New York 1,000 Block Number Pooling
Assignment Guidelines Sub-Committee
April 15, 1998
Meeting Minutes - Final
Beth Gunter - Bell Atlantic
Rochelle Jones - Time Warner
Tom Burke - NY PSC
Greg Pattenaude - NY PSC
Steve Addicks - MCI
Shawn Murphy - AT&T
Frank Colaco - Bellcore
John Colombo - Bell Atlantic
Michael Dorrian - Lockheed Martin
Bill Higgins - Bell Atlantic
- Review/approve minutes from March 30th meeting
- Update on Phase 1 of Pooling
- Update on 212 and 917 NPA Relief Meetings
- Review/Modify Draft Phase 1 Guidelines
- Schedule Next Meeting
ACTION ITEMS & ISSUES:
- The minutes from the March 30th meeting were reviewed and approved.
- Update on 212 Industry Meeting: Greg Pattenaude provided an update from the recent 212 Industry meeting, indicating that the Industry is looking at the use of the 917 NPA for assignment to wireline carriers. A proposal by the PSC Staff is that all remaining 212 NXX codes, currently being held for assignment to new entrants according to the "90 day rule", be given to the interim pool administrator for inclusion in the industry pool. A new carrier under 90 day rule would get an NXX code but would be required to give spare blocks back to the pool. There is a meeting scheduled today with Myra Walls (BA Neutral Code Administrator) and Yog Varma (NY-PSC) to discuss 212 and 917 NPA issues. Greg confirmed that the lottery process implemented for rationing of remaining 212 NXX codes has been stopped.
- Architecture Update: Greg Pattenaude updated the team regarding status of action items identified during the April 3 Architecture sub-committee meeting:
- Purpose of the pool that is being created on 7/1/98? the purpose of the Phase 1 Pool is to primarily allow more new CLECs to obtain 212 NPA 1,000 blocks. The secondary purpose is to preserve number resources in the 212 NPA and allow any carrier to obtain numbers from the 212 NPA as needed.
- Which service providers are allowed to withdrawal from the pool? New carriers under the 90 day rule and any technically capable carrier can withdrawal numbers from the pool. Greg said that if a service provider joins the pool (i.e., donates and/or requests blocks from the pool), that service provider is not constrained from obtaining other numbering resources (e.g., you can still request resources from the 917 NPA).
- How long will the pool be in existence? The pool needs to have resources available to last until long-term national standards are implemented and then transition. It is also possible that the Phase 1 pool could transition to Interim Number Pooling, Phase 2. The blocks in the Phase 1 interim pool would be rationed via jeopardy procedures (industry & PSC to decide how many blocks to allocate per month). The Phase 1 Interim Guidelines will call for an industry meeting hosted by the Interim Pooling Administrator.
- Will new carriers be asked to donate to the pool? Greg described that the remaining 212 unassigned NXX codes would be placed in the industry pool. New carriers would apply to the Pooling Administrator for assignment of a new NXX and the Pooling Administrator would apply to the CO Code Administrator for the NXX. After discussion concerning who would negotiate with the new carrier regarding the number of blocks to be contributed to the interim industry pool, the guidelines were modified to read, "The quantity of these blocks to be contributed shall be a matter discussed between the service provider and the NY PSC." (section 6.7).
- Greg says we need to keep in our mind that Phase 1 interim number pooling could eventually apply to the 718 NPA sometime in the future. The 718 overlay was planned for 1/1/99 and we may have the long-term solution by then. But it is possible that this Phase 1 interim guidelines may also apply to 718. Greg said he was not certain about whether or not another RFP/ bid would be needed. Currently, the RFP/ bid is only for Phase 1, which includes the 212 NPA only.
- Rate Centers - Steve Addicks said that MCI doesnít recognize three zones in Manhattan. Beth Gunter stated that BA would want their donated blocks to be used only in the rate centers to which they are assigned in LERG. Bill Higgins stated that, given the current rate center structure, BA recognizes 3 rate centers in the 212 NPA. Over time, this could change, but for now BA should recognize these 3 rate centers. Rochelle Jones said that TW was given information that said for rate centers 1 & 2, it didnít matter as far as impacting BA local calling. Bill Higgins stated that other industry segments may have created services that rate calls differently between the zones. Bill suggested that the zone issue is broader than just what BA and MCI view and it appears that there is an inconsistent rate center issue. The question becomes, given this structure, what would be the best way to assign blocks? One possibility that exists is to establish pools to allow for pooling within inconsistent rate centers. The NY-PSC issued a letter regarding use of rate centers with response due in May, 1998. This will eventually be used to determine a decision regarding treatment of the 212 rate centers.
- The guidelines team discussed the effective date of a block in Phase 1 interim number pooling. MCI and AT&T donít view pooled numbers differently from ported numbers and feel that NPAC is the final resource to determine the service provider of a customer. Beth said that BA needs to determine their position on a new minimum effective date for Phase 1 pooling.
- The team developed a list of Phase 1 Assumptions For Guidelines Development:
- 212 NPA only
- non-contaminated blocks
- start date 7-1-98
- duration is estimated to be 12 to 18 months from 7-1-98
- allocation of 1K blocks via rationing over anticipated duration of pool. Method of allocation TBD by industry.
- knowledge on (will know) initial size of pool
- No PA action required to populate/replenish pool. Reclamation of blocks by PA will occur.
- Beth requested that the NY PSC to notify any new entrants of the guidelines committeeís work and encourage new entrants to participate on the team.
- The team discussed the need to certify exhaust per switching entity. MCI and AT&T donít feel that certification of exhaust should be at the switch level but should be done at the rate center level. Section 6.3.2 of the guidelines was modified to include certification at switching entity, if technically necessary. MCI & AT&T is opposed to identifying the switch assignment of a block to the pooling administrator.
- Section 6.5.1 of the guidelines relates to notification to the PA on changes associated with block assignments. The question being asked is does the PA need to keep updated records of blocks once a block is assigned? MCI asserted that the pooling administrator should not track the assignment of numbers once those numbers have been assigned to a service provider. Bellcore agreed with MCI on this issue. It was suggested that NPAC can provide this information. ACTION: BA will investigate internally to see if BA still requires this section in the guidelines.
FUTURE NEW YORK TEAM ASSIGNMENT GUIDELINES MEETINGS:
New York Assignment Guidelines Team
Friday, May 1, 1998
9:00 a.m. - 3:00 p.m. EST
1 East Pratt Street
Room: Lobby 4 (Lobby Level) (confirmation # 53862, w/speakphn 9-4)
Conference Bridge: 410-837-3132 (10 ports, confirmation # 05010002, 9-4)
- NY March 30 Meeting Minutes - Final
- Updated sign-in sheet revised 4/15/98
- Draft NY Interim NP Guidelines, Phase 1, revised 4/15/98