STATE OF INDIANA

INDIANA UTILITY REGULATORY COMMISSION

 

IN THE MATTER OF THE INVESTIGATION )

ON THE COMMISSIONíS OWN MOTION ) CAUSE NO. 41083

INTO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF NUMBER )

PORTABILITY, PURSUANT TO ) CAUSE NO. 41083 S-1

SECTION 251(b)(2) OF THE COMMUNICATIONíS )

ACT OF 1934, AS AMENDED ) APPROVED

 

BY THE COMMISSION:

G. Richard Klein, Commissioner

Claudia J. Earls, Administrative Law Judge

The Communications Act of 1934, as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56 ( hereinafter "the Act"), provides at Section 251(b)(2) that each local exchange carrier has the duty to provide, to the extent technically feasible, number portability in accordance with requirements prescribed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).

Pursuant to this Commissionís Interim Order On Bundled Resale and Other Issues, approved in Cause No. 39983 on July 1, 1996 (hereinafter, Interim Order), a Task Force was established to review and consider technological issues related to long-term number portability and the associated cost of each technology. The Commission approved the report and recommendations of the Indiana Number Portability Task Force by its Order on Number Portability Issues, issued in Cause No. 39983 on June 25, 1997. Pursuant to said Order, the Commission found that a new Cause should be opened to consider cost recovery and other related issues as soon as the FCC Order on cost recovery (CC Docket No. 95-116) was issued. The FCC issued its order on cost recovery for number portability on May 12, 1998.

On or about October 10, 1997 the Commission received a written request by the Indiana Telecommunications Association (ITA) for the Commission, on its own motion, to open a new docket with regards to Number Portability Implementation. This request by ITA was subsequently appended to the report of the Number Portability Implementation Sub-Committee, received by the Commission on December 10, 1997. A Preliminary Order was issued on April 1, 1998. The Preliminary Order appointed Ms. Charlotte TerKeurst to prefile a Report in this Cause on or before April 13, 1998. The scope of Ms. TerKeurst's initial investigation was to include an assessment of the status of federal, regional, state and telephone company activities regarding the testing, implementation, operation, monitoring of and cost recovery for local number portability in Indiana. The Commission issued an Order on June 19, 1998 which addressed eighteen issues. In addition the June 19, 1998 Order identified three issues for further consideration by the Task Force. Two additional issues were subsequently identified by the Commission Staff to be addressed by the Task Force. In response to the June 19 Order, the Task Force met, and on August 10, 1998 the Task Force filed another report (hereinafter "August 10 Report").

1. Commission Jurisdiction. Pursuant to I.C. 8-1-2-58, 8-1-2-69, 8-1-2.6 et seq. and the Act, the Commission has broad authority to investigate all matters relating to the provision of telecommunications services within Indiana, including the implementation of long term number portability ("LTNP") as prescribed by the Act and the authority delegated to the FCC and to this Commission. We have previously found such jurisdiction to conduct our investigation in Cause No 39983, Interim Order, wherein the Commission constituted the number portability Task Force (Finding No. 5(K)of Interim Order). We affirm our continuing jurisdiction herein to continue our investigation of number portability implementation.

In the Preliminary Order, the Commission found that all Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers ("ILECs"), all facilities-based providers of Alternative Local Exchange Carriers ("ALECs" now known as "CLECs"), all facilities-based interexchange carriers ("IXCs") and all wireless providers, also known as Commercial Mobile Radio Service ("CMRS") should be made respondents in this Cause. The Secretary of the Commission should cause a copy of this Order to be served upon all ILECs, CLECs, IXCs and CMRS providers. All ILECs, CLECs, IXCs and CMRS providers have been included in the service list of this docketed investigation. In addition, all CLEC resellers presently certificated or hereinafter certificated should be made respondents with respect to the sub-docket established herein that relates to 911 service and use of the Lockheed Martin Integrated Voice Response Unit ("IVR"). The Secretary of the Commission should cause a copy of this Order to be served upon all CLEC resellers. Thereafter, all CLEC resellers should be included in the service list of the sub-docket investigation of 911 service.

2. Task Force Report of August 10, 1998. The August 10, 1998 Report is attached hereto as Exhibit A. We accept the report and incorporate it into the record of this Cause. We now address the matters raised in the Report.

3. Section A--Law Enforcement/911. The August 10th Report contains handouts from a July 29, 1998 meeting which included representatives of 9-1-1 and law enforcement agencies. It is the Commission's belief that there remains a potential for a "no record found" case in the 9-1-1 system. The Commission is of the opinion that an evidentiary hearing should be held to address issues involving 9-1-1 issues. The Commission would like to hear evidence regarding the usefulness of the Lockheed Martin IVR with the commencement of local competition. The Commission would also like to hear evidence from the law enforcement community of any problems incurred or potential problems they foresee with regards to their needs when executing subpoenas for wiretaps, "trap and trace", records, in emergency situations and/or any other problems attendant to the commencement of competition in the provision of local exchange service. A sub-docket should be opened in this Cause and all current respondents, except for IXCs should be made parties. In addition all CLEC resellers should be made Respondents. The Commission understands that there is some question regarding its jurisdiction over CMRSs, however, the Commission is aware that CMRSs will eventually have to provide LTNP, and the Commission is of the opinion that they should remain a party to the sub-docket. A hearing should be held in the sub-docket on January 25, 1999 at 10:00 a.m. EST in Room TC 10 of the Indiana Government Center South, Indianapolis, Indiana to identify any possible problems of CLECs providing correct information to the Public Safety Answer Point ("PSAP.") In addition, the Commission will determine who is responsible for notifying law enforcement and 9-1-1 when LTNP is implemented in a community as well as who is responsible for informing and training law enforcement and 9-1-1 personnel on use of IVR. A more definitive procedural schedule will be developed at the attorneys' conference which was scheduled in the Commission's December 16, 1998 Order in this Cause. The attorneys' conference is to be held on January 5, 1999 at 9:30 a.m. EST in Room TC 10 of the Indiana Government Center South, Indianapolis, Indiana.

4. Section B--Procedure for the Phase Out of Interim Number Portability. All of the ILECs agreed to a transition period of 120 days to phase out interim number portability once a final order is issued in the Number Portability docket. The Commissions of Illinois, Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin have also approved this transition period. The Commission accepts this recommendation and finds that there should be a transition period of 120 days to phase out interim number portability.

5. Section C--Billing Issues. The billing issue has been raised in general terms, but the August 10 Report states that it has not been fully addressed. The Commission finds that this investigation should continue, and the Task Force should be reconvened. The first Task Force meeting should be held on February 9, 1999 at 9:30 a.m. EST in Room TC 10 of the Indiana Government Center South.

6. Section D Assessing Transport and Switching Charges. The August 10 Task Force Report stated that each LEC which intends to assess transport and switching charges to recover its costs of handling default-routed calls should file appropriate local or exchange access tariffs. In the alternative, they may advise the Commission of the appropriate charges in existing local or exchange access tariffs or interconnection agreements. The Commission accepts this recommendation. The Commission further finds that parties should specify what type of transport and switching charges they believe are appropriate, i.e., local, intraLATA, interLATA, etc..

7. Section E--Gary MSA . The LTNP implementation for the Gary MSA was September 30, 1998. No CLEC indicated an interest in participating in a field trial. The Commission finds that since no CLEC wanted to test prior to September 30, 1998, any individual request should be arranged with the individual ILECs.

8. Recommendation Regarding Chair for Reconvened Task Force. Neither of the current co-chairs of the Task Force are available to continue in that role.

The Task Force recommended that Charlotte Terkeurst lead the Task Force. At this time the Commission directs the Task Force to select two co-chairs from within. The Commission will determine by the February 9th meeting date whether Ms. Terkeurst is available to submit a report.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE INDIANA REGULATORY COMMISSION THAT:

1. The determinations set forth above are made a part of the record in this Cause and shall be binding on all present and future ILECs, IXCs, CLECs, and CMRS providers subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission.

2. A hearing shall be held on January 25, 1999 at 10:00 a.m. EST in Room TC10 of the the Indiana Government Center South, Indianapolis, Indiana with regards to 9-1-1 issues as found in Finding No. 3. At the attorneys' conference previously scheduled for January 5, 1999 at 9:30 a.m. EST in Room TC 10 of the Indiana Government Center South, Indianapolis, Indiana the procedure to be utilized at the hearing shall be determined.

3. The Task Force shall have an initial meeting on February 9, 1999 at 9:30 a.m. in Room TC 10 of the Indiana Government Center South, Indianapolis, Indiana consistent with Finding 5.

4. This Order shall be effective on and after the date of its approval.

MCCARTY, KLEIN, RIPLEY, SWANSON-HULL AND ZIEGNER CONCUR:

APPROVED:

I hereby certify that the above is a true

and correct copy of the Order as approved.

______________________________

Joseph M. Sutherland,

Secretary to the Commission