BEFORE THE
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
In the Matter of
COMMON CARRIER BUREAU SEEKS
COMMENT ON NORTH AMERICAN
NUMBERING COUNCIL REPORT
CONCERNING TELEPHONE NUMBER
POOLING AND OTHER
OPTIMIZATION MEASURES
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
NSD File No. L-98-134
COMMENTS OF THE NEW HAMPSHIRE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
December 21, 1998
I. Introduction and New Hampshire Background
On November 6, 1998, the Common Carrier Bureau (CCB) of
the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) issued Public
Notice DA98-2265 seeking comment on the North American
Numbering Council Report (NANC Report) Concerning Telephone
Number Pooling And Other Optimization Measures. On the same
date, NANPA sent to the New Hampshire Public Utilities
Commission (NHPUC) a document which officially declared New
Hampshire's 603 area code to be in "extraordinary jeopardy."
The State of New Hampshire has approximately 800,000 access
lines and 200,000 wireless subscribers among a population of
about 1.2 million whereas there are approximately 7.7 million
telephone numbers in the 603 numbering plan area (NPA) code.
On December 14, 1998, NHPUC submitted its Petition for
Reconsideration responsive to the FCC's September 28, 1998
Memorandum Opinion and Order addressing area code issues
before the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission. In our
Petition for Reconsideration, the NHPUC requested that the
FCC: (1) remove the condition in Paragraph 24 that requires a
state commission to decide upon a specific form of area code
relief before it is allowed to impose central office code
(NXX) conservation measures; (2) authorize state commissions
to implement NXX conservation measures that do not interfere
with the FCC's guidelines for traditional area code relief;
and, (3) clarify the authority state commissions have to order
return of NXXs.
This confluence of events heightens our concerns about
this critical telecommunications public policy issue. The
NHPUC therefore respectfully submits the following comments on
this Public Notice in order to offer our initial assessment of
potential short term and long term solutions to those
problems.
First and foremost, the NHPUC believes that time is of
the essence. The need for individual states, including New
Hampshire, to be able to move forward quickly and invoke any
and all reasonable and prudent number conservation and
optimization measures is obvious. If conservation measures
are not quickly implemented, New Hampshire will face the
irrational and harmful prospect of adding a new area code,
with the associated costs to customers, in the face of a
number-to-lines ratio of 8 to 1. Thus, any delays in
decisionmaking in order to ferret out minutiae will come at a
significant, though difficult to quantify, cost.
Second, as a general policy matter, the NHPUC supports
the notion that more choice among competing number
conservation options is better than less choice, as it gives
states the maximum flexibility to implement those options that
are best suited to the individual, perhaps even unique,
conditions in that state. Therefore, we urge the FCC to adopt
as many of the NANC's recommended options as the FCC finds
viable. Having said this, we duly recognize the FCC's need to
ensure a certain level of consistency of numbering across the
entire geographic area served by the North American Numbering
Plan (NANP).
II. Comments
Following review of the NANC Report, the NHPUC makes the
following general recommendations, which are discussed in more
detail in the paragraphs which follow:
(1) that, as soon as possible, the FCC order the
use of Thousand Number Block Pooling (TNP), as
defined in Section 5 of the NANC Report;
(2) that the FCC adopt Individual Telephone Number
Pooling (ITN), as delineated in Section 4 of
the NANC Report, as the long term solution and
move forward to order service providers to
become LNP-capable as soon as practicable; and,
(3) that the FCC require revision of Industry
Assignment (CO Code) Guidelines, particularly
those addressing fill rate and inventory level
requirements and reclamation of unused codes
and thousand number blocks.
We also comment briefly on the other issues for which the
FCC sought comment: Unassigned Number Porting (UNP), Expanded
Local Calling Areas (ELCA), and Mandatory 10-digit dialing.
In addition to those areas, we address questions relating to
the role of NANPA, code sharing and transparent routing number
assignment, the lack of useful cost data, and potential issues
relating to public safety.
A. TNP
Of the fourteen options defined by NANC, the NHPUC
believes that the most important short-term relief option
targeted for comment is Thousand Number Block Pooling (TNP).
As stated in the Executive Summary to the NANC Report, "Based
on the work of the NRO-WG to date, as documented in this
report, thousands block pooling is the only number pooling
alternative that potentially meets the FCC's December 1999
date for deployment of number pooling in LNP areas in
accordance with a consistent nationwide plan." Given this
statement, and the need for timely policy implementation, this
alternative, above all others, urgently requires affirmative
action by the FCC, including, but not limited to, ordering
vendors to implement needed hardware and software changes in a
timely fashion. This solution dovetails with what we
perceive to be the long-term solution to the numbering
resources problem in the United States: Individual Telephone
Number Pooling or ITN, as spelled out in Section 4 of the NANC
Report.
B. ITN
While Thousand Number Block Pooling may mitigate the
numbering problem in the short term, a long-term solution to
the numbering problem needs to be identified. We concur
generally with the view of the Colorado Public Utilities
Commission that having a long term solution in place will
enable the FCC to focus its efforts upon those short-term
solutions which best fit with the long run solution chosen,
but point out that maximum short-term flexibility is required
for addressing imminent number exhaust situations. Though
certain technological and other obstacles may exist at
present, the long run solution is to move to Individual
Telephone Number Pooling (ITN). ITN will fully utilize our
numbering resources by assigning every assignable number in an
NXX code before another NXX code is put into use. Thus, from
a pure efficiency standpoint in terms of number utilization,
ITN is unassailable as a solution to the numbering resource
dilemma.
C. UNP
The NHPUC is intrigued by the possibilities afforded by
Unassigned Number Porting (UNP) as an interim (i.e.,
jeopardy-avoiding) solution and believes that it may warrant
further inquiry and approval as another temporary tool in the
numbering conservation arsenal. However, UNP should be
endorsed only as an additional measure and not in place of TNP
and ITN. The NHPUC has a concern that the costs may be too
high relative to the short term benefits produced and that it
would be difficult to find a neutral third party to govern
sharing between providers.
D. CO Code Assignment Guidelines
The NHPUC generally supports the Comments of the Colorado
PUC with respect to code assignment guidelines, but recognizes
that such efforts, though necessary and useful, may not be
implemented in time to resolve short term number exhaust
issues in New Hampshire. The NHPUC believes that revision of
the guidelines governing reclamation of unused codes should be
a priority, as well revision of those guidelines addressing
fill rates and inventory level requirements. Also, to the
extent that number utilization audits and penalties can
provide the correct incentives for service providers to
implement LNP on a shorter timeline, such measures should be
made effective without delay, with the caveat that they be
applied in a competitively-neutral manner.
E. ELCA
Although the NHPUC has not fully analyzed the details necessary to implement
Extended Local Calling Areas (ELCAs) between wireline providers in NH, we believe this
option may have merit. In order to provide statewide coverage in NH today, a CLEC needs
32 NXXs or, under the current system, 320,000 telephone numbers. With ELCA, certain
CLECs, such as those who primarily provide service to Internet Service Providers (ISPs),
would be able to provide comparable service by using only one NXX rather than 32. States
should be allowed to consider ELCA among the available number conservation measures.
F. Mandatory 10-Digit Dialing
The NHPUC considered mandatory 10-digit dialing in
protracted hearings in 1993 and chose instead to implement
7-digit dialing for all in-state toll calls. New Hampshire
consumers, then and now, have a strong preference for avoiding
mandatory 10-digit dialing. Where, as here, alternative
conservation measures are available, imposing the
inconvenience of mandatory 10-digit dialing should be a last
resort.
G. The role of NANPA
The FCC has encouraged commenting parties to address,
"what entity or entities should be assigned the responsibility
of requesting number usage data from carriers and other code
holders and whether the NANPA or some other entity should
perform forecast analyses on such data." At the NHPUC, we
have already begun an informal state survey of NXX code
utilization, including a request to code holders and potential
code holders (to the extent they are known) to provide a
limited forecast of anticipated demand for new NXX codes
through the year 2001.
More extensive efforts need to be undertaken at the
national level. This important information gathering and
forecasting function should be assigned to an unbiased entity
capable of efficient, accurate performance. State-specific
information should then be shared fully with state
commissions.
As presently constituted, NANPA relies on reaching
industry consensus. Experience suggests it is usually
difficult, if not impossible, to achieve such consensus
because of the competing interests of the stakeholders
involved in the process. Given this fact, the FCC should take
whatever immediate steps are within its authority to
accelerate the decisionmaking process at NANPA, either by
implementing measures which redefine how NANPA operates or
through any other measures which, collectively, lead to the
desired information flow and policy implementation efficiency
gains. Again, at the risk of emphasizing this point
unnecessarily, there is an urgent need to make decisions soon
enough to avoid absurd results.
Clearly, at a basic level, the role of NANPA in this
process needs to be re-examined. The NHPUC is interested in
learning more about the merits of the proposals put forth by
the Colorado PUC regarding fundamental changes to the way in
which NANPA operates.
H. Cost data and other information gaps
The recalcitrance of industry participants to release
relevant cost data concerning implementation costs for Local
Number Portability (LNP) and other number optimization
measures should not be allowed to delay the process of
implementing conservation measures. There are ways to protect
the proprietary nature of the data provided and yet still
reveal the underlying cost constraints required to bring about
full LNP. Carriers and other relevant parties should not be
allowed to hide behind the "proprietary" veil and thus thwart
efforts to meet public needs in the most efficient manner
possible. The bottom line is simply that the implementation
costs of each of the fourteen options examined in the NANC
Report need to be better understood and there needs to be a
reasonable process in place to reach an accurate determination
of these costs.
I. Other
Though the FCC has not sought comment on code sharing and
transparent routing number assignment at this time, the NHPUC
believes these options deserve attention as stop-gap measures
having significant potential either to forestall the need for
the introduction of a new area code or else to mask its
introduction from an end user perspective. Transparent
routing, in particular, has the additional benefit of allowing
for an overlay of a new area code, on a temporary basis, that
is transparent (unknown) to the end user. This would allow
states to move forward with implementation of other number
conservation measures which could ultimately allow the
transparent NPA to be returned to NANPA for redistribution.
In the meantime, consumers and businesses are not faced with
the clearly avoidable costs associated with a non-transparent
area code change. The NHPUC views these solutions as having
merit as interim tools with the understanding that, like the
other measures discussed in the NANC Report, the
implementation costs associated with these options require
further elucidation.
One final area which merits attention is the issue of
public safety. Here, the NHPUC applauds the effort of the
Colorado Public Utilities Commission to focus attention on
this important subject.
III. Conclusion
As stated previously, the NHPUC believes that timeliness
regarding area code policy implementation is of paramount
importance and urges quick action by the Commission. The
NHPUC also urges the FCC to order the implementation of as
many alternative measures as are viable, while focusing its
attention on those options that will provide immediate relief
to states facing imminent area code exhaust due to inefficient
allocation of numbering resources.