Number Portability Task Force Status Report

Cause No. 41083

February 2, 1998

The Number Portability Task Force ("NPTF") with the assistance of the Commission staff is charged with the development of an implementation plan for Local Number Portability ("LNP") in the State of Indiana.

In its Order on Cause No. 41083, the IURC requested that the task force file an updated report on central office selections for LNP for the Indianapolis, Cincinnati, Louisville, Gary and Ft. Wayne MSAs (See Attachments A which is a listing of the exchanges and Attachment B which is the Commissionís order in this Cause).

In addition, Finding #3 of Cause No. 41083 asks the task force for recommendations on the following 3 items:

(a) Developing a procedure to notify the Commission of outages and interruptions

In the provisioning of LNP;

Response:

The FCC and IURC have requirements in place for reporting service interruptions. The

same requirements should apply on an ongoing basis with respect to LNP without any

need for developing additional reporting requirements. Since service interruptions may

involve the Number Portability Administration Center ("NPAC") or SS7 provider,

procedures may need to be developed for efficient reporting of service interruptions to

the IURC.

(b) Representation of Indiana telephone companies within the regional limited

liability corporation;

Response:

Representation of Indiana telephone companies with the Limited Liability Corporation

("LLC") is sufficient due to the fact that the LLC provides a forum for any Telco to

express their views.

(c) Tracking total costs and projected costs for deployment of LTNP.

Response:

All companies that responded to the NPTF question about cost identification informed

the NPTF that they are tracking total costs for deployment of LNP.

Cost recovery issues are currently the subject of an FCC docket in which an order is

anticipated. In addition, cost recovery issues are under review in at least Illinois, Ohio

and Michigan. Many of the ILECs and CLECs in this Cause have participated at the FCC

and the other states. It would be duplicative to devote resources to address this issue in

Indiana prior to receipt of the FCC order. Once the order is issued, if state-specific issues

remain to be addressed, it may be appropriate to establish an additional committee under

the direction of the LNP steering committee.

Other issues discussed:

A. The final pick list for phases 2 through 5 were handed out by Mike Guffey. The list submitted to the IURC on December 9th was incorrect. GTE and Sprint will file a single amendment to correct the selected exchanges in the Indianapolis MSA. (See Attachment A).

B. LNP testing time frames were discussed. Sprint, GTE and TW Telecom are willing to

participate in an industry test. CLECs who wish to participate in the industry test must

provide the following information to the ILEC they wish to test with by February 24, 1998.

1. Name of ILEC office they wish to test with.

2. CLLI code of the CLEC office.

3. LRN

4. Outline of desired tests.

5. SS7/Trunking/Access tandem topology maps.

6. Interconnection status (must be in progress before testing can occur).

C. Those companies that do not wish to participate in the industry testing but wish to test with a

certain ILEC/CLEC needs to contact that carrier on their own. Each party must keep in mind

that once the industry testing has been completed, some companies may disband their single

point of contact ("SPOC").

D. The Indiana test matrix was amended. AT&T will not test with anyone prior to the June 30th

implementation date. Time Warner will test with Ameritech and possibly GTE. No other

CLECs have provided a list of test participants at this time.

E. Sprint asked to have testing for Lawrenceburg (Cincinnati) MSA handled by their Ohio team.

The Indiana team agreed that this makes sense. Sprint will keep the Indiana implementation

team informed of testing status.

F. Ameritech intends to handle the Indiana side of the Louisville MSA through this team rather

than working through the Kentucky PUC.

G. The NPTF raised issues pertaining to rating and billing. Rating and billing issues

are being addressed in the Ordering and Billing Forum ("OBF") and the national standards

forum T1S1.6, both of which have representatives from many of the same ILECs and CLECs

participating in the Indiana task force for the implementation of number portability in Cause

No. 41083. If there are state-specific or unresolved issues in the OBF it may be appropriate

to establish an additional committee under the direction of the LNP steering committee.

H. The next implementation NPTF meeting is scheduled to be held on February 24, 1998

at the Indiana Government Center South.

Respectfully submitted,

 

Ralph McCray

Co-Chairman Number Portability Task Force

and Implementation Sub-Committee

Time Warner Telecom

 

Doug Kruger

Co-Chairman Number Portability Task Force

and Implementation Sub-Committee

GTE