Thursday, May 22, 1997, 9:30 AM

LNP Steering Committee Meeting Minutes

160 N. LaSalle, 8th floor

Chicago, Illinois

Number Pooling (Brent Struthers, Charlotte TerKeurst, and Terry

______________

Appenzeller)

Charlotte TerKeurst introduced the code exhaust problem and

initiated a plan to examine the potential for number

pooling.

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.

Considerations:

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

unknown).

B. Implied 5th category is assignable, or available for

number pooling.

Reserved category

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?

Other issues:

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

the switches).

For access billing, one LRN per remote will be needed,

driving the need for more LRNs.

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 LNP

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.

Next steps:

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.

Terry Appenzeller will be liaison to NANC.

Subcommittee Reports

____________________

Cost Recovery (Phil Felice)

Interim NPAC cost recovery is an outstanding issue;

agreement has 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]]]

Operator Services

No report.

Rating and Billing (Judy Evans)

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.

LLC/Contract Team (Phil Felice)

Elected two officers (Jim Joerger - secretary & Dan

Noorani treasurer).

Voting rights changes will make it a Regional LLC

(i.e., not just Illinois):

Another cash call was required.

Legal Council: 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

testing/looping scenarios.)

Switching (Brian Baldwin)

No report.

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

verbiage from the FCC.

Next meeting: June 10-11. Test team 12th, SPOC & 911

on 13th.

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 replaced.)

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.




911 Subcommittee(Barry Bishop)

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

enough.

Meeting: June 13 (in case there are any open issues,

but they expect to wrap up)

New Entrant Process Committee

There is some concern about errors or potential for

misinterpretation in the Wireless section of the LNP

Primer. Primer is available on www.ported.com.

Meeting: June 6

Regulatory Update (Terry Appenzeller)

__________________

FCC Action

FCC is not moving quickly on cost recovery;

indications are that it wont be done before end of

summer. Draft 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).

NANC Action

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 provided.

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 meeting.

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 up.

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 routing).

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

attendees.

Other

_____

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.

Future Meetings

_______________

Steering Committee meetings: June 19, July 24, August 21.

Coordination Committee meetings (conference calls): June

12, July 21, August 14.