# Telephone Number Portability

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A96-18477

## Record

- **Collection:** Federal Register
- **Document type:** Rule
- **Published:** July 25, 1996
- **Citation:** 61 FR 38605

## Text

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 20 and 52

[CC Docket No. 95-116; FCC 96-286]

Telephone Number Portability

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: On June 13, 1995, The Commission adopted a notice of proposed
rulemaking (CC Docket No. 95-116) regarding telephone number
portability . The First Report and Order released July 2, 1996,
promulgates rules and regulations implementing the statutory
requirement that local exchange carriers (LECs) provide number
portability as set forth in section 251 of the Telecommunications Act
of 1996 (1996 Act). The Report and Order mandates the implementation of
number portability by LECs, consistent with the procompetitive goals of
the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Concurrently with the adoption of
the Report and Order, the Commission adopted a Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking which is published elsewhere in this issue.

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 26, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jason Karp, Attorney, Common Carrier
Bureau, Policy and Program Planning Division, (202) 418-1517, or Mindy
Littell, Attorney, Common Carrier Bureau, Policy and Program Planning
Division, (202) 418-1394. For additional information concerning the
information collections contained in this Report and Order contact
Dorothy Conway at 202-418-0217, or via the Internet at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's First
Report and Order adopted June 27, 1996, and released July 2, 1996. The
full text of this First Report and Order is available for inspection
and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center
(Room 239), 1919 M St., NW., Washington, DC. The complete text also may
be obtained through the World Wide Web, at http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/
Common Carrier/Orders/fcc96286.wp, or may be purchased from the
Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Service,
Inc., (202) 857-3800, 2100 M St., NW., Suite 140, Washington, DC 20037.
Pursuant to Section 251, the Report and Order establishes performance
criteria for acceptable long-term number portability methods and
requires all LECs to begin deploying number portability in the 100
largest Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) no later than October 1,
1997, and to complete deployment in those MSAs by December 31, 1998, in
accordance with a phased schedule. Number portability must be provided
in these areas by all LECs to all telecommunications carriers,
including commercial mobile radio services (CMRS) providers. In
addition, pursuant to the Commission's independent authority under
sections 1, 2, 4(i) and 332 of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, the Report and Order requires all cellular, broadband personal
communications services (PCS) and covered Specialized Mobile Radio
(SMR) service providers to be able to deliver calls from their networks
to ported numbers anywhere in the country by December 31, 1998, and
requires cellular, broadband PCS and covered SMR customers to be able
to move their own numbers to other carriers by June 30, 1999. In the
Report and Order, the Commission delegates responsibility to the North
American Numbering Council (NANC) to oversee the initial administration
of the system of regional databases which will be used by carriers to
provide number portability. Pursuant to the 1996 Act, the Commission
also requires LECs to provide currently available number portability
measures upon specific request from another carrier until long-term
number portability is available. However, the Report and Order
concludes that CMRS providers need not provide such measures due to
technical considerations specific to the CMRS industry. In addition,
consistent with section 251(e)(2) of the Telecommunications Act of
1996, the Report and Order sets forth principles that ensure that the
costs of currently available measures are borne by all
telecommunications carriers on a competitively neutral basis, and
permits states to utilize various cost recovery mechanisms, so long as
they are

[[Page 38606]]

consistent with these statutory requirements.

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis:

As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the Report and Order
contains a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis which is set forth in
Appendix C to the Report and Order. A brief description of the analysis
follows.
The rules adopted in this Report and Order are necessary to
implement the provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996
requiring LECs to offer number portability, if technically feasible.
Although there were no comments submitted in response to the
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis set forth in the Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, the general comments of Chief Counsel for Advocacy
of the United States Small Business Administration (SBA) generally
supported the actions of the Commission in the Report and Order.
However, in their general comments filed prior to the passage of the
1996 Act, some LECs suggested that the Commission should neither adopt,
nor direct the adoption of, number portability without performing a
thorough cost/benefit analysis--a course of action which may result in
less of an impact on small entities. However, after passage of the 1996
Act, most parties agreed that the 1996 Act clearly directs the
Commission to implement long-term number portability.
The statutory meaning of the term ``small business'' is one which
(1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its
field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria
established by the Small Business Administration (SBA). According to
SBA's regulations, entities engaged in the provision of telephone
service may have a maximum of 1,500 employees in order to qualify as a
small business concern. 13 CFR 121.201. This standard also applies in
determining whether an entity is a small business for purposes of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The rules adopted by the Commission governing long-term number
portability apply to all LECs, including incumbent LECs as well as new
LEC entrants, and also apply to cellular, broadband PCS, and covered
SMR providers. According to the SBA definition, incumbent LECs do not
qualify as small businesses because they are dominant in their field of
operation. However, the rules may have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small businesses insofar as they apply to
telecommunications carriers other than incumbent LECs, such as new
entrant LECs, as well as cellular, broadband PCS, and covered SMR
providers. Based upon data contained in the most recent census and a
report by the Commission's Common Carrier Bureau, the Commission
estimated that 2,100 carriers could be affected. This estimate was
derived based on an analysis using census data on the number of firms
with fewer than 1,000 employees and subtracting the number of incumbent
LECs (as established by an FCC report). For a detailed analysis, see
Appendix C of the Report and Order.
There are several reporting requirements imposed by the Report and
Order which will likely require the services of persons with technical
expertise to prepare the reports. First, carriers participating in a
field test in the Chicago, Illinois, area are required to file with the
Commission a report of their findings within 30 days after completion
of the test. Second, after December 31, 1998, long-term number
portability must be provided by LECs outside of the 100 largest MSAs
within six months after a specific request by another
telecommunications carrier in which the requesting carrier is operating
or plans to operate. The specific request must contain certain
information. Third, state regulatory commissions must file with the
Commission a notification if they opt to develop a state-specific
database in lieu of participating in a regional database system.
Carriers that object to a state decision to opt out of the regional
database system may file with the Commission a petition for relief.
Fourth, the item requires any administrator selected by a state prior
to the release of the Report and Order, that wishes to bid for
administration of one of the regional databases, must submit a new
proposal in accordance with the guidelines established by the NANC.
Fifth, the Report and Order requires carriers that are unable to meet
the deadlines for implementing a long-term number portability solution
to file with the Commission at least 60 days in advance of the deadline
a petition to extend the time by which implementation in its network
will be completed. Finally, we require an industry body known as the
Industry Numbering Committee (INC) to file a report with the Commission
on the portability of non-geographic numbers assigned to LECs within 12
months after the effective date of the Report and Order.
The Commission's actions in this Report and Order will benefit
small entities by facilitating their entry into the local exchange
market. The record in this proceeding indicates that the lack of number
portability would deter entry by competitive providers of local service
because of the value customers place on retaining their telephone
numbers. These competitive providers, many of which may be small
entities, may find it easier to enter the market as a result of number
portability which will eliminate this barrier to entry.
In general, the Commission has attempted to keep burdens on local
exchange carriers to a minimum. For example, the phased deployment
schedule requires long-term number portability to be implemented
initially in the 100 largest MSAs, and then elsewhere upon a carrier's
request. The provision of currently available measures is conditioned
upon request only. In addition, the Commission has attempted to
minimize the impact of our rules upon cellular, broadband PCS, and
covered SMR providers, which may be small businesses, by not requiring
such carriers to offer currently available number portability measures.
Similarly, paging and messaging service providers, which may be small
entities, are required to provide neither currently available measures
nor long-term number portability under our rules. The regulatory
burdens imposed are necessary to ensure that the public receives the
benefit of the expeditious provision of service provider number
portability in accordance with the statutory requirements.

Paperwork Reduction Act

Public reporting burden for the collections of information is
estimated as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated
number of
respondents
Information collections Estimated avg. hours per response (all are one-
time only
responses)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Field test report........................... 20 hours per respondent (joint response).......... 11

[[Page 38607]]

Requests for long-term number portability in 3 hours........................................... 80
areas outside the 100 largest MSAs.
State notification of intention to ``opt 3 hours........................................... 5
out'' of regional database system.
Carrier petitions challenging state decision 10 hours.......................................... 2
to ``opt out'' of regional database system.
Proposal to administer database(s).......... 160 hours......................................... 1
Petitions to extend implementation deadline. 10 hours.......................................... 8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Total Annual Burden: 735 hours.
Frequency of Response: All collections of information require one-
time only responses.
These estimates include the time for reviewing instructions,
searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data
needed, and completing and reviewing the collections of information.
Send comments regarding these burden estimates or any other aspects of
the collections of information, including suggestions for reducing the
burden, to the Federal Communications Commission, Records Management
Branch, Room 234, Paperwork Reduction Project, Washington, DC 20554 and
to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project,
Washington, DC 20503.

Synopsis of First Report and Order

I. Introduction

1. We initiated this proceeding on July 13, 1995, when we adopted a
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeking comment on a wide variety of
policy and technical issues related to telephone number portability (60
FR 39136 (August 1, 1995)). Since our adoption of the NPRM, the
Telecommunications Act of 1996 became law. Section 251, added by the
1996 Act, requires all local exchange carriers (LECs), both incumbents
and new entrants, to offer number portability in accordance with
requirements prescribed by the Commission. On March 14, 1996, the
Common Carrier Bureau released a Public Notice seeking comment on how
the passage of the 1996 Act may have affected the issues raised in the
NPRM (61 FR 11174 (March 19, 1996)). Comments in response to the Public
Notice were received on March 29, 1996, and reply comments were filed
on April 5, 1996. In addition, efforts to implement number portability
at the state level have progressed since adoption of the NPRM.
2. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 establishes ``a pro-
competitive, de-regulatory national policy framework'' that is intended
to ``promote competition and reduce regulation * * * to secure lower
prices and higher quality services for American telecommunications
consumers and encourage the rapid deployment of new telecommunications
technologies.'' The statute imposes obligations and responsibilities on
telecommunications carriers, particularly incumbent local exchange
carriers, that are designed to open monopoly telecommunications markets
to competitive entry and to promote competition in markets that already
are open to new competitors. In particular, section 251(b) imposes
specific obligations on all local exchange carriers to open their
networks to competitors. The Act envisions that removing legal and
regulatory barriers to entry and reducing economic impediments to entry
will enable competitors to enter markets freely, encourage
technological development, and ensure that a firm's prowess in
satisfying consumer demand will determine its success or failure in the
marketplace. In implementing the statute, the Commission has the
responsibility to adopt the rules that will implement most quickly and
effectively the national telecommunications policy embodied in the 1996
Act. Number portability is one of the obligations that Congress imposed
on all local exchange carriers, both incumbents and new entrants, in
order to promote the pro-competitive, deregulatory markets it
envisioned. Congress has recognized that number portability will lower
barriers to entry and promote competition in the local exchange
marketplace. In its report, the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation concluded that the ``minimum requirements [for
interconnection set forth in new section 251(b), including number
portability,] are necessary for opening the local exchange market to
competition.'' Likewise, the House of Representatives Committee on
Commerce determined that ``the ability to change service providers is
only meaningful if a customer can retain his or her local telephone
number.''
3. In this Order, we promulgate rules and regulations implementing
this congressional directive. Although we decline to choose a
particular technology for providing number portability, we establish in
this Report and Order performance criteria that any long-term number
portability method selected by a LEC must meet. Pursuant to the
statutory requirement in section 251 to provide number portability, we
require all LECs to begin to implement a long-term service provider
portability solution that meets our performance criteria in the 100
largest Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) no later than October 1,
1997, and to complete deployment in those MSAs by December 31, 1998, in
accordance with a phased schedule set forth below. Number portability
must be provided in these areas by all LECs to all telecommunications
carriers, including commercial mobile radio services (CMRS) providers.
4. The statute explicitly excludes CMRS providers from the
definition of local exchange carriers, and therefore from the section
251(b) obligations to provide number portability, unless the Commission
concludes that they should be included in the definition of local
exchange carrier. Our recent Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on
interconnection issues raised by the 1996 Act sought comment generally
on whether, and to what extent, CMRS providers should be classified as
LECs. Because we conclude that we have independent authority under
sections 1, 2, 4(i), and 332 of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, to require cellular providers, broadband personal
communications services (PCS), and covered Specialized Mobile Radio
(SMR) providers to provide long-term service provider portability, we
need not decide here whether CMRS providers must provide number
portability as local exchange carriers under section 251(b). We require
all cellular, broadband PCS, and covered SMR providers to have the
capability of delivering calls from their networks to

[[Page 38608]]

ported numbers anywhere in the country by December 31, 1998, and to
offer service provider portability, including the ability to support
roaming, throughout their networks by June 30, 1999.
5. We conclude that a system of regional databases that are managed
by an independent administrator will serve the public interest. We
direct the North American Numbering Council (NANC) to provide initial
oversight of this regional database system. We direct the NANC to
determine the number and location of the regional databases and to
select one or more administrators responsible for deploying the
database system. Any state that prefers to develop its own statewide
database rather than participate in a regionally-deployed database,
however, may opt out of its designated regional database and implement
a state-specific database. We will retain authority to override a
state's decision to develop a statewide database if an affected carrier
can demonstrate that the state's proposal would significantly delay
deployment of a long-term method or impose unreasonable costs on
affected carriers.
6. Until long-term service provider portability is available, we
require LECs to provide currently available number portability
measures, such as Remote Call Forwarding (RCF) and Direct Inward
Dialing (DID), upon specific request from another carrier. We conclude,
however, that commercial mobile radio service providers need not
provide such measures due to technical considerations specific to the
CMRS industry. We enunciate principles that ensure that the costs of
currently available measures are borne by all telecommunications
carriers on a competitively neutral basis, and we conclude that states
may utilize various cost recovery mechanisms, so long as they are
consistent with these statutory requirements. We decline at this time
to require the provision of either service or location portability. We
conclude that, while the statute requires LECs to implement 500 and 900
number portability, there is insufficient record evidence to determine
whether LEC provision of portability for 500 and 900 numbers is
technically feasible. As a result, we refer the issue to the Industry
Numbering Committee (INC), which must report its findings to the
Commission within 12 months of the effective date of this Order.
Finally, we adopt a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking regarding
cost recovery for long-term number portability.

II. Background

A. Telecommunications Act of 1996

7. New section 251(b)(2) of the Communications Act of 1934, as
added by the 1996 Act, directs each local exchange carrier ``to
provide, to the extent technically feasible, number portability in
accordance with requirements prescribed by the Commission.'' The 1996
Act defines the term ``local exchange carrier'' as:

any person that is engaged in the provision of telephone exchange
service or exchange access. Such term does not include a [commercial
mobile service provider,] as defined under section 332(c), except to
the extent that the Commission finds that such provider should be
included in the definition of such term.

The 1996 Act defines ``number portability'' as ``the ability of
users of telecommunications services to retain, at the same location,
existing telecommunications numbers without impairment of quality,
reliability, or convenience when switching from one telecommunications
carrier to another.''
8. The 1996 Act defines the term ``telecommunications carrier'' as
``any provider of telecommunications services, except that such term
does not include aggregators of telecommunications services (as defined
in section 226).'' The term ``telecommunications service'' is defined
by the 1996 Act as ``the offering of telecommunications for a fee
directly to the public, or to such classes of users as to be
effectively available directly to the public, regardless of the
facilities used.'' Because the 1996 Act's definition of number
portability requires LECs to provide number portability when customers
switch from any telecommunications carrier to any other, the statutory
obligation of LECs to provide number portability runs to other
telecommunications carriers. Because CMRS falls within the statutory
definition of telecommunications service, CMRS carriers are
telecommunications carriers under the 1996 Act. As a result, LECs are
obligated under the statute to provide number portability to customers
seeking to switch to CMRS carriers.
9. In addition to the duties imposed by section 251(b) on all LECs,
section 251(c)(1) imposes upon incumbent LECs, inter alia, the ``duty
to negotiate in good faith * * * the terms and conditions of agreements
to fulfill'' the section 251(b) obligations, including the duty to
provide number portability. An incumbent LEC is defined as a carrier
that was providing exchange access service in a particular area on
February 8, 1996, and was a member of the National Exchange Carrier
Association (NECA) pursuant to Sec. 69.601(b) of the Commission's
regulations. The 1996 Act creates an exemption from the obligations of
section 251(c) for rural telephone companies, and allows LECs with
fewer than two percent of the nation's subscriber lines to petition a
state commission for suspension or modification of the application of
sections 251(b) and (c).
10. Section 251(e)(1) reinforces the Commission's authority over
matters relating to the administration of numbering resources by giving
the Commission exclusive jurisdiction over those portions of the North
American Numbering Plan (NANP) that pertain to the United States. This
subsection also requires the Commission to ``create or designate one or
more impartial entities to administer telecommunications numbering and
to make such numbers available on an equitable basis.'' Moreover,
section 251(e)(2) provides that the cost of ``number portability shall
be borne by all telecommunications carriers on a competitively neutral
basis as determined by the Commission.''
11. Finally, new section 271(c)(2)(B) establishes a ``competitive
checklist'' of requirements that the Bell Operating Companies (BOCs)
must meet to provide in-region interLATA services. One of the
requirements that the BOCs must satisfy is the provision of ``interim
number portability through remote call forwarding, direct inward
dialing trunks, or other comparable arrangements, with as little
impairment of functioning, quality, reliability, and convenience as
possible'' until the Commission issues regulations pursuant to section
251 to implement the statute's number portability requirements. Section
271(c)(2)(B)(xi) directs the BOCs to comply fully with the regulations
implemented by the Commission.

B. Proposed Number Portability Methods

12. Because most telephone numbers within the NANP are associated
with a particular switch operated by a particular service provider,
they currently cannot be transferred outside the service area of a
particular switch or between switches operated by different service
providers without technical changes to the switch or network. Several
methods exist, or are being developed, to provide telephone number
portability. These methods generally consist of two types: database and
non-database methods.

[[Page 38609]]

1. Database Methods
13. Several industry participants have proposed methods for
providing service provider portability that use databases containing
the customer routing information necessary to route telephone calls to
the proper terminating locations. All these methods depend on
Intelligent Network (IN) or Advanced Intelligent Network (AIN)
capabilities. Before the release of our NPRM, AT&T proposed a Location
Routing Number (LRN) method to the Industry Numbering Committee (INC),
an industry body that provides an open forum to address and resolve
industry-wide issues associated with the non-policy-related planning,
administration, allocation, assignment, and use of numbering resources
within the NANP area. Since it proposed LRN to the INC, AT&T has
continued to develop and refine this method. Essentially, LRN assigns a
unique 10-digit telephone number to each switch in a defined geographic
area. The location routing number serves as a network address. Carriers
routing telephone calls to customers that have transferred their
telephone numbers from one carrier to another perform a database query
to obtain the location routing number that corresponds to the dialed
telephone number. The database query is performed for all calls to
switches from which at least one number has been ported. The carrier
then would route the call to the new carrier based on the location
routing number.
14. MCI, DSC Communications, Nortel, Tandem Computers, and Siemens
Stromberg-Carlson have developed a method referred to as the Carrier
Portability Code (CPC) method. This method operates in a similar manner
to LRN. Under CPC, however, the database associates the dialed
telephone number with a 3-digit carrier portability code identifying
the particular carrier to whom the dialed number has been transferred,
rather than a particular switch. As described below, many of the
parties in this proceeding and staff of some state commissions consider
the CPC method to be an interim database solution.
15. Stratus Computer and US Intelco have developed another database
method commonly referred to as Local Area Number Portability (LANP).
This method uses two ``domains'' of 10-digit numbers to route telephone
calls to customers that have transferred their numbers to new carriers
or new geographic locations. Specifically, LANP assigns a ten-digit
customer number address (CNA) to each end user; this is the number that
callers would dial to place telephone calls to the particular end user.
It also assigns each customer a 10-digit network node address (NNA)
that identifies where in the telephone network to reach the particular
end user. Both the CNA and the NNA are stored in routing databases so
that carriers can determine from the dialed telephone number where in
the network to reach the called party.
16. GTE has proposed both on the record in this proceeding and
before the INC what it refers to as the Non-Geographic Number (NGN)
method. While this method uses a database, it operates in a
fundamentally different manner from CPC, LRN, and LANP. The NGN method
would provide service provider and location portability to end users by
assigning them non-geographic telephone numbers, such as an INPA
(interchangeable numbering plan area) code that has been assigned for
non-geographic numbers. Telephone calls to such end users would be
routed in much the same way as toll free calls are today, by performing
a database query to determine the geographic telephone number
corresponding to the dialed non-geographic telephone number, and
routing the call to the appropriate geographic number.
17. Pacific Bell has proposed a triggering mechanism which operates
in conjunction with the same addressing scheme utilized in AT&T's LRN
method. This mechanism, called Query on Release (QOR) or Look Ahead,
determines under what circumstances a database query is performed.
Under QOR, the signalling used to set up a telephone call is routed to
the end office switch to which the dialed telephone number was
originally assigned (the release switch), i.e., according to the NPA-
NXX of the dialed number. If the dialed number has been transferred to
another carrier's switch, the previous switch in the call path queries
the database to obtain the routing information. The call is then
completed to the new carrier's switch.
18. Another number portability method triggering mechanism that is
similar to QOR is Release-to-Pivot (RTP). RTP differs from QOR in that
when a number has been ported from the release switch, the release
switch--rather than the previous switch in the call path--returns the
address information necessary for routing the call. The information
regarding where to route the telephone call, if the number has been
transferred, may be contained either in the release switch or an
external database.
2. Non-Database Methods
19. In our NPRM, we discussed two currently available methods of
providing service provider portability that do not use databases:
Remote Call Forwarding and Flexible Direct Inward Dialing. These
methods are commonly referred to as ``interim measures.'' While most
LECs currently are able to port numbers to other service providers
using these methods, they suffer from certain limitations that make
them unsuitable for long-term number portability. RCF redirects calls
to telephone numbers that have been transferred by essentially placing
a second telephone call to the new network location. DID routes the
second call over a dedicated facility to the new service provider's
switch, instead of translating the dialed number to a new number.
20. In the NPRM, we also discussed three derivative methods of RCF
and DID (enhanced remote call forwarding, route index/portability hub,
and hub routing with AIN), all of which require routing incoming calls
to the terminating switch identified by the NPA-NXX code of the dialed
phone number. Unlike RCF and DID, they use LEC tandem switches to
aggregate calls to a particular competing service provider before those
calls are routed to that provider. In addition, LECs in several states
reportedly are providing Directory Number Route Indexing (DNRI), which
first routes incoming calls to the switch to which the NPA-NXX code was
originally assigned, then routes ported calls to the new service
provider either through a direct trunk or by attaching a pseudo NPA to
the number and using a tandem, depending on availability.

C. Current State Efforts

1. State Task Forces and Implementation
21. Parties to this proceeding report that several states have
established task forces of industry participants or are otherwise
beginning to investigate the development and implementation of long-
term number portability methods. Those states include: Alabama,
Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Illinois,
Indiana, Kansas, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Oregon,
Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. Of these
states, the task forces in Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Illinois,
Maryland, and New York have all selected AT&T's Location Routing Number
method for implementing service provider number portability in areas
within their states'

[[Page 38610]]

boundaries. In addition, the state commissions of Colorado, Georgia,
Illinois, Maryland, New York, and Ohio have adopted the recommendation
of their staff and task forces to implement LRN. Parties to this
proceeding assert, moreover, that state task forces or commissions in
other states, such as Indiana, Michigan, and Wisconsin, as well as in
Canada, are utilizing the results of the Illinois task force's efforts
in the area of number portability.
22. Several states have set implementation schedules for the
portability methods they have selected. Switch vendors have committed
to make available LRN software to carriers in Illinois in the second
quarter of 1997. Colorado, Illinois, and Georgia plan to begin
deploying LRN in mid-1997. New York also expects LRN to be generally
available for installation in that state in mid-1997, though deployment
in certain AT&T switches is expected to begin earlier. Maryland plans
to begin implementing LRN by no later than the third quarter of 1997.
According to NARUC, Colorado similarly expects LRN availability in the
second quarter of 1997 (but plans to monitor switch vendor progress and
reevaluate this time frame in the third quarter of 1996). Ohio will use
a LRN number portability workshop, to be established within 120 days of
the issuance of its June 12, 1996 Order, to establish the time frame
and manner of the implementation of LRN in Ohio. Michigan has ordered
that implementation of long-term number portability in Michigan start
at the same time that implementation begins in Illinois. The Illinois
and Maryland task forces are examining various implementation issues,
including a deployment schedule, cost recovery, billing and rating, and
service management system (SMS) administration. The Illinois task force
selected an SMS provider in April 1996. The Maryland and Colorado task
forces have been planning to release their requests for proposals for
their SMS administrators in the second quarter of 1996.
2. State Trials
23. Two states have conducted or are conducting number portability
trials. As we described in the NPRM, ten companies, working with the
New York Department of Public Service (NY DPS), jointly initiated two
number portability trials, one in Rochester and another in Manhattan.
The companies originally planned to test the LANP method of Stratus
Computers and US Intelco in Rochester, but that trial was canceled. The
Manhattan trial, testing the CPC method, began in early February of
this year. The New York DPS, however, now considers CPC to be, at best,
an interim method and has changed the trial's emphasis from the
technical aspects of the method to the operational and administrative
aspects of the intercompany procedures that are required to change a
customer from one local exchange provider to another. MCI, one of the
original proponents of CPC, no longer views CPC as a viable long-term
method.
24. A group of telecommunications service providers conducted a
technical trial of the LANP method in Seattle, Washington, during 1995.
That trial ended in December 1995. The objective of the technical trial
was to identify the technical, operational, and administrative issues
that arise when a telephone number is not associated with a specific
geographic location. Because the trial revealed certain technical and
operational difficulties with the LANP technology, the Washington task
force on number portability declined to adopt LANP. The Washington
Utilities and Transportation Commission has not adopted LANP, and the
companies involved in the trial have ceased advocating LANP.
3. State Interim Measures
25. Carriers are providing interim portability measures in a number
of states, either voluntarily or pursuant to state commission orders.
According to NARUC and other parties to the proceeding, LECs are
providing RCF, DID, and/or other comparable arrangements in Arizona,
California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana,
Iowa, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New York, Ohio,
Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Washington,
Wisconsin, and Wyoming. According to USTA, Alabama and Minnesota are
considering interim portability requirements, while North Carolina
requires carriers to negotiate interim portability as part of their
interconnection agreements.

III. Report and Order

A. Importance of Service Provider Number Portability

1. Background

26. In the NPRM, we tentatively concluded that number portability
benefits consumers of telecommunications services and would contribute
to the development of competition among alternative providers of local
telephone and other telecommunications services. With respect to
service provider portability, we sought comment on the effects that
local number portability, or lack thereof, would have on the local
exchange marketplace. Specifically, we sought comment on the value
consumers place on their telephone numbers, the deterrent effect that a
lack of number portability would have on consumer decisions to change
service providers, and any resultant effect on competition between
incumbent local service providers and new competitors in local markets.
2. Discussion
27. Since we adopted the NPRM, Congress passed the 1996 Act, which
requires all LECs to ``provide, to the extent technically feasible,
number portability in accordance with requirements prescribed by the
Commission.'' The 1996 Act defines number portability as ``the ability
of users of telecommunications services to retain, at the same
location, existing telecommunications numbers without impairment of
quality, reliability, or convenience when switching from one
telecommunications carrier to another.'' Accordingly, we hereby modify
our proposed definition of number portability to conform to the
statutory definition of number portability and note that the statutory
definition of this term is synonymous with the NPRM's definition of
``service provider portability.''
28. Although some incumbent LECs assert that local exchange market
competition will develop without number portability, the record
developed in this proceeding confirms the congressional findings that
number portability is essential to meaningful competition in the
provision of local exchange services. Several state commissions have
also recognized the significant role that number portability will play
in the development of local exchange competition. We, therefore, affirm
our tentative conclusion that number portability provides consumers
flexibility in the way they use their telecommunications services and

[[Page 38611]]

promotes the development of competition among alternative providers of
telephone and other telecommunications services.
29. We note that several studies described in the record
demonstrate the reluctance of both business and residential customers
to switch carriers if they must change numbers. For example, MCI has
stated that, based on a nationwide Gallup survey, 83 percent of
business customers and 80 percent of residential customers would be
unlikely to change local service providers if they had to change their
telephone numbers. Time Warner Holdings states that consumers are 40
percent less likely to change service providers if a number change is
required. Citizens Utilities notes that approximately 85 percent of the
discussions that its subsidiary, ELI, has with potential customers
about switching providers end when those potential customers learn that
they must change their telephone numbers. The study commissioned by
Pacific Bell concludes that, without portability, new entrants would be
forced to discount their local exchange service and other competing
offerings by at least 12 percent below the incumbent LECs' prices in
order to induce customers to switch carriers due to customers'
resistance to changing numbers.
30. The ability of end users to retain their telephone numbers when
changing service providers gives customers flexibility in the quality,
price, and variety of telecommunications services they can choose to
purchase. Number portability promotes competition between
telecommunications service providers by, among other things, allowing
customers to respond to price and service changes without changing
their telephone numbers. The resulting competition will benefit all
users of telecommunications services. Indeed, competition should foster
lower local telephone prices and, consequently, stimulate demand for
telecommunications services and increase economic growth.
31. Conversely, the record demonstrates that a lack of number
portability likely would deter entry by competitive providers of local
service because of the value customers place on retaining their
telephone numbers. Business customers, in particular, may be reluctant
to incur the administrative, marketing, and goodwill costs associated
with changing telephone numbers. As indicated above, several studies
show that customers are reluctant to switch carriers if they are
required to change telephone numbers. To the extent that customers are
reluctant to change service providers due to the absence of number
portability, demand for services provided by new entrants will be
depressed. This could well discourage entry by new service providers
and thereby frustrate the pro-competitive goals of the 1996 Act.

B. The Commission's Role

1. Background
32. In the NPRM, we tentatively concluded that the Commission has a
significant interest in promoting the nationwide availability of number
portability due to its impact on interstate telecommunications. We
based this interest on four grounds: (1) Our obligation to promote an
efficient and fair telecommunications system; (2) the inability to
separate the impact of number portability between intrastate and
interstate telecommunications; (3) the likely adverse impact deploying
different number portability solutions across the country would have on
the provision of interstate telecommunications services; and (4) the
impact that number portability could have on the use of the numbering
resource, that is, ensuring that the use of numbers is efficient and
does not contribute to area code exhaust.
33. In the 1996 Act, Congress expressly assigned to the Commission
exclusive jurisdiction over that portion of the NANP that pertains to
the United States. Moreover, Congress directed the Commission to
prescribe regulations for LEC provision of number portability: Section
251(b)(2) requires carriers ``to provide, to the extent technically
feasible, number portability in accordance with the requirements
prescribed by the Commission.''
2. Positions of the Parties
34. Prior to passage of the 1996 Act, some LECs asserted that the
Commission should neither adopt, nor direct the adoption of, number
portability without performing a thorough cost/benefit analysis. Most
parties, however, now agree that the 1996 Act clearly directs this
Commission to implement long-term number portability. Moreover, some
parties contend that this mandate reflects the fact that Congress has
weighed the costs and benefits of implementing number portability. USTA
adds, however, that the Commission may consider economic efficiencies
in determining what rules to implement.
34. Several commenters, while agreeing that the Commission should
take a leadership role, urge us to leave certain implementation issues
to the states. USTA advocates allowing the states to determine their
own deployment schedules. The California PUC asserts that the
Commission's jurisdiction over number portability is not exclusive, and
that states must be allowed to implement number portability methods
that are most compatible with local exchange competition in each state.
3. Discussion
36. We believe that Congress has determined that this Commission
should develop a national number portability policy and has
specifically directed us to prescribe the requirements that all local
exchange carriers, both incumbents and others, must meet to satisfy
their statutory obligations. Section 251(b)(2) requires LECs ``to
provide, to the extent technically feasible, number portability in
accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Commission.''
Moreover, section 251(e)(1)'s assignment to the Commission of exclusive
jurisdiction over that portion of the NANP that pertains to the United
States gives us authority over the implementation of number portability
to the extent that such implementation will affect the NANP. Consistent
with the role assigned to the Commission by the 1996 Act, the record
developed in this proceeding overwhelmingly indicates that the
Commission should take a leadership role with respect to number
portability. We, therefore, affirm our conclusion that we should take a
leadership role in developing a national number portability policy. We
further note that, in light of Congress's mandate to us to prescribe
requirements for number portability, it is not necessary to engage in a
cost/benefit analysis as to whether to adopt rules that require LECs to
provide number portability in the first instance. We may consider
economic and other factors, however, when determining the specific
requirements in such rules.
37. The 1996 Act directs this Commission to adopt regulations to
implement number portability, and we believe it is important that we
adopt uniform national rules regarding number portability
implementation and deployment to ensure efficient and consistent use of
number portability methods and numbering resources on a nationwide
basis. Implementation of number portability, and its effect on
numbering resources, will have an impact on interstate, as well as
local, telecommunications services. Ensuring the interoperability of
networks is essential for deployment of a national number portability
regime, and for the

[[Page 38612]]

prevention of adverse impacts on the provision of interstate
telecommunications services or on the use of the numbering resource. We
believe that allowing number portability to develop on a state-by-state
basis could potentially thwart the intentions of Congress in mandating
a national number portability policy, and could retard the development
of competition in the provision of telecommunications services.

C. Performance Criteria for Long-Term Number Portability

1. Background
38. In the NPRM, we sought comment on what long-term number
portability methods would be in the public interest. Specifically, we
sought comment on various number portability proposals offered by
different industry participants, including proposals by AT&T, MCI
Metro, Stratus Computer and US Intelco, and GTE. We also sought comment
on the extent to which these proposals would support certain services
that we deemed important. We tentatively concluded that any method
should support operator services and emergency services because they
are critical to public safety and are important features of the public
switched network. We also tentatively concluded that any number
portability proposal should efficiently use telephone numbers. In
addition, we discussed and sought comment on which of three call
processing scenarios (i.e., which carrier performs the database query
in a database method), or any alternative, would best serve the public
interest. We sought comment on whether telephone numbers should be
portable within local calling areas, throughout a particular area code,
state-wide, regionally, nationwide, or on some other basis, and how the
geographic scope of portability would impact different types of
carriers and their billing systems. We also asked whether number
portability could be provided nationwide without significant network
modifications.
2. Positions of the Parties
39. Performance criteria versus selection of architecture.
Commenting parties differ on whether the Commission should establish
performance criteria or guidelines that any number portability method
must meet, or require the implementation of one national portability
method. Many parties, including several state regulatory agencies,
cable interests, and LECs, favor establishment of broad guidelines and
interoperability criteria for implementing a long-term portability
method. NYNEX maintains that this approach would encourage cooperative
industry resolutions for a true number portability method and would
properly account for legitimate state interests in the deployment of
number portability. NYNEX further claims that guidelines would allow
the Commission to ensure the implementation of compatible methods, with
seamless call flows and service operation, without expending scarce
resources by focusing on the detailed implementation of every method in
each region of the country. The California Department of Consumer
Affairs contends that the 1996 Act's pro-competitive policies mandate
that the portability method adopted be flexible and allow for future
innovation. GTE urges the Commission to determine the type of routing
information to be employed, but leave selection of the triggering
mechanism to the individual carriers. SBC Communications asserts that
section 251(d)(1) only requires the Commission to outline principles
for a long-term method within six months of enactment of the 1996 Act,
not to adopt a specific method.
40. Conversely, some parties contend that requiring a single,
national method would avoid the implementation of numerous inconsistent
and inefficient approaches, and the need for carriers to adapt to
different requirements in different states. Jones Intercable argues
that allowing number portability to develop state-by-state would give
the incumbent LECs the opportunity to delay development of local
exchange competition. BellSouth and Nortel argue that a single long-
term method is necessary to minimize the costs of implementation,
operation, and maintenance; to protect billing systems against problems
created by use of differing SS7 parameters; and to foster network
integrity. PCIA claims that a state-regulated market would inhibit
development of a nationwide wireless network. Arch/AirTouch Paging adds
that deployment of different portability methods would adversely impact
interstate telecommunications. Bell Atlantic and PCIA argue that a
national method is more likely to conserve scarce numbering resources.
Bell Atlantic further claims, however, that each individual carrier
should be allowed the flexibility to utilize whatever architecture or
technology within its own network best enables that carrier to
implement whatever national method is selected. Moreover, some parties
urge the Commission to select a particular method to be implemented
nationwide, while others advocate allowing the industry to select the
specific method.
41. Commenting parties suggest numerous performance criteria with
which any long-term number portability method must comply. These
include: (1) The ability to support emergency services, i.e., 911 and
enhanced 911 (E911) services; (2) the ability to support existing
network services and capabilities, (e.g., operator and directory
services, vertical and advanced services, custom local area signaling
services (also known as ``CLASS''), toll free and pay-per-call
services, and intercept capabilities); (3) efficient use of numbering
resources; (4) no initial change of telephone numbers; (5) no reliance
on network facilities of, or services provided by, other service
providers (e.g., incumbent LECs) in order to route calls; (6) no
degradation in service quality or network reliability (e.g., no
significant increase in call set-up time); (7) reliance on existing
network infrastructure and functionalities to the extent possible; (8)
equal application to both incumbents and new entrants (i.e., carriers
who receive ported numbers must also provide portability); (9) no
proprietary interests or licensing fees; (10) the ability to migrate to
location and service portability; and (11) no adverse impact in areas
where portability has not been deployed.
42. Call processing scenarios. In the NPRM, we discussed three call
processing scenarios. They were: (1) The terminating ``access''
provider (TAP) scenario, under which the database query is performed by
the terminating access provider (usually the incumbent LEC, who
recovers interstate access charges from interexchange carriers (IXCs)
for terminating traffic under our existing access charge regime); (2)
the originating service provider (OSP) scenario, under which the
originating service provider performs the database query; and (3) the
``N minus 1'' (N-1) scenario, under which the carrier immediately prior
to the terminating service provider performs the database query or dip.
In addition, ITN suggests a ``first-switch-that-can'' approach, under
which the first switch that handles the call and has the capability to
do the database dip performs the query.
43. Pacific Bell and Bell Atlantic recommend that carriers should
be permitted to choose a call processing scenario to enable them to
implement the QOR triggering mechanism in addition to LRN. These
parties assert that QOR would eliminate unnecessary database queries,
thereby decreasing the number of databases necessary to

[[Page 38613]]

provide number portability and the transmission capacity between
switches and databases. In contrast, AT&T argues against allowing
carriers to choose a call processing scenario, such as QOR, because
doing so would delay deployment of a long-term number portability
method and would result in significant network interoperability issues.
MCI opposes implementation of QOR because it forces competitive LECs to
rely on the incumbent LEC's network and results in inefficient routing.
AT&T and MCI also argue against use of the RTP or QOR triggering
mechanisms because they treat transferred and non-transferred numbers
differently, and significantly increase post-dial delay and the
potential for call blocking.
44. Most of the parties that favor the Commission's selection of a
particular call processing scenario prefer the N-1 scenario because
they believe it allows database queries to be made at the most
efficient points in the process of routing telephone calls. In
contrast, ITN states that use of the N-1 scenario may hinder the
evolution from localized to national number portability environments.
BellSouth contends that the Commission need not select a particular
scenario because all four triggering mechanisms (OSP, TAP, N-1, and
Look-Ahead) could exist simultaneously through engineering and business
arrangements. Citizens Utilities and NCTA oppose the TAP scenario
because it requires routing most calls to the incumbent LEC networks,
thus denying terminating access charges to competitive providers.
45. Rating and billing. Several LECs, MCI, and MFS contend that any
long-term method should preserve existing rating and billing systems to
minimize costs and impact. Conversely, AT&T and Florida PSC argue that
any long-term method should permit flexible rating and billing schemes.
Pacific Bell, US West, and BellSouth also argue that the Commission
must in this proceeding address billing problems, including issues
relating to proper mileage, rating, calling cards, and billing format.
3. Discussion
46. Performance criteria versus selection of architecture. We
conclude that establishing performance criteria that a LEC's number
portability architecture must meet would better serve the public
interest than choosing a particular technology or specific
architecture. First, we believe that to date there appears to be
sufficient momentum to deploy compatible methods, if not an identical
method, nationwide. Every state that has selected a particular
architecture for implementation within its state boundaries has
selected the same method, LRN, and numerous states are reportedly
following suit. With the exception of some of the incumbent LECs, most
parties that advocate selection of a particular method at this time are
also supporting the LRN method. Under these circumstances, mandating
the implementation of a particular number portability architecture, or
mandating that the same architecture be deployed nationwide, appears
unnecessary. Second, such a mandate might actually delay the
implementation of number portability. We are reluctant, based on the
record in this proceeding, to select one of the proposed long-term
methods. According to a number of parties, none of the currently
supported methods, including LRN, has been tested or described in
sufficient detail to permit the Commission to select the particular
architecture without further consultation with the industry. If,
however, we were to direct an industry body to recommend a specific
number portability architecture, it would likely delay the
implementation of number portability that already is underway in
several states, and would create significant uncertainty for those
switch vendors currently modifying switch software to accommodate LRN.
Third, dictating implementation of a particular method could foreclose
the ability of carriers to improve on those methods already being
deployed or to implement hybrid (but compatible) methods.
47. We believe that our establishment of criteria for long-term
number portability methods, however, will ensure an appropriate level
of national uniformity, while maintaining flexibility to accommodate
innovation and improvement. The deployment of a uniform number
portability architecture nationwide will be important to the efficient
functioning of the public switched telephone network and will reduce
the costs of implementing number portability nationwide by allowing
switch vendors to spread the costs of development over more customers.
Moreover, a uniform deployment will allow switch manufacturers to work
toward a single standard, thus avoiding the situation where different
manufacturers partition the market among different methods.
48. Performance Criteria. We thus adopt the following minimum
criteria. Any long-term number portability method, including call
processing scenarios or triggering, must:
(1) Support existing network services, features, and capabilities;
(2) Efficiently use numbering resources;
(3) Not require end users to change their telecommunications
numbers;
(4) Not require telecommunications carriers to rely on databases,
other network facilities, or services provided by other
telecommunications carriers in order to route calls to the proper
termination point;
(5) Not result in unreasonable degradation in service quality or
network reliability when implemented;
(6) Not result in any degradation of service quality or network
reliability when customers switch carriers;
(7) Not result in a carrier having a proprietary interest;
(8) Be able to accommodate location and service portability in the
future; and
(9) Have no significant adverse impact outside the areas where
number portability is deployed.
We discuss each of these performance criteria in turn below.
49. First, we require that any long-term method support existing
network services, features, or capabilities, such as emergency
services, CLASS features, operator and directory assistance services,
and intercept capabilities. The 1996 Act requires that consumers be
able to retain their numbers ``without impairment of quality,
reliability, or convenience when switching from one telecommunications
carrier to another.'' Moreover, customers are not likely to switch
carriers and retain their telephone numbers if they are required to
forego services and features to which they have become accustomed.
Thus, any long-term method that precludes the provision of existing
services and features would place competing service providers at a
competitive disadvantage.
50. The public interest also requires that service provider
portability not impair the provision of network capabilities that are
important to public safety, such as emergency services and intercept
capabilities. In our proposal to ensure that PBXs and CMRS providers
support enhanced 911 services, we reaffirmed that 911 services enable
telephone users to receive fast response to emergency situations, and
that broad availability of 911 and E911 services best promotes ``safety
of life and property through the use of wire and radio communication.''
In addition, the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act
requires telecommunications carriers generally to provide capabilities
that enable secure, reliable, and non-intrusive law enforcement
interception of call setup information and call content so that law
enforcement agencies can intercept and monitor calls when necessary.

[[Page 38614]]

51. Second, we require that any long-term method efficiently use
numbering resources. Telephone numbers are the means by which
commercial and residential consumers gain access to, and reap the
benefits of, the public switched telephone network. In recent years,
the explosive growth of wireless services has caused an equally
dramatic increase in the consumption of telephone numbers. Indeed, in
January 1995, carriers began to deploy interchangeable NPA (INPA) codes
because all NPA codes had been exhausted. The anticipated shortage of
numbers has prompted several BOCs to propose the use of area code
overlays. The increased use of overlays and area code splits has
resulted in both industry and consumer inconvenience and confusion. The
consumption rate of NANP resources is likely to accelerate with the
entry of new wireline and wireless carriers. Thus, we conclude that
deploying a long-term number portability method that rapidly depletes
numbering resources would undermine the efforts of the industry, the
states, and the Commission to ensure sufficient numbering resources.
52. Third, deployment of a long-term method should not require
customers to make any telecommunications number change. The 1996 Act
mandates that end users be able ``to retain * * * existing
telecommunications numbers * * * when switching from one
telecommunications carrier to another.'' Requiring any number change
would contravene this basic requirement. Congress noted that the
ability to switch service providers is only meaningful if customers can
retain their telephone numbers.
53. Fourth, we require that any long-term method ensure that
carriers have the ability to route telephone calls and provide services
to their customers independently from the networks of other carriers.
Requiring carriers to rely on the networks of their competitors in
order to route calls can have several undesirable effects. For example,
dependence on the original service provider's network to provide
services to a customer that has switched carriers contravenes the
choice made by that customer to change service providers. In addition,
such dependence creates the potential for call blocking by the original
service provider and may make available to the original service
provider proprietary customer information. Moreover, methods which
first route the call through the original service provider's network in
order to determine whether the call is to a ported number, and then
perform a query only if the call is to be ported, would treat ported
numbers differently than non-ported numbers, resulting in ported calls
taking longer to complete than unported calls. This differential in
efficiency would disadvantage the carrier to whom the call was ported
and impair that carrier's ability to compete effectively against the
original service provider. Finally, dependence on another carrier's
network also reduces the new service provider's ability to control the
routing of telephone calls to its customers, thus inhibiting its
ability to control the costs of such routing. For these reasons, a
long-term number portability method should not require dependency on
another carrier's network. We note that this criterion does not prevent
individual carriers from determining among themselves how to process
calls, including a method by which a carrier voluntarily agrees to use
the original service provider's network.
54. We recognize that this criterion will effectively preclude
carriers from implementing QOR. Those carriers that oppose QOR argue
that it would treat ported and non-ported numbers differently, force
reliance on the incumbent LEC's network, increase post-dial delay and
the potential for call blocking, result in inefficient routing, create
significant network interoperability issues, and delay deployment of a
long-term number portability method. There is little evidence in the
record to support the claim that allowing carriers to implement QOR
would result in significant cost savings. Pacific Bell submitted
summary figures indicating that it would save approximately $14.2
million per year assuming that 20 percent of subscribers port their
numbers if it implemented QOR. These savings, which represent less than
0.2 percent of Pacific Bell's total annual operating revenues, appear
insignificant in relation to the potential economic and non-economic
costs to competitors if QOR is used. According to AT&T, using QOR on
Lucent switches is more cost effective only if less than 12 percent of
subscribers have ported their numbers. Similarly, AT&T asserts that
using QOR on Siemens switches is more cost effective only if less than
23 percent of subscribers have ported their numbers. In addition,
because carriers using QOR may be required to send a QOR message to
another carrier's switch to determine if a customer has transferred the
number, the second carrier must have the ability to recognize and
respond to the QOR message, which also may increase its costs. Based on
the record before us, we conclude that the competitive benefits of
ensuring that calls are not routed through the original carrier's
network outweigh any cost savings that QOR may bring in the immediate
future.
55. Fifth, as a general matter, we require that the implementation
of any long-term method not unreasonably degrade existing service
quality or network reliability. Consumers, both business and
residential, rely on the public switched telephone network for their
livelihood, health and safety. Jeopardizing the reliability of the
network would stifle business growth and economic development, and
endanger individuals' personal safety and convenience. Consumers, both
business and residential, have also come to expect a certain level of
quality and convenience in using basic telecommunications services. We
note that this Commission has repeatedly affirmed its commitment to
maintaining service quality and network reliability. We, therefore,
require that any long-term method of providing number portability not
cause any unreasonable degradation to the network or the quality of
existing services. This requirement extends to degradation that affects
carriers operating, and end users obtaining services, outside as well
as within the area of portability.
56. Sixth, once long-term number portability is implemented, we
require that customers not experience any degradation of service
quality or network reliability when they port their numbers to other
carriers. We reiterate that the 1996 Act requires that consumers be
able to retain their numbers ``without impairment of quality,
reliability, or convenience when switching from one telecommunications
carrier to another.'' We interpret this mandate to mean, at a minimum,
that when a customer switches carriers, that customer must not
experience a greater dialing delay or call set up time, poorer
transmission quality, or a loss of services (such as CLASS features)
due to number portability compared to when the customer was with the
original carrier.
57. Seventh, we require that no carrier have a proprietary interest
in any long term method. A telecommunications carrier may not own
rights to, or have a proprietary interest in, number portability
technology. We believe that the requirement in the 1996 Act that the
costs of number portability be borne on a competitively neutral basis
precludes carrier ownership of the long-term method, and their
collection of licensing or other fees for use of the method. In
addition, it would be competitively unfair if a LEC providing
portability

[[Page 38615]]

were to benefit directly, through licensing fees or a proprietary
interest, from its competitors' use of portability. We note that one of
the first criteria required by the Illinois task force in selecting a
number portability method was that it be non-proprietary.
58. Eighth, we require that any long-term method be able to
accommodate service and location portability in the future. Although we
do not at this time mandate provision of service or location
portability, we recognize that service and location portability have
certain benefits, and we may take steps to implement them in the future
if demand for these services develops. As our society becomes
increasingly mobile, the importance that consumers attribute to the
geographic identity of their telephone numbers may change. It is,
therefore, in the public interest to take steps now to ensure that we
do not foreclose realization of future economies of scope.
59. Finally, we require that any long-term method not have a
significant adverse impact on carriers operating, and end users
obtaining services, outside the area of number portability. We believe
it is fundamentally unfair to impose any new or different obligations
on carriers and customers that do not benefit from service provider
portability. Indeed, we are adopting a phased approach to
implementation so that number portability is available only in the most
populous local markets where competition already has begun to develop
or is likely to develop in the near term.
60. We do not believe it is necessary to require that a long-term
method utilize existing network infrastructure and functionalities to
the extent possible, as some commenting parties have suggested.
Minimizing the costs of implementing a long-term method should be in
the best interests of all the parties involved in such implementation.
This conclusion is also consistent with our tentative conclusion that
the carrier-specific costs that are not directly related to number
portability must be borne by the individual carriers. Thus, existing
local service providers have an incentive to minimize the extent of the
necessary modifications and upgrades, as well as the costs of
implementing number portability-specific software. Moreover, while new
entrants may not need to modify existing networks, they must deploy and
build networks with at least the same capabilities as those of the
incumbents if they are to provide number portability.
61. We also decline to require carriers that receive ported numbers
also to provide portability because we believe the 1996 Act renders
such a requirement unnecessary. Specifically, section 251(b)(2) imposes
a duty to provide number portability on all LECs--incumbents as well as
new entrants. In light of the fact that the 1996 Act applies this duty
across all LECs, establishing a reciprocity performance criterion would
be needlessly redundant.
62. Call processing scenarios. We decline to specify the carrier
that must perform the database query in a database method, because we
recognize that individual carriers may wish to determine among
themselves how to process calls under alternative scenarios. We
therefore leave to local exchange carriers the flexibility to choose
and negotiate the scenario that best suits their networks and business
plans, as long as they act consistently with the requirements
established by this Order. While our criterion requiring carriers to be
able to route calls and provide service independently from other
carriers' networks may preclude unilateral use of the TAP scenario by a
particular carrier, there may be instances where carriers agree to use
the TAP scenario, or where the terminating provider is the only carrier
capable of performing the database query. In those instances, our
performance criterion would not preclude use of the TAP scenario.
63. Rating and billing. Finally, we decline to regulate the rating
and billing of local wireline calls to end users in connection with a
long-term number portability method. Traditionally, the billing and
rating of local wireline calls--including the establishment of mileage
standards, procedures for calling cards, and billing format--have been
left to the purview of the states and the carriers themselves. While
several parties have raised rating and billing questions with regard to
number portability, we believe that such issues are more properly
addressed by the states.

D. Mandate of Number Portability

1. Background
64. In the NPRM, we sought comment on the estimated time to design,
build, and deploy a long-term service provider number portability
system. We also requested that parties address what network and other
modifications would be necessary to effect the transition to
portability. The 1996 Act mandates that all LECs ``provide, to the
extent technically feasible, number portability in accordance with
requirements prescribed by the Commission.''
2. Position of the Parties
65. Mandate Implementation By A Date Certain. The competitive local
exchange providers generally contend that the Commission should mandate
the availability of number portability by a date certain. The incumbent
LECs, however, caution the Commission not to act with undue haste by
mandating the implementation of number portability by a date certain.
Indeed, BellSouth claims that the 1996 Act's omission of a deadline for
implementation indicates Congress's intent not to require a date
certain at this time. It adds that the industry must first give careful
attention to developing an implementation checklist that will ensure
that the necessary tasks for the implementation are properly identified
and performed. Instead of establishing a mandatory implementation date,
some LECs contend that the Commission should direct an industry body,
such as the INC, to determine the most appropriate schedule for
deployment of a long-term solution. Other commenters argue that the
implementation schedule should be determined by state regulatory
bodies. Pacific Bell warns that a Commission-mandated solution at this
time would be premature and cites a late proposal introduced by ITN as
an illustration that the optimal solution may not yet have been
introduced.
66. The wireless industry offers various implementation plans. For
instance, PageNet urges the Commission to establish federal guidelines
for number portability, and at a specified time in the future, to
evaluate the industry's standards using the guidelines through a notice
and comment proceeding. However, Omnipoint believes the Commission
should act more aggressively in mandating service provider portability
by a date certain.
67. Time Estimates for Deployment. Parties differ on their
estimates for deployment. AT&T asserts that virtually all of the
equipment vendors participating in the Illinois number portability task
force indicate that they can provide most upgrades necessary to
implement LRN by the second quarter of 1997. As noted above, Illinois,
Georgia, and Colorado plan to deploy LRN in mid-1997. New York also
expects to deploy LRN in mid-1997, though deployment in certain AT&T
switches is expected to begin earlier. Michigan has ordered that
implementation of long-term number portability in Michigan start at the
same time that implementation begins in Illinois. BellSouth, however,
estimates that three to five years are required to deploy a

[[Page 38616]]

number portability system that addresses all the necessary issues.
68. Parties also differ on the interpretation of ``technically
feasible'' as that term is used in section 251(b)(2) of the 1996 Act.
GTE argues that the term should not be equated with ``technically
possible'' because cost and timing considerations cannot be separated
from the concept of technical feasibility. GTE also maintains that no
long-term solution proposed is currently technically feasible, since
they all require further information on costs, operation, and
reliability. Bell Atlantic contends that deploying a system that is
technically feasible, but inefficient, may not be consistent with
Congress's goal of a ``rapid, efficient'' telecommunications system.
Bell Atlantic and BellSouth also claim that LRN is merely a call
handling protocol, as opposed to a technical solution for number
portability.
69. In contrast, Time Warner Holdings and Cox argue that
``feasible'' must be given common dictionary meaning--``capable of
being done, executed or effected''--and does not mean ``commercially
available.'' Time Warner Holdings points out that equal access and 800
number portability proved to be technically feasible even when they
were not commercially available. Time Warner Holdings claims, moreover,
that LECs control commercial availability because vendors will not
develop and manufacture portability methods until LECs demand them.
Similarly, Sprint argues that technically feasible does not mean that
every operational and regulatory issue must be resolved before any
decision on national number portability can be made. Sprint further
claims that Congress's use of the phrase ``technically feasible''
precludes any consideration of economic feasibility. AT&T and MCI argue
that LRN is technically feasible, although they do not explicitly
address the precise meaning of the statutory language.
70. Phased Implementation. Most parties addressing the
implementation of number portability caution against a flash-cut
approach (i.e., deployment nationwide simultaneously). USTA argues that
because section 251(b)(2) only requires provision of number
portability, not deployment of the necessary software and network
upgrades, LECs need only deploy portability upon a bona fide request.
Most parties, however, recommend that service provider portability be
deployed on a per-market basis within a period of time specified by the
Commission. For example, Competitive Carriers proposes that service
provider portability be implemented in the 100 largest MSAs within 24
months of this Order. Similarly, Sprint proposes that the Commission
adopt a phased approach requiring local service providers to deploy a
long-term solution upon receipt of a bona fide request from a certified
carrier: (1) In the top 100 MSAs by the end of fourth quarter 1997; (2)
in the next 135 MSAs, within 3-4 years after this Order is issued; and
(3) within any remaining areas, beginning in the fifth year after this
Order is issued. Omnipoint maintains that service provider portability
should be made available in the top 100 MSAs between October of 1997
and October of 1998, while GO Communications proposes implementation of
service provider portability in the major metropolitan areas by early
1997. MFS supports a final cut-over in the 100 largest MSAs by October
1997, with an initial cut-over in the top 35 MSAs on March 31, 1997. It
adds that, in order to deploy this capability as competition develops
in specific markets, number portability should be implemented by LECs
within 18 months of activation of an NXX code in the Local Exchange
Routing Guide (LERG) and assignment to a competitor. AT&T has indicated
that LRN deployment could begin in the third quarter of 1997 in one MSA
in each of the seven BOC regions, followed by deployment in at least
three additional MSAs per region during both fourth quarter 1997 and
first quarter 1998. Once this initial phase is completed, AT&T suggests
that the Commission could require LRN to be deployed in at least four
additional MSAs during both second and third quarters 1998, or 105 MSAs
total. AT&T's proposed plan would result in deployment of LRN software
in a total of 7 MSAs in third quarter 1997, 21 additional MSAs in
fourth quarter 1997, 21 additional MSAs in first quarter 1998, 28
additional MSAs in second quarter 1998, and 28 additional MSAs in third
quarter 1998. AT&T further asserts that its proposed schedule would
require major switch manufacturers to update switch software at a rate
of 53 switches per week, and that one major switch manufacturer has
claimed that it alone can update 50 switches per week. MCI urges that
number portability be deployed in the top 100 MSAs, by population, over
a 10 month period beginning no later than June 30, 1997. After
implementation is complete in the initial 100 MSAs, MCI recommends that
the remaining MSAs be converted based on written requests from carriers
filed with the Commission, which may order implementation in a
particular MSA to be completed within six months of the request. MCI
and Time Warner Holdings also support the notion of requiring number
portability implementation within six months of a request of a
telecommunications carrier. Finally, Ameritech argues it is premature
to set a deployment schedule for LRN because there are several
operational issues yet to be resolved. It further argues that schedules
proposed by various carriers are too aggressive and exceed the
resources of the industry.
71. Switch vendors assert that LRN software will be generally
available for service providers to deploy in 1997. Lucent Technologies
plans general availability of LRN software for March 21, 1997, for its
1A ESS switch; March 31, 1997, for its 5ESS-2000 switch; and May 1,
1997, for its 4ESS switch. Lucent asserts that, after the new software
becomes generally available, it will be able to support up to 50
software release updates per week for the 5ESS and 1A ESS switches for
North America (each release update upgrades the software for one
switch). Nortel states that its LRN software will be available in the
second quarter of 1997 for its DMS-100, DMS-200, and DMS-500 switches,
and will be available in the third quarter of 1997 for its DMS-10 and
TOPS switches. Siemens Stromberg-Carlson asserts that its LRN software
will be available for testing on its EWSD switch in its Release 14.E
generic in October 1996, and will be generally available in the first
quarter of 1997. Siemens further claims that upgrades to EWSD switches
deployed within the top 100 MSAs can be completed within five months of
the date of general availability. Ericsson asserts that its LRN
software for Ericsson SCPs will be generally available in the second
quarter of 1997, and that its LRN software for Ericsson SSPs will be
generally available in the third quarter of 1997. Ericsson expects that
6-7 switch upgrades can be accomplished each week, with each upgrade
taking 3-4 days.
72. The Illinois Commerce Commission argues that a phased
approach--implementing number portability in those areas where local
competition is developing--may be more cost-effective and more feasible
technically than a nationwide uniform deadline. Similarly, US West
contends that a nationwide uniform deadline for service provider
portability is neither practical nor necessary due to differing levels
of competition. Sprint asserts that a phased implementation will
accommodate the concerns of the small LECs, arguing that a phased
approach best balances the need for rapid deployment with the capital
constraints facing individual carriers. Nextel asserts that a phased
approach is more efficient

[[Page 38617]]

because it results in the introduction of number portability where the
demand for service provider portability is greatest. Bell Atlantic and
US West contend that state agencies should determine when and where
service provider portability should be introduced within their
respective jurisdictions. Alternatively, US West suggests that the
Commission could use the same approach to implementing service provider
portability that it adopted in implementing equal access for
independent LECs.
73. Rural and Small LEC Exemption. In comments filed prior to
passage of the 1996 Act, GVNW, TDS Telecom, NECA, and OPASTCO argue
that, if the Commission mandates the implementation of number
portability, it should exempt small and rural LECs from such a mandate.
GNVW, NECA, and NTCA claim that the demand for service provider
portability is significantly less in areas served by rural and small
LECs because local exchange competition is not likely to develop there
soon, if at all.
3. Discussion
74. Section 251(b) requires that all local exchange carriers, as
defined by section 153(26), ``provide, to the extent technically
feasible, number portability in accordance with requirements prescribed
by the Commission.'' We believe that requiring implementation of long-
term number portability by a date certain is consistent with the 1996
Act's requirement that LECs provide number portability as soon as they
can do so and will advance the 1996 Act's goal of encouraging
competition in the local exchange market. The record indicates that at
least one long-term method will be available for deployment in mid-
1997.
75. We decline the suggestion of some parties that we direct an
industry body to determine an appropriate implementation plan. The INC
has been analyzing the issues surrounding number portability for over
two years. Delegating responsibility for number portability
implementation to an industry group such as the INC would unnecessarily
delay implementation of number portability. Similarly, we reject
BellSouth's arguments in favor of delaying implementation for three to
five years. We believe such a delay is inconsistent with the 1996 Act's
requirement that LECs make number portability available when doing so
is technically feasible, as well as with the pro-competitive goals of
the 1996 Act, and would not serve the public interest.
76. Carriers filing comments in this proceeding have suggested
various deployment schedules, with most suggesting deployment within
two years of a Commission order or sooner. According to current
schedules in Illinois, Georgia, Colorado, Maryland, and New York,
AT&T's LRN method is scheduled for deployment (most likely excluding
necessary field testing) beginning in mid-1997. Thus, the record
indicates that one method for providing number portability will be
available in mid-1997.
77. Pursuant to our statutory authority under the 1996 Act, we
require local exchange carriers operating in the 100 largest MSAs to
offer long-term service provider portability commencing on October 1,
1997, and concluding by December 31, 1998, according to the deployment
schedule set forth in Appendix F of the Report and Order. We require
deployment in one MSA in each of the seven BOC regions by the end of
fourth quarter 1997, 16 additional MSAs by the end of first quarter
1998, 22 additional MSAs by the end of second quarter 1998, 25
additional MSAs by the end of third quarter 1998, and 30 additional
MSAs by the end of fourth quarter 1998. As a practical matter, this
obligation requires LECs to provide number portability to other
telecommunications carriers providing local exchange or exchange access
service within the same MSA. This schedule is consistent with switch
vendor estimates that software for at least one long-term number
portability method will be generally available for deployment by
carriers around mid-1997, and with the schedule proposed by AT&T. One
major switch manufacturer has claimed that it alone can support the
deployment of number portability software in 50 switches per week. We
conclude that a schedule consistent with AT&T's proposed schedule,
which would require all of the major switch manufacturers collectively
to update switch software at a total rate of 53 switches per week,
appears workable.
78. We note that, in establishing this schedule, we have relied
upon representations of switch vendors concerning the dates by which
the necessary switching software will be generally available. As a
result, our deployment schedule depends directly upon the accuracy of
those estimates and the absence of any significant technical problems
in deployment. We delegate authority to the Chief, Common Carrier
Bureau, to monitor the progress of local exchange carriers implementing
number portability, and to direct such carriers to take any actions
necessary to ensure compliance with this deployment schedule. We expect
that the industry will work together to resolve any outstanding issues,
technical or otherwise, which are involved with providing long-term
number portability in accordance with our requirements and deployment
schedule. We note that while we prescribe the time constraints within
which LECs must implement number portability, we strongly encourage
carriers to provide such portability before the Commission-imposed
deadlines.
79. In addition, we direct the carriers that are members of the
Illinois Local Number Portability Workshop to conduct a field test of
LRN or another technically feasible long-term number portability method
that comports with our performance criteria concluding no later than
August 31, 1997. We select the Chicago area for the field test because
the record indicates that the Illinois workshop was responsible for
drafting requirements for switching software currently being developed
by switch manufacturers. Because of the significant work which has been
done on behalf of the Illinois workshop, we believe the Chicago area is
the best site within which to conduct a field test. The field test
should encompass both network capability and billing and ordering
systems, as well as maintenance arrangements. We delegate authority to
the Chief, Common Carrier Bureau, to monitor developments during the
field test. We further direct that the carriers participating in the
test jointly file with the Bureau a report of their findings within 30
days following completion of the test. While we do not routinely order
field testing of telecommunications technologies as part of rulemaking
proceedings, we have a significant interest in ensuring the integrity
of the public switched network as number portability is deployed
nationwide. We believe a field test will help to identify technical
problems in advance of widespread deployment, thereby safeguarding the
network.
80. After December 31, 1998, each LEC must make long-term number
portability available in smaller MSAs within six months after a
specific request by another telecommunications carrier in the areas in
which the requesting carrier is operating or plans to operate.
Telecommunications carriers may file requests for number portability
beginning January 1, 1999. Such requests should specifically request
long-term number portability, identify the discrete geographic area
covered by the request, and provide a tentative date six or more months
in the future when the carrier expects to need number

[[Page 38618]]

portability in order to port prospective customers.
81. We believe that this deployment schedule is consistent with the
requirements of sections 251(b)(2) and (d), which give the Commission
responsibility for establishing regulations regarding the provision of
number portability to the extent technically feasible. As the record
indicates, long-term number portability requires the use of one or more
databases. Such databases have yet to be deployed. As indicated above,
the methods for providing long-term number portability that would
satisfy our criteria require the development of new switching software
that is not currently available, but is under development. The record
indicates, however, that at least one method of long-term number
portability will be technically feasible by mid-1997. Requiring number
portability to be fully operational in the largest 100 MSAs by December
31, 1998, would allow a reasonable amount of time to install the
appropriate generic and application software in the relevant switches.
Moreover, such a phased deployment is preferable to implementing
nationwide number portability simultaneously in all markets (or
implementing this service in multiple large MSAs at the same time)
because a phased deployment would be less likely to impose a
significant burden on those carriers serving multiple regions of the
country. Specifically, our phased approach spreads the implementation
over 15 months, thus easing the burden on carriers serving multiple
regions by limiting the number of MSAs in which implementation is
required during a particular calendar quarter. In addition, the burden
on such carriers should be less than that upon carriers in smaller
markets because the latter may be required to undertake hardware
upgrades whereas larger carriers may already have upgraded their
switches. Our phased approach would also avoid the potential strain on
vendors caused by implementation in all the largest 100 MSAs on or
around a single date, as well as help to safeguard the integrity of the
public switched telephone network.
82. In addition, we believe that our phased implementation of long-
term number portability is in the public interest and supported by the
record. Our phased deployment schedule takes in account the differing
levels of local exchange competition that are likely to emerge in the
different geographic areas throughout the country. Thus, our deployment
schedule is designed to ensure that number portability will be made
available in those regions where competing service providers are likely
to offer alternative services. We believe that competitive local
service providers are likely to be providing service in the major
metropolitan areas soon. In those areas beyond the 100 largest MSAs,
however, the actual pace of competitive entry into local markets should
determine the need for service provider portability. We therefore agree
with those parties that argue that, in markets outside of the 100
largest MSAs, long-term number portability should be deployed within
six months of a specific request from another telecommunications
provider. We believe a six-month interval is appropriate given the more
significant network upgrades that may be necessary for carriers
operating in these smaller areas.
83. We note that the 1996 Act exempts rural telephone companies
from the ``duty to negotiate * * * the particular terms and conditions
of agreements to fulfill the (interconnection) duties'' created by the
1996 Act, including the provision of number portability, and that
carriers satisfying the statutory criteria contained in section 251(f)
may be exempt from the obligations to provide number portability as set
forth herein. In addition, section 251(f)(2) permits a LEC with fewer
than two percent of the country's total installed subscriber lines to
petition a state commission for suspension or modification of the
requirements of section 251. In our recent notice of proposed
rulemaking implementing sections 251 and 252 of the Communications Act,
we address the application of this statutory exemption, and we believe
that specific application of such provisions is best addressed in that
proceeding. We intend to establish regulations to implement these
provisions by early August 1996, consistent with the requirements of
section 251(d).
84. In our Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Billed
Party Preference (BPP), we stated that the Commission would further
consider the feasibility of implementing BPP in the upcoming proceeding
to implement the 1996 Act's local number portability requirements in
section 251(b)(2). We recognize that our deployment schedule may have
implications for the provision of BPP, the ability of a customer to
designate in advance which Operator Service Provider (OSP) should be
billed when that customer makes a call from a pay telephone. This
capability may involve querying a database, similar to the proposed
long-term number portability methods. In the BPP Second Further Notice
(61 FR 30581 (June 17, 1996)), we noted that the record indicated that
the cost of BPP would likely be substantial, and we sought comment on
the costs of requiring OSPs to disclose their rates for 0+ calls in a
variety of circumstances. In that NPRM, we reaffirmed our belief that
BPP would generate significant benefits for consumers, but stated that,
at this time, unless local exchange providers were required to install
the facilities needed to perform database queries for number
portability purposes, the incremental cost to query the database for
the customer's preferred OSP would outweigh the potential incremental
benefits that BPP would provide. While we continue to recognize the
benefits that could be achieved through such an approach, we note that
creating the capability for all LECs to query OSP databases would
require a uniform deadline to nationwide number portability which, for
the reasons discussed above, is not in the public interest.
Nonetheless, as indicated by our deployment schedule, LECs in the 100
largest MSAs will be required to install the capability to query number
portability databases by December 31, 1998, which could then
potentially be utilized for BPP in those markets.
85. Finally, we delegate to the Chief, Common Carrier Bureau, the
authority to waive or stay any of the dates in the implementation
schedule, as the Chief determines is necessary to ensure the efficient
development of number portability, for a period not to exceed 9 months
(i.e., no later than September 30, 1999). In the event a carrier is
unable to meet our deadlines for implementing a long-term number
portability method, it may file with the Commission, at least 60 days
in advance of the deadline, a petition to extend the time by which
implementation in its network will be completed. We emphasize, however,
that carriers are expected to meet the prescribed deadlines, and a
carrier seeking relief must present extraordinary circumstances beyond
its control in order to obtain an extension of time. A carrier seeking
such relief must demonstrate through substantial, credible evidence the
basis for its contention that it is unable to comply with our
deployment schedule. Such requests must set forth: (1) The facts that
demonstrate why the carrier is unable to meet our deployment schedule;
(2) a detailed explanation of the activities that the carrier has
undertaken to meet the implementation schedule prior to requesting an
extension of time; (3) an identification of the particular switches for
which the extension is requested; (4) the time within which the carrier
will

[[Page 38619]]

complete deployment in the affected switches; and (5) a proposed
schedule with milestones for meeting the deployment date.

E. Database Architecture and Administration

1. Background
86. In the NPRM, we sought comment on the type of database
architecture that would best serve the public interest and the
technical feasibility of deploying a single national database or a
series of regionally distributed databases. We also sought comment on
the type of information that should be contained within such
database(s) and who should have access to such database(s). Finally, we
sought comment on administration of the number portability database(s),
i.e., who should administer and maintain the database(s), how should
they be funded, how should the administrator(s) be selected, and what
responsibilities should the administrator(s) be given.
2. Position of the Parties
Many parties assert that any long-term number portability solution
will require the use of one or more databases. Jones Intercable states
that use of a database solution: (1) Makes numbering information
available to numerous competing carriers; (2) provides the platform to
offer other types of number portability; and (3) permits the deployment
of other advanced services. ACTA, AT&T, and Citizens Utilities assert
that the database architecture of a long-term solution should resemble
the architecture used for the toll free database, but with databases
distributed on a regional basis. US Intelco and MCI note that multiple,
regional databases, rather than one national database, will be
necessary to process the data for all portable geographic numbers. Only
Scherers Communications claims that a single national database will be
able to accommodate all portable numbers, geographic and non-
geographic, and will ensure consistency and cost efficiency.
88. AT&T and several BOCs support the ability of individual
carriers to download information from the regional databases to routing
systems associated with their own networks, i.e., downstream databases.
Several other parties add that access to the regional databases must be
open, and carriers, individually or collectively, must be permitted to
develop routing databases that obtain information from the regional
databases. ITN contends that an architecture of regionally-deployed
SCPs which correspond to blocks of NPA-NXXs would give carriers the
option of maintaining their own customer records or having a third
party provider perform such functions. It adds that such openness in
data management will help ensure number portability to all service
providers, including providers of service to end users and various
other intelligent network service providers.
89. Almost all parties, incumbent LECs and new entrants, support
administration of the database(s) by a neutral third party. MFS adds
that the operator of a number portability database must not be able to
gain a competitive advantage by manipulating the data or controlling
access to the database. ACTA urges that the database administrator be a
non-profit organization selected through a competitive bidding process
that excludes LECs and IXCs, with responsibilities established by the
North American Numbering Plan Administrator (NANPA).
90. Competitive Carriers assert that the database(s) should include
only service provider portability-specific information, and that the
carriers using the database should be responsible for the integrity of
these data. Teleport claims that an industry group should determine the
contents of any distributed databases, subject to the Commission's
criteria. The Texas Advisory Commission also asserts that the
database(s) should easily integrate with 911 databases.
3. Discussion
91. Section 251(b) directs the Commission to establish requirements
governing the provision of number portability without specifically
addressing the appropriate database architecture necessary for long-
term number portability. We find that an architecture that uses
regionally-deployed databases best serves the public interest and is
supported by the record. The deployment of multiple regional databases
will facilitate the ability of LECs to provide number portability by
reducing the distance that such carriers will have to transmit carrier
routing information. This, in turn, should reduce the costs of routing
telephone calls based on such data. Moreover, a nationwide system of
regional databases would relieve individual carriers of the burden of
deploying multiple number portability databases over various geographic
areas. A regionally-deployed database system will ensure that carriers
have the number portability routing information necessary to route
telephone calls between carriers' networks, and will also promote
uniformity in the provision of such number portability data. We agree
with those parties arguing that one national number portability
database is not feasible. The potential amount of information that such
a database would be required to process would, according to parties in
this proceeding, likely become overwhelming as number portability is
deployed nationwide.
92. We also conclude that it is in the public interest for the
number portability databases to be administered by one or more neutral
third parties. Both the record and the Commission's recent decision to
reorganize the administration of telephone numbers under the NANP
support neutral third party administration of these facilities. We also
note that section 251(e)(1) requires the Commission to ``create or
designate one or more impartial entities to administer
telecommunications numbering and to make such numbers available on an
equitable basis.'' Neutral third party administration of the databases
containing carrier routing information will facilitate entry into the
communications marketplace by making numbering resources available to
new service providers on an efficient basis. It will also facilitate
the ability of local service providers to transfer new customers by
ensuring open and efficient access for purposes of updating customer
records. As we stated above, the ability to transfer customers from one
carrier to another, which includes access to the data necessary to
perform that transfer, is important to entities that wish to compete in
the local telecommunications market. Neutral third party administration
of the carrier routing information also ensures the equal treatment of
all carriers and avoids any appearance of impropriety or anti-
competitive conduct. Such administration facilitates consumers' access
to the public switched network by preventing any one carrier from
interfering with interconnection to the database(s) or the processing
of routing and customer information. Neutral third party administration
would thus ensure consistency of the data and interoperability of
number portability facilities, thereby minimizing any anti-competitive
impacts.
93. We hereby direct the NANC to select as a local number
portability administrator(s) (LNPA(s)) one or more independent, non-
governmental entities that are not aligned with any particular
telecommunications industry segment within seven months of the initial
meeting of the NANC. Selection of the LNPA(s) falls within the duties
we established for the NANC in the

[[Page 38620]]

Numbering Plan Order (60 FR 38737 (July 28, 1995)) and the NANC
Charter. The NANC charter describes the scope the NANC's activities:

The purpose of the (NANC) is to advise the (Commission) and to
make recommendations, reached through consensus, that foster
efficient and impartial number administration. The (NANC) will
develop policy on numbering issues, initially resolve disputes, and
select and provide guidance to the North American Numbering Plan
Administrator.

The fundamental purpose of the NANC is to act as an oversight committee
with the technical and operational expertise to advise the Commission
on numbering issues. The Commission has already directed the NANC to
select a NANPA. We believe the designation of a centralized entity to
select and oversee the LNPA(s) is preferable to ensure consistency and
to provide a national perspective on number portability issues, as well
as to reduce the costs of implementing a national number portability
plan.
94. We believe that the NANC is especially well-situated to handle
matters relating to local number portability administration because of
its similarity to the administration of central office codes. Both
functions rely heavily on the use of databases, and both involve
administration of NANP resources, only at different levels.
Administration of number portability data is essentially the
administration of telephone numbers (as opposed to NXX codes) between
different carriers.
95. We believe that the NANC should determine, in the first
instance, whether one or multiple administrators should be selected,
whether LNPA(s) can be the same entity selected to be the NANPA, how
the LNPA(s) should be selected, the specific duties of the LNPA(s), and
the geographic coverage of the regional databases. Once the NANC has
selected the LNPA(s) and determined the locations of the regional
databases, it must report its decisions to the Commission. The NANC
should also determine the technical interoperability and operational
standards, the user interface between telecommunications carriers and
the LNPA(s), and the network interface between the SMS and the
downstream databases. Finally, the NANC should develop the technical
specifications for the regional databases, e.g., whether a regional
database should consist of a service management system (SMS) or an SMS/
SCP pair. In reaching its decisions, the NANC should consider the most
cost-effective way of accomplishing number portability. We note that it
will be essential for the NANPA to keep track of information regarding
the porting of numbers between and among carriers. We thus believe it
necessary for the NANC to set guidelines and standards by which the
NANPA and LNPA(s) share numbering information so that both entities can
efficiently and effectively administer the assignment of the numbering
resource. For example, the NANC might require that the databases easily
integrate with 911 databases.
96. We recognize that authorizing the NANC to select a LNPA(s) may
have an impact on Illinois's April 1996 selection of Lockheed-Martin as
the administrator of the Illinois SMS, as well as the Maryland and
Colorado task forces' plans to release their RFPs for their SMS
administrators in the second quarter of 1996. Therefore, in light of
these and other ongoing efforts by state commissions, we conclude that
any state that prefers to develop its own statewide database rather
than participate in a regionally-deployed database may opt out of its
designated regional database and implement a state-specific database.
We direct the Chief, Common Carrier Bureau, to issue a Public Notice
that identifies the administrator selected by the NANC and the proposed
locations of the regional databases. A state will have 60 days from the
release date of the Public Notice to notify the Common Carrier Bureau
and NANC that the state does not wish to participate in the regional
database system for number portability. Carriers may challenge a
state's decision to opt out of the regional database system by filing a
petition with the Commission. Relief will be granted if the petitioner
can demonstrate that the state decision to opt out would significantly
delay deployment of permanent number portability or result in excessive
costs to carriers. We note that state databases would have to meet the
national requirements and operational standards recommended by the NANC
and adopted by this Commission. In addition, such state databases must
be technically compatible with the regional system of databases and
must not interfere with the scheduled implementation of the regional
databases.
97. We further note that any administrator selected by a state
prior to the release of this Order that wishes to bid for
administration of one of the regional databases must submit a new
proposal in accordance with the guidelines established by the NANC. We
emphasize that nothing in this section affects any other action that
the Commission may take regarding the delegation and transfer of
functions related to number administration. We delegate authority to
the Chief, Common Carrier Bureau, to monitor the progress of the NANC
in selecting the LNPA(s) and in developing and implementing the
database architecture described above.
98. We believe that telecommunications carriers should have open
access to all regional databases. Just as we conclude all carriers must
have equal access to any long-term number portability method, and that
no portion of a long-term number portability method should be
proprietary to any carrier, we further conclude that all carriers must
have equal and open access to all regionally-deployed databases
containing number portability-specific data. Allowing particular
carriers access to the databases over others would be inherently
discriminatory and anti-competitive. All carriers providing number
portability need to have access to all relevant information to be able
to provide customers with this important capability. We thus conclude
that the 1996 Act, in addition to general rules of equity and
competitive neutrality, requires equal and open access to all
regionally-deployed databases for all carriers wishing to interconnect.
99. We believe that, at this time, the information contained in the
number portability regional databases should be limited to the
information necessary to route telephone calls to the appropriate
service providers. The NANC should determine the specific information
necessary to provide number portability. To include, for example, the
information necessary to provide E911 services or proprietary customer-
specific information would complicate the functions of the number
portability databases and impose requirements that may have varied
impacts on different localities. For instance, because different
localities have adopted different emergency response systems, the
regional databases would have to be configured in such a fashion as to
provision the appropriate emergency information to each locality's
particular system. Similarly, special systems would need to be
developed to restrict access to proprietary customer-specific
information. In either instance, the necessary programming to add such
capabilities to the regional databases would complicate the
functionality of those databases.
100. Because we require open access to the regional databases, it
would be inequitable to require carriers to disseminate, by means of
those databases, proprietary or customer-specific information. We
therefore contemplate that the regional

[[Page 38621]]

deployment of databases will permit individual carriers to own and
operate their own downstream databases. These carrier-specific
databases will allow individual carriers to provide number portability
in conjunction with other functions and services. To the extent that
individual carriers wish to mix information, proprietary or otherwise,
necessary to provide other services or functions with the number
portability data, they are free to do so at their downstream databases.
We reiterate, however, that a carrier may not withhold any information
necessary to provide number portability on the grounds that such data
are combined with other information in its downstream database; it must
furnish all information necessary to provide number portability to the
regional databases as well as to its own downstream database.
101. Carriers that choose not to access directly the regional
databases or deploy their own downstream databases can seek access to
the carrier-specific databases deployed by other carriers. The
provision of access to network elements and facilities of incumbent
LECs is addressed in our proceeding implementing section 251 of the
Communications Act. We believe the issue of access to incumbent LECs'
carrier-specific databases by other carriers for purposes of number
portability is best addressed in that proceeding. Parties may negotiate
third-party access to non-incumbent LECs' carrier-specific databases on
an individual basis.
102. In the Numbering Plan Order, we concluded that the Commission
should invoke its statutory authority to recover its costs for
regulating numbering activities, including costs incurred from the
establishment, oversight of, and participation in the NANC. The
Commission is required to institute a rulemaking proceeding annually to
adjust the schedule of regulatory fees to reflect its performance of
activities relating to enforcement, policy and rulemaking, user
information services, and international activities, pursuant to the
relevant appropriations legislation. Therefore, we intend to include
the additional costs incurred by the Commission related to NANC and
regulating number portability in the fiscal 1997 adjustment of the
schedule of regulatory fees. In that proceeding, we will assess the
nature and amount of the additional burdens imposed by the activities
authorized here, and all interested parties will be afforded an
opportunity to comment.

F. Currently Available Number Portability Measures

1. Background
103. In the NPRM, we discussed certain currently available number
portability measures that LECs can use to provide service provider
number portability. We focused on RCF and DID and acknowledged that the
use of either method for number portability has significant
limitations. We sought comment on the costs of implementing these
measures, and on their limitations and disadvantages. We also requested
that parties discuss whether these currently available measures can be
improved so that they are workable, long-term solutions, and if so, at
what cost. Finally, we sought comment on how the costs of providing
service provider portability using RCF and DID should be recovered.
2. Implementation of Currently Available Number Portability Measures
a. Positions of the Parties
104. Commenting parties, with the exception of several of the
incumbent LECs, generally agree that the technical limitations
described in the NPRM render the interim measures unacceptable in the
long term. Indeed, many parties point out additional disadvantages of
RCF and DID, such as: Longer call set-up times, incumbent access to
competitors' proprietary information, complicated resolution of
customer complaints, increased potential for call blocking, and
substantial costs to new entrants. Bell Atlantic counters that calls
forwarded by RCF in its network can support CLASS features if the co-
carrier has modern digital switching equipment and common channel
signalling, and it adds that there is no limit on the number of calls
RCF can handle simultaneously.
105. Many of the new entrants, nevertheless, urge the Commission to
require incumbent LECs to provide interim measures until a long-term
solution is implemented. These carriers generally caution that use of
interim solutions should not delay implementation of a permanent
solution. While acknowledging that RCF and DID are already technically
feasible and generally available, several LECs argue that the
Commission need not take action on interim measures. They generally
focus, instead, on phasing in a long-term solution.
106. AT&T and MCI initially argued for using a medium-term database
solution, namely, the Carrier Portability Code (CPC) method, because of
its advantages over RCF or DID, but subsequently favored implementing
LRN as soon as possible. NYNEX and SBC Communications claim that
adopting CPC as an interim solution would result in wasted and
duplicative efforts. They note that CPC fails to support certain
services, such as ISDN calls, pay phone calls, and CLASS features when
customers place a call into an NXX from which a number has been
transferred to a different service provider, and that CPC may prevent
an operator from identifying the switch serving a ``ported'' number,
thereby interfering with busy line verification of that line.
107. Potential new entrants into the local exchange market
generally contend that requiring interim number portability is
consistent with the 1996 Act. Indeed, MFS maintains that the 1996 Act
requires immediate implementation of interim measures until long-term
portability is implemented. Teleport notes that the Bell Operating
Companies, at least, are required to provide interim number portability
as a condition of entry into the interLATA market. MCI agrees that
interim measures should be made available until long-term portability
is implemented, and argues that section 4(i) of the Communications Act
authorizes the Commission to perform any acts ``necessary and proper''
to execute section 251(b)(2), and that such authority is pre-existing
and remains in effect. ALTS contends that Congress clearly contemplated
that the Commission should require interim measures until long-term
portability is available because otherwise BOCs could satisfy the
competitive checklist of section 271(c)(2)(B)(xi) for entry in
interLATA services without providing any form of number portability.
AT&T argues that interim arrangements are incapable of preserving the
functionality for long-term number portability required by the 1996
Act, but should be provided until long-term number portability can be
deployed.
108. US West, in contrast, asserts that the Commission's
jurisdiction over interim measures is unclear because sections 153(30)
and 251(b)(2), giving the Commission jurisdiction over number
portability, appear to include only permanent portability. Cox and NCTA
claim that the interim measures do not satisfy the ``without impairment
of quality, reliability, or convenience'' stand

[Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.]

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A96-18477. Public record. Not legal advice.