Internet Draft Document: Mark Foster Tom McGarry Category: Informational James Yu Expires in six months NeuStar, Inc. November 17, 2000 Number Portability in the United States Status of this Memo This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026 [RFC]. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet- Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. To learn the current status of any Internet-Draft, please check the "1id- abstracts.txt" listing contained in the Internet-Drafts Shadow Directories on ftp.is.co.za (Africa), nic.nordu.net (Europe), munnari.oz.au (Pacific Rim), ds.internic.net (US East Coast), or ftp.isi.edu (US West Coast). 1. Abstract This document provides a historical as well as practical overview of the implementation of Number Portability in the United States. There are various regulatory constraints that establish relevant parameters for NP implementation, most of which are not network technology specific. Though this document discusses the implementation of NP in the United States it is offered as relevant for discussions in numerous areas of IP telephony work-in-progress at IETF. 2.0 Background The North American telecommunications industry began to seriously investigate methods of providing local number portability (LNP) in late 1994. On July 13, 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in the U.S. issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) FCC Docket Number 95-116 that opened discussion on NP and sought comments on a wide variety of policy and technical issues related to NP. FOSTER EXPIRES 5/1/2001 PAGE 1 INTERNET DRAFT NUMBER PORTABILITY IN THE UNITED STATES NOVEMBER 17, 2000 In 1995 and 1996 several state regulatory bodies, notably the Illinois Commerce Commission (ICC), began the process of officially selecting the architecture to be used for NP in their respective states. After considerable discussion and deliberation, the "Location Routing Number (LRN)" scheme was selected by Illinois, and other states. The switching and signaling requirements for number portability developed in the Illinois LNP workshop under the auspices of the ICC became the basis of the de facto North American industry standards [ICC]. The activities on number portability in the North America also interacted with activities in many other parts of world. 2.2 Performance/Legal/Regulatory Requirements After substantial industry discussion and debate, and extensive comments filed with the FCC, the FCC and the U.S. telecommunications industry set the following minimum performance criteria for LNP: 1. Support existing network services, features and capabilities. 2. Efficiently use numbering resources. 3. Not require end users to change their telecommunication numbers. 4. Not require telecommunications carrier to rely on databases, other network facilities, or services provided by other telecommunications carriers in order to route calls to proper termination point. 5. Not result in unreasonable degradation in service quality or network reliability when implemented. 6. Not result in unreasonable degradation of service quality or network reliability when customers switch carriers. 7. Not result in a carrier having a proprietary interest. 8. Be able to accommodate location and service portability in the future. 9. Have no significant adverse impact outside areas where number portability is deployed. In July 1996, the FCC issued the First Report and Order on LNP under 95-116, calling for the deployment of LNP across the U.S. starting in 1997. The FCC did not mandate any specific implementation of LNP in the U.S., but it did call upon the industry to develop and endorse a national standard that would ensure interoperability with all industry segments, including wireless. While providing overall guidelines and requirements for LNP, it did explicitly state that the LRN method met these requirements, whereas alternate proposals (such as QoR) did not. A core requirement was that a carrier who is serving ported numbers need not be reliant on any other carrier (especially the donor network) for completing calls, whether for call transport/routing or for signaling. That's not to say that a carrier couldn't voluntarily opt to use another carrier or the donor network for queries or call routing. But the key is voluntarily. This requirement was imposed on all NP implementations in the U.S. for common carrier telephony services regardless of the network technology employed. Similar requirements were adopted by the Canadian Radio and Television FOSTER EXPIRES 5/1/2001 PAGE 2 INTERNET DRAFT NUMBER PORTABILITY IN THE UNITED STATES NOVEMBER 17, 2000 Commission (CRTC), the equivalent of the FCC in Canada, and in a number of regulatory and industry bodies in other countries (e.g., Belgium, Denmark, Spain, and Switzerland) which resulted in the use of centralized NPDBs to support number portability. In the U.S. and Canada, the ACQ scheme was adopted because it does not rely on the donor network for call routing (see requirements numbers 4 and 7) and it can accommodate location and service portability in the future. In the U.S. and Canada, there is also the "N-1" guideline that recommends that the network next to the destination network perform the NPDB query if the NPDB query has not been done or the routing information is not available (e.g., due to signaling interworking). This is to prevent the call from being re-routed at the donor network. In the U.S., the wireline carriers are required to support NP in certain service areas in phases. The wireless carriers' support of NP has been postponed until November 2002. 3. NP Administration Process in the North America 3.1 Business Model Figure B.1 shows the NP business model that was adopted in the U.S. and Canada. The U.S. is divided into seven regions coinciding with the boundaries of the original seven Regional Bell Operating Company (RBOC) regions. This was done to facilitate the formation of separate contracting and administrative areas (formed as limited liability companies) for LNP in the U.S. intentionally coinciding with the original RBOC boundaries, thus enabling each RBOC to participate singly in each of these areas. A contractor was selected in open competitive procurements conducted by the industry to be the Number Portability Administration Center (NPAC) provider for each of the seven NPAC regions (Midwest, Northeast, Mid-Atlantic, Southwest, Southeast, Western, and West Coast) in the U.S. The same thing happened in Canada as well. Each Limited Liability Corp. (LLC) in the seven U.S. regions and Canadian Consortium maintain largely identical contracts with the selected contractor(s) covering each region. The FCC and North American Numbering Council (NANC) oversee the technical and operational standards and cost recovery rulemakings. Each LLC signed a master contract with the selected NPAC that set the prices and terms and provided the form of User Agreement for the selected NPAC to sign with each individual NPAC user. NPAC users are any bona fide entity that either ports numbers or subscribes to updates to the NPDB provided by the NPAC. Before becoming a NPAC user, a Customer must first sign and return a Non- FOSTER EXPIRES 5/1/2001 PAGE 3 INTERNET DRAFT NUMBER PORTABILITY IN THE UNITED STATES NOVEMBER 17, 2000 Disclosure Agreement before any other documentation can be sent. Therefore after the NPAC receives a signed Non-Disclosure Agreement the Customer can now receive the Master Agreement, User Agreement, and Interconnect Plan. The Master Agreement is the top-level overall contract. +--------+ +----------+ | FCC |------------>| State | | NANC |<---+ +--->| PUCs | +--------+ | | +----------+ | | v v (Master +--------------+ Agreement) +----------+ | Regional LLC |<----------->| NPAC | | Contract | | | | Administrator| +----------+ +--------------+ ^ ^ | | | v | +----------+ | | NPAC |<------------------+ | Users | (One User Agreement per User) +----------+ Figure B.1 - NP Administration Business Model in the U.S. The User Agreements come under the Master Agreements and must be signed by the individual Customers who wish to use NPAC services. If a Customer plans on operating in more than one region, the Customer must sign a separate User Agreement for each of the regions where operations will take place. The Interconnect Plan is another NPAC document that the Customer must sign and return. This document provides an overview of the customer interconnection to the NPAC. The new customer process is shown below. - Customer contacts Chicago NPAC (Help Desk) to request information. - Introduction Package (Application, Non-Disclosure Agreement) sent to customer. - Customer signs and returns Non-disclosure Agreement. FOSTER EXPIRES 5/1/2001 PAGE 4 INTERNET DRAFT NUMBER PORTABILITY IN THE UNITED STATES NOVEMBER 17, 2000 - Master Agreement, User Agreement and Interconnect Plan sent to Customer. - Customer signs and returns User Agreement. - Customer signs and returns Interconnect Plan. - Customer data entered. 3.2 NPAC Architecture Figure B.2 shows the architecture for number portability administration in the U.S. and Canada. (Carrier Facilities) : (NPAC Facilities) +---------+ : | SOA | : | |-------------------+ +---------+ : | : | : +----------+ : | NPAC/SMS | : | | : +----------+ : | +---------+ +---------+ : | | NPDB |---------| LSMS |-------------------+ |(e.g.SCP)| | | : +---------+ +---------+ : : Figure B.2 - NPAC Architecture. The interface between the Service Order Administration (SOA) and the NPAC/SMS is for provisioning ported end-user data including the support of the creation, cancellation, retrieval and update of subscription, service provider, and network information. The SOAs are operated by the local exchange carriers. The interface between the Local Service Management System (LSMS) and the NPAC/SMS is mainly used for downloading ported number information from the NPAC/SMS to the LSMS. The LSMS then updates the NPDB. A local exchange carrier may operate the LSMS if it decides to deploy an NPDB itself. A service bureau can also operate the LSMS to provision several LECs' NPDBs or operate the LSMS and the NPDB for the operators (e.g., LECs or long distance carriers) to query. The interface between the LSMS and the NPDB is up to the entities that operate them. FOSTER EXPIRES 5/1/2001 PAGE 5 INTERNET DRAFT NUMBER PORTABILITY IN THE UNITED STATES NOVEMBER 17, 2000 The functional requirement specification developed under the auspices of the North American Numbering Council (NANC) defines the external functionality of the NPAC SMS [FRS]. The interfaces between the NPAC/SMS and the SOA or LSMS use standards-based communications and security technologies and are made public [IIS]. Please note that only the information about the ported numbers is stored at the NPAC databases and the NPDBs at present. 3.3 NPAC SMS Functions This section provides a list of the NPAC SMS functions. Please see [FRS] for details. - Provisioning Service: For the new service provider to notify the NPAC SMS of a provision request for a ported number and to send an activation notice to activate the update from the NPAC SMS to the LSMS. - Disconnect Service: For handling disconnection of the telephony service for a ported number. - Repair Service: For resolving problems detected either by a Service Provider or by a customer contacting a Service Provider. - Conflict Resolution: For resolving a conflict when there is disagreement between the old and new Service Providers as to who will be providing service for the telephone number (TN). Please note that the processes for obtaining authorization from the customer to port a number are defined by the Service Providers. The NPAC is not involved in obtaining or verifying customer approval to port a telephone number. - Disaster Recovery and Backup: For having a backup facility and the disaster recovery procedures in place for planned and unplanned downtime at the primary facility. - Order Cancellation: For the new Service Provider to cancel a previously submitted but not activated provision request. - Audit Request: For troubleshooting customer problems and also as a maintenance process to ensure data integrity across the entire NP network. - Report Request: For supporting report generation for pre-defined and ad-hoc reports. - Data Management: For managing network, Service Provider, and customer subscription data. The network data defines the configuration of the NP service and network and includes such data as: participating Service Providers, NPA-NXXs that are portable, and LRNs associated with each Service Provider. The Service Provider data indicates who the NP Service Providers are and includes location, contact name, security, routing, and network interface information. The subscription data indicates how local number portability should operate to meet subscribers' needs. - NPA-NXX Split Processing: For the administration of the information for NPA split (the current NPA, the new NPA, and the affected NXXs) plus the beginning and end date of the permissive dialing period. - Business Support: For supporting service providers that have different needs for business hours and days available for porting. - Notification Recovery: For allowing a Service Provider to capture, via a recovery process, all notifications that were missed during a downtime period for the Service Provider. 3.4 Cost Recovery In the FCC's Third Report and Order, adopted May 5, 1998, released May 12, 1998 and published in the Federal Registry July 29, 1998 the Commission implemented section 251(e)(2) with regards to the costs of providing long-term number portability. Section 251(e)(2) of the Communications Act of 1934 (1934 Act), as amended requires that "the cost of establishing telecommunications numbering administration arrangements and number portability shall be borne by all telecommunications carriers on a competitively neutral basis as determined by the Commission." The costs can be categorized below. - Share costs incurred by industry as a whole for the NPACs: * Non-recurring costs, e.g., administrator costs to implement database hardware and software. * Recurring costs, e.g., administrator costs to administer the databases. * Costs incurred by administrators to upload and download data to and from databases. Shared costs of each regional database distributed among telecommunications carriers with revenue derived from providing telecommunications service in the area served by the database, in proportion to carrier's share of revenue for the region. Carriers without such revenue assessed $100 per year. - Carrier-specific costs incurred by each carrier that directly relates to providing NP, e.g., querying calls, porting telephone numbers between carriers. * Dedicated costs, e.g., number portability software, NPDBs and STPs reserved exclusively for NP. * Joint costs, e.g., software generics, switch hardware, Operation Support System (OSS), SS7 or AIN upgrade, incremental to providing NP. Carriers may include incremental overhead incurred specifically in providing NP. Incumbent LECs may recover costs directly related to providing NP through federally tariffed charges that can be query-service charges, prearranged and default, and monthly end-user charges. For example, the end-users in the metropolitan D.C. area pay 23 cents per month for NP surcharge. Carriers, other than incumbent LECs, may recover costs in any manner consistent with state and federal laws and regulations. FOSTER EXPIRES 5/1/2001 PAGE 6 INTERNET DRAFT NUMBER PORTABILITY IN THE UNITED STATES NOVEMBER 17, 2000 3. References [IIS] NeuStar (formerly Lockheed Martin IMS Corporation), prepared for the North American Numbering Council (NANC),"NPAC SMS interoperable Interface Specification, Version 2.0.2," September 1, 1999. [FRS] NANC, "Functional Requirements Specification - NPAC SMS, Version 2.0.2," September 1, 1999. 4. Author's Addresses Mark D. Foster NeuStar, Inc. 1120 Vermont Avenue, NW, Suite 550 Washington, D.C. 20005 United States Phone: +1-202-533-2800 Fax: +1-202-533-2975 Email: mark.foster@neustar.com Tom McGarry NeuStar, Inc. 1120 Vermont Avenue, NW, Suite 550 Washington, D.C. 20005 United States Phone: +1-202-533-2810 Fax: +1-202-533-2975 James Yu NeuStar, Inc. 1120 Vermont Avenue, NW, Suite 550 Washington, D.C. 20005 United States Phone: +1-202-533-2814 Fax: +1-202-533-2975 Email: james.yu@neustar.com Full Copyright Statement "Copyright (C) The Internet Society (date). All Rights Reserved. This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be followed, or as required to translate it into. INTERNET DRAFT NUMBER PORTABILITY IN THE UNITED STATES NOVEMBER 17, 2000