New York / Illinois

1,000 Block Number Pooling

Administrative Guidelines Sub-Committee

 

ISSUES LIST

Revised: 2/9 & 10/98

DESCRIPTION

DATE ESTABLISHED

PRIORITY

(H, M, L)

RESPONSIBILITY

STATUS/WHERE ADDRESSED IN DOCUMENT

What is the rate center level (for 1,000 block assignments) for 212 NPA and other NPAs. What is the lowest common demoninator that needs to be pooled. Need to ensure that communications flow includes rate center/sub-rate center level.

 

11/24/97

M

All Service Providers

 

Overall schedule (Deadline for guidelines)

 

11/24/97

H

 
  • Illinois March 2 is Illinois Deadlines to have guidelines to Lockheed.
  • NY - Feb. 10 for latest draft of guidelines.

Rules/principles for carriers regarding the administrative use of telephone numbers in 1,000 blocks. This affects criteria for new assignment of blocks. Are carriers being consistent with regard to the following: 1) aging, 2) use of numbers for PBX (i.e., a single PBX with 100 trunks with Telephone Number assigned to trunks?) (reference section 2.6)

 

11/24/97

M

 
  • NANPA working group has finished standard aging intervals document. This document has gone thru industry consensus - not sure if NANC has approved. May want to review document - on ATIS website. May need to reference this subject in the guidelines.

Handling of preferred blocks, both contaminated and non-contaminated as well as vanity numbers. Refer to section 10. Also, what level do you need to track contaminated blocks when they are donated (i.e., which TNs are contaminated, etc.)

In Illinois, agree to only assign out of clean blocks for the trial. What do you do if a SP requests a contaminated block?

 

11/24/97

M

 
  • Illinois is okay on handling clean blocks for the 4/1 trial. Illinois can wait beyond 4/1 to address vanity requests and use of contaminated blocks.

define efficient utilization of NANP resources. Perhaps reference in glossary.

1/6/98

L

   

where do we put LERG assignee section at the block holder level. NOTE: Information currently contained in LERG is not applicable for TN Pooling Routing & Rating.

1/6/98

H

   

reservation of blocks including timeframes

1/6/98

   
  • addressed, need to review language in document.

Rerservation of blocks in NPA/Rate Centers

2/6/98

     

An additional block(s) is necessary for distinct routing or rating or billing purposes (e.g., Information Services). Need to define and include in the term "technical requirement". Not sure if this is still applicable in number pooling. Policy issue.

1/6/98

   
  • donít believe this applies.

What needs to be done with LIDB when a block is assigned when - 1. For pre-port, 2. Port-on-Demand, 3. Contaminated block, 4. Non-contaminated block?

In pre-port, not an issue. If POD, the donor network would pull out any information in LIBD for 1,000 numbers when donated to industry pool. When block holder activates TN, the LRN associated with number in routing database would cause LIBD query to go to LIDB database. Queries to LIDB are done on global title translations at a 10 digit level. This will then route the query to the appropriate LIDB serving the particular number. If TN being queried was not assigned to a customer (i.e., record not in LNP database), then LIDB query would go to donor network and find no record. See section 6.4.2

1/6/98

H

Service Providers - need to understand impact prior to pooling implementation.

 

Issue regarding who will modify LERG record (Block Holder or Code Holder, Pooling Administrator).

1/21/98

   
  • Requires LERG changes if Block Holder is to perform updates. Refer to Architecture Committee.

Who will be billed for LERG inputs?

 

1/21/98

     

Opening NXX for LRN purposes and/or tracking LRNs by Pooling Administrator - what is the requirement or is there a requirement.

1/21/98

     

If a Service Provider denies acceptance of a block, but the pool does not need replenishment, what does the Pooling Administrator do (i.e., request new NXX code or what)? Rochelle suggests that anytime the PA believes that satisfying a request is against the major principles for efficient use of resources, the PA will take to PSC. Jo suggests that this approach will not work and may not be accepted at the National level. Needs PSC guidance and also INC input. Note: INC to meet on 2/18. See section 7.1.6

1/21/98

M

   

Changes are required to existing COCUS process (see section 6.7.2) May also require changes to CO Code Guidelines

2/5/98

   
  • may require referral to INC and NANPA working group.

If contamination is dispersed across a block, should it be considered for return? Perhaps the request form should include a section to ask whether sequential numbers within a block are necessary.

(Brent Struthers)

2/6/98

     

Need an education process on number pooling (web site, meeting to educate carriers).

(Shawn Murphy)

2/6/98

     

Some intervals in guidelines require time sensitivity. For instance, forecast for 1 or 2 rate centers takes less time than forecast for the MSA.

(Shawn Murphy)

2/6/98

     

Do we want to allow for the trading of blocks between service providers. If so, we should include that the process should include the number pooling administrator. (Shawn Murphy)

2/6/98

     

LERG Reassignment of block when customer ports to another SP

(Shawn Murphy)

2/6/98

 

     

Merger and acquisitions - how do you treat numbers that are acquired. Keep them, return, forecast need ???

(Shawn Murphy)

2/6/98

     

Can multiple blocks from a single NXX be assigned to different homing tandems? (Beth)

2/10/98

 

Service Providers

 

What is the purpose of section 1.7 on the Part 1 Block request form? Does it apply to number pooling.

2/10/98

 

Service Providers