June 17, 1997

National Billing Forum Meeting Notes




Meeting Objectives:



Reviewed minutes from first National Billing Forum conference call. Purpose of group is to share information with each other in order to identify and find vendor solutions for LNP billing problems.

We will try not to go over where we have been in this forum - try to move forward. We will assume that team members have a good understanding of LNP. Those who have not been covered will seek assistance from others.





1. Issues must impact at least 2 traditional RBOC territories (7 RBOC and 1 Canada).

2. We should focus on Industry level concerns. There will always be unique situations in an individual state.

3. Our objective is to reach closure on issues including documenting requested switch vendor software changes (if required)





Description Issue/Action Item





Should the LNP National Billing Forum be officially sanctioned and if so by which group (e.g. NANC)





Scenario G slide needs an update. The Bellcore requirements for the 220/047 record match Illinois





Need to build a list of testing contacts in each company for lab to lab testing. Everyone should bring their contact information to the meeting on Thursday.

Team by Thursday



Scenario G: CNA on Recipient Switch will always be derived. Change CIC from If Passed to Derived.




HUB provider bills LEC/CLC 1 and Donor. Donor does not create AMA at STP which could be used to bill Recipient.




Customers must ask the HUBS to do the query.


If HUB provider not updated, then you will have to monitor traffic and bill the recipient. Must capture information at STP of donor network.


John Mainwaring to follow up and report back to team. On scenario U

J. Mainwaring



Scenario V: For OSS need Alphanumeric RAO and Account level owner in LIDB.

On calling number we need a account owner


Sarathy suggested we do scenarios as a team. Will do 6/18




Items Discussed:







These will be discussed as specific agenda items during the meeting.







Tom reviewed some basic LNP call flows to ensure that the group had a common understanding of LNP basics and terminology. The following California Call Flows were reviewed: Scenarios A, G, H, I, K and Q.


Scenario G:

If you return an AMASLPID, the LNP module would be attached to the 220/047 record. If you set up the trunks as CNAT, you could record a 625/720 record and that record would have a 720 module attached. CNAT records recording at the end office will not have a CIC code if it came in via a tandem. In a direct connect scenario, CIC could be present.


If donor switch is LNP capable but tandem is not and only way out of donor is MF, the call will not complete.



Scenario H:

CNAT records will get derived LNP modules.



Scenario I:

Call Code 721 is listed, but wonít be available in the first release. Check with your vendors to find out availability. CNAT can be turned on as long as trunk does not record FGD, 2A, 2B (which already produce a 625 structure code).



Scenario K:

Operator Handled Call. If billing number is portable, then a 10 digit global title translation is required, to route the LIDB query to the correct carrier. Lucent OSPS switches create different call codes than are listed here.



Scenario Q:

Out of Region Calling Card LIDB validation. Service Provider ID will not be available in operator handled AMA at this time. RAO will be correct if you have the line level RAO override capability loaded when LNP cuts. If the billing number is ported and not in your zone of portability, you will not get the billing LRN in the AMA message.


GTT lookup can be done at STP or SCP. Will STP have all North American Point Code information? GTT may be 6 digit level or 10 digit level. If itís a distant area, the GTT translation will be done on a 6 digit level.






(Some of the following is excerpted from Armenís handouts)


FCC decided to leave the decision on the area of portability to the state commissions. There is a wide variety of opinions regarding how far you can physically re-locate and keep your number (within a rate center).


Armenís Rule: When a customer ports a number from the ILEC to a CLC, and the customer subsequently wants to move, the CLC must not allow the customer to move his ported number to a location that the ILEC would not have allowed.


Another opinion: We should be consistent, but not necessarily do things exactly like they are done today.


Even if customers donít want to physically move at all, CLCís MUST not serve multiple rate centers with one NPA/NXX.


Does the allowable area of portability as defined by Rate Center conform to the guideline in previous paragraph? Answer: Sometimes.


The Illinois operations committee then asked B&R to define Rate Center. Our initial definition was "Rate Centers are telephone company designated geographic locations assigned vertical and horizontal coordinates between which airline mileage is determined for rating and billing purposes".


The following words were added to the definition of rate center ... "Large rate centers (i.e. Chicago) may be further subdivided into Rate Districts. Where Rate Districts are assigned vertical and horizontal coordinates, they will be considered Rate Centers for number portability purposes". There are still issues with this definition. The Chicago Rate Center is not only broken into smaller Rate Districts with their own V&H coordinates, but smaller entities called Rate Zones.


Rate Centers with their V&H coordinates, and Rate Districts with their minor V&H coordinates, are clearly defined in the Terminating Point Master, and probably the LERG as well.


However Rate Zones are only identifiable by careful analysis of local tariffs. Therefor, in order to conform to the guidelines of porting, each CLC operating in a given MSA must be fully cognizant of Local tariffs as well as the easy stuff like Rate Centers and Districts.


Rules may differ by state, but in some cases, the major V&H is used and in others the minor V&H should be used. There may be other situations too.


Why is the above guideline (bold text) in place? Because Service Provider portability is not supposed to effect end user rating and billing. This means that the V&H calculation should be the same if you are calling within the rate center. How a company chooses to bill for that call is up to them. The above guideline applies to any LEC porting a number from any other LEC.


States have jurisdiction over consistent rate centers. If CLCs are allowed to create their own V&H for ported numbers, this could break another companies ability to rate calls for their customers calling the ported numbers.


What are the implications of the guidelines relative to the area of portability? Portability should not break ILEC local rating schemes. ILECs must incorporate CLC NXXís into their local calling areas.


New service providers in an area must obtain NXXís in each of the Rate Centers, Rate Zones, Rate Districts, in order to be able to retain their customers, whether gained via porting or new service. Note that this is a controversial issue!


If a LEC has many special rate districts, this could contribute to the number exhaust issue. For example, in Atlanta, there are 49 rate centers. 100 competitors will use up 4900 NPA/NXXís or 49,000,000 numbers. In order to avoid the number exhaust issue, Location Portability functionality is required (either add rating NPA/NXX to the SCP or create a new rating variable, like GUBB).


Number exhaust is being looked at. Some suggestions are use the LRN solution to port 1000 banks of numbers to a CLC or to consolidate rate centers. The only codes that you can break up and assign by 1000 banks are new codes. Should more emphasis be put on Portability outside the rate center (Location Portability)?


There are local calling plans that depend on agreements between local exchange companies. The Texas region has identified Extended Metro Service as an example. Since the plan is NXX based and works because of LEC agreements, a LEC, end user, or both, may be disadvantaged should a CLC port an NXX of this type. As numbers port, this could impact the ILEC customers calling ported numbers.


There are areas where, for example, intra county calling is free by jurisdiction mandate. Special access and/or mutual compensation agreements may be needed between local service providers existing in and new to these areas.





In Canada, facility based local carriers are required to open one NPA/NXX per ILEC rate center. There may be some cases where assigning a code by toll rate center is fine. In others, lower level assignment may be required (e.g. rate district within a rate center). From a network point of view, they only need one LRN per switch per lata. That does not meet billing needs.


Will SPLNP be transparent to customers in terms of how they dial and pay? There may be a need to change from 7 to 10 digit dialing, but if this happens, itís more likely to be a result of number exhaust issues, not LNP.


A "1" is used as a toll indicator today. SPLNP should not cause changes in when a "1" is required when dialing.


Thereís confusion about whether or not SPLNP will allow portability across wire centers (within rate centers) or if customers are restricted to wire center boundaries.


With consistent rate centers, companies can continue to rate calls like they do today by looking up the V&H of the calling and called numbers. LRN as currently defined, cannot be used to do end user toll V&H type rating. LRN can be used to determine the wire center V&H for CABS access billing or wire-center based end user local calling plans.


Canada wants an LRN per CLC, per taxing jurisdiction, per rate center, per switch. They would like to be able to use LRN as key part of billing.







LRN per Rate Center


Conventional rating, using the distance between rate centers will not be impacted in an SPLNP environment as portability is restricted within a rate center.


If there are any other types of Long Distance rating which disregard rate center parameters, they may be impacted in an LNP environment.


As a CLC must assign a unique NPA/NXX per ILEC rate center, an LRN could also be available per rate center without causing further number exhaust.

Canada does not have intra-inter lata situations or rate districts. They have local and long distance.


Canada would like LRN per rate center. Lively discussion ensued regarding whether a CLC must open an NPA/NXX if they only want to serve ported customers. If their switch already has an LRN, the CLC may have no need for 10,000 lines when they only want to port-in customers.





For taxing purposes, where a rate center crosses province boundaries, the preference would be to have the CLC open two NPA/NXXís/LRNís so that the LRN could be used for determining tax jurisdiction.


States may also have different taxing jurisdiction within rate centers.


Armen reiterated that SPLNP should not change taxing jurisdiction.


Thereís a need to look ahead and build solutions that can handle Location Portability. We will have to redesign our systems for GUBB or whatever the Location solution is..


Some companies have different taxing rules for a given NPA/NXX, based on the customerís physical location (address). Code on the service order identifies the TAR (Tax Area Revenue).


Moving within the rate center may change your tax jurisdiction.


Originating locationsí tax rules apply to the calls in Canada. Operator handled calls would require LRNís for the originating number.


Why is Canada allowing inter-province porting under SPLNP? Interstate porting is not being allowed in the States?




What will be used to determine a local service provider for the initial phase of LNP? Service Provider ID will not be available in the AMA. LRN may be one way of identifying the local service provider.


As a CLC must assign a unique NPA/NXX per ILEC rate center, the associated LRN should identify the CLC. If a CLC has an NPA/NXX per rate center, it would be good to take LRN down to rate center level.


Reseller idís will have to be determined in the respective billing systems. The LRN on their calls will be the facility provider companyís.


Sarathy E-Mailed a white paper on LNP which was distributed to all team members today.




LRN PROS & CONS (This was not completed)



Ported Numbers Use...

To determine...

LRN Assignment

Access - Switch Identification


Wire center V&H, switch ID

1 LRN per switch per host/remote

Access - Service Provider ID



End User Rating


V&H coordinate, local zone billing





Mutual Comp - Intra


Identify SPID and switch


Mutual Comp - Inter


" " "




Switch location (LA City Tax)






It was noted that fraud potential is greater with LNP.


The following test results are from Bell South:





Scenario Cost Recovery Hub Issue