CTIA WANTS ALL FLAVORS OF WIRELESS LNP TO MOVE FORWARD ON TIME
CTIA Pres. Steve Largent said Wed. that wireless-to- wireless porting had to go forward at the same time as wireline-to-wireless local number portability (LNP), expressing concern about possible Bell company forays on Capitol Hill. Largent said his group wasn’t planning to battle LNP on the Hill but expressed concern the Bells might try to delay the wireline-to-wireless piece through court or Hill action. “I have witnessed first hand the incredible muscle they have to push regulators and legislators around,” he said of LEC lobbying efforts. “We want to see simultaneous implementation,” Largent told a media breakfast.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
The FCC issued a wireline-to-wireless LNP order Mon. that confirmed wireline carriers had to port numbers to wireless carriers whose coverage area overlapped the rate center in which the wireline number was assigned as long as the mobile operator kept the original rate center designation (CD Nov 12 p1). The FCC said wireless carriers didn’t have to negotiate interconnection agreements with LECs, but said carriers must port numbers on “request” and with “no conditions.”
The Commission said wireline carriers in the top 100 markets had to support wireline-to-wireless porting by Nov. 24, the same as wireless-to-wireless LNP. The agency left some questions to a further notice, including whether it should reduce the 4-day porting interval that wireline carriers must meet for LNP to a shorter period for wireline- to-wireless porting. It asked how to ease wireless-to- wireline porting in situations where the rate center associated with the wireless number was different from the rate center in which a LEC wanted to serve a customer. BellSouth immediately raised concerns that the FCC had unveiled the new rules without opening a proceeding, as required by the Administrative Procedure Act.
Largent said his concern, from his perspective as a former House member (R-Okla.), was that if wireless-to- wireless LNP occurred before wireline-to-wireless porting took effect, wireline companies could use any initial problems with the process as leverage to seek legislative changes in their requirements. Under that scenario, he said, “the wireline companies will use that as an excuse and say this is why you shouldn’t port wireline to wireless ever.” Asked whether CTIA would oppose language added to an omnibus budget bill that would delay the LNP deadline, Largent said it wouldn’t. “We are definitely at least elevating the visibility of the potential likelihood that the LECs could try to move something like that.”
CTIA Senior Vp-Gen. Counsel Michael Altschul said the group would oppose any court stay request that might be pursued by the Bell companies. Some Bell companies have argued that the FCC didn’t follow the strictures of the Administrative Procedure Act in setting rules for wireline- to-wireless LNP without providing advance notice of a separate rulemaking. “There are forests that have been destroyed and turned into paper to deal with this issue,” he said: “This disproves any argument that the LECs didn’t have any notice or were surprised.” Altschul also said the 1996 Telecom Act imposed a porting obligation on LECs independent of any FCC rules.
As for a writ of mandamus petition that CTIA has pending in the U.S. Appeals Court, D.C., on wireless LNP, Altschul said the group was likely to withdraw that in a filing it would make shortly, although he said the filings that would put that into effect hadn’t yet been signed. The CTIA petition had asked the court to compel the FCC to answer remaining questions on implementing LNP. That largely has been done in the wireline-to-wireless LNP order released Mon. and an earlier order on wireless-to-wireless LNP implementation.
“I used to be known for impeccable timing and I'm beginning to question that here,” said Largent, a pro football Hall of Famer, noting that he joined CTIA Nov. 1, not long before the Nov. 24 LNP deadline takes effect.
To underscore the complexity of the porting process, CTIA distributed a flow chart with 20 steps and numerous substeps that occur when a number is switched with a customer to a new service provider. Largent said customers shouldn’t see most of the behind-the-scene activities that make LNP happen. but he and other CTIA officials said the wireless industry had aimed to automated its porting process as much as possible, compared with the wireline industry, in which port requests still are handled largely via low-tech systems such as faxes. “It’s an all-hands-on-deck type of approach to make this experience of porting numbers as painless and as positive as it possibly can be,” he said. CTIA has created a Web site -- www.easyporting.com -- to give consumers tips for keeping their numbers when switching to a new carrier.
A BellSouth spokesman said the company was “looking at” the possibility of filing a court challenge to the wireline- to-wireless LNP order, but hadn’t made any decision yet. The BellSouth spokesman said the company wasn’t involved or aware of any industry lobbying effort to push for a delay in the Nov. 24 deadline for LNP. A Qwest spokesman said the company still was considering “a number of options.” A challenge to the order wouldn’t be ripe for court review until the order was published in the Federal Register, which hasn’t happened, a source said.
Legg Mason said in a research note Tues. that the near- term impact of the FCC order on wireline-to-wireless LNP could be incremental line losses at large ILECs. But it said the natural market for wireline-wireless number portability was “hard to put a finger on. Longer term, wireline providers will likely see more direct competition from the 6 nationwide wireless carriers that could accelerate pricing pressure.” While the wireline-to-wireless LNP order is a positive for mobile operators and a corresponding negative for their wireline counterparts, Legg Mason said the incremental line loss “will not cause a significant change in the rate of decline as long as the price of each service remains relatively comparable.”
NTCA CEO Michael Brunner raised concerns Wed. about what he called the FCC’s “insensitivity” to rural concerns over wireline-to-wireless LNP implementation. “Unfortunately, in the case of many rural ILECs, porting from wireless to wireline is not always feasible,” he said. “But the FCC seems to have no concern about that. It is clear that the FCC is insensitive to the unique circumstances surrounding intramodal porting in rural areas.” Brunner said that while the group was “disappointed” with the order’s outcome, it was relieved that it gave rural carriers some additional time to comply beyond the Nov. 24 date for the top 100 markets.
“We give the FCC high marks for basically sticking to its guns on the deadline and for moving in record time to respond to the industries’ requests for clarification,” said Mich. PSC Comr. Bob Nelson, chmn. of NARUC’s telecom committee.