FCC ORDERS WIRELINE-TO-WIRELESS LNP TO GO FORWARD NOV. 24

The FCC said wireline carriers in the top 100 metropolitan areas must support wireline-to-wireless porting by Nov. 24, unless they could show that meeting that requirement would be “technically infeasible.” It said wireless carriers didn’t have to negotiate interconnection agreements with LECs. When carriers can’t reach agreement on porting terms, the FCC said carriers must port numbers “upon request” and with the receipt of appropriate technical information, “with no conditions.” Many wireless carriers had argued at the FCC in recent months that only service level agreements were needed to make those arrangements, while several LECs, including rural carriers, had urged the FCC to require interconnection agreements. In a nod to some of the implementation concerns raised by LECs, particularly small and rural carriers, the FCC allowed waiver requests in some cases.

Along with the order, the FCC adopted a further notice on several questions, including: (1) How long it would take to port a number from a wireline to a wireless phone. The agency held off on adopting a mandatory porting interval and sought comment. In an order on wireless-to-wireless LNP last month, the agency “encouraged” mobile operators to complete simple ports within 2-1/2 hours of a customer request, which was in line with a wireless industry-established interval (CD Oct 8 p1). Some wireline carriers have argued they have different systems and under existing wireline LNP rules they must port a number in 4 business days. The FCC asks if this should be reduced.

(2) How to ease wireless-to-wireline porting in cases where the rate center associated with the wireless number was different from the rate center in which the wireline carrier wanted to serve the customer. Last week, FCC Comr. Abernathy had acknowledged it would be difficult for a wireline carrier to port back a number that had been ported outside a rate center.

“After today it’s easier than ever to cut the cord,” FCC Chmn. Powell said, saying the agency had moved to eliminate barriers to competition between wireless and wireline services. He also acknowledged the concerns he heard “by some wireline providers that wireline network architectures and state-imposed rate centers complicate number portability… This proceeding has undoubtedly focused the Commission’s attention on these issues. State regulators have long been champions of local number portability and I appreciate their support.” Powell said he looked forward to working with state regulators “to remove additional barriers to intermodal local number portability such as the difficulty of some providers to consolidate rate centers to more accurately match wireless carrier service area.” Powell also said LNP would bring consumer benefits, but “no doubt there will be some bumps in the road to implementation.”

The FCC didn’t require wireline carriers operating outside the top 100 Metropolitan Statistical areas to comply with the order until at least May 24. In a blow to some Bell companies that had argued otherwise, the agency clarified that wireline-to-wireless porting was required when a mobile carrier’s coverage area overlapped the geographic area in which the wireline number was provided -- even when a wireless carrier didn’t have a point of presence in the rate center to which the number was assigned.

In a separate statement, Abernathy said “wireline network architecture and state rating requirements will prevent many (if not most) consumers from porting wireless numbers to wireline carriers. Although, in the short term, wireline carriers will have more limited opportunities to benefit from intermodal LNP than wireless carriers will, I was simply not willing to block consumers from taking advantage of the porting opportunities that are technologically feasible today.” Abernathy said she was hopeful that existing barriers to wireless-to-wireline porting would be addressed as soon as possible via technological upgrades and, where needed, state regulatory changes. In recent weeks, FCC officials have made a distinction between the extent to which wireline-to-wireless porting could be done, even if a wireless carrier didn’t have a point of interconnection or numbering resources in the rate center to which the number was assigned, vs. the more challenging scenario of a wireless customer’s trying to port a number to a wireline carrier in a different rate center. Wireless carriers typically have much larger service areas, covering an average of 8 wireline rate centers.

“The bulk of the problems accompanying the challenge of porting numbers are behind us now,” Comr. Copps said. “A very limited few remain and these are the subject of the further notice of proposed rulemaking also approved today.” He said he was “confident” the remaining issues could be handled quickly “if all interested parties work together.”

Comr. Martin said he was “disappointed” the FCC didn’t provide the wireline-to-wireless LNP guidance “until weeks before the LNP requirement is scheduled to take effect.” He said in a separate statement: “The Commission has an obligation to minimize the burdens our regulations place on carriers, and I wish we had provided the guidance in this order considerably sooner.” Citing the challenges that LNP posed for carriers, particularly small and rural operators, he said he supported the decision to waive full porting requirements until May 24 for wireline carriers operating outside the largest 100 markets. “I am also pleased that we emphasize that those wireline carriers may file waiver requests if they need additional time,” he said.

Comr. Adelstein said the order was in line with Communications Act requirements that require LECs to provide LNP to the “extent technically feasible… However, I do recognize that there may be certain limitations on the ability of the nation’s smallest LECs to technically provide local number portability.” As a result, Adelstein said he was pleased with the additional time for carriers to serve the markets outside of the top 100 metro areas to port numbers to wireless carriers that didn’t have a point of interconnection or numbering resource in the rate center where the LEC customer’s wireline number was provisioned. “I remain concerned, however, that today’s clarification of our LNP rules and obligations will exacerbate the so-called ‘rating and routing’ problem for wireless calls that are rated local, but are in fact carried outside of wireline rate centers,” Adelstein said. The FCC must “redouble” its efforts to resolve that “critical intercarrier compensation issue,” he said.

“The FCC has taken a bold step today, moving away from command and control regulation, and towards greater reliance on competition and market forces to improve American consumers’ telephone services,” CTIA Pres. Steve Largent said.

BellSouth disagreed: “There are technical as well as procedural problems here.” The FCC announced the new rules without opening a proceeding, which violates the Administrative Procedure Act and “with just 2 weeks to go,” BellSouth said. “These new rules say our wireless competitors can take our customers even though the technology does not allow us to offer the same benefit of number portability to the vast majority of their customers.” The company said although it supported number portability and “we agree that consumers can benefit from this arrangement, we must oppose the lack of appropriate comment opportunity and the lack of competitive neutrality.”

Said USTA Pres. Walter McCormick: “The Commission chose not to take the time to address many critical issues for porting. As a result, instead of ensuring the benefits of a vibrant voice market, the FCC severely limited consumer choice by sharply reducing the ability of wireline providers to actively compete for customers.”