WIRELESS CARRIERS, OTHERS RAISE LAST-MIN. LNP ARGUMENTS AT FCC

CTIA asked the FCC last month for guidance on how to resolve technical issues on implementing wireless LNP, saying it was focusing on “operating realities” rather than legal issues (CD May 13 p2). CTIA asked how porting between wireless and wireline carriers would work under the current rate-center system. It earlier had sought a declaratory ruling from the FCC that wireline carriers must let customers keep their numbers when switching to a wireless carrier. CTIA said that in the wireline field, calling areas were divided every few miles into rate centers, each of which has a switch. FCC rules require a wireline carrier to provide number portability only within that rate center, CTIA said, creating a problem because wireless networks usually have one switch that spans an area that would be served by multiple wireline switches. The group said that meant that the only time LECs had to port a number for a wireless subscriber would be when a wireless switch was collocated in a rate center, which it said happened 13% of the time. On wireless- to-wireless porting, the group said the only FCC rules for LNP covered wireline-to-wireline porting and specific rules were needed for the wireless sector.

CTIA also questioned the porting interval -- the amount of time it takes a carrier to port a number to a new service provider. It said that although LECs can take 4 days under FCC rules, the wireless industry is seeking a period of fewer than 5 hours.

Sprint urged the FCC postpone the Nov. 24 LNP deadline by 7 weeks to Jan. 12 so carriers would have time for “real- life” testing in certain markets. “The Commission directed the conduct of such tests when LECs introduced LNP, and given that wireless LNP is more complex than LEC LNP, similar time for testing should be afforded to wireless carriers,” Sprint said.

Sprint also asked the FCC to “promptly” grant CTIA’s earlier petition on the alleged disparity in rate center issues. It said some ILECs planned to impose a “rate center limitation” on wireline-to-wireless portability so wireless carriers could port only from rate centers in which they had numbers. Sprint said that would dramatically decrease the number of wireline customers eligible to carry their numbers with them to wireless operators. “Left unchecked, the promise of LNP and the billions of dollars invested to make wireline and wireless systems LNP-compliant will be left withering on the vine,” Sprint said. It called for minimal regulations that would clarify that interconnection agreements weren’t needed to implement porting pacts. At a minimum, Sprint said, the FCC should make clear that the absence of such agreements didn’t relieve a carrier from its obligation to port numbers. It said some ILECs had refused to undertake porting tests with Sprint PCS and asked the FCC to require ILECs to engage in good-faith testing.

Cingular Wireless charged that if the FCC’s LNP requirements were implemented, that would mark the first time that wireless customers would be able to communicate decisions about termination of service via a rival carrier. Cingular said that posed a problem because existing carriers wouldn’t have a chance to remind subscribers of the impact of an early-termination fee. “Indeed, delaying number ports may provide the only reminder consumers will receive that their contract terms are not completed,” Cingular said. “Implementing wireless LNP in the current regulatory environment, without any standards or rules, will engender ample customer confusion without this further complication.” Like other wireless operators, Cingular told the FCC that “if” it stuck by its Nov. 24 deadline, it must give the industry concrete rules for carrying out LNP. It said that for the wireline industry, the FCC had incorporated by reference industry-developed standards into its rules. “For the wireless industry, however, the Commission has attempted to wash its hands of the issue and illegally delegate rulemaking authority to the North American Numbering Council (NANC),” Cingular said. While NANC has resolved many wireless LNP policy areas, the company said many still were unresolved. It also said that because NANC recommendations didn’t have legal force, there were “at present no implementation standards upon which the wireless industry can rely.”

The details CTIA raised aren’t new, “but rather a last- minute attempt to delay wireless number portability,” said the Neb. Public Service Commission. It argued that CTIA was using its petition as “an untimely attempt to convince the Commission to overturn its ruling with respect to wireless local number portability.” The Neb. agency said CTIA hadn’t raised any critical technical issues that warranted an additional LNP delay. If any of the issues raised by the carriers need to be addressed, the FCC still should still keep the Nov. 24 deadline, the Neb. PSC said. It also rejected arguments that public safety coordination would be jeopardized because of the current lag time in which a number was ported from a wireline carrier to a wireless operator. CTIA has said a lag of up to several days created a problem for emergency dispatchers who attempted to call back a wireless caller who had made an Enhanced 911 call. The problem raised by some wireless carriers is that until the porting process is complete, that number inadvertently may be routed to a subscriber’s wireline phone, not his wireless handset. “The Commission has given the industry ample time and guidance to coordinate these efforts,” Neb. regulators said.

BellSouth strongly objected to CTIA’s attempts to “blame others for the current situation” and said CTIA’s attack on the wireline industry as anticompetitive actors seeking to sabotage wireless number portability was “especially egregious.” It said CTIA represented the wireless industry as a “passive victim subject to the evil actions of wireline carriers. This assertion is preposterous.” BellSouth urged the Commission to “look beyond CTIA’s rhetoric” and to: (1) Refuse to apply the shortened wireless porting interval to intermodal ports. (2) Allow affected carriers the flexibility to determine whether to use a service-level porting agreement or an interconnection agreement to accommodate intermodal porting. (3) Provide guidance to the industry on the unique issues involving number portability for Type 1 interconnection.

Similarly, Verizon opposed the CTIA petition, taking issue with what it said was the group’s contention that the only way wireless carriers could implement LNP was if LECs changed the way they had been porting numbers for 6 years. “The existing number portability system has worked well for consumers and carriers; it should not be reengineered now, at a cost to Verizon and its customers alone of tens of millions of dollars,” the company said. “If CMRS providers want to implement different systems for porting numbers between them, they surely may do so,” Verizon said. “What they may not do is force other carriers with existing systems that work to everyone’s satisfaction to conform to the new model that they want to adopt.” If the FCC decides to again delay the wireless LNP requirement, Verizon said it also should suspend the requirement that LECs port numbers to wireless providers. Verizon said the porting interval for wireline carriers had worked since the FCC adopted it in 1997. CTIA knew that LECs had designed their systems and processes around that time but still went ahead with their own standards, “ignoring what was already in place in the LEC industry,” Verizon said: “What the Commission should not let CTIA get away with is ignoring the reality of what already exists, making plans that are inconsistent with that reality and then, at the eleventh hour, demanding that everyone else change that reality to accommodate the plans it made.”

The Wireless Consumers Alliance (WCA) told the FCC that the porting interval of 2-1/2 hours suggested by CTIA was acceptable but “a longer delay will not frustrate the Commission’s objectives in requiring number portability. Having waited years, consumers are not going to be deterred by having to wait another week.”

Hill Moves Countered

Meanwhile, several groups urged members of Congress not to support a delay in the FCC’s local number portability (LNP) deadline of Nov. 24. The June 16 letter was signed by NARUC, AARP, Consumers Union, Consumer Federation of America (CFA), NASUCA and the e-Commerce & Telecom Users Group (eTUG). CTIA and wireless lobbyists have been pursuing legislation that would delay the deadline, the letter said, and industry and congressional sources said lobbyists had focused on Sen. Gregg (R-N.H.), Commerce Justice State Appropriations Subcommittee chmn., and Senate Appropriations Chmn. Stevens (R-Alaska). In recent hearings on E-911 and other public safety spectrum issues, legislators have cited the need to prioritize E-911 deployment, although most were careful not to specifically call for a delay in LNP.

The letter focused on several “myths” the groups said CTIA was perpetuating, including that: (1) Customers don’t care whether they can take their number with them. The letter said numerous polls, and common sense, showed consumers wanted that feature. (2) The wireless industry already was competitive enough and didn’t need LNP. The letter countered that rising service complaints to the FCC and state authorities showed that more competition was needed in the industry. (3) The FCC doesn’t have jurisdiction to require LNP. The letter said the courts have said clearly that the Commission had such authority, shown again in the U.S. Appeals Court, D.C., June 6 decision to uphold the deadline. (4) LNP was too costly. The letter said the wireless industry already had made 90% of the investment needed for LNP and many carriers also had started charging for LNP. (5) The wireless industry can’t implement LNP and E-911 at the same time due to cost constraints and technical barriers. The letter said that NENA filings to the FCC showed that the implementation of number pooling in Nov. 2002 addressed nearly all of the technical issues. (6) There were other policy issues that must be decided, including FCC regulations for which CTIA had petitioned for clarification. The letter said such issues could be resolved easily “privately and seamlessly among carriers, necessitating no delay.”

The 6-page letter said the wireless industry was engaging in an “effort to obscure, delay and confuse consumers and regulatory authorities regarding an important means of promoting competition and improving service quality in the wireless marketplace.” It said the wireless industry had sought several delays. Also, in bold print, the letter said: “The implementation of wireless number portability will allow numbering resources in the U.S. to be used more efficiently, thus extending the life of area codes everywhere.”

A CTIA spokesman said the wireless industry was focused on FCC rules and guidelines for LNP, noting that several clarifications of the rules are needed. The LNP deadline could be a “train wreck” if consumers don’t know their rights and carriers don’t know their responsibilities, the spokesman said. Also, the spokesman disputed the letter’s claim that these regulatory questions could be worked out within the industry, noting that the concerns involved “very serious issues” with wireline and rural carriers that need regulatory certainty.