National LNP Billing Forum (NLBF)

August 26-28, 1997

Next Calls: 9/10 10:00 - 12:00 CST AT&T Hosting

Topics: ATIS Status

Delta Document Issues

9/24 10:00 - 12:00 CST AT&T Hosting

Topics:

Next Meeting: 10/14 - 16 in Dallas

Topics: OBF LNP Readout.

Day 1 - August 26, 1997

Dave provided an overview of the purpose of the meeting and introductions.

Question was raised concerning the ownership of the forum. It was confirmed that this forum is a national industry forum. Bellcore was chosen as a provider of information for presentation only. If there is another industry provider, they will be welcome to provide input.

An issue for this forum was defined as any issue that spans more than one RBOC territory.

Recapped the last NLBF conference call.

Discussion centered on whether this forum has a purpose or if the industry already has a forum that will address the billing issues. The question was raised that the Ordering and Billing Forum may be the forum rather than this forum. Through discussion it was determined that the OBF has never addressed switch billing requirements at the necessary level and that a national forum was needed. Also maintenance of the documentation is an issue to be addressed.

Discussion looked at using ATIS or Bellcore as a forum for these issues. Proposal is to contact ATIS and request sanctioning by them to develop requirements and pass it to a predetermined group for implementing. ATIS is providing information regarding their operations. Should T1, OBF or another forum address these issues. In order to clarify this concern Pros and Cons for sanctioning should be identified.

Pros

Cons

Forum to be recognized nationally as a LNP standard/recommending body

Cost for funding.

Administrative support

Participation could change at a company level.

Coordinate and rapidly define network element billing requirements for LNP.

More formal process (red tape)

Switch vendors will be provided a coordinated and equal set of requirements.

 

Sanctioning helps meet the Telecom. Act of ’96 requirements.

 

Vehicle for FCC interface

 

Consolidate individual state commission efforts

 

Provides insight to internal problems resulting in solutions.

 

LRN was discussed. There is a need for a number of companies to have multiple LRNs per switch. Some of the switches serve multiple rate centers. This will be discussed as a new issue. Connecting Network Access (CNAR or CNAT) is also a new issue to be discussed.

Document distribution will be done via the Internet Website: www.ported.com

Number Pooling

NPA NXX exhaust comes with local competition. LNP helps to deal with the exhaust. Number Pooling is the ICC’s solution to exhaust. Other methods are Transparent Overlay (allows a company to do business where a NPA NXX is not available), overlays, and

Number pooling must be LNP capability and within the same rate center.

Alternative 1: Service Provider Inventory is required (Third Party Administrator)

Numbers are assigned on a line level

Selection is made on a batch or real time basis

Alternative 2: Service Provider Inventory is required

Number are assigned on thousands block only level

Selection so made on a batch basis only

Alternative 3: Service Provider Inventory is required

Numbers are assigned on a line level

Selection so made on a batch basis only

Alternative 4: No service provider inventory

Numbers are assigned on a line level

Selection is made on a real time basis

Preport vs Port on Demand: Preport means the NPAC already shows the number is ported prior to its porting. Port on Demand means that the NPAC does not show the number is ported until its porting and notification of the NPAC.

Does any of these alternatives pose any new billing issues? No new ones were identified.

Location Portability (General Discussion)

Location Portability is not being addressed by the ICC. However, due to wireline/wireless portability raising the issue of inconsistent rate centers, location portability may be escalating as an issue. Discussions have begun, however, no suppliers have made any commitment.

The question was raised regarding why porting across the rate center is being ignored by all the industry groups. It was pointed out that if there is no technical limitation in the switch or within the NPAC to prohibit this. The group consensus is that although this scenario is going to happen, however it will not be condoned by the industry until technology is developed in the switch that will provide all necessary information for routing and billing.

LNP Technical Requirements (Bellcore - Ian Lifchus (732-758-2466))

LNP Arenas

Concerns, going forward…..

Requirements Development Impacted by the Telecom Act ’96

-- are developed by non-accredited standards entity

-- apply to telecom equipment or CPE

-- Describe acceptable product specifications for used in purchase of hardware, and software integral to it

-- Are being funded by or performed on behalf of wireline LECs that represent at least 30% of access lines in U.S. as of 2/8/96

-- Will be ‘new’ or ‘substantial modification’

Then Telecom Act ’96 applies

Bellcore Generic Requirements Operational Process for Telecom Act ’96 Compliance

Bellcore Generic Requirements Process Strengths

-- Issues List Reports

-- Communications & interpretation

-- Linkage to conformance testing

Bellcore’s LNP Generic Requirements GR-2936-CORE

-- LRNs for Host/Remotes

-- Network Management

-- Other enhancements as directed by customers(e.g., "delta issues")

-- Potential topics - Wireline/Wireless, PORC, Number pooling

-- Industry participation and funding is invited for Issue 4

Question raised if Bellcore is prepared to offer only administrative or facilitation roles rather than technical support and price the service accordingly. Ian did not thing that that role had been defined as one offered by Bellcore. However, he believed that Bellcore’s role is changing with the LSPI group participation. Funding considerations will need to be determined by Bellcore.

Connecting Network Access Trunk (CNAT) (Bellcore - Bill Krall (732 758-4296)

Letter dated August 21, 1997 addressed to: Local Number Portability National Billing Forum Participants, written by William H Krall of Bellcore was discussed.

Table1 - what is populated in the Incoming SS7 IAM, and what would be recorded in the originating number field of the AMA when either the calling party number, charge number or the originating line information parameter. Bill Krall discussed the following two options:

Option 1 - toggle ON to recorded the billing account number based on the trunk group coming in (this data must be entered by the translation group in order to turn on a CNAT type recording) in the originating number field. Or toggle (default) OFF and recorded either the ANI, CPN or ChN, according to table 1 in the 0riginating number field of AMA.

Option 2 - Turn on the option to recorded the originating number (ANI /CPN) in Module 164. The default would be set to on if option 1 is turned ON .

After much discussion, it was determined that an office parameter should be used to turn ON Option 1 and 2 instead of turning these options ON based on an individual trunk group bases.

Bottom line, if you have option 1 and 2 turned on, the switch will recorded the billing account number in the originating number field and the ANI /CPN in Module 164.It was also determined that Module 164 would not be recorded if the calling party number is not sent.

Rule on combined trunk groups is you can’t provision a JIP.

Arnette Schultz mentioned that it is a known fact that certain information in the IAM (Initial Address Messages) can be dropped due to a record length constraint. requirements during call processing.

National LNP Billing Forum (NLBF)

Day 2 - August 27, 1997

ATIS Administration

The team conferenced with ATIS in order to determine if there was a forum already in place or if our forum would fit under the administration of ATIS. ATIS gave an overview of the groups they currently administer and the role they played with each of these groups. Dave gave an overview of our group’s function as identified through our meeting. ATIS informed us that they have been approached to take over the development of ICC documentation. The group felt that the NLBF could fit as a subcommittee of this new ATIS effort. MCI indicated that they may have a concern being under the umbrella of ATIS. It was decided that additional information will be provided to ATIS regarding our group’s direction and membership. Letter will be drafted to request participation in the new committee being formed to address the ICC requirements.

US West has voiced a concern that the real billing issues that they have identified have not yet been discussed. They have agreed to provide these issues to the NLBF whenever they can be developed and socialized.

800 Internal Call Routing - Remote Database

Repair calls or Business office calls are routed from the 800 number database to the appropriate termination point based upon the NPA NXX of the originating number. A table of all internally routed NPA NXXs reside on the LAD Table at the 800 database. The appropriate local CIC code is placed on the message dependent on the internal routing of the message. If the routing is interlata, the appropriate carrier CIC will be provided on the message.

With LNP this process will not work because the NPA NXX no longer indicates if these messages should be routed over the internal network. This will need to be a 10-digit look-up on this table or the JIP needs to be used to perform the look-up. If the JIP is used, will it be 6 or 10-digits? This issue was enlarged to include any remote database. A new parameter will be need to define the originating LRN. This will remedy integrate record problems. This issue has been added to the Delta Document

Another issue added to the Delta Document exceeds the Remote Database issue. It deals with the JIP in the TCAP query should be provided to a 10-digit level.

EMI/EMR Modules - 017A and 018A (AT&T - Armen Basmajian (732 519-5338))

These modules are needed on billable records for EMR and EMI formats. These modules will be found on all billable non-CAT 11 records. Per the ABUG committee, CAT 11 Records will provide this information in the base record. CAT 11 field layouts are as follows:

CAT 11 - 157 - 166 Originating LRN

167 - 170 Originating OCN

171 Originating Source Indicator

172 - 181 Terminating LRN

182 - 185 Terminating OCN

186 Terminating Source Indicator

Module 017A provides the LRN. Module 018A provides the OCN data.

LRN provides information for access billing to calculate mileage, for end user billing to guess at OCN, to aid in message investigation of conditions like fraud, and for end user rating, as indicated by at least one member of this team at an earlier meeting.

The 017A Module will be appended when providing recording service, passing a record from the recording company to the company recorded for; when exchanging access records with other companies or clearing- houses; when out-collecting an alternately billed call to show how the Billing RAO was determined.

The 018A Module will contain the OCN of either the originating or terminating or billing number, and the type of company the OCN represents. For example, the OCN of the account owner of a number could be 1234, but the OCN of that number’s billing company could be 3456. This is, of course, a bad example since "Billing Service Provider" has no company type.

Many billing SMEs may always connect the OCN with the "company that bills the monthly charges for dial tone." The type of company values identified go further. The module can be used whether the particular number is ported or not. A common use of OCN module will probably be when the OCN of a number is other than that which the LERG carries for the Code Holder.

The OCN can differ from the LERG assigned OCN in the following environments: Total Services Resale, UNE, Interim porting, LRN porting. Except for LRN porting, only the donor LSP or the recipient LSP can know the OCN when working with an industry level information source.

With an LRN present, the current OCN can be inferred using the LR. Not 100% accurate, however.

There is a recommendation that additional type of OCN values be expanded. LSPI may provide a solution. However, additional discussion is needed to determine if these values are needed and what recommendation should be made to the OBF. Further discussion will continue later and be part of the next conference call agenda.

When would/could the OCN module be used? For Return Code 50 messages, to help the company receiving the return. Is bytes 168 - 171 locked up for OCN on RC 50s. On every out-collect, both EC and IXC out-collects. Then we could pack by OCN as well as the RAOs, etc., that we use today. This procedure could probably ease the process of preparing/reconciling settlement reports.

Some assumptions and/or questions could be…

The Need for Local Service Provider Identity (LSPI)—

There is no schedule for mandating account owner LSPI. Maybe if/when Location Portability happens? Network signaling cannot handle any LSPID at this time. Having facilities owner ID forwarded is not much better than working with LRN to infer it.

We really would like to have the Billing Service Provider, or maybe the Account Owners ID forwarded. What is the risk of working with the LRN OCN? Why do we need LSPI anyway? An IXC needs it to identify where casual usage came from and if B&Cs exists.

A LEC providing Operator Services needs it to identify where to send an out-collect. The old "look up the Billing Number in TPM" is no longer the easy answer. Of course, a copy of SMS is our billing system would help. So, is a bill number in SMS? Then get the LRN and then look up the BRAO.

LIDB is making changes. What changes….Line level entries. When….Available now in some companies. Will all companies provide the information on day one? Of course not, but we need to move that direction as soon as possible.

There is going to be a new industry level database for ported numbers. Another database has been requested by OBF of NIIF that will provide this same information for resale numbers.

Testing Discussion

Testing inconsistencies were shared with each vendor independently. This discussion continued until end of day.

National LNP Billing Forum (NLBF)

Day 3 - August 28, 1997

Testing Discussion

Testing inconsistencies continued to be shared with each vendor independently. The results of this discussion will be provided to participants independent of the meeting minutes.

Delta Document

The new issues associated with the Delta Document were discussed. The document will be updated with the discussion information.