommunications carrier to another.'' The record
indicates that currently technically feasible methods of providing
number portability, such as RCF and DID, may impair to some degree
either the quality, reliability, or convenience of telecommunications
services when customers switch between carriers. Because of these
drawbacks, some may argue that the use of RCF and DID methods for
providing number portability would not satisfy the requirements of
sections 3(30) and 251(b)(2). We disagree. Section 251(b)(2)
specifically requires carriers to provide number portability, as
defined in section 3(30), ``to the extent technically feasible.'' Thus,
because currently RCF and DID are the only methods technically
feasible, we believe that use of these methods, in fact, comports with
the requirements of the statute. We believe that the 1996 Act
contemplates a dynamic, not static, definition of technically feasible
number portability methods. Under this view, LECs are required to offer
number portability through RCF, DID, and other comparable methods
because they are the only methods that currently are technically
feasible. LECs are required by this Order to begin the deployment of a
long-term number portability solution by October 1, 1997, because,
based on the evidence of record, such methods will be technically
feasible by that date. We believe that this conclusion is consistent
with Congress's goal of developing a national number portability
framework, as well as the general purpose of the Act to ``promote
competition * * * in order to secure lower prices and higher quality
services for American telecommunications consumers and encourage the
rapid deployment of new technologies.''
111. This interpretation finds further support in section
271(c)(2)(B)(xi), which sets forth the competitive checklist for BOC
entry into in-region interLATA services. That section requires the BOCs
wishing to enter the in-region interLATA market: (1) To provide interim
number portability through RCF, DID, and other comparable arrangements
``until the date by which the Commission issues regulations pursuant to
section 251 to require number portability,'' and then (2) to comply
with the Commission's regulations. There will necessarily be a
significant time period between the adoption date of these rules and
the availability of long-term number portability measures. Therefore,
were the Commission to promulgate rules providing only for the
provision of long-term number portability, during this time period the
BOCs could satisfy the competitive checklist without providing any form
of number portability. This could be true even if they had been
providing interim number portability pursuant to the checklist prior to
the effective date of the Commission's regulations. We do not believe
that Congress could have intended this result. We, therefore, agree
with MFS, ALTS, MCI, and AT&T that Congress intended that currently
available number portability measures be provided until a long-term
number portability method is technically feasible and available.
112. We conclude that we had authority to require the provision of
currently available methods of service provider portability prior to
passage of the 1996 Act. In the NPRM, we tentatively concluded that
sections 1 and 202 of the Communications Act establish a federal
interest in the provision of number portability. Specifically, we
concluded in the NPRM that such interest arises from: (1) Our
obligation to promote an efficient and fair telecommunications system;
(2) the inability to separate the impact of number portability between
intrastate and interstate telecommunications; (3) the potential adverse
impact deploying different number portability solutions across the
country would have on the provision of interstate telecommunications
services; and (4) the impact number portability could have on the use
of the numbering resource, that is, ensuring that the use of numbers is
efficient and does not contribute to area code exhaust. We now affirm
these tentative conclusions and conclude that we have jurisdiction to
require the provision of currently available number portability
methods, independent of the statutory changes adopted in the 1996 Act.
113. There are also substantial policy reasons that support our
requiring LECs to provide currently available number portability
measures. The ability of customers to keep their telephone numbers when
changing carriers, even with some impairment in call set-up time or
vertical service offerings, is critical to opening the local
marketplace to competition. By facilitating entry of new carriers into
the local market, currently available number portability measures will
increase competition in local markets which will result in lower prices
and higher service quality for telecommunications services consistent
with the goals of the 1996 Act. Several parties to this proceeding
likewise advocate that such measures are necessary for the development
of effective local exchange competition.
114. We note that sections 251(b)(2) and 251(d) give to the
Commission the authority to prescribe requirements for the provision of
number portability. Pursuant to that authority, we mandate the
provision of currently available number portability measures as soon as
reasonably possible upon receipt of a specific request from another
telecommunications carrier, including from wireless service providers.
By conditioning the obligation to provide currently available number
portability measures upon a specific request,
[[Page 38623]]
number portability will be offered only in those areas where a
competing local exchange carrier seeks to provide service. Thus, it
avoids the imposition of number portability implementation costs on
carriers (and end users) in areas where no competitor is operating.
115. We agree with the many parties who claim that the technical
limitations described in the NPRM that handicap all currently available
measures for providing number portability render them unacceptable as
long-term solutions. Despite Bell Atlantic's claims to the contrary for
its own network, the record indicates that currently available number
portability measures are inferior to LRN portability or any other
method that meets our performance criteria. The 1996 Act, and
particularly the BOC checklist in section 271, clearly contemplates
that these methods should serve as only temporary measures until long-
term number portability is implemented. As indicated above, the 1996
Act requires that number portability be provided, to the extent
technically feasible, without impairment of quality, reliability, and
convenience. Therefore, when a number portability method that better
satisfies the requirements of section 251(b)(2) than currently
available measures becomes technically feasible, LECs must provide
number portability by means of such method. In addition, we find that
the existing measures fail to satisfy our criteria set forth for any
long-term solution; for example, they depend on the original service
provider's network, may result in the degradation of service quality,
and are wasteful of the numbering resource. For these reasons, we do
not believe that long-term use of the currently available measures is
in the public interest. We emphasize that we encourage all LECs to
implement a long-term solution that meets our technical standards as
soon as possible. We also note that BOCs must comply with the
requirements set forth in this Order, including the requirement to
provide currently available measures, in order to satisfy the BOC
competitive checklist. Upon the date on which long-term portability
must be implemented according to our deployment schedule, BOCs must
provide long-term number portability and will be subject to an
enforcement action under section 271(d)(6) if they fail to do so.
116. We decline to require a ``medium-term'' or short-term database
solution such as CPC. The increased costs of implementing this approach
are unwarranted given the imminent implementation of a long-term
solution that meets our criteria. In addition, devoting resources to
implement a medium-term database solution, which is currently not
available, may delay implementation of a long-term database solution.
We note that the Colorado, Georgia, Illinois, and Ohio state
commissions have declined to adopt, and the California and Maryland
task forces have declined to recommend, CPC as an interim solution,
while the emphasis on New York's CPC trial has shifted in favor of
concentrating on the adoption of LRN. We also note that several parties
originally advocating CPC have since retreated from that view and now
instead support implementing a long-term database solution as soon as
possible. To the extent carriers wish to provide a medium-term database
solution, such as CPC, however, we do not prevent them from doing so.
3. Cost Recovery for Currently Available Number Portability Measures
a. Positions of the Parties
117. In comments filed before passage of the 1996 Act, Cablevision
Lightpath argues that all carriers should pay incremental, cost-based
rates for interim measures and suggests, as an example, an annual
surcharge based on the product of the incremental cost of switching and
minutes of traffic forwarded. AT&T and MCI agree with Cablevision
Lightpath and endorse the formula used by the New York Department of
Public Service, which allocates the costs of providing interim measures
across all carriers based on the product of switching and transport
costs, and minutes of forwarded traffic. Cablevision Lightpath urges,
however, the Commission to ban incumbent LECs from treating the costs
of currently available number portability as exogenous adjustments to
their interstate price cap indices. GSA, Jones Intercable, and the
Users Committee point out that the short-term incremental costs of
providing interim measures are low.
118. Many of the new entrants advocate placing much of the burden
of cost-recovery for interim measures on the incumbent LECs. Jones
Intercable, along with several other cable interests, argues that the
incumbent LECs and new LECs should recover the costs of interim
measures under a ``bill and keep'' system, under which incumbent LECs
and new entrants would not charge each other for interim number
portability arrangements that require them to forward calls of
customers who have changed service providers. In the alternative, Jones
Intercable contends that incumbent LECs' charges for interim number
portability services should be equal to or less than the LECs'
incremental cost of providing those services. Teleport also supports
the provision of interim portability measures with no intercarrier
usage charges.
119. Several commenters propose large discounts comparable to those
mandated for non-equal access during the transition to equal access.
Competitive Carriers assert that allowing LECs to charge retail prices
would discourage provision of long-term number portability. MCI argues
that portability is a network function, not a service, and proposes
that all local carriers share the costs or at least that incumbent LECs
not be allowed to recover more than the incremental costs. AT&T and MFS
argue that any interim measures should be provided at rates that
encourage incumbents to offer the most efficient routing available, or
reflect these measures' inferior quality and true costs. ALTS and MFS
further argue that competitive local exchange carriers should be
entitled to retain all terminating access charges. Similarly, MCI and
NCTA argue that the terminating access charges paid by IXCs should be
shared with the competitor that actually completes calls forwarded to
it.
120. AT&T and MCI argue that the 1996 Act requires that the costs
of providing interim number portability measures be borne by all
telecommunications carriers on a competitively neutral basis. MFS
argues that interim measures should be provided at no cost or in the
alternative, allocated on revenues net of payments to intermediaries.
Several LECs, in contrast, claim that the competitively neutral
standard prohibits requiring incumbent LECs to subsidize their
competitors by providing interim measures for free or at deeply
discounted rates. Ameritech asserts that section 251(e)(2)'s
``competitively neutral'' standard for cost recovery does not apply to
interim portability at all. It asserts that interim portability is
addressed in section 271(c)(2)(B)(xi), and therefore the Commission is
not authorized under the BOC checklist to eliminate or discount interim
portability rates below levels that state commissions have already
judged reasonable. Similarly, BellSouth argues that Congress's
endorsement of interim RCF and DID arrangements in the BOC checklist,
and the 1996 Act's structure of requiring state-approved carrier
negotiations for interconnection agreements, compel the conclusion that
RCF and DID cost recovery issues be left to the states.
[[Page 38624]]
b. Discussion
121. In light of our statutory mandate that local exchange carriers
provide number portability through RCF, DID, or other comparable
arrangements until a long-term number portability approach is
implemented, we must adopt cost recovery principles for currently
available number portability that satisfy the 1996 Act. We emphasize
that the cost recovery principles set forth below will apply only until
a long-term number portability method can be deployed. As we have
indicated, deployment of long-term number portability should begin no
later than October 1997, so currently available number portability
arrangements, and the associated cost recovery mechanism, should be in
place for a relatively short period.
122. It is also important to recognize that the costs of currently
available number portability are incurred in a substantially different
fashion than the costs of long-term number portability arrangements.
First, the capability to provide number portability through currently
available methods, such as RCF and DID, already exists in most of
today's networks, and no additional network upgrades are necessary. In
contrast, long-term, or database, number portability methods require
significant network upgrades, including installation of number
portability-specific switch software, implementation of SS7 and IN or
AIN capability, and the construction of multiple number portability
databases. Second, the costs of providing number portability in the
immediate term are incurred solely by the carrier providing the
forwarding service. Long-term number portability, in contrast, will
require all carriers to incur costs associated with the installation of
number portability-specific software and the construction of the number
portability databases. Those costs will have to be apportioned in some
fashion among all carriers. Finally, we note that, initially, the costs
of providing currently available number portability will be incurred
primarily by the incumbent LEC network because most customers will be
forwarding numbers from the incumbents to the new entrants.
123. Parties have advanced a wide range of methods for recovering
the costs of currently available number portability measures, including
arrangements whereby neither carrier charges the other for provision of
such measures and incremental, cost-based pricing schemes. In addition,
several states have adopted different cost recovery mechanisms. For
example, in Florida, carriers have negotiated appropriate rates for
currently available measures. The Louisiana PSC has adopted a two-
tiered approach to pricing of currently available measures. In the
first instance, carriers are permitted to negotiate an appropriate
rate. If the parties cannot agree upon a rate, the PSC will determine
the appropriate rate that can be charged by the forwarding carrier
based on cost studies filed by the carriers. These rates are not
required to be set at long-run incremental costs (LRIC) or total
service long-run incremental costs (TSLRIC), however.
124. In addition, incumbents and new entrants have voluntarily
negotiated a variety of cost recovery methods. Carriers in Rochester,
New York, for example, are voluntarily using a formula that allocates
the incremental costs of currently available number portability
measures, through an annual surcharge assessed by the carrier from
which the number is transferred. The charge assessed on each carrier is
the product of the total number of forwarded minutes and the
incremental per-minute costs of switching and transport, multiplied by
the ratio of a particular carrier's forwarded telephone numbers
relative to total working numbers in the area. In addition, Rochester
Telephone has agreed not to charge competitors for the first $1 million
of the cost of number portability. The New York DPS has adopted this
formula for the New York Metropolitan area as well. Ameritech and MFS
recently entered into an agreement for Ameritech's five-state region
under which MFS will pay Ameritech $3 per line per month for interim
measures. MFS plans to seek regulatory approval to allocate that cost
under a formula that would require MFS to pay a portion of the $3
charge equal to the ratio of MFS's gross telecommunications service
revenues, net of its payments to other carriers, to Ameritech's gross
telecommunications revenues, net of payments to other carriers.
125. Our cost recovery principles for currently available methods,
of course, must comply with the statutory requirements of the 1996 Act.
In addition, consistent with the pro-competitive objectives of the 1996
Act, we seek to create incentives for LECs, both incumbents and new
entrants, to implement long-term number portability at the earliest
possible date, since, as we have noted, long-term number portability is
clearly preferable to existing number portability methods. The
principles we adopt should also mitigate any anti-competitive effects
that may arise if a carrier falsely inflates the cost of currently
available number portability.
126. In our interconnection proceeding, we have sought comment on
our tentative conclusion that the 1996 Act authorizes us to set pricing
principles to ensure that rates for interconnection, unbundled network
elements, and collocation are just, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory.
We need not, however, reach in this proceeding the issue of whether
section 251 generally gives us authority over pricing for
interconnection because the statute sets forth the standard for the
recovery of number portability costs and grants the Commission the
express authority to implement this standard. Specifically, section
251(e)(2) requires that the costs of ``number portability be borne by
all telecommunications carriers on a competitively neutral basis as
determined by the Commission.'' We therefore conclude that section
251(e)(2) gives us specific authority to prescribe pricing principles
that ensure that the costs of number portability are allocated on a
``competitively neutral'' basis.
127. In exercising our authority under section 251(e)(2), we
conclude that we should adopt guidelines that the states must follow in
mandating cost recovery mechanisms for currently available number
portability methods. To date, the state commissions have adopted
different cost recovery methods. We seek to articulate general criteria
that conform to the statutory requirements, but give the states some
flexibility during this interim period to continue using a variety of
approaches that are consistent with the statutory mandate. The states
are also free, if they so choose, to require that tariffs for the
provision of currently available number portability measures be filed
by the carriers.
128. In establishing the standard for number portability cost
recovery, section 251(e)(2) sets forth three specific elements, which
we must interpret. First, we must determine the meaning of number
portability ``costs;'' second, we must interpret the phrase ``all
telecommunications carriers;'' and third, we must construe the meaning
of the phrase ``competitively neutral.''
129. The costs of currently available number portability are the
incremental costs incurred by a LEC to transfer numbers initially and
subsequently forward calls to new service providers using existing RCF,
DID, or other comparable measures. According to the record, the costs
of RCF differ depending on where the call originates in a carrier's
network. Calls that originate on the switch from which a number has
been forwarded (intraoffice
[[Page 38625]]
calls) result in fewer costs than calls that originate from other
switches (interoffice calls). This is because fewer transport and
switching costs are incurred in the forwarding of an intraoffice call.
The BOCs claim, for example, that there are essentially three costs
incurred in the provision of RCF for an intraoffice call: (1) Switching
costs incurred by the original switch in determining that the number is
no longer resident; (2) switching costs incurred in performing the RCF
translation, which identifies the address of the receiving switch; and
(3) switching costs incurred in redirecting the call from the original
switch to the switch to which the number has been forwarded. The BOCs
further assert that the additional costs incurred for an interoffice
call include: (1) The transport costs incurred in directing the call
from the tandem or end office to the office from which the number was
transferred and back to the tandem or end office; and (2) remote tandem
or end office switching costs. There is conflicting evidence in the
record on whether these costs are incurred on a per-minute, per-call,
or some fixed basis. State commissions in some states have set cost-
based rates for currently available number portability measures. In
order to do so, states have used different methods of identifying
costs, including LRIC, TSLRIC, and direct embedded cost studies. In
California and Illinois, the state commissions set cost-based fixed
monthly rates for RCF, while in New York and Maryland, the commissions
set cost-based rates for minutes of use. In addition, there is some
evidence in the record that carriers incur some non-recurring costs in
the provision of currently available methods of number portability.
Several states, such as California, Illinois, and Maryland, have
permitted the carrier forwarding a number to recover such non-recurring
costs as a one-time, non-recurring charge.
130. Section 251(e)(2) of the Communications Act requires that the
costs of providing number portability be borne by ``all
telecommunications carriers.'' No party commented on the meaning of the
term ``all telecommunications carriers.'' Read literally, the statutory
language ``all telecommunications carriers'' would appear to include
any provider of telecommunications services. Section 3 of the
Communications Act defines telecommunications services to mean ``the
offering of telecommunications for a fee directly to the public, or to
such classes of users as to be effectively available directly to the
public, regardless of facilities used.'' Under this reading, states may
require all telecommunications carriers--including incumbent LECs, new
LECs, CMRS providers, and IXCs--to share the costs incurred in the
provision of currently available number portability arrangements. As
discussed in greater detail below, states may apportion the incremental
costs of currently available measures among relevant carriers by using
competitively neutral allocators, such as gross telecommunications
revenues, number of lines, or number of active telephone numbers.
131. Section 251(e)(2) of the Act states that the costs of number
portability are to be ``borne by all telecommunications carriers on a
competitively neutral basis as determined by the Commission.'' We
interpret ``on a competitively neutral basis'' to mean that the cost of
number portability borne by each carrier does not affect significantly
any carrier's ability to compete with other carriers for customers in
the marketplace. Congress mandated the use of number portability so
that customers could change carriers with as little difficulty as
possible. Our interpretation of ``borne * * * on a competitively
neutral basis'' reflects the belief that Congress's intent should not
be thwarted by a cost recovery mechanism that makes it economically
infeasible for some carriers to utilize number portability when
competing for customers served by other carriers. Ordinarily the
Commission follows cost causation principles, under which the purchaser
of a service would be required to pay at least the incremental cost
incurred in providing that service. With respect to number portability,
Congress has directed that we depart from cost causation principles if
necessary in order to adopt a ``competitively neutral'' standard,
because number portability is a network function that is required for a
carrier to compete with the carrier that is already serving a customer.
Depending on the technology used, to price number portability on a cost
causative basis could defeat the purpose for which it was mandated. We
emphasize, however, that this statutory mandate constitutes a rare
exception to the general principle, long recognized by the Commission,
that the cost-causer should pay for the costs that he or she incurs.
132. Our interpretation suggests that a ``competitively neutral''
cost recovery mechanism should satisfy the following two criteria.
First, a ``competitively neutral'' cost recovery mechanism should not
give one service provider an appreciable, incremental cost advantage
over another service provider, when competing for a specific
subscriber. In other words, the recovery mechanism should not have a
disparate effect on the incremental costs of competing carriers seeking
to serve the same customer. The cost of number portability borne by a
facilities-based new entrant that wins a customer away from an
incumbent LEC is the payment that the new entrant must make to the
incumbent LEC. The higher this payment, the higher the price the new
entrant must charge to a customer to serve that customer profitably,
which will put the new entrant at a competitive disadvantage. We thus
interpret our first criterion as meaning that the incremental payment
made by a new entrant for winning a customer that ports his number
cannot put the new entrant at an appreciable cost disadvantage relative
to any other carrier that could serve that customer.
133. An example illustrates the application of this criteria. When
a facilities-based carrier that competes against an incumbent LEC for a
customer, the incumbent LEC incurs no cost of number portability if it
retains the customer. If the facilities-based carrier wins the
customer, an incremental cost of number portability is generated. The
share of this incremental cost borne by the new entrant that wins the
customer cannot be so high as to put it at an appreciable cost
disadvantage relative to the cost the incumbent LEC would incur if it
retained the customer. Thus, the incremental payment by the new entrant
if it wins a customer would have to be close to zero, to approximate
the incremental number portability cost borne by the incumbent LEC if
it retains the customer.
134. A couple of additional examples may further clarify and
illustrate this criterion. On the one hand, a cost recovery mechanism
that imposes the entire incremental cost of currently available number
portability on a facilities-based new entrant would violate this
criterion. This cost recovery mechanism would impose an incremental
cost on a facilities-based entrant that neither the incumbent, nor an
entrant that merely resold the incumbent's service, would have to bear,
because neither the incumbent nor the reseller would have to use
currently available number portability measures in order for the
prospective customer to keep his or her existing number. On the other
hand, a cost recovery mechanism that recovers the cost of currently
available number portability through a uniform assessment on the
revenues of all telecommunications carriers, less any charges paid to
other carriers, would satisfy this criterion. This approach does not
disparately affect the
[[Page 38626]]
incremental cost of winning a specific customer or group of customers,
because a LEC with a small share of the market's revenue would pay a
percentage of the incremental cost of number portability that will be
small enough to have no appreciable affect on the new entrant's ability
to compete for that customer.
135. The second criterion for a ``competitively neutral'' cost
recovery mechanism is that it should not have a disparate effect on the
ability of competing service providers to earn normal returns on their
investment. If, for example, the total costs of currently available
number portability are to be divided equally among four competing local
exchange carriers, including both the incumbent LEC and three new
entrants, within a specific service area, the new entrant's share of
the cost may be so large, relative to its expected profits, that the
entrant would decide not to enter the market. In contrast, recovering
the costs of currently available number portability from all carriers
based on each local exchange carrier's relative number of active
telephone numbers would not violate this criterion, since the amount to
be recovered from each carrier would increase with the carrier's size,
measured in terms of active telephone numbers or some other measure of
carrier size. In addition, allocating currently available number
portability costs based on active telephone numbers results in
approximately equal per-customer costs to each carrier. We also believe
that assessing costs on a per-telephone number basis should give no
carrier an advantage, relative to its competitors. An alternative
mechanism that would also satisfy our competitive neutrality
requirement would be to recover currently available number portability
costs from all carriers, including local exchange, interexchange, and
CMRS carriers, based on their relative number of presubscribed
customers.
136. We conclude that a variety of approaches currently in use
today essentially comply with our competitive neutrality criteria. One
example is the formula voluntarily being used by carriers in Rochester,
NY, and adopted by the NY DPS in the New York metropolitan area.
Specifically, this mechanism allocates the incremental costs of
currently available number portability measures, through an annual
surcharge assessed by the incumbent LEC from which the number is
transferred. This surcharge is based on each carrier's number of ported
telephone numbers relative to the total number of active telephone
numbers in the local service area. Similarly, as noted above, a cost
recovery mechanism that allocates number portability costs based on a
carrier's number of active telephone numbers (or lines) relative to the
total number of active telephone numbers (or lines) in a service area
would also satisfy the two criteria for competitive neutrality. As
noted above, MFS in Illinois plans to seek regulatory approval for a
similar formula that would allocate the costs of currently available
measures between it and Ameritech based on each carrier's gross
telecommunications revenues net of charges to other carriers. A third
competitively neutral cost recovery mechanism would be to assess a
uniform percentage assessment on a carrier's gross revenues less
charges paid to other carriers. Finally, we believe that a mechanism
that requires each carrier to pay for its own costs of currently
available number portability measures would also be permissible.
137. The cost recovery mechanisms described in the preceding
paragraphs define payments made by new entrants to incumbent LECs for
providing number portability. We recognize that incumbent LECs must
make payments to new entrants if the incumbent LEC wins a customer of
the new entrant that wants to port its number. To be competitively
neutral, the incumbent LEC would have a reciprocal compensation
arrangement with each new entrant. That is, the incumbent LEC would pay
to the new entrant a rate for number portability that was equal to the
rate that the new entrant pays the incumbent LEC.
138. In contrast, requiring the new entrants to bear all of the
costs, measured on the basis of incremental costs of currently
available number portability methods, would not comply with the
statutory requirements of section 251(e)(2). Imposing the full
incremental cost of number portability solely on new entrants would
contravene the statutory mandate that all carriers share the cost of
number portability. Moreover, as discussed above, incremental cost-
based charges would not meet the first criterion for ``competitive
neutrality'' because a new facilities-based carrier would be placed at
an appreciable, incremental cost disadvantage relative to another
service provider, when competing for the same customer. Rates for
interim number portability would also not meet the second criterion if
they approximate the retail price of local service. New entrants may
effectively be precluded from entering the local exchange market if
they are required to bear all the costs of currently available number
portability measures. Retail rates for call forwarding, to the extent
they are set above incremental costs, would also not meet the
principles of competitive neutrality for the same reasons that
incremental cost-based rates would not. Finally, placing the full cost
burden of number portability on new entrants would also deter customers
of incumbent carriers from transferring to a new service provider to
the extent that the entrant passes on the cost of currently available
number portability, in the form of higher prices for customers. In
addition, if incumbent LECs were not required to bear a portion of the
incremental costs of currently available number portability measures,
they would have an incentive to delay implementation of a long-term
number portability method.
139. A carrier has a number of options for seeking relief if it
believes that the pricing provisions for number portability offered by
a LEC violate the statutory standard in section 251(e)(2), the rules we
set forth in this order, or state-mandated cost recovery mechanisms.
First, it may bring action against the carrier in federal district
court pursuant to section 207 for damages or file a section 208
complaint against another carrier alleging a violation of the Act or
the Commission's rules. Alternatively, the carrier may file a request
for declaratory ruling with the Commission, seeking our view on whether
the statute and our rules have been properly applied. Finally, carriers
in many instances will be able to pursue existing avenues before their
state commission if a dispute arises regarding recovery of currently
available number portability costs.
140. Finally, in response to questions concerning the appropriate
treatment of terminating access charges in the interim number
portability context, we conclude that the meet-point billing
arrangements between neighboring incumbent LECs provide the appropriate
model for the proper access billing arrangement for interim number
portability. We decline to require that all of the terminating
interstate access charges paid by IXCs on calls forwarded as a result
of RCF or other comparable number portability measures be paid to the
competing local service provider. On the other hand, we believe that to
permit incumbent LECs to retain all terminating access charges would be
equally inappropriate. Neither the forwarding carrier, nor the
terminating carrier, provides all the facilities when a call is ported
to the other carrier. Therefore, we direct forwarding carriers and
terminating carriers to assess on IXCs charges for terminating access
through meet-point billing
[[Page 38627]]
arrangements. The overarching principle is that the carriers are to
share in the access revenues received for a ported call. It is up to
the carriers whether they each issue a bill for access on a ported
call, or whether one of them issues a bill to the IXCs covering all of
the transferred calls and shares the correct portion of the revenues
with the other carriers involved. If the terminating carrier is unable
to identify the particular IXC carrying a forwarded call for purposes
of assessing access charges, the forwarding carrier shall provide the
terminating carrier with the necessary information to permit the
terminating carrier to issue a bill. This may include sharing
percentage interstate usage (PIU) data and may require the terminating
entity to issue a bill based on allocated interstate minutes per IXC as
derived from data provided by the forwarding carrier.
G. Number Portability by CMRS Providers
1. Background
141. In our NPRM, we sought comment and other information on the
competitive significance of service provider portability for the
development of competition between CMRS and wireline service providers.
We also sought comment on the current, and estimated future, demand of
commercial mobile radio service customers for portable wireless
telephone numbers when they change their service provider either to
another CMRS provider or to a wireline service provider. Finally, we
sought comment on whether the burdens of implementing service provider
portability (1) between CMRS carriers, and (2) between CMRS and
wireline carriers are similar to the burdens of implementing service
provider portability between wireline carriers.
2. Position of the Parties
142. Parties commenting on CMRS issues generally fall into three
groups. One group consists of the providers of Personal Communications
Services (PCS). The PCS providers are just beginning to build advanced
wireless networks to enter the market. Their successful market entry
depends largely upon convincing consumers of other commercial mobile
radio services, e.g., cellular, to switch to PCS. The PCS providers
therefore want number portability to be implemented as soon as
technically possible. A second group is composed primarily of cellular
providers, along with paging and messaging service providers. Parties
in this category are generally incumbent service providers with
relatively less sophisticated systems. These parties generally claim
that number portability is unnecessary in the CMRS marketplace and
oppose being required to upgrade their networks for such capabilities
at allegedly great expense. A third group includes parties, such as
Ameritech and AT&T Wireless, that support implementation of number
portability by CMRS providers, but on a later deployment schedule than
wireline portability so as to allow time for technical issues specific
to CMRS to be resolved.
143. Authority to Require CMRS Providers To Provide Number
Portability. SBC Communications argues that CMRS providers have no
obligation to provide number portability under the 1996 Act, since the
1996 Act imposes that duty only on LECs, and the definition of LEC
specifically excludes CMRS providers. As a result, SBC Communications
claims, the Commission should examine CMRS portability separately from
wireline portability. Similarly, Bell Atlantic NYNEX Mobile, Arch/
AirTouch Paging, and MobileMedia argue that the 1996 Act and its
legislative history demonstrate that the number portability obligation
of section 251(b)(2) was not intended to apply to CMRS providers.
BellSouth further argues that CMRS providers should not be required to
offer portability until they compete directly with a LEC. Moreover,
Bell Atlantic NYNEX Mobile asserts that section 332 of the
Communications Act only subjects CMRS providers to limited regulation,
where there is a ``clear cut need'' for doing so.
144. Importance of Number Portability to CMRS Providers. Most PCS
providers maintain that number portability is important in the CMRS
industry because it will promote competition between different types of
CMRS providers. PCIA supports long-term number portability solutions
for broadband PCS systems when they are technically feasible, and urges
the Commission to set a consistent long-term nationwide policy for
number portability. Omnipoint, a winner of several licenses in the
broadband PCS C Block auction, explains that the success of PCS entry
depends on whether PCS providers can attract a significant share of
embedded cellular customers.
145. PCIA maintains that number portability is of considerable
competitive importance to the broadband CMRS market because the
advantages of portability will be a significant factor in consumers'
decisions to change providers even though they must endure the
inconvenience of changing equipment to do so. PCS Primeco claims that
arguments made by incumbent cellular companies that downplay the
importance of CMRS number portability are based on the fact that
current cellular subscribers usually do not make their numbers widely
known because, under existing cellular pricing plans, subscribers
typically pay for both inbound and outbound calls. PCS Primeco contends
that, since cellular and other CMRS customers do not distribute their
numbers widely, such customers currently may not regard number
portability as an important factor in deciding whether to switch CMRS
providers. PCS Primeco asserts that in the future, as CMRS providers
compete to become a substitute for wireline service, they will not
assess charges on inbound calls, and CMRS customers will assign the
same importance to number portability as wireline subscribers do today.
PCIA argues similarly that portability will facilitate the convergence
of and competition between CMRS and wireline services, which will
likely result in cellular customers publishing their telephone numbers.
PCIA adds that the ability to transfer telephone numbers between
wireline and CMRS carriers ameliorates ``number exhaustion'' concerns.
The Illinois Commerce Commission also considers number portability
between wireline and CMRS providers important.
146. CTIA maintains that the CMRS industry supports the goal of
full number portability for all telecommunications providers, including
CMRS providers, but claims that the Commission should not delay
implementation of service provider portability in the wireline networks
while awaiting network solutions for CMRS carriers. Most of the
commenting cellular providers believe that number portability is not as
important to CMRS providers as it is to wireline service providers
because there is little current demand for CMRS number portability and
because of the unique technical problems involved. AT&T asserts that,
while number portability is more important in the wireline market than
the CMRS market, the Commission should not preclude such portability
for CMRS carriers. Parties opposing CMRS portability generally argue
that the benefits of CMRS portability are diminished by the following
factors: (1) Substantial competition already exists in the CMRS market
since CMRS customers already may choose from multiple competitive
carriers; (2) CMRS customers place less value on their
[[Page 38628]]
numbers, as indicated by the fact that they do not publish them, do not
often make them available through directory assistance, and more
frequently change their telephone numbers due to competition and a
variety of non-competitive reasons; (3) number portability would impair
the ability of a carrier to identify immediately the validity of a
customer's number and thereby prevent fraudulent use of numbers; (4)
customers will have a disincentive to switch carriers because broadband
PCS will require equipment that is not compatible with incumbent
cellular equipment; (5) number portability would adversely affect
roaming capabilities because cellular carriers rely on the ability to
identify a roaming cellular customer's ``home carrier'' by the NPA/NXX;
(6) service provider portability would require CMRS carriers to expand
significantly the capacity of their roaming databases to provide
additional information about each subscriber and his or her current
service provider; and (7) CMRS uses different signalling protocols than
wireline carriers, which will make implementation of number portability
more difficult.
147. Paging providers similarly oppose being required to provide
number portability. Arch/AirTouch Paging claims that the recent
proliferation of new area codes, the introduction of a variety of
competing services, and the availability of 800 and 888 numbers (and
possibly of portable 500 and 900 numbers) have reduced in general the
importance of number portability for all carriers. Arch/AirTouch Paging
further argues against the imposition of number portability on CMRS
providers because it believes competition will continue to develop
without number portability. It maintains that various factors, such as
price, service quality, coverage area, equipment functions, customer
service, and enhanced service options can overcome the reluctance of
customers to change carriers. PageNet argues that paging and messaging
service providers should not be required to provide number portability
because these services are already competitive, as no single carrier
controls more than 12 percent of any paging market, and that markets,
on average, have five competing carriers.
148. Deployment of Long-Term Solutions by CMRS Carriers. The PCS
providers generally assert that CMRS providers will face technical
burdens comparable to wireline carriers in updating their networks, and
argue that there is no reason to treat CMRS providers differently from
wireline carriers. Some CMRS parties indicate that it is technically
possible to update cellular and PCS networks to accommodate long-term
number portability. PCIA acknowledges that implementation of number
portability by CMRS providers presents technical difficulties specific
to CMRS, but argues that such difficulties can be overcome. PCIA
asserts that most broadband carriers already plan to deploy the
components necessary to implement LRN (i.e., SS7 signaling, AIN/IN to
do database queries and responses, and AIN triggers). Omnipoint
contends that implementation deadlines for number portability should
apply equally to wireless and wireline carriers, and proposes
implementation in the top 100 MSAs between October 1997 and October
1998. Competitive Carriers argues that the Commission's number
portability rules should be technology-neutral, and favors requiring
implementation of number portability within 24 months of the issuance
of our Order throughout the top 100 MSAs.
149. In contrast, several cellular interests claim that upgrading
cellular networks to handle number portability will require greater
time and effort than adapting wireline networks, primarily because
relatively few cellular networks have IN or AIN capabilities, and
because the current six-digit-based screening used to validate customer
information and handle billing will have to be adapted to ten-digit-
based screening. These parties claim that the necessary standards for
functions such as ten-digit-based screening have yet to be developed.
150. Several parties caution that implementing number portability
for CMRS providers will require more time than for wireline service
providers because to date industry efforts aimed at developing number
portability have focused on wireline carriers. For example, CMRS
carriers did not participate in the Illinois number portability
workshop and CMRS carriers generally have not participated in technical
trials of number portability. PCIA estimates that it will be four to
five years before CMRS networks are capable of implementing long-term
number portability. Similarly, AT&T Wireless argues that CMRS carriers
must follow a different implementation schedule than wireline.
151. Interim Number Portability Measures. Many of the CMRS carriers
oppose requiring CMRS carriers to provide measures such as RCF and DID.
PCIA and Arch/AirTouch Paging claim that requiring interim measures
would divert resources from, and thus delay implementation of, a long-
term method. The paging service providers, in particular, oppose
interim measures as not cost-justified and unnecessary for the already
competitive paging industry. According to PCIA, RCF and DID currently
cannot be provided by mobile telephone switching offices and would be
more problematic and expensive to deploy in a CMRS network than in a
wireline network. For example, PCIA claims that RCF requires carriers
to maintain a point of interconnection within each NPA in which it
intends to provide such service, and that, currently, many broadband
CMRS carriers' switches do not interconnect at all such points. In
addition, PCIA asserts that most new broadband carriers are already
planning to deploy the components necessary to implement a long-term
database method as part of their initial network designs. Consequently,
those new broadband carriers might have to spend as much or more to
upgrade their networks to support interim measures as they would to
upgrade to support a long-term database method. Because substantial
resources would have to be devoted to modifying CMRS networks to
support interim measures, and thus diverted away from modifying CMRS
networks to support long-term number portability, requiring
implementation of interim measures now might delay future
implementation of the long-term method. Other CMRS carriers make claims
of technical inefficiencies, but acknowledge that RCF and DID are
technically possible for CMRS providers today.
3. Discussion
152. Authority to Require CMRS Providers to Provide Number
Portability. Section 251(b) requires local exchange carriers to provide
number portability to all telecommunications carriers, and thus to CMRS
providers as well as wireline service providers. The statute, however,
explicitly excludes commercial mobile service providers from the
definition of local exchange carrier, and therefore from the section
251(b) obligation to provide number portability, unless the Commission
concludes that they should be included in the definition of local
exchange carrier. Our recent NPRM on interconnection issues raised by
the 1996 Act seeks comment on whether, and to what extent, CMRS
providers should be classified as LECs. Because we conclude that we
have independent bases of jurisdiction over commercial mobile service
providers, we need not decide here whether CMRS providers must provide
number portability as
[[Page 38629]]
local exchange carriers under section 251(b).
153. We possess independent authority under sections 1, 2, 4(i),
and 332 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, to require CMRS
providers to provide number portability as we deem appropriate.
Ensuring that the portability of telephone numbers within the United
States is handled efficiently and fairly is within our jurisdiction
under these other provisions of the Communications Act. Sections 2 and
332(c)(1) of the Act give the Commission authority to regulate
commercial mobile service providers as common carriers, except for the
provisions of Title II that we specify are inapplicable. Section 1 of
the Act requires the Commission to make available to all people of the
United States ``a rapid, efficient, Nation-wide, and world-wide wire
and radio communication service.'' The Commission's interest in number
portability is bolstered by the potential deployment of different
number portability solutions across the country, which would
significantly impact the provision of interstate telecommunications
services. Section 1 also creates a significant federal interest in the
efficient and uniform treatment of numbering because such a system is
essential to the efficient delivery of interstate and international
telecommunications. Implementation of long-term service provider
portability by CMRS carriers will have an impact on the efficient use
and uniform administration of the numbering resource. Section 4(i)
grants the Commission authority to ``perform any and all acts, make
such rules and regulations, and issue such orders, not inconsistent
with [the Communications Act of 1934, as amended], as may be necessary
in the execution of its functions.'' We conclude that the public
interest is served by requiring the provision of number portability by
CMRS providers because number portability will promote competition
between providers of local telephone services and thereby promote
competition between providers of interstate access services.
154. Bell Atlantic NYNEX Mobile cites the CT DPUC Petition in
support of its argument that the Commission can only regulate CMRS
providers under section 332 to the extent clearly necessary, and that
regulation of number portability is not clearly necessary in the CMRS
market. We conclude, however, that the CT DPUC Petition does not limit
our authority to require CMRS providers to provide number portability
to other CMRS or wireline carriers because that proceeding did not
address the Commission's authority to require CMRS providers to provide
number portability. That proceeding related solely to state authority
to regulate rates of CMRS providers. We believe that imposing number
portability obligations on CMRS providers will foster increased
competition in the CMRS marketplace, and furthers our CMRS regulatory
policy of establishing moderate, symmetrical regulation of all
services, and a preference for curing market imperfections by lowering
barriers to entry in order to encourage competition.
155. Importance of Number Portability to CMRS Providers. We require
cellular, broadband PCS, and covered specialized mobile radio (SMR)
providers (as defined in the First Report and Order in CC Docket 94-
54), which are the CMRS providers that are expected to compete in the
local exchange market, to offer number portability. This mandate is in
the public interest because it will promote competition among cellular,
broadband PCS, and covered SMR carriers, as well as among CMRS and
wireline providers. We therefore include those carriers in our mandate
to provide long-term service provider portability, under the
Commission-mandated performance criteria set forth above, pursuant to
our authority under sections 1, 2, 4(i), and 332 of the Communications
Act of 1934. This mandate applies when switching among wireline service
providers and broadband CMRS providers, as well as among broadband CMRS
providers, even if the broadband CMRS and wireline service providers or
the two broadband CMRS providers are affiliated. We base this
conclusion on our view, as discussed in the following paragraphs, that
cellular, broadband PCS, and covered SMR providers will compete
directly with one another, and potentially will compete in the future
with wireline carriers.
156. We specifically exclude at this time paging and other
messaging services, and the following CMRS providers as listed in part
20 of our rules: Private Paging, Business Radio Services, Land Mobile
Systems on 220-222 MHz, Public Coast Stations, Public Land Mobile
Service, 800 MHz Air-Ground Radio-Telephone Service, Offshore Radio
Service, Mobile Satellite Services, Narrowband PCS Services. We do so
because such services currently will have little competitive impact on
competition between providers of wireless telephony service or between
wireless and wireline carriers. Because local SMR licensees offering
mainly dispatch services to specialized customers in a non-cellular
system configuration do not compete substantially with cellular and
broadband PCS providers, we also exclude them from the number
portability requirements we adopt today. For similar reasons, we also
specifically exclude at this time Local Multipoint Distribution Service
(LMDS). If, however, any of these services begins to compete in the
local exchange market, or if there are other public interest reasons to
require them to provide number portability, we will reassess the
exclusion of these services from the requirement to provide number
portability.
157. Service provider portability between cellular, broadband PCS,
and covered SMR providers is important because customers of those
carriers, like customers of wireline providers, cannot now change
carriers without also changing their telephone numbers. While we
recognize that customers may need to purchase new equipment when
switching among such CMRS providers, the inability of customers to keep
their telephone numbers when switching carriers also hinders the
successful entrance of new service providers into the cellular,
broadband PCS, and SMR markets. We believe, therefore, that service
provider portability, by eliminating one major disincentive to switch
carriers, will ameliorate customers' disincentive to switch carriers if
they must purchase new equipment. We believe service provider
portability will promote competition between existing cellular
carriers, as well as facilitate the viable entry of new providers of
innovative service offerings, such as PCS and covered SMR providers.
158. With the recent and expected future entry of new PCS
providers, and the growth of existing CMRS generally, we believe it
important that service provider portability for cellular, broadband
PCS, and covered SMR providers be made available so as to remove
barriers to competition among such providers. Removing barriers, such
as the requirement of changing telephone numbers when changing
providers, will likely stimulate the development of new services and
technologies, and create incentives for carriers to lower prices and
costs. We find unpersuasive arguments that number portability is
unimportant because the CMRS market is already substantially
competitive since CMRS customers already may choose from multiple
competitive carriers. Most CMRS customers today subscribe to cellular
service because broadband PCS has been offered for a very short time,
[[Page 38630]]
SMR service has typically been used for communications among mobile
units of the same business subscriber (e.g., taxi dispatch), and mobile
satellite services have typically been used only in rural areas. The
possibility of entry by new competitors can constrain monopolistic, or
in this case, duopolistic, conduct by incumbent providers and thus
serve the public interest by potentially lowering prices, improving
service quality, and encouraging innovation. We note that while the
cellular industry, with two facilities-based carriers offering service
in each market area, is more competitive than traditional monopoly
telephone markets, it is far from perfectly competitive. The United
States Government Accounting Office, the Department of Justice, and the
Commission have determined that only limited competition currently
exists in the cellular market.
159. We conclude that number portability will facilitate the entry
of new service providers, such as PCS and covered SMR providers, into
CMRS markets currently dominated by cellular carriers, and thus provide
incentives for incumbent cellular carriers to lower prices and increase
service choice and quality. Indeed, we noted recently that competition
from PCS, alone, is expected to reduce cellular prices by as much as 40
percent over the next two years. We believe that such pro-competitive
effects will be enhanced by eliminating the need for customers to
change telephone numbers when switching providers of cellular services,
broadband PCS, and covered SMR services.
160. We further conclude that number portability will promote
competition between CMRS and wireline service providers as CMRS
providers offer comparable local exchange and fixed commercial mobile
radio services. The Commission has recognized on several occasions that
CMRS providers, such as broadband PCS and cellular, will compete in the
local exchange marketplace. For example, the Commission permitted
Southwestern Bell Mobile Systems, Inc. to own local exchange facilities
outside of Southwestern Bell's service area in order to ``promote
significant Commission objectives by encouraging local loop
competition. The development of CMRS is one of several potential
sources of competition that we have identified to bring market forces
to bear on the existing LECs.'' The Commission also adopted an auction
licensing mechanism to speed deployment of PCS and thereby ``create
competition for existing wireline and wireless services.'' In addition,
the Commission decided to permit foreign investment in Sprint
Corporation based, in part, on a finding that a portion of that
investment would be used to fund PCS competition with wireline local
exchange providers in the U.S. market. Finally, in the Fixed CMRS
Notice (61 FR 6189 (February 16, 1996)), the Commission tentatively
concluded that PCS and cellular providers will provide fixed CMRS local
loop services, and that such carriers will directly compete with
traditional wireline local exchange carriers. We believe, for the
reasons stated above, that service provider portability will encourage
CMRS-wireline competition, creating incentives for carriers to reduce
prices for telecommunications services and to invest in innovative
technologies, and enhancing flexibility for users of telecommunications
services.
161. We find unpersuasive commenters' arguments that number
portability is not a competitive issue for CMRS providers because
consumers are not interested in retaining their CMRS numbers. We
recognize that currently customers of cellular, broadband PCS, and
covered SMR providers may generally initiate more calls than they
receive, and are reluctant to distribute their CMRS telephone numbers.
We agree with the argument advanced by PCS Primeco that this reluctance
generally is caused by the current cellular carrier pricing structures,
under which customers pay for incoming calls, rather than lack of
attachment to CMRS telephone numbers. Several parties have indicated
that at least some CMRS providers intend to compete with wireline
carriers in the local exchange market. To do so effectively, CMRS
carriers are likely to change their pricing structures to resemble more
closely wireline pricing structures. As broadband CMRS pricing
structures are modified as a likely result of increased competition,
and cellular, broadband PCS, and covered SMR become integrated and less
functionally distinguishable from wireline services, customers may be
more likely to make their CMRS telephone numbers known, and utilize
numbering resources in a manner more comparable with that of the
current wireline market. We, therefore, conclude that requiring number
portability for cellular, broadband PCS, and covered SMR providers will
enhance the development of competition among those providers and among
CMRS and wireline service providers.
162. Deployment of Long-Term Solutions by CMRS Carriers. The record
of this proceeding suggests that cellular, broadband PCS, and covered
SMR providers will face burdens comparable to wireline carriers in
modifying their networks to implement number portability, and that any
technical issues that are unique to those carriers can be resolved.
While a number of parties have raised CMRS-specific issues that must be
resolved before CMRS carriers can effectively provide number
portability, we conclude that the record demonstrates that none of
these difficulties are insurmountable. Several parties claim that CMRS
networks can be updated to accommodate long-term number portability. In
addition, the report on number portability recently released by the INC
indicates that broadband CMRS roaming systems, including mobile station
registration and call delivery, switches, protocols, and wireline
interconnection arrangements can be updated to accommodate number
portability. PCIA asserts that most broadband carriers already plan to
deploy the components necessary to implement LRN (i.e., SS7 signaling,
IN/AIN to do database queries and responses, and AIN triggers).
Omnipoint argues that the cellular industry has failed to demonstrate
why CMRS-specific technical issues cannot be worked out within the same
time as wireline technical issues.
163. A number of commenters, however, also suggest that
implementation of service provider portability for broadband CMRS would
necessitate more time than deployment of wireline methods. For
instance, several cellular interests claim that upgrading cellular
networks to handle number portability will require greater time and
effort than adapting wireline networks, primarily because relatively
few cellular networks have IN or AIN capabilities, and because the
current six-digit-based screening used to provide roaming, validate
customer information, and handle billing will have to be adapted to
ten-digit-based screening. These parties claim that the necessary
standards for functions such as ten-digit-based screening have yet to
be developed.
164. It appears that while the wireline industry has already
developed many of the standards and protocols necessary for wireline
carriers to provide number portability, the CMRS industry is only
beginning to address the additional standards and protocols specific to
the provision of portability by CMRS carriers. The technical
requirements for broadband CMRS portability have been given
comparatively little attention compared to those for wireline. Initial
state efforts have generally not addressed CMRS issues; for example,
the Illinois Number Portability
[[Page 38631]]
Workshop, which began studying wireline portability in April 1995, only
plans to begin addressing CMRS portability in July 1996. Moreover,
cellular, broadband PCS, and covered SMR providers face technical
burdens unique to the provision of seamless roaming on their networks,
and standards and protocols will have to be developed to overcome these
difficulties. Therefore, based on the record, and the technical
evidence presented both by the parties in this proceeding and the INC
Report, we conclude that cellular, broadband PCS, and covered SMR
providers should implement long-term service provider portability based
on the following schedule.
165. We require all cellular, broadband PCS, and covered SMR
carriers to have the capability of querying appropriate number
portability database systems in order to deliver calls from their
networks to ported numbers anywhere in the country by December 31,
1998, the date by which wireline carriers must complete implementation
of number portability in the largest 100 MSAs. This schedule will
ensure that cellular, broadband PCS, and covered SMR providers will
have the ability to route calls from their customers to a wireline
customer who has ported his or her number, by the time a substantial
number of wireline customers have the ability to port their numbers
between wireline carriers. This capability to access a database for
routing information can be accomplished in either of two ways. First,
the carrier may implement hardware and software upgrades (e.g., IN/AIN
capabilities) similar to those needed in wireline networks. Since these
upgrades do not require development of the standards and protocols
necessary to support roaming, we believe that cellular, broadband PCS,
and covered SMR carriers should be able to complete these upgrades by
the date by which wireline carriers must complete implementation of
number portability in the largest 100 MSAs. Second, the carrier may
make arrangements with other carriers that are capable of performing
database queries. Cellular, broadband PCS, and covered SMR carriers
operating in areas outside the largest 100 MSAs thus would need to make
arrangements with other CMRS providers that have the capability to
query databases, or with wireline carriers in the largest 100 MSAs,
which will have completed deployment of number portability by December
31, 1998.
166. We require all cellular, broadband PCS, and covered SMR
carriers to offer service provider portability throughout their
networks, including the ability to support roaming, by June 30, 1999.
The record indicates that additional time is needed to develop
standards and protocols, such as ten-digit-based screening, to overcome
the technical burdens unique to the provision of seamless roaming on
cellular, broadband PCS, and covered SMR networks. Individual carriers,
of course, may implement number portability sooner, and we expect that
some carriers will do so based on individual technical, economic, and
marketing considerations. We believe a nationwide implementation date
for number portability for cellular, broadband PCS, and covered SMR
providers is necessary to ensure that validation necessary for roaming
can be maintained. We delegate authority to the Chief, Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau, to establish reporting requirements in order
to monitor the progress of cellular, broadband PCS, and covered SMR
providers implementing number portability, and to direct such carriers
to take any actions necessary to ensure compliance with this deployment
schedule. We believe it necessary to establish reporting requirements
for CMRS to ensure timely resolution of the standards issues unique to
CMRS number portability, particularly roaming.
167. We recognize, however, that additional technical issues may
arise as the industry begins to focus on provision of portability by
CMRS carriers. We therefore delegate authority to the Chief, Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau, 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 (i.e., no later than September 30, 1999, for the first
deadline, and no later than March 31, 2000, for the second deadline).
168. In the event a carrier is unable to meet our deadlines for
implementing a long-term number portability solution, it may file with
the Commission at least 60 days in advance of the deadline a petition
to extend the time by which implementation in its network will be
completed. We emphasize, however, that carriers are expected to meet
the prescribed deadlines, and a carrier seeking relief must present
extraordinary circumstances beyond its control in order to obtain an
extension of time. Carriers seeking such relief must demonstrate
through substantial, credible evidence the basis for its contention
that it is unable to comply with our deployment schedule. Such requests
must set forth: (1) The facts that demonstrate why the carrier is
unable to meet our deployment schedule; (2) a detailed explanation of
the activities that the carrier has undertaken to meet the
implementation schedule prior to requesting an extension of time; (3)
an identification of the particular switches for which the extension is
requested; (4) the time within which the carrier will complete
deployment in the affected switches; and (5) a proposed schedule with
milestones for meeting the deployment date.
169. Interim Number Portability Measures. We do not require CMRS
providers to provide RCF, DID, or comparable measures. Different
treatment of CMRS and wireline carriers in this instance is justified
by their differing circumstances. According to the record, RCF and DID
currently cannot be provided by mobile telephone switching offices. Due
to the different nature of CMRS networks and wireline networks,
implementation of RCF or DID capability in a CMRS network appears far
more problematic and expensive than in a wireline network. For example,
PCIA claims that RCF requires carriers to maintain a point of
interconnection within each NPA in which it intends to provide such
service, and that currently, many broadband CMRS carriers' switches do
not interconnect at all such points. Moreover, cellular roaming systems
would have to be modified to account for the fact that, under RCF, a
number different than the one dialed is used to route the call. As a
result, alternative means will have to be developed to enable CMRS
carriers to validate mobile subscribers who have roamed out of their
service areas. Broadband carriers may also have to purchase new
switches in order to provide RCF and DID. Moreover, most new broadband
carriers are already planning to deploy the components necessary to
implement a long-term database method as part of their initial network
designs. Consequently, those new broadband carriers might have to spend
as much or more to upgrade their networks to support interim measures
as they would spend to upgrade to support a long-term database method,
and requiring implementation of both might delay implementation of the
long-term method. We also find it significant that, while the wireline
parties advocating full portability generally support interim measures,
the CMRS parties advocating full portability generally oppose interim
measures.
170. We therefore conclude that it would be counterproductive to
require
[[Page 38632]]
CMRS carriers to provide interim measures since they can provide long-
term portability comporting with our standards just as quickly and less
expensively. We believe that relieving cellular, broadband PCS, and
covered SMR carriers of the burden of providing interim measures will
allow them to devote their full resources toward implementing a long-
term method and thus enhance their ability to provide long-term
portability on the same schedule as wireline carriers. We note that
CMRS carriers are, of course, free to provide interim number
portability, if they choose to do so.
171. Number Transferability. A few parties raise the issue of
number transferability, the ability of a reseller to transfer telephone
numbers from one facilities-based carrier to another in order to permit
the reseller's end user customers to retain their existing telephone
numbers. Because the record does not establish any relationship between
number transferability and number portability, and does not identify
the technical issues involved in providing number transferability, we
decline to address the provision of number transferability in this
proceeding. We note that this issue has been raised in the Second CMRS
Interconnection NPRM (60 FR 20949 (April 28, 1996)), and will be
addressed in CC Docket No. 94-54.
H. Service and Location Portability
1. Background
172. While service provider portability refers to the ability of
end users to retain the same telephone numbers as they change from one
service provider to another, service portability refers to the ability
of users of telecommunications services to retain existing
telecommunications numbers without impairment of quality, reliability,
or convenience when switching from one telecommunications service to
another service provided by the same telecommunications carrier. We
regard switching among wireline service providers and broadband CMRS
providers, or among broadband CMRS providers, as changing service
providers, not changing services, even if the broadband CMRS and
wireline service providers or the two broadband CMRS providers are
affiliated. We base this conclusion on our view that CMRS providers,
such as cellular, broadband PCS, and covered SMR providers, compete
directly with one another, and broadband CMRS providers potentially
will compete in the future with wireline carriers.
173. Today, telephone subscribers must change their telephone
number when they change telephone service (e.g., from Plain Old
Telephone Services (POTS) to Integrated Services Digital Network
(ISDN)) because a particular service may be available only through a
particular switch. In our NPRM, we sought comment on the demand for
service portability and the extent to which a lack of service
portability inhibits the growth of new services, such as ISDN. We
requested information on the relative importance of service portability
to the decisions of end users when considering whether to switch from
one service to another. We also sought comment on what public interest
objectives would be served by encouraging (or possibly mandating)
implementation of service portability, and how the Commission could
encourage service portability.
174. Location portability refers to the ability of users of
telecommunications services to retain existing telecommunications
numbers without impairment of quality, reliability, or convenience when
moving from one physical location to another. Today, telephone
subscribers must change their telephone numbers when they move outside
the area served by their current central office. In our NPRM, we sought
comment on the demand for location portability and the geographic area
in which portability might be desired by consumers. We asked what
federal policy objectives would be served by encouraging (or possibly
mandating) implementation of location portability, and how such
objectives could be attained. We sought comment on the potential impact
that location portability for wireline telephone numbers and the
development of the 500 personal communications services market, which
permits customers to be reached through a single telephone number
regardless of their location, may have on each other.
2. Position of the Parties
175. Most parties agree that location portability and service
portability do not have the same potential impact on consumer choice
and on the development of local competition as service provider
portability. Pacific Bell and the Missouri PSC argue that the
availability of service portability will be driven by market forces,
and that product differentiation will stimulate customers to change
their telecommunications services. Ameritech and SBC Communications
note that since the 1996 Act addresses only service provider
portability, the Commission should not adopt rules mandating service
and location portability. OPASTCO claims that requiring service
portability would strain the limited abilities of small LECs, and thus
delay deployment of rural infrastructure. The Missouri PSC and New York
DPS argue that there currently is not enough demand for ISDN to warrant
requiring service portability. The Florida PSC, on the other hand,
maintains that, in many cases, service portability is already
available, as long as the switch has the needed functionality.
176. Most parties agree that implementation of location portability
poses many problems, including: (1) Loss of geographic identity of
one's telephone number; (2) lack of industry consensus as to the proper
geographic scope of location portability; (3) substantial modification
of billing systems and the consumer confusion regarding charges for
calls; (4) loss of the ability to use 7-digit dialing schemes; (5) the
need to restructure directory assistance and operator services; (6)
coordination of number assignments for both customer and network
identification; (7) network and switching modifications to handle a
two-tiered numbering system; (8) development and implementation of
systems to replace 1+ as toll identification; and (9) possible adverse
impact on E911 services.
177. Several BOCs maintain that the Commission should require
location portability immediately because currently new entrants can
serve larger geographic areas with a single switch. Some of these
parties maintain that the ability of competing carriers to serve larger
geographic areas from a single wire center may increase consumer demand
for location portability, thus giving competing carriers an advantage
over incumbent LECs. MCI, SBC Communications, Nextel, and Arch/AirTouch
Paging argue that, if location portability is implemented, it should be
limited to the local calling area of a wireline carrier. MCI further
maintains that allowing numbers to be transferred across NPA or state
boundaries would negatively affect the numbering resource because
individuals could remove numbers from the NPA by taking such numbers to
other areas of the country. In contrast, GSA believes that the greater
the geographic scope of location portability, the more meaningful the
consumer benefits.
178. While many parties believe location portability has some
value, most parties maintain that its implementation should not delay
implementation of service provider portability. At the same time,
numerous parties, including incumbents, new entrants, and state
commissions, argue
[[Page 38633]]
that any number portability method adopted by the Commission should be
capable of expanding to encompass location portability if such demand
arises. GSA, Nortel, and Bell Atlantic argue that a long-term
portability method should eventually encompass service and location
portability. The National Emergency Numbering Association (NENA)
contends the statutory definition of ``number portability'' in its
broadest interpretation would limit any requirement to provide location
portability to the area served by the same central office.
179. Pacific Bell and Time Warner Holdings argue that market forces
should drive the development of location portability. Florida PSC,
Missouri PSC, ACTA, Pacific Bell, BellSouth, and Sprint maintain that
current market demand for location portability is mixed, and depends on
such factors as the geographic scope of location portability and costs
of implementation. GSA, on the other hand, claims that demand for
location portability is reflected in the increase in demand for 800
services and by the demand for 500 services. A number of wireless
parties argue that wireless carriers already provide significant
location portability. Finally, the New York DPS maintains that location
portability, if limited to a rate center, will avoid the problems of
customer confusion, and that the 1996 Act does not prohibit provision
of location portability within that limitation.
180. OPASTCO, SBC Communications, and Nextel argue that location
portability should only be provided through use of non-geographic
numbers, such as 500 services. GTE argues that its survey illustrates
that customers are not adverse to a one-time number change to a non-
geographic number in order to have number portability. Florida PSC
maintains, however, that location portability and 500 services serve
different purposes, with location portability providing the ability to
take a phone number when a customer changes premises, and 500 services
providing the ability to take a telephone number to different locations
during the day, week, or month.
3. Discussion
181. We decline at this time to require LECs to provide either
service or location portability. This decision is not inconsistent with
the 1996 Act, which mandates the provision of service provider
portability, but does not address explicitly service or location
portability. The 1996 Act's requirement to provide number portability
is limited to situations when users remain ``at the same location,''
and ``switch[ ] from one telecommunications carrier to another,'' and
thus does not include service and location portability.
182. While the 1996 Act does not require LECs to offer service and
location portability, it does not preclude this Commission from
mandating provision of these features if it would be in the public
interest, nor does it prevent carriers from providing service and
location portability, consistent with this Order, if they so choose. We
believe, however, that requiring service or location portability now
would not be in the public interest. As the record indicates, service
provider portability is critical to the development of competition, but
service and location portability have not been demonstrated to be as
important to the development of competition.
183. Consistent with the result advocated by most parties
commenting on this issue, we believe that a mandate for service
portability is unnecessary for several reasons. First, and most
importantly, requiring carriers to make the necessary switch and
network modifications to accommodate service portability as well as
service provider portability may delay implementation of the latter.
Second, consumer demand for service portability is unclear. The record
indicates that the benefits of service portability are limited because
the current unavailability of this capability affects only customers
who wish to change their current service to Centrex and ISDN services
or vice versa. Since most non-basic services offered by incumbent LECs
are purchased in addition to (not in lieu of) basic services,
implementation of service portability may actually lower demand for the
alternate services if it raises their prices. Third, our requirement to
provide service provider portability does not preclude carriers from
offering service portability where they perceive a demand for it. In
fact, our mandate will likely facilitate carriers' ability to provide
service portability. Service provider portability will naturally drive
the provision of service portability because if a user can receive a
different service and keep the same number simply by switching
carriers, service providers will have an incentive to offer service
portability to keep those customers. Finally, carrier attempts to
differentiate their products from those of other carriers will
stimulate changes in services by customers, regardless of service
portability.
184. We also believe that, at this time, the disadvantages of
mandating location portability outweigh the benefits. Our chief concern
is that users currently associate area codes with geographic areas and
assume that the charges they incur will be in accordance with the
calling rates to that area. Location portability would create consumer
confusion and result in consumers inadvertently making, and being
billed for, toll calls. Consumers would be forced to dial ten, rather
than seven, digits to place local calls to locations beyond existing
rate centers. In order to avoid this customer confusion, carriers, and
ultimately consumers, would incur the additional costs of modifying
carriers' billing systems, replacing 1+ as a toll indicator, and
increasing the burden on directory, operator, and emergency services to
accommodate 10-digit dialing and the loss of geographic identity.
185. In addition to the disadvantages, the demand for location
portability is currently unclear. There is no consensus on the
preferred geographic scope of location portability. Also, users who
strongly desire location portability can use non-geographic numbers by
subscribing to a 500 or toll free number. Finally, whereas having to
change numbers deters users from switching service providers, we
believe that a customer's decision to move to a new residential or
business location generally would not be influenced significantly by
the availability of number portability. Therefore, location portability
will not foster the development of competition to the same extent as
service provider portability.
186. We recognize that new entrants will be able to offer a greater
range of location portability per switch due to their network
architecture and because they will generally have fewer customers in
the area covered by a switch. To avoid the consumer confusion and other
disadvantages inherent in requiring location portability, however, we
believe state regulatory bodies should determine, consistent with this
Order, whether to require carriers to provide location portability. We
believe the states should address this issue because we recognize that
``rate centers'' and local calling areas have been created by
individual state commissions, and may vary from state to state. To the
extent rate centers and/or local calling areas vary from state to
state, the degree of location portability possible without causing
consumer confusion may also vary. We therefore expect state regulatory
bodies to consider the particular circumstances in their respective
locales in determining whether to require carriers to implement
location portability.
[[Page 38634]]
187. We recognize that location portability would promote consumer
flexibility and mobility and potentially promote competition by
allowing carriers to offer different levels of location portability in
a competitive manner. Also, the importance that consumers attribute to
the geographic identity of their telephone numbers may change, and our
concerns regarding customer confusion may no longer hold true. For
these reasons, we require any long-term method to have the capability
of accommodating location and service portability if, in the future,
demand increases or the burdens decrease.
I. 500 and 900 Number Portability
1. Background
188. Currently, consumers can purchase 500 or 900 services from
either local exchange or interexchange carriers. A consumer subscribing
to 500 service receives a 500 ``area code'' number that can be
programmed to deliver calls wherever the consumer travels in the United
States and in many locations around the world. 900 service is a calling
service providing businesses with a method to deliver information,
advice, or consultations quickly and conveniently by telephone.
Individuals calling 500 or 900 subscribers dial 500 or 900 plus a 7-
digit number (NXX-XXXX). When a call is placed to a 500 or 900 service
telephone number, the originating LEC uses the NXX of the dialed number
to identify the carrier serving either the owner of the 500 number, or
the business operating the 900 number service. The LEC then routes the
call over the appropriate carrier's network.
189. In the NPRM, we tentatively concluded that service provider
portability for 500 and 900 numbers is beneficial for customers of
those services. We sought comment on this tentative conclusion and on
the costs (monetary and nonmonetary) of making such portability
available. With respect to 500 service provider portability, we sought
comment on the estimated costs of deploying and operating a database
solution, and whether it would be technically feasible to upgrade the
existing 800 database and associated software to accommodate PCS N00
numbers. We also sought comment on whether it is feasible (both
technically and economically) to provide PCS N00 service provider
portability in a switch-based translation environment. Further, we
sought comment on the following issues raised by the Industry Numbering
Committee's (INC's) PCS N00 report: (1) Who would be the owner/operator
of an SMS administering a PCS N00 database; (2) how would that
administrator be selected; (3) how would the costs of providing PCS N00
portability be recovered; and (4) by what date should PCS N00
portability be deployed. Finally, we sought comment on the ability of
900 number portability to lower prices and stimulate demand for 900
services, and on the costs of deploying and operating the necessary
database.
2. Positions of the Parties
190. In comments filed prior to passage of the 1996 Act, a majority
of parties argue that consideration of 500 and 900 number portability
is premature, as the current costs of implementation outweigh any
benefits. Indeed, several LECs maintain that the Commission should
establish a separate docket to address the unique issues raised by 500
and 900 service provider portability.
191. In contrast, MCI, Citizens Utilities, Competitive Carriers,
Florida Public Service Commission, and some CMRS providers contend that
500 and 900 number portability would benefit consumers, and that
service provider portability for 500 and 900 numbers should be
developed, as long as the costs are not prohibitive. The information
service providers generally agree that 900 portability should be
mandated by the Commission as soon as possible to increase competition
for information service provider traffic among IXCs, and to offer a
more efficient and broader range of information services.
192. Interactive Services, MCI, and Teleservices maintain that the
toll free database can be modified to include 900 numbers at relatively
modest cost, and that the implementation and administration of toll
free number portability would provide a model for 500 and 900 number
portability. Both Interactive Services and MCI note that parties have
failed to provide relevant cost and benefit data in the record of this
proceeding, and urge the Commission to require parties to submit data
concerning the total costs of implementation and operation.
193. Ameritech states that updating the existing toll free platform
to support 900 numbers is technically possible, but would require
extensive systems modifications. Ameritech also states that it would be
technically and economically infeasible to provide PCS N00 portability
in a switch-based translation environment due to the memory capacity
limitations and the operational issues associated with updating the
routing tables. Bell Atlantic states that it may be technically
feasible to upgrade the existing toll free database to accommodate 500
and 900 numbers, but this would require extensive system changes. NYNEX
supports implementation of service provider portability for 500 numbers
as proposed in the INC Report on PCS N00 Portability, which sets forth
a four-year implementation schedule. USTA argues that 500 number
portability can best be provided through a national, centralized
database, similar to the toll free database, and notes that a 900
number portability solution may not be able to utilize the same
platform as that contemplated for 500 number portability because of the
differing structures of the services associated with 900 number
services.
194. Only two parties addressed the issue of 500 or 900 portability
in comments filed after passage of the 1996 Act. Interactive Services
asserts that the 1996 Act requires LECs to provide service provider
portability for 900 numbers when technically feasible, and that the
record in this proceeding demonstrates that long-term service provider
portability for 900 numbers is technically feasible. Interactive
Services did not comment on whether service provider portability for
500 numbers is technically feasible. BellSouth states that the 1996 Act
is silent with respect to the portability of non-geographic numbers.
3. Discussion
195. Section 251(b)(2) of the 1996 Act requires all LECs ``to
provide, to the extent technically feasible, number portability in
accordance with requirements prescribed by the Commission.'' Section 3,
in turn, defines number portability as ``the ability of users of
telecommunications services to retain, at the same location, existing
telephone numbers * * * when switching from one telecommunications
carrier to another.''
196. While both LECs and interexchange carriers are able to provide
500 and 900 services, such services are more frequently provided by
IXCs. LECs, to date, have offered relatively few 500 and 900 services
because the Bell Operating Companies, which serve over 76 percent of
the nation's access lines, were precluded from offering interLATA
services under the Modification of Final Judgment, and therefore could
offer 500 and 900 services only on an intraLATA basis. Conversely, 500
and 900 interLATA services, which account for most of the 500 and 900
numbers, have, up until now, been exclusively provided by IXCs. Thus,
most users of 500 and 900
[[Page 38635]]
services obtain their numbers from IXCs, and not from LECs.
197. Although the statute does not define specifically the numbers
that must be portable, the statute on its face imposes an obligation to
provide number portability only on LECs. Because the statute's
directive to provide number portability applies only to LECs, IXCs are
not obligated under the 1996 Act to participate in making their numbers
portable when their customers wish to move their numbers to another IXC
or any other carrier offering 500 or 900 service. In the case of 900
service, the ``user'' of the telecommunications service that wants to
keep its number when switching carriers is the business that is
offering a 900 service, not the end user that is purchasing the
information service from the 900 service provider. A 900 service
provider typically purchases transport from an IXC and uses a 900
number assigned to that IXC to offer its service. As a consequence, if
a 900 service provider wishes to retain its number when switching from
one carrier to another, the IXC (and not the LEC that provides exchange
access to the IXC) is the party that would have to release the
management of the number in question. Likewise, 500 service today is
offered exclusively by IXCs, which have blocks of 500 numbers assigned
to them for this purpose. When a 500 customer wishes to switch from one
carrier to another, the IXC providing the 500 service (and not the LEC
that provides exchange access to the 500 service provider) would have
to relinquish the number in question to the competing carrier. Thus, as
a practical matter, portability for the vast majority of 500 and 900
numbers can occur only if the IXC releases to the new carrier
management of the assigned 500 or 900 number that is to be ported.
198. We recognize, however, that LECs increasingly may offer 500
and 900 services themselves in the future. To the extent they do, we
conclude that those LECs would be obligated under the 1996 Act to offer
number portability for their own 500 and 900 numbers to the extent
``technically feasible.'' We believe we have insufficient evidence in
this record to determine whether it is technically feasible for LECs to
provide portability for their own 500 and 900 numbers. Neither the INC
nor state number portability task forces have addressed the issue of
500 and 900 number portability. The record developed on this issue
largely predates passage of the 1996 Act, and as a consequence, few
parties have focused on this issue. No party to this proceeding has
suggested that any of the currently available methods, such as RCF or
DID, or any of the long term methods currently under consideration,
such as LRN, could be used to provide portability for non-geographic
numbers. Instead, the parties that addressed this issue suggest that
the current toll free database potentially could be modified to
accommodate 500 and 900 numbers, but note that a host of major
technical issues would need to be resolved. The only party to this
proceeding that argues that the Commission is required under the 1996
Act to mandate service provider portability for 900 numbers,
Interactive Services, fails to address the fact that the statutory
obligation to offer number portability falls only on LECs, and not on
other carriers that offer 900 services. No party has addressed the
technical feasibility of modifying the existing toll free database to
make only those 500 and 900 numbers that are assigned to LECs portable.
We, therefore, direct the INC to examine this issue, and file a report
with this Commission within twelve months of the effective date of this
order addressing the technical feasibility of requiring LECs to make
their assigned 500 and 900 numbers portable, whether it be through
modifying the existing toll free database or through another system.
Upon receipt of this report, we will take appropriate action under the
1996 Act.
Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis
Final Analysis of First Report and Order
199. As required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act,
5 U.S.C. 603 (RFA), an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA)
was incorporated in the NPRM (60 FR 39136, August 1, 1995). The
Commission sought written public comments on the proposals in the NPRM,
including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. Our final
analysis conforms to the RFA, as amended by the Contract With America
Advancement Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-121, 110 Stat. 847 (1996)
(CWAAA). Subtitle II of CWAAA is ``The Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996'' (SBREFA). The Commission's Final
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) in this Report and Order is as
follows:
200. Need for and Objectives of Rules: The Commission, in
compliance with sections 251(b)(2) and 251(d)(1) of the Communications
Act of 1934, as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (the
Act), adopts rules and procedures intended to ensure the prompt
implementation of telephone number portability with the minimum
regulatory and administrative burden on telecommunications carriers.
These rules are necessary to implement the provision in the
Telecommunications Act of 1996 (1996 Act) requiring local exchange
carriers (LECs) to offer number portability, if technically feasible.
In implementing the statute, the Commission has the responsibility to
adopt rules that will implement most quickly and effectively the
national telecommunications policy embodied in the Act and to promote
the pro-competitive, deregulatory markets envisioned by Congress.
Congress has recognized that number portability will lower barriers to
entry and promote competition in the local exchange marketplace.
201. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by the Public in Response
to the IRFA: There were no comments submitted in response to the
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. The Chief Counsel for Advocacy
of the United States Small Business Administration filed comments on
the NPRM which generally support the actions we take in this Report and
Order. However, in their general comments, some commenters suggested a
course of action which may result in less of an impact on small
entities. Specifically, prior to passage of the 1996 Act, some LECs
asserted that the Commission should neither adopt, nor direct the
adoption of, number portability without performing a thorough cost/
benefit analysis. Most parties, however, now agree that the 1996 Act
clearly directs the Commission to implement long-term number
portability. In the Report and Order, we concluded that Congress has
determined that the Commission should develop a national number
portability policy and has specifically directed us to prescribe the
requirements that all local exchange carriers, both incumbents and
others, must meet to satisfy their statutory obligations. See 47 U.S.C.
251(b)(2), (d). Moreover, section 251(e)(1)'s assignment to the
Commission of exclusive jurisdiction over that portion of the North
American Numbering Plan (NANP) that pertains to the United States gives
us authority over the implementation of number portability to the
extent that such implementation will affect the NANP. See 47 U.S.C.
251(e)(1).
202. Description and Estimate of Number of Small Businesses to
Which Rules Will Apply: The Regulatory Flexibility Act generally
defines the term ``small business'' as having the same meaning as the
term ``small business concern'' under the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C.
632. A small business concern is one which (1) is independently owned
and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation;
[[Page 38636]]
and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small
Business Administration (SBA). Id. According to the SBA's regulations,
entities engaged in the provision of telephone service may have a
maximum of 1,500 employees in order to qualify as a small business
concern. 13 CFR 121.201. This standard also applies in determining
whether an entity is a small business for purposes of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act.
203. Our rules governing long-term number portability apply to all
LECs, including incumbent LECs as well as new LEC entrants, and also
apply to cellular, broadband PCS, and covered SMR providers. According
to the SBA definition, incumbent LECs do not qualify as small
businesses because they are dominant in their field of operation.
Accordingly, we will not address the impact of these rules on incumbent
LECs.
204. However, our rules may have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small businesses insofar as they apply to
telecommunications carriers other than incumbent LECs. The rules may
have such an impact upon new entrant LECs, as well as cellular,
broadband PCS, and covered SMR providers. Based upon data contained in
the most recent census and a report by the Commission's Common Carrier
Bureau, we estimate that 2,100 carriers could be affected. We have
derived this estimate based on the following analysis:
205. According to the 1992 Census of Transportation,
Communications, and Utilities, there were approximately 3,469 firms
with under 1,000 employees operating under the Standard Industrial
Classification (SIC) category 481--Telephone. See U.S. Dept. of
Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1992 Census of Transportation,
Communications, and Utilities (issued May 1995). Many of these firms
are the incumbent LECs and, as noted above, would not satisfy the SBA
definition of a small business because of their market dominance. There
were approximately 1,350 LECs in 1995. Industry Analysis Division, FCC,
Carrier Locator: Interstate Service Providers at Table 1 (Number of
Carriers Reporting by Type of Carrier and Type of Revenue) (December
1995). Subtracting this number from the total number of firms leaves
approximately 2,119 entities which potentially are small businesses
which may be affected. This number contains various categories of
carriers, including competitive access providers, cellular carriers,
interexchange carriers, mobile service carriers, operator service
providers, pay telephone operators, PCS providers, covered SMR
providers, and resellers. Some of these carriers--although not
dominant--may not meet the other requirement of the definition of a
small business because they are not ``independently owned and
operated.'' See 15 U.S.C. 632. For example, a PCS provider which is
affiliated with a long distance company with more than 1,000 employees
would be disqualified from being considered a small business. Another
example would be if a cellular provider is affiliated with a dominant
LEC. Thus, a reasonable estimate of the number of ``small businesses''
affected by this Order would be approximately 2,100.
206. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other
Compliance Requirements of the Rules: There are several reporting
requirements imposed by the Report and Order. It is likely that the
entities filing the reports will require the services of persons with
technical expertise to prepare the reports. First, carriers
participating in a field test in the Chicago, Illinois, area are
required to file with the Commission a report of their findings within
30 days after completion of the test. At this time, it is not clear how
many carriers will be participating, but it is likely to include
several new entrant LECs and the dominant incumbent LEC in the region.
Second, after December 31, 1998, long-term number portability must be
provided by LECs outside of the 100 largest MSAs within six months
after a specific request by another telecommunications carrier in which
the requesting carrier is operating or plans to operate. The request
specifically must request long-term number portability, identify the
discrete geographic area covered by the request, and provide a
tentative date six or more months in the future when the carrier
expects to need number portability in order to port prospective
customers. Third, state regulatory commissions must file with the
Commission a notification if they opt to develop a state-specific
database in lieu of participating in a regional database system.
Carriers that object to a state decision to opt out of the regional
database system may file with the Commission a petition for relief.
Fourth, the item requires any administrator selected by a state prior
to the release of the Report and Order, that wishes to bid for
administration of one of the regional databases, must submit a new
proposal in accordance with the guidelines established by the NANC. We
expect that only one entity, Lockheed Martin, will be subject to this
requirement since it is the only administrator which has been selected
by a state to date. Fifth, the Report and Order requires carriers that
are unable to meet the deadlines for implementing a long-term number
portability solution to file with the Commission at least 60 days in
advance of the deadline a petition to extend the time by which
implementation in its network will be completed. Finally, we require an
industry body known as the Industry Numbering Committee (INC) to file a
report with the Commission on the portability of non-geographic numbers
assigned to LECs within 12 months after the effective date of the
Report and Order.
207. Steps Taken to Minimize Impact on Small Entities Consistent
with Stated Objectives: The Commission's actions in this Report and
Order will benefit small entities by facilitating their entry into the
local exchange market. The record in this proceeding indicates that the
lack of number portability would deter entry by competitive providers
of local service because of the value customers place on retaining
their telephone numbers. These competitive providers, many of which may
be small entities, may find it easier to enter the market as a result
of number portability which will eliminate this barrier to entry.
208. In general, we have attempted to keep burdens on local
exchange carriers to a minimum. For example, we have adopted a phased
deployment schedule which requires long-term number portability to be
implemented initially in the 100 largest MSAs, and then elsewhere upon
a carrier's request. The provision of currently available measures is
conditioned upon request only. In addition, we have attempted to
minimize the impact of our rules upon cellular, broadband PCS, and
covered SMR providers, which may be small businesses, by not requiring
such carriers to offer currently available number portability measures.
Similarly, paging and messaging service providers, which may be small
entities, are required to provide neither currently available measures
nor long-term number portability under our rules. The regulatory
burdens we have imposed are necessary to ensure that the public
receives the benefit of the expeditious provision of service provider
number portability in accordance with the statutory requirements.
V. Ordering Clauses
209. Accordingly, it is ordered that, pursuant to the authority
contained in sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 201-205, 218, 251, and 332 of the
Communications Act as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 201-205,
218, 251 and 332, Part 20 of
[[Page 38637]]
the Commission's rules, 47 CFR part 20, is amended, and part 52 of the
Commission's rules, 47 CFR part 52, is added as set forth below.
210. It is further ordered that the policies, rules, and
requirements set forth herein are adopted, effective August 26, 1996
except for collections of information subject to approval by the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB), which are effective December 23, 1996.
211. It is further ordered that, pursuant to the authority
contained in sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 201-205, 218, 251, and 332 of the
Communications Act as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 201-205,
218, 251, and 332, a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is hereby
adopted.
212. It is further ordered that BellSouth's Motion to Accept Late
Filed Comments is granted.
213. It is further ordered that authority is delegated to the
Chief, Common Carrier Bureau, as set forth supra in Paras. 78, 79, 85,
97, and to the Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, as set forth
supra in Paras. 166, 167.
List of Subjects
47 CFR Part 20
Federal Communications Commission, Local number portability, Radio,
Telecommunications.
47 CFR Part 52
Federal Communications Commission, Cost recovery, Database
architecture and administration, Local exchange carrier, Local number
portability, Long-term database methods, Numbering, Telecommunications,
Transitional methods.
Federal Communications Commission.
William F. Caton,
Acting Secretary.
Rule Changes
Parts 20 and 52 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations are
amended as follows:
PART 20--COMMERCIAL MOBILE RADIO SERVICES
1. The authority citation for part 20 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Secs. 4, 303, and 332, 48 Stat. 1066, 1082, as
amended; 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, and 332, unless otherwise noted.
2. Section 20.15 is amended by adding paragraph (e) to read as
follows:
Sec. 20.15 Requirements under Title II of the Communications Act.
* * * * *
(e) For obligations of commercial mobile radio service providers to
provide local number portability, see Sec. 52.1 of this chapter.
3. A new part 52 is added to read as follows:
PART 52--NUMBERING
Subpart A--[Reserved]
Subpart B--Local Number Portability
Sec.
52.1 Definitions.
52.3 Deployment of long-term database methods for number
portability by LECs.
52.5 Database architecture and administration.
52.7 Deployment of transitional measures for number portability.
52.9 Cost recovery for transitional measures for number
portability.
52.11 Deployment of long-term database methods for number
portability by CMRS providers.
52.12 through 52.99 [Reserved].
Appendix to Part 52--Deployment Sechdule for Long-Term Database Methods
for Local Number Portability
Authority: Sec. 4, 48 Stat. 1066, as amended; 47 U.S.C. 154,
unless otherwise noted. Interpret or apply sec. 153, 154, 201-04,
218, 225-7, 251-2, 271, 48 Stat. 1070, as amended, 1077; 47 U.S.C.
201-04, 218, 225-7, 251-2, 271 unless otherwise noted.
Subpart A--[Reserved]
Subpart B--Local Number Portability
Sec. 52.1 Definitions.
As used in this subpart:
(a) The term broadband PCS has the same meaning as that term is
defined in Sec. 24.5 of this chapter.
(b) The term cellular service has the same meaning as that term is
defined in Sec. 22.99 of this chapter.
(c) The term covered SMR means either 800 MHz and 900 MHz SMR
licensees that hold geographic area licenses or incumbent wide area SMR
licensees that offer real-time, two-way switched voice service that is
interconnected with the public switched network, either on a stand-
alone basis or packaged with other telecommunications services. This
term does not include local SMR licensees offering mainly dispatch
services to specialized customers in a non-cellular system
configuration, licensees offering only data, one-way, or stored voice
services on an interconnected basis, or any SMR provider that is not
interconnected to the public switched network.
(d) The term database method means a number portability method that
utilizes one or more external databases for providing called party
routing information.
(e) The term downstream database means a database owned and
operated by an individual carrier for the purpose of providing number
portability in conjunction with other functions and services.
(f) The term incumbent local exchange carrier means, with respect
to an area, the local exchange carrier that:
(1) On February 8, 1996, provided telephone exchange service in
such area; and
(2)(i) On February 8, 1996, was deemed to be a member of the
exchange carrier association pursuant to Sec. 69.601(b) of the
Commission's regulations (47 CFR 69.601(b)); or
(ii) Is a person or entity that, on or after February 8, 1996,
became a successor or assign of a member described in paragraph
(f)(2)(i) of this section.
(g) The term incumbent wide area SMR licensee has the same meaning
as that term is defined in Sec. 20.3 of this chapter.
(h) The term local exchange carrier means any person that is
engaged in the provision of telephone exchange service or exchange
access. For purposes of this subpart, such term does not include a
person insofar as such person is engaged in the provision of a
commercial mobile service under 47 U.S.C. 332(c).
(i) The term local number portability administrator (LNPA) means an
independent, non-governmental entity, not aligned with any particular
telecommunications industry segment, whose duties are determined by the
NANC.
(j) The term location portability means the ability of users of
telecommunications services to retain existing telecommunications
numbers without impairment of quality, reliability, or convenience when
moving from one physical location to another.
(k) The term long-term database method means a database method that
complies with the performance criteria set forth in Sec. 52.3(a).
(l) The term North American Numbering Council (NANC) means an
advisory committee created under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5
U.S.C., App (1988), to advise the Commission and to make
recommendations, reached through consensus, that foster efficient and
impartial number administration.
(m) The term number portability means the ability of users of
telecommunications services to retain, at the same location, existing
telecommunications numbers without impairment of quality, reliability,
or convenience when switching from one telecommunications carrier to
another.
[[Page 38638]]
(n) The term regional database means an SMS database or an SMS/SCP
pair that contains information necessary for carriers to provide number
portability in a region as determined by the NANC.
(o) The term service control point (SCP) means a database in the
public switched network which contains information and call processing
instructions needed to process and complete a telephone call. The
network switches access an SCP to obtain such information. Typically,
the information contained in an SCP is obtained from the SMS.
(p) The term service management system (SMS) means a database or
computer system not part of the public switched network that, among
other things:
(1) Interconnects to an SCP and sends to that SCP the information
and call processing instructions needed for a network switch to process
and complete a telephone call; and
(2) Provides telecommunications carriers with the capability of
entering and storing data regarding the processing and completing of a
telephone call.
(q) The term service portability means the ability of users of
telecommunications services to retain existing telecommunications
numbers without impairment of quality, reliability, or convenience when
switching from one telecommunications service to another, without
switching from one telecommunications carrier to another.
(r) The term service provider portability means the ability of
users of telecommunications services to retain, at the same location,
existing telecommunications numbers without impairment of quality,
reliability, or convenience when switching from one telecommunications
carrier to another.
(s) The term telecommunications means the transmission, between or
among points specified by the user, of information of the user's
choosing, without change in the form or content of the information as
sent and received.
(t) The term telecommunications carrier means any provider of
telecommunications services, except that such term does not include
aggregators of telecommunications services (as defined in 47 U.S.C.
226(a)(2)).
(u) The term telecommunications service means the offering of
telecommunications for a fee directly to the public, or to such classes
of users as to be effectively available directly to the public,
regardless of the facilities used.
(v) The term transitional measure means a method such as Remote
Call Forwarding (RCF), Flexible Direct Inward Dialing (DID), or other
comparable and technically feasible arrangement that allows one local
exchange carrier to transfer telephone numbers from its network to the
network of another telecommunications carrier, but does not comply with
the performance criteria set forth in Sec. 52.3(a).
Sec. 52.3 Deployment of long-term database methods for number
portability by LECs.
(a) Subject to paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, all local
exchange carriers (LECs) must provide number portability in compliance
with the following performance criteria:
(1) Supports network services, features, and capabilities existing
at the time number portability is implemented, including but not
limited to emergency services, CLASS features, operator and directory
assistance services, and intercept capabilities;
(2) Efficiently uses numbering resources;
(3) Does not require end users to change their telecommunications
numbers;
(4) Does not require telecommunications carriers to rely on
databases, other network facilities, or services provided by other
telecommunications carriers in order to route calls to the proper
termination point;
(5) Does not result in unreasonable degradation in service quality
or network reliability when implemented;
(6) Does not result in any degradation in service quality or
network reliability when customers switch carriers;
(7) Does not result in a carrier having a proprietary interest;
(8) Is able to migrate to location and service portability; and
(9) Has no significant adverse impact outside the areas where
number portability is deployed.
(b) All LECs must provide a long-term database method for number
portability in the 100 largest Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) by
December 31, 1998, in accordance with the deployment schedule set forth
in the appendix to this part 52.
(c) Beginning January 1, 1999, all LECs must make a long-term
database method for number portability available within six months
after a specific request by another telecommunications carrier in areas
in which that telecommunications carrier is operating or plans to
operate.
(d) The Chief, Common Carrier Bureau, may 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 (i.e., no later than September 30,
1999).
(e) In the event a LEC is unable to meet the Commission's deadlines
for implementing a long-term database method for number portability, it
may file with the Commission at least 60 days in advance of the
deadline a petition to extend the time by which implementation in its
network will be completed. A LEC seeking such relief must demonstrate
through substantial, credible evidence the basis for its contention
that it is unable to comply with the deployment schedule set forth in
the appendix to this part 52. Such requests must set forth:
(1) The facts that demonstrate why the carrier is unable to meet
the Commission's deployment schedule;
(2) A detailed explanation of the activities that the carrier has
undertaken to meet the implementation schedule prior to requesting an
extension of time;
(3) An identification of the particular switches for which the
extension is requested;
(4) The time within which the carrier will complete deployment in
the affected switches; and
(5) A proposed schedule with milestones for meeting the deployment
date.
(f) The Chief, Common Carrier Bureau, shall monitor the progress of
local exchange carriers implementing number portability, and may direct
such carriers to take any actions necessary to ensure compliance with
the deployment schedule set forth in the appendix to this part 52.
(g) Carriers that are members of the Illinois Local Number
Portability Workshop must conduct a field test of any technically
feasible long-term database method for number portability in the
Chicago, Illinois, area concluding no later than August 31, 1997. The
carriers participating in the test must jointly file with the Common
Carrier Bureau a report of their findings within 30 days following
completion of the test. The Chief, Common Carrier Bureau, shall monitor
developments during the field test.
Sec. 52.5 Database architecture and administration.
(a) The North American Numbering Council (NANC) shall direct
establishment of a nationwide system of regional SMS databases for the
provision of long-term database methods for number portability.
(b) All telecommunications carriers shall have equal and open
access to the regional databases.
[[Page 38639]]
(c) The NANC shall select a local number portability
administrator(s) (LNPA(s)) to administer the regional databases within
seven months of the initial meeting of the NANC.
(d) The NANC shall determine whether one or multiple
administrator(s) should be selected, whether the LNPA(s) can be the
same entity selected to be the North American Numbering Plan
Administrator, how the LNPA(s) should be selected, the specific duties
of the LNPA(s), the geographic coverage of the regional databases, the
technical interoperability and operational standards, the user
interface between telecommunications carriers and the LNPA(s), the
network interface between the SMS and the downstream databases, and the
technical specifications for the regional databases.
(e) Once the NANC has selected the LNPA(s) and determined the
locations of the regional databases, it must report its decisions to
the Commission.
(f) The information contained in the regional databases shall be
limited to the information necessary to route telephone calls to the
appropriate telecommunications carriers. The NANC shall determine what
specific information is necessary.
(g) Any state may opt out of its designated regional database and
implement a state-specific database. A state must notify the Common
Carrier Bureau and NANC that it plans to implement a state-specific
database within 60 days from the release date of the Public Notice
issued by the Chief, Common Carrier Bureau, identifying the
administrator selected by the NANC and the proposed locations of the
regional databases. Carriers may challenge a state's decision to opt
out of the regional database system by filing a petition with the
Commission.
(h) Individual state databases must meet the national requirements
and operational standards recommended by the NANC and adopted by the
Commission. In addition, such state databases must be technically
compatible with the regional system of databases and must not interfere
with the scheduled implementation of the regional databases.
(i) Individual carriers may download information necessary to
provide number portability from the regional databases into their own
downstream databases. Individual carriers may mix information needed to
provide other services or functions with the information downloaded
from the regional databases at their own downstream databases. Carriers
may not withhold any information necessary to provide number
portability from the regional databases on the grounds that such data
has been combined with other information in its downstream database.
Sec. 52.7 Deployment of transitional measures for number portability.
All LECs shall provide transitional measures, which may consist of
Remote Call Forwarding (RCF), Flexible Direct Inward Dialing (DID), or
any other comparable and technically feasible method, as soon as
reasonably possible upon receipt of a specific request from another
telecommunications carrier, until such time as the LEC implements a
long-term database method for number portability in that area.
Sec. 52.9 Cost recovery for transitional measures for number
portability.
Any cost recovery mechanism for the provision of number portability
pursuant to Sec. 52.7(a), that is adopted by a state commission must
not:
(a) Give one telecommunications carrier an appreciable, incremental
cost advantage over another telecommunications carrier, when competing
for a specific subscriber (i.e., the recovery mechanism may not have a
disparate effect on the incremental costs of competing carriers seeking
to serve the same customer); or
(b) Have a disparate effect on the ability of competing
telecommunications carriers to earn a normal return on their
investment.
Sec. 52.11 Deployment of long-term database methods for number
portability by CMRS providers.
(a) By June 30, 1999, all cellular, broadband PCS, and covered SMR
providers must provide a long-term database method for number
portability, including the ability to support roaming, in compliance
with the performance criteria set forth in Sec. 52.3(a).
(b) By December 31, 1998, all cellular, broadband PCS, and covered
SMR providers must have the capability to obtain routing information,
either by querying the appropriate database themselves or by making
arrangements with other carriers that are capable of performing
database queries, so that they can deliver calls from their networks to
any party that has retained its number after switching from one
telecommunications carrier to another.
(c) The Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, may 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 (i.e., no later than
September 30, 1999, for the deadline in paragraph (b) of this section,
and no later than March 31, 2000, for the deadline in paragraph (a) of
this section).
(d) In the event a carrier subject to paragraphs (a) and (b) of
this section is unable to meet the Commission's deadlines for
implementing a long-term number portability method, it may file with
the Commission at least 60 days in advance of the deadline a petition
to extend the time by which implementation in its network will be
completed. A carrier seeking such relief must demonstrate through
substantial, credible evidence the basis for its contention that it is
unable to comply with paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section. Such
requests must set forth:
(1) The facts that demonstrate why the carrier is unable to meet
our deployment schedule;
(2) A detailed explanation of the activities that the carrier has
undertaken to meet the implementation schedule prior to requesting an
extension of time;
(3) An identification of the particular switches for which the
extension is requested;
(4) The time within which the carrier will complete deployment in
the affected switches; and
(5) A proposed schedule with milestones for meeting the deployment
date.
(e) The Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, may establish
reporting requirements in order to monitor the progress of cellular,
broadband PCS, and covered SMR providers implementing number
portability, and may direct such carriers to take any actions necessary
to ensure compliance with this deployment schedule.
Secs. 52.12 through 52.99 [Reserved]
Appendix to Part 52--Deployment Schedule for Long-Term Database Methods
for Local Number Portability
Implementation must be completed by the carriers in the relevant
MSAs during the periods specified below:
10/97-12/97
Chicago, IL........................................................ 3
Philadelphia, PA................................................... 4
Atlanta, GA........................................................ 8
New York, NY....................................................... 2
Los Angeles, CA.................................................... 1
Houston, TX........................................................ 7
Minneapolis, MN.................................................... 12
1/98-3/98
Detroit, MI........................................................ 6
Cleveland, OH...................................................... 20
Washington, DC..................................................... 5
Baltimore, MD...................................................... 18
Miami, FL.......................................................... 24
Fort Lauderdale, FL................................................ 39
Orlando, FL........................................................ 40
Cincinnati, OH..................................................... 30
[[Page 38640]]
Tampa, FL.......................................................... 23
Boston, MA......................................................... 9
Riverside, CA...................................................... 10
San Diego, CA...................................................... 14
Dallas, TX......................................................... 11
St. Louis, MO...................................................... 16
Phoenix, AZ........................................................ 17
Seattle, WA........................................................ 22
4/98-6/98
Indianapolis, IN................................................... 34
Milwaukee, WI...................................................... 35
Columbus, OH....................................................... 38
Pittsburgh, PA..................................................... 19
Newark, NJ......................................................... 25
Norfolk, VA........................................................ 32
New Orleans, LA.................................................... 41
Charlotte, NC...................................................... 43
Greensboro, NC..................................................... 48
Nashville, TN...................................................... 51
Las Vegas, NV...................................................... 50
Nassau, NY......................................................... 13
Buffalo, NY........................................................ 44
Orange Co, CA...................................................... 15
Oakland, CA........................................................ 21
San Francisco, CA.................................................. 29
Rochester, NY...................................................... 49
Kansas City, KS.................................................... 28
Fort Worth, TX..................................................... 33
Hartford, CT....................................................... 46
Denver, CO......................................................... 26
Portland, OR....................................................... 27
7/98-9/98
Grand Rapids, MI................................................... 56
Dayton, OH......................................................... 61
Akron, OH.......................................................... 73
Gary, IN........................................................... 80
Bergen, NJ......................................................... 42
Middlesex, NJ...................................................... 52
Monmouth, NJ....................................................... 54
Richmond, VA....................................................... 63
Memphis, TN........................................................ 53
Louisville, KY..................................................... 57
Jacksonville, FL................................................... 58
Raleigh, NC........................................................ 59
West Palm Beach, FL................................................ 62
Greenville, SC..................................................... 66
Honolulu, HI....................................................... 65
Providence, RI..................................................... 47
Albany, NY......................................................... 64
San Jose, CA....................................................... 31
Sacramento, CA..................................................... 36
Fresno, CA......................................................... 68
San Antonio, TX.................................................... 37
Oklahoma City, OK.................................................. 55
Austin, TX......................................................... 60
Salt Lake City, UT................................................. 45
Tucson, AZ......................................................... 71
10/98-12/98
Toledo, OH......................................................... 81
Youngstown, OH..................................................... 85
Ann Arbor, MI...................................................... 95
Fort Wayne, IN..................................................... 100
Scranton, PA....................................................... 78
Allentown, PA...................................................... 82
Harrisburg, PA..................................................... 83
Jersey City, NJ.................................................... 88
Wilmington, DE..................................................... 89
Birmingham, AL..................................................... 67
Knoxville, KY...................................................... 79
Baton Rouge, LA.................................................... 87
Charleston, SC..................................................... 92
Sarasota, FL....................................................... 93
Mobile, AL......................................................... 96
Columbia, SC....................................................... 98
Tulsa, OK.......................................................... 70
Syracuse, NY....................................................... 69
Springfield, MA.................................................... 86
Ventura, CA........................................................ 72
Bakersfield, CA.................................................... 84
Stockton, CA....................................................... 94
Vallejo, CA........................................................ 99
El Paso, TX........................................................ 74
Little Rock, AR.................................................... 90
Wichita, KS........................................................ 97
New Haven, CT...................................................... 91
Omaha, NE.......................................................... 75
Albuquerque, NM.................................................... 76
Tacoma, WA......................................................... 77
Note: This Appendix A will not be published in the Code of
Federal Regulations.
Appendix A--100 Largest Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) and Their
Populations
1. Los Angeles, CA........................................ 9,150,000
2. New York, NY........................................... 8,584,000
3. Chicago, IL............................................ 7,668,000
4. Philadelphia, PA....................................... 4,949,000
5. Washington, DC......................................... 4,474,000
6. Detroit, MI............................................ 4,307,000
7. Houston, TX............................................ 3,653,000
8. Atlanta, GA............................................ 3,331,000
9. Boston, MA*............................................ 3,211,000
10. Riverside, CA......................................... 2,907,000
11. Dallas, TX............................................ 2,898,000
12. Minneapolis, MN....................................... 2,688,000
13. Nassau, NY............................................ 2,651,000
14. San Diego, CA......................................... 2,621,000
15. Orange Co., CA........................................ 2,543,000
16. St. Louis, MO......................................... 2,536,000
17. Phoenix, AZ........................................... 2,473,000
18. Baltimore, MD......................................... 2,458,000
19. Pittsburgh, PA........................................ 2,402,000
20. Cleveland, OH......................................... 2,222,000
21. Oakland, CA........................................... 2,182,000
22. Seattle, WA........................................... 2,180,000
23. Tampa, FL............................................. 2,157,000
24. Miami, FL............................................. 2,025,000
25. Newark, NJ............................................ 1,934,000
26. Denver, CO............................................ 1,796,000
27. Portland, OR.......................................... 1,676,000
28. Kansas City, KS....................................... 1,647,000
29. San Francisco, CA..................................... 1,646,000
30. Cincinnati, OH........................................ 1,581,000
31. San Jose, CA.......................................... 1,557,000
32. Norfolk, VA........................................... 1,529,000
33. Fort Worth, TX........................................ 1,464,000
34. Indianapolis, IN...................................... 1,462,000
35. Milwaukee, WI......................................... 1,456,000
36. Sacramento, CA........................................ 1,441,000
37. San Antonio, TX....................................... 1,437,000
38. Columbus, OH.......................................... 1,423,000
39. Fort Lauderdale, FL................................... 1,383,000
40. Orlando, FL........................................... 1,361,000
41. New Orleans, LA....................................... 1,309,000
42. Bergen, NJ............................................ 1,304,000
43. Charlotte, NC......................................... 1,260,000
44. Buffalo, NY........................................... 1,189,000
45. Salt Lake City, UT.................................... 1,178,000
46. Hartford, CT*......................................... 1,156,000
47. Providence, RI*....................................... 1,131,000
48. Greensboro, NC........................................ 1,107,000
49. Rochester, NY......................................... 1,090,000
50. Las Vegas, NV......................................... 1,076,000
51. Nashville, TN......................................... 1,070,000
52. Middlesex, NJ......................................... 1,069,000
53. Memphis, TN........................................... 1,056,000
54. Monmouth, NJ.......................................... 1,035,000
55. Oklahoma City, OK..................................... 1,007,000
56. Grand Rapids, MI...................................... 985,000
57. Louisville, KY........................................ 981,000
58. Jacksonville, FL...................................... 972,000
59. Raleigh, NC........................................... 965,000
60. Austin, TX............................................ 964,000
61. Dayton, OH............................................ 956,000
62. West Palm Beach, FL................................... 955,000
63. Richmond, VA.......................................... 917,000
64. Albany, NY............................................ 875,000
65. Honolulu, HI.......................................... 874,000
66. Greenville, SC........................................ 873,000
67. Birmingham, AL........................................ 872,000
68. Fresno, CA............................................ 835,000
69. Syracuse, NY.......................................... 754,000
70. Tulsa, OK............................................. 743,000
71. Tucson, AZ............................................ 732,000
72. Ventura, CA........................................... 703,000
73. Akron, OH............................................. 677,000
74. El Paso, TX........................................... 665,000
75. Omaha, NE............................................. 663,000
76. Albuquerque, NM....................................... 646,000
77. Tacoma, WA............................................ 638,000
78. Scranton, PA.......................................... 637,000
79. Knoxville, TN......................................... 631,000
80. Gary, IN.............................................. 620,000
81. Toledo, OH............................................ 614,000
82. Allentown, PA......................................... 612,000
83. Harrisburg, PA........................................ 610,000
84. Bakersfield, CA....................................... 609,000
85. Youngstown, OH........................................ 604,000
86. Springfield, MA*...................................... 584,000
87. Baton Rouge, LA....................................... 558,000
88. Jersey City, NJ....................................... 552,000
89. Wilmington, DE........................................ 539,000
90. Little Rock, AR....................................... 538,000
91. New Haven, CT*........................................ 527,000
92. Charleston, SC........................................ 522,000
93. Sarasota, FL.......................................... 518,000
94. Stockton, CA.......................................... 518,000
95. Ann Arbor, MI......................................... 515,000
96. Mobile, AL............................................ 512,000
97. Wichita, KS........................................... 507,000
98. Columbia, SC.......................................... 486,000
99. Vallejo, CA........................................... 483,000
100. Fort Wayne, IN........................................ 469,000
*Population figures for New England's city and town based MSAs are for
1992, while others are for 1994.
Note: This Appendix B will not be published in the Code of
Federal Regulations.
Appendix B--Description of Number Portability Methods
I. Database methods
1. Location Routing Number (LRN). Under AT&T's LRN proposal, a
carrier seeking to route a call to a ported number queries or
``dips'' an external routing database, obtains a ten-digit location
routing number for the ported number, and uses that location routing
number to route the call to the end office switch which serves the
called party. The carrier dipping the database may be the
originating carrier, the terminating carrier, or the N-1 carrier
(the carrier prior to the terminating carrier). Under the LRN
method, a unique location routing number is assigned to each switch.
For example, a local service provider receiving a 7-digit local
call, such as 887-1234, would examine the dialed number to determine
if the NPA-NXX is a portable code. If so, the 7 digit dialed number
would be prefixed with the NPA and a 10-digit query (e.g., 679-887-
1234) would be launched to the routing database. The routing
database then would return the LRN (e.g.,
[[Page 38641]]
679-267-0000) associated with the dialed number which the local
service provider uses to route the call to the appropriate switch.
The local service provider then would formulate an SS7 call set up
message with a generic address parameter, along with the forward
call indicator set to indicate that the query has been performed,
and route the call to the local service provider's tandem for
forwarding.
2. LRN is a ``single-number solution'' because only one number
(i.e., the number dialed by the calling party) is used to identify
the customer in the serving switch. Each switch has one network
address--the location routing number. The record and the Industry
Numbering Committee (INC) indicate that LRN supports custom local
area signalling services (CLASS), emergency services, and operator
and directory services, but may result in some additional post-dial
delay. LRN can support location and service as well as service
provider portability. Finally, LRN supports wireless-wireline and
wireless-wireless service provider portability.
3. Carrier Portability Code (CPC). Under CPC, each local service
provider within a given area would be assigned a three-digit Carrier
Portability Code (CPC). The database serving that area would contain
all the telephone numbers that have been transferred from one
carrier to another and their corresponding CPCs. A carrier querying
the database for purposes of routing a call to a customer that has
transferred his or her telephone number would know from the NXX code
of the dialed number that the telephone number may have been
transferred to another local service provider. The carrier would
query a database serving that area, which would return to the
carrier a three-digit CPC corresponding to the service provider
serving the dialed number. The carrier then would route the call
according to the carrier portability code and the dialed NXX code.
For example, an IXC delivering a call to the 301 NPA would query the
database serving the 301 area code. In return, that database would
transmit back to the IXC a ten-digit number consisting of the three-
digit NPA replaced with the CPC for the LEC serving that customer,
plus the customer's seven-digit telephone number. The IXC then would
route the call to the location pre-designated by the terminating
carrier based on the six-digit CPC-NXX. Similarly, carriers
providing service within the area would query the same database to
identify the local service provider responsible for handling
specific local calls.
4. AT&T asserts that CPC is compatible with LRN by permitting
adoption of switch trigger mechanisms, switch interfaces, signalling
translations, and the development of an SMS to an LRN environment.
CPC supports an N-1 call processing scenario, avoids routing calls
through incumbent LEC networks, permits carriers to own or provide
for their own routing databases, and supports vertical features. On
the other hand, the CPC method essentially uses two NPA codes, and
therefore precludes use of the second NPA code for other purposes.
CPC supports location portability to a limited extent. It is not
clear how operator services, such as busy line verification, collect
calls, calling card calls, and third-party billing, would be handled
under this proposal. Routing telephone calls based on carrier
portability codes likely will require, among other things, that the
software be modified in each network switch located in the NPA
within which this system is deployed. It also would require
modification to the Local Exchange Routing Guide (LERG) on the same
NPA-basis so that the LERG contains routing data based on carrier
portability codes.
5. Release-to-Pivot (RTP). Carriers using RTP attempt to
complete all calls as they presently do to a switch that is assigned
a given NPA-NXX. If the dialed number has not been ported, the call
will be completed exactly as it is currently. If the dialed number
has been ported from the switch (the ``release'' switch), the call
will be released back to a previous switch (the ``pivot'' switch) in
the call path along with rerouting information (RI). The pivot
switch uses the RI to reroute the call to the new switch. For
example, a switch with pivot capabilities would determine whether a
particular call should proceed to a release capable switch. The
pivot switch would formulate an initial address message (IAM)
containing a capability indicator informing the release switch that
the call can be released back to the pivot switch. Once the release
switch receives the call, it would use a translation table to
determine whether the called number has been ported. If it has, the
switch then would formulate a release message containing a cause
value (RTP) and an LRN for delivery back to the pivot switch. The
LRN would be included in the release message as a redirection
number. The pivot switch then would access a translation table and
determine routing based on the first six digits of the LRN. A new
IAM then would be formulated and the call redirected to the
appropriate switch.
6. RTP must traverse the existing LEC network by means of
switches equipped with release and pivot functionality and an
internal database for call setup. RTP using the location routing
number to route calls is a single-number solution. RTP does not
involve the assignment of ``pseudo numbers,'' which minimizes number
exhaust. RTP should not interfere with emergency services or
operator and directory services, but may increase call setup time
and post-dial delay. RTP can support service as well as service
provider portability, but it is unclear to what extent RTP can
support location portability. Finally, RTP supports portability
between wireless carriers, but it is unclear whether it can support
wireless-wireline portability. Some parties believe that RTP is not
appropriate for long-term implementation of service provider
portability because of its reliance on the networks of incumbent
LECs, the potential for post-dial delay, and its inefficient use of
signaling links.
7. Query on Release (QOR). Also known as ``Look Ahead,'' QOR is
similar to RTP in that queries are performed only for calls to
ported numbers. However, QOR is different in several respects. Prior
to querying a routing database, the switch from which the call
originates reserves the appropriate call path through the SS7
network and attempts to complete a call to the switch where the NPA-
NXX of the dialed number resides. If the number is ported, the call
is released back to a previous switch in the call path, which
performs a query to determine the LRN of the new serving switch. The
call then is routed to the serving switch. This method differs from
RTP in that when a number has been ported from the Release switch,
the previous switch in the call path will query the database to
obtain the routing information instead of that information being
supplied by the Release switch. In other words, the switch that
redirects the call also performs the query, thus eliminating the
need for the carrier to which the number was originally assigned to
provide routing information. Pacific Bell indicates that QOR can
support both location and service portability, since any call can be
released back and routed through a non-incumbent provider's network.
8. Local Area Number Portability (LANP). Under this proposal,
each customer is assigned a ten-digit customer number address (CNA)
which is mapped to a unique ten-digit network node address (NNA),
both of which are stored in routing databases. A service provider
receives the called number (the CNA), queries a routing database,
translates the called number from its CNA to its associated NNA,
uses the NNA to route the call, and passes the NNA to the serving
end office which, based on the NNA, terminates the call to the
appropriate line or trunk. Unlike LRN, which assigns a unique
location routing number to each switch, LANP requires a separate NNA
for each CNA. The California Local Number Portability Task Force
indicates that LANP does not result in post-dial delay or require
changes in the wireless networks. In addition, LANP supports service
provider, service, and unrestricted location portability. Moreover,
the CNA can be disassociated from the switches and moved to a common
pool of numbers for reassignment. However, LANP may impact emergency
services, as the information displayed at the Public Safety
Answering Point (PSAP) will initially be the NNA rather than the
CNA. Some parties and state commissions believe that the LANP method
is not a viable option for long-term number portability because it
is too complicated to implement.
9. Non-Geographic Number (NGN). Under this approach, which
overlays the existing LEC network, a ported subscriber is assigned a
non-geographic number (NGN) and a geographic number (GN) that
indicates the customer's physical location and the serving central
office. If the customer moves or changes local service providers,
the GN--but not the NGN--changes, similar to 800 service. When the
NGN is dialed, the NGN is translated into the GN through a database
query, and the call is routed based on the GN as is done today. All
other calls are processed as they are currently. A database dip is
required only for calls to ported numbers. Ported calls will
experience longer call setup delay and post-dial delay. Emergency
and operator and directory services are not affected. This approach
supports service provider, service, and unlimited location
portability. On the other hand, NGN strains numbering resources by
forcing all ported
[[Page 38642]]
customers to limited non-geographic numbers, requires a nationwide
cut-over, and requires an initial change of telephone numbers to
obtain portability.
II. Non-database methods
1. Remote Call Forwarding (RCF). RCF is an existing LEC service
that redirects calls in the telephone network and can be adapted to
provide a semblance of service provider number portability. If a
customer transfers his or her existing telephone number from Carrier
A to Carrier B, any call to that customer is routed to the central
office switch operated by Carrier A that is designated by the NXX
code of the customer's telephone number. Carrier A's switch routes
that call to Carrier B, translating the dialed number into a number
with an NXX corresponding to a switch operated by Carrier B. Carrier
B then completes the routing of the call to its customer. The change
in terminating carriers is transparent to the calling party.
Disadvantages of RCF include the following: (1) It requires the use
of two, ten-digit telephone numbers and thus strains number plan
administration and contributes to area code exhaust; (2) it
generally does not support several custom local area signalling
services (CLASS), such as caller ID, and may degrade transmission
quality, because it actually places a second call to a transparent
telephone number; (3) it can handle only a limited number of calls
to customers of the same competing service provider at any one time;
(4) it may result in longer call set-up times; (5) it requires the
use of the incumbent LEC network for routing of calls; (6) it may
enable incumbents to access competitors' proprietary information;
(7) it may result in more complicated resolution of customer
complaints; (8) the potential for call blocking may be increased;
and (9) it may impose substantial costs upon new entrants.
2. Flexible Direct Inward Dialing (DID). DID works similarly to
RCF, except the original service provider routes calls to the dialed
number over a dedicated facility to the new service provider's
switch instead of translating the dialed number to a new number. DID
has many of the same limitations as RCF, although DID can process
more simultaneous calls to a competing service provider.
3. Other. We are aware of three derivatives of RCF and DID, all
of which require routing of all incoming calls to the terminating
switch identified by the NXX code of the dialed phone number, and
involve the loss of CLASS functionalities. Unlike RCF and DID, they
use LEC tandem switches to aggregate calls to a particular competing
service provider before those calls are routed to that provider. In
addition, Cablevision Lightpath advocates use of Trunk Route
Indexing (TRI), which it claims routes calls directly to the
competitor's interconnection facilities and supports CLASS features.
Finally, Directory Number Route Indexing (DNRI) is a method which
first routes incoming calls to the switch to which the NPA-NXX code
originally was assigned. DNRI then routes ported calls to the new
service either through a direct trunk or by attaching a temporary
``pseudo NPA'' to the number and using a tandem, depending on
availability.
Note: This Appendix C will not be published in the Code of
Federal Regulations.
Appendix C--Implementation Schedule
Implementation must be completed by the carriers in the relevant
MSAs during the periods specified below:
10/97-12/97
Chicago, IL........................................................ 3
Philadelphia, PA................................................... 4
Atlanta, GA........................................................ 8
New York, NY....................................................... 2
Los Angeles, CA.................................................... 1
Houston, TX........................................................ 7
Minneapolis, MN.................................................... 12
1/98-3/98
Detroit, MI........................................................ 6
Cleveland, OH...................................................... 20
Washington, DC..................................................... 5
Baltimore, MD...................................................... 18
Miami, FL.......................................................... 24
Fort Lauderdale, FL................................................ 39
Orlando, FL........................................................ 40
Cincinnati, OH..................................................... 30
Tampa, FL.......................................................... 23
Boston, MA......................................................... 9
Riverside, CA...................................................... 10
San Diego, CA...................................................... 14
Dallas, TX......................................................... 11
St. Louis, MO...................................................... 16
Phoenix, AZ........................................................ 17
Seattle, WA........................................................ 22
4/98-6/98
Indianapolis, IN................................................... 34
Milwaukee, WI...................................................... 35
Columbus, OH....................................................... 38
Pittsburgh, PA..................................................... 19
Newark, NJ......................................................... 25
Norfolk, VA........................................................ 32
New Orleans, LA.................................................... 41
Charlotte, NC...................................................... 43
Greensboro, NC..................................................... 48
Nashville, TN...................................................... 51
Las Vegas, NV...................................................... 50
Nassau, NY......................................................... 13
Buffalo, NY........................................................ 44
Orange Co, CA...................................................... 15
Oakland, CA........................................................ 21
San Francisco, CA.................................................. 29
Rochester, NY...................................................... 49
Kansas City, KS.................................................... 28
Fort Worth, TX..................................................... 33
Hartford, CT....................................................... 46
Denver, CO......................................................... 26
Portland, OR....................................................... 27
7/98-9/98
Grand Rapids, MI................................................... 56
Dayton, OH......................................................... 61
Akron, OH.......................................................... 73
Gary, IN........................................................... 80
Bergen, NJ......................................................... 42
Middlesex, NJ...................................................... 52
Monmouth, NJ....................................................... 54
Richmond, VA....................................................... 63
Memphis, TN........................................................ 53
Louisville, KY..................................................... 57
Jacksonville, FL................................................... 58
Raleigh, NC........................................................ 59
West Palm Beach, FL................................................ 62
Greenville, SC..................................................... 66
Honolulu, HI....................................................... 65
Providence, RI..................................................... 47
Albany, NY......................................................... 64
San Jose, CA....................................................... 31
Sacramento, CA..................................................... 36
Fresno, CA......................................................... 68
San Antonio, TX.................................................... 37
Oklahoma City, OK.................................................. 55
Austin, TX......................................................... 60
Salt Lake City, UT................................................. 45
Tucson, AZ......................................................... 71
10/98-12/98
Toledo, OH......................................................... 81
Youngstown, OH..................................................... 85
Ann Arbor, MI...................................................... 95
Fort Wayne, IN..................................................... 100
Scranton, PA....................................................... 78
Allentown, PA...................................................... 82
Harrisburg, PA..................................................... 83
Jersey City, NJ.................................................... 88
Wilmington, DE..................................................... 89
Birmingham, AL..................................................... 67
Knoxville, KY...................................................... 79
Baton Rouge, LA.................................................... 87
Charleston, SC..................................................... 92
Sarasota, FL....................................................... 93
Mobile, AL......................................................... 96
Columbia, SC....................................................... 98
Tulsa, OK.......................................................... 70
Syracuse, NY....................................................... 69
Springfield, MA.................................................... 86
Ventura, CA........................................................ 72
Bakersfield, CA.................................................... 84
Stockton, CA....................................................... 94
Vallejo, CA........................................................ 99
El Paso, TX........................................................ 74
Little Rock, AR.................................................... 90
Wichita, KS........................................................ 97
New Haven, CT...................................................... 91
Omaha, NE.......................................................... 75
Albuquerque, NM.................................................... 76
Tacoma, WA......................................................... 77
[FR Doc. 96-18477 Filed 7-24-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
