Thursday, May 22, 1997, 9:30 AM
LNP Steering Committee Meeting Minutes
160 N. LaSalle, 8th floor
Number Pooling (Brent Struthers, Charlotte TerKeurst, and Terry
Charlotte TerKeurst introduced the code exhaust problem and
initiated a plan to examine the potential for number
The Problem: Without relief, Area Code 847 would need to be
split in April 1998.
Charlotte requested that a number pooling subcommittee be
convened and prepare a report by October, preferably August.
The report would recommend a solution, state whether it
will extend life of 847, and, if so, for how long, identify
modifications to number portability that would be needed to
support the solution,
and address cost recovery.
Levels of pooling (1000s, 100s, individual numbers)
Near-term vs. long-term number pooling proposals/solutions
Definitions/categories of assigned number
A. assigned - actively working
B. assigned - reserved (footnote: Reserved, per
Architecture section of NANC report, means reserved under a
tariff or otherwise legally enforceable agreement.) for a
customer (customer request vs. carrier request)
C. reserved for maintenance and testing.
A. otherwise unassignable (significance of this category is
B. Implied 5th category is assignable, or available for
List of spare blocks will change
Inappropriate to withhold blocks of numbers (just) because
the SP expects growth in that office
Will customers have to be part of the solution and not
reserve numbers for their future growth?
How big is the set of reserved numbers?
For purposes of the data request numbers that are being
aged are unassignable?
Assignment of NXXs for new entrants. One NXX per switch
per LATA is sufficient for routing.
For each NXX there must be a default assignee. Which
carrier will be the default? (It might be the LRN for one of
For access billing, one LRN per remote will be needed,
driving the need for
Terry Appenzeller presented a proposal for the first phase
of a Number Pooling Work Plan:
- Form subcommittee of ICC Number Portability Workshop.
- Report to ICC/others (including NANC) by 9/1 (status
report on 8/1).
- Industry data request (to determine whether the proposal
will solve the problem) is due 6/13; an analysis will be
completed by 7/1.
- Start 1000 block assignment on remaining codes (of which
there are 190) of 847
- LNP (Wireline) implementation (10/97 - 1/98)
- National report 10/1/97 (NANC)
- Chicago trial - pooling
1Q98 target (MSA 1)
- new procedures
- work with
It was agreed that the subcommittee should look at how the
industry can solve potential problems related to
unassignable numbers. Wireless codes probably can?t be
split because wireless rate centers don?t match wireline
rate centers. Paging codes? Don?t know. Paging companies
were excluded from number portability, but should they be
excluded from number pooling? Data in the analysis report
will be compiled/published in such a way that specific
providers would be private. Ameritech will provide
information on the
rate centers of the NXXs, per the LERG.
Adding wireless would be a separate phase of the Number
Pooling Work Plan.
What would be the impact on SS7 networks, i.e., on the
number of queries? Are the networks currently sized for
this quantity of signaling, or will they be? Some interim
reports (before 9/1
report to FCC) will be needed.
What is the contingency plan if 1000-block assignments are
not sufficient to delay the 847 NPA split? Although 100-
block assignments could work, there would be a much more
significant impact on systems. (Note: industry data request
is in 100s-blocks but
can be aggregated to 1000s-blocks.)
Implications of the proposed number pooling:
Stress on network, posing a risk of overstress on all of
MSA 1 to solve 847 problem.
Any new entrant would have to be LNP capable.
Effect on small providers? If a small provider is given a
waiver, would it apply here? i.e., if they don?t have to be
LNP capable they wouldn?t
have to be pooling capable?
It is critical to have an update on when 847 split is needed
(i.e., still 6/98?) If this proposal wont solve the 847
problem in time, will need to proceed with the docket --
split or overlay. Asking for an order date on the docket on
10/1 (unless exhaust date changes).
Although 847 is a serious problem, it is not the only
problem. A long term solution must also be explored. For
the long term, location portability might be part of
solution, since it
provides more flexibility).
There was consensus
on the aforementioned game plan.
Leaders: Brian Baldwin, Jim Joerger
Sign-up sheet passed for volunteers.
Conference call scheduled for June 2, 1 to 3 PM .
Conference bridge: 312-814-8097
Report at June 19 Steering Committee meeting.
will be liaison to NANC.
Cost Recovery (Phil
Interim NPAC cost recovery is an outstanding issue;
not yet been reached.
NPAC/SMS (Donna Navickas)
Turn-up testing started 5/19. Service providers have
begun connecting to NPAC over mechanized interface.
M&P testing of mechanized interface will be done.
Trouble ticket system is in place on a secure web
site, viewable to participating providers. Thanks for
Bellcore for picking
up test scripts]]]
Rating and Billing
A National LNP
Billing Forum has been established
(initiated by Tom Santos of Pacific Bell). This group
has produced a delta document of things they would
like changed from Illinois requirements. Although
some members of the ICC R&B committee participated,
representatives from other Illinois service providers
were not solicited. Although the group has no
official authority, they have diverse representation.
It is unclear
whether the group will try to affiliate.
The members of Illinois committee should be made aware
of this groups activities so that they can
attend/participate. They should report back (at next
Steering Committee meeting) with a recommendation on
how to go forward.
Elected two officers (Jim Joerger - secretary & Dan
Voting rights changes will make it a Regional LLC
(i.e., not just
Another cash call
agreed to change representation.
Next meeting June 20 or 24. Will vote on changes to
LLC agreement, then it will need to be re-filed with
the state. New
members are being recruited.
LNP SCP (Wayne Heinmiller)
No report. (Brent said they?re trying to come up with
Switching (Brian Baldwin)
Phase II (Larry Vasquez)
Larry distributed a spreadsheet establishing Service
Providers priorities of OPT and FUT requirements.
This committee will reconvene after the next Steering
Committee meeting in June. Fortunately, there was a
fair amount of consistency in the input, but not all
companies have responded.. It was suggested that the
National Billing Forum (see R&B report, above)
priorities be added to the list. ICC R&B committee
should prepare a recommendation. (It will be included
in the summary report, if provided before the next
meeting.) Corrections are needed as to which
requirements affect the NPAC. Nortel has said which
OPT and FUT ICC requirements they plan to be compliant
with and when
(might be proprietary).
Test Team (Barry Bishop)
SPOC & Field Test Progress: Should have been in today
(by the 15th) but LERG might not be updated yet.
There is a question on network reliability: FCC wants
load testing on SCPs, which would be difficult to
accomplish with a live network. Waiting for final
Next meeting: June 10-11. Test team 12th, SPOC & 911
See the website for a PowerPoint test diagram and the
matrix of tests (BEWARE OF A VIRUS IN THE MATRIX--the
file will be cleaned up and
Operations (Barry Bishop)
The Operations Subcommittee met with law enforcement
folks regarding Non-SP access to database. Under
certain circumstances, law enforcement personnel would
need to know SPID immediately. How could they get the
information quickly? New issue #52 is result of law
enforcement concerns. Law enforcement folks want to
trial IVR and GUI to obtain the Service Providers name
and contact number.
The Subcommittee agreed to use NENA standards, but
don't expect any changes will be needed. September 1
has been proposed for 911 testing but that is not soon
Meeting: June 13 (in case there are any open issues,
but they expect
to wrap up)
New Entrant Process
There is some concern about errors or potential for
misinterpretation in the Wireless section of the LNP
is available on www.ported.com.
Regulatory Update (Terry Appenzeller)
FCC is not moving
quickly on cost recovery;
indications are that it wont be done before end of
order is not yet written.
Comments on NANC report on Number Portability are due
to FCC by June 2. Replies are due June 19. NANC's
report is on FCC
web site (www.fcc.gov/ccb/Nanc).
Selection of Lockheed Martin to replace Bellcore as
NANPA was done at May 14 meeting. INC meets June 2-3
Washington DC. Next NANC meeting is June 10. On July
15 the CLC ad hoc committee on number exhaust will
issue its technical
evaluation of relief options.
Concerns Over LLC Operating Agreement: The Midwest
operating agreement is consistent with NANC
guidelines, but concern is mostly about dispute
resolution (a standard dispute resolution process is
desired). Most LLCs have agreed to using the NANC
process when its
St. Louis MSA
Some proposals for determination whether a switch should
support portability are:
Switch location (whether the switch is in/out of MSA)
Majority of customers located inside the MSA
Any customer located inside the MSA.
No agreement has yet been reached on which criteria should
be applied, but state commissions were given authority to
determine which offices are on the open-to-portability list.
If in disagreement, appeal (docket) would be needed. Other
questions related to which offices must open to portability:
Is the CLEC expecting to receive customers from an office
vs. asking for all offices be open?
Which lines are affected by the MSA ruling?
Who has the burden of demonstration regarding whether an
office should be opened (the ILEC or the CLEC)? FCC order
on reconsideration says the CLEC does not need to justify
its request. There was disagreement on interpretation.
When is the request legitimate (i.e., facilities based)?
If there is not agreement, then petitions will be filed?
Could this group come up with a framework of selection
criteria? (Its been tried in the past, but without
completion.) Brent is taking this to his lawyers and will
bring this to next
Ameritech Purchase of Sprints Chicago Exchanges
Purchase not proceeding on schedule to complete by 8/1/97.
Therefore, Sprint is still planning to test LRN LNP. Sprint
is currently catching
Rate Centers vs. Rate Districts vs. Rate Zones
For new NXXs (note: this is not an LNP issue), will one NXX
be assigned per rate center or per rate district? One NXX
per rate district is used to match ILECs billing (although
not needed for LNP
There is still confusion over the terms (rate center vs.
rate district vs. Rate zone). R&B Subcommittee put out
definitions quite a while back but apparently more
clarification is needed. NANC report to FCC has the
definitions. Due to the confusion, CLECs will have to ask
for more NXXs. With emphasis on number conservation, this
becomes a number pooling issue even though it was already
decided for LNP. When a new carrier is assigned an NPA NXX,
a rate center gets loaded in LERG. Software from COStuff is
available that provides rate district information; also, FCC
tariff #4 with NECA
information provides the rate district.
555 numbers (Richard Bartel)
The purpose of the presentation was to raise awareness of
interconnections issues related to 555 and also to business
opportunities for 555. There is a question of the role of
LNP in 555. Richard will follow up with e-mail to meeting
CTIA document on wireless portability is intentionally not
on web page. Wow-com.com now a link from ported.com, but
one must register to
use the website.
meetings: June 19, July 24, August 21.
Coordination Committee meetings (conference calls): June
12, July 21, August