1. Change for intra-SP port, need to change SP network data table in NPAC which is expensive, and limits flexibility in the future. Barry Bishop has discussed this issue with Donna Navickas and it is no longer believed to be a concern by the Operations Subcommittee.
    2. Potential for rating & billing problems if code holder is not involved in the porting process. Our subcommittee has requested that it be noted that this item did not come from the R&B Subcommittee. Barry cannot remember who raised this issue or how to clarify it based on the original discussion in his subcommittee, but agreed that given the current NPAC/SMS porting procedures, it is difficult to imagine that the code holder would not be aware of the porting procedure. He believes the Operations Subcommittee has dropped this issue as well.

July 25 Teleconference Attendees

Anousheh Raisyan MCI
Raj Udeshi Siemens Stromberg-Carlsson
Armen Basmajian AT&T
Mabel Choy AT&T
Chris Tappenden Nortel
Steve Lohr Sprint
Arnette Schultz Lucent Technologies
Damon Eldson Ericsson
Judy Evans AT&T/ICC LNP Workshop R&B Chair

Attachment B - Preliminary Analysis Number Pooling Assumptions

Per Brian Baldwin’s 7/1/97 memo to chairs of all Illinois sub-committees:

  1. What particular issues were discussed?
    Potential impact of NXX-X pooling proposal on rating and billing of ported calls.
  2. What assumptions were made?
    1. Sharing will be implemented at the thousands-block level, among carriers serving the same rate center or rate district as assigned the particular NXX.
    2. Shared NXXs will still be assigned to a "home" switch and rate center/district.
    3. Thousands blocks within those NXXs that are shared with other carriers will be "ported" from the donor switch, using the long-term LNP architecture.
    1. Geographic boundaries of rate center/rate district are iron-clad, no exceptions.
    2. Generation of the AMA (LRN) by the switch does not deviate from the long-term LNP architecture.
    3. All NXXs used for number pooling must be LNP-capable.
  1. What concerns were identified?
    Concerns were the same as those of implementing LRN in general—carriers performing third-party recording/billing services for other carriers may still, in certain call scenarios, require modifications to their back-office systems and/or new/modified interconnection agreements to support the appropriate passing of billing messages. The NXX-X pooling solution may exacerbate this problem.
  2. What alternatives were looked at?
    No alternative solutions were discussed. The R&B sub-committee performed analysis only of the solution requested based on the limited information presented in the Baldwin June 3rd memo.
  3. What were the advantages/disadvantages (e.g., costs, timing, etc.) of those alternatives?
    Not applicable (see response to #5 above).
  4. What conclusions/recommendations were made?
    As reported after the June R&B teleconference, the sub-committee members have determined that the NXX-X number pooling proposal should have no new technical impact on deploying the LRN solution in Illinois based on the above assumptions. However, the sub-committee has asked (Brent Struthers) to see the current documentation on this proposal to make a more definitive analysis of this solution.