NUMBER RESOURCE OPTIMIZATION Page 5

1. We find that it is in the public interest to require covered CMRS service providers to participate in thousands-block number pooling once they have acquired LNP capability. We agree with the arguments of various state commissions and carriers that, intuitively, a thousands-block pooling plan that includes all LNP-capable carriers would enable a more efficient and equitable conservation of numbers than a plan that excludes certain providers. Thus, requiring CMRS service providers to participate in thousands-block number pooling once they have acquired LNP capability balances the desire to have as broad a range of thousands-block number pooling participants as possible with the desire to avoid imposing unnecessary costs on covered CMRS providers.
2. We reject the arguments of certain CMRS providers that their participation in thousands-block number pooling will have so minimal an effect on number exhaustion that they ought to be excluded altogether. These parties rely on the contentions that, in general, the number utilization rates of CMRS providers are higher than equivalent utilization rates of wireline carriers, that CMRS has been characterized by rapid growth and churn, and that CMRS providers typically do not need numbers in every rate center in a service area. Although there may be truth to these assertions in certain instances, there is also evidence in the record that in many areas, CMRS providers would be able to make significant donations to thousands-block number pools and otherwise meaningfully contribute to the numbering efficiencies to be gained by thousands-block number pooling. For example, a study by the Colorado Numbering Task Force which shows that, in 1997 and 1998, cellular and PCS providers in that state had an average utilization rate of 58%, suggests that, despite this relatively high utilization rate, such carriers held over 1,300,000 numbers that could potentially be made available for thousands-block number pooling. Moreover, CMRS utilization rates are not uniformly high. For example, the Maine Commission asserts that the wireless utilization rate in that state is only 33%. Finally, we find that there is no reason to exempt CMRS providers, or any other class of carriers, once LNP-capable, from participation in thousands-block number pooling based on high growth rates. Although thousands-block number pooling constrains carriers to acquire additional numbering resources in smaller increments, it does not limit the quantity of resources that a carrier may obtain, provided it can sufficiently demonstrate need in accordance with the guidelines. For these reasons, we conclude that once CMRS providers become LNP-capable, they should be treated the same as other LNP-capable users of numbering resources, including being required to participate in thousands-block number pooling under the same circumstances.

1. Utilization Threshold for Non-LNP-Capable Carriers

1. Although we decline to require CMRS providers to participate in thousands-block number pooling until they achieve LNP capability, we require all non-LNP-capable carriers, including non-covered CMRS providers, to implement certain alternative number optimization measures so long as they are not LNP-capable. Specifically, we adopt the requirement, suggested by Nextel, and as discussed above, that non-LNP-capable carriers achieve a number utilization threshold before they are eligible to obtain a new growth code. To require CMRS providers to meet utilization thresholds where they are not LNP-capable and therefore cannot practically participate in thousands-block number pooling will result in progress toward meeting our number conservation goals despite the lack of thousands-block number pooling by such carriers. Similarly, we will require carriers that are not required ever to become LNP-capable, such as paging companies, to meet utilization thresholds before obtaining growth codes, and as well for all other non-LNP-capable carriers (for example, wireline carriers in areas that do not have LNP-capability).
2. We note here that, at the current time, we will not require carriers participating in thousands-block number pooling to meet a utilization threshold to receive growth codes. Once these carriers begin thousands-block number pooling, they will be required to identify unused or lightly-used thousands blocks within their inventories to be contributed back to the pool. Moreover, thousands-block number pooling carriers will obtain new numbers in thousand number increments, and only when they can demonstrate the requisite MTE forecast. Together, these aspects of pooling participation should ensure that thousands-block number pooling carriers use numbers efficiently in thousands-block number pooling areas, and we believe it would be unnecessarily burdensome to require them to comply with utilization thresholds in addition. Furthermore, as pointed out by Cincinnati Bell, unless the thresholds are set differently for thousands-block number pooling and non-pooling carriers, thousands-block number pooling carriers may be competitively disadvantaged by utilization thresholds compared with non-pooling carriers. For example, if a pooling carrier can only obtain a thousands-number block when it meets the specified threshold, and a non-pooling carrier is eligible to obtain a full NXX code, the non-pooling carrier may be able to offer service to more customers than the pooling carrier before it must request more numbers. However, as stated earlier, we may revisit the issue of whether to impose utilization threshold requirements on pooling carriers in the future if we find that such thresholds significantly increase number use efficiency.

1. Selection of Thousands-Block Number Pooling Administrator

1. Background

1. Section 251(e)(1) of the 1996 Act directs the Commission to "create or designate one or more impartial entities to administer telecommunications numbering and to make such numbers available on an equitable basis." Section 251(e)(1) further states that nothing shall preclude the Commission from delegating to state commissions or other entities all or any portion of such jurisdiction. Previously, the incumbent LEC within each geographic area had performed central office code assignment and area code relief functions, and Bell Communications Research (Bellcore) performed other numbering administration functions. As more new entrants entered the telecommunications marketplace, the incumbent LECs’ continued administration of the NANP became unacceptable for competitive reasons. Therefore, in 1995, the Commission directed the NANC to recommend an independent, non-governmental entity that is not closely associated with any particular industry segment to serve as the new NANP administrator.
2. On February 20, 1997, the NANC issued a "Requirements Document," which set forth the desired qualities and attributes of the NANP administrator and the functions that it would be expected to perform. On May 15, 1997, after evaluating bids from five interested parties, the NANC submitted to the Commission its recommendation that Lockheed Martin Communications Industry Services (CIS) be appointed to serve as the NANP administrator. In October 1997, the Commission accepted the recommendation of the NANC and selected Lockheed Martin CIS as the new NANP administrator, noting that it would perform the numbering administration functions previously performed by Bellcore, as well as area code relief initiation and planning and CO code administration previously performed by the incumbent LECs. Lockheed Martin CIS assumed the NANP administrator functions in February 1998. On November 17, 1999, the NANPA functions were transferred to NeuStar which now serves as the NANP administrator.
3. In its role in advising the Commission on numbering issues, the NANC determined that thousands-block number pooling may appropriately be considered a numbering administration function, concluding that the services provided by the NANP administrator should be expanded to include all of the functions of the Pooling Administrator. With this initial conclusion, the NANC directed the NANPA Oversight Working Group to develop a Thousand Block Pool Administrator Requirements Document with the goal of submitting this document to NeuStar for a response. On January 18, 1999, the NANC submitted this document to NeuStar and requested a response. In February 1999, the thousands-block number pooling Issues Management Group (Pooling IMG) was created within the NANC to assess NeuStar’s thousands-block number pooling administration proposal. The Pooling IMG’s objective was to complete a proposed Pooling Administrator Requirements Document, negotiate the proposed terms and conditions under which the Pooling Administrator would function, and make a recommendation to the NANC. During the next several months, NeuStar and the Pooling IMG held discussions regarding the proposal.
4. On July 21, 1999, the NANC approved the NANC Steering Committee’s recommendation that the NANP administrator be appointed the Pooling Administrator subject to certain terms and conditions. On July 30, 1999, then-NANC Chairman Alan Hasselwander sent a letter to the Commission recommending that the NANP administrator be the national Pooling Administrator. The NANC had concluded that having a separate entity serve as Pooling Administrator would lead to a more costly and less efficient arrangement, and likely delay the implementation of a thousands-block number pooling rollout. The Pooling IMG presented an updated Thousand Block Pool Administrator Requirements document to the NANC on December 22, 1999, which contained additional requirements for system delivery, performance credits, and provided further explanation regarding the intellectual property rights of the customer. NeuStar submitted a response to the Thousand Block Pool Administrator Requirements Document on January 14, 2000. On February 23, 2000, the NANC recommended to the Commission that NeuStar be selected as the Pooling Administrator.
5. As noted above, several state public utility commissions have been granted the authority to implement interim thousands-block number pooling trials. NeuStar has been selected by these states to serve as the interim Pooling Administrator for the state pooling trials currently in place and some of those that are planned. In the Notice, we sought comment on whether the NANP administrator should serve as the Pooling Administrator or whether we should seek competitive bids in response to a request for proposals or requirements, as we did with respect to NANP administration.

1. Discussion

1. We find that our authority under section 251 (e)(1) of the 1996 Act to designate or create one or more impartial entities to administer telecommunications numbering and to make numbers available on an equitable basis extends to thousands-block number pooling administration. We also conclude that seeking competitive bids in response to a request for a proposal or requirements for thousands-block number pooling administration, as we did with respect to NANP administration, furthers the competitive framework that Congress established in implementing the 1996 Act and is consistent with federal procurement law. We believe that a competitive bid process that is open and fair, and will include the opportunity for participation from all interested parties, will ensure the selection of the most qualified, cost-efficient Pooling Administrator.
2. We note that appointing NeuStar, the current NANP administrator, to become the Pooling Administrator was also broadly supported in the comments and the replies to the Notice. Some commenting parties nonetheless opposed a sole source procurement framework for the selection of a national thousands-block number Pooling Administrator. Telcordia Technologies, Inc. (Telcordia), for example, expressed concern that the Commission would select the current NANP administrator as the Pooling Administrator without providing any opportunity for competition. Telcordia further stated that any selection of the Pooling Administrator without holding a fair and open competitive bidding process is inappropriate and unlawful.
3. In contrast, NeuStar alleges that competitive bidding for the thousands-block number Pooling Administrator is not required. NeuStar asserts that selection of the Pooling Administrator is more analogous to the designation of an agent and, as such, is governed by the Commission’s organic authority as a regulator under the Communications Act, as amended, and not by federal procurement laws. In the alternative, NeuStar alleges that even if such procurement requirements were applicable, competition is still not mandated, arguing that the Commission could modify NeuStar’s existing NANPA functions to include thousands-block number pooling, or award it a new contract on a sole source basis. We need not resolve whether competition is required, however, because even if it is not, the Commission is free to select the Pooling Administrator on a competitive basis, as it did in choosing the NANP administrator in 1997. As a general matter, federal law assumes that competitive procedures best serve the public interest, and the arguments presented to us to designate NeuStar on a sole-source basis in this case do not convince us to proceed otherwise. First, the benefits that can be achieved through a competitive process, such as innovative proposals and lower costs, may well counterbalance any benefits of a sole source arrangement. Moreover, it is far from certain that awarding a contract to NeuStar would lead to the expeditious implementation of the thousands-block number polling functions. The ex parte communications filed in the record of this proceeding indicate that any such award likely would be challenged by other potential service providers, and, if so, may be subject to automatic stay provisions in federal procurement law or other delay. Thus, it is not certain that significant time efficiencies would be obtained. In any event, we believe that completion of a competitive procurement can be accomplished within a reasonable timeframe. NeuStar also believes it is the most qualified provider of pooling administration. To the extent that NeuStar may be better qualified, it will have the opportunity to demonstrate that in the evaluation process. In the interim, however, because of the potential for innovative concepts and cost savings obtained through free and open competition and the fact that designation of NeuStar now as the Pooling Administrator may not lead to more expeditious provision of national pooling administration, and because competitive procedures can be initiated reasonably quickly, we believe that the public interest is best served through a competitive process that is consistent with our pro-competitive, deregulatory national policy and the policy considerations underlying federal laws requiring competition.
4. MCI WorldCom’s ex parte submission makes similar arguments to NeuStar’s, and also alleges that the federal requirement for full and open competition is inapplicable here because the funding for the Pooling Administrator is not of a public nature. However, it is clear that even in contracts that do not involve the expenditure of money by the agency, the General Accounting Office will review protests under its authority under the Competition in Contracting Act. In any event, based on our conclusion that the public interest is better served through the competitive bidding process, we conclude that the selection of the Pooling Administrator should be done under this framework in this case.
5. We acknowledge that it may be desirable in the future to link the thousands-block number pooling administration and central office code administration duties to take advantage of any synergies that may exist between these functions. We also acknowledge the efforts of the NANC which has provided an initial proposal of the duties and functions of the Pooling Administrator. However, we recognize that vendor diversity for number administration services may have advantages for the industry and the public. We believe that a competitive bidding process will serve the public interest by helping to ensure the selection of the most qualified Pooling Administrator who can perform the duties in the most cost effective manner. We conclude, therefore, that based on policy and legal grounds, we will seek competitive bids for a national Pooling Administrator.
6. Criteria for Competitive Bidding. We believe that thousands-block number pooling administration would best be performed by a single, non-governmental entity selected by this Commission and, therefore, subject to our oversight, but also separate from this Commission and not closely identified with any particular industry segment. As with NANP administration, we find that it would be very difficult, if not impossible, for a thousands-block number Pooling Administrator closely associated with a particular segment of the telecommunications industry to be impartial, and that even if such an entity were impartial, there could still be the perception that it was not, as a result of such an association.
7. We conclude, therefore, that the thousands-block number Pooling Administrator should be a non-governmental entity that is not aligned with any particular telecommunications industry segment. The Pooling Administrator must be fair and impartial. The Pooling Administrator must also meet neutrality criteria similar to that articulated in the NANP Administration Third Report and Order: 1) the Pooling Administrator may not be an affiliate of any telecommunications service provider as defined in the 1996 Act; 2) the Pooling Administrator and any affiliate may not issue a majority of its debt to, nor derive a majority of its revenues from any telecommunications service provider; and 3) notwithstanding the neutrality criteria set forth in 1) and 2) above, the Pooling Administrator may be determined to be or not to be subject to undue influence by parties with a vested interest in the outcome of numbering administration and activities.
8. For purposes of the competitive bidding process, technical requirements for a Pooling Administrator must be specified. The NANC has been addressing these significant issues in its role in advising the Commission on numbering. To ensure a competitive process, and within 90 days of release of this Report and Order, we direct the NANC, with the active participation of all interested parties, to propose revisions to the existing, proposed thousand-block Pooling Administrator Requirements Document to specify the technical requirements for the Pooling Administrator. In addition, the Commission will release a Public Notice seeking comment on the technical requirements for the Pooling Administrator which it will consider. Finally, we delegate authority to the Commission’s Office of the Managing Director, with the assistance of the Common Carrier Bureau and the Commission’s Office of General Counsel, to prepare the necessary bidding information and to develop an appropriate evaluation process. Based upon these efforts, the Commission will solicit bids for a national Pooling Administrator to serve until the completion of the current NANP administrator term.

1. Implementation Issues

1. National Framework

1. We believe based on the readiness of thousand block number pooling standards and technical requirements, that thousands-block number pooling can be implemented on a national level within nine months of the selection a national thousands-block number Pooling Administrator. In the interim, we will continue to make individual delegations of authority to states seeking to implement thousands-block number pooling trials, subject to the parameters we set forth in our previous orders delegating additional numbering authority to state commissions to the extent that they are consistent with our national pooling framework set forth in this Report and Order. Although the ultimate goal, to maximize the optimization of the resource, is to implement pools in as many rate centers as possible, we are constrained from implementing pooling everywhere because it is dependent on LNP capability. Therefore, when we begin to implement pooling at the national level, we will initially concentrate our implementation efforts in those areas in which all or most carriers are LNP-capable—i.e., the top 100 MSAs and in areas where pooling trials have begun. Once thousands-block pooling is implemented in an area, LNP-capable carriers will only receive numbers in blocks of one thousand for all purposes, including the establishment of an initial footprint as well as for growth needs. Consistent with the Thousand Block Pooling Guidelines, carriers will be required to donate all unused or lightly-used blocks (i.e., with ten percent or less contamination) to initially stock the pool. Carriers that participate in pooling will not be required to meet utilization thresholds to obtain growth codes initially. We may, however, revisit the question of whether all carriers should be subject to meeting a utilization threshold to obtain growth codes if we find that such thresholds significantly increase numbering use efficiency.

1. Implementation Schedule

1. In the Notice, we acknowledged that thousands-block number pooling could only be implemented in a limited number of areas at any given time. We observed that, because LNP capability is mandatory in the largest 100 MSAs, the degree of deployment of LNP is greatest in switches located within the largest 100 MSAs. Given the relationship of LNP implementation with thousands-block number pooling, we tentatively concluded that any deployment schedule for thousands-block number pooling should initially be tied to the largest 100 MSAs. In addition, we sought comment on whether the implementation should be staggered, like the LNP implementation schedule, to include the largest MSAs in the first group, with implementation in smaller MSAs later. Furthermore, we sought comment on whether we should establish specific criteria to justify a mandate of pooling in an area, or, to relieve an area from a pooling mandate. We further sought comment on which entity, this Commission or a state commission, should decide whether to implement pooling in a given area. In the alternative, we sought comment on whether state commissions (or another entity) could decide to opt into or opt out of an established implementation schedule for nationwide roll-out of pooling and also whether another entity should be permitted to make this decision when the state commission declines to do so. We further sought comment on whether the choice to opt in or opt out of an established implementation schedule for the national pooling framework should be made on an entire MSA, an NPA within the MSA, or on a rate center by rate center basis. Because carriers are only required to implement LNP if requested by another carrier subject to the requirements established by this Commission, we sought comment on whether we have the authority, under the 1996 Act, to order LNP capability primarily for the purpose of thousands-block number pooling. We also sought comment on whether we may delegate to other entities the authority to order carriers to implement LNP for number utilization purposes.
2. Consistent with our tentative conclusion, we conclude that the rollout of thousands-block number pooling should first occur in NPAs that are located in the largest 100 MSAs. We do so because it appears that the greatest benefits from pooling are achieved when all, or most, participating carriers are LNP-capable, and thus are able to participate in pooling. We note that, although we are using the MSAs to generally identify where LNP is prevalent, implementation of thousands-block number pooling would occur in specific NPAs within those MSAs. Moreover, because numbers can only be pooled among carriers using numbers in a given rate center, each rate center within the pooled NPA would have to have its own pool. We further clarify that where an NPA encompasses areas both inside and area outside of the qualifying MSA, pooling will be required only in those rate centers in the NPA which are a part of the MSA.
3. Most commenters also support a staggered roll-out schedule, which, similar to the LNP implementation schedule, includes NPAs within the largest MSAs in one group, with implementation in NPAs within smaller MSAs later. Although most states and many carriers recommend that thousands-block number pooling be available for implementation immediately in all NPAs that are LNP-capable, we find that a staggered rollout schedule is necessary, primarily because an overload of the telecommunications network may cause network disruptions when carriers’ Service Control Points (SCPs) capacity has been depleted. Based on input we received from NeuStar, the current pooling administrator of ongoing state trials, we also tentatively conclude that the rollout should encompass a maximum of three NPAs in each NPAC region per quarter. The current Pooling Administrator of the ongoing state trials, NeuStar, Inc., has informed us that the timeframe for completion of the necessary administrative work to enable an NPA to be ready to pool is at least three months. We believe that confining the rollout of pooling to three NPAs per NPAC region per quarter will ensure that our rollout schedule does not strain resources of the national thousands-block number Pooling Administrator and is undertaken smoothly. Also, a staggered roll-out will provide carriers time to upgrade or replace their SCPs and other components of their network, as necessary, if the increased volume of ported numbers as a result of pooling requires them to do so. We, however, do not see the need to have three-month intervals between each phase of the staggered rollout, as suggested by Ameritech, or the other more limited roll out schedules proposed by some commenters. Since we believe that the benefits of thousands-block number pooling should be realized as soon as possible, we conclude that we should implement pooling in the maximum number of NPAs that are manageable.
4. In our determination of which NPAs should be placed on the initial roll-out schedule, we decline to establish specific criteria at this time. We acknowledge that the use of such criteria would provide us with a more exact and localized picture regarding the suitability of pooling in each NPA. We conclude, however, that it would be extremely difficult for us to gather the necessary, underlying information that the application of such criteria would require, as well as incorporate it in a timely manner on the rollout schedule to give carriers adequate notice that pooling will be implemented in an NPA in which they provide service.
5. Although we will not commence national thousands-block number pooling implementation until we select a thousands-block number Pooling Administrator, we seek to give carriers and states notice of how the national rollout will be conducted. We will establish a national rollout schedule that will be divided in three-month segments, with the first round of implementation beginning nine months after the selection of a pooling administrator. The schedule for each quarter will contain three NPAs from each of the seven NPAC regions that are within the largest 100 MSAs. Thus, we anticipate that at least twenty-one NPAs will be pooled each quarter. Our determination of which NPAs should be placed on the initial rollout schedule will be based on three categories of NPAs. These categories include: 1) NPAs that were initially pooled or scheduled to be pooled pursuant to our delegations of pooling authority to state commission; 2) jeopardy NPAs in the largest 100 MSAs which have a life of one year or more; 3) new NPAs. Consistent with the findings in our delegation orders that the NPAs targeted by these states will benefit from pooling, we conclude that our rollout schedule should first include NPAs that are pooled or slated to be pooled by state commissions. We also agree with commenters who recommend that the initial rollout schedule should focus on jeopardy NPAs that are within the largest 100 MSAs. We further clarify that in NPAs that are within the largest 100 MSAs that receive an overlay NPA, both the original and overlaid NPAs shall be subject to pooling. However, because NPAs that are created as a result of a geographic split are essentially new NPAs with a geographic identification that is different from that of the original NPA, we do not require, but will permit, new NPAs that result from a geographic split to be pooled at the same time.
6. The initial rollout schedule will also include jeopardy NPAs from within the largest 100 MSAs, along with NPAs from state-ordered pooling trials. Furthermore, we conclude that NPAs that will exhaust in less than a year, based on the most current quarterly forecast issued by the NANPA at the time the quarterly schedule is established, will not be treated as priority NPAs for pooling purposes. We find that the benefit of the limited life extension of the NPA that may be achieved by implementing pooling in NPAs with only a small number of NXXs still available would not likely exceed the costs. We, however, reject the other parameters for the exhaust projection or life extension of an NPA, as suggested by some parties because we conclude that these parameters are not realistic, given the magnitude of area code exhaust occurring throughout the nation, as evidenced by the fact that approximately 23 percent of the total number of NPAs nationwide are in jeopardy. Moreover, we believe that the cost savings from delaying area code relief for even just two years, as in the 847 NPA in Illinois, wherein pooling extended the life of the NPA from 18 months to three and a half years, represents a substantial benefit to consumers, businesses, and state commissions.
7. Furthermore, we are sensitive to concerns that a national pooling framework will not provide states with the flexibility to delay the implementation of pooling in NPAs within their states. Therefore, we will permit states to choose to opt out of the rollout schedule on a temporary basis by informing the Pooling Administrator of their decision three months prior to the rollout date. The choice to opt out must be made on an NPA-wide basis. We emphasize, however, that a state does not have the option to opt out of our requirement to conform to the standards of the national program in the operation of an ongoing pooling trial.
8. In addition, to serve the needs of states outside of the top 100 MSAs which believe that pooling would be beneficial in an NPA within their state, we will consider petitions to opt in to the national pooling rollout schedule. We will accommodate such requests, however, in instances where space is available on the schedule due to an opening created by a state’s opting out, or in demonstrated special circumstances, if the Pooling Administrator can accommodate the request in addition to the twenty-one scheduled implementations. Similar to our requirements for a state to justify its request for pooling authority prior to the implementation of national pooling, a state choosing to opt in must demonstrate that: 1) an NPA in its state is in jeopardy, 2) the NPA in question has a remaining a life span of at least a year, and 3) the majority of wireline carriers in the NPA are LNP-capable. We will also consider state requests to opt into the national pooling rollout schedule where a state demonstrates special circumstances. We decline to determine at this time what such "special circumstances" may include, but will consider such requests on a case-by-case basis. The decision to opt in would only be on an NPA-wide basis. Although some parties oppose the ability of states that are not in the largest 100 MSAs to opt in to our initial rollout schedule for thousands-block pooling, we conclude that such flexibility is necessary in light of the diverse numbering conditions present in each state.
9. To permit a greater level of state participation in the choice of the NPAs which will be pooled, we will also permit state commissions to substitute the NPA listed in the rollout schedule with an alternative NPA, as long as the substitute NPA has a life span of at least one year and is located within one of the top 100 MSAs. To exercise this option, the state must inform the thousands-block number Pooling Administrator within 15 days of the release of the roll out schedule for that quarter. We will not depart, however, from our default deployment schedule based on the largest 100 MSAs to accommodate jeopardy NPAs outside the largest 100 MSAs, as some commenters argue we should. We believe that the greater demand for numbering resources from competitive forces within the top 100 MSAs persuades us to focus the thousands-block number Pooling Administrator’s limited resources on these areas first, before moving on to areas outside the top 100 MSAs. We believe these provisions will provide an adequate degree of flexibility in our national thousands-block pooling plan.
10. We also require the thousands-block number Pooling Administrator, once selected, to establish the initial rollout schedule and submit it to the Common Carrier Bureau for approval within 60 days after being selected. Pursuant to this task, the selected Pooling Administrator must, as an initial task upon its appointment, identify the largest 100 MSAs within each NPAC region, note the pooling trials initiated pursuant to delegated authority from the Commission, and identify the jeopardy NPAs, by NPAC region, which are scheduled to exhaust within one year. Moreover, the Pooling Administrator shall submit to the Common Carrier Bureau the roll out schedule for each subsequent quarter at least 90 days prior to the effective date of that schedule.

1. Implementation Timeframe

1. In the Notice we recognized that the time needed to implement thousands-block number pooling is dependent on a number of variables, including the extent of LNP deployment, the provisioning method chosen, compatibility of service providers, operational support systems, selection of a Pooling Administrator, the need for enhancements to switches, SCPs, and other service provider systems, and availability of necessary hardware and software changes from vendors. We identified the specific pooling administration tasks that needed to be completed, including the development of Pooling Administration guidelines, selection of a Pooling Administrator, and development by the Pooling Administrator of an automated system for allocation of pooled number resources, built according to industry-supplied specifications and requirements. We further discussed the technical tasks required to implement thousands-block number pooling, which include the selection of a pooling deployment method, development and deployment of enhancements to the NPAC SMS to accommodate pooling, development of switch requirements, and system testing. Lastly, we listed the tasks that service providers, together with equipment vendors, must accomplish to achieve thousands-block number pooling. These tasks include modifications to service provider LSMSs and SCPs, enhancements to Service Order Administration systems (SOAs) and operations support systems; enhancements to switches, and subsequent testing. We also sought comment on the NANC Report’s estimate that thousands-block number pooling could be implemented within 10 to 19 months from a regulatory order.
2. We observe that a number of key pre-pooling activities, including the deployment of LNP throughout the largest 100 MSAs and the development of the Thousands Block Pooling Guidelines regarding the administration of thousands-block number pooling, have already been completed. Moreover, the NANPA and the NANC have been engaged in an ongoing analysis of current and future numbering needs. In addition, the selected thousands-block number Pooling Administrator for the ongoing state pooling trials, NeuStar, Inc., has announced the activation in July 2000 of LNP software that will facilitate the transfer of large ranges of numbers as a single message through a data formatting method known as Efficient Date Representation (EDR). Although we do not endorse the adoption of this particular software at this time, we believe that the incorporation of EDR in such software is significant because it will reduce the strain on the network from the large volume of number porting that is likely to occur once thousands-block number pooling is implemented nationally. It is also our understanding that other entities could also develop pooling software with this EDR feature. Furthermore, because pooling is already underway in certain NPAs, we believe that a long lead time is not necessary to iron out significant technical issues. Thus, we conclude that the implementation time frame for initiating thousands-block number pooling should be no longer than nine months after the date on which the Pooling Administrator is selected. Although several carriers contend that a longer implementation time frame is necessary, we find that, because much of the prerequisite work has been done, the shorter time frame is sufficient and appropriate.

1. Delegations of Authority for Pooling to State Commissions

1. To enable consumers to receive the benefits of thousands-block number pooling as soon as feasible, we will continue to grant states authority to implement thousands-block number pooling on an individual basis. Therefore, subsequent to the release of this Report and Order, the Common Carrier Bureau will issue its determinations on pending state petitions requesting pooling authority. As indicated in our orders delegating pooling authority to state commissions, the national thousands-block number pooling framework, including the technical standards and pooling administration provisions, will supersede these interim delegations of authority to state commissions. Furthermore, state commissions receiving new delegations of pooling authority from us must conform to the national framework. We agree with commenters who state that uniform standards for thousands-block number pooling are necessary to minimize the confusion and additional expense related to compliance with inconsistent regulatory requirements. We thus seek to maintain uniformity in the implementation of thousands-block number pooling on a nationwide basis. Moreover, our existing delegations of pooling authority to state commissions will continue until national pooling implementation occurs, provided they comply with our national pooling framework. We recognize, however, that pooling trials already underway may not conform to the standards set forth herein, and therefore, we give state commissions until September 1, 2000, at the latest, to bring their pooling trials into conformity with the national framework set forth herein.
2. Similar to the procedure employed in our delegations of authority to implement number conservation measures, including thousands-block number pooling, states seeking such authority must individually petition us for such authority. We also continue our delegation of authority to the Common Carrier Bureau to rule on such petitions for additional delegation of numbering authority when no new issues are raised. Furthermore, to ensure that pooling is implemented in areas where it has the potential to be most beneficial, we require that states include a showing of specific criteria in their petitions for pooling authority. Each petition must demonstrate that: 1) that an NPA in its state is in jeopardy, 2) the NPA in question has a remaining life span of at least a year, and 3) that NPA is in one of the largest 100 MSAs, or alternatively, the majority of wireline carriers in the NPA are LNP-capable. We, however, recognize that there may be "special circumstances" where pooling would be of benefit in NPAs that do not meet all of the above criteria, and we may, thus, authorize pooling in such an NPA upon a satisfactory showing by the state commission of such circumstances. To the extent that the pending state petitions do not demonstrate that the state possesses the criteria we require for future delegations of pooling authority, the state commission must supplement its existing filing with the Common Carrier Bureau within 30 days of release of this Report and Order. Although our national pooling framework implements pooling on an NPA basis within the largest 100 MSAs, we will continue to grant states interim pooling authority in a single MSA in their state. A state may expand pooling to another MSA only after having implemented pooling in the initial MSA and after allowing carriers sufficient time to undertake necessary steps to accommodate thousands-block number pooling, such as modifying databases and upgrading switch software.
3. Consistent with our statements in the delegation orders, we reiterate that, to ensure that consumers are never foreclosed from exercising their choice of carrier because that carrier does not have access to numbering resources, state commissions must take all necessary steps to prepare an NPA relief plan when it seeks to implement a pooling trial in an NPA which is in jeopardy. Area code relief is ultimately a federal question, although we have delegated to states authority to handle these matters. It is our policy that no carriers should be denied numbering resources simply because needed area code relief has not been implemented. A number of carriers have raised concerns in this proceeding that some states may not be developing and implementing area code relief plans in a timely manner. We are troubled by these allegations, and we will closely monitor these situations to ensure that federal numbering policies are followed. We also emphasize that only those carriers that have implemented LNP capability shall be subject to pooling, and a state commission does not have the authority to require LNP capability solely for the purpose of being able to participate in pooling. Moreover, non-LNP capable carriers operating in NPAs that are subject to pooling shall have the same access to numbering resources as they had prior to the implementation of pooling. States implementing pooling must also ensure that they provide carriers with an adequate transition time to implement pooling in their switches and administrative systems. In addition, because our national cost recovery plan cannot become effective until national pooling implementation occurs, states conducting their own pooling trials must develop their own cost recovery scheme for the joint and carrier-specific costs of implementing and administering pooling in the NPA in question. The individual state cost-recovery schemes, however, will transition to the national cost-recovery plan when it becomes effective. As we determined in our delegation orders, states must ensure that the costs of number pooling are recovered in a competitively neutral manner, pursuant to section 251(e)(2) of the Act.

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.