Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
Numbering Resource Optimization
)
)
)
)
)
)
CC Docket No. 99-200
COMMENTS OF THE
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WISCONSIN
The Public Service Commission of Wisconsin (PSCW) respectfully submits these
comments in response to the Federal Communications Commission?s (FCC?s) Public Notice1 to
refresh the record on several petitions2 seeking a limited waiver of FCC rules to allow certain
Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) providers direct access to numbering resources from the
North American Numbering Plan Administrator (NANPA) and the Pooling Administrator (PA).
The Petitioners seek the same limited waiver of 47 C.F.R. § 52.15(g)(2)(i) that the FCC granted
to SBC Internet Services Inc. (SBCIS) in 2005.3 If the FCC grants these waiver requests, the
Petitioners would, like SBCIS, have direct access to numbering resources without obtaining
separate state certifications.
In recent years the prevalence of VoIP service offerings has grown substantially, as has
the rate at which consumers are turning to VoIP alternatives to meet their communications needs.
In general, the PSCW supports the premise of VoIP providers having direct access to numbering
1 Wireline Competition Bureau Seeks to Refresh Record on Petitions for Waiver of The Commission?s Rules
Regarding Access to Numbering Resources, Public Notice, CC Docket No. 99-200, DA 11-2074 (Dec. 27, 2011).
2 The Petitioners include RNK Inc. (RNK), Nuvio Corporation (Nuvio), UniPoint Enhanced Services, d/b/a
PointOne (PointOne), Dialpad Communications, Inc. (Dialpad), Vonage Holding Corporation (Vonage), VoEX Inc.
(VoEX), Qwest Communications Corporation (Qwest), CoreComm-Voyager Inc. (CoreComm-Voyager),
Net2Phone, WilTel Communications, LLC (WilTel), Constant Touch Communications (Constant Touch) and
Frontier Communications of America (Frontier) (Petitioners).
3 Administration of the North American Numbering Plan, CC Docket 99-200, Order, FCC 05-20 (Feb. 1, 2005)
(SBCIS Order).
- 2 -
resources as long as VoIP providers are subject to the same numbering resource conditions
currently imposed on traditional telecommunications carriers and SBCIS, including the FCC?s
number utilization and optimization standards, industry guidelines and practices, and the
numbering authority delegated to the states.4
The Issues
Federal law requires an applicant for initial numbering resources to submit evidence that
it is authorized to provide service in the area for which the numbering resources are being
requested. (47 C.F.R. § 52.15(g)(2)(i).) Because VoIP providers generally do not have state
certification, they are unable to satisfy this requirement and therefore cannot acquire numbering
resources directly from the NANPA or PA. Instead, VoIP providers must partner with a certified
telecommunications provider (also known as a ?numbering partner?) in order to obtain their
numbering resources. Having multiple parties involved in the numbering process can lead to
inefficiencies when issues arise since it can be difficult to identify quickly who is actually using
a specific numbering resource. Allowing for direct access may reduce these inefficiencies.
In 2005, the FCC took action to allow an VoIP provider direct access to numbers by
granting a limited waiver of the federal requirements to SBCIS. The limited waiver granted to
SBCIS waived the certification requirement, thereby allowing SBCIS direct access to numbering
resources. However, the FCC?s waiver also imposed certain conditions on SBCIS, including:
? The requirement that SBCIS comply with all FCC numbering utilization and
optimization requirements.
4 The PSCW?s position is largely in keeping with the 2007 National Association of Regulatory Utility
Commissioners (NARUC) Resolution Concerning Availability of Numbers to Voice over Internet Protocol
Providers and IP-Enabled Services, sponsored by the Committee on Telecommunications, recommended by the
NARUC Board of Directors on November 13, 2007, and adopted by the Committee of the Whole on November 14,
2007. See Attachment 1.
- 3 -
? The requirement that SBCIS comply with all numbering authority delegated to the
states.
? The requirement that SBCIS comply with all industry numbering guidelines and
practices.
? The requirement that SBCIS file any numbering requests with the FCC and the
relevant state commission 30 days in advance of requesting numbers from the
NANPA or PA.
? The requirement that SBCIS comply with the ?facilities readiness? requirements
set forth in 47 C.F.R. § 52.15(g)(2)(ii).
The order also noted that SBCIS would be responsible for processing its port requests directly
rather than working through another provider.5
In recent years, the FCC has imposed certain federal regulatory obligations on
interconnected VoIP providers, including 911 obligations,6 Communications Assistance for Law
Enforcement Act (CALEA) requirements,7 federal universal service contribution obligations8 as
well as porting obligations.9 Consistency and the development of good policy encourage similar
action in this docket.
The PSCW believes that the Petitioners? requests for direct access to numbering
resources are reasonable, provided that the Commission imposes conditions on the waiver
5 SBCIS Order at ¶ 9-10.
6 E911 Requirements for IP-Enabled Service Providers, WC Docket No. 05-196, First Report and Order and Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 05-116 (May 19, 2005).
7 Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act and Broadband Access and Service, ET Docket No. 04-295,
First Report and Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 05-153 (August 5, 2005).
8 Universal Service Contribution Methodology, WC Docket No. 06-122, Report and Order and Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, FCC 06-94 (June 21, 2006).
9 Telephone Number Requirements for IP-Enabled Services Providers; Local Number Portability Porting Interval
and Validation Requirements; IP Enabled Services; Telephone Number Portability; CTIA Petitions for Declaratory
Ruling on Wireline-Wireless Porting Issues; Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis; Numbering Resource
Optimization, WC Docket Nos. 07-243, 07-244, 04-36 and CC Docket Nos. 95-116, 99-200, Report and Order,
Declaratory Ruling, Order on Remand and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (October 31, 2007).
- 4 -
requests. Specifically, the FCC should impose its numbering utilization and optimization
requirements on these VoIP providers, as well as the obligation to comply with all applicable
industry guidelines and practices and numbering authority delegated to the states. This would
ensure parity among all providers that have direct access to numbering resources, regardless of
the underlying technology used to serve consumers.
Throughout the history of the FCC?s CC Docket 99-200, the FCC has taken important
steps to implement conservation measures in order to preserve the nation?s valuable and finite
numbering resources. Like many other states, Wisconsin has exercised its delegated numbering
authority and has worked closely with the telecommunications industry to ensure that our limited
resources are used as efficiently as possible and in compliance with all applicable rules and
guidelines. This work enabled the PSCW to postpone relief efforts in two Wisconsin area codes
and has extended the forecasted exhaust dates of Wisconsin?s remaining area codes. The PSCW
encourages the FCC to maintain its commitment to all number utilization and optimization
requirements that are currently in place as it considers these petitions.
If the FCC were to grant a limited waiver of 47 C.F.R. § 52.15(g)(2)(i), and allow the
Petitioners direct access to numbering resources from the NANPA and PA, it should at a
minimum maintain all of the same conditions imposed on SBCIS in 2005. Such a waiver, with
the attendant conditions, provides for greater uniformity of number administration, parity among
providers and the continued ability of state commissions to effectively oversee numbering
resources and provider responsibilities to benefit all consumers. In addition to those
previously-imposed conditions, the PSCW asks the FCC to consider:
1. Requiring the Petitioners to provide the relevant state commission with both
regulatory and numbering contacts (name, telephone number and e-mail address)
- 5 -
at the time the Petitioners first request numbering resources in that state. Since
VoIP providers are generally not certified by the states, this requirement would
ensure that state commissions have accurate information and are able to contact
the Petitioners in order to address any numbering concerns in their state.
2. Requiring the Petitioners to consolidate and report all of their numbering
resources under their own unique Operating Company Number (OCN).
Currently, most VoIP providers obtain numbering resources from a state-certified
numbering partner (or partners). As such, the VoIP provider is not directly
subject to the FCC?s Numbering Resource Utilization and Forecasting (NRUF)
reporting requirements; the numbering partner is. This indirect allocation of
numbering resources often leads states to question the accuracy of the numbering
partner?s NRUF data. This situation is further complicated by the fact that many
numbering partners do not disclose for which third parties they have obtained
numbering resources or the total quantity of reassigned resources. This situation
makes it very difficult to determine the actual utilization rates within a given state.
Since NRUF data is a critical component in forecasting an area code?s projected
exhaust date, it is important that all providers submit accurate and complete
utilization and forecast data. Further, a provider?s ability to obtain growth
resources within a given rate center is directly dependent on meeting the FCC?s
utilization and months-to-exhaust calculations. If a VoIP provider is not required
to report on ALL numbering resources at its disposal, it could greatly undermine
the important conservation work that has been done on both a state and federal
level. Therefore, the FCC should require the Petitioners to directly report on all
- 6 -
of the numbers in their inventories, including those numbers previously obtained
through numbering partners.10
3. Requiring the Petitioners to provide their customers with the ability to access all
N11 numbers in use in a state. The N11 designations made by the FCC have
allowed citizens across the country to easily connect to vital information and
referral services (211), non-emergency police or municipal services (311), travel
information (511), Telephone Relay Services (711), state one-call notification
centers (811) and emergency services (911). As increasingly more residential and
business customers abandon traditional telecommunications services in favor of a
VoIP service offering, the availability and inherent value of these vital numbering
programs will diminish if VoIP providers are not required to provide access to
these numbers.
4. Requiring the Petitioners to obtain numbering resources from pooling rate centers.
Many states, including Wisconsin, have several rural rate centers which are
currently not subject to pooling requirements. If VoIP providers were to obtain
large quantities of numbers from these non-pooling rate centers, it may needlessly
accelerate central office code assignments, strand large quantities of numbers and
contribute to premature area code exhausts across the country.
5. Requiring that the Petitioners maintain the original rate center designation of all
numbers in their inventories as wireline and wireless providers currently do today.
The FCC has consistently acknowledged the importance of number portability in
a competitive marketplace. As consumers increasingly port their local telephone
10 The ability to address issues of porting, pooling, utilization, forecasting and number conservation is more effective
when a particular issue can be addressed directly with the provider in question and not necessitate coordination with
intermediary numbering partners.
- 7 -
numbers between a variety of providers (wireline, wireless and VoIP), it is
important that rate center designations are maintained, regardless of the
underlying technology, in order to facilitate future porting requests.
Conclusion
The PSCW supports the FCC granting the Petitioners? request for a limited waiver of
47 C.F.R. § 52.15(g)(2)(i), provided that the Petitioners are also subject to the same conditions
currently imposed on traditional telecommunications carriers and SBCIS. Additionally, the
PSCW respectfully requests that the FCC consider imposing the five additional numbering
conditions outlined above. This action would ensure parity among all providers that have direct
access to numbering resources on a technology neutral basis. Providing uniform number
resource requirements on all provider types will better protect consumers and enhance the
abilities of states to effectively oversee their numbering conservation efforts. Lastly, the PSCW
encourages the FCC to closely monitor and strictly enforce all conditions imposed on the
Petitioners to ensure that the gains made through joint federal and state number optimization
activities will not be undone.
Dated at Madison, Wisconsin, January 25, 2012
By the Commission:
/s/ Sandra J. Paske
Sandra J. Paske
Secretary to the Commission
SJP:jrm\DL\Divisions\Telecommunications\FCC Comments\WI Comments re VoIP Access to Numbering
Resources CC Docket 99-200.docx
Attachment
- 8 -
Attachment 1
Resolution Concerning Availability of Numbers to Voice over Internet Protocol
Providers and IP-Enabled Services
WHEREAS, The National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC)
has long recognized the importance of efficient telephone number utilization, the need to
avoid unnecessary area code changes, and prompt and efficient porting of consumers?
telephone numbers; and
WHEREAS, A large and increasing number of American consumers are obtaining voice
services from Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) and other Internet Protocol (IP) based
service providers, either instead of or in addition to their service from traditional
telecommunications carriers; and
WHEREAS, Pursuant to Section 251(e) of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, including by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, rulemaking responsibility
for the North American Numbering Plan (NANP) in the U.S. rests with the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC); and
WHEREAS, The FCC has delegated day-to-day responsibilities for administering
numbering resources to the North American Numbering Plan Administrator (NANPA)
and the national thousands-block Pooling Administrator (PA), and local number
portability is administered by the Local Number Portability Administration Center
(NPAC); and
WHEREAS, The FCC recently acted to address local number portability and certain
other numbering requirements related to VoIP and IP-enabled service providers, but did
not address such providers reporting and utilization requirements; and
WHEREAS, Under current interpretations of FCC rules, only carriers with State
certifications, FCC licenses, or waivers may receive telephone numbers directly from the
NANPA or the PA, and requirements for service-provider access to the NPAC mirror
these requirements and, as NARUC noted in its July 18, 2007, Resolution Concerning
Adherence to Numbering Rules by Voice Over Internet Protocol and IP-enabled Services
Providers (July Numbering Resolution), many VoIP and IP-enabled service providers
therefore often obtain numbering resources from eligible FCC-licensed or State certificated
carriers; and
WHEREAS, As NARUC further noted in the July 2007 Numbering Resolution, because
of this indirect allocation of numbers to VoIP and IP-enabled service providers, such
providers are not directly subject to the reporting and utilization requirements in the
FCC?s existing Part 52 numbering rules that help ensure the efficient assignment and
usage of numbers; and
WHEREAS, Because VoIP and IP-enabled service providers are often neither State certificated
- 9 -
nor FCC-licensed, they may lack service-provider access to the NPAC to
promptly and efficiently port telephone numbers upon customer requests; and
WHEREAS, NARUC remains concerned about the potential impacts upon consumers of
inefficient number assignment and use, accelerated area code exhaust, and delayed or
incorrect number ports between service providers; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners,
convened in its November 2007 Annual Convention in Anaheim, California, recognizes
that there is a need for a national policy permitting the direct assignment of numbering
resources to VoIP and IP-enabled service providers to ensure that these providers comply
with FCC numbering rules, as well as reporting and utilization requirements; and be it
further
RESOLVED, That NARUC urges the FCC to modify or reinterpret its Part 52
numbering rules to allow interconnected VoIP providers to obtain numbering resources
directly from the NANPA and the PA and to obtain service-provider access to the NPAC;
and be it further
RESOLVED, That NARUC urges the FCC to impose equally on all entities obtaining
numbering resources directly from the NANPA or the PA the applicable numbering
obligations to comply with the Commissions Part 52 rules and requirements. These
obligations include, but are not limited to requirements such as periodic reporting on the
usage of numbering resources, and utilization and months-to-exhaust standards for
obtaining new numbering resources; and be it further
RESOLVED, That NARUC directs its General Counsel to communicate this resolution
to all relevant policymakers, including federal and State agencies and Congress, and to
file whatever comments or petitions may be necessary and proper to advance the goals of
this resolution.
____________________________
Sponsored by the Committee on Telecommunications
Recommended by the NARUC Board of Directors, November 13, 2007
Adopted by the Committee of the Whole, November 14, 2007