LECs BALK AT CTIA PETITION AT FCC ON NUMBER PORTABILITY

CTIA earlier this year asked FCC for declaratory ruling that wireline carriers must let customers keep their numbers when switching to wireless carrier. Wireless carriers face Nov. 24 deadline for implementing wireless LNP in top 100 Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs). But CTIA has argued that FCC first must correct disparity between how LNP rules apply to wireline and wireless sectors (CD Jan 9 p1). Wireless industry argument is that in wireline arena, calling areas are divided every few miles into rate centers, each of which has switch. FCC rules require wireline carrier to provide number portability only within that rate center. But wireless networks usually have one switch that spans area that would be served by multiple switches on wireline side. CTIA said that meant only time LECs had to port number for wireless subscriber was when wireless switch was colocated in rate center. Group said only one of 8 wireline rate centers had colocated wireless switch. CTIA wants ruling that: (1) Wireline carriers had obligation to port customers’ numbers to wireless carrier whose service area overlapped LEC rate center. (2) Only standard service-level agreement was needed between 2 carriers.

USTA said there was no sign of customer demand for LNP expansion sought by CTIA. It told Commission that CTIA had “long taken the position” that LNP obligations shouldn’t be imposed on wireless providers in first place and was making that argument before U.S. Appeals Court, D.C., April 15. “At the same time, it presses the FCC to expand ILEC LNP obligations for the benefit of CMRS providers,” USTA said, noting that it had opposed wireless LNP requirements in past: “As CTIA appropriately beats the drum of CMRS deregulation in response to the existence of robust competition among CRMS providers, it hypocritically petitions the FCC to increase regulatory burdens for wireline incumbents.” Group warned it would be premature to rule on CTIA petition until D.C. Circuit decided wireless LNP appeal. CTIA and Verizon Wireless have asked court to examine how FCC applied forbearance standard when granting latest one-year extension of wireless LNP deadline until Nov. 24. “It would be unjust for the FCC to impose increased LNP obligations on ILECs to facilitate intermodal competition with CMRS providers at the same time the D.C. Court of Appeals strikes down the LNP requirements for CMRS providers,” USTA said.

BellSouth disagreed with CTIA suggestion that wireline carriers were “planning to thwart the efforts of customers seeking to port their numbers to wireless carriers.” BS said despite “rate center disparity” issue that CTIA raised, number portability from wireline carriers to wireless carriers still could occur. “BellSouth has no intentions of preventing a customer from porting his/her telephone number to a wireless carrier upon that customer’s request -- regardless of whether the carriers’ service areas overlap,” it said. Carrier urged FCC to address disparity issue involving rate centers “immediately” so wireless and wireline carriers weren’t put at disadvantage. “In the absence of clear guidance from the Commission significantly prior to this date, wireless LNP will not be implemented in a competitively neutral manner,” it said.

FCC shouldn’t “rush to judgment” in resolving technical and policy issues on wireline to wireless LNP, AT&T said. “These issues are no less important than the wireless industry’s LNP rules, and must not be given short shrift,” it said. If Commission addresses questions raised by CTIA in petition, it should do so in separate proceeding on intermodal LNP issues “while permitting its wireless-wireless portability requirements to go into effect as scheduled,” it said.

Several groups stressed burden rural carriers would face if FCC granted CTIA request and OPASTCO cited “significant” administrative costs associated with it. It told Commission that if number assigned to particular rate center were ported to carrier’s facilities outside of that rate center, “any calls initiated by that number may become toll calls, even if they were previously local.” OPASTCO said customers calling that ported number “may find that the call is suddenly subject to toll charges, which were not imposed prior to porting. Customers would be subject to undue confusion and frustration by these unexplained alterations.” OPASTCO said petition would create risk that rate center databases would be “contaminated” because numbers originally assigned to particular center where wireless carrier doesn’t have resources would be handled by equipment at another center where mobile carrier has equipment. That new rate center could be in different LATA or state boundaries, “adding to the confusion and obscuring intercarrier compensation regime and jurisdictional rules should apply,” OPASTCO said. Mich. Exchange Carriers Assn. also called CTIA petition premature until wireless LNP was fully in place. Proposal appeared to apply to even small rural ILEC with handful of exchanges, “which would be responsible for porting numbers potentially throughout huge geographic areas well outside its serving area,” group said.

Several carriers noted “rate center disparity” issue had been pending at FCC for some time. National Exchange Carrier Assn. (NECA) and NTCA reminded Commission that it had sought comment on issue in 1998 after N. American Numbering Council (NANC) working group failed to reach consensus on solution. If FCC granted CTIA petition, it would “unjustifiably” expand obligation of rural carriers to implement LNP. FCC rules now limit that requirement to switches in top 100 MSAs for which carriers had made specific request that another carrier provide LNP. This so-called bona fide request requirement was designed to assure small and rural LECs with end offices in top 100 MSAs that they wouldn’t have to complete costly network upgrades unless competitors desired portability, filing said. CTIA petition, which apparently seeks mandatory LNP implementation, “would do away with this limitation by eliminating the bona fide request trigger,” NECA and NTCA said. They said bona fide request rule should be considered separately.

If FCC doesn’t grant CTIA’s petition, it should provide another extension of upcoming wireless LNP deadline, AT&T Wireless told FCC in comments. Carrier said industry was taking Commission to court over its imposition of LNP requirements on wireless carriers, even though Telecom Act stipulated that requirement applies to LECs. If court doesn’t overturn FCC’s wireless LNP decision, agency still must resolve several “outstanding and difficult” issues before LNP can go forward, including alleged rate center disparity, AT&T Wireless said. “If wireless carriers are required to implement LNP, wireline carriers must be required to port numbers to wireless carriers anywhere within the wireless carriers’ service area,” it said. “If the Commission is unable to grant the requested declaratory ruling prior to the wireless LNP implementation date, it should not continue to mandate wireless LNP by November 24, 2003.”

SBC said CTIA asked FCC “to bless a plan that would give wireless carriers a decidedly unfair competitive advantage in the marketplace.” SBC agreed FCC should assist NANC Wireless-Wireline Integration Task Force in addressing “competitive disparity” involved with wireline-to-wireless number porting. “The answer to this problem is not to give one side a competitive advantage over the other,” SBC said. Carrier took issue with CTIA request that FCC rule that interconnection agreements should be replaced with standard service-level agreements in that area. It argued that inherent differences in scope of porting capabilities between wireless and wireline service providers created competitive disadvantage for wireline carriers that weren’t in line with FCC’s numbering goals. SBC cautioned that any solution shouldn’t “include running roughshod over the rate center model for rating and routing. For its part, CTIA would have the Commission ignore the regulatory reality of rate centers and formalize the competitive advantage the wireless carriers presently enjoy with respect to number porting.”