JULY 7, 1997 ICC LNP OPERATIONS AND PROVISIONING MEETING
Barry stated that we need to verify our process flows and turn them over to the number pooling committee by August 1.
Discussion by Jim Joerger about yesterdays’ meeting concerning the status of testing. The July 24 date may slip primarily due to NPAC issues.
Introductions were completed.. JJ announced that he must attend a conference call which should last about an hour.
Robin gave an update on NIIF issue #61 where a contribution letter was not formally submitted and therefore was not discussed. Issue #61 states that test numbers should be established for each NXX. Ameritech opposes the issue without further clarification such as who would port the numbers to where?
NIIF issue #59 concerning CC #26 discussion about the wording of the treatment (recorded announcement) should be... Discussion will be held until JJ returns to meeting.
Question about whether NXXs 500 & 900 numbers would be ported. The OBF will be handling this issue.
Discussion by Nancy DeRoo concerning 911 issues involving TCG issuing orders to update the ALI PSAT databases and the NENA standards document. TCGs test numbers are not in the 911 database. The 911 organization highly recommends that Interim Number Portability be converted to true Number Portability as soon as possible. Interim Portability is a pain in the B. per Nancy.
Walt discussed test team status. The test plan has 3 or 4 tests that require clarification. No major issues have been identified. Thursday is the test team meeting. The NIIF has determined that the minimum number of tests is 16 which was challenged. Robin will compare the test scripts -- the NIIF list and the ICC LNP Test Committee list.
There will be a meeting in the St Louis area on August 7 to discuss Number Portability opening in that area. Barry will send out specifics as to where and what time.
Brent announced that he has tickets to the Nevilles’ Brothers concert in Navidea, Ill. He had no other activities to report on. No takers on the tickets.
Status of EDI discussion: No one had status.
Item (issue) #53 LARG - Additional Requirements discussion which was submitted by US West Communications. The LARG should be updated to identify 10 versus 6 digit translations. The LARG identifies an OCN per NXX. Ameritech states that the information is in the LERG and not really necessary in the LARG. But if the info is in the LARG also, it would be convenient. Everyone needs to go back and get input as soon as possible so that this issue does not get delayed.
Law Enforcement concerns including the IVR issue which has been turned over to LockHeed for pricing which is expected within the next week. Other concerns involved who owns the cable pair and if an address is known, but not the number (Issue 52). Court orders need to Encompass all Service Providers would require Service Providers to notify agencies of porting changes. A lot of depends on how the court order is written #5. #4-- can they still receive call detail recording records. This should be no problem, depending on how the court order is written. Is this a format issue versus a capability issue. If Law Enforcement provides the format requirements, each company would attempt to comply. #3 Can Law Enforcement have a single point of contact? City of Chicago wants a single contact for "phone company" and would expect that contact to resolve all issues.
Issue #51 SPID 911 also involves the IVR issue. On hold pending IVR resolution.
(Note: the following bolded and italicized paragraphs were changed/added per MCI's request)
Two issues were discussed: 1) operational processes for resellers; and,
2) LSR Process.
1. The notes should read that the reseller issue was revisited from last meeting. MCI had asked to keep the issue open until the July meeting. During the discussion, MCI stated that they could support using the Remarks field of the LSR to identify the reseller company to the old SP in a port request. MCI viewed this as an interim solution until the OBF completes its work on reseller ordering issues. With MCI's comments, there was unanimous support for proceeding in this manner.
2. The group reviewed the manual LSR process forms for use on day-1. This item as a hold-over from the previous meeting to allow companies to determine which form they could support for the port request with an unbundled loop, and offer comment on Ameritech's June statement that ASRs needed to accompany port requests with unbundled loops. MCI stated in the meeting that this issue had been reviewed, and they would support continuation of sending electronic ASRs to Ameritech. Further, MCI suggested the use of the "Loop Request with Number Portability" form on port requests to Ameritech to allow consistency with LSRs to other companies. There was consensus on this suggestion with TCG withholding support. TCG asked for time to review.
ACTION: TCG to inform Barry Bishop of their position by 7/15.
Cause Code 26 (NIIF Issue #59) "We’re sorry your call did not go through, please try your call again later". Slight variations would be acceptable per the NIIF (Robin). MCI objected stating that we have an obligation as being the trial for the Mid West. Per Robin, no one had wording suggestions at the NIIF. Jim J. suggested the verbiage Due to telephone company facility trouble, your call can not be completed, please try your call again later. MCI suggested that no matter what the recording says, the message should encourage the customer to try the call again later. Discussion occurred as to whether we should all have a standard recording. All agreed that reorder (120IPM) was not acceptable. All agreed that each company could use their own announcement and relate that the announcement indicate the call should be tried again later. Encourage the caller to call again later. All agreed….. (we think)
Back to Law Enforcement issues: Issue #0052 Item #2: How will Law Enforcement find out who the service provider is for a specific telephone number or address in a timely manner? The IVR will handle the telephone number issue-- Address only is known, Law Enforcement will be SOL. The only suggestion was for Law Enforcement was to call all Service Providers to determine the telephone number. With only the address known, obtaining number information will become difficult. Barry will send an ICC/FCC courtesy letter informing them that this not necessarily a LNP issue but should be addressed nationally. Barry will develop the letter prior to the Steering Committee meeting on &/24/97.
Four companies will participate in the FCC testing beginning on 8/11/97 with a completion date to be determined at a later time. The four companies are Ameritech, MCI, Sprint and AT&T per Brent of the ICC. This is a slip date from the original date of 7/24/97.
Item #1 Each company will provide their 24 hour contact for Law Enforcement.
Each company was requested to identify their contact for initial code opening-- Sprints’ person just changed jobs and Darin Liston will supply the contact.
Review of outstanding issues: Issue 41 will be trialed by ameritech during the test period.
Issues #40 & 39 are to be addressed by the testing committee on the 7/24/97 conference call.
Issue 25 was closed as not being an issue. The issue was submitted prior to the final Switch Requirements documentation development.
Issue #0024 was closed as this trouble condition would be handled via the trouble isolation process that the committee developed.
Issue #0023 was closed as this trouble condition would be handled via the trouble isolation process the committee has agreed upon.
Issue #0015 was closed pending test result of NPAC during the FCC testing period to verify that mass changes can be downloaded via the SMS to all LSMS SCPs.
Issue #0011 was identified as a phase 2 New Requirement for the Switch Requirements Committee.
Issues 0006 through 0009 will be reviewed by Barry Bishop to verify if the Switch Requirement document covers the different peg count requirements.
7/9/97 ICC LNP OPERATIONS AND PROVISIONING MEETING ------ DAY 2
Donna gave an update on NPAC issues:
Passed out NPAC systems requirements documentation which were accepted by the NANC committee. The requirements outline Number Pooling by 1,000 grps in an attempt to avoid another HNPA split of the 847 area code. This solution is for Illinois only and is not considered a national solution. MCI takes issue with the snapback process where as vacated numbers would be returned to the block holder (original). MCI believes that additional administration costs will be incurred and snapback is not required. Barry read the FCC verbiage which outlines that ported numbers vacated would be returned to the code owner (LERG) after appropriate aging. Brent outlined the ICCs interpretation. Jim Joerger explained that the vacated ported number should stay with the ported to company. The vacated ported number should snapback to the 1,000 block holder per Brent of the ICC. Brent asked if Ameritech and Sprint could give estimates of the number of disconnects that occur per month. Donna stated that NPAC determined that extending to 7 digit (NPA NXX X) format would be very expensive to allow the 1,000 block.
The ICC would like the costs of pre-porting and snapback broken out. Cost of porting on demand,also. Donna will take this to the NPAC committee. The issue was raised by Nancy DeRoo that if the 911 data base shows ownership by the 1000 block and snapback to the block is not utilized, trouble isolation of the database would be a nightmare.
Ameritech, Sprint and the 911 SPOC all support pre-porting by 1000 block with snapback. MCI supports the pre-port approach,but opposed the snapback to the 1000 block holder. Brent polled what each company supports:
AT &T -- Pre-port & snapback (to verify during break) Changed position to "port on demand" only.
Sprint --Preport & snapback
TCG -- no position at this time
MFS -- Preport & snapback
MCI -- Pre-port & snapback to "code" owner or leave numbers with "ported to" company.
Ameritech -- Pre-port & snapback
Barry handed out 6/10-11/97 minutes which were reviewed and compared to the NPAC requirements.
The following change to the minutes were requested by AT&T:
AT&T's position was never to support Pre-Porting as was verified prior to the continuation of the session. (As verified) our position is to support Port-on-demand with Snapback to the Code owner/holder (my mistake) (OC Jackson AT&T).