FCC STAFF SEES SMOOTHER MAY ROLLOUT FOR WIRELESS LNP ACROSS U.S.
FCC officials said Wed. they expected the rollout of wireless local number portability (LNP) to the rest of the country May 24 to be smoother than it was in the top 100 markets 6 months earlier. Wireless Bureau Assistant Chief David Furth, at a CTIA forum on LNP, cited more-extensive testing for the approaching deadline and resolution of technical glitches since Nov.
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.
“There is less of a lack of preparation than some carriers might have had in November,” Furth said: “A lot of the technical problems that caused widespread porting delays immediately after November have been resolved. While process issues have been worked out between carriers in some cases, in other areas there are not the legal issues pending before the FCC now that there were last fall.” Furth noted that last fall, the Commission issued separate orders addressing wireless-to-wireless and intramodal porting issues.
Among lessons learned from porting in the top 100 markets is the importance of thorough testing, particularly early in the process, Furth said: “That was an issue that I think hampered the rollout in November.” Another reason for delays after the launch of wireless LNP in the top 100 markets in Nov. was carriers’ not communicating or not understanding each other’s processes adequately, he said. Furth noted that another factor in customer complaints on LNP involved the customer validation process sometimes being too complex.
Regarding issues that have persisted beyond the Nov. 24 launch of wireless LNP in the top 100 markets, Furth cited questions that some wireless and wireline carriers have continued to raise about porting numbers outside a rate center. In an intermodal porting order adopted in Nov., the FCC said wireline carriers must 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). Furth said the FCC’s order spoke clearly to this issue. Similarly, the FCC has also been clear on how bona fide requests (BFR) for porting are to be treated. Furth said there are reports of some carriers that receive a BFR for porting turning down that request when there’s no interconnection agreement with the requesting carrier. He said the FCC has been clear that porting is required when a BFR is made, regardless whether there’s an interconnection pact.
Separately, First Cellular Southern Ill. CEO Terry Addington stressed to the all-day forum the importance of testing early and training staff for the rollout of LNP in smaller markets. Asked about petitions that some small LECS have made to the FCC concerning aspects of the LNP rules, in some cases citing concerns over technical feasibility or cost, Addington said: “They're in denial. I'll be upfront - - I want their customers.” While the costs of making LNP work may be a valid concern, Addington said one thing that appears to have fueled many of these requests for relief is “fear.”
Leon Jackler, an attorney in the FCC’s Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau, said the slowing of complaints to the agency since Nov. probably signals a smoother rollout for the advent of LNP in all markets. Jackler said he expected “far fewer problems on May 25 than we were seeing on Nov. 25,” referring to the days after the deadlines. The FCC said last month it had received 5,852 informal complaints about wireless LNP as of Feb. 17. The first 30-day period, the agency received 2,400 informal complaints linked to wireless LNP. In the latest period, the FCC said it had received 1,118 complaints.
There are very few, “in any,” wireless carrier petitions before the FCC that involve requests for relief on the May 24 deadline for wireless LNP beyond the top markets, Furth said. Several participants said they were paying attention to requests for waivers carriers have submitted to state PUCs. Some of those state requests involve carriers that qualify as so-called 2% carriers under Sec. 251(f) of the Communications Act. These carriers, which have fewer than 2% of the nation’s subscriber lines, were given until May 24 by the FCC earlier this year to comply with LNP in the top 100 markets. NARUC has argued any claims for an outright exemption on LNP requirements for these 2% carriers are better directed to state PUCs. Furth said the FCC hadn’t been presented any issues on the scope of state authority to provide LNP exemptions to this group of carriers. He said the Commission expected states to act with consumer benefits in mind when weighing possible effects of granting such requests.