1 / 13

Industry Numbering Committee (INC) Report to the NANC

Details the recent INC meetings discussing CO/NXX and LNPA Subcommittee issues like CLLI, NRUF, Code Holder terminology, and NPA assignment processes. No changes deemed necessary.

kpatino
Download Presentation

Industry Numbering Committee (INC) Report to the NANC

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Industry Numbering Committee (INC) Report to the NANC February 18, 2010 Adam Newman, INC Chair Natalie McNamer, INC Vice Chair

  2. INC Meetings • INC Meetings: INC held two face to face meetings since the last NANC report. • Next INC Meeting: INC 111, April 20-22, 2010 Details on all future meetings can be found at: www.atis.org/inc/calendar.asp

  3. CO/NXX SubcommitteeIssue 549: COCAG Part 1 Analysis for Determining If Some Fields Could Be Made Optional • In lieu of removing the CLLI information from the Part 1 form, the INC introduced this issue to analyze and document the particular situations where the switch CLLI and/or tandem CLLI is or is not needed on the COCAG Part 1 and determine if one or both of those fields could be optionally submitted under certain conditions. • Due to the subsequent availability of a mass modification process to update NAS and PAS information when needed, the need for the change was seen as less compelling by the industry. • INC members determined that due to the relative volume of Part 1 requests/modifications to Part 1A volume and the fact that the CLLI would still be needed in at least some cases, a change to make the data optional was of limited value. • After discussion and input from both state regulatory representatives and INC participants, it was agreed by INC that no changes to the Part 1 form or INC guidelines were necessary.

  4. CO/NXX SubcommitteeIssue 669: NRUF SP Name must match SP OCN name • There are instances in which the reporting carrier does not populate the SP Name with the same name that is associated with the SP OCN. This causes confusion for analyzing the North American Numbering Plan Numbering Resource Utilization/Forecast Reporting (NRUF) reports, especially in the case of companies that have gone through numerous mergers and acquisitions. • As a result, the INC added clarifying language that requires reporting carriers to populate the SP name field of the NRUF with the exact name that corresponds to the SP OCN as indicated in National Exchange Carrier Association (NECA) records and the LERG Routing Guide.

  5. LNPA SubcommitteeIssue 604: Code Holder vs. LERG Assignee • Today many industry members use the terms Code Holder and LERG Assignee interchangeably when referencing the service provider assigned an NXX code, and it is no longer necessary to maintain separate terms and definitions. • INC agreed to modify the definition of Code Holder, combining the Code Holder and LERG Assignee terms into a single definition that recognizes the responsibilities of an NXX assignee in both pooled and non-pooled areas. • INC worked with ATIS forums and other industry forums to develop the revised definition, recognizing that other forums may use either or both terms in their documentation. • The revised definition of Code Holder is as follows: “An assignee of a pooled or non-pooled NXX code that is assigned by the CO Code Administrator. The responsibilities of an assignee for a pooled NXX are defined in Section 4.2.1 of the Thousands Block Number (NXX-X) Pooling Administration Guidelines (TBPAG) and for a non-pooled NXX are defined in Section 6.3 of the Central Office Code (NXX) Assignment Guidelines (COCAG). A given Code Holder is identified in the LERG Routing Guide as the NPA-NXX-A (Assignee) OCN record holder.” • INC edited its guidelines and documents as appropriate to accommodate the revised Code Holder term, and then eliminated the definition of LERG Assignee from its guidelines and documents.

  6. LNPA SubcommitteeIssue 654: Remove the Requirement to List the Tandem CLLI in Remarks Field • Previously, when an SP requested a pooled CO code assignment for LRN purposes because the SP’s POI subtended multiple tandems owned by different SPs in a single LATA, the SP was required to document the situation and include the tandem CLLIs on the Pooling Part 1A Form’s Remarks field. • The PA now obtains the tandem homing CLLI information from the CO Code Part 1 Form, therefore it is no longer necessary for an SP to include the tandem CLLIs in the Pooling Part 1A Form’s Remarks field. • The SP shall still meet the requirements for a thousands-block allocation and document the LRN exception reason for a new CO Code (multiple tandems owned by different SPs in a single LATA) on its Part 1A Form.

  7. NPA SubcommitteeIssue 660 – NPA Assignment after Regulatory Approval The current NANPA practice is to assign a new NPA within one week of receipt of an approved relief plan from the appropriate regulator. In addition, if a relief plan is approved, but it does not meet the criteria for assignment as set forth in the NPA Relief Planning & Notification Guidelines, NANPA suspends the assignment pending FCC direction. Issue 660 was submitted to INC to document these practices in the NPA Relief Planning & Notification Guidelines. New Section 5.7 was added to the NPA Relief Planning & Notification Guidelines formalizing these practices. 7

  8. NPA SubcommitteeIssue 666 – Review and Edit Section 13 of NPA Relief Guidelines to Reflect Current Customer Education Practices Section 13 of the NPA Code Relief Planning & Notification Guidelines addresses the mandatory dialing period associated with a new NPA implementation. This section had stated that advanced notice of 30 days should be provided to affected parties in the case in which the mandatory dialing date is either advanced or delayed. The INC determined that 30 days notice may not be sufficient time for carriers to retract or edit customer education materials. The revised Section 13 advises that mandatory dialing changes should be avoided as much as possible to: ensure clear and concise customer education communications prevent unnecessary customer and SP confusion, and minimize rescheduling or additional changes to SPs’ networks, The revised Section 13 advises that if a change in the mandatory dialing date is ordered, the new mandatory dialing date shall be made known to all parties no later than 90 days prior to the new date if the date is being advanced or delayed. 8

  9. Issues Remaining in Initial Pending • Issue 534: The Development of pANI Guidelines • Issue 604: Code Holder vs. LERG Assignee • Issue 611: Augmenting the NRUF Verification Procedures • Issue 632: Updates to the Dedicated Code section of the TBPAG and COCAG • Issue 656: Update TBPAG Expedite Process for Thousands-blocks (Section 8.6)

  10. Issues in Initial Closure • Issue 670: Remove Attaching Part 2 forms from CO Code request (Part 1) • Issue 671: Update TN Administration Guidelines re: TNs as public resource • Issue 672: Update TBPAG to Specify Timeframe for PA to Process Suspended Block Disconnects • Issue 673: NPA Relief Guidelines Appendix A and NPA Allocation Guidelines to Clarify Protected Codes • Issue 674: Update Section 6.3.4 of the COCAG to address adequate industry notification for Rate Center Changes • Issue 675: Edits to NPA Code Relief Planning and Notification Guidelines to include service provider contact information in Planning Letter

  11. Issues in Final Closure • Issue 630: Update TBPAG to Explain Impact of Not Inputting Block Information in BIRRDS • Issue 648: Updates to the Service Provider Forecast and Utilization Reporting Requirements • Issue 650: Add additional information to the TBPAG in regard to OCNs • Issue 652: Update NRUF Guidelines for Clarifications on Reporting Requirements and Forecasting in Rate Center Consolidation Situations • Issue 653: Clarification of the Code Holder Transfer Process • Issue 654: Remove the Requirement to List the Tandem CLLI in Remarks Field • Issue 657: Update NPAC broadcast rates and weekend/holiday modification restrictions in Section 2.14 of the TBPAG • Issue 658: Add a mass modification process to the p-ANI Administration Guidelines

  12. Issues in Final Closure • Issue 660: NPA Assignment after Regulatory Approval • Issue 661: Clarification of when a Planning Letter should be published pending regulatory approval of implementation plan and/or additional imp meeting • Issue 662: Notification to NANPA of creation and elimination of protected routes • Issue 666: Review and Edit Section 13 of NPA Relief Guidelines to Reflect Current Customer Education Practices • Issue 549: COCAG Part 1 Analysis for Determining If Some Fields Could Be Made Optional • Issue 655: Add clarification to the Thousands-block transfer process in the TBPAG • Issue 663: Check porting on block donations • Issue 665: Review and Update INC Guidelines to Remove Outdated References to the CLC • Issue 668: Update Part 1 CO Code Request to show Expedite Explanation Field • Issue 669: NRUF SP Name must match SP OCN name

  13. Relevant INC Web Pages • INC Homepage (front page to all INC links): http://www.atis.org/inc/index.asp • INC Calendar (future meeting logistics/agendas): http://www.atis.org/inc/calendar.asp • INC Issues (historical and active): http://www.atis.org/inc/incissue.asp • INC Meeting Records: http://www.atis.org/inc/mtgs_current.asp • INC Published Documents: http://www.atis.org/inc/incguides.asp

More Related