National LNP Billing Forum

Meeting Minutes

Dallas, Texas

10/14/97

 

Introductions:

Attendees: (see www.ported.com, National Billing Forum, Teamlist for phone numbers/e-mail addresses)

Anderson, MJ

USWest

Basmajian, Armen

AT&T

Blakeley, Jill

Time Warner

Bowen, Todd

GTE

Brazil, Patrick

Lefcon/Conrow

Brooks, Suzanne

MCI

Carter, Rick

Citizens Communications

Clarke, David

Ameritech

Cockrell, Betty

Billing Concepts

Durkin, Kathi

NEXTLINK

Elliott, Elaine

Bell Atlantic

Elsden, Damon

Ericsson

Ferguson, Debi

Pacific Bell

Fohl, Mike

Cincinnati Bell

Frey, Scott

Bell Atlantic

Gadbois, Marla

MCI Local

Havens, Ken

Sprint Local

Jackson, Mark

GTE

Keddy, Elizabeth

Nortel

Liu, Shu-hwa (Sue)

Lucent

Lohr, Steve

Sprint

Martin, Larry

Citizens Communications

Meentemeyer, Karen

Southwestern Bell

Meleski, Connie

Roseville

Passler, Cathy

Sprint Local

Rollins, John

GTE

Schultz, Arnette

Lucent

Shepard, Steve

GTE

Sing, Luis

Ericsson

Steiner, Anne

AT&T

Trosper, Katy

TSTCI/ORTC

Udeshi, Raj

Siemens

Vandeventer, Celynn

Sprint

Weber, Les

GTE

Whitney, Dave

Bell South

Witte, Pat

Southwestern Bell

Zarbock, Marv

USWest

 

Review minutes from 9/24 conference call

ACTION

NO

Description

Responsible

1

Check to find out how ATIS funding works and get the information out to the team.

Dave Whitney

2

Team members to come up with Mission, Scope, Process and Deliverables drafts by 10/15

All

3

Contact your T1AG rep and make them aware of billingís needs from T1.

All

4

Change National Issues document name to National LNP Billing Forum Issues

Debi Ferguson

5

Talk to Bellcore - any way to signal 800 provider down to regional databases so that 800 provider information can be derived in the billing systems? AMA changes required?

MJ Anderson

6

Hand off 800 issues to SNAC

MJ Anderson

7

Add new issue for tandem routing problem.

Debi Ferguson

8

Check to see if your company is impacted by tandem routing issue

All

 

ATIS STATUS

 

800 Issue Update

Originating Company

800 Provider

Terminating Company

Problem?

A

A

A

No

A

CC142

Send 010125 EMR to B

B

B REC - Receives 010125-EMI/R

Pots # & NPA/NXX Owner

No -

A

CC142

Send 010125 EMR to B

OR keep it!

A

B

No - Either A or B can bill based on settlement arrangements/agreements. For A to keep 800 revenue, would have to guide based on 800 #, not pots routeable

C calls Aís 800 number

Creates 142 with LRN, sends to B

A

B - Ported pots routeable

B doesnít know to send record to A

Yes - C would send 142 to B. C contracts with A to do 800 queries.

Is A entitled to keep 800 revenue?

The first three examples currently exist without LNP. In 4, we assume that B is porting out of A and A keeps the 800 service and A, B and C are all LNP capable. In this example, C has an arrangement for A to provide the 800 database service. PacBell pointed out that based on time of day routing, company A could provide the routing during most of the day, but another company could provide the routing after normal business hours.

 

WESTERN REGION ISSUES 49 and 57

NEW ISSUES

 

EAS ISSUE

LSPI - Local Service Provider ID

TANDEM CALL FAILURE ISSUE

...If a FGD/B, Wireless or CLC hands a call off to the Tandem, and if that

call is unqueried, the Tandem will in an LNP environment do a query; if the

returned LRN is a code that does not home on that Tandem under current and

various rules the Tandem will either block the call (FGB/D) or, if

Wireless/CLC the call will go thru, but CABS might have a problem with it.

The condition where this might happen is where a single rate area contains

more than one end office, and at least one of those end offices homes on a

tandem different from the other office(s). This can happen in our network

today where those EOs are a combination of ours and CLCs'/WSPs' or just

ours alone. It's predictable that it will happen more in the future as

Access Tandem competition increases. If you do research to discover cases

where the possibility exists today in our network, and the Tandem opens

translations to allow routing to the exceptional end offices there still

exists the possibility that CABS has a problem with this (not expecting the

CLCís CLLI to subtend this Tandem)