Cal. PUC objected to CTIA’s characterization of its position on w...

number pooling and local number portability (LNP) on same day wasn’t “a bridge too far” (CD Feb 1 p5). Large wireless carriers have asked Commission to forbear on wireless LNP deadline of Nov. 24, saying Telecom Act doesn’t require mobile carriers to implement portability capabilities and resources associated with requirement could be spent elsewhere. Wheeler cited Cal. PUC filing at FCC in Nov. warning aggressive schedule for wireless number pooling could create problems with service quality or call completion. He said both CTIA and NARUC shared concerns about number pooling going smoothly. But Cal. PUC Deputy Gen. Counsel Helen Mickiewicz told Wheeler in Feb. 5 letter that he unfairly had connected concerns she raised about pooling schedule to wireless LNP. She said CTIA letter contended PUC had warned that aggressive schedule for wireless number pooling could affect service quality or call completion. “I can only conclude from your misuse of the quote that you have not read the pleading,” Mickiewicz wrote. “The alternative is that you have intentionally misrepresented the CPUC’s statements to infer erroneously that California supports FCC forbearance from the mandate that the wireless industry deploy local number portability technology by Nov. 24, 2002.” She said CPUC filing referred only to number of area codes that FCC Common Carrier Bureau included in first quarter proposed schedule for rollout of national number pooling. PUC said need to place more than one area code per month into pooling could pose burden for carriers. As result, CPUC said it wasn’t opposed to revising first quarter schedule to reduce to 3 the number of area codes that would be included. By time of wireless LNP’s scheduled Nov. start, national pooling deployment will be in its 3rd quarter, she told Wheeler. “Even if our comments are construed to address the pooling rollout beyond the first quarter, we can identify no connection between the number of area codes pooled per quarter and the beginning of wireless pooling.” NARUC’s Nugent also responded to CTIA letter Jan. 31. “Once consumers pay for the network infrastructure for pooling, NARUC believes the incremental cost of the additional back office systems needed to offer portability to subscribers is more than offset by the competitive benefits,” he said. In latest back-and-forth between state PUCs and wireless industry, Wheeler sent NARUC’s Nugent follow-up letter Feb. 7 saying recent exchange of letters pointed to “strong agreement” between CTIA and NARUC on importance of implementing number pooling. “Unfortunately, your letter also confirms our divergent views on the appropriateness of number porting in the competitive wireless market,” Wheeler said. He said wireless LNP offered “terrible trio” of consumer options, including higher phone bills, less investment in continued network improvements or both of those factors. Impact of extending LNP to wireless carriers could open industry and regulators to “backlash” from consumers, media and govt., Wheeler said.