NUMBER RESOURCE OPTIMIZATION

Comment Date: May 1, 2000

Reply Comment Date: May 16, 2000

By the Commission: Commissioners Ness and Furchtgott-Roth issuing separate statements.

Paragraph Number

1. Introduction 1
2. Background AND Overview 6
3. Monitoring Number Usage FOR EfficienCY 10

1. Definitions of Number Category Usage 10
2. Uniform Definitions 11

1. Assigned Numbers 16
2. Intermediate Numbers 20
3. Reserved Numbers 22
4. Aging Numbers 28
5. Administrative Numbers 31
6. Available Numbers 35
7. Secondary Categories 36

1. Mandatory Nature of Reporting 37

1. Mandatory Requirement 37
2. Collection Procedures 43
3. Data Elements for Forecast Reporting 57
4. Data Elements for Utilization Reporting 59
5. Frequency of Reporting 63
6. Granularity of Reporting 68

1. Geographic Scope of Reporting 68
2. Reporting at the NXX Level or Thousands-Block Level 69

1. State Commissions’ Access to Data and Confidentiality of Data 74
2. Enforcement 83

1. Verification of Need for Numbers 85

1. Initial Numbering Resources 93
2. Growth Numbering Resources 101

1. Criteria 101
2. Calculating Utilization Levels 107
3. Utilization Threshold 112

1. Number Conservation Through Thousands-Block Number Pooling 116

1. Requirements for LNP-Capable Carriers: Mandatory Thousands-Block Number Pooling 116

1. Telephone Number Pooling 116
2. Thousands-Block Number Pooling 118

1. Requirements for Non-LNP-Capable Carriers 129

1. Impracticability of Thousands-Block Number Pooling for Non-LNP-Capable Carriers 136
2. Desirability of Thousands-Block Number Pooling for Covered CMRS Providers 139
3. Utilization Threshold for Non-LNP-Capable Carriers 141

1. Selection of Thousands-Block Number Pooling Administrator 143
2. Implementation Issues 156

1. Implementation Schedule 157
2. Implementation Timeframe 167

a. Inventory of Numbers 188

b. Donation of Thousands-Blocks 190

1. Federal/State Jurisdiction 195
2. Competitively Neutral Requirement 198
3. Cost Categories 201
4. Allocation of Costs 206
5. Recovery of Shared Industry and Direct Carrier-Specific Costs 212
6. Identification of Costs 215

1. Other Potential Pooling Mechanisms 227
2. Other Issues 232

1. Reclamation of Numbering Resources 232
2. Sequential Number Assignment 242

1. Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 247

1. Implementation of Pooling for Non-LNP-Capable Carriers 249
2. Pricing for Numbers 250
3. Recovery of Shared Industry and Direct Carrier-Specific Costs 252

1. Procedural Matters 254

1. Regulatory Flexibility Act 260

1. Further Notice Initial Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis 262

1. Ordering Clauses 263

Final Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis Appendix B

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis Appendix C

List of the Parties Appendix D

1. INTRODUCTION

1. Section 251(e) of the Communications Act of 1934 (Communications Act), as amended, grants this Commission plenary jurisdiction over the North American Numbering Plan (NANP) and related telephone numbering issues in the United States. In fulfilling this statutory mandate, we have identified two primary goals. One is to ensure that the limited numbering resources of the NANP are used efficiently, to protect customers from the expense and inconvenience that result from the implementation of new area codes, some of which can be avoided if numbering resources are used more efficiently, and to forestall the enormous expense that will be incurred in expanding the NANP. The other goal is to ensure that all carriers have the numbering resources they need to compete in the rapidly growing telecommunications marketplace.
2. The rapid growth of competition and the proliferation of new telecommunications services over the past several years have intensified the challenge that we face to meet our responsibilities as the guardian of numbering resources in the United States. Today, an examination of the rapid rate at which new area codes are being assigned reveals the near-crisis state of the NANP. Just since the release of the Numbering Resource Optimization Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Notice) almost ten months ago, 24 new area codes have been assigned in geographic areas around the country. According to the North American Numbering Plan Administrator’s (NANPA) most recent projections, 47 area codes will exhaust by the end of the year 2000, unless something is done to slow down the rate at which central office codes (or NXXs) in those areas are being assigned to carriers.
3. The rapid depletion of numbering resources nationwide and the potential it creates for NANP exhaust are national problems that must be dealt with at the federal level. We recognize, however, that the states have an important role in the management of our numbering resources and we intend to continue working with them to implement a national numbering resource optimization framework. In creating national standards to address numbering resource optimization, we have sought to balance the need for national prioritization and policy making with practical concerns. Thus, in implementing the optimization measures discussed herein, we seek to: (1) minimize the negative impact on consumers of premature area code exhausts; (2) ensure sufficient access to numbering resources for all service providers to enter into or to compete in telecommunications markets; (3) avoid, at least delay, exhaust of the NANP and the need to expand the NANP; (4) impose the least societal cost possible, and ensure competitive neutrality, while obtaining the highest benefit; (5) ensure that no class of carrier or consumer is unduly favored or disfavored by our optimization efforts; and (6) minimize the incentives for carriers to build and carry excessively large inventories of numbers.
4. As a starting point, we comprehensively address and resolve two of the major factors that contribute to numbering resource exhaust as identified in the Notice: the absence of regulatory, industry or economic control over requests for numbering resources, which permits carriers to abuse the allocation system and stockpile numbers, and the allocation of numbers in blocks of 10,000, irrespective of the carrier’s actual need for new numbers. In initially concentrating on these two areas, we do not intend to abandon our examination of those optimization measures not specifically addressed in this Report and Order. To the contrary, we intend to pursue all viable methods available to us to increase the life of each area code and of the NANP as a whole and to forestall, as long as possible, the need for area code relief and ultimately for the expansion of the NANP. We first focus on the above-noted measures because we are convinced that they can be implemented quickly and will produce immediate and measurable results. We intend to address the remaining issues discussed in the Notice as well as the additional issues raised in the attached Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Further Notice) in subsequent orders as expediently as possible.
5. In this Report and Order, we adopt administrative and technical measures that will allow us to monitor more closely the way numbering resources are used within the NANP. These measures will promote more efficient allocation and use of NANP resources by tying a carrier’s ability to obtain numbering resources more closely to its actual need for numbers to serve its customers. Specifically, we adopt a mandatory utilization data reporting requirement, a uniform set of categories of numbers for which carriers must report their utilization, and a utilization threshold framework to increase carrier accountability and incentives to use numbers efficiently. In addition, we adopt a single system for allocating numbers in blocks of 1,000, rather than 10,000, wherever possible ("thousands-block number pooling"), and establish a plan for national rollout of thousands-block number pooling. We also establish a framework for the selection of a thousands-block Pooling Administrator. In this Report and Order, we implement section 251(e)(2) with regard to numbering administration, adopt cost recovery principles that are similar to those established for number portability, and seek further comment on which costs are eligible for recovery as carrier-specific incremental costs of thousands-block number pooling. Furthermore, we adopt numbering resource reclamation requirements to ensure the return of unused numbers to the NANP inventory for assignment to other carriers. To encourage better management of numbering resources, we also mandate that carriers fill their need for numbers out of "open" thousands blocks before beginning to use numbers from new blocks to facilitate reclamation. While these new policies will, in some ways, significantly change the way that carriers request and receive numbers, we believe they also will better ensure that carriers have access to the numbering resources they need to compete in the increasingly competitive and innovative telecommunications marketplace. These measures will set the stage for the development and implementation of additional numbering resource optimization strategies.

II. BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW

6. The rate at which existing area codes are entering a state of jeopardy and new area codes are being activated throughout North America has accelerated exponentially in the past several years. Compared to the activation of only nine new area codes in the ten-year period between 1984 and 1994, in 1997 alone, 32 new area codes were activated within the NANP. This stark increase in the pace at which numbering resources are used demonstrates the proliferation of new technologies, such as wireless technologies, and competitive providers that need numbering resources to conduct their businesses. Of the 314 geographic codes assigned in the NANP, 252 serve portions of the United States. With only 618 usable area codes in the NANP, it is foreseeable that the NANP could exhaust within ten years unless measures are taken to slow the rate at which numbering resources are being used. The cost of expanding the current NANP is anticipated to be enormous, and could take as long as ten years to design and implement. These estimated costs are substantial, and would, we believe, significantly outweigh the cost of implementing all of the numbering resource optimization solutions adopted in this Report and Order. Moreover, we believe that extending the life of the NANP by as little as ten years could yield substantial benefits. At the same time, estimates indicate that a relatively low percentage of individual telephone numbers are actually assigned to customers in the area codes that have gone into jeopardy. The NANPA estimates that the "fill rate," or actual assignment to subscribers of telephone numbers allocated to carriers, is between 5.7% and 52.6%, depending on the industry segment, and 34% overall industry-wide. As these facts underscore, immediate and comprehensive action to make more efficient use of our numbering resources is imperative.
7. Although we have delegated to the states certain elements of numbering administration, such as implementing area code relief, that are local in nature, numbering resource optimization policy is part of our role as guardian of the nationwide NANP resource. Therefore, we have worked closely with state public utility commissions, industry groups, and our advisory body, the NANC, to explore various numbering conservation and optimization methods and develop our national numbering resource optimization strategy. We recognize that numbering resource optimization efforts are necessary to address the considerable burdens imposed on all entities affected by the inefficient use of numbers; thus, we have enlisted the states to assist us in these efforts by delegating significant authority to them to implement certain measures in their local jurisdictions. In addition to the authority to implement area code relief, we have responded to requests by individual states by conditionally granting them authority to implement some of the following number conservation measures: thousands-block number pooling trials; NXX code rationing; reclamation of unused and reserved NXX codes and thousands blocks; auditing; and sequential number assignment. The grants of authority to the state public utility commissions, however, were not intended to allow the state commissions to engage in number conservation measures to the exclusion of, or as a substitute for, unavoidable and timely area code relief. Although we granted the state public utility commissions interim authority to institute many of the optimization measures they requested in their petitions, we did so subject to the caveat that these grants would be superseded by forthcoming decisions in this proceeding including this Report and Order.
8. In adopting nationwide thousands-block number pooling as a number resource optimization strategy, we are mindful that this strategy is a means to an end - achieving more efficient number utilization - and not an end in itself. To that end, we have included incentive-based elements, such as usage thresholds, and safeguards, such as unused number reclamation requirements, to ensure that the goal of higher number utilization is achieved. We also reiterate that we do not necessarily see the measures implemented herein, particularly pooling, as our final answer to all of the problems associated with the current scheme of numbering resource allocation and utilization. We choose to implement pooling and certain administrative measures first because it is clear to us that these strategies can and will produce immediate and measurable results; they can be implemented in a relatively short amount of time; and some of these measures already have been implemented with some success. Particularly, we are encouraged by the limited results we have seen in the Illinois pooling trial, in which the life of the 847 NPA has been extended by 24 months from the original projected exhaust date. We are aware that other optimization measures were also implemented in conjunction with the Illinois pooling trial. Thus, we have reason to believe that, while there is no one answer to resolving the numbering crisis, combining efforts to address effectively, comprehensively, and simultaneously different drivers of numbering exhaust may be the key to prolonging the life of the NANP. In this regard, we recognize the integral role state commissions play in our numbering resource optimization policies and we will continue to rely on them to implement timely area code relief and other measures for which we have delegated additional authority to them, such as reclamation of unused numbering resources. We emphasize again that we are not abandoning the optimization measures not being implemented or specifically addressed in this Report and Order.
9. At this time, we do not address issues raised in the Notice regarding audits, rate center consolidation, ten-digit dialing, and the use of technology-specific overlays. We emphasize that in the interim, our existing rules and policies with respect to these optimization measures (including the prohibition on technology-specific area code overlays) remain in effect. We also emphasize that the optimization measures we adopt here today should not be viewed as substitutes for area code relief where it is required due to area code jeopardy situations. We intend to address these issues, as well as other numbering resource optimization strategies, in subsequent orders in this docket. We also seek comment on several matters relating to our findings in this Report and Order in an accompanying Further Notice.

3. Monitoring number usage FOR efficienCY

1. In the Notice, we observed that the current procedures for allocating numbering resources, which are set forth in the Central Office Code (NXX) Assignment Guidelines (CO Code Assignment Guidelines), do not impose adequate discipline on a carrier’s ability to obtain and stockpile numbers for which it has no immediate need. Consequently, carriers may request and receive additional numbering resources without demonstrating that they are actually utilizing efficiently the numbers already allocated to them. Moreover, there are no mechanisms to ensure that carriers’ forecasting is an accurate reflection of the resources they will need in the immediate future, or that they are utilizing efficiently the resources already allocated to them. The absence of uniform definitions has especially hampered the monitoring of carrier number usage. We believe the first step in addressing these problems is to establish uniformly defined categories of numbering use and then to monitor, on a regular basis, how individual carriers are using their numbering resources.

1. Uniform Definitions

1. We tentatively concluded in the Notice that a uniform set of definitions for the status of numbers should be established for purposes of implementing the number optimization proposals set forth in the Notice. We proposed fifteen categories and definitions of number use, and sought comment on whether the proposed definitions should be codified as Commission rules, or, in the alternative, be incorporated into the CO Code Assignment Guidelines and Thousand Block (NXX-X) Assignment Guidelines (Thousand Block Pooling Guidelines). We also asked whether all fifteen of the proposed definitions were necessary and useful, and whether any additional definitions should be adopted. In this section, we establish uniform definitions for six primary categories of numbering use. The definitions we adopt will also be employed in our discussion of the mandatory monitoring and reporting requirements that we establish in this Report and Order.
2. We adopt our tentative conclusion and find that uniform definitions for numbering use are essential for ensuring that numbering resources are used efficiently. We observe that there is broad agreement among all parties that standardized definitions are needed for better resource management. We believe that establishing these definitions is an important step towards injecting a greater degree of discipline into the process of allocating and administering numbering resources.
3. In making our finding, we note that the industry has attempted to develop uniform definitions in the past. Despite its efforts, however, no single source for numbering usage categories has emerged and somewhat different definitions are contained in various industry publications. For example, identical categories of number usage are included in multiple industry documents, yet some of those categories are defined differently. Given these inconsistencies, we conclude that we must establish and codify uniform definitions for number categories that are mutually exclusive, and accurately reflect the manner in which numbers are being utilized by carriers and their customers. Adoption of these definitions by the entire industry combined with our reporting requirements will enable us to obtain number utilization information in a consistent manner on a regular basis. This, in turn, will facilitate the accurate monitoring and tracking of the availability of numbering resources in the NANP.
4. To ensure that all carriers use the uniform definitions that we establish herein, we find it necessary to codify those definitions. Because our overall goal in defining number use categories is to improve the accuracy of utilization data reporting, we codify six mutually exclusive primary categories of number usage. These primary categories of use are Assigned, Intermediate, Reserved, Aging, Administrative, and Available. We conclude that limiting our codification to these six primary categories will assure that the aggregate of all numbers reported will equal the total of numbers given to a code holder by the NANPA or to a block holder by a Pooling Administrator. Because the categories that we are not codifying are, in fact, secondary categories of certain of the six major categories, we provide the industry with guidance regarding the six primary categories under which they should be counted. We also find that the definitions for "Working Numbers" and "TNs Unavailable for Assignment" should be eliminated for tracking and reporting purposes because they are overly broad and would result in the double counting of certain numbers. Moreover, to ensure consistency and meet state commissions’ needs for tracking these categories, we direct the NANC, with input from the National Association of Regulatory and Utility Commissioners (NARUC) and the states, to compile the uniform definitions for all secondary categories identified in the Notice and to determine where the definitions will be found. We will allow them 120 days to complete this task.
5. Like the majority of commenters, we agree that codification of the most significant definitions is necessary in light of the changes that often occur within the industry guidelines without input from parties other than industry members, the lack of uniformity within those guidelines, and the sometimes slow-moving industry consensus process. We are sensitive, however, to industry concerns that codification could result in inflexible definitions or definitions that require constant revision and therefore believe that control over the definitions for secondary categories will provide the industry, in conjunction with the states, with the flexibility to make desired changes. We find that our decision to codify definitions for six primary categories of use is reasonable given that the subcategory definitions are the ones most susceptible to changes due to new technologies and adjustments in the demographic composition of service areas. We delegate to the Common Carrier Bureau, in consultation with the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, the responsibility to keep the definitions of the six major or primary categories current in light of technological changes and concerns of the states and industry members.

1. Assigned Numbers

1. In the Notice, we proposed that assigned numbers be defined as numbers working in the Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN) under an agreement such as a contract or tariff at the request of specific customers for their use, or as numbers not yet working but having a customer service order pending. We also sought comment on whether we should refine this definition by limiting the time during which a customer’s number could be considered pending to three to five days.
2. We find that the proposed definition of assigned numbers is reasonable and adopt it. Moreover, we agree with commenters arguing that dealer pools and reseller pools should not be treated as assigned numbers to the extent that they have not been assigned to a specific end user. Once these numbers are assigned to a specific end user, however, the carrier making them available for assignment should categorize them as assigned numbers.
3. We also conclude that numbers ported for the purpose of transferring an established customer’s service to another carrier should be categorized as assigned numbers. Consistent with the INC guidelines and SBC’s position, we conclude that the donating carrier should classify ported-out numbers as assigned numbers, while the receiving carrier should not classify these numbers in any of our six defined primary categories. By requiring only that the porting-out carrier report these numbers, we also seek to avoid double counting.
4. We also adopt a five-day limit on the time that a number may be held in pending status in the assigned category. We find that this restriction is necessary to prevent carriers from classifying numbers as pending assignment when those numbers should more accurately be placed in the category of reserved numbers. No party has adequately justified why a number should be held as pending assignment for an unlimited amount of time. We disagree with SBC’s argument that no limits on pending times are necessary because carriers have particular incentives to connect pending numbers. We believe that the lack of limits creates incentives for misuse of this category. If carriers have such strong incentives to activate numbers, then five days should be adequate to complete activation in most instances. SBC’s and Cincinnati Bell Telephone’s claims that these limits could result in the reassignment of a number different than the number ordered by a customer also do not persuade us. Carriers have the ability to categorize numbers in the reserved category if they foresee a longer delay in activating a number.

1. Intermediate Numbers

1. Some carriers maintain an intermediate, i.e., secondary inventory of numbering resources for the purpose of providing numbers to other carriers (e.g., resellers) and non-carrier entities (e.g., retail dealers and unified messaging service providers). These "intermediaries", in turn, make the numbers they receive from code or block holders available to their end user customers. In the Notice, we proposed to define one category of such numbers, "dealer numbering pools," as a set of numbers allocated by a service provider to a retail dealer for use in the sale and establishment of service on behalf of that service provider. We also sought comment on how carriers should classify dealer numbering pools in their inventories, how dealer numbering pools should be treated, and what, if any, limitations should be imposed on the assignment of these numbers.
2. We agree with commenters who opine that such numbers should not be categorized as assigned numbers because they have not been assigned to an end user. We also find that such numbers should not be counted in the code or block holder’s inventory because the code or block holder does not control the provision of these numbers to end users. We therefore conclude that numbers that are made available for use by another carrier or non-carrier entity for the purpose of providing telecommunications service to an end user or customer should be categorized as intermediate numbers. We clarify that the carrier making such numbers available for assignment by a non-carrier entity should categorize them as intermediate numbers only until they are assigned to an end user or customer by the non-carrier entity. Once intermediate numbers are assigned to an end user or customer the non-carrier entity, the carrier making such numbers available to the non-carrier entity should categorize them as assigned numbers. Intermediate numbers include numbers provided for use by resellers, numbers in dealer numbering pools, numbers preprogrammed into customer premises equipment offered for retail sale, and numbers assigned to messaging service providers. We also recognize that, with new technologies emerging everyday, this list may not encompass all examples of such intermediate numbers. Our intent is to include in this category all numbers controlled or made available to an end user or customer by a carrier or non-carrier entity other than the code or block holder, and exclude all numbers assigned to end user customers of code or block holders.

1. Reserved Numbers

1. In the Notice, we tentatively concluded that reserved numbers should be defined as numbers held by service providers at the request of specific end use customers for their future use. The NANC has recommended that carriers be permitted to hold aside a separate 12-month inventory of reserved numbers, with an additional six months of possible extensions. In the Notice, we also sought comment on whether time limits should be imposed on the amount of time a code may be held in reserved status and suggested 45 days as an appropriate period of such a limitation. In addition, we requested comment on whether carriers should be required to pay a fee for numbers held in reserved status. We noted that the practice of some carriers is to require fees from parties for whom they are reserving numbers as an assurance that the reservation would be honored. We requested comment on whether the same type of assurance, i.e., imposition of a fee, should be required from reserving carriers themselves.
2. We adopt our definition of reserved numbers as articulated in the Notice. We believe that this definition adequately separates reserved numbers from the other categories of use. We also adopt our proposal to reduce the amount of time that numbers may be held in reserved status to 45 days. After the 45-day reservation period, these numbers should be categorized as available numbers if they have not been assigned to a customer or end user. We reject the arguments of several parties who assert that longer reservation periods are necessary or that no time limits are needed. The purpose of having reserved numbers is to give prospective clients some assurance that numbers with the characteristics those customers are seeking will be available to them in the near future. We find that limiting reservations to 45 days reasonably balances the needs of carriers to earmark and set aside a number or group of numbers for a particular customer against the objective of improving the efficiency of numbering resource use. Given the shortages of resources carriers are experiencing in some NPAs, we agree with several commenters that the NANC’s proposed maximum 18-month reservation period is far too long a period of time to give such assurances, and therefore decline to adopt it. Moreover, we conclude that permitting carriers to hold numbers in reserved status for a long period of time invites abuse.
3. In establishing the 45-day reservation period, we will not allow for any extensions. As a general matter, we find that permitting extensions would have the effect of undercutting the goals of establishing a specific time limitation. Our primary goal in setting the 45-day limitation is to ensure that numbers are used rather than warehoused. We believe that this, in turn, will result in more efficient use of numbers. We, therefore, reject the NANC’s proposal to allow two 90-day extensions.
4. Notwithstanding our declining, at this time, to allow for extensions of the 45-day reservation period, we agree with MCI and the Minnesota Department of Public Service that the imposition of fees on extensions of the reservation period would encourage more efficient use of numbers and act as a deterrent to warehousing or stockpiling. In particular, we believe that MCI’s proposal to impose a fee on extensions in the reservation period represents an opportunity to impose some market discipline on carriers' use of numbers. A fee on reserved number extensions balances a specific customer's desire to reserve access to certain numbers against society's cost of having to use additional NANP resources in order to meet the needs of subscribers of non-reserved numbers. Although the NANC considered and rejected the notion that fees for reserved numbers should be established, it may have done this without fully considering our concerns over the real economic costs of maintaining a separate inventory for reserved numbers with extensive reservation periods. In this order, we request the NANC to reconsider this issue and determine whether a meaningful economic fee structure for reserved numbers could be developed, as MCI proposed. In its deliberations, the NANC should also consider how the receipts from such fees should be used. If an economically sound approach for establishing a fee structure on extensions for reserved numbers can be developed, we would reconsider our current position prohibiting the grant of any extensions for reserved numbers.
5. Due to their association with specific customers, reserved numbers represent a form of inventory distinctly separate from available numbers. Thus, we decline to adopt AT&T and WinStar’s suggestions to reduce or eliminate reservation periods by classifying reserved numbers as available numbers. We realize reservations play an important role in marketing local services in a competitive environment. Therefore, we do not wish to entirely eliminate the category of reserved numbers. For example, we are aware that customers frequently seek some advance assurances that a carrier can provide an individual or block of numbers before they sign with a particular carrier, and it is not our intent to limit this well-established convention by eliminating reserved numbers as a separate category.
6. We also reject the California Commission’s recommendation that state commissions be given additional authority to narrow the definition of reserved numbers and set time limits on reserved numbers. We believe that permitting each state to modify the definitions would contravene the benefits of having uniform nationwide definitions. It may also create a great deal of uncertainty for carriers, either because a state changes its rules or because the carrier operates in multiple states.

1. Aging Numbers

1. An aging number is a number in the aging process. Aging is the process of making a disconnected telephone number unavailable for re-assignment to another subscriber for a specified period of time. No party disagreed with this definition. An aging interval includes any announcement treatment period, as well as blank telephone number intercept period. In the Notice, we sought comment on the standard aging intervals currently used by carriers, as well as whether we should set limits on the amount of time a number may remain in the aging status, e.g., 90 to 120 days.
2. We define aging numbers as disconnected numbers that are not available for assignment to another end user or customer for a specified period of time. Consistent with the Industry Numbering Committee (INC) Guidelines, we also adopt an upper limit of 90 days for residential numbers and 360 days for business numbers. We follow the upper limits in the guidelines in this instance because they represent industry experience as well as aging requirements imposed by some states. We decline to set lower limits at this time. We observed recently that, in areas of acute number shortages, some carriers have reduced aging limits to one to seven days, or even zero in situations where no charges are incurred for calls of less than one minute in duration. Although we are concerned that too short of an aging period could cause confusion and unnecessary disruptions to subscribers, we believe that carriers can selectively reduce some aging limits to near zero if necessary without causing these problems. Also, in the interest of maintaining uniformity in our definitions and reporting requirements, we decline to permit states to modify our aging limits.
3. Wireline customers generally need longer aging periods than wireless service providers, because wireline customers usually have their numbers listed in directories. Moreover, wireline business customers require an even longer aging period than do wireline residential customers because they also advertise their numbers. We believe that the upper limits of aging periods in the guidelines offer sufficient assurance that customers receiving service from all sectors of the industry will avoid mistaken number contacts. Thus, we decline to adopt the shorter aging periods suggested by some parties.

1. Administrative Numbers

1. In the Notice, we proposed that administrative numbers be defined in terms of specific administrative functions with the qualification that these numbers cannot be assigned to customers. We also proposed that employee/official numbers, Location Routing Numbers, test numbers, Temporary Local Directory Numbers (TLDN) and wireless E911 emergency service routing digits/key (ESRD/ESRK) numbers all be included in the general category of administrative numbers.
2. In this Report and Order, we broaden our proposed definition and adopt a definition of administrative numbers to include any numbers used by carriers to perform internal administrative or operational functions necessary to maintain reasonable quality of service standards. Commenting parties generally agreed with the proposed definition in the Notice. We further require that carriers must be able to identify, upon request, a specific administrative or operational function associated with each of the numbers they report in this category. We make this modification to ensure that all such numbers that have these characteristics are included in the administrative numbers category. We also clarify that the numbers identified in the Notice as administrative numbers are included in this definition. We agree with commenters that carriers should not be able to use the administrative number category to build and carry excessive numbering resources. Since we require the specification of the particular administrative function for which the reservation is made, we believe that our definition discourages such misuse. We, decline however, to adopt the California Commission’s recommendation that service providers be prohibited from converting administrative numbers to assigned numbers for customers at a later date. We do not wish to trap unnecessarily numbers in the administrative number category after they are no longer required for this use.
3. In the Notice, we proposed that soft dial tone numbers be defined as numbers that permit restricted dialing, and that they be treated as administrative numbers. SBC agreed with our proposal. Soft dialtone is simply a functionality that permits a caller to call emergency services and sometimes receive incoming calls. Thus, we adopt our proposal and conclude that soft dial tone numbers should be counted as administrative numbers.
4. We also reject AirTouch’s proposal that not more than .25% of numbers in any NXX be used for administrative purposes, because AirTouch provides no basis for this particular quantitative limit. We are also concerned that such a limitation could impose an inflexible standard that would be burdensome for the NANPA to monitor.

1. Available Numbers

1. In the Notice, we proposed that numbers available for assignment be defined as numbers within existing codes (NXX) or blocks (NXX-X) that are available for assignment to subscriber access lines or their equivalents within a switching entity/point of interconnection (POI) and are not categorized as assigned, dealer pools (which we now define as intermediate), administrative, aging or reserved. In this Report and Order, we adopt this general definition, but also clarify that available numbers is a residual category that can be calculated by subtracting the sum of numbers in the assigned, reserved, intermediate, aged, and administrative primary categories from the total of numbers in the inventory of a code or block holder. We incorporate this mathematical relationship in our reporting requirements.

1. Secondary Categories

1. In the Notice, we proposed to define eight additional categories of number use. These categories are: (1) employee/official numbers; (2) Location Routing Numbers; (3) test numbers; (4) Temporary Local Directory Number; (5) wireless E911 emergency service routing digits/key numbers (ESRD/ESRK); (6) dealer pool numbers; (7) ported-out numbers; and (8) soft dial tone numbers. Although we decline to define these additional categories, we will permit the NANC, with input from the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC) and state commissions, to define them. In doing so, we seek to achieve the same uniformity for these definitions as with the number categories we define herein. We also specify that these additional categories should be designated as subcategories of the primary categories. Specifically, ported-out numbers should be included as a subcategory of assigned numbers. Test numbers, employee/official numbers, Location Routing Numbers, Temporary Local Directory Numbers, soft dial numbers and wireless E911 ESRD/ESRK numbers should be included as subcategories of administrative numbers. Numbers such as dealer number pools should be included as a subcategory of intermediate numbers.

1. Mandatory Nature of Reporting

1. Mandatory Requirement

1. Establishing uniform definitions for number category usage is only the first step towards injecting a greater degree of discipline into the process of allocating and administering numbering resources. We believe that monitoring individual carriers’ use of numbering resources also is necessary to ensure that numbering resources are efficiently used and that the NANP is not prematurely exhausted. More consistent, accurate, and complete reporting of historical and forecast data will serve multiple purposes. First, it will allow the NANPA to develop a comprehensive database on numbering resource demand, allocation, and use, thereby permitting it to accumulate a complete inventory of all numbering resources allocated to U.S. telecommunications service providers. These data are critical to the accurate forecasting of NANP and NPA exhaust. Second, it will deter carriers from requesting and holding excessive quantities of numbering resources for which they have no immediate need. Third, it will facilitate this Commission’s ability to formulate appropriate national policy on numbering resource optimization by providing a complete picture of how numbering resources are being used in all markets. Finally, it will provide the states, which have authority to conduct area code relief, location-specific data that will enable them to make appropriate decisions on such matters.

1. Background

1. Currently, utilization and forecasting information is collected by NANPA through the Central Office Code Utilization Survey (COCUS). The COCUS solicits data on actual and projected CO code utilization for each NPA in the NANP. In our Notice we observed that for many reasons, the usefulness of the COCUS for purposes of monitoring numbering resource use is limited. The most serious deficiency with the current mechanism is that data reporting by carriers is voluntary, not mandatory. Another limitation that we identified is that the COCUS is reported annually. Thus, analyses based on the COCUS can become outdated due to changing conditions months before new data are collected and analyzed. Finally, we observe that the utilization data collected through COCUS lacks sufficient specificity to enable the NANPA to determine how carriers are utilizing numbers assigned to them.
2. Since 1999, the NANPA, at the Commission’s request, has taken some steps to improve the quality of the COCUS data. For example, the COCUS survey was expanded to include the submission of utilization data. In addition, the NANPA has intensified its efforts to encourage carriers to submit COCUS data. Although these steps have somewhat improved the quality of the COCUS submissions, they have not resolved its underlying problems. In fact, there is general agreement among commenters that COCUS should be replaced with mandatory reporting requirements that are more comprehensive in nature.

1. Discussion

1. In the Notice we tentatively concluded that we should mandate all users of numbering resources to supply the NANPA with forecast and utilization data. Virtually all commenters agree that mandatory reporting is necessary and state that the current voluntary reporting system is inadequate for tracking numbering use and projecting exhaust. Many commenters agree that federal rules would ensure that all carriers, regardless of size, will supply forecast and utilization data to the NANPA. We agree, and therefore mandate that all carriers that receive numbering resources from the NANPA (i.e., code holders), or that receive numbering resources from a Pooling Administrator in thousands blocks (i.e., block holders), report forecast and utilization data to the NANPA. We also require carriers that receive intermediate numbers to report forecast and utilization data for such numbers in their inventories to the NANPA to the same extent required for code and block holders. For intermediate numbers controlled by non-carriers (such as retailers or unified messaging service providers), the carrier that provides intermediate numbers to such entities must report utilization and forecast data to the NANPA for these numbers.
2. Reporting carriers shall report their utilization and forecast data by separate legal entity. Each reporting carrier shall be identified by its Operating Company Number (OCN) on the submission. Furthermore, the NANPA shall not issue new numbering resources to a carrier without an OCN.
3. The National Telephone Cooperative Association (NTCA) is one of the few parties that disagreed with our tentative conclusion regarding mandatory reporting for all carriers, asserting that no reporting requirement should be imposed on small carriers where exhaust is not a problem. In the alternative, it states that, at most, rural carriers should be required only to report changes in utilization, and that these carriers should be able to respond with "no change" where appropriate. Because effective monitoring of all NANP resources is a necessary step in achieving our optimization goals, we decline to exempt small or rural code or block holders from the mandatory reporting requirement. We do however, authorize rural telephone companies, as defined in the 1996 Act, to report their historical utilization data at the NXX level rather than at the thousand-block level in areas where Local Number Portability (LNP) is not available. Moreover, we deem it reasonable, as suggested by NTCA, to allow any carrier whose forecast and utilization data have not changed from the previous reporting period to simply re-file the prior submission and indicate that there has been no change since the last reporting, or to report "no change."

1. Collection Procedures

1. Background

1. In the Notice we identified several data collection and NANP forecast models that had been proposed by NANPA and various industry members. These models include the AT&T Minimalist model, the U.S West Top-down/Bottom-up Model, and the NANPA’s proposed Line Number Utilization Survey (LINUS). The NANC subsequently recommended a fourth model, the Hybrid, which is a synthesis of the aforementioned models. In response to the Common Carrier Bureau’s public notice seeking comment on a replacement for the COCUS, commenting parties focused their discussions on the LINUS and the Hybrid models.
2. The Minimalist model uses annual COCUS data, including utilization data, to measure working telephone numbers at the NPA level. The model then forecasts NPA and NANP exhaust using modeling techniques by combining the COCUS and utilization data with extensive forecasts of telephone number growth and projections of new entrant profiles and growth rates. The Top-down/Bottom-up Model involves a two-stage process. The first stage, Top-down analysis, uses historical COCUS data and mathematical modeling to develop initial exhaust forecasts for each area code. Once the NANPA determines that a particular NPA will exhaust within a selected period, the second stage of the model is applied. The second stage involves a Bottom-up analysis, which relies on user input similar to the existing COCUS system, but employs a mechanized data collection process. Both the Minimalist and the Top-Down/Bottom-Up models rely too heavily on modeling and forecasting techniques and not enough on actual data to address our and the state commissions’ reporting and data needs. In both cases, the models focus exclusively on exhaust forecasts and, therefore, would not provide the information that we need to meet our number optimization goals.
3. LINUS contemplated the most extensive reporting requirements. It was envisioned to have two reporting components: an historical utilization reporting requirement and a forecasting reporting requirement. The frequency of historical utilization data reporting would depend on the location of the numbering resources. LINUS would require carriers in the top 100 metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) to report quarterly, while non-rural MSAs outside the 100 largest MSAs would report semi-annually and rural NPAs would report annually. With respect to granularity, data in pooling NPAs would be reported at the thousands-block level and at the NXX level where there is no pooling. Finally, the model contemplated reporting on seven different categories of number use. The forecasting component would require quarterly reporting in the top 100 MSAs and semi-annual reporting elsewhere. Where pooling is implemented, it would require reporting by thousands-block at the rate center level while in other NPAs data would be reported by NXX at the NPA level. All forecast data would be reported electronically with codes broken out as either initial or growth codes. The NANPA envisioned applying multivariate probability density analysis to these data to forecast NPA and NANP exhaust.
4. The Hybrid model, like LINUS, would establish both historical utilization and forecasting requirements. Reporting would depend on where the numbering resources are located and whether the NPA is expected to exhaust in the subsequent five years. In non-pooling NPAs, outside a five-year exhaust window, utilization and forecasting data would be required on at least an annual basis. For NPAs where pooling is implemented, or for NPAs that are projected to exhaust within the next five years, reporting would be semi-annual. The granularity of reporting under the Hybrid model would depend on whether pooling has been ordered in an NPA and whether carriers are required to pool or are exempt from the pooling requirement. In NPAs where pooling has been implemented, carriers required to pool would report their utilization data at the thousands-block level while carriers exempt from pooling would report at the NXX level. In non-pooling NPAs that are within five-years of exhaust, carriers would report utilization data by NXX at the NPA level, while those outside the exhaust window would report at the NPA level. Under the Hybrid model utilization data would be reported as a single statistic, "telephone numbers unavailable," with service providers retaining the underlying data by telephone number status category for audit purposes or if requested by the NANPA.
5. Forecast data under the Hybrid model would be reported by thousands-block at the rate center level in pooling NPAs for pooling carriers and by NXX for non-pooling carriers. In non-pooling NPAs forecast data would be reported by NXX at the NPA level, regardless of whether it was in the exhaust window. All forecast data would be reported by "initial" and "growth" codes and would be filed electronically. For the purposes of projecting exhaust, the reported data would be combined with historical data and mathematical modeling, with NPA specific assumptions used to develop the forecasts for NPA exhaust.

Click here for the next page

Copyright © 1995 - 2007 ICB. Inc. All rights reserved. "ICB Toll Free News" is a trademark of ICB Inc. ICB Inc. assumes no responsibility for use or misuse of information contained herein and / or accessible via this site. ICB Inc. cannot and does not vouch for the accuracy and / or usability of any of the contained or linked-to information, and assumes no responsibility for any errors or omissions.