STATE OF INDIANA

 

INDIANA UTILITY REGULATORY COMMISSION

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF THE INVESTIGATION ) CAUSE NO. 39983

ON THE COMMISSIONíS OWN MOTION )

INTO ANY AND ALL MATTERS RELATING ) ORDER ON NUMBER

TO LOCAL TELEPHONE EXCHANGE ) PORTABILITY ISSUES

COMPETITION WITHIN THE STATE )

OF INDIANA. ) APPROVED: Jun 25, 1997

 

 

BY THE COMMISSION:

G. Richard Klein, Commissioner

Don R. Mueller, Administrative Law Judge

 

In the Interim Order on Bundled Resale and Other Issues, approved July 1, 1996 in this Cause, this Commission ordered that a task force be established to review and consider technological issues related to long term number portability and the associated cost of each technology. The first organizational meeting was set for July 11, 1996 and all interested parties participated via a technical representative authorized by the party to discuss, present, decide and make recommendations to the Commission for ultimate action on certain number portability issues. A final report and recommendation was to be presented to the Commission on or before November 8, 1996 but the task force requested and we granted an enlargement of time until January 8, 1997. The task force submitted its report to the Commission on January 8, 1997.

 

By docket entry dated June 6, 1997, the presiding Administrative Law Judge made the report a part of the record in this cause as well as incorporating the comments filed by the Indiana Cable Telecommunications Association, Inc. (ICTA) on February 14, 1997. Pursuant to the June 6, 1997 docket entry, Ameritech Indiana and AT&T submitted a proposed order on June 17, 1997.

 

Task force meetings were conducted on July 11, 1996, August 16, 1996, October 7, 1996, and December 10, 1996. Additionally, conference calls were held on November 8, 1996, November 14, 1996, and November 22, 1996. Industry participants included Ameritech Indiana, AT&T, Attorney William B. Powers, Cellular One, Comcast, GTE, GTE Mobilnet, One Call, Opticom, Hancock Rural Tel. Corp., ICTA, Indiana Telecommunications Association, Lockheed Martin, MCI, MFS Intelenet of Indiana, Inc., OUCC, Smithville Telephone Co., Sprint, TCG, TDS Telecom, Time Warner and Washington County TRC. Judy Evans of AT&T and Terry Appenzeller of Ameritech were elected co-chair persons of the task force and the following mission statement was adopted:

 

 

The task force shall have the limited authority to meet how and when it chooses with a final report and recommendation to be presented to the Commission on technological issues related to long term number portability and the associated cost of each technology on or before November 8, 1996.

 

1. Discussions and Findings.

 

Our discussion concentrates on the report and recommendations attached hereto as Appendix A and submitted to us by the Indiana number portability task force created pursuant the to "Interim Order on Bundled Resale and Other Issues" in the matter of Cause Number 39983. The Commission adopts the report and recommendations of the task force set forth in Appendix A and finds as follows:

 

(a) Technical Solution. The Commission finds that the task force reviewed and considered the "Stipulation and Settlement Agreement" attached to AT&Tís June 14, 1996 filing. The task force agreed that using the Illinois model was the most logical and efficient way to implement long term number portability (LTNP) in Indiana. The Location Routing Number (LRN) call model was unanimously adopted as the long-term call processing model for the implementation of LTNP in Indiana. LRN is the architecture of choice in the industry and many states, including Illinois and meets the minimum performance criteria established by the FCC in their Number Portability Order (CC Docket 95-116) issued on July 2, 1996.

 

Pursuant to the FCCís order directing the implementation of long term number portability in the countryís 100 largest Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs), long term number portability will be operational in Indianapolis, Gary, Fort Wayne, Louisville and Cincinnati from 4/98 to 6/98, 7/98 to 9/98, 10/98 to 12/98, 7/98 to 9/98 and 1/98 to 3/98 respectively.

 

In order to facilitate the necessary upgrades for exchanges where bona fide requests (BFRs) for long term number portability have been received, each incumbent local exchange carrier (ILEC) operating in these areas provided a list of its exchanges (including the offices, MSA, Exchange English Name, common language location identifier (CLLI) and numbering plan area local exchange code (NPA NXX)) to carriers who the IURC had identified as having petitioned the Commission to become a competitive LEC providing local telephone service to the Indiana public. The task force agreed to follow the Illinois task force and select only those exchanges (instead of all offices) within a MSA that a competitor plans to compete, as approved by the FCC in its order on reconsideration adopted March 6, 1997. Carriers were to return lists of offices where they desired LTNP to an independent third party by December 3, 1996. A master list of offices where LTNP will be offered pursuant to the FCC schedule was compiled and distributed to the IURC staff and ILECs.

 

(b) Small ILEC Issues/ Position. Implementation of long term number portability for facility based competition is a critical issue for small Indiana ILECs. The Indiana task force concentrated on moving ahead with number portability implementation and did not consider small ILEC implementation problems, economic impact on small ILEC areas, nor the impact as measured by the rates paid by small ILEC subscribers.

 

(c) Costs. The estimated one-time cost to implement LTNP in the currently requested offices in Indiana is: Incumbent LECs costs, $41.6 Million; Competitive LECs costs, $0.7 Million. These LEC costs include three types of costs that were defined by the FCC in CC Docket 95-116 issued on July 2, 1996, paragraph 208: "(1) costs incurred by the industry as a whole, such as those incurred by the third-party administrator to build, operate, and maintain the databases needed to provide number portability; (2) carrier-specific costs directly related to providing number portability (e.g., the costs to purchase the switch software implementing number portability); and (3) carrier-specific costs not directly related to number portability (e.g., the costs of network upgrades necessary to implement a database method)."

 

(d) LTNP Database for Indiana. Pursuant to the FCC order in Docket 95-116 which endorsed a neutral third party administrator to be selected by the North American Numbering Council (NANC) or allowed a state to develop its own database administration rather than participate in the regional database, Indiana will use the database which will be created for Illinois and can be made large enough to service several states. The database is owned and administered by Lockheed Martin. A Limited Liability Company (LLC) has been established among participating Illinois carriers and will manage Lockheed Martin.

 

The Number Portability Administration Center (NPAC) will maintain a database of ported customer information to be used by all carriers in the geographic area. Management of the NPAC will be performed by a neutral third party, Lockheed Martin, and the NPAC supplier. An LLC is to be formed in Indiana to establish guidelines for the joint management of the NPAC and one of its main functions is to enter into and provide ongoing management of a contract with the selected supplier of the NPAC and is the single point of contact with the supplier regarding attendant issues. The LLC has no responsibility for cost recovery, rendering bills and collecting funds for the NPAC. Despite initial contribution from each member to cover start-up costs and periodic assessments for administration expenses, there is no cash flow through the LLC. Each service provider separately contracts with the NPAC administrator for services. The LLC will not be involved in the arrangement between the NPAC administrator and the service provider. Future membership in the LLC will be open to facilities-based certificated local exchange carriers which sign the LLC Agreement and pay a proportionate share of start-up and operating costs.

 

(e) Implementation of Sub-Committees. The Commission endorses and the Indiana task force has agreed to the use of regional sub-committees to address the many implementation issues associated with the implementation of LTNP. This will involve the merger of the Indiana LTNP task force into the regional sub-committees which the task force reports is underway. As a result, the existing Indiana LTNP task force will only meet on an as-needed basis in 1997. The Commission finds that to the extent the Indiana LTNP task force continues to meet, that it should also report informally to the Commissionís Telecommunications Division on the progress of LTNP implementation. The Commission will thus be assisted in defining the scope and purpose of its renewed investigation to be commenced as provided below.

 

2. Future Proceedings. The Commission, in its Interim Order dated July 1, 1996, stated that cost recovery and allocation issues would be addressed separately from the number portability task force. The Commission finds that a new cause should be opened to consider cost recovery and other related issues as soon as the FCC Order on cost recovery (CC Docket 95-116) is issued (expected by September, 1997).

 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE INDIANA UTILITY REGULATORY COMMISSION that:

 

1. The report and recommendations of the Indiana number portability task force as they appear in Appendix A, attached hereto and incorporated herein, shall be adopted as a part of this Order. The Commission endorses the task force decision to work with the regional sub-committees for purposes of implementing LTNP in Indiana. The regional teams will address many issues which impact all states in the region, as well as working on specific plans for implementation in Indiana. Therefore, the existing Indiana LTNP task force will only meet on an as-needed basis in 1997 and shall keep the Commission informed on implementation, consistent with Finding No. 1(e) above.

 

2. The Commission directs that a new cause be opened to address cost recovery and allocation issues, consistent with Finding No. 2 above.

 

3. This Order shall be effective on and after the date of its approval.

 

MORTELL, HUFFMAN AND KLEIN CONCUR;

SWANSON-HULL NOT PARTICIPATING; ZIEGNER ABSENT:

APPROVED: Jun 25, 1997

 

I hereby certify that the above is a true

and correct copy of the Order as approved.

 

 

 

Brian J. Cohee

Executive Secretary to the Commission