Thursday, April 24, 1997, 9:30 AM
LNP Steering Committee Meeting Minutes
160 N. LaSalle, 8th Floor
Chicago, Illinois
Subcommittee Reports
Cost Recovery (Phil Felice)
Nothing significant to report. Nothing appears to be holding up
the plan that has been written.
NPAC/SMS (Donna Navickas)
Interoperability testing
-The testing strategy is being fine tuned.
-All service providers have completed stack to stack testing.
-AT&T has completed Managed Object Conformance (MOC) testing with all other service providers to be completed by 5/7.
-In an effort to meet the FCC schedule and eliminate unnecessary
testing, the application test scripts have been scaled down.
Turn up testing - The current test plan is over 600 pages. The committee is looking to clean up and condense the scripts (to be reviewed next week in Chicago).
- Testing to begin 5/19 and each company to test individually through 7/2.
- Integrated testing from 7/2 to 7/9.
- Optional clean up testing time from 7/9 to 7/16.
- 7/16 to 7/23 quiet time (i.e., no testing available while NPAC
preparations are finalized).
Trouble reporting and testing administration to be covered next
week (week of 4/28).
Reviewing M&P document addressing NPA splits and mass updates.
Next meetings:
- 4/30 to 5/2 in Chicago
- 6/18 Chicago during mid turn-up testing
LLC/Contract Team (Roger Marshall)
John McClusky resigned from his position as treasurer. At least
one more person is needed on this team. (* Note TCG/MCI/Sprint
are not participating at this time) MCI is going to see if it
can provide someone to be either Secretary or Treasurer. If MCI
cannot the burden will then fall on TCG to find someone.
Wording changes were proposed to the LLC document addressing the areas of:
- Unanimous voting and how to abstain;
- Affiliate voting rights (a compromise solution has been reached
on this issue).
1996 taxes were completed. LLC members will each receive a copy.
The LLC was requested to present at NANC (NANC requested presentations
from all regions' LLCs). The Midwest Region LLC appears to be
consistent with those in the other regions.
Next meeting 5/8. Primary agenda item is voting of wording changes
to LLC document.
Operator Services (Irene Shumada)
No activity
Rating & Billing (Larry Vasquez for Judith Evans)
At last mtg. 3/6, ICCF (Industry Carriers Compatibility Forum)
changed its name to NIA (Network Interconnection & Architecture).
Issue 29 was discussed which deals with data resource for service provider ID (SPID). Pac Bell suggested the use of a SPID to accommodate:
- Identification of the company to which billing records are directed in CMDS as a means to address RAO code exhaust;
- Identification of companies for intercompany settlements;
- Identification of originating service provider to be used for
call branding at the operator services system.
Bellcore Traffic Routing Administration (TRA) reported that 2,932
four digit codes have already been assigned, 309 are reserved,
leaving 6,759 available. It therefore appears that assignments
of all numeric codes could continue for some time before exhaust
of the 4 digit codes. Once exhausted, 4 character alphanumeric
codes will be assigned in the form of XXAA or AAXX where X is
a numeric value and A is alphabetic.
No opposition to the need for the SPID, or the suggested code
format was voiced.
LNP SCP (Wayne Heinmiller)
This committee was considering issue of reliability (query and
response of database). Ameritech provided information as input
to the meeting and other companies provided verbal input. It was
determined that 3 minute/year failure limit is practical. Note
that the Ameritech mated pair 800 database has never experienced
a duel failure. Other companies had similar comments. Mated
SCPs are one architecture to meet this limit but the committee
does not want to dictate the architecture.
Three issues came from this reliability discussion:
1) What kind of reliability goals would be suitable? (e.g. wireless networks frequently do not use mated databases.)
-The committee provided material to modify SCP requirement document reflecting 3 minute limit. This failure issue was forwarded to the operations group to address downstream networks and the impacts due to an outage. Questions such as whether there should be any changes or reporting requirements due to failures. This is perhaps an issue the operations group needs to look at.
2) Query delays
- LNP Query and response for LRN processing - Document suggests a maximum limit of 500 ms.
- GTT function - ANSI standards currently baseline for these delays.
3) Message looping issue
- Proposal was made to use existing fields in the SS7 messages
to provide mechanism for controlling looping. T1S1 felt that
there was merit to this approach but due to different use of
the fields in other situations, the proposal may impact vendors.
Message looping solution is not a near term implementation issue.
There does exist a counter field in the MTP layer but this isn't
fully supported by all the network elements.
The committee feels that the currently identified schemes will
address the majority of the situations. Questions still remain
as to how big of an impact a single looping message can have on
the network.
The next meeting is scheduled for 5/6 at 10 AM but this will likely
change due to conflicts with other meetings.
Switching (Brian Baldwin)
No outstanding issues for phase 1. New issues will be included
in phase 2.
Phase II (Larry Vasquez)
Number conservation is taking priority for Phase II.
The committee is chartered to come up with a number conservation
solution that is implementable prior to 2Q '98 when exhaust is
expected in the 847 area code and that will extend the life of
847. Chances of this appear to be slim.
CUB filed a petition asking the Commission to order number pooling in an effort to avoid an 847 area code split or overlay. Presentations at the next phase II mtg. will be made by:
Citizens Utility Board (Seamus Glynn)
AT&T NXX-X (Penn Pfautz)
Ameritech (Brian Baldwin)
Input for Phase II LNP requirements has been submitted by:
- AGCS - Ameritech
- AT&T - MCI
Larry distributed the requirements spreadsheet at the meeting.
Comments are to be sent to Larry Vasquez before the next meeting.
Test Team (Barry Bishop for Walt Subora)
Not a lot of major issues. Minutes from last meeting are available
@ www.ported.com.
Operations (Barry Bishop)
The process flows have been completed and closed!
The committed has closed 70% of the outstanding issues.
The outage issue from the SCP team was closed pending discussion.
LNP doesn't change the network so the requirements should be the
same.
Open issues:
- Non SP (e.g., law enforcement) access to database
- IVR as a means for retrieving this issue
911 Subcommittee (Nancy Deroo)
Monthly meetings continue to be held but the committee is not
getting participation by all of the service providers. A couple
of the function codes have changed in the meeting so ported numbers
can be identified.
Companies need to check within their organizations to determine
whether specific agreements with their 911 providers will be affected
by LNP. Note that the agreement is not with SCC (a third party
vendor) but the specific 911 provider. If there is no path to
get the updates to the providers, then 911 cannot be tested.
Testing phone numbers must be assigned an address local to the
switch so an appropriate address and ESN can be assigned. The
address must be from MSA 1 (i.e. not in New Jersey).
The committee is attempting to reach closure on standards from
the NENA organization.
The next meeting has been moved to 5/2 (before the operations
committee meeting).
Test Coordination (Barry Bishop for Dick Dowd)
Barry presented a form that the testing committee felt every company
must sign before testing. The form essentially indicates that
the company has done its own internal testing and no problem exists
that will adversely affect the network. The form is not a legal
document. It read as follows:
Illinois FCC Field Test Participant Affidavit (preliminary copy presented to steering committee)
---------------------------------------------
I __, the designated single point of contact representing __, do here by affirm that __ has satisfactorily completed all internal testing and is functionally ready to offer portability services. __ has established base-line functionality end-to-end throughout its network via the satisfactory completion of prerequisite internal testing. Based upon this testing, __ has identified no problem areas that it believes would adversely impact the telecommunications industry network and attests it is ready to take part in the FCC field test.
-----------------------------------------------
This document is based on experience in New York where many of
the problems encountered were due to up front work not being done.
This is a technical assurance sign-off document.
There was much discussion over the appropriateness of the document. It was suggested that instead of filling out the Affidavit, a letter be sent to Dick Dowd indicating:
- I am ready to test (Yes/No - when if not ready)
- Who is my company contact
New Entrant Process (Denise Hardaway)
An intense three day meeting was held to produce: Midwest Region
Primer for Local Number Portability
This document is a technical overview and not intended to provide guidance on business issues. The document is organized as follows:
I. Purpose of Document
II. Updates to Document
III. Introduction to LNP
IV. Deploying LRN in Wireline Networks
V. Wireless Networks
VI. Operator Services
VII. Pay Phones
VIII. E911
IX. Inter-Exchange Carriers
X. Testing
XI. Technical Reference Documentation
XII. Glossary of Terms
Regulatory Update (Terry Appenzeller)
FCC Action
Cost recovery order is slated to be issued in June. Many companies
have been talking to the FCC about this.
Two press releases were handed out
- CIC codes and CAC codes
- Conservation of toll free numbers
NANC Action
NANC has met several times (4/15 & 4/23). The final report
from NANC on Number Portability has been completed. The final
version will be available by early next week (4/28). This is the
report from NANC to the FCC. This report describes the NPACs assignments,
why things were done, etc.
At a national level, several issues were given to NANC. The FCC
now has the option to accept or reject the NANC report.
The future role of NANC is to address phase II. This means that the committee will not be going away. Note that there are no due dates on any of the following items.
1) Dispute resolution process - There needs to be a process that involves NANC, which will take the place of the arbitration step of the LLC. The dispute resolution process for the NANP will be modified for Number Portability. This process could also be used for non-LLC issues as needed.
2) Incorporate wireless issues - CTIA documentation needs to be added to the phase I efforts. The wireless industry will be presenting their efforts on 5/2.
3) Number pooling/conservation - Some of the sections in the NANC document assumed that number pooling/conservation would be in place. This issue was passed off to INC. No one has figured out how it will work. INC is to provide NANC the recommendations by 10/1/97.
4) Location portability & service portability - Definition, to what extent will they be developed, etc.
5) NANC oversight of implementation process - The report was slightly modified to include future NANC involvement in the process. Does the LLC feed NANC periodically with reports (e.g., reports showing speed at which queries are processed).
6) Change management process NPAC & SMS - Who is the entity
that has the documentation for this change. A more permanent place
that this effort belongs needs to be defined.
Wireless Portability Update (Pete Long)
A solution has come out of CTIA and has been presented to standards
bodies. Roaming makes WNP unique. Two year standards definition
process and an 18 month roll out.
- SRD is available today addressing WNP
- Industry standards completed by 9/97
- From 1/98 to 1/99, completion of:
1) Wireless field trial
2) Initial equipment changes availability
3) Equipment deployment
4) Final equipment changes available
5) Equipment and procedure testing
- 6/99 Full nationwide WNP deployment complete
The solution developed by CTIA is to split the Mobile Directory
Number and the MIN (which are the same number today). The Mobile
Directory Number will be retained by the end user but the MIN
will reflect the service provider's network (meaning that when
changing providers, the user must get the phone updated). LRN
will be used for routing calls to the subscriber in the same fashion
as is done for wireline.
Chicago/St. Louis MSA
The ICC is sending out a list of the Chicago & St. Louis MSA
COs next week.
The impacted companies must respond by:
- 5/21/97 for the Chicago MSA
- 7/1/97 for the St. Louis MSA
Note that switches outside of the MSA that serve customers in
the MSA WILL now be included as part of the MSA roll out (e.g.,
some CLECs are looking to offer service to customers from switches
in another state). Some lively discussion took place over this
issue. A proposal was made that 50% of the exchange access lines
must reside in the MSA before portability must be supported. Some
companies believe the FCC order states that the driving force
is whether the customer is located within the MSA. In Ohio &
Indiana, only if the switch is physically located in the MSA,
must it support portability.
Three proposals were made by the meeting participants to determine
whether a switch should support portability:
1) Switch location
2) Any customers inside of MSA
3) 50% of customers inside of MSA
The ICC will provide the ILECs with a list of their exchanges
that may have customers within the Chicago/St. Louis MSAs so this
issue can be discussed further.
ICC staff produced a strawman questionnaire concerning the switches in the MSAs:
- Is requester a certificated local exchange carrier?
- Can the carrier produce a map of the area it is planning to serve?
- Has he carrier set a timeline for entering the area served by the requested switch and indicated on their map?
- What is the timeline?
- Has the carrier sought interconnection with the carrier owning the requested switch?
- Does the carrier have facilities with which it can serve the
area?
Ameritech Purchase of Sprint's Chicago Exchanges
With Ameritech purchasing Sprint's offices in the Chicago MSA
(target date for completion is 8/1/97), there may be an impact
on the testing.
Several issues such as 911 still need to be addressed.
Rate Centers vs. Rate Districts vs. Rate Zones
There is much confusion over these terms. New carriers have become
confused trying to locate a list of rate districts and then associating
the rate district with the rate center in which it resides. Brent
asked whether a list of the rate districts can be provided.
Ameritech indicated that they have already provided a list of
rate centers and rate districts.
The issue of whether a carrier needs one NXX per rate center or
rate district to limit geographic portability to within a rate
district was not addressed.
Future Scheduling
Next steering committee meeting scheduled for 5/22/97.
Next operations committee meeting scheduled for 5/15/97.