BELLS, CMRS PROVIDERS DISAGREE ON INTERMODAL PORTING ISSUES

The Commission issued a wireline-to-wireless LNP order last fall that directed wireline carriers to port numbers to wireless operators whose coverage area overlapped the rate center in which the wireline number was assigned as long as the wireless carrier kept the original rate center designation. The order mandated wireline-to-wireless porting in most cases but limited porting in the rarer direction of wireless to wireline to within a rate center until certain questions were answered. The notice asked: (1) How to ease wireless-to-wireline porting in cases when there was a rate center mismatch. (2) How long it would take to port a number from a wireline to a wireless phone. In a wireless-to- wireless LNP order, the FCC encouraged mobile operators to complete ports within 2-1/2 hours of a request, in line with an industry standard. But wireline carriers have argued they have different systems and under existing LNP rules they need 4 business days to port a number. Wireless LNP took effect in the top 100 markets Nov. 24.

Sprint told the FCC that wireless LNP, including LEC-to- wireless porting, was feasible technically. “Wireless customers have successfully ported their numbers to another wireless carrier, and LEC customers have also successfully ported their numbers to a wireless carrier (albeit in much fewer numbers),” Sprint said. It said the process of completing port requests had been more challenging than expected and all parts of the industry were having problems meeting the porting interval goals they had set. The N. American Numbering Council (NANC) is examining the issue of the appropriate interval for intermodal porting and a new issue management group (IMG) has set a March target for completing its work, Sprint said. “It is important for the Commission to understand that industry will need time (e.g., 24 months) to implement any changes in the process that the Commission may adopt as a result of the IMG’s recommendations,” it said.

Sprint asked the FCC to take immediate steps to help industry with LNP, including: (1) Addressing legal challenges to wireless LNP promptly. (2) Reaffirming that customers deserved a porting interval as rapidly as was “practical:” “Current processes will never be improved if some industry members take the position in the industry consensus process that the portability interfaces established circa 1997-1998 at the inception of local competition need not be changed under any circumstance.” (3) Assuring all carriers, particularly ILECs, that they would be able to recover the costs of modernizing porting systems. “Carriers understandably will be reluctant to discuss major changes to current processes if there is no confidence they can recover their modification costs.”

NTCA criticized the notice as “procedurally flawed,” saying the questions raised should have been covered by a notice of inquiry. “The Commission offers no concrete proposals on how to make wireless-to-wireline portability a reality,” NTCA said. It said the agency offered options but didn’t explain how they could work: “Also lacking is a discussion of the enormity of the proposals. The ‘options’ could involve changing the entire regulatory regime and intercarrier compensation scheme under which the rural wireline carriers operate.” NTCA asked the FCC to extend its most recent waiver for small carriers in the top 100 markets and to stay the May 24, 2004, deadline for carriers elsewhere until outstanding implementation issues were resolved.

SBC cited “serious concerns” about requirements for intermodal porting due to the rate center disparity issue, which involves differences in how LECs and wireless providers view the geographic area in which porting can be offered. “The Commission’s proposals to facilitate wireless-to- wireline porting are technical, re-regulatory ‘fixes’ whose costs far outweigh any benefits to the public,” SBC said. “The path forward to toe-to-toe intermodal competition is deregulation.” Rather than requiring costly changes in the wireline network, SBC urged the FCC to address the root causes of “competitive disparity” by completing wholesale reform of the current system of subsidies, universal service and retail rates. As for possible reductions in the length of the intermodal porting interval, SBC opposed any FCC action outside of industry forums. “SBC is convinced that industry consensus can be reached on this issue,” it said.

“In each case, the Commission should change nothing,” Verizon said. Potential changes in the notice “are either infeasible or would be very expensive to implement, and in light of the success of number portability generally, cannot possibly provide benefits anywhere approaching these costs,” Verizon said. Citing scant demand for wireless-to-wireline porting, it estimated only 1% of its intermodal ports had been in that direction. “There is no reason to believe that this percentage would increase significantly if the Commission required porting where the CMRS telephone number is associated with a rate center that is different from where the customer wants service,” Verizon said. It argued against changes in the minimum time within which a LEC must put in place a customer port, which is 3 days after the return of a “firm” order confirmation. NANC previously concluded it wasn’t feasible to shorten the existing intervals, Verizon said.

BellSouth told the FCC it shouldn’t require a wireline carrier to port in a number from a wireless carrier if that number wasn’t associated with the rate center in which the wireline carrier planned to offer service. It also urged the FCC not reduce the porting interval for intermodal porting. “Clearly the issues before the Commission are not new,” BellSouth said: “Accordingly, BellSouth urges the Commission not to rush to judgment in rendering a decision.” Porting from a wireless to wireline carrier when the rate centers don’t match isn’t technically feasible at this time, BellSouth said, and consumer demand for intermodal porting isn’t high enough to justify the costs associated with a complete overhaul of the “wireline rate center paradigm.”

AT&T said wireless-to-wireline porting could occur if the recipient wireline carrier had a point of interface within the LATA in which the number was located. It told the FCC the existing 4-day wireline-to-wireless porting interval should be kept for now. “The rate center issue identified by the incumbent LECs is not a technical impediment to the provision of wireless-to-wireline porting: It is an issue of rating and routing that applies to local services in general,” AT&T said. “If the customer’s physical location is outside the rate center associated with the number, porting the number to a wireline telephone at the customer’s location could result in calls to that number being rated as toll calls.” It said there was no network impediment to wireless- to-wireline porting as long as the recipient wireline carrier had a point of interface in the LATA connected with that number.

On the porting interval issue, AT&T said that since the wireless-to-wireless LNP rules took effect, wireless carriers had “struggled” to meet the industry standard of a 2-1/2 hour interval. “In practice, simple wireless-to-wireless ports have taken two and one half days or more to complete,” it said.

Nextel acknowledged technical or operational changes in ILEC networks were needed for full intermodal porting to occur. But it said: “The challenge to make it work is certainly no greater than the challenges associated with ILECs’ implementing other market-opening provisions of the Telecommunications Act.” The carrier said the FCC’s intermodal porting order set the right tone -- that industry groups and ILECs must work on a solution to the rate center disparity problem so intermodal portability could occur.

Echoing concerns raised by other Bell companies, Qwest also urged the FCC not to intervene in rate center matters. If the agency decides to take a more active role, it “should be prepared to assume federal responsibility for fashioning an appropriate cost-recovery mechanism for affected wireline carriers that includes full offset for any resulting loss of toll revenues,” it said. Qwest recommended the FCC allow wireline carriers to seek rate design and rate center changes -- including any related expansion of local calling areas -- from state regulators. “The Commission should wait in the wings, acting only in those cases where it has received a particular request to become involved in a particular context,” Qwest said.