Future of Numbering Working Group Minutes

January 22, 2016,12:00-1:30EST

Tri-Chair Contact Information:Dawn Lawrence (),Suzanne Addington ()and CaroleeHall ()

Rich Kania – Maine PUC

Joshua McConkie – Michigan PSC

Rosemary Emmer - Sprint

KT Burton - Cox

Dana Crandall - Verizon

Mark Lancaster – ATT

Betty Sanders – Charter Communications

Brent Struthers – Neustar

Thomas Foley – Neustar

Tom McGarry- Neustar

David Greenhaus

Peter Jahn – WI PSC

David Albino – WI PSC

Linda Hymans - Neustar

Mary Retka - CenturyLink

Mubeen Saifullah – Neustar

Natalie McNamer – iconectiv

Wendy Thelen – MI PSC

Joel Bernstein - SOMOS

Cullen Robbins – NE PSC

Michael Rothchild – ATL Communications

Jan Doell - CenturyLink

Bridget Alexander – JSI

Shannon Sevigny - Neustar

Shaunna Forshee - Sprint

Cathie Capita – T-Mobile

Suzanne Addington – Sprint

Carolee Hall – Idaho PUC

Jay Carpenter – 1800phoneword

Cheryl Williams – OH PUC

Dawn Lawrence -– XO

Erik Chuss – ChaseTech Consulting

Beth O’Donnell - Comcast

“As was discussed at the December 1stmeeting of the North American Numbering Council (NANC), the FCC requested the NANC, by letter to me dated November 16th, to “evaluate and recommend actions to enable nationwide number portability through technical modifications to the Location Routing Number (LRN) system used to route wireless- and wireline- originated calls to ported numbers.” The FCC requested that the NANC provide Status Report updates on our progress in evaluating the identified issues at 45-day intervals, as well as at the NANC meetings, and to report our findings and proposed solutions to each identified issue no later than May 16, 2016. The FCC requested the NANC address the specific issues identified below.

  • Began 1/22 meeting at #3. Suzanne reminded the members that a response is due to the FCC May 2016 by the NANC.
  • The minutes from the January 12 call were sent out on January 19th with edits from the group. The minutes were approved by acclamation.
  • There was a NRO report from 1998 send out to the members a day or 2 after the last meeting. We were to look at section 7 to have discussions today.

1.Applicability and assessment of tolls, tariffs, and taxes; (FON WG)

Assumptions agreed to during the call:

1) Assume when the consumer engages in NGNP they physically move and their interconnect point is established in their new geography.

2) Assume that the consumer is now under the new district (porting to a different rate center or LATA within the same state) or new state laws/regulations.

3) Assume that the LRN will change when the consumer’s interconnect point changes.

It was agreed the above assumptions is a good place to start and can be edited and improved as discussions continue.

  • Subcommittee: a baseline document has been created to list bullets on many different items for this.
  • ACTION: subcommittee will provide a written interim report for the next FoN WG meeting for the FoN membersto review and agree prior to sending to the NANC on the Feb 8 update.

2.The role of state regulatory commissions; (FON WG)

There was an action item from the Jan 12 call that States should come prepared with a list of known issues that may occur with interstate portability and possible (high level) resolutions. It is understood that the states have varying ways to resolve each issue.

  • Customer complaints
  • Jurisdiction (interstate complaints goes to the FCC nationwide and FCC response can take upto 30 days)
  • Should this jurisdiction continue with NGNP?
  • When consumer complaints come in, the states look at rating or fees of the physical address of the subscriber.
  • Suggestion to keep it at the state level of the physical address
  • FCC will need to regulate this with the states. This could be an item that falls under #4 Conforming edits to relevant federal rules
  • 911/PSAP –
  • Public Safety –
  • Issue identified to ensure end users who call 911 can get an ambulance to their exact location.
  • Need a functional 911 PSAP arrangement that knows the exact location of the emergency when a TN leaves the original location. Base the 911 call on the location, not on the TN
  • Routing
  • Ensure every call is answered and the responder goes to the right location
  • If on an all IP network this would not be an issue – P-ani solution – calls to PSAPs are routed based on the originating call, it is based on the P-ani, not the Telephone number. This would work in the NGNP environment and other alternate solutions
  • Next generation 911 will eventually deploy nationwide – Not full proof, may not get emergency to the exact floor or room but may get them to the street. Unsure if the P-ani is used in NG-911.
  • Concern expressed about rural counties who may not have enough money to deploy NG-911, will they be impacted by NGNP?
  • Number Portability was defined in an FCC order and some states also use the definition. Need to consider if redefining Number Portability at the state level, possibly the federal level as well, is necessary. This item could fall under #4, Conforming edits to relevant federal rules.
  • Action Item: Service Providersshould also come to the next meeting prepared to discuss how carriersidentify who gets EAS error messages and how to handle when LATA’s cross state boundaries (i.e.: is it based on rate center or is it physical location at that moment of call? Etc.)
  • Keep as an action item

3.Costs, including cost recovery;

There was an action item from the Jan 12 call thatService Providers should review this item and come to the next meeting prepared to discuss the following items:

Do the carriers want cost recovery?

Sprint: Discussion on whether we can recommend in the paper?

  • ATT: Question on whether cost recovery needs to be mandated? If it is a regulated company then they would have to ask for cost recovery. CLECs were able to add cost recovery without permission from the FCC. Discussion on what costs would be and it is unknown at this time.
  • There may be carrier specific efforts. Some carriers may already be ready and some are not i.e. rural carriers
  • Discussion on whether this should be rolled out in some sort of way similar to the rollout of number pooling.
  • ATT: Some preliminary analysis already done is that we may need an all IP network to roll out NGNP. If that is true carriers will be incurring costs. ILECs claimed around $3 Billion for rolling out Number Pooling
  • Tom McGarry: current solution is one LRN per LATA. He came up with another solution that does not use the one LRN per LATA. Where can we discuss alternate solutions than the current solution?
  • Suggested to take to PTSC. Tom thinks this not belong there because it doesn’t have to do with the SS7 network
  • The PTSC may say that it is not feasible in the SS7 network; however, they may be the ones to listen to alternate solutions.
  • Tom: The PTSC does not include the original entities that asked for NGNP.
  • Neustar: should we make an assumption that everyone will have to do everything the same way and the same time?
  • Sprint: discussion in the LNPA wg that the LNPA wg was not the group that defined the LRN. Suggestion that we work with ATIS
  • The group reached consensus to include the following Recommendation: the industry needs to define an agreed to technical solution before implementing NGNP while working with ATIS. It is premature for the cost recovery piece to be answered until the technical solution is determined.
  • What costs would be involved to roll out NGNP? (Switches, billing, network, removing rate centers, back office changes, removing LATA’s, level of effort etc.). Is it possible for any carrier to do a Cost benefit analysis to define how many consumers fit this situation currently? Impact in the future? Is there a benefit to implementNGNP?)
  • Reach out to the other working groups to see if they have discussed any of these issues (NOWG, LNPA, ATIS, CCA, CTIA, and NARUC)
  • PTSC – Tom M – will bring the alternative technical solution. The next meeting for PTSC is mid Feb 2016 in Austin.
  • ACTION: Penn/Tom bring back from PTSC regarding the LRN solution and/or alternative solution.
  • Cost benefit analysis: what is the benefit of doing NGNP? The FCC identified increased competitive opportunities for SPs that can’t now compete for porting outside of their areas.
  • How many consumers would use NGNP?
  • What would recommendation be: nationwide or within state boundaries?
  • ATL: Marketing companies benefit from nationwide
  • Nationwide NGNP porting should be an Assumption
  • NOWG – we will coordinate with them after we have more information
  • ACTION:LNPA WG –Dawn will bring back to the next Fon the report from the LNPA WG NGNP meeting
  • LNPA WG – reach out to the LNPA WG to identify costs recovery, types of categories to consider for cost recovery
  • ACTION:ATIS –Suzanne will reach out to Jackie at ATIS
  • The group reached consensus to add a new ASSUMPTION: NGNP should be implemented up to and including crossing state lines (porting from CA to NY)

4.Conforming edits to relevant federal rules; (FON WG) – not reviewed.

  • Depends on what the solution looks like to determine if we have to change the rules. (process, tolls, taxes, technology etc…). We will put this off until a later date where we might be able to recognize changes to the rules.

Next meeting:

  • Begin work on the report due to the NANC on Feb 15, 2016.
  • The tri-chairs shared that an interim report is due to the NANC on February 15th and the information gathered during these calls will be included in the report.

-Additional conference calls to address the NANC’s action items.

  • January 27, 2016 12:00 – 2:00 PM EST
  • February 3, 2016 12:00 –2:00 PM EST – This is also the next regular FoN WG meeting

1