• • ICC LNP R&B Meeting Minutes
    • • To: ICC LNP Workshop Rating and Billing Members

        From: Judith Evans

        Date: July 28, 1997

        Re: Minutes for the July 25, 1997 R&B teleconference

    A teleconference of the ICC LNP R&B sub-committee was held on July 25 to discuss issues of rating and billing impact. Following is the status of each of the items discussed on the teleconference.

    NXX-X/LRN Number Conservation

    Brent Struthers’ descriptions of the Pre-Porting and Port-on-Demand options of the Number Pooling proposal were the primary topic of discussion. As with our last teleconference, no issues were identified as relevant to Rating and Billing impact with either solution by the subcommittee. However, two clarifications were requested by the R&B Subcommittee based on Brent’s description. These are two cons listed for the Port-on-Demand proposal (Brent then referred me to Barry Bishop, Chair - Operations Subcommittee, who provided the responses below). Please call Judy no later than close of business Wednesday, July 30, if you still have concerns regarding these issues.

1. 1. Change for intra-SP port, need to change SP network data table in NPAC which is expensive, and limits flexibility in the future. Barry Bishop has discussed this issue with Donna Navickas and it is no longer believed to be a concern by the Operations Subcommittee.
   1. Potential for rating & billing problems if code holder is not involved in the porting process. Our subcommittee has requested that it be noted that this item did not come from the R&B Subcommittee. Barry cannot remember who raised this issue or how to clarify it based on the original discussion in his subcommittee, but agreed that given the current NPAC/SMS porting procedures, it is difficult to imagine that the code holder would not be aware of the porting procedure. He believes the Operations Subcommittee has dropped this issue as well.

• • Additionally, switch vendors voiced issues that appeared to have switch administration impact. They were asked to discuss these issues with the Switch and Operations Subcommittees so that their concerns could be adequately addressed in the proper forum. An Operations teleconference is scheduled Wednesday, July 30 at 9:00 a.m. (CST). The dial-in number is (312) 814-8097 for those interested in pursuing these concerns.

    New Chairperson for R&B Subcommittee Sought

    Judy is stepping down as chair of the subcommittee. Anyone wishing to nominate himself/herself for the position, please contact Judy or Brent by close of business Wednesday, July 30, and they will compile a list of names and arrange for an "election" in the near future.J

    Illinois R&B Subcommittee Now Midwest Region R&B Subcommittee!!!

    The issue was raised at the last Illinois Commerce Commission LNP Workshop regarding officially making the R&B Subcommittee a regional subcommittee, not just specific to Illinois. The subcommittee approved the recommendation and we are now supporting all states in this region—Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin. In the very near future you will be hearing more about this issue. We need to consider the other four states in our region individually to insure that we understand their unique state requirements and have made appropriate recommendations to the service providers in those states regarding new switch features (such as the ones being developed for California) or other upgrades to systems they may need to deploy and implement LNP.J

    Next Meeting Information

    Another meeting of the R&B sub-committee is expected toward the end of August. No date has been finalized at this time. J

July 25 Teleconference Attendees

Attachment B - Preliminary Analysis Number Pooling Assumptions

Per Brian Baldwin’s 7/1/97 memo to chairs of all Illinois sub-committees:

1. What particular issues were discussed?
   Potential impact of NXX-X pooling proposal on rating and billing of ported calls.
2. What assumptions were made?

• • Our assumptions follow. Please note: Assumptions 1-3 were provided by Brian in his original June 3^rd memo. Assumptions 4-5 were developed during the June R&B teleconference and Assumption #6 was added during the July 15 teleconference.

1. 1. Sharing will be implemented at the thousands-block level, among carriers serving the same rate center or rate district as assigned the particular NXX.
   2. Shared NXXs will still be assigned to a "home" switch and rate center/district.
   3. Thousands blocks within those NXXs that are shared with other carriers will be "ported" from the donor switch, using the long-term LNP architecture.

• • The ICC Rating and Billing sub-committee does not anticipate any rating or billing issues with the NXX-X pooling proposal given the following additional assumptions:

4. 1. Geographic boundaries of rate center/rate district are iron-clad, no exceptions.
   2. Generation of the AMA (LRN) by the switch does not deviate from the long-term LNP architecture.
   3. All NXXs used for number pooling must be LNP-capable.

3. What concerns were identified?
   Concerns were the same as those of implementing LRN in general—carriers performing third-party recording/billing services for other carriers may still, in certain call scenarios, require modifications to their back-office systems and/or new/modified interconnection agreements to support the appropriate passing of billing messages. The NXX-X pooling solution may exacerbate this problem.
4. What alternatives were looked at?
   No alternative solutions were discussed. The R&B sub-committee performed analysis only of the solution requested based on the limited information presented in the Baldwin June 3rd memo.
5. What were the advantages/disadvantages (e.g., costs, timing, etc.) of those alternatives?
   Not applicable (see response to #5 above).
6. What conclusions/recommendations were made?
   As reported after the June R&B teleconference, the sub-committee members have determined that the NXX-X number pooling proposal should have no new technical impact on deploying the LRN solution in Illinois based on the above assumptions. However, the sub-committee has asked (Brent Struthers) to see the current documentation on this proposal to make a more definitive analysis of this solution.