| |
Telecom Decision CRTC 2006-28
|
| |
Ottawa, 18 May 2006 |
| |
Regulatory issues related to the implementation of wireless number
portability - Follow-up to Public Notice 2006-3
|
| |
Reference: 8620-C12-200601288 |
| |
In this Decision, the Commission makes
its determinations on issues related to wireless number portability
between wireless carriers, and between those carriers and wireline local
exchange carriers. |
| |
Background
|
|
1. |
In Implementation of wireless number portability,
Telecom Decision CRTC 2005-72,
20 December 2005, the Commission modified the local number portability
(LNP) regime to permit wireless carriers to directly access Canadian
number portability systems and set a launch date of 14 March 2007
for the introduction of wireless number portability (WNP). The Commission
determined the customer transfer timeframes for porting telephone
numbers involving wireless service providers (WSPs) and wireline service
carriers. The Commission also determined the scenarios for eligible
porting activities between Canadian carriers. The Commission noted
that a number of other issues related to WNP would be considered in
a future proceeding. |
|
2. |
This next phase was initiated in Regulatory
issues related to the implementation of wireless number portability,
Telecom Public Notice CRTC 2006-3,
6 February 2006 (Public Notice 2006-3).
The Commission invited comments on the following issues: |
| |
(a) trunking arrangements for the interchange of traffic between
wireless carriers and local exchange carriers (LECs) in a portability
environment;
|
| |
(b) the need for wireless carriers to have a central office (CO)
code in every wireline exchange area where wireless service is
available;
|
| |
(c) shared CO codes where the carrier of record is an incumbent
local exchange carrier (ILEC);
|
| |
(d) wireless services subject to number porting;
|
| |
(e) the criteria for denying a wireless porting request;
|
| |
(f) applicability of the ILEC winback rule to wireless carriers;
|
| |
(g) wireless carrier access to ILEC operation support systems
(OSS);
|
| |
(h) directory listing information for numbers ported between
wireless carriers and LECs;
|
| |
(i) enhanced 9-1-1 (E9-1-1) customer information for numbers ported
between wireless carriers and LECs; and
|
| |
(j) any other regulatory issues related to the implementation of
WNP.
|
| |
Process
|
|
3. |
The Commission received comments dated 24
February 2006 from the City of Calgary, and dated 27 February 2006 from
Aliant Mobility, Aliant Telecom Inc., Bell Canada, Bell Mobility,
Société en commandite Télébec, Télébec Mobilité (the Companies); the
Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association (CWTA); MTS Allstream
Inc. (MTS Allstream); Primus Telecommunications Canada Inc. (Primus);
Rogers Wireless Partnership (Rogers Wireless); Saskatchewan
Telecommunications (SaskTel); TELUS Communications Inc. and TELUS
Mobility (TCC)1;
Virgin Mobile Canada (Virgin Mobile); and Xit télécom inc. on behalf of
itself, Télécommunications Xittel inc. and 9141-9077 Québec inc. (Xit
telecom). |
|
4. |
The Commission received reply comments
dated 6 March 2006 from the Companies, CWTA, Cogeco Cable Canada Inc.
(Cogeco), MTS Allstream, Primus, Rogers Wireless, SaskTel, and TCC. |
| |
A. Trunking arrangements for the
interchange of traffic between wireless carriers and LECs in a
portability environment |
|
5. |
In Public Notice 2006-3,
the Commission invited comments on the appropriate grouping of rate
centres/exchanges and trunking arrangements to be used for the interchange
of traffic with wireless carriers in a portability environment. |
|
6. |
The Commission notes that there are many
different options to aggregate exchanges and points of interconnection
(POIs). Two possible examples are (1) by local interconnection regions
(LIRs) as established in Trunking arrangements for the interchange
of traffic and the point of interconnection between local exchange
carriers, Telecom Decision CRTC 2004-46,
14 July 2004 (Decision 2004-46),
and (2) by local calling areas (LCAs) as suggested in the proceeding
initiated by Implementation of wireless number portability,
Telecom Public Notice CRTC 2005-14,
16 September 2005 (Public Notice 2005-14). |
| |
Positions of parties
|
|
7. |
The Companies, MTS Allstream and Xit telecom
supported the interchange of traffic on an LIR basis, as established
in Decision 2004-46. The Companies
submitted that parties should, however, retain the ability to enter
into bilateral arrangements for the interchange of traffic. |
|
8. |
The Companies submitted that the exchange
of traffic on an LIR basis would be consistent with the porting areas
already in place for the exchange of wireline traffic. The use of LIRs
would be competitively neutral, as an LIR would be the same for all
wireless and wireline carriers in a given area. The Companies considered
that LIRs are easy to understand, simple to implement, would permit a
standardized industry approach and would minimize disruption. |
|
9. |
The Companies submitted that by comparison,
LCAs could be different for each telecommunications service provider.
LCAs could overlap, resulting in exchanges being in multiple LCAs. This
would cause ambiguity on how calls should be routed for some exchanges
and in determining the boundaries within which numbers could be ported. |
|
10. |
Rogers Wireless and TCC supported the use
of LCAs to aggregate exchanges and POIs. |
|
11. |
Rogers Wireless submitted that wireless
carriers should be required to have at least one POI, one trunk group,
one CO code, and one location routing number (LRN) in each LCA where
numbers are to be ported. Rogers Wireless noted that in Transiting
and points of interconnection, Telecom Order CRTC 98-486,
19 May 1998, the Commission mandated that existing wireless POI arrangements
and facilities should be used for ILEC-to-wireless competitive local
exchange carrier (CLEC) interconnection. In Rogers Wireless'
view, using existing POIs and trunk groups within the ILEC LCAs would
maintain established interconnection principles and avoid incurring
unnecessary costs of removing and redeploying POIs. |
|
12. |
In TCC's view, there was no reason to alter
the WSP interconnection arrangements already in place between WSPs
and ILECs. TCC noted that the LCA routing arrangements defined in
ILEC tariffs were based on the routing of traffic within the ILEC
extended area service (EAS) areas or LCAs, and could support WNP with
relatively minor modifications. TCC submitted that maintaining the
existing interconnection arrangements would avoid the requirement
for new ones for routing purposes and WSPs could continue to purchase
WSP access service from LECs. TCC stated that the existing interconnection
arrangements supported the routing tenet in Decision 2005-72
for intermodal porting.2 |
|
13. |
TCC submitted that having exchanges in more
than one LCA would not create confusion. In its view, if the porting-in
carrier had a POI and CO code (i.e.: LRN) within an LCA of the exchange
associated with the ported number, traffic could be routed to that
carrier. |
|
14. |
TCC noted that number portability was
available in only 22 exchanges in British Columbia and in 13 exchanges
in Alberta, leaving a majority of exchanges to be converted. Where LNP
capability did not exist, ILECs would be required to: |
| |
(i) purchase LNP rights to use software for switches serving the
non LNP-capable exchanges;
|
| |
(ii) increase the LNP call routing query load; and
|
| |
(iii) incur implementation and increased start-up and operations
costs.
|
|
15. |
TCC proposed that for the initial
implementation stage of WNP, a roll-out schedule be established for all
the ILEC exchanges that were already served by at least one WSP, but
did not support number portability. In TCC's view, a roll-out schedule
would give WSPs and other stakeholders the opportunity to assign
priorities for those exchanges in question, that they could submit to
the ILECs within 30 days of the Commission's determination in this
proceeding. Each ILEC could then review the lists and file them for the
Commission's approval within 90 days following the date of this
Decision. |
| |
Reply comments
|
|
16. |
Cogeco submitted that the Commission should
implement WNP on an LIR basis and modify the Canadian Central Office
Code (NXX) Assignment Guidelines (the Guidelines) accordingly, in order
to permit the assignment of one or more CO codes to each WSP, and
consequently one LRN per LIR for each WSP. |
|
17. |
SaskTel submitted that there was no need to
change the existing WSP interconnection regime in order to implement
WNP. In its view, only a refinement of the rules for number resource
assignment and eligible porting scenarios relative to LRNs was required. |
|
18. |
SaskTel indicated that it should not be a
common occurrence for a wireless carrier to have to assign an LRN to a
porting-in telephone number which was not associated with the same ILEC
exchange as the telephone number. In its view, where this would occur,
the wireless carrier should be able to assign an LRN from the LCA
associated with the ported telephone number. |
|
19. |
SaskTel submitted that the use of ILEC LCAs
(based on the Rogers Wireless proposal) might be valid as the
appropriate exchange grouping used to evaluate porting eligibility and
to assign LRNs. SaskTel noted, however, that the ILEC LCA definition
used in other areas of the country may invalidate this proposal. |
|
20. |
Rogers Wireless submitted that LIRs were
typically smaller than ILEC LCAs. In its view, contrary to an LCA
regime, an LIR regime would be less efficient and more onerous to WSPs
because of the need to implement additional POIs, trunk groups and CO
codes. |
|
21. |
TCC submitted that WSP interconnection was
done under different terms and conditions than CLEC interconnection. If
the Commission adopted an LIR regime, ILECs would have to concurrently
maintain two WSP interconnection regimes, resulting in more cost, effort
and time to implement WNP. |
| |
Commission's analysis and determination
|
|
22. |
The Commission notes that exchange grouping
proposals were divided between LIRs, as established in Decision
2004-46, and ILEC LCAs, as used
in the ILEC WSP interconnection tariffs. |
|
23. |
The Commission notes that the LIRs as used
by LECs for wireline number portability traffic routing would have
several advantages if also used for WNP. The use of LIRs by both LECs
and wireless carriers would move the industry closer to one
interconnection regime for all carriers. In addition, LIRs are
essentially competitively neutral since they are not based on a specific
network architecture or service offerings of a particular type of
carrier. |
|
24. |
However, in the context of WNP, the
Commission considers that the use of LIRs for WNP has some
disadvantages. The Commission notes that for some time, WNP will not be
deployed in all exchanges where wireless services are provided. This
situation will require wireless carriers to use, and for LECs to
support, two wireless interconnection regimes; one based on LIR traffic
aggregation where there is WNP and the other based on the existing ILEC
WSP interconnection tariffs. |
|
25. |
The Commission notes that the
interconnection trunks used in conjunction with LIRs are based on
carrier to carrier relationships with mutual compensation principles,
while the trunks under the WSP interconnection tariffs are based on
carrier to customer relationships, with wireless carriers compensating
LECs for all traffic exchanged between their networks. In the
Commission's view, maintaining both regimes on an on-going basis could
result in inefficiencies and confusion. |
|
26. |
The Commission notes that in some instances
LIRs are smaller than LCAs which could result in a need for additional
POIs. Further, wireless carriers have deployed their network
interconnections on the basis of ILEC LCAs. The Commission notes that if
LIRs were adopted for WNP call routing, wireless carriers would likely
have to reconfigure their interconnection facilities because the area in
which porting could occur, and hence traffic could be exchanged, may be
smaller than the current arrangements with LCAs. While grandfathering
the existing facilities could minimize such an impact, the Commission
expects that WSPs would need additional POIs or have to re-locate some
existing POIs. The Commission considers that such a requirement would
add complexity and cost to WNP implementation. |
|
27. |
In regard to LCAs resulting in confusion as
an exchange can be associated with more than one LCA, the Commission
notes that Rogers Wireless, TCC and SaskTel indicated that the ILEC LCAs
could be used to define the grouping of exchanges for WNP traffic
routing. The Commission notes that the WSP interconnection tariffs are
based on traffic aggregation within an ILEC LCA and that the wireless
carriers' POIs have been deployed on this basis. The Commission further
notes that the assignment of LRNs to wireless POIs will be done by
wireless carriers. Therefore, as long as the LRN for a POI is within the
LCA of the originating exchange, there would be no confusion, and
traffic would be routed in accordance with the existing WSP
interconnection tariffs. |
|
28. |
The Commission notes that in Decision 2005-72,
it set an aggressive implementation schedule for the introduction
of WNP in Canada. The Commission is concerned that the network changes
that would be required with the use of LIRs could jeopardize the implementation
date of 14 March 2007. On the other hand, because the interconnection
arrangements already in place would not change with the use of LCAs,
the Commission expects that this would not delay the implementation
of WNP, and would minimize costs. |
|
29. |
In light of the above, the Commission
determines that ILEC LCAs will define the groups of exchanges to route
WNP traffic between wireless carriers and LECs. |
|
30. |
As regards the suggestion to implement an
initial roll-out schedule for WNP, the Commission considers that ILEC
capacity could potentially be overloaded if WSPs required WNP in all the
exchanges covered by their wireless networks. The Commission is of the
view that a roll-out schedule for those exchanges that do not support
number portability would be helpful to the ILECs (and CLECs) to plan
their work activities. |
|
31. |
The Commission considers that the most
efficient way to proceed to develop a roll-out schedule for non-portable
exchanges is for the CRTC Interconnection Steering Committee (CISC)
Network Working Group (NTWG) to address this issue. The Commission
requests CISC to file its roll-out schedule with the Commission within
90 days from the date of this Decision. |
| |
B. Need for wireless carriers to have a
CO code in every wireline exchange area where wireless service is
available |
|
32. |
The Commission notes that wireless carriers
do not have CO codes and POIs in each exchange covered by their wireless
service networks. If wireless carriers were required to obtain CO codes
for each exchange covered by their networks, there could be, among other
things, a significant increase in the demand for CO codes that could
potentially cause premature number exhaust in some numbering plan areas
(NPAs). |
|
33. |
In Public Notice 2006-3,
the Commission invited comments on the requirement for wireless carriers
to obtain a CO code in each exchange covered by their wireless
service networks in order to support WNP. |
| |
Positions of parties
|
|
34. |
The City of Calgary, Rogers Wireless,
SaskTel and TCC submitted that WSPs did not need to have a CO code in
each exchange in order to implement WNP. Rogers Wireless indicated that
assigning a CO code in each exchange would lead to premature code
exhaust in certain NPAs. In its view, a CO code/LRN was only required in
the LCA for the exchange associated with a ported number, and should be
located in the exchange where LEC-WSP access was provisioned. |
|
35. |
Rogers Wireless requested the Commission to
order that the Guidelines be modified to permit a single LRN or CO code
per LCA which would bring the LRN guidelines in line with those in the
United States (U.S.). |
|
36. |
The Companies, MTS Allstream, and Xit
telecom submitted that the current requirement for CLECs to have a CO
code in each served exchange should apply to WSPs. |
|
37. |
The Companies noted that Decision 2004-46
and the selection criteria contained in the Guidelines set out minimum
required interconnection facilities (i.e. one POI per LIR and one CO
code per exchange) to exchange traffic within an industry-defined
geographic area (the LIR). In their view, there was no relationship
between interconnection arrangements and the existing LRN selection
criteria. |
|
38. |
The Companies submitted that to support
WNP, WSPs could either obtain CO codes for each served exchange and use
a separate LRN for each exchange in accordance with the requirement
noted above, or use one or more CO codes assigned in a major ILEC
exchange to create an LRN for each WSP switch in each LIR. |
|
39. |
The Companies indicated that although both
options were technically feasible, they preferred the first one. If the
Commission selected the second option, the LRN selection criteria would
require modification. |
| |
Reply comments
|
|
40. |
MTS Allstream submitted that if the LRN
assignment guidelines were to be changed, this matter should be referred
to CISC immediately, before the Commission issued its determination. |
|
41. |
Cogeco noted that, like wireless networks,
the cable network architecture was different from the ILEC network
architecture. In its view, it was unfair to have different rules for
WSPs and cable CLECs porting with ILECs. Cogeco requested that the
Commission: |
| |
(i) remove the requirement that CLECs have separate trunk groups
per exchange where a POI has been established in an LIR;
|
| |
(ii) give CLECs the discretion to deploy high-usage intra-LIR
trunks groups; and
|
| |
(iii) remove the requirement that CLECs have a CO code in each
exchange.
|
| |
Commission's analysis and determination
|
|
42. |
The Commission recognizes that if the three
major wireless carriers were required to obtain CO codes in each
exchange covered by their wireless networks, several NPAs could be
placed into number exhaust situations. |
|
43. |
The Commission notes the Companies' comment
that routing across exchange boundaries is technically feasible. The
Commission recognizes that the main reason for having a CO code in each
exchange is to create an LRN so that calls can be routed to a POI/switch
within each exchange. The Commission considers that with the
establishment of routing across exchange boundaries on an LIR basis (a
single POI for aggregated exchanges), it is no longer necessary to have
a CO code in each exchange. |
|
44. |
The Commission notes that wireless carriers
in the U.S. implemented WNP without having a CO code in each exchange.
The U.S. LRN selection criteria require a single LRN per local access
and transport area (LATA) and specifically disallow the assignment of
LRNs per ILEC exchange. |
|
45. |
Accordingly, the Commission determines that
it is not necessary for WSPs to obtain a CO code per ILEC exchange
covered by their wireless networks. Rather, WSPs must have a CO code/LRN
per POI per LCA where numbers will be ported. |
|
46. |
In light of this determination, the
Canadian LRN selection criteria will need to be updated. The Commission
requests the CISC Canadian Steering Committee on Numbering (CSCN) to
update the LRN selection criteria to incorporate this determination
within 90 days from the date of this Decision. |
|
47. |
In regard to Cogeco's request that the
Commission modify the porting rules that apply to cable CLECs porting
with ILECs, the Commission considers that the interconnection regimes
are different for CLECs and WSPs and are therefore not relevant to the
implementation of WNP. The Commission concludes that this issue is
beyond the scope of this proceeding. |
| |
C. Shared CO codes where the carrier of
record is an ILEC |
|
48. |
The Commission notes that under the ILEC
wireless access tariffs, WSPs obtain telephone numbers in blocks of 1,
10, 100, or 1,000 numbers, and these number blocks are within CO codes
that are homed to an ILEC switch. Under the WNP regime, when a request
is made to port one of these numbers, the customer transfer request will
be sent to the ILEC holding the CO code, rather than the WSP utilizing
the number. In such instances, additional time and effort will be
required by the receiving ILEC to either act as a conduit for the
porting information or to forward the porting request to the correct
wireless carrier. As a consequence, WSPs may have difficulty completing
wireless-to-wireless porting in the required 2.5 hour customer transfer
period. |
|
49. |
In Public Notice 2006-3,
the Commission invited comments as to how this problem should be addressed. |
| |
Positions of parties
|
|
50. |
The CWTA noted that approximately 5 million
wireless numbers in Canada are leased from the ILECs or other wireless
carriers. The CWTA submitted that changing the carrier of record for the
leased number blocks was not a viable solution for WNP. Under the
Canadian numbering administration processes, numbers are only assigned
at the CO code level. According to the CWTA, moving to a more granular
approach to number administration would jeopardize the 14 March 2007
launch date for WNP. |
|
51. |
The CWTA noted that the CWTA WNP Implementation
Task Force's preferred solution was to associate the lessee's SPID3
with the leased telephone numbers in those areas where WNP must be
implemented by the launch dates set out in Decision 2005-72.
The CWTA also noted that a process, a schedule and pricing for bulk
number porting had yet to be negotiated with the Number Portability
Administration Centre (NPAC) via the Canadian Local Number Portability
Consortium (CLNPC). The CWTA indicated that there might be a need
for an ongoing process for the bulk porting of leased numbers that,
for technical or operational reasons, will not have been ported by
14 March 2007. |
|
52. |
The Companies and SaskTel stated that they
supported the CWTA's position. Both parties indicated that while they
preferred the CWTA's solution, if this solution proved to be more
expensive than the reseller intermodal porting process currently in
place, they would support retaining the reseller intermodal porting
process. |
|
53. |
The Companies noted that the bulk porting
of leased numbers to the wireless carriers would facilitate the
achievement of the wireless-to-wireless simple porting target of 2.5
hours. Bulk number porting would also eliminate the need for WSPs to pay
the ILECs for leasing these telephone numbers, and in the future, if
additional numbers were required, the WSPs could obtain their own CO
code from the Canadian Numbering Administrator. |
|
54. |
The Companies recommended that the
Commission direct the CISC Business Process Working Group (BPWG) and the
Network Working Group (NTWG), with advice from the CLNPC and the NPAC
vendor, to develop an industry process for bulk number porting that
should also include any special measures required by the NPAC system to
accommodate a bulk number porting process. |
|
55. |
TCC noted that where bulk number porting
was technically or economically feasible, the leasing carriers would
need to develop a porting process to support the porting of leased
telephone numbers that would need to be incorporated into the wireless
porting guidelines. |
|
56. |
MTS Allstream submitted that where an ILEC
had assigned numbers to a WSP, these assigned number blocks should be
bulk ported to the WSP prior to the commencement of WNP. Further, this
requirement should apply to the entire block of numbers and not those
that were currently activated. MTS Allstream added that to facilitate
routing, a new LRN should be assigned to each number block that was
ported. It submitted that where there might be shared CO codes in
smaller rural areas where LNP did not exist, these numbers should not be
bulk ported until WNP was introduced in these areas. MTS Allstream noted
that to effect bulk number porting, wireless carriers would need to make
arrangements and settle on NPAC SMS4
pricing through discussions with the CLNPC. |
|
57. |
MTS Allstream noted that over the long
term, bulk number porting would minimize the costs associated with
porting failures, as well as ensure that wireline and wireless carriers
were involved in porting on a technologically and competitively neutral
basis. |
|
58. |
Rogers Wireless submitted that all leased
telephone numbers should be bulk ported to wireless carriers by the end
of 2006 (i.e.: before WNP is launched) to allow adequate time for
intra-carrier and inter-carrier testing. Rogers Wireless noted that bulk
porting of leased numbers would permit inactive numbers to be returned
to the CO code holder via the LNP snap-back5
process. Rogers Wireless indicated that this approach would avoid the
level of customer dissatisfaction experienced during the launch of WNP
in the U.S., where the quantity of telephone numbers in this category
was one-fifth of those in Canada. |
|
59. |
Xit telecom suggested that bulk number
porting could be done more efficiently and cost effectively by setting
Canadian ENUM6
registries for the leased number blocks and pointing the NPAC SMS to
those registries. |
| |
Reply comments
|
|
60. |
MTS Allstream noted that while there was
general agreement in support of bulk porting leased numbers, there was
no general agreement on where and when bulk number porting should be
done. MTS Allstream submitted that bulk number porting should only be
done for existing portability areas and only when WNP was introduced to
an area. MTS Allstream noted that the only CO codes in NPAC SMS were
those for LNP-capable exchanges. MTS Allstream suggested there was no
requirement or reason for CO codes in areas where LNP does not exist to
be loaded into the NPAC SMS databases. In MTS Allstream's view, to do so
would be potentially costly and would create administrative and
technical inefficiencies with no discernable benefit. |
|
61. |
SaskTel stated that bulk number porting
prior to WNP being implemented in a given exchange would be more
efficient. SaskTel noted that an ongoing bulk number porting procedure
would be needed in the event that wireless carriers, who did not already
lease telephone number blocks, subsequently found the need to do so. In
this regard, SaskTel disagreed with Rogers Wireless and the Companies
that the practice of leasing telephone number blocks should be
discontinued. SaskTel submitted that discontinuing this practice would
lead to an inefficient use of numbers and, in the case of NPA 306, could
move it closer to exhaust when there should be ample numbering resources
available. |
|
62. |
TCC submitted that the cost of performing
bulk number porting would be substantially less than the current charge
for single porting requests. TCC further submitted that if a
satisfactory rate could not be negotiated with the NPAC vendor, the
industry must consider an alternative solution. |
| |
Commission's analysis and determination
|
|
63. |
The Commission notes the general agreement
that leased telephone number blocks should be bulk ported to wireless
carriers. However, there was no agreement as to the extent to which
leased numbers should be bulk ported and when bulk number porting should
occur. While some parties suggested that all leased numbers should be
bulk ported to wireless carriers, other parties suggested that only
those numbers in LNP-capable exchanges should be. Further, while some
parties suggested that bulk number porting should be completed prior to
the commencement of WNP testing, other parties suggested that it should
be completed by the launch of WNP. |
|
64. |
The Commission considers that bulk number
porting would solve the dilemma of customer transfer requests being sent
to the wrong party, but notes the concerns of several parties regarding
the efficiency and cost effectiveness of this solution given that this
matter has not yet been discussed with the CLNPC or the NPAC vendor. The
Commission is of the view that this matter can be resolved through
industry discussions and negotiations with the CLNPC and the NPAC
vendor. |
|
65. |
The Commission notes that if leased numbers
are ported in exchanges that are not yet LNP-capable, the ILECs would be
required to implement LNP in these exchanges in order to support the
bulk number porting process and ongoing calls to the ported numbers. The
Commission considers that such a requirement could result in a large
number of exchanges having to be made LNP-capable in a short period of
time, prior to the launch of WNP, and would prematurely impose costs on
the affected ILECs. The Commission concludes that bulk number porting of
leased numbers is only required to be done in those exchanges that are
LNP-capable. |
|
66. |
The Commission considers that the nature of
the leased numbers with a recurring charge under the ILECs' tariffs
results in wireless carriers ensuring that a high percentage of these
numbers are assigned to customers or end-users. As such, the Commission
is of the view that it would be unlikely that these customer-assigned
numbers would be used for testing WNP functionality or inter-carrier
processes since any testing problems could result in disruption of a
customer's service. Accordingly, the Commission concludes there is no
compelling reason for these numbers to be ported prior to the
commencement of WNP. |
|
67. |
The Commission determines that leased
wireless telephone numbers in LNP-capable exchanges are to be bulk
ported to the wireless carrier leasing these numbers once WNP is
implemented in those exchanges associated with the leased telephone
numbers. The Commission considers it appropriate that wireless carriers
and LECs may, by mutual agreement, bulk port these leased telephone
numbers at any time prior to the commencement of WNP in the exchanges
associated with the leased telephone numbers. |
|
68. |
The Commission notes that the industry will
need to develop bulk number porting processes in order for these numbers
to be transferred in an orderly and efficient manner. The Commission
considers that it would be helpful if these processes were developed
with assistance from the CLNPC and the Canadian NPAC vendor. The
Commission, therefore, requests the CISC BPWG to develop a bulk number
porting process and to file with the Commission a report on the process
to be used within 120 days after the date of this Decision. |
| |
D. Wireless services subject to number
porting |
|
69. |
In Public Notice 2006-3,
the Commission invited comments on which wireless services should
be subject to WNP. |
| |
Positions of parties
|
|
70. |
The CWTA submitted that WNP would apply to
wireless services characterized by two-way, real-time voice
communication services via a 10-digit telephone number. This would mean
that WNP would be supported by the wireless carriers' standard service
offerings, often referred to as cellular, personal communications
service and enhanced specialized mobile radio service, that operate
using a variety of technologies. The CWTA noted that these service
offerings would also include pre-paid and post-paid services. The CWTA
clarified that it was the telephone numbers associated with these
services that were to be considered portable and not the service
offerings themselves. |
|
71. |
The CWTA noted that a number of enhanced
services associated with dialable services, such as push-to-talk, short
message service (SMS) and multi-media service (MMS), use non-dialable
telephone numbers for addressing purposes. The CWTA submitted that these
telephone numbers should not be considered portable since they were not
dialable numbers. |
|
72. |
The Companies, MTS Allstream,
Rogers Wireless, SaskTel and TCC indicated their support of the CWTA's
submission. |
|
73. |
Xit telecom submitted that all wireless
services that make use of E.1647
North American Numbering Plan (NANP) telephone numbers which are
interconnected to the public switched telephone network (PSTN) should be
subject to number porting requirements. |
| |
Reply comments
|
|
74. |
The CWTA and MTS Allstream noted that Xit
telecom's proposal would include all the wireless services identified by
the CWTA, as well as paging services. The CWTA noted that in the period
since WNP was mentioned in the federal government's Budget speech of
23 February 2005, no mention has been made that paging services should
be included. As such, paging systems and paging operators were not
included in the WNP implementation plan. |
| |
Commission's analysis and determination
|
|
75. |
The Commission notes that there is general
agreement on which wireless service telephone numbers should be
portable. The Commission notes that the portability of wireless services
independent of the numbers has not been considered separately. The
Commission agrees that it is the telephone numbers that are portable,
and not the services themselves. |
|
76. |
The Commission agrees that to date paging
services have not been mentioned or included in any of the WNP
implementation plans. Furthermore, not all paging operators were made
party to this proceeding. The Commission, therefore, considers that
there in insufficient record in this proceeding to make a determination
on the inclusion of paging numbers in the WNP implementation plan.
Therefore, WNP will not include telephone numbers associated with paging
services. |
|
77. |
The Commission considers that the
definition of which wireless telephone numbers are subject to number
portability should be broad in order to permit dialable telephone
numbers of, in as yet, unknown wireless services to be subject to number
portability. |
|
78. |
The Commission, therefore, determines that
WNP is to apply to 10-digit telephone numbers that are, for the most
part, associated with dialable real-time voice communications services. |
| |
E. Criteria for denying a wireless
porting request |
|
79. |
In Public Notice 2006-3,
the Commission invited comments on the circumstances under which a
WSP should be permitted to deny a request to port a customer's telephone
number to another service provider, and what process should apply.
|
| |
Positions of parties
|
|
80. |
The CWTA noted the following criteria
documented in the Canadian Local Ordering Guidelines (C-LOG) under which
a wireline customer's porting request can be denied: |
| |
(a) the number is not working due to a company-initiated
suspension; or
|
| |
(b) the number is not working due to a company or
customer-initiated termination.
|
|
81. |
The CWTA submitted that wireless carriers
should be permitted to deny porting requests for the same reasons, as
well as for the following additional reasons: |
| |
(a) there is an outstanding early termination charge and no
arrangement for the payment of this charge is in place; or
|
| |
(b) there is an outstanding balance for which no payment
arrangements are in place.
|
|
82. |
The CWTA noted that one of the practices of
the wireless carriers is to reduce the initial purchase price of
terminal equipment and recover the associated cost over the life of a
contract. The extent of these price reductions is typically tied to the
extent of the customer's financial commitment and, in particular, the
length of the contract. The CWTA noted that contracts may specify
minimum contract terms, early termination fees, or deposits in order to
ensure recovery of the initial investments. The CWTA argued that
wireless carriers should be able to recover these costs as well as any
outstanding charges before customers can be ported to another service
provider. |
|
83. |
The Companies and SaskTel indicated their
agreement with the CWTA's position. Rogers Wireless submitted the same
criteria in its submission, but added that there should be a threshold
equal to or greater than $150 on an outstanding balance before a
customer's porting request could be denied. In addition to the CWTA
criteria, TCC added as another criterion that a customer's porting
request could be denied if the first invoice was not paid. |
|
84. |
MTS Allstream supported the criteria set
out in the C-LOG. MTS Allstream noted, however, that given the nature of
the wireless industry, there might be other instances where wireless
carriers could be permitted to deny a customer's porting request. |
|
85. |
Primus suggested that the instances in
which wireless carriers should be permitted to deny a customer's porting
request should be very limited and should mirror the wireline situation.
Primus submitted that if customers failed to pay outstanding amounts,
wireless carriers had sufficient tools under the terms and conditions of
contracts, and legitimate legal recourse to obtain payment. |
| |
Commission's analysis and determination
|
|
86. |
The Commission notes that the criteria for
denying a customer-initiated porting request were developed by consensus
in the CISC BPWG. The Commission notes that the participants in the BPWG
did not find it appropriate to include any criteria for denying a
customer-initiated porting request based on any outstanding monies owed
to a customer's current service provider. |
|
87. |
The Commission notes that the wireline
industry offers service to customers under term contracts that provide
economic benefits to customers that companies recover over the term of a
contract. In cases where a customer wishes to terminate a contract prior
to the termination date, companies have recourse under the legal terms
and conditions of the contract. The Commission is of the view that
customer arrangements with a previous service provider should not
determine whether another service provider can provide service under the
same telephone number. |
|
88. |
The Commission, therefore, determines that
wireless carriers may only deny a customer-initiated porting request in
accordance with the criteria documented in the C-LOG, specifically: |
| |
(a) the telephone number is not working due to a company-initiated
suspension; or
|
| |
(b) the telephone number is not working due to a customer or
company-initiated termination.
|
| |
F. Applicability of the ILEC winback
rule to wireless carriers |
|
89. |
In a Letter Decision dated 16 April 1998,
the Commission put in place a rule prohibiting the ILECs from
communicating with former customers for the purpose of winning them back
once they transferred to another LEC. In subsequent decisions,8
the Commission has clarified or changed the ILEC winback rule. |
|
90. |
In Public Notice 2006-3,
the Commission invited comments as to whether or not the winback rule
should be extended to wireless carriers. |
| |
Positions of parties
|
|
91. |
Rogers Wireless submitted that the ILEC
winback rule should apply to wireline-to-wireless porting requests.
Rogers Wireless argued that the ILECs would use their control
of, and access to, customer-specific information to win back customers,
and that this ability would curtail the extent to which ILEC wireline
customers would port their numbers to wireless carriers. Rogers Wireless
stated that such an outcome would be counter productive to the federal
government's directive9
and to Decision 2005-72, which
stated that porting between wireline and wireless carriers was included
in the implementation of WNP. |
|
92. |
Primus and Virgin Mobile submitted that
winback restrictions should apply to wireline-to-wireless porting and
wireless-to-Mobile Virtual Network Operator (MVNO) porting. Virgin
Mobile argued that the rationale used to apply the winback rule in the
ILEC/CLEC situation could be extended to the MVNO/WSP situation. Primus
noted that while the three largest wireless carriers in Canada had a
combined market share of 95 percent, there were very few competitive
alternatives to these carriers in the form of MVNOs. Primus submitted
that the current situation with regard to suppliers in the wholesale
market for wireless services was very challenging. Primus argued that
for the same reasons the Commission imposed the winback rule on the
ILECs, new entrant WSPs required the same kind of protection from the
large wireless carriers in order to establish a loyal customer base.
Primus submitted that it would be even more desirable if the Commission
created a wholesale regime in the wireless market in order to enable
competition. |
|
93. |
The Companies submitted that the ILEC winback
rule should not be extended to customers moving to wireless carriers.
The Companies noted that since Regulation of wireless service,
Telecom Decision CRTC 94-15, 12
August 1994 (Decision 94-15),
the Commission had consistently determined that the wireless sector
was competitive and strong and, as a result, the Commission had largely
forborne from regulating the wireless sector. The Companies stated
that the implementation of WNP promised to bring even more intense
competition to the wireless sector by permitting wireline customers
to port their telephone numbers to wireless carriers. The Companies
argued that none of the market considerations identified by the Commission
underlying the ILEC winback rule applied or were required in the wireless
market segment. |
|
94. |
MTS Allstream submitted that the winback
rule should not be a feature of any framework associated with the
implementation of WNP. It stated that the wireless market was distinct
and very different from the wireline market, as there was no single
dominant carrier within an operating territory. MTS Allstream, SaskTel
and TCC submitted that the wireless market was already very competitive
and there was no need to impose the winback rule on the ILECs. |
| |
Reply comments
|
|
95. |
Primus submitted that while no one wireless
carrier was able to dominate the Canadian wireless market, as a group,10
they did. Primus argued that along with their combined market share,
inter-company arrangements that enabled them to buttress their retail
dominance and the lack of a comprehensive wireless wholesale regime had
created a significant challenge for MVNOs. Primus stated that the
extension of the winback rule to wireless carriers would help MVNOs
establish themselves in the wireless marketplace. |
|
96. |
Rogers Wireless argued that the wireless
market was highly competitive and there was no evidence to support
Primus and Virgin Mobile's claims that the state of competition in the
wireless market was impeded by the lack of a winback rule for wireless
carriers. In TCC's view, there was no justification to artificially
protect new entrants simply because they were new - their success must
depend on the merits of their service offerings. |
|
97. |
Rogers Wireless and the CWTA submitted that
Primus' comments on the creation of a wireless wholesale market were
beyond the scope of the proceeding. |
|
98. |
The Companies noted that the wireless
market segment was one of the first markets to be forborne from
regulation. In their view, it has remained highly competitive ever since
with no evidence that market forces at play in the wireless segment are
insufficient and that WSPs require the protection of a winback rule. The
Companies stated that Rogers Wireless' arguments were groundless in that
today, wireless carriers have as much customer-specific information to
win back customers who migrate to a competitor as the ILECs when their
customers migrate to a WSP. The Companies also questioned why, in a
market that is as vibrantly competitive as the wireless market, the
Commission should impose winback restrictions on all competitors except
for MVNOs and CLECs. The Companies argued that such restrictions would
be harmful to the interests of customers and even more so to
competition. |
|
99. |
With respect to Rogers Wireless' comments
on an ILEC's ability to use its knowledge of customer information to win
back a customer, SaskTel noted that if customers ported their telephone
number to a wireless carrier, it was obvious that the calling patterns
for those customers would have likely also changed. As such, it was
unlikely that an ILEC's knowledge of wireline calling patterns would be
helpful in designing plans which were perfectly suited to customers' use
of wireless services. SaskTel also commented that it was not surprising
that the impact of MVNOs' entry into the wireless market had not yet
been seen, given how recently they had entered the wireless market in
Canada. |
| |
Commission's analysis and determination
|
|
100. |
The Commission notes that winback restrictions
were placed on the ILECs in the wireline market in order to avoid
depriving CLECs of the opportunity to build their customer bases in
the face of a single dominant carrier. The Commission considers that
the wireless market is not the same as the wireline market, in that
there is not a single dominant service provider in each operating
territory. The Commission notes that in Decision 94-15,
the Commission forbore from regulating the wireless market as it was
found to be competitive, and has remained so. The Commission further
notes that the wireless carriers have similar market share, are well
established with large customer bases and are not in need of protection
in order to establish a sustainable customer base. |
|
101. |
The Commission notes the request to extend
winback restrictions to wireless carriers when porting to
MVNOs/resellers. In the Commission's view, stating that the largest
wireless carriers, as a group, have a 95 percent market share does not
reflect the actual competitive wireless market, where there is no single
dominant carrier as portrayed by Primus. The Commission considers that
in a competitive marketplace, each service provider must succeed based
on the merits of its service offerings. Therefore, the Commission
denies the request by Primus and Virgin Mobile to extend winback
restrictions to wireless carriers when porting to MVNOs/resellers. |
|
102. |
The Commission notes Primus' comment on the
creation of a wireless wholesale regime. The Commission considers that
this issue is outside the scope of this proceeding, which deals with
implementing WNP. |
|
103. |
The Commission therefore determines that
extending the winback restrictions to ILECs when porting from
wireline-to-wireless carriers is not required to implement WNP. |
| |
G. Wireless carrier access to ILEC OSS |
|
104. |
The PwC Report11
suggested that wireless carriers should have access to the ILECs' OSS in
order to minimize any customer information errors on requests to port
telephone numbers from ILECs. |
|
105. |
In Public Notice 2006-3,
the Commission invited comments as to whether ILECs should permit
wireless carriers to access their OSS and, if so, to what extent and
under what terms and conditions. |
| |
Positions of parties
|
|
106. |
Rogers Wireless submitted that wireless
carriers should have access to ILEC OSS under the same terms and
conditions as such access is provided to CLECs. Rogers Wireless
submitted that the potential for customer information errors would be as
significant for wireless carriers as it has been for CLECs.
Rogers Wireless noted that such errors would result in customer
dissatisfaction and increased costs to all carriers involved.
Rogers Wireless further noted that wireless carriers should have access
to ILEC trouble ticket systems to report, track and address
porting-related errors in a timely manner. |
|
107. |
The Companies, MTS Allstream and SaskTel
submitted that wireless carrier access to ILEC OSS was not required at
this time. The Companies noted that WSPs would not be ordering local
loops and would only be submitting local service requests to the ILECs
for intermodal porting from wireline carriers. MTS Allstream noted that
the vast majority of porting would be between wireless carriers with
much lower demand for wireline-to-wireless porting and vice versa. The
Companies noted that the extent to which porting occurred between
wireless carriers without access to each other's OSS, should show that
wireless carriers did not require access to the ILECs' OSS. The
Companies argued that should the Commission consider access by wireless
carriers to any ILEC's OSS, the Commission must also consider similar
access to the wireless carriers' OSS. The Companies submitted that in
the final analysis, the considerations that led the Commission to
provide access to the ILECs' OSS did not exist for wireless carriers,
and such access was neither necessary nor cost effective for either the
wireless carriers or the ILECs. |
|
108. |
SaskTel noted that wireless carriers should
gain access to ILEC OSS only if it could be demonstrated that such
access would significantly reduce the number of failed or delayed
intermodal porting requests, taking into account the anticipated porting
volumes and the related costs that would be incurred by the ILECs to
support the anticipated porting volumes. |
|
109. |
MTS Allstream stated that if circumstances
eventually warranted a request for OSS access, the request should be
made in the same format as required of CLECs in the CISC OSS working
group report12
and section 12 of the C-LOG, Version 5. |
|
110. |
TCC stated that while it did not object to
expanding its access to its OSS through its gateway interface, the
Commission should establish a level playing field for access to
information on a reciprocal basis. |
| |
Reply comments
|
|
111. |
Rogers Wireless noted that porting from
wireline carriers would require more complex customer information and be
more subject to errors than for wireless-to-wireless porting.
Rogers Wireless indicated that wireless carriers had simplified their
customer information requirements to include the wireless telephone
number and one of the following data elements: the wireless account
number, the password/personal identification number, or the electronic
serial number/mobile equipment identifier. On the other hand, porting
from wireline carriers required that validation focus on all of the
following elements: the telephone number, the customer name and customer
address. |
|
112. |
The Companies, MTS Allstream and TCC noted
that the volume of intermodal porting was expected to be small with over
90 percent of the volume to be between wireless carriers. The Companies
also noted the present work in the CISC BPWG to streamline the porting
processes to minimize incidents of porting failures. |
| |
Commission's analysis and determination
|
|
113. |
The Commission mandated CLEC access to ILEC
OSS in order to eliminate barriers to effective competition in the local
market. CLEC access to ILEC OSS was a means to provide CLECs with an
equal opportunity to provide local exchange service to customers in a
timely manner. As noted above, wireless carriers already operate in a
competitive market that is very different from the wireline market in
which CLECs operate. The Commission is of the view that the market
conditions in the wireline market that led the Commission to mandate
CLEC access to ILEC OSS does not apply to the wireless market.
Accordingly, the Commission determines that mandated access to ILEC OSS
is not warranted for the implementation of WNP or for intermodal porting
to be successfully completed. |
|
114. |
However, after the launch of WNP, if
porting failures due to incorrect customer information are found to be
significant, a request for access to ILEC OSS can be made. Such a
request should be made in the same format as required of CLECs as set
out in the procedures approved by the Commission, and should clearly
demonstrate that access to ILEC OSS would significantly reduce the
number of porting failures. |
|
115. |
Further, the Commission considers that
wireless carriers and ILECs should be permitted to negotiate bi-lateral
arrangements for OSS access, if they so desire. |
| |
H. Directory listing information for
numbers ported between wireless carriers and LECs |
|
116. |
In Public Notice 2006-3,
the Commission invited comments on how telephone directory listings
should be handled for intermodal porting situations, as a directory
listing is included with wireline service, while the default listing
for wireless service is an unlisted number. |
| |
Positions of parties
|
|
117. |
The CWTA submitted that there was no
compelling reason to change the current rules. The CWTA stated that for
intermodal porting, the rules applying to the receiving carrier should
apply for the treatment of directory listings. The Companies, MTS
Allstream, Rogers Wireless, SaskTel and TCC agreed with the CWTA's
submission. |
|
118. |
Xit telecom submitted that transition to an
LIR-based interconnection regime and implementation of LNP, WSPs will
become functionally equivalent to CLECs and should thus be granted CLEC
status. Consequently, once bulk number porting was completed, wireless
carriers should be required to participate in telephone directories and
be compensated for providing telephone numbers. |
| |
Commission's analysis and determination
|
|
119. |
The Commission notes there was near
agreement by all parties who commented on this issue that there is no
reason to change the current rules for telephone directory listings for
wireless and LEC telephone numbers. |
|
120. |
With respect to Xit telecom's submission
that WSPs should be granted CLEC status and be required to participate
in telephone directories, the Commission notes that a change in the
overall regulatory status of WSPs is beyond the scope of this
proceeding. |
|
121. |
The Commission, therefore, determines that
the current rules for wireless and LEC number directory listings can be
maintained for intermodal porting once WNP is implemented. |
| |
I. E9-1-1 customer information for
numbers ported between wireless carriers and LECs |
|
122. |
The customer information associated with
telephone numbers in the E9-1-1 Automatic Location Identifier (ALI)
database can be different for wireline and wireless telephone numbers.
In Conditions of service for wireless competitive local exchange
carriers and for emergency services offered by wireless service providers,
Telecom Decision CRTC 2003-53,
12 August 2003 (Decision 2003-53),
the Commission determined that wireless CLECs should continue to be
obligated to implement wireless E9-1-1 where it is available. The
Commission found that it would not be appropriate to continue to require
wireless CLECs to enter subscriber records in ALI databases. The Commission
also determined that WSPs are to provide wireless E9-1-1 service to
their customers in those communities where it is available from an
ILEC. |
|
123. |
In Public Notice 2006-3,
the Commission invited comments as to what customer information should
be included in the E9-1-1 databases for intermodal porting situations,
and any related changes to the database update procedures. |
| |
Positions of parties
|
|
124. |
The CWTA submitted that it saw no compelling
reason to change the current rules related to the provision of 9-1-1
services. For intermodal porting situations, the CWTA submitted that
the rules applying to the receiving service provider should apply,
and when a LEC customer is ported to a wireless carrier, the
customer's information should be removed from the ALI database.
The CWTA noted this practice would be consistent with Decision 2003-53.
The Companies, MTS Allstream, Rogers Wireless, SaskTel and
TCC agreed with the CWTA's submission. |
|
125. |
The City of Calgary submitted that
customers must be fully aware of E9-1-1 limitations with wireless
services, as this was an important consideration in choosing whether to
purchase wireless service, particularly where that service may be a
customer's primary telephone service. The City of Calgary further
submitted that wireless carriers must be required to advise customers of
the characteristics and limitations of their 9-1-1/E9-1-1 service before
they are allowed to port their telephone numbers to a WSP. |
|
126. |
Xit telecom submitted that once the
industry had implemented the final solution for the provision of nomadic
VoIP13
E9-1-1, wireless carriers should be mandated to implement this solution
in the same manner as required by VoIP service providers. Xit telecom
submitted that such a requirement would provide additional funds to
public safety answering points (PSAPs) to assist in their equipment
upgrades for Internet protocol (IP) functionality. |
| |
Reply comments
|
|
127. |
In regard to the City of Calgary's concern
that wireless customers must be informed of wireless 9-1-1/E9-1-1
limitations, TCC noted there was already a clear process to deal with
this concern as part of the porting process with CLECs, including
wireless CLECs. |
|
128. |
In regard to Xit telecom's comments
concerning wireless carriers funding PSAPs for their IP functionality
upgrades, MTS Allstream stated that it was not the responsibility of
telecommunications carriers to provide funding to PSAPs. |
| |
Commission's analysis and determination
|
|
129. |
The Commission notes there was near
agreement by all parties who commented on this issue that there is no
reason to change the current rules concerning customer information in
E9-1-1 databases. |
|
130. |
With respect to the City of Calgary's concern
that customers must be fully informed of wireless 9-1-1/E9-1-1 limitations
before they port their telephone numbers to a wireless carrier, the
Commission notes the process established in Decision 2003-53
and the follow-up Commission staff letter14
for wireless carriers to inform their customers of wireless 9-1-1/E9-1-1
limitations. The Commission considers that these measures are sufficient
to ensure that customers are aware of the limitations associated with
wireless 9-1-1/E9-1-1 services. |
|
131. |
The Commission notes Xit telecom's
submission that wireless carriers be mandated to implement the final
solution for nomadic VoIP E9-1-1 once it becomes available. The
Commission also notes Xit telecom's rationale that it would assist with
the funding of PSAPs' equipment upgrades to IP functionality. The
Commission considers that it is not the responsibility of
telecommunications carriers to fund PSAP operations. |
|
132. |
The Commission therefore determines that
the current rules associated with the wireless provision of 9-1-1/E9-1-1
can be maintained for intermodal porting once WNP is implemented. |
| |
J. Other regulatory issues related to
the implementation of WNP |
|
133. |
In Public Notice 2006-3,
the Commission invited comments on any other issues related to the
implementation of WNP that parties wanted to bring to the Commission's
attention. |
| |
Positions of parties
|
|
134. |
Rogers Wireless requested that the
Commission order all ILECs to provide wireless carriers with "calling
name" information. Rogers Wireless noted that wireless carriers now
receive calling line identification information from wireline carriers
as part of their Common Channel Signalling 7 (CCS7) interconnection
arrangements. However, while some wireline carriers provided calling
name information, others did not, as they claimed it was a service only
available to LECs. Rogers Wireless submitted that with the
implementation of WNP, making this parameter available to wireless
carriers would provide customers with choice and convenience, and permit
wireless carriers to compete more effectively. |
|
135. |
Virgin Mobile requested that a consumer
education program concerning WNP be undertaken by wireless carriers that
offer long-term contracts. It suggested that wireless carriers should be
required to inform customers of the impending introduction of WNP before
they enter into or renew a contract that extends beyond March 2007. |
|
136. |
The City of Calgary suggested that number
block assignments should be done at the thousand number block level,
rather than at the 10,000 block (NXX) level in order to improve number
utilization and extend the expected lifespan of all existing NPAs across
Canada. |
|
137. |
Xit telecom submitted that the Commission
must deal with the follow-up proceeding to Decision 2004-46
before concluding that the existing regime for LIRs was appropriate. |
|
138. |
Xit telecom further submitted that ENUM
registries should be used in order to accomplish porting of shared
numbers. |
|
139. |
Xit telecom argued that WSPs should be
given CLEC status, as they will become functionally equivalent to CLECs
once WNP is implemented. |
|
140. |
Xit telecom submitted that all
telecommunications service providers should be required to clearly
identify the amount of early termination charges, and to obtain customer
consent for these charges. |
|
141. |
The Companies submitted that they should be
permitted to recover foregone revenue related to the implementation of
WNP, as well as one-time and start-up costs. The Companies noted that
the adoption of WSP interconnection and a WNP regime based on LIRs were
expected to have a significant impact on many of the ILEC platforms,
systems and processes. The Companies noted that while the impacts on WSP
interconnection tariffs were in the process of being assessed, they
expected to file tariff applications where appropriate. |
|
142. |
The Companies also submitted that they should
be able to recover their wireline network costs associated with the
implementation of WNP as these costs qualify for exogenous treatment
under the price cap framework set out in Regulatory framework for
second price cap period, Telecom Decision CRTC 2002-34,
30 May 2002. |
| |
Reply comments
|
|
143. |
The CWTA and TCC submitted that issues such
as the use of ENUM for WNP changes to the block size of assigned
numbering resources, or changing the regulatory status of wireless
carriers, were outside of the scope of this proceeding and should be
rejected by the Commission. |
|
144. |
The Companies and SaskTel submitted that
the issue of calling name information was outside the scope of this
proceeding and should be disregarded by the Commission. SaskTel
indicated that it was open to having bi-lateral discussions with
Rogers Wireless on this issue. |
|
145. |
With respect to a consumer education
program, the CWTA noted that the CWTA WNP Implementation Task Force had
developed an industry-neutral web portal to provide basic WNP
information to interested parties. Rogers Wireless stated that customer
education requirements requested by Virgin Mobile were unnecessary and
unwarranted. |
|
146. |
The Companies submitted that a number of
the comments raised by Xit telecom were outside the scope of this
proceeding. These issues included the follow-up to Decision 2004-46,
the implementation of a national ENUM registry, and CLEC status for
wireless carriers. With respect to mandating the content of long term
contracts, the Companies argued there was no evidence before the Commission
in this proceeding for the Commission to do so. The Companies also
noted that it was inappropriate to single out service providers who
offer long-term contracts. The Companies stated that such a requirement
was unfounded, unnecessary and inappropriate in highly competitive
markets such as the wireless market. |
|
147. |
With respect to the Companies' comments
that the WSP interconnection tariffs may not adequately compensate them
under a WNP regime, Rogers Wireless submitted that ILECs' wireless
interconnection tariffs and arrangements already provide for routing of
wireless carrier traffic within the ILEC LCAs and EAS areas.
Rogers Wireless further noted these tariffs provide for transiting and
tandeming functionality, and that wireless carriers compensate the ILECs
for wireless traffic that originates or terminates on the ILECs'
networks. |
| |
Commission's analysis and determination
|
|
148. |
The Commission considers that the issues
related to the provision of the calling name parameter to wireless
carriers, a mandated consumer education program for long term contracts,
customer consent to early termination charges in long term contracts,
numbering resource assignment at the thousand block level, the follow-up
to Decision 2004-46, the use of
a national ENUM registry for bulk number porting, the mandated use
of the industry solution for the provision of nomadic VoIP E9-1-1
service, and a change in wireless carriers' regulatory status are
not related to, do not have an impact on, or are not impacted by the
implementation of WNP. The Commission concludes that as such, these
issues are beyond the scope of this proceeding. |
|
149. |
The Commission does consider, however, the
issue raised by the Companies concerning the ILEC WSP interconnection
tariff issues and ILEC network-related start-up costs for WNP to be
relevant to WNP implementation. However, the Commission concludes that
there is insufficient evidence on the record of this proceeding to deal
with these issues at this time. The Commission notes that these matters
can be more appropriately dealt with when any tariff applications are
filed by the Companies for Commission approval. |
| |
Secretary General |
| |
This document is available in alternative
format upon request, and may also be examined in PDF
format or in HTML at the following Internet site: www.crtc.gc.ca
|
