Local Number Portability

1
Local Number Portability

• Contemporary Hotel
• Orlando, FL
• January 20, 2004
• Carri Bennet, Managing Principal
• Bennet Bennet, PLLC
• www.bennetlaw.com

2
Overview

• Deadlines and obligations
• Confusion and finger pointing
• RWWG WLNP Guidelines
• Wireless-to-Wireless Porting Order (aka
  Intramodal Porting Order)
• Wireless-to-Wireline Porting Order (aka
  Intermodal Porting Order)
• Wireline-to-Wireless FNPRM

3
DeadlinesCMRS Carriers

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

4
DeadlinesCMRS Carriers

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

5
Deadlines--Local Exchange Carriers

• Inside Top 100
• November 24, 2003
• Outside Top 100 MSA
• Six months after receiving a request

6
Deadlines2 Percent LECs

• Inside Top 100 MSA
• If a request was submitted by May 24, 2003, you
  were supposed to implement LNP by November 24,
  2003
• Waivers due 60 days before implementation
  deadlines
• OPASTCO/NTCA/ITTA obtained relief for 2
  carriers
• May 24, 2004 is deadline if a request was
  received after May 24, 2003 AND
• LEC is not LNP capable AND
• No interconnection agreement exists OR
• No wireless numbers are in the wireline rate
  center

BUT
7
Deadlines Obligations

• What is a request?
• FCC has said specific request
• Requests portability
• Identifies the geographic area
• Tentative date by which requesting carrier
  intends to port
• Need not be much more than than a wet napkin

8
Deadlines Obligations

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

9
Deadlines Obligations

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

10
Deadlines Obligations

• State commissions may petition the FCC for
  authority to require exempted carriers to
  implement pooling within the largest 100 MSAs

11
Confusion and Finger Pointing

• CTIA fights Wireless to Wireless Porting
• Verizon breaks ranks and supports Wireless LNP
• Large Wireless Carriers sets out Wireless
  Industry Guidelines
• July 3rd Muleta Letter
• Carrier cannot delay porting for any reason
  unrelated to customer validation
• No restriction for customer contracts or amounts
  due
• Rural Wireless Working Group Develops Rural
  Wireless LNP Guidelines

12
RWWG WLNP Guidelines

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

13
RWWG WLNP Guidelines

• FCC had adopted no rules for implementing WLNP
• Large Carrier Implementation
• Unduly burdensome and unworkable
• Anti-competitive
• Subsidize construction of large carrier network

14
RWWG WLNP Guidelines

• Guidelines and best practices for the provision
  of WLNP by rural carriers
• Voluntary
• Follow LEC standards (only standards specified by
  FCC)

15
RWWG WLNP Guidelines

• Service Providers must maintain
• numbering resources in the same rate center
• Interconnection facilities to allow the OSP to
  rate and route calls to the NSP as local calls
• interconnection agreement

16
Wireless-to-Wireless Porting Order

• FCC separated wireless-to-wireless and
  wireline-to-wireless porting issues

17
Wireless-to-Wireless Porting Order

• Wireless carrier may not impose restrictions on
  porting beyond necessary customer validation
  procedures
• Cant delay port because of
• customer contract or
• early termination fee

18
Wireless-to-Wireless Porting Order

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

19
Wireless-to-Wireless Porting Order

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

20
Wireless-to-Wireless Porting Order

• FCC forgot that half the calls to wireless
  numbers are landline-originated
• Wireless-to-wireless raises same issues as
  landline-to-wireless
• Order effectively mandates location portability

21
Local Interconnection
Toll Network
T
RLEC
RMSC

• RSA

Rate Pt. And NXX Code
22
No Local Interconnection or Numbers
Toll
T
T
RLEC
Rating Pt. And NXX Code
LC MSC
RMSC

• RSA

Rating Pt. And NXX Code
MSA/MTA/BTA
23
No Local Interconnection or Numbers
Toll
T
T
RLEC
Number Ported
LC MSC
RMSC

• RSA

MSA/MTA/BTA
24
No Local Interconnection or Numbers

• What happens to a call to ported number?
• Dropped call?
• Call interruptYou must first dial a 1
• Routed to PICed IXC--Customer gets a surprise
  toll bill
• Rural carrier eats the transport costs

25
No Local Interconnection or Numbers

• Impact of porting with no local interconnection
  or numbers is
• Massive customer confusion
• Subsidy to construction of large carrier network

26
Wireless-to-Wireless Porting Order

• FCC reiterated that wireless carriers must
  support roaming nationwide for customers with
  pooled and ported numbers

27
Response to W-t-W Porting Order

• LEC Associations unwilling to challenge
• Several independent telephone companies
  challenged in Court of Appeals
• Status - pending

28
Intermodal Porting Order

• Ditto
• We told you so . . .

29
Additional Issues

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

30
Cost Recovery--CMRS

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

31
Cost Recovery--ILECs

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

32
Cost Recovery--ILECs

• ILECs
• May not recover from other carriers through
  interconnection or resale
• CMRS carriers are co-carriers
• May not recover through access charges
• Rural LECs that do not provide LNP, but that
  provide service under EAS may recover N-1 query
  and admin expenses from end users
• LECs may incur costs on Nov 24 even if not
  porting out numbers

33
Local Number Portability

• Questions
• Carri Bennet
• Bennet Bennet, PLLC