FCC RULES ON WIRELESS-TO-WIRELESS LNP, URGING PORTS WITHIN HOURS

The Commission said it would address issues related to wireline-to-wireless porting “at a later date.” It also stressed that in the absence of agreements between wireless carriers, they must port a number “upon request” without conditions. Wireless carriers had sought guidance on implementation issues by Labor Day and expressed disappointment Tues. that the FCC had left wireless-to- wireline LNP questions to a future date. Carriers face a Nov. 24 deadline for wireless LNP in the top 100 markets. NARUC lauded the order, with Mich. PSC Comr. Robert Nelson, chmn. of NARUC’s communications committee, saying it “eliminates the foundation for further court stay requests.”

The FCC also held that wireless-to-wireless porting didn’t require a carrier receiving the number to be directly interconnected with the wireless carrier that gave up the number or to have numbering resources in the rate center associated with the ported number. Some rural carriers argued at the FCC that for one wireless carrier to request LNP from another, the requestor needs a local point of presence, local numbering resources and local interconnection with the original carrier. Without that protection, rural carriers argued, they would be discriminated against, and made a case for requiring interconnection agreements. CTIA had opposed interconnection agreements as a condition to porting.

The FCC ruled it wouldn’t require interconnection agreements, saying nothing would prevent carriers from signing them voluntarily: “No carrier may unilaterally refuse to port with another carrier because that carrier will not enter into an interconnection agreement.” The agency said limiting wireless-to-wireless porting based on wireline centers, as sought by rural carriers, would undercut LNP’s competitive benefits. It acknowledged the Rural Telecom Group (RTG) had expressed concern about possible rating problems that might be connected with transporting calls to ported numbers. It said a potential problem was that in porting numbers to wireless carriers without a point of presence in the local area, a rural wireless carrier delivering a call to a ported number would be forced to transport it beyond its local service area and impose charges not built into its rate design. The FCC noted those concerns but said they were beyond the scope of this LNP order. Such rating and routing issues have arisen in the context of larger proceedings pending before the FCC, including intercarrier compensation, the Commission said.

The FCC said its rules let carriers determine on their own what type of agreement to use to facilitate porting. But it said: “We are concerned about delays in implementation that could result from uncertainty regarding baseline requirements for porting or from carriers’ inability to reach agreements.” Because LNP rules require a carrier to port numbers upon the request of another carrier, the agency said that in cases where operators couldn’t reach an understanding, they must port numbers upon request, “with no conditions… Absent an agreement setting additional terms, carriers need only share basic contact and technical information sufficient to perform the port. We trust that by clarifying this default requirement, we will eliminate uncertainty and provide an incentive for carriers to reach agreement quickly.” This also helps to ensure that carrier negotiations don’t delay LNP availability, it said.

The full FCC answered questions in a CTIA petition for declaratory ruling filed in May on LNP implementation and a petition seeking review of a July 3 letter from the Wireless Bureau on certain LNP business rules clarified by Chief John Muleta. On the business rules, which have to do with whether a carrier can hold up a port to collect a termination fee or unpaid balance, the full Commission sided with both Muleta and Verizon Wireless. Verizon argued that the only restrictions on the porting of a number between carriers should be customer validation requirements, not outstanding bill balances. Muleta said in July that FCC rules required carriers to port a number when they received a valid request and they couldn’t refuse to port while trying to collect fees or settle an account. Alltel, AT&T Wireless, Cingular Wireless, Nextel and Sprint sought clarification or invalidation of that part of the Bureau’s letter. They said that if upheld, the letter would abrogate carriers’ contractual rights.

“Although we prevent carriers from imposing restrictions on porting beyond necessary customer validation procedures, this does not in any way invalidate provisions in carrier contracts pertaining to minimum contract terms, early termination fees, credit requirements or other similar provisions,” the Commission said. “We clarify only that carriers may not hold a customer’s number while attempting to settle the customer’s account.” But the FCC also said it would keep tabs on the effects of that directive. It said that if it found any indication of “widespread abuse” of the porting process, it would take another look at the issue.

On the porting interval -- the time it takes 2 carriers to complete the process of porting a number -- the FCC said it wasn’t proposing to adopt the industry standard of 2-1/2 hours as a mandatory rule. “It found no evidence that the standard was technically infeasible and stated that it would reexamine the issue if it received numerous customer complaints about the length of the wireless porting process,” the FCC said. CTIA had urged the Commission to make a porting interval part of its rule to provide uniformity in the industry.

FCC Comr. Abernathy warned that “despite the best efforts” of the Commission and the industry to ensure full implementation, “there is a potential for operational problems to arise, as can happen with the rollout of any new technology.” She said a recent study estimated up to 6 million customers would try to port numbers the first week that the rules took effect, with volume dropping after that. “As the porting framework is tested, it is possible that some customers may experience delays in the porting between carriers and other potential problems may arise.” Abernathy stressed the importance of customer education and subscribers’ understanding their rights.

CTIA Pres. Tom Wheeler said the wireless industry was working on the “daunting upgrades… But with the deadline only 49 days away, the Commission still has not answered some basic implementation questions. The FCC has simultaneously managed to tie the industry’s hands and hold our feet to the fire.”

While the order provides clarity, AT&T Wireless Vp- Federal Affairs Douglas Brandon said the most significant unresolved LNP issue -- wireless-to-wireline portability -- remained unanswered: “The FCC therefore needs to make clear that landline carriers are required to port numbers to wireless carriers in all cases, and in the same time frame wireless-to-wireless portability is to occur.” He said if LNP were needed to bolster competition anywhere, “it is in the monopoly residential landline market.”