ARCHIVED - Telecom Decision CRTC 2013-291

PDF version

Ottawa, 17 June 2013

Ice Wireless Inc. and Iristel Inc. – Application for an exemption from certain requirements related to telephone number porting

File number: 8620-J64-201215989

In this decision, the Commission denies Ice/Iristel’s request to exempt Ice Wireless from the requirement to be a voting shareholder in the Canadian Local Number Portability Consortium Inc.

The Commission also denies Ice/Iristel’s request for Iristel to perform telephone number porting as a wireless entity for both itself and Ice Wireless through a change of Iristel’s status as a wireless carrier in the Canadian number porting databases and systems, and in intercarrier agreements.

The Commission encourages Ice/Iristel to seek a solution for the technical issue affecting their short message service with the gateway vendor for this service or in collaboration with other carriers.

Finally, the Commission reminds Ice Wireless that once wireless number portability is implemented in northern Canada, Ice Wireless must comply with the requirement to “bulk port” numbers it leases from Northwestel Inc.

Background

1. Local number portability refers to the porting of telephone numbers from one carrier to another, such as when a customer wishes to change wireline or wireless service providers and keep the same telephone number. This process, designed to promote competition and benefit consumers, was introduced in two stages. Local number portability was first introduced in 1997, and the Commission restricted it to wireline local exchange carriers in Telecom Order 99-5. Wireless number portability was subsequently introduced in 2005.

2. The Commission requires all local exchange carriers and wireless carriers that use the Canadian number porting databases and systems to be voting shareholders of the Canadian Local Number Portability Consortium Inc. (Porting Consortium).¹ The Porting Consortium administers these databases and systems.

3. The Commission requires that customer transfers involving only wireless carriers be completed within 2.5 business hours and that transfers involving wireline carriers be completed in two business days. As a result of these requirements, wireless carriers have implemented, under the leadership of the Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association, their own customer transfer and porting clearinghouse system. This clearinghouse system currently handles all wireless-to-wireless and wireline-to-wireless (and vice versa) customer transfers. The costs for the development and operation of this clearinghouse system are borne entirely by the wireless carriers.

4. Wireless carriers also use some of the carriers’ information contained in the number porting databases to facilitate the correct routing of short message service (SMS) messages through the SMS gateway.²

Application

5. The Commission received a joint application from Iristel Inc. (Iristel), a registered wireline competitive local exchange carrier (CLEC), and Ice Wireless Inc. (Ice Wireless) [collectively, Ice/Iristel],³ dated 17 December 2012, in which the applicants requested permission for

• Ice Wireless, as a wireless carrier, to be exempt from the requirement in Telecom Decision 2005-72 to be a voting shareholder of the Porting Consortium; and
• Iristel to perform number porting as a wireless entity for both itself and Ice Wireless subject to the more stringent time constraints required of wireless carriers.

6. Ice/Iristel argued that granting these requests would allow both companies to offer more cost-efficient services while retaining the separate brands for each company.

7. Bell Aliant Regional Communications, Limited Partnership, Bell Canada, Bell Mobility, and Northwestel Inc. (collectively, Bell Canada et al.); the Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC); Saskatchewan Telecommunications (SaskTel); and TELUS Communications Company (TCC) opposed the application. The public record of this proceeding, which closed on 14 February 2013, is available on the Commission’s website at www.crtc.gc.ca under “Public Proceedings” or by using the file number provided above.

Issues

8. The Commission has identified the following issues to be addressed in this decision:

I. Should Ice Wireless be exempt from the requirement to be a voting shareholder of the Porting Consortium?

II. Should Iristel, as a wireline CLEC, be permitted to perform number porting as a wireless entity for both itself and Ice Wireless?

I. Should Ice Wireless be exempt from the requirement to be a voting shareholder of the Porting Consortium?

9. Ice/Iristel noted that since Iristel is a member of the Porting Consortium and has an ownership position in Ice Wireless, it will be in a position to manage Ice Wireless’s adherence to portability requirements. Ice/Iristel submitted that, as such, there was no need for Ice Wireless to be a separate shareholder in the Porting Consortium. Ice/Iristel added that their participation in the Porting Consortium as separate entities puts unnecessary demand on the use of telephone numbers in area code 867 in northern Canada,⁴ where they provide services and other resources.

10. PIAC noted that membership in the Porting Consortium is an integral part of number porting, regardless of companies’ corporate structures.

11. Bell Canada et al. stated that granting an exemption to Ice Wireless would be unfair to the wireless carriers that have joined the Porting Consortium and bear the responsibilities and costs associated with the Canadian number porting databases and systems. Bell Canada et al. also argued that the impact of both Ice Wireless and Iristel participating in the Porting Consortium on numbering resources in area code 867 would be negligible since this area code will not exhaust for a very long time.

12. SaskTel and TCC noted that Porting Consortium membership is both a policy requirement and an operational requirement for any local exchange carrier that wishes to process number porting. SaskTel further noted that it is a single corporate entity, but nevertheless operates its wireline and wireless businesses separately for the purpose of number porting.

13. TCC noted that there has always been a great disparity between the member companies of the Porting Consortium in terms of financial resources and market size, and that this has been recognized in part in the membership fee structure.

14. In their reply, Ice/Iristel committed to paying their fair share to the Porting Consortium, including additional membership fees to cover both companies.

15. The Commission considers that the requirement for each wireline and wireless carrier to be a voting shareholder of the Porting Consortium was designed to facilitate competition and ensure a smooth customer transfer process when consumers elect to change service providers. All carriers (i) are given direct access to the number porting databases; (ii) are engaged in managing, developing, and ensuring the proper operation of porting systems and processes; and (iii) understand and compete by the associated rules. The Commission considers that customers benefit from carriers agreeing with and abiding by industry rules.

16. The Commission notes that Ice/Iristel have conceded that both companies’ participation in the Porting Consortium has a minimal impact on area code 867 since it is not expected to exhaust for a very long time. Moreover, the Commission is of the view that any proposed changes to the current Porting Consortium shareholder membership structure should be initiated by Ice/Iristel within the Porting Consortium.

17. In light of the above, the Commission denies Ice/Iristel’s request to exempt Ice Wireless from the requirement to be a voting shareholder of the Porting Consortium.

II. Should Iristel, as a wireline CLEC, be permitted to perform number porting as a wireless entity for both itself and Ice Wireless?

18. Ice/Iristel submitted that for the past three years, Iristel has coded its wireline CLEC operations in the number porting databases and systems as “wireless” in order for Iristel’s SMS application to function⁵ for its customers. Ice/Iristel also indicated that the main reason for their request for Iristel to perform number porting as a wireless entity for both itself and Ice Wireless was to permit Iristel’s SMS application to function on its wireline facilities.

19. Ice/Iristel claimed that coding Iristel as “wireless” in the number porting databases and systems worked for some time until other carriers informed Iristel that their systems have been rejecting Iristel’s customer transfer requests because of the improper wireless coding.

20. Bell Canada et al. submitted that Iristel, by unilaterally changing its status to “wireless” in the number porting databases and systems without following industry processes and notification procedures, has caused industry confusion. They added that this unilateral change has caused Bell Canada et al. and other carriers to incur additional costs due to the need for manual interventions as a result of a large number of porting request rejections. These rejections are due to the mismatched carrier status and missed number porting time frames. Bell Canada et al. indicated that in some cases, the delays have caused Iristel’s competitors to lose business due to customers cancelling their transfer requests.

21. Interveners indicated that Ice/Iristel’s request to permit Iristel’s wireline operations to be identified as “wireless” in the number porting databases and systems is not simple to implement. Changes would be required to industry processes, wireless clearinghouse systems, carriers’ in-house systems, and industry agreements, resulting in additional costs and administrative burden to Iristel’s competitors.

22. Interveners noted that Iristel can perform number porting activities on behalf of Ice Wireless, and that this can be done using separate company identifiers in the number porting databases and systems, as is currently done by other companies.

23. TCC indicated that if Ice/Iristel believe that current number porting processes can be improved or merged in light of the diminishing differences between wireless and wireline technologies, Ice/Iristel should discuss these improvements with the industry via the CRTC Interconnection Steering Committee (CISC).

24. In reply, Ice/Iristel indicated that they were prepared to work with CISC to work out the details of their proposed solution and to continue direct discussions with other parties.

25. The Commission notes that in the automated systems that carriers use to interact with each other during the customer transfer processes, each carrier must be identified according to its type (i.e. wireline or wireless) to ensure that the correct process is followed, in the right time frame, and that the correct checks are performed. If a carrier uses an incorrect carrier type, the automated processes could fail. As a result, manual intervention would be required to investigate and correct any problem, which could negatively impact the customer transfer experience.

26. The Commission considers that permitting Iristel to identify itself as a wireless carrier in number porting databases and systems has caused and will continue to cause other carriers to incur additional costs, including costs to modify existing agreements and make system changes. The Commission further considers that Ice/Iristel have not demonstrated that approval of this request would benefit the industry as a whole sufficiently to outweigh the resulting costs.

27. The Commission notes that current industry rules and procedures permit Iristel to process and manage number porting requests on behalf of Ice Wireless as long as (i) the two entities are identified separately as wireline and wireless entities in the number porting databases and systems, (ii) appropriate intercarrier agreements are in place, and (iii) other industry rules and procedures are followed.

28. Regarding Iristel’s SMS application issue, the Commission agrees with the interveners that Iristel can pursue alternate solutions with its SMS gateway vendor and/or seek industry support for the technical aspects of its proposal through discussions as part of a CISC working group to ensure that all service providers’ customers benefit from a jointly designed solution. The Commission therefore encourages Iristel to discuss its SMS application issue with its SMS gateway vendor and/or industry partners so that an industry-wide solution can be found.

29. Accordingly, the Commission denies Ice/Iristel’s request for permission for Iristel to perform number porting as a wireless entity through a change of its status as a wireless carrier in the number porting databases and systems, as it has already done, and intercarrier agreements, as it proposes to do. The Commission directs Iristel to revert to its original wireline status in the number porting databases and systems within 45 calendar days of the date of this decision, and to comply with current Commission-approved number porting processes. The Commission also directs Iristel to advise the Commission in writing when it is fully in compliance with this decision.

Other matter

30. Bell Canada et al. submitted that consistent with Telecom Decision 2006-28, once wireless number portability is implemented in the North, Ice Wireless should be required to “bulk port” the numbers it leases from Northwestel Inc.

31. Ice/Iristel indicated that if their application is denied, Ice Wireless will immediately comply with the Commission’s “bulk porting” requirement.

32. The Commission notes that “bulk porting” of leased numbers by wireless carriers is a prerequisite for wireless number portability and ensures that customer transfer requests are sent to the correct carrier and processed within the standard time frames.

33. Accordingly, the Commission reminds Ice Wireless that it must comply with the “bulk porting” requirement set out in Telecom Decision 2006-28.

Secretary General

Related documents

• Regulatory issues related to the implementation of wireless number portability - Follow-up to Public Notice 2006-3, Telecom Decision CRTC 2006-28, 18 May 2006
• Implementation of wireless number portability, Telecom Decision CRTC 2005-72, 20 December 2005
• Telecom Order CRTC 99-5, 8 January 1999

Date modified:

2013-06-17