Sprint told the FCC it backed a petition by BellSouth that asked ...

In a filing, Sprint urged the agency to find “that all ILECs are entitled to a reasonable opportunity to recover the costs of implementing WLNP through charges imposed on end-users, except for Lifeline customers, and should waive, for all ILECs, the maximum 5-year-period” to recover such costs. BellSouth asked for a waiver of the recovery limits for end- user LNP charges, in effect for wireline LNP since 1999. It sought to modify its end-user LNP charge by extending the recovery period beyond the 5-year cap or modifying its current rate. In Feb. 1999, the Commission allowed ILECs to recover the costs of providing number portability through a federally tariffed charge on end users, which had a maximum period of 5 years. BellSouth pointed out that while cost recovery for ILECs was FCC-regulated, other telecom carriers could recover long-term LNP costs in any “lawful” manner. BellSouth estimated spending $38 million to enable wireless porting. Sprint told the FCC BellSouth had shown ILECs were incurring costs related to WLNP that met the FCC’s LNP rules and weren’t being recovered in current LNP recovery charges by LECs. Sprint said its ILECs’ initial LNP recovery filing covered the part of wireless LNP costs that were known at that time. However, it said it had been advised by FCC staff to remove $10.23 million of WLNP operational support system costs from its filing, “deeming WLNP costs as speculative.” Sprint said it complied and removed the WLNP costs, even though it and the FCC knew that when wireless LNP was deployed, there would be additional costs to recover. Wireless LNP took effect for the top 100 markets on Nov. 24. Sprint said BellSouth also demonstrated that in light of the delays involved in WLNP implementation, wireless LNP coincided with the period in which the 5-year cap was about to expire. “Multiple extensions of the commencement date for WLNP delayed both the ability of carriers to identify WLNP costs and deferred the actual expenditure of such costs,” Sprint said. It said there also were questions remaining on intermodal porting from outside a rate center and the appropriate provisioning interval for intermodal ports. “The resolution of these issues could impose further costs on the ILEC industry that cannot be ascertained today,” it said. Sprint said ILECs should be able to propose, through tariff filings, the recovery period they believed most appropriate for WLNP costs.