FINAL AGREEMENT ON WIRELESS LNP DELAY STILL ELUSIVE AT FCC

“The linchpin in the decision at this point is Martin, given that Powell and Abernathy have made their perspective very clear and Copps has as well,” industry source said. Powell’s office has stressed importance of first getting thousand-block number pooling right and has said LNP implementation will happen for wireless, it’s just question of when (CD March 19 p7). Abernathy has been on record as backing substantial delay for carriers, with sources saying she has leaned toward 2-year delay, although she recently reached compromise with Powell on alternate number. Copps has stressed importance of LNP to consumers and deploying that capability in “reasonable” amount of time. While raising concerns about any postponement, he reportedly favors delay of closer to 3 months. Martin has talked publicly about importance of technical difficulties faced by carriers who must do pooling and porting at same time and concerns raised by PUCs and others about impact that delay would have on consumers. Several sources said Martin in last few months had leaned toward 6 month delay.

Nov. 24 deadline looms for wireless carriers on both LNP obligations and thousands-block number pooling. Those 2 capabilities are linked because both involve substantially similar modifications, Verizon has said, although carrier is seeking relief only on LNP deadline. Verizon and other large carriers have cited technical challenges of beginning pooling on same day as porting and have raised concerns about impact of dual deadlines on network reliability. Large carriers, led by CTIA, have backed grant of at least additional time, if not forbearance, to ensure that thousands-block number pooling isn’t jeopardized. State PUCs, wireless resellers and Leap Wireless have opposed Verizon request, contending it would remove consumer protections.

Earlier this month, Verizon Wireless CEO Dennis Strigl and other executives of company met with Martin. April 15 ex parte filing by carrier said number pooling must be completed first and “number porting, if required, should follow after a sufficient period of time.” Verizon Wireless recommended first quarter 2004 if transition period between porting and pooling was provided. Verizon cited impact on customers if carriers didn’t receive more time on LNP, ranging from longer activation process to period of mixed service that could include E911 complications.

National Emergency Number Assn. (NENA) underscored to FCC recently its concerns that carriers that must provide wireless LNP would work with public safety answering points to fix technical problems before Nov. 24 deadline. “NENA repeated its belief that the process should be monitored by the Commission and that some form of standardized testing for LNP readiness may be needed,” it said in April 19 ex parte filing. “Without such assurances, 25 to 40% of wireless calls delivered with Phase 1 or Phase 2 [E911] information could have a wrong callback number.” Where feasible, so- called nonservice initialized phones (NSI) that can dial 911 should be supplied with callback numbers, NENA said. If NSI phones are misused to place multiple false emergency calls, “carriers should be able to shut down the phones subject to the safeguards of state or local law,” association said. It said accidental calls to 911 were increasing problem in light of new phone features such as single-button dialing for emergencies. NENA didn’t object to voluntary carrier and manufacturer efforts to address that problem, but said it would like to see industry-public safety forum to accelerate process. “If voluntary efforts fail, regulation may be needed,” NENA said.

“Our concern is that the longer that it is in this legislative or regulatory limbo, the more those that want to avoid any investment in LNP have to hang their hat on” in terms of not being ready by Nov. 24, Leap Wireless Senior Vp Daniel Pegg said. Leap has been on side of state PUCs and wireless resellers that have objected to Verizon’s forbearance request, contending it would harm consumer choice. Leap has indicated that while it opposes forbearance, it would back delay of 3 to 6 months to ensure that relevant systems were ready when LNP capability was deployed. Pegg said that in Nov. 1997, carriers had been granted extension, “so anybody in this industry could have been ready and have fully implemented LNP by now.” Issue for most larger carriers that back additional extensions is that “they want to retain a competitive advantage,” Pegg said.

In filing at FCC this month, VoiceStream Wireless recommended phased approach if Commission granted transition period between thousands-block pooling and wireless LNP. Company said portability was implemented on phased-in basis for landline phones under schedule that implemented 5 groups of metropolitan statistical areas (MSA) per quarter. VoiceStream suggested improvement of implementing one MSA per number portability administration center region in first quarter in midsized markets. “This would mitigate the impact of problems and allow them to be resolved more expeditiously before deployment in major markets or a large number of MSAs,” VoiceStream said. It also proposed “adjustment period” after wireless LNP was implemented in largest markets. “This would also allow time for the NPAC and carriers to address any unforeseen capacity or technical issues that might result from the busy wireless holiday sales season.” In ex parte presentation to Martin, VoiceStream said: “Given that the wireless industry is faced with the task of implementing pooling in over 170 NPAs and implementing WNP by November 24, 2002, VoiceStream believes wireless pooling and porting volumes will inevitably exacerbate these capacity issues.” Result, it said, will be “service failures and delays in call completion for hundreds of thousands of consumers and imposing a risk to network reliability.”

In report last month, Merrill Lynch compared potential impact of wireless LNP on U.S. market with what occurred when LNP was introduced in Hong Kong, U.K. and Australia. In Hong Kong, which already had competitive wireless market, wireless LNP triggered price war that resulted in higher customer churn in short term, followed by period of stabilized customer turnover rates. In U.K. and Australia, which have less competitive mobile markets with 4 operators, churn wasn’t affected as significantly, report said. It said wireless industry consolidation in U.S. was one factor that would limit effect of wireless LNP among American carriers. Report also said that “when actual portability between wireline and wireless is available, wireline substitution could increase.” Wireless LNP “could allow operators with the best overall quality -- network quality, customer service, rate plans and handset offerings -- to win more subscribers,” report said.

Group of rural wireless carriers told FCC in recent ex parte filing that wireless LNP being deployed on existing schedule would “result in a need for dramatically more numbering resources in the rural areas than present, frustrating the number conservation intent” of thousands- block number pooling. Rural carriers said those issues were serious enough “to provide further justification for not rushing to deploy WLNP at this time.” They also cited concerns over separation of mobile identification number (MIN) and mobile directory number (MDN) that wireless LNP required and that could hamper 911 services. They asked that separation of MIN and MDN “either not be implemented until this issue can be addressed or be implemented only in a manner that does not allow for the actual assignment of digits that differ in the separated MIN/MDN data fields until such time as the 911 call-back issue can be fully addressed.” CTIA, in filing at FCC last week, disagreed with alternative proposal for MIN/MDN separation put forward by group of rural carriers. CTIA said it supported delaying implementation of wireless LNP until completion of wireless thousand-block number pooling, “a process that will extend into 2004.”