Barry Bishop
312-220-8000
In Attendance:
12 Law Enforcement Representatives (Various Agencies)
Rick Jones Il NENA
Ed Elkin AT&T
Steve Barry AT&T
Bettie Shelby World Com
Russ Wheeler ICM Conferences
Fay Seymour Lucent Technologies
Bob Bartenstein Ameritech
Mitch Mitchell World Com
Sue Seitz Ameritech
Kent Roberts Ameritech
Robin Meier Ameritech
Walter Subora Ameritech
Darin Liston Sprint
Lorin Pollock Sprint
Gene Johnston GTE Telops
Larry Neeper Brooks Fiber Comm
Jim Joerger MCI
Ron Steen Bell South
Amador Lucero US West Communications
Brent Struthers ICC
Rajeev Trika TCG
Nancy Deroo Ameritech
Neal Burnett Ameritech
Barry gave a high level explanation of LNP for Law Enforcement attendees.
Internet access is WWW.PORTED.COM for provisioning information.
.
LUNCH BREAK
Discussion of Cause Code 26
If a new recording is used, equipment (hardware) expense will be incurred. Current proposed language is "The number you have dialed is not presently in service at this time, please hang up and try your call again in five (5) minutes" Cause Code 26 definition is "Misrouted call to a ported number. This cause indicates that the called party can not be reached because the "ported number " in the GAP identifies a called party that is not served by the exchange".(PROPOSED DEFINITION BY T1S1 COMMITTEE)
Currently, the CC26 routes to a T120 (reorder) treatment. Related to issue #0021. GTE proposed that Equipment Irregularity treatment be used. Table this issue until tomorrow when Robin will bring existing recorded announcements for review.
Discussion concerning NXX 555 being ported. Concern about all calls to 555-1212 (information) creating a LNP dip which may cause SS7 network congestion.
Discussion about Resellers: Will resellers have their own OCN? Per Ed of AT&T, resellers can have their own OCN but NPAC will only deal with facility provider.
Issue #0036: Provisioning/Resellers discussion. LSR must route to the reseller and the facility provider. Set up scenario of two resellers, two LECs and one customer who is switching between the two resellers. Who contacts who and should this process flow be documented in the provisioning process. Whose name is on the LSR/LNP request form? Once a group of numbers have been purchased by a reseller, the number(s) belong to the resellers who becomes the LEC facility provider's customer. Is there a check made of names on the LSR of reseller verses facility provider? Ameritech wants the information about the reseller to be included on the LSR. Darin stated that resellers will have to have talked prior to issue of porting LSR being issued. AT&T proposed that the end users' name appears in the end user field and the Resellers' name in the remarks field. Proposed that each company review the situation and a conference call be established for further discussion. Discussion about the situation where a reseller could move all of his customers to a different facility provider.
Discussion: Transitioning ILNP to LNP process
requirements. AT&T believes that the transition can occur via
the established provisioning process and inter-company
agreements. All agreed and the issue was dropped.
Agenda for 5/14/97 was reviewed.
May 14, 1997 ICC LNP Operations meeting.
Discussion of acceptable FCC field test. The FCC field test requirements were vague such as no perceptible post dial delay. One second may be acceptable for call completion but not acceptable on a 911 call back. Each service provider will submit their test results on a pass/fail basis. One failure of six participants would not preclude the commercial deployment of LNP. The FCC report should be a collective report stating that the architecture works or not, even if one service provider fails a specific test.
Dick proposed a collective report with a note from each of the service providers stating if they are ready for commercial deployment. The test plan is bulky and not all participates may not be performing all tests included in the plan. Ameritech stated that they successfully completed all tests in the Lab and one week later a problem was identified. All service providers may not have SS7 connectivity to each other at the time that testing is performed and may be utilizing the Ameritech network for dips, etc. Section 4.4.1 describes the basic test while other sections are vertical service tests such as CLASS which would depend on inter-company agreements. Dick will be giving a weekly status report during the testing period. There is a question about if the participates must sign non-disclosure agreements between themselves. If all participates agree to perform the tests, do we have to sign inter-company non-disclosure agreements. No one has stated that they were opposed to the test procedure. Each company is providing a Single Point of Contact for the test period. Ameritech feels that agreements of release of information are required if they are asked to provide network information for another company. Barry Bishop will review the situation with the legal. All participates were polled and all agreed to provide the network information required for testing purposes.
591 mass calling presentation by Neal Burnett of Ameritech. Potential mass calling interconnection agreement between companies which is in the preliminary stages. Neal is leading an effort for a proposed preliminary Mass Calling Configuration. Each company will have two (2) trunks to the tandem for routing 591 calls. The number of calls allowed to terminate will depend on the number of lines the mass call recipient (radio station) has to answer the calls. There are two chokes. One at the origination point and one at the Tandem. Pseudo codes are used for routing the calls to the proper office where the mass call customer resides. There is a question about who will administer the pseudo code. Also, AT&T asked if they could use a common trunk group to the Tandem limiting 591 traffic to two trunks.
Discussion of the number of NXX per rate district/center. AT&T stated that while not mandated by the ICC, they will need one NXX per rate center/district for rating and billing purposes not because of LNP deployment. AT&T will be using rate district versus rate center and will need 100+ NXXs verses 60+ if centers are used. Brent questioned if this would add to the exhaust of NXX assignable numbers, which was answered as - Yes. AT&T is requesting 98 NXX assignments.
Discussion by US West about the LERG rate
center field is listed as optional today. Should the field become
a mandatory one if NPAC is to use the LERG for administration
purposes. There was a question about prefixes that are split by
thousands groups and rate center/districts and if the LERG
reflects this situation.
Cause Code 26 discussion: Robin researched the
CC documentation from the NOF which had the old definition.
Question about the proposed recorded announcement verbiage which
everyone agreed is not acceptable. Should we use the network
congestion recording. Proposed that this be covered in a
conference call. Sprint (Lorin) will investigate MDII treatment
for the 5ESS and Message TRK121 for the DMS100. Conference call
date and time . May 28, 1997 at 08:00am CST (312) 814--8097 FOR
RECORDED ANNOUNCEMENT AND RESELLER ISSUES.
LUNCH
Discussion of information contained in the LARG
and that it should be expanded to include additional network
information such as Point Codes, CLAS agreements and SSN updates.
New issue is required for notification medium for LIDB, CNAM,
ISDN and CLAS updates & changes. Issue #0053 with Amador
Lucero of US West @ (303) 896-8093 as the originator.
Discussion of LSR Transmittal #97-1 LSR Issue 2 by J. Joerger of MCI who proposed that the forms be agreed to for use to be transmitted between companies for LNP deployment. ATIS has the verbiage that supports the forms distributed. Ameritech can not agree to use the Portability and Loop Service as they currently have other processes for Loop Service via inter-company agreements. MCI would like to identify what issues Ameritech has with the proposed form for "Loop Service with Number Portability".
Sue Seitz needs to review the OBF forms. Discuss on the planned 5/28/97 conference call.
Open Issues Discussion.
Close issues 0010, 0014, 0018, 0019 and 0022 as
already worked or not required.
Discussion of NIIF Issue #61 LNP Test Number
Guidelines. This issue was recently brought up at the NIIF and
has not been discussed or worked. Recommend that each company
review with their NIIF representative.
Issue #0051: If we do have an IVR should Law
Enforcement be allowed access for identification of Service
Provider? Question as to whether the service would be billed to
the Law Enforcement or shared among all service providers. Tabled
until LLC approves and the IVR requirements are determined.
Jim Joerger (MCI) brought up the issue
about whether or not new NXX's should be opened for portability
when the prefix is initially opened for service if all other
NXX's in a switch are already portable. There was much discussion
on this, but no consensus at this point. Lorin, we should open
this as an active issue (#54 ??).
Ameritech has opened an e-mail address to facilitate the opening of NXX s for porting. The e-mail address is:
routing-ltnp.amrtch@ameritech.com
Please follow the Code Opening process flow when requesting NXX's to be opened and forward your forecast to this e-mail account. The account will be checked daily for requests and will respond immediately with receipt. Please insure the requests clearly identify the NPA/NXX to be made portable, as well as the desired date.