Thursday, August 21
LNP Steering Committee
Number Pooling (Brian Baldwin)
Brian Baldwin provided a status report of the progress of the discussions on number pooling. Specifically, Brian discussed a tentative agreement reached on a pooling method to be used for a trial in the 847 MSA. That method, pre-porting with snapback to the block holder, is dependent upon the concerns of SCP overload being alleviated. SCP concerns can be addressed either by limiting the scope of number pooling roll-out nationally or developing the capability in all SCPs to store ranges of numbers.
Ed Gould stated that some carriers may have rethought their tentative agreement because of the NANC meeting on Monday and Tuesday.
Brian reported that the SCP subcommittee has identified potential long term SCP enhancements that may mitigate the capacity concerns.
There has been no word on how long number pooling would extend the life of the 847 area code. Brent is still waiting on responses from a couple of companies. He has called them and expects to receive the responses within the next day. Mark Foster stated that according to the numbers collected by Wallace Data Comp, 847 look to be exhausting in 3 Q`98. This, however does not change the projection that it may exhaust as early as 2 Q`98.
Brian discussed the need for an interim number pooling administrator. There is concern with sending the type of data required by the pooling administrator to Ameritech, the current numbering administrator. Brian presented a letter he proposed to send out to parties interested in acting as an interim pooling administrator. Larry Vasquez stated that the NANC is addressing who is the appropriate regulatory body to name the new long term number administrator.
More discussion followed on the tentative agreement. Brian discussed his analysis of SCP capacity and stated that he believed the scope of pooling should be limited to 6 NPAs nationwide. Betty Shelby stated that this was based on the assumption that a carrier only had one SCP pair to handle the load.
The NANCs Monday and Tuesday meetings were discussed. On Monday the NANC voted 14-9-3 to not give the requested NPAs to the PAPUC for the transparent overlay. On Tuesday the vote was reversed, but there were many caveats. Because there was no obvious consensus it was agree that the NANC Chairman would write a memo to the FCC asking for their input. There was no vote taken on number pooling specifically. Shawn Murphy stated that SWB asked to have the transparent overlay restricted to Pennsylvania but received no support. There was a great deal of discussion on whether or not this affected work on number pooling in Illinois. The discussion ended with no agreement.
Shawn Murphy provided a handout on AT&Tís position on pooling. Shawn believed that it was apparent that neither the NANC nor the FCC would agree to limit the scope of pooling based on the outcome of the Monday and Tuesday NANC meetings to address transparent overlays. AT&T believes unless the scope of number pooling is limited their SCP capacity concerns remain. AT&T stated that they could support either port-on-demand or pre-porting in the long term with proper data representation in the NPAC/SMS and SCPs. They also stated that they could support either snapback position in the long-term. AT&T proposed that number pooling be accomplished using port-on-demand with snapback to the code holder in the short-term.
Ed Gould stated that there might be administrative ways to limit pooling. AT&T cannot handle pre-porting without a national choke. Ameritech cannot handle port-on-demand prior to exhaust of 847.
Tom Bainbridge of Siemens shared their Default LRN proposal for alleviating SCP capacity concerns. This proposal is based on pre-porting and snapback to the block holder. Assumptions:
-Currently Some SCPs can only store directory numbers as individual 10 digit entries.
-SCP capacity issues revolve around addtl. 1K records from pre-ported blocks.
-Snapback to block holder requires addtl. Administration outside of normal subscriber cancellation.
As opposed to the two-table SCP approach being explored by the SCP team, Default LRN uses one table but two cycles. On a query of a pooled but not ported number 847-234-2333 the first cycle of the query would fail, the SCP would then alter the queried number to 847-000-2342 (signifying the 234-2XXX block). The second cycle using 847-000-2342 would show the number as being pooled and provide an LRN for routing. Siemens stated numerous advantage to its approach:
-If SCP logic can discriminate pooled codes, the SCP would only need to execute two sequential binary searches for pooled vacant numbers.
-Snapback to the block holder can be handled w/ normal disconnect process
-Thousand block can be pre-ported and entered into the SCP using a single entry
-It was assumed that Default LRN could be implemented prior to 847 exhaust
There was much discussion on this topic. Bettie Shelby stated that the changing of service logic might be easier than building a second table. Mark Foster stated that it would not cause changes to the NPAC interface. There was some concern over transactions per second capacity. Brent asked the SCP Subcommittee to begin addressing this and asked carriers to discuss timing and pricing of an SCP fix with their vendors.
Rating & Billing (Arnette Schultz)
-Arnette Schultz has taken over the reigns for Judy Evans who is escaping LNP.
-The California group turned national in June.
-There is going to be discussion on state-specific changes to national rating and billing requirements.
-Brent thanked Judy for acting as the R&B Subcommittee Chair for the past 1&1/2 years plus.
Cost Recovery (Brent Struthers)
-Still waiting on FCC Order. No report on interim method
NPAC/SMS (Bettie Shelby)
-No report other than the discussion earlier on number pooling.
LLC/Contract Team (Roger Marshall)
-Will have a meeting Friday, August 22. Lockheed will provide the costs for pre-porting and snapback to the block holder.
Operator Services (Lou Pino)
LNP SCP (Wayne Heinmiller)
-No report other than the discussion earlier on number pooling.
Switching (Brian Baldwin)
-Brian reported that there had been discussion that Nortel and Siemens switches required one LRN per rate center even where a carrier has a single switch serving multiple rate centers.
-Lou Pino discussed the issue from Nortelís perspective. Lou stated that For the Nortel DMS 100 & 500, Nortel has developed data fill or translation solutions. Nortel will also be making a software solution available which may be more convenient but is not necessary. With this, Nortel switches will not require one LRN per rate center for a switch serving multiple rate centers.
-Siemens is still addressing the issue.
-Ericsson and Lucent stated that this was not an issue with their switches.
-Sam Mehta of GTE will take the issue back to the proper people in GTE.
-Bettie Shelby mentioned that there was currently difficulty with having multiple LRNs per CLLI code and multiple CLLI codes in the LERG.
Phase II (Larry Vasquez)
-Collected lists from SPs of high, medium, and low priority issues for Phase II. Highs are mandatory. Medium and low will require more cost analysis. Next step is to determine ballpark costs for final set of Phase II requirements. Vendors are to have cost information to each of their carrier customers by 9/25 Steering Committee meeting.
-Phase II team is looking at issues brought in from other areas of the country from switch vendors.
-Implementation date for phase II has been set at 3 Q`98.
Test Team & SPOCs (Walt Subora & Dick Dowd)
-Field Test started 8/11/97 when SPs entered network data into the NPAC. LSRs were passed, NPAs opened for porting, and on Friday, 8/15all number were successfully ported. 2 SPs did some early call testing. There were problems encountered during the first week, but they were the result of human error and did not constitute showing stopping concerns. The FCC Field Test was right on schedule after the first week. This week call-through testing continued. Initially some SPs could not get calls to go through, however, problems have been addressed and all calls are now going through.
-There was some discussion on TCG joining the Field Test mid-stream. TCG stated that they were nearly finished with SP to SP testing and would join during the second porting. Dick stated that TCG joining at this point would require TCG to accept a massive data download. TCG expressed they would be prepared for this.
-Brent stated that reports on Test progress would be publicly filed with the FCC weekly.
Operations (Barry Bishop)
-Barry discussed the upcoming St. Louis MSA LNP meeting. The date is 9/12 from 9a 4p at the Holiday Inn, 1000 Eastport Plaza Drive, Collinsville, IL.
911 Subcommittee (Nancy DeRoo)
St. Louis MSA (Brent Struthers)
-Brent sent a data request out to all SPs that picked switches in the St. Louis MSA. Responses have yet to be returned. Brent will use these responses to justify timing of LNP roll-out in certain switches in the St. Louis MSA.
Chicago MSA (Brent Struthers)
-Brent reissued the Chicago MSA switch pick list. This is the final list.
Regulatory Update (Terry Appenzeller)
Terry provided a rundown of the FCCís LNP Order. Cincinnati Bell asked the FCC to allow them to contract with only one NPAC provider although their territory crosses the border between two separate NPAC providers. The FCC asked the NANC and the two NPAC providers to address this issue by 12/15/97. The formation of a new NANC oversight committee was ordered. This committee will keep track of deployment in the top 100 MSAs, review Illinois test results, and perform other information gathering and advisory functions for the FCC. A proceeding on the need for regional LLCs is to be launched with a rulemaking by 6/30/98. Default LNP queries for non-capable carriers is also addressed.
Terry next provided an update of the NANC meetings on Monday and Tuesday which reiterated what was said earlier in the day. Terry stressed that the decision on the PAPUCs implementation of a transparent overlay was not analogous to Illinoisí efforts with number pooling. The next meeting of the NANC Committee is 10/17/97.
Some discussion was held regarding the INCís work on number pooling. Their next meetings are scheduled 8/25-27. The INC is drafting a report divided into number pooling within and number pooling beyond rate center boundaries. The newly formed Number Pooling Management Group, which directs the INCís work in this area, is addressing policy issues. An important policy issue is the scope of pooling (i.e., within an NPA, a LATA, or a state). Finally, it was stated that NARUC will address the issue of number pooling at its November meeting.
The next meetings of the Illinois LNP Steering Committee are 9/25 and 10/23.