WPC 2BET 3|PB ) X-#Xj\  P6G; DXP#Arrus Blk BT (TT)cript_230_1HPLAS4.WRSSx  @,, YX@2@ ZP)CZ3|wA%HP LaserJet 4/4MScript_230_1HPLAS4.WRSSXw P7,, YXPCCCddCYdYdYCdd88d8ddddJN8ddddYYdYddddddCddddddddd8YYYYYY~Y~Y~Y~YC8C8C8C8ddddddddddYdddddsdddddddd~d~d~d~ddddddddd8ddddoddd~d~d<|8tddddddlLkdkd~d~d~ddddddXCddCCCWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNdddCYQQddddddFddddFCChhd44ddzzdddvooChdF"Ȑdhd岲dCCȐzȲxCddodȐȅdCdYdsȐ]ȐȐȧzȐUvŐdȐYYCCCCŐz~ozoY~NYdYC8YooYdYzsdzdd~YYzozzz~CdzYzzzzCCdddddddzCsdYCArrus Blk BT (TT)Times New Roman (TT)SIII.PRSXw P7H=pXPArrus Blk BT (TT)Times New Roman (TT)Clarendon BT (Bold) (TT)2 H@   CG Times (Scalable)CG Times Bold (Scalable)CG Times Italic (Scalable)"5@^2CRdd$CCdq2C28dddddddddd88qqqYzoCNzoozzC8C^dCYdYdYCdd88d8ddddCN8ddddY`(`l2CC!CCPRCddYYYYYYzYzYzYzYC8C8C8C8ddddddddddYdddddoddYYYYYzYzYzYddddddPdCdCCCdNdz8zRdddCRoNoNNF2[dCYddddd7>d<d<CCYYdCCddCYCdYzzzzCCCCqodYYYYYYYYYYY8888dddddddndddddddxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx8xxx8xxx8xxx8xxxxxxxxxxxxxxfi]f]oJiAlJ{SxJ8.uJo]]{JoSxJxf`SfSSiJxJofx]fffxi{8SxxxfJffff88SSSSx{SSSxxxf8`SJ8(Document[1]K&7>Document StyleE " "7>NGI "F   ׃  2 J q ePDocument[2]K&7>Document StyleGw "7>NGI "*   Document[3]K&7>Document StyleGw "7>NGI "0     Document[4]K&7>Document StyleGw "7>NGI "  . Document[5]K&7>Document StyleGw "7>NGI "   2epLp ,Document[6]K&7>Document StyleGw "7>NGI "   Document[7]K&7>Document StyleGw "7>NGI " ` ` ` Document[8]K&7>Document StyleGw "7>NGI "` ` ` Technical[1]K&7>Technical Document Style "7>NGI " 4$     2X   ? Technical[2]K&7>Technical Document Style "7>NGI " *    Technical[3]K&7>Technical Document Style "7>NGI " '   Technical[4]K&7>Technical Document Style "7>NGI " &   Technical[5]K&7>Technical Document Style "7>NGI " &  . 2Technical[6]K&7>Technical Document Style "7>NGI "&  . Technical[7]K&7>Technical Document Style "7>NGI "&  . Technical[8]K&7>Technical Document Style "7>NGI "&   . Right Par[1]K&7>Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7>NGI "8!"@  2xRight Par[2]K&7>Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7>NGI "A#$@` ` `  ` ` ` Right Par[3]K&7>Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7>NGI "J%&` ` ` @  ` ` ` Right Par[4]K&7>Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7>NGI "S'(` ` `  @  Right Par[5]K&7>Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7>NGI "\)*` ` `  @hhh hhh 2p8 Right Par[6]K&7>Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7>NGI "e+,` ` `  hhh@ hhh Right Par[7]K&7>Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7>NGI "n-.` ` `  hhh@  Right Par[8]K&7>Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7>NGI "w/0` ` `  hhh@ppp ppp Doc Init(K&7>Initialize Document Style "7>NGI "12    I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)Document22qa1DocumentI "7>Document Stylerw !E "Gw" "F34   ׃  a2DocumentI "7>Document Stylerw !E "Gw" "*56   a3DocumentI "7>Document Stylerw !E "Gw" "07 8    a4DocumentI "7>Document Stylerw !E "Gw" "9 : . 2a ee p!pa5DocumentI "7>Document Stylerw !E "Gw" " ;< a6DocumentI "7>Document Stylerw !E "Gw" " => a7DocumentI "7>Document Stylerw !E "Gw" " ?@` ` ` a8DocumentI "7>Document Stylerw !E "Gw" "!AB` ` ` 2\#" #{!$+"%"Tech Init(K&7>Initialize Technical Style "7>NGI ""CD 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 Technicala1Technical "7>Technical Document Style !E "Gw$ "#4E$F     a2Technical "7>Technical Document Style !E "Gw$ "$*GH    a3Technical "7>Technical Document Style !E "Gw$ "%'IJ   2%&#'"$($),%a4Technical "7>Technical Document Style !E "Gw$ "&&KL   a5Technical "7>Technical Document Style !E "Gw$ "'&MN  . a6Technical "7>Technical Document Style !E "Gw$ "(&OP  . a7Technical "7>Technical Document Style !E "Gw$ ")&QR  . 2n+*%+h&,k*-*a8Technical "7>Technical Document Style !E "Gw$ "*&ST  . Pleading(K&7>Header for numbered pleading paper7>NGI "+UV    X  y*dddyy*dddy HHH1 HHH2 HHH3 HHH4 HHH5 HHH6 HHH7 HHH8 HHH9 H10 H11 H12 H13 H14 H15 H16 H17 H18 H19 H20 H21 H22 H23 H24 H25 H26 H27 H28   Ӌfootnote refK&7>footnote referenceGw) "7>NGI ",+WXpage numberK&7>page number"Gw* "7>NGI "-(YZ2F0.+/ZH,0.1P/Default ParaK&7>Default Paragraph Fontw+ "7>NGI ".([(\footer*(K&7>footer!E "Gw, "7>NGI "/]^ (# ` hp x (#endnote refeK&7>endnote referenceGw- "7>NGI "0+_+`annotation rK&7>annotation referenceGw. "7>NGI "1OaOb#Xv P7XP##Xv P7XP#242x03*14Z1564annotation tK&7>annotation textGw/ "7>NGI "22c(dfootnote texK&7>footnote textGw0 "7>NGI "32e(fheader*(K&7>header!E "Gw1 "7>NGI "4gh (# ` hp x (#2G2*(K&7>Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7>NGI "58ij@  276475896963G3*(K&7>Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7>NGI "6Akl@` ` `  ` ` ` 4G4*(K&7>Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7>NGI "7Jmn` ` ` @  ` ` ` 5G5*(K&7>Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7>NGI "8Sop` ` `  @  6G6*(K&7>Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7>NGI "9\qr` ` `  @hhh hhh 2::7;8<U9=n&:7G7*(K&7>Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7>NGI ":est` ` `  hhh@ hhh 8G8*(K&7>Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7>NGI ";nuv` ` `  hhh@  9G9*(K&7>Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7>NGI "Bibliography"Gw: "7>NGI "=yz 2d=>:?`;@<A<a1Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers>:`S@ I.  X(# a2Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers?C @` A. ` ` (#` a3Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers@L! ` ` @P 1. ` `  (# a4Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersAUj` `  @ a. ` (# 2@B=CU>D?E?a5Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersB_o` `  @h(1)  hh#(#h a6Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersCh` `  hh#@$(a) hh#((# a7Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersDpfJ` `  hh#(@*i) (h-(# a8Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersEyW"3!` `  hh#(-@p/a) -pp2(#p 2ICFp@GhAHBIB10G0*(Q&7tDocument Style Gl0 "7t GI "FGH` ` ` 11G1*(Q&7tTechnical Document Style "7t GI "G4I$J     12G2*(Q&7tTechnical Document Style "7t GI "H*KL    13G3*(Q&7tTechnical Document Style "7t GI "I'MN   2EJ{CKDLDME14G4*(Q&7tTechnical Document Style "7t GI "J&OP   15G5*(Q&7tTechnical Document Style "7t GI "K&QR  . 16G6*(Q&7tTechnical Document Style "7t GI "L&ST  . 17G7*(Q&7tTechnical Document Style "7t GI "M&UV  . 2&HNEOUFPFQG18G8*(Q&7tTechnical Document Style "7t GI "N&WX  . 19G9*(Q&7tRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7t GI "O8YZ@  20G:*(Q&7tRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7t GI "PA[\@` ` `  ` ` ` 21G;*(Q&7tRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7t GI "QJ]^` ` ` @  ` ` ` 2BKRXHSITIUzJ22G<*(Q&7tRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7t GI "RS_`` ` `  @  23G=*(Q&7tRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7t GI "S\ab` ` `  @hhh hhh 24G>*(Q&7tRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7t GI "Tecd` ` `  hhh@ hhh 25G?*(Q&7tRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7t GI "Unef` ` `  hhh@  2PNVtKWELXLYM26G@*(Q&7tRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7t GI "Vwgh` ` `  hhh@ppp ppp 1wSg 6w Document Style=(H8g ܺ*HںwSg EWF *  ׃  27wSg K6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg EXJmn` ` @  ` `  28wSg L6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg EYSop` `  @  2QZN[8O\O]P29wSg M6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg EZ\qr` `  @hh# hhh 30wSg N6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg E[est` `  hh#@( hh# 31wSg O6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg E\nuv` `  hh#(@- ( 32wSg P6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg E]wwx` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp 2T^pQ_2R`Ra~S33wSg R6w Document Style=(H8g Rܺ*HںwSg E^{|` ` ` 34wSg S6w Technical Document Styleg Sܺ*HںwSg E_4}$~     35wSg T6w Technical Document Styleg Tܺ*HںwSg E`*    36wSg U6w Technical Document Styleg Uܺ*HںwSg Ea'   2hVbETcTd^UeU37wSg V6w Technical Document Styleg Vܺ*HںwSg Eb&   38wSg W6w Technical Document Styleg Wܺ*HںwSg Ec&  . 39wSg X6w Technical Document Styleg Xܺ*HںwSg Ed&  . 40wSg Y6w Technical Document Styleg Yܺ*HںwSg Ee&  . 2XfVgWhWiLX41wSg Z6w Technical Document Styleg Zܺ*HںwSg Ef&  . 42wSg [6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg Eg8@   43wSg \6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg EhA@` `  ` ` ` 44wSg ]6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg EiJ` ` @  ` `  2 \j"YkYlZmD[45wSg ^6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg EjS` `  @  46wSg _6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg Ek\` `  @hh# hhh 47wSg `6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg Ele` `  hh#@( hh# 48wSg a6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg Emn` `  hh#(@- ( 2_n>\o]p]qm^49wSg b6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg Enw` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp 50wSg c6w Document Style=(H8g cܺ*HںwSg EoF *  ׃  51wSg d6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg EpJ` ` @  ` `  52wSg e6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg EqS` `  @  2ZbrL_s`t`ua53wSg f6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg Er\` `  @hh# hhh 54wSg g6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg Ese` `  hh#@( hh# 55wSg h6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg Etn` `  hh#(@- ( 56wSg i6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg Euw` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp 2dvpbwbxcyHd57wSg j6w Document Style=(H8g jܺ*HںwSg Ev` ` ` 58wSg k6w Technical Document Styleg kܺ*HںwSg Ew4$     59wSg l6w Technical Document Styleg lܺ*HںwSg Ex*    60wSg m6w Technical Document Styleg mܺ*HںwSg Ey'   22gze{e|(f}f61wSg n6w Technical Document Styleg nܺ*HںwSg Ez&   62wSg o6w Technical Document Styleg oܺ*HںwSg E{&  . 63wSg p6w Technical Document Styleg pܺ*HںwSg E|&  . 64wSg q6w Technical Document Styleg qܺ*HںwSg E}&  . 2i~dgg{hi65wSg r6w Technical Document Styleg rܺ*HںwSg E~&  . 66wSg s6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg E8@   67wSg t6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg EA@` `  ` ` ` 68wSg u6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg EJ` ` @  ` `  2lijOkl69wSg v6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg ES` `  @  70wSg w6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg E\` `  @hh# hhh 71wSg x6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg Ee` `  hh#@( hh# 72wSg y6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg En` `  hh#(@- ( 2ommn&o73wSg z6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg Ew` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp 74wSg {6w Document Style=(H8g {ܺ*HںwSg EF *  ׃  75wSg |6w Document Style=(H8g |ܺ*HںwSg E*   76wSg }6w Document Style=(H8g }ܺ*HںwSg E0    2qqoe^pepp(q77wSg ~6w Document Style=(H8g ~ܺ*HںwSg E  . 78wSg 6w Document Style=(H8g ܺ*HںwSg E  79wSg 6w Document Style=(H8g ܺ*HںwSg E  80wSg 6w Document Style=(H8g ܺ*HںwSg E` ` ` 2tpq:rrs81wSg 6w Document Style=(H8g ܺ*HںwSg E` ` ` 82wSg 6w Technical Document Styleg ܺ*HںwSg E4$     83wSg 6w Technical Document Styleg ܺ*HںwSg E*    84wSg 6w Technical Document Styleg ܺ*HںwSg E'   2pvMttfuu85wSg 6w Technical Document Styleg ܺ*HںwSg E&   86wSg 6w Technical Document Styleg ܺ*HںwSg E&  . 87wSg 6w Technical Document Styleg ܺ*HںwSg E&  . 88wSg 6w Technical Document Styleg ܺ*HںwSg E&  . 2xv'wwTx89wSg 6w Technical Document Styleg ܺ*HںwSg E&  . 90wSg 6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg E8@   91wSg 6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg EA@` `  ` ` ` 92wSg 6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg EJ` ` @  ` `  2|*yyzL{93wSg 6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg ES` `  @  94wSg 6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg E\` `  @hh# hhh 95wSg 6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg Ee` `  hh#@( hh# 96wSg 6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg En` `  hh#(@- ( 2F|}}~97wSg 6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg Ew` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp 98wSg 6w Default Paragraph Font8g ܺ*HںwSg E;;#x6X@7X@##b6X@C@#endnote text6w endnote textH̺=(H8g ܺ*HںwSg EE;#x6X@7X@##b6X@C@#99wSg 6w endnote referenceH8g ܺ*HںwSg E>>#x6X@7X@##b6X@ C@#2Ӆ2o2100wSg 6w footnote text̺=(H8g ܺ*HںwSg EE;#x6X@ 7X@##b6X@ C@#101wSg 6w footnote referenceH8g ܺ*HںwSg E>>#x6X@ 7X@##b6X@ C@#toc 1g 6w toc 1 2H̺=(H8g ܺ*HںwSg E(#`` hp x (#toc 2g 6w toc 2 2H̺=(H8g ܺ*HںwSg E  ` (#`` hp x (#2͎2272i2toc 3g 6w toc 3 2H̺=(H8g ܺ*HںwSg E  ` (#` hp x (#toc 4g 6w toc 4 2H̺=(H8g ܺ*HںwSg E  (#` hp x (#toc 5g 6w toc 5 2H̺=(H8g ܺ*HںwSg Eh(#` hp x (#toc 6g 6w toc 6 2H̺=(H8g ܺ*HںwSg E(# ` hp x (#2222toc 7g 6w toc 7 2H̺=(H8g ܺ*HںwSg Etoc 8g 6w toc 8 2H̺=(H8g ܺ*HںwSg E(# ` hp x (#toc 9g 6w toc 9 2H̺=(H8g ܺ*HںwSg E(#`` hp x (#index 1g 6w index 1 2H̺=(H8g ܺ*HںwSg E` (#` hp x (#2[2Q2index 2g 6w index 2 2H̺=(H8g ܺ*HںwSg E` (#`` hp x (#toa heading6w toa headingH̺=(H8g ܺ*HںwSg E(#` hp x (#captiong 6w caption 2H̺=(H8g ܺ*HںwSg EE; #x6X@7X@##b6X@C@#_Equation Ca6w _Equation CaptionH8g ܺ*HںwSg E;!;"#x6X@7X@##b6X@C@#2G˞Default Paragraph FoDefault Paragraph Font11#Xv6X@CX@##b6X@C@#endnote referenceendnote reference44#Xv6X@CX@##b6X@C@#footnote textfootnote text;1#Xv6X@CX@##b6X@C@#footnote referencefootnote reference44#Xv6X@CX@##b6X@C@#2wY_Equation Caption_Equation Caption11#Xv6X@CX@##b6X@C@#heading 36qheading 3 -̺=(3ȷ ܺ*3ںGzǷ E102OQ6CDocument Style=(5Qܺ*5ںOQEF#$ *  ׃  103OQ6CDocument Style=(5Qܺ*5ںOQE*%&   2ؤqmeޥeC104OQ6CDocument Style=(5Qܺ*5ںOQE0' (    105OQ6CDocument Style=(5Qܺ*5ںOQE) * . 106OQ6CDocument Style=(5Qܺ*5ںOQE +, 107OQ6CDocument Style=(5Qܺ*5ںOQE -. 2pڦpJj108OQ6CDocument Style=(5Qܺ*5ںOQE/0` ` ` 109OQ6CDocument Style=(5Qܺ*5ںOQE12` ` ` 110OQ6CTechnical Document StyleQܺ*5ںOQE43$4     111OQ6CTechnical Document StyleQܺ*5ںOQE*56    2k8ͩa112OQ6CTechnical Document StyleQܺ*5ںOQE'78   113OQ6CTechnical Document StyleQܺ*5ںOQE&9:   114OQ6CTechnical Document StyleQܺ*5ںOQE&;<  . 115OQ6CTechnical Document StyleQܺ*5ںOQE&=>  . 2ԭ"9116OQ6CTechnical Document StyleQܺ*5ںOQE&?@  . 117OQ6CTechnical Document StyleQܺ*5ںOQE&AB  . 118OQ6CRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*5ںOQE8CD@   119OQ6CRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*5ںOQEAEF@` `  ` ` ` 2̰W 120OQ6CRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*5ںOQEJGH` ` @  ` `  121OQ6CRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*5ںOQESIJ` `  @  122OQ6CRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*5ںOQE\KL` `  @hh# hhh 123OQ6CRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*5ںOQEeMN` `  hh#@( hh# 2Ʊ124OQ6CRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*5ںOQEnOP` `  hh#(@- ( 125OQ6CRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*5ںOQEwQR` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp 126OQ6CDefault Paragraph FontQܺ*5ںOQEOSOT#x6X@7X@##b6X@C@#127OQ6Cendnote reference5Qܺ*5ںOQERURV#x6X@7X@##b6X@C@#2e128OQ6Cfootnote text̺=(5Qܺ*5ںOQEYWOX#x6X@7X@##b6X@C@#129OQ6Cfootnote reference5Qܺ*5ںOQERYRZ#x6X@7X@##b6X@C@#130OQ6C_Equation Caption5Qܺ*5ںOQEO[O\#x6X@7X@##b6X@C@#Heading 2Underlined Heading Flush Left14 2DĸMHeading 1Centered Headingcal Style 4G Y * à  Bullet ListIndented Bullet List*M0 Y XX` ` (#` 131</ 6Document Style=(w78/ ܺ*w7ں</ EF_` *  ׃  132</ 6Document Style=(w78/ ܺ*w7ں</ E*ab   2̺qaeһe7133</ 6Document Style=(w78/ ܺ*w7ں</ E0c d    134</ 6Document Style=(w78/ ܺ*w7ں</ Ee f . 135</ 6Document Style=(w78/ ܺ*w7ں</ E gh 136</ 6Document Style=(w78/ ܺ*w7ں</ E ij 2pμp>^137</ 6Document Style=(w78/ ܺ*w7ں</ Ekl` ` ` 138</ 6Document Style=(w78/ ܺ*w7ں</ Emn` ` ` 139</ 6Technical Document Style/ ܺ*w7ں</ E4o$p     140</ 6Technical Document Style/ ܺ*w7ں</ E*qr    2_,U141</ 6Technical Document Style/ ܺ*w7ں</ E'st   142</ 6Technical Document Style/ ܺ*w7ں</ E&uv   143</ 6Technical Document Style/ ܺ*w7ں</ E&wx  . 144</ 6Technical Document Style/ ܺ*w7ں</ E&yz  . 2-145</ 6Technical Document Style/ ܺ*w7ں</ E&{|  . 146</ 6Technical Document Style/ ܺ*w7ں</ E&}~  . 147</ 6Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*w7ں</ E8@   148</ 6Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*w7ں</ EA@` `  ` ` ` 2K149</ 6Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*w7ں</ EJ` ` @  ` `  150</ 6Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*w7ں</ ES` `  @  151</ 6Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*w7ں</ E\` `  @hh# hhh 152</ 6Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*w7ں</ Ee` `  hh#@( hh# 2FL153</ 6Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*w7ں</ En` `  hh#(@- ( 154</ 6Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*w7ں</ Ew` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp 155</ 6Default Paragraph Font8/ ܺ*w7ں</ Eww#x6X@7X@##b6X@C@#156</ 6endnote referencew78/ ܺ*w7ں</ Ezz#x6X@7X@##b6X@C@#2POLF1157</ 6footnote text̺=(w78/ ܺ*w7ں</ Ew#x6X@ 7X@##b6X@!C@#158</ 6footnote reference78/ ܺ*w7ں</ Ezz#x6X@"7X@##b6X@#C@#159</ 6_Equation Captionw78/ ܺ*w7ں</ Eww#x6X@$7X@##b6X@%C@#para numS3n6OMnumbered indented paragraphs 3H*_0F_8S\E/'0 1.#Xx{2 PQXP# 1.Ҳ2@N^HeadingS6n6OMChapter Heading=(_08S 6H*_0F_8S\E31 2 *  ׃  Right Par7n6OMRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersH*_0F_8S\E<34@    Subheadingn6OMSubheadingZ/08=(_08S 8H*_0F_8S\E.5 6  FOOTNOTES9n6OMFootnote - Appearance8S 9H*_0F_8S\E782 dr7 cHIGHLIGHT 1n6OMItalics and Bold(_08S :H*_0F_8S\E9: DRAFT ONS;n6OMHeader A Text = DRAFT and DateH*_0F_8S\E;< X 8#Xx6X@QX@#`X (#EDRAFTă `H(#@D3 1, 4D  DRAFT OFF?n6OMTurn Draft Style off8S ?H*_0F_8S\ED=>    LETTER LANDn6OMLetter Landscape - 11 x 8.5 AH*_0F_8S\E AB '3   2c>XQLEGAL LANDn6OMLegal Landscape - 14 x 8.5S BH*_0F_8S\E CD 'A   ЊCGmCBXdXmP`  P mQXPD7PC2X DXP\  P6QXPEl;[87X{[P`  P mQP 9iC@X)Xi% p"QXddCCCWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNdddCdUUddddddFddddFCCssd44ddzzddd~ooCsdF"Ȑdsd岲dCCȐzȲxCddodȐȅdCdYdsȐ`ȐȐȮzȐUvŐdȐddCCCCŐzozoYNYYYN8YooYdYzzdzddYYzozzzNdzYzzzzCCdddddddzCzdYC"5^78:nFFT7=7.nnnnnnnnnn::SrkKKown~…|F.FTTgpYt_Ddw?=q=wnspRZIvjcb_TTT7TTTT7TTogggggYr_r_r_r_K?K?K?K?wnnnnvvvv|bgtnn|bnwsgggYYr_r_r_dddwwKoToTTKoTnnZNb7T[8SYYnznMSnIeI::bbT33TT:b=IN=7dYYdddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd78:nFFT7=7.nnnnnnnnnn::SrkKKown~…|F.FTTgpYt_Ddw?=q=wnspRZIvjcb_TTTddd:nbTTTn3dddd::bbbTTZ3dd|78nnezT[TMY=T7IITdT7TISYSrrrrKKKK|woggggggY____????nwnnnnnnvvvvbsxxxxxxWWW:J2J2H2H2YHC2C26&6262?2?2?2J2J2J2J2^HH2@,!22!!!WddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHHH222!,))22X222YY2#2222Y#!!442Ydd22==Ld2d2H2;SS88Y!42^x#"ddddHHddd2Hdd4HHYYddd2YYddd Y2!!dddddH=dYHHHHHHHHHHx!d2H282YdHdC2!2H,29HNAddHHHHHHHHHHddddd.dHHHHdddddddddddddddddddHHddddddSC=NdHddd+;HHHHddddddHHH2HHdHHdddHHH,HHHH,HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!HHH!HHH!HHH!HHHHHHHHHHHHHH=?8=8C,?'A,J2H,!F,C8[8J,C2H,H=92=22?,H,C=H8N===H?J!2HHH=,====!!2222HJ222HHH=!92,!d2Z=G8wC;,[hXw P7XPx/c81,c P7P7zC;,sXz_ p^7XV"G($,hG P7hPH<!, ,< P7,P&6uC;,-/3Xu&_ x$&7XX&z-b81,-b&_ x$&7X"Sh5^;C`ddCCCdCCCCddddddddddCCȰdxxxsCYoxxdoxxooCCCddCddYdY8dd88Y8ddddLL8dYYYLYdYddddddCddddddddd8xdxdxdxdxdYxYxYxYxYC8C8C8C8dddddddddoYxddddoYdxdxdxdxdddddxdxdxdxddddddddd8ddddddddododp8p8xddddxdxddLddddodododddddodpLCddCCCWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNdddCd]]ddddddFddddFCCddd88ddzzdddkddCddF"Ȑddd尰dCCȐzȰxCdzdodȐȅdCdYdsȐ]ȐȐȧzȐUvŐdȐYYCCCCzzzozoYzNoYdYC8YooYdYzzdzddoYoYzzozzzzzCdoozYzzzzCCddddzdddooozCsdYC"Sh5^18PSS888S8888SSSSSSSSSS88Sddoxd`xx8Jo]oxdxdS]xdd]]888SS8SSJSJ.SS..J.xSSSS??.SJoJJ?JSJSSSSSS8SSSSSSSSS.dSdSdSdSdSooJdJdJdJdJ8.8.8.8.oSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxS]JdSxSxSxS]JxSdSdSdSdSoSoSoSxSdSdSdSdSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSS/SSSSSSSoS]S]S]/]/doSoSxSxSodSdSS?SSSS]S]S]SxSxSxSxSo]S]?8SS888WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNxxxSSS8SMMSSSSSS;SSSS;88SSS..SSffSSxSYSS8SS;"xxSxSxxS哓S88xfxxxxxxxxxxx8SfS]SxoS8SxJS`xlxxxxxxxxxxMxxxxxxofxGcxxxxxxxSxxxxxxxJxxxxJxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx8xxx8xxx8xxx8xxxxxxxxxxxxxfff]f]oJfA]JxSxJ8.oJo]]oJoSxJxffSfSS]J]Joff]fffffx8Sx]]fJffff88SSSSfxSSS]]]f8`SJ82V1)pY "H^BCF$TTdBJB7FFcZZT7Tdd|krRxLJJblWwvrdddBddddBdd|||||krrrrZLZLZLZLv|v|||kkrrrxxxZdddZdlNvBdmCckk]cWyWFFvvd==ddFvJWNJBxkkxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxBCF$TTdBJB7FFcZZT7Tdd|krRxLJJblWwvrdddxxxFvddd=xxxxFFvvvddl=xxBCydmd]kJdBWWdxdBdWckcZZZZ||||||krrrrLLLLv2^R"H^^@?F$QQd@G@8@@qXzQ8Qdd{{d|oLHFFw||eo^uwcddd@dd!ddBRdd}{{{{{dooooXHXHXHXHwwwww{|wwww|{{{dddoooX}d}ddX}zFRweeooNv@d}?qbb\ZTyT44ccd::{{4cGTtGnnyy2Bx7cbbnCzxhcnonvyXzXshn~|yxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx@?F$QQd@G@8@@qXzQ8Qdd{{d|oLHFFw||eo^uwcdddxxx4c{{d:xxxx44ccvddo:xx@?yd}d\bGdBTTdxd@dTZbqXXXX}{{{{{{dooooHHHHwwwwwwww| hA I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)Ҋ  #c P7{P#X01Í ÍX01Í Í#Xw P7dXP#`E(#UFCC 96286  hA[ Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION  Z4Washington, D.C. 20554 ă  hAIn the Matter of hhCqpp) ` ` hhCqpp)  hVATelephone Number Portabilityqpp)  *CC Docket No. 95116  h( A` ` hhCqpp)RM 8535 ` `  hhCqpp)  Z 4 FIRST REPORT AND ORDER AND  Z 4 FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING ă  hpAAdopted:` ` June 27, 1996hhCqppReleased:  *July 2, 1996  hBAComment Date: August 16, 1996  h+AReply Comment Date:hhCSeptember 16, 1996 By the Commission: `(#bParagraph  hAV; Table of Contents ă`|(#nNumber    X\I. INTRODUCTION p"(# 1 X\II. BACKGROUND p"(# 7  h<AXX` ` A.` ` Telecommunications Act of 1996 ` `"(#7  h%AXX` ` B.` ` Proposed Number Portability Methods ` p!(# 12  hAXX` ` C.` ` Current State Efforts ` p!(# 21 X\III. REPORT AND ORDER p!(# 26  h!AXX` ` A.` ` Importance of Service Provider Number Portability ` p!(# 26  h"AXX` ` B.` ` The Commission's Role ` p!(# 32  h#AXX` ` C.` ` Performance Criteria for LongTerm Number Portability ` p!(# 38  hm%AXX` ` D.` ` Mandate of Number Portability ` p!(# 64  hV&AXX` ` E.` ` Database Architecture and Administration ` p!(# 86  h?'AXX` ` F.` ` Currently Available Number Portability Measures ` p\!(# 103  h((AXX` ` X ` ` 1. Background p\!(# 103"((0*0*0*H,"Ԍ hAXX` ` X ` ` 2. Implementation of Currently Available Number Portability Measures p\!(# 104  hAXX` ` X ` ` 3. Cost Recovery for Currently Available Number Portability Measures p!(#i 117  Y-XX` ` G. ` ` Number Portability by CMRS Providers ` p!(#i 141  Y-XX` ` H.` ` Service and Location Portability ` p!(#i 172  Y-XX` ` I.` ` 500 and 900 Number Portability ` p!(#m188 XUIV. FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING p!(#m199  Y_-XX` ` A.` ` LongTerm Number Portability Costs and Cost Recovery ` p!(#m199  YH-XX` ` B.` ` Procedural Matters ` p!(#m231 XX` ` X ` ` 1. Ex Parte p!(#m231 XX` ` X ` ` 2. Regulatory Flexibility Act p!(#m232 XX` ` X ` ` 3. Notice and Comment Provision p!(#m233 XUV. ORDERING CLAUSES p!(#m236    XUAPPENDIXA List of Parties! APPENDIXB Final Rules APPENDIXC Regulatory Flexibility Analysis APPENDIX D Largest 100 Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) APPENDIX E Description of Number Portability Methods APPENDIX F Implementation Schedule  Y-GV I. INTRODUCTION ׃  Y-1. ` ` We initiated this proceeding on July13, 1995, when we adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeking comment on a wide variety of policy and technical  Y}-issues related to telephone number portability.}* xP-ԍTelephone Number Portability, CC Docket No.95116, 10 FCC Rcd 12350 (1995) (Notice). A list of  xP-parties filing comments and reply comments in response to the Notice is attached below as AppendixA. Since our adoption of the Notice, the  Yf-Telecommunications Act of 1996 became law.f * xP7-ԍTelecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56 (1996) (1996 Act). Section251, added by the 1996 Act, requires all local exchange carriers (LECs), both incumbents and new entrants, to offer  Y8-number portability in accordance with requirements prescribed by the Commission.J8* xP"-ԍ47 U.S.C. 251(b)(2).J On March 14, 1996, the Common Carrier Bureau released a Public Notice seeking comment  Y -on how the passage of the 1996 Act may have affected the issues raised in the Notice.<X @* xP%-ԍFurther Comments: Telephone Number Portability, Public Notice, CC Docket No. 95116, DA 96358, 61 Fed. Reg. 11,174 (1996) (Public Notice). A list of parties filing comments and reply comments in response to the Public Notice is included in Appendix A, below.< " ` 0*((" Comments in response to the Public Notice were received on March 29, 1996, and reply comments were filed on April 5, 1996. In addition, efforts to implement number  Y-portability at the state level have progressed since adoption of the Notice.  Y-2. ` ` The Telecommunications Act of 1996 establishes "a procompetitive, deregulatory national policy framework" that is intended to "promote competition and reduce regulation...to secure lower prices and higher quality services for American telecommunications consumers and encourage the rapid deployment of new  YH-telecommunications technologies."gH* xP -ԍS. Conf. Rep. No. 230, 104th Cong., 2d Sess. 1 (1996).g The statute imposes obligations and responsibilities on telecommunications carriers, particularly incumbent local exchange carriers, that are designed to open monopoly telecommunications markets to competitive entry and to  Y -promote competition in markets that already are open to new competitors.^@ X* xP -ԍ According to Senator Larry Pressler, "[t]he more open access takes hold, the less other government intervention is needed to protect competition. Open access is the principle establishing a fair method to move local phone monopolies and the oligopolistic long distance industry into full competition with one another." 141 Cong. Rec. S7889 (daily ed. June 7, 1995) (statement of Sen. Pressler). Senator Ernest F. Hollings has said, "[c]ompetition is the best regulator of the marketplace. But until that competition exists, until the markets are opened, monopolyprovided services must not be able to exploit the monopoly power to the consumers'  xP-disadvantage. Competitors are ready and willing to enter the new markets as soon as they are opened." Id. at S7984 (statement of Sen. Hollings).^ In particular, section251(b) imposes specific obligations on all local exchange carriers to open their networks to competitors. The Act envisions that removing legal and regulatory barriers to entry and reducing economic impediments to entry will enable competitors to enter markets freely, encourage technological development, and ensure that a firm's prowess in satisfying consumer demand will determine its success or failure in the marketplace. In implementing the statute, the Commission has the responsibility to adopt the rules that will implement most quickly and effectively the national telecommunications policy embodied in the 1996 Act. Number portability is one of the obligations that Congress imposed on all local exchange carriers, both incumbents and new entrants, in order to promote the procompetitive, deregulatory markets it envisioned. Congress has recognized that number portability will lower barriers to entry and promote competition in the local exchange marketplace. In its report, the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation concluded that the "minimum requirements [for interconnection set forth in new section 251(b), including number portability,] are  Y-necessary for opening the local exchange market to competition."` * xP"-ԍSenate Comm. on Commerce, Science, and Transportation Report on S.652 at1920 (Mar. 30, 1995) (Senate Report). Likewise, the House of Representatives Committee on Commerce determined that "the ability to change" 0*((}" service providers is only meaningful if a customer can retain his or her local telephone  Y-number."* xPb-ԍHouse of Rep. Comm. on Commerce Report on H.R. 1555 at 72 (July 24, 1995) (House Report).  Y-3. ` ` In this Order, we promulgate rules and regulations implementing this congressional directive. Although we decline to choose a particular technology for providing number portability, we establish in this First Report and Order performance criteria that any longterm number portability method selected by a LEC must meet. Pursuant to the statutory requirement in section251 to provide number portability, we require all LECs to begin to implement a longterm service provider portability solution that meets our performance criteria in the 100 largest Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) no later than October1, 1997, and to complete deployment in those MSAs by December 31, 1998, in accordance with a phased schedule set forth below. Number portability must be provided in these areas by all LECs to all telecommunications carriers, including commercial mobile radio services (CMRS) providers.  Y -4. ` ` The statute explicitly excludes CMRS providers from the definition of local exchange carriers, and therefore from the section 251(b) obligations to provide number portability, unless the Commission concludes that they should be included in the  Yb-definition of local exchange carrier.R bX* xPk-ԍSee 47 U.S.C.  153(26).R Our recent Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on interconnection issues raised by the 1996 Act sought comment generally on whether, and  Y4-to what extent, CMRS providers should be classified as LECs.4 X4* xP-ԍImplementation of the Local Competition Provisions in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Notice of  xP-Proposed Rulemaking, CC Docket No. 9698, FCC 96182, 195 (rel. Apr. 19, 1996) (Interconnection  xP]-NPRM).4 Because we conclude that we have independent authority under sections1, 2, 4(i), and 332 of the  Y-Communications Act of 1934, as amended,W * xP-ԍ47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154, 332.W to require cellular providers, broadband personal communications services (PCS), and covered Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR)  Y-providers * xP! -ԍFor an explanation of "covered SMR providers," see infra note COVERED SMR DEF449. to provide longterm service provider portability, we need not decide here whether CMRS providers must provide number portability as local exchange carriers under section 251(b). We require all cellular, broadband PCS, and covered SMR providers to have the capability of delivering calls from their networks to ported numbers anywhere in the country by December 31, 1998, and to offer service provider portability, including the ability to support roaming, throughout their networks by June 30, 1999.  Y7-5. ` ` We conclude that a system of regional databases that are managed by an independent administrator will serve the public interest. We direct the North American" ( 0*((K" Numbering Council (NANC) to provide initial oversight of this regional database system. We direct the NANC to determine the number and location of the regional databases and to select one or more administrators responsible for deploying the database system. Any state that prefers to develop its own statewide database rather than participate in a regionallydeployed database, however, may opt out of its designated regional database and implement a statespecific database. We will retain authority to override a state's decision to develop a statewide database if an affected carrier can demonstrate that the state's proposal would significantly delay deployment of a longterm method or impose unreasonable costs on affected carriers.  Y -6. ` ` Until longterm service provider portability is available, we require LECs to provide currently available number portability measures, such as Remote Call Forwarding (RCF) and Direct Inward Dialing (DID), upon specific request from another carrier. We conclude, however, that commercial mobile radio service providers need not provide such measures due to technical considerations specific to the CMRS industry. We enunciate principles that ensure that the costs of currently available measures are borne by all telecommunications carriers on a competitively neutral basis, and we conclude that states may utilize various cost recovery mechanisms, so long as they are consistent with these statutory requirements. We decline at this time to require the provision of either service or location portability. We conclude that, while the statute requires LECs to implement 500 and 900 number portability, there is insufficient record evidence to determine whether LEC provision of portability for 500 and 900 numbers is technically feasible. As a result, we refer the issue to the Industry Numbering Committee (INC), which must report its findings to the Commission within 12 months of the effective date of this Order. Finally, we adopt a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking regarding cost recovery for longterm number portability.   Y|-cV II. BACKGROUND Ń  X8- A.` ` Telecommunications Act of 1996   Y -7.` ` New section251(b)(2) of the Communications Act of 1934, as added by the 1996 Act, directs each local exchange carrier "to provide, to the extent technically feasible, number portability in accordance with requirements prescribed by the  Y -Commission."J * xP>#-ԍ47U.S.C.251(b)(2).J The 1996 Act defines the term "local exchange carrier" as: Xany person that is engaged in the provision of telephone exchange service or exchange access. Such term does not include a [commercial mobile service provider,] as defined under section332(c), except to the extent that"i$X 0*((%" the Commission finds that such provider should be included in the  Y-definition of such term.R* xPb-ԍSee 47 U.S.C.153(26).RƤ The 1996 Act defines "number portability" as "the ability of users of telecommunications services to retain, at the same location, existing telecommunications numbers without impairment of quality, reliability, or convenience when switching from one  Yv-telecommunications carrier to another." vX* xP -ԍSee 47U.S.C.153(30). In our Notice, we defined three types of number portability: (1)service provider the ability to retain one's number when changing service providers; (2)service the ability to retain one's number when changing services; and (3)location the ability to retain one's number when changing  xP -physical locations. Notice, 10 FCC Rcd at 1235556.  YH-8. ` ` The 1996 Act defines the term "telecommunications carrier" as "any provider of telecommunications services, except that such term does not include  Y -aggregators of telecommunications services (as defined in section226)."R @* xP -ԍSee 47 U.S.C.153(44).R The term "telecommunications service" is defined by the 1996 Act as "the offering of telecommunications for a fee directly to the public, or to such classes of users as to be  Y -effectively available directly to the public, regardless of the facilities used."HX * xPV-ԍSee 47 U.S.C.153(46). The term "telecommunications" means "the transmission, between or among points specified by the user, of information of the user's choosing, without change in the form or content of the information as sent and received." 47U.S.C.153(43).H Because the 1996 Act's definition of number portability requires LECs to provide number  Y -portability when customers switch from any telecommunications carrier to any other,R * xPH-ԍSee 47 U.S.C.153(30).R the statutory obligation of LECs to provide number portability runs to other telecommunications carriers. Because CMRS falls within the statutory definition of telecommunications service, CMRS carriers are telecommunications carriers under the 1996 Act. As a result, LECs are obligated under the statute to provide number portability to customers seeking to switch to CMRS carriers.  Y-9. ` ` In addition to the duties imposed by section 251(b) on all LECs, section  Y-251(c)(1) imposes upon incumbent LECs, inter alia, the "duty to negotiate in good faith...the terms and conditions of agreements to fulfill" the section 251(b) obligations,  Y-including the duty to provide number portability.T * xP$-ԍSee 47 U.S.C. 251(c)(1).T An incumbent LEC is defined as a carrier that was providing exchange access service in a particular area on February 8, 1996, and was a member of the National Exchange Carrier Association (NECA) pursuant"0*(("  Y-to section 69.601(b) of the Commission's regulations.d* xPy-ԍ47 U.S.C. 251(h)(1); 47 C.F.R. 69.601(b).d The 1996 Act creates an  Y-exemption from the obligations of section251(c) for rural telephone companies,@X* xP-ԍA "rural telephone company" is a LEC that "(A) provides common carrier service to any local exchange carrier study area that does not include either (i) any incorporated place of 10,000 inhabitants or more, or any part thereof, based on the most recently available population statistics of the Bureau of the Census; or (ii) any territory, incorporated or unincorporated, included in an urbanized area, as defined by the Bureau of the Census as of August 10, 1993; (B) provides telephone exchange service, including exchange access, to fewer than 50,000 access lines; (C) provides telephone exchange service to any local exchange carrier study area with fewer than 100,000 access lines; or (D) has less than 15 percent of its access lines in communities of  xPj -more than 50,000 on [February8,1996]." See 47 U.S.C. 153(37). and allows LECs with fewer than two percent of the nation's subscriber lines to petition a state commission for suspension or modification of the application of sections 251(b) and  Y-(c).X` * xP-ԍSee 47 U.S.C. 251(f)(1)(2).X  Yv- 10.` ` Section 251(e)(1) reinforces the Commission's authority over matters relating to the administration of numbering resources by giving the Commission exclusive jurisdiction over those portions of the North American Numbering Plan (NANP) that  Y1-pertain to the United States. 1 * xP-ԍSee 47 U.S.C. 251(e)(1). Section251(e)(1) further states that the provision does not preclude the  xP-Commission from delegating jurisdiction to the states or other entities. Id. Under the 1996 Act, the term "United States," "means the several States and Territories, the District of Columbia, and the possessions of the  xP*-United States, but does not include the Canal Zone." See 47 U.S.C.  153(50). This subsection also requires the Commission to "create or designate one or more impartial entities to administer telecommunications numbering and  Y -to make such numbers available on an equitable basis."J * xP-ԍ47 U.S.C.  251(e)(1).J Moreover, section251(e)(2) provides that the cost of "number portability shall be borne by all telecommunications  Y -carriers on a competitively neutral basis as determined by the Commission."T h* xP-ԍSee 47 U.S.C. 251(e)(2).T  Y - 11.` ` Finally, new section 271(c)(2)(B) establishes a "competitive checklist" of requirements that the Bell Operating Companies (BOCs) must meet to provide inregion  Yy-interLATA services.@y* xP"#-ԍSee 47 U.S.C. 271(c)(2)(B). "InterLATA service" means telecommunications between a point located in a local access and transport area (LATA) and a point located outside such area. 47 U.S.C. 153(21). The term "inregion" means an area in which a BOC or any of its affiliates was authorized to provide wireline telephone exchange service pursuant to the reorganization plan approved under the AT&T Consent Decree, as in effect on the day before the date of enactment of the 1996 Act. 47 U.S.C. 271(i)(1).@ One of the requirements that the BOCs must satisfy is the provision of "interim number portability through remote call forwarding, direct inward"b0*((I" dialing trunks, or other comparable arrangements, with as little impairment of functioning, quality, reliability, and convenience as possible" until the Commission issues regulations pursuant to section 251 to implement the statute's number portability requirements. Section 271(c)(2)(B)(xi) directs the BOCs to comply fully with the  Y-regulations implemented by the Commission.[* xP-ԍSee 47 U.S.C. 271(c)(2)(B)(xi).[  Xv- B.` ` Proposed Number Portability Methods  YH- 12.` ` Because most telephone numbers within the NANP are associated with a particular switch operated by a particular service provider, they currently cannot be transferred outside the service area of a particular switch or between switches operated by  Y -different service providers without technical changes to the switch or network. X* xP -ԍUnder the NANP, telephone numbers consist of ten digits in the form NPANXXXXXX, where N may be any number from 2 to9 and X may be any number from 0 to9. Numbering plan areas (or NPAs) are known commonly as area codes. The second three digits of a telephone number are known as the NXX code. Typically, the NXX code identifies the central office switch to which the telephone number had been assigned  xP,-or central office code (CO). Administration of the North American Numbering Plan, Report and Order, 11  xP-FCC Rcd 2588, 259394 (1995) (Numbering Plan Order). Several methods exist, or are being developed, to provide telephone number portability. These  Y -methods generally consist of two types: database and nondatabase methods.z * xPV-ԍFor a more detailed description of these methods, see infra app. E.z  X -XX` ` 1.X Database methods !  Yy- 13.` ` Several industry participants have proposed methods for providing service provider portability that use databases containing the customer routing information necessary to route telephone calls to the proper terminating locations. All these methods  Y4-depend on Intelligent Network (IN) or Advanced Intelligent Network (AIN) capabilities.4` * xPE-ԍSee generally Intelligent Networks, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 8 FCC Rcd 6813 (1993). IN refers to a general call processing architecture in which a centralized database performs some aspect of call setup. Databases supporting IN services are built to support a specific call processing application. AIN describes a specific model of IN developed by Bellcore in which the database is a general purpose platform capable of supporting multiple call processing services.  Y-Before the release of our Notice, AT&T proposed a Location Routing Number (LRN) method to the Industry Numbering Committee (INC), an industry body that provides an open forum to address and resolve industrywide issues associated with the nonpolicyrelated planning, administration, allocation, assignment, and use of numbering resources within the NANP area. Since it proposed LRN to the INC, AT&T has continued to  Y-develop and refine this method.* xPk'-ԍSee Notice, 10 FCC Rcd at 12364. See also AT&T Comments at 1823. Essentially, LRN assigns a unique 10digit telephone"0*((" number to each switch in a defined geographic area. The location routing number serves as a network address. Carriers routing telephone calls to customers that have transferred their telephone numbers from one carrier to another perform a database query to obtain the location routing number that corresponds to the dialed telephone number. The database query is performed for all calls to switches from which at least one number has  Y-been ported. X* xP-ԍWe use the term "ported" in this context to mean the transfer of a telephone number from one carrier's switch to another carrier's switch, which enables a customer to retain his or her number when transferring from one carrier to another. The carrier then would route the call to the new carrier based on the  Yv-location routing number.!v* xP -ԍGTE and Pacific Bell refer to LRN as an addressing scheme which assigns a routing number that  xP -uniquely identifies a ported number in network routing databases. See GTE Further Reply Comments at 6; Pacific Bell Further Comments at 3. Other parties refer to LRN as the addressing scheme and triggering  xPg -mechanism which determines under what circumstances a database query should be executed. See AT&T Comments at 1819; MCI Comments at 1516.  YH- 14.CPC` ` MCI, DSC Communications, Nortel, Tandem Computers, and Siemens StrombergCarlson have developed a method referred to as the Carrier Portability Code  Y -(CPC) method." * xPc-ԍSee Notice, 10 FCC Rcd at 1236364. See also MCI Comments at 1015. This method operates in a similar manner to LRN. Under CPC, however, the database associates the dialed telephone number with a 3digit carrier portability code identifying the particular carrier to whom the dialed number has been transferred, rather than a particular switch. As described below, many of the parties in this proceeding and staff of some state commissions consider the CPC method to be an  Y -interim database solution.f# ( * xP-ԍSee infra CPC INTERIM23, app.E.f  Yy-15.` ` Stratus Computer and US Intelco have developed another database method  Yb-commonly referred to as Local Area Number Portability (LANP).$b * xP-ԍSee Notice, 10 FCC Rcd at 1236465. See also US Intelco Comments at 12, 6. This method uses two "domains" of 10digit numbers to route telephone calls to customers that have transferred their numbers to new carriers or new geographic locations. Specifically, LANP assigns a tendigit customer number address (CNA) to each end user; this is the number that callers would dial to place telephone calls to the particular end user. It also assigns each customer a 10digit network node address (NNA) that identifies where in the telephone network to reach the particular end user. Both the CNA and the NNA are stored in routing databases so that carriers can determine from the dialed telephone number where in the network to reach the called party. " H $0*(("Ԍ Y-16.` ` GTE has proposed both on the record in this proceeding and before the  Y-INC what it refers to as the NonGeographic Number (NGN) method.%* xPb-ԍSee Notice, 10 FCC Rcd at 12365. See also GTE Comments at 1418. While this method uses a database, it operates in a fundamentally different manner from CPC, LRN, and LANP. The NGN method would provide service provider and location portability to end users by assigning them nongeographic telephone numbers, such as an INPA (interchangeable numbering plan area) code that has been assigned for nongeographic  Yv-numbers.~&XvX* xP -ԍSee Industry Numbering Committee, Number Portability (Proposed Final Draft) at 104, filed June19, 1996 in CC Docket No. 95116 (INC Report). An INPA, also known as an interchangeable area code, is an  xP -area code in which the second digit is not 0 or 1. Numbering Plan Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 2593.~ Telephone calls to such end users would be routed in much the same way as toll free calls are today, by performing a database query to determine the geographic telephone number corresponding to the dialed nongeographic telephone number, and routing the call to the appropriate geographic number.  Y -17. ` ` Pacific Bell has proposed a triggering mechanism which operates in conjunction with the same addressing scheme utilized in AT&T's LRN method. This mechanism, called Query on Release (QOR) or Look Ahead, determines under what  Y -circumstances a database query is performed.`' x* xP-ԍSee Pacific Bell Further Comments at 34.` Under QOR, the signalling used to set up a telephone call is routed to the end office switch to which the dialed telephone number  Y-was originally assigned (the release switch), i.e., according to the NPANXX of the dialed number. If the dialed number has been transferred to another carrier's switch, the previous switch in the call path queries the database to obtain the routing information. The call is then completed to the new carrier's switch.  Y-18. ` ` Another number portability method triggering mechanism that is similar to  Y-QOR is ReleasetoPivot (RTP).W(* xP-ԍSee Pacific Bell Comments at 19.W RTP differs from QOR in that when a number has been ported from the release switch, the release switch rather than the previous switch in the call path returns the address information necessary for routing the call. The information regarding where to route the telephone call, if the number has been transferred, may be contained either in the release switch or an external database.  X|-XX` ` 2.X Nondatabase methods !  YN-19.` ` In our Notice, we discussed two currently available methods of providing service provider portability that do not use databases: Remote Call Forwarding and  Y -Flexible Direct Inward Dialing.]) * xPi'-ԍSee Notice, 10 FCC Rcd at 12369.] These methods are commonly referred to as "interim"  ( )0*((<" measures." While most LECs currently are able to port numbers to other service providers using these methods, they suffer from certain limitations that make them  Y-unsuitable for longterm number portability.e** xPK-ԍSee id. at 1236871; infra app. E.e RCF redirects calls to telephone numbers that have been transferred by essentially placing a second telephone call to the new network location. DID routes the second call over a dedicated facility to the new service providers switch, instead of translating the dialed number to a new number.  Y_- 20.` ` In the Notice, we also discussed three derivative methods of RCF and DID (enhanced remote call forwarding, route index/portability hub, and hub routing with AIN), all of which require routing incoming calls to the terminating switch identified by the NPANXX code of the dialed phone number. Unlike RCF and DID, they use LEC tandem switches to aggregate calls to a particular competing service provider before those  Y -calls are routed to that provider.]+ X* xP-ԍSee Notice, 10 FCC Rcd at 12370.] In addition, LECs in several states reportedly are providing Directory Number Route Indexing (DNRI), which first routes incoming calls to the switch to which the NPANXX code was originally assigned, then routes ported calls to the new service provider either through a direct trunk or by attaching a pseudo NPA to  Y-the number and using a tandem, depending on availability.,* xP)-ԍUSTA Ex Parte Letter at 2, from Mary McDermott, to William Caton, FCC, CCDocketNo. 95116,  xP-filed Apr. 4, 1996 (USTA April 4, 1996 Ex Parte Letter); see also infra app.E.  Xb- C.` ` Current State Efforts  X4-` ` 1. State Task Forces and Implementation  Y-21. CHOSE STATEIMPLEMNT` ` Parties to this proceeding report that several states have established task forces of industry participants or are otherwise beginning to investigate the development and implementation of longterm number portability methods. Those states include: Alabama, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. Of these states, the task forces in Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Maryland, and New York have all selected AT&T's Location Routing Number method for implementing service provider number portability  YN-in areas within their states' boundaries.-N@* xP?#-ԍAmeritech Ex Parte Presentation at 5, 30, CCDocket No.95116, filed Feb. 21, 1996 (Ameritech  xP$-February 21, 1996 Ex Parte Filing); AT&T Ex Parte Letter at 1, from R. Gerard Salemme, to Regina Keeney,  xP$-FCC, CC Docket No. 95116, filed Mar. 12, 1996 (AT&T March 12, 1996 Ex Parte Letter); AT&T Ex Parte  xP%-Presentation at 12, CC Docket No. 95116, filed Feb. 6, 1996 (AT&T February 6, 1996 Ex Parte Filing); CA  xP_&-Public Utilities Commission, California Local Number Portability Task Force Report, R.9504043 & I.9504044, filed June19, 1996 in CC Docket No. 95116, at 14 (rel. Feb.29, 1996) (CA LNP Task Force Report);"'',0*((;'"  xP-Colorado Public Utilities Commission, Order Approving Location Routing Number as the Long Term Database  xPX-Solution to Local Number Portability, Docket No.96A196T, at 2 (rel. May31, 1996) (CO PUC LNP Order);  xP -Georgia Public Service Commission, Local Telephone Number Portability Under Section 2 of the  xP-Telecommunications Competition and Development Act of 1995, Docket No. 5840U, filed June19, 1996 in CC Docket No. 95116, at 5 (rel. Feb. 20, 1996); (GA PSC Portability Order); Illinois Commerce  xPx-Commission, Joint petition for approval of Stipulation and Agreement relating to the implementation of Local  xP@-Number Portability, Order, No.960089, at 24, (rel. Mar. 13, 1996) (ICC LNP Order), submitted in  xP-Ameritech Further Comments at Attachment A; Public Service Commission of Maryland, Commission's  xP-Investigation into LongTerm Solutions to Number Portability in Maryland, Order, Case No. 8704 at 13 (rel.  xP-June 24, 1996) (MD PSC Portability Order); Michigan Public Service Commission, On the Commission's own  xP` -motion, to establish permanent interconnection arrangements between basic local exchange service providers, Opinion and Order, Case No.U10860, filed June19, 1996 in CC Docket No. 95116, at 1829, 4344 (adopted June5, 1996) (MI PSC Interconnection Order); State of New York Department of Public Service,  xP -Proceeding on Motion of the Commission to Examine Issues Related to the Continuing Provision of Universal Service and to Develop a Framework for the Transition to Competition in the Local Exchange Market; Number  xPH -Portability Trial Progress Report, Case 94C0095, at 2, Attachment at 2 (rel. Jan. 23, 1996) (NY DPS  xP-Portability Trial Report), submitted in AT&T Ex Parte Presentation, CCDocket No.95116, filed Feb.28,  xP-1996 (AT&T February28, 1996 Ex Parte Filing); Competition The State Experience, vol. 1, at 32, 86,  xP-submitted as NARUC Ex Parte Filing at Attachment 1, CC Docket No. 95116, filed Apr. 17, 1996 (NARUC  xPh-April 17, 1996 Ex Parte Filing); Ohio PUC Reply Comments at 2; Ohio Public Utilities Commission,  xP0-Commission Investigation Relative to the Establishment of Local Exchange Competition and Other Competitive  xP-Issues, Finding and Order, Case No. 95-845-TP-COI, filed June19, 1996 in CC Docket No. 95116, at  xP-sectionXIV (rel. June12, 1996) (Ohio PUC Competition Order); Time Warner Holdings Ex Parte Presentation  xP-at 5, CCDocket No. 95116, filed Feb. 12, 1996 (Time Warner Holdings February 12, 1996 Ex Parte Filing). In addition, the state commissions of Colorado,"N P-0*((M" Georgia, Illinois, Maryland, New York, and Ohio have adopted the recommendation of  Y-their staff and task forces to implement LRN..XP* xP-ԍGA PSC Portability Order at 5; CO PUC LNP Order at 2; ICC Portability Order at 24; MD PSC Portability Order at 1, 6, 8; NY DPS Portability Trial Report at 2; Ohio PUC Competition Order at sectionXIV. Parties to this proceeding assert, moreover, that state task forces or commissions in other states, such as Indiana, Michigan, and Wisconsin, as well as in Canada, are utilizing the results of the Illinois  Y-task force's efforts in the area of number portability.h/p* xP-ԍAmeritech February 21, 1996 Ex Parte Filing at 5.h  Yv-22.SCHEDULEDSTATEIMPORT` ` Several states have set implementation schedules for the portability methods they have selected. Switch vendors have committed to make available LRN software to  YH-carriers in Illinois in the second quarter of 1997.0@H* xP!-ԍSee Ameritech February 21, 1996 Ex Parte Filing at 54; AT&T Further Comments at 6; Lucent  xP"-Technologies Ex Parte Letter at 1, from Carol Wilner, to Jeannie Su, FCC, CCDocket No.95116, filed  xP#-May20, 1996 (Lucent May20, 1996 Ex Parte Letter); Nortel Ex Parte Letter at 12, from Raymond L.  xPQ$-Strassburger, to Mindy Littell, FCC, CCDocket No.95116, filed May 29, 1996 (Nortel May 29, 1996 Ex  xP%-Parte Letter); Siemens StrombergCarlson Ex Parte Letter at 1, from Terry Jennings, to Mindy Littell, FCC,  xP%-CCDocket No.95116, filed May20, 1996 (Siemens May20, 1996 Ex Parte Letter); Ericsson Ex Parte Letter at 1, from David C. Jatlow, to William F. Caton, FCC, CCDocket No.95116, filed May21, 1996 (Ericsson  xPq'-May21, 1996 Ex Parte Letter). See also infra VENDORS71. Colorado, Illinois, and Georgia plan"H  00*(("  Y-to begin deploying LRN in mid1997.1 * xPy-ԍColorado Public Utilities Commission May29, 1996 News Release, PUC Approves LongTerm  xPA-Number Portability Solution, filed June19, 1996 (CO PUC May29, 1996 News Release); Ameritech February  xP -21, 1996 Ex Parte Filing at 12, 54; Time Warner Holdings February 12, 1996 Ex Parte Filing at 5; GA PSC Portability Order at 57; AT&T Further Comments at 4 n.5, 7. New York also expects LRN to be generally available for installation in that state in mid1997, though deployment in certain AT&T  Y-switches is expected to begin earlier.2* xP3-ԍNY DPS Portability Trial Report at 4 ,6, 7, Attachment at 2; AT&T Further Comments at 6 n.10. Maryland plans to begin implementing LRN by  Y-no later than the third quarter of 1997.O3@* xP -ԍMD PSC Portability Order at 1.O According to NARUC, Colorado similarly expects LRN availability in the second quarter of 1997 (but plans to monitor switch  Y-vendor progress and reevaluate this time frame in the third quarter of 1996).b4* xP-ԍNARUC April 17, 1996 Ex Parte Filing at 32.b Ohio will use a LRN number portability workshop, to be established within 120 days of the issuance of its June12, 1996 Order, to establish the time frame and manner of the  YH-implementation of LRN in Ohio.[5H` * xPY-ԍOhio PUC Competition Order at sectionXIV.[ Michigan has ordered that implementation of longterm number portability in Michigan start at the same time that implementation begins in  Y -Illinois.T6 * xP-ԍMI PSC Interconnection Order at 43.T The Illinois and Maryland task forces are examining various implementation issues, including a deployment schedule, cost recovery, billing and rating, and service  Y -management system (SMS) administration.7  * xP-ԍAT&T February6, 1996 Ex Parte Presentation at 13; Staff of the Public Service Commission of  xP-Maryland, Commission's Investigation into Long Term Solutions to Number Portability in Maryland, Second  xP-Quarterly Report of the Maryland Number Portability Consortium, CaseNo.8704, filed June19, 1996 in CC Docket No. 95116, at 623 (rel. Apr. 1996) (MD PSC Report). The Illinois task force selected an SMS  Y -provider in April 1996. 8 h* xP-ԍAmeritech Ex Parte Presentation at 3, CCDocketNo.95116, filed May 15, 1996 (Ameritech May 15,  xP-1996 Ex Parte Filing); Time Warner Holdings February 12, 1996 Ex Parte Filing at 5.  The Maryland and Colorado task forces have been planning to release their requests for proposals for their SMS administrators in the second quarter of  Y -1996.W9X * xP"-ԍMD PSC Report at app. 1 at 17; Colorado Public Utilities Commission May9, 1996 News Release,  xP"-Task Force to Seek Bids for Number Portability Administrator, filed June19, 1996 in CC Docket No. 95116 (CO PUC May9, 1996 News Release); CO PUC May29, 1996 News Release.W "y 90*((w"  X-` ` 2. State Trials  Y-23.CPCCPC INTERIM` ` Two states have conducted or are conducting number portability trials. As  Y-we described in the Notice, ten companies, working with the New York Department of Public Service (NY DPS), jointly initiated two number portability trials, one in Rochester  Y-and another in Manhattan.v: * xP-ԍNotice, 10 FCC Rcd at 12356 & n.20, 12357. See also NY DPS Portability Trial Report at 34. The ten companies are: AT&T, Cellular One/Genesee Telephone Company, LOCATE, MCI, MFS Intelenet, NYNEX, Rochester Telephone, Sprint Communications Company, Teleport Communications Group, and Time Warner Communications.v The companies originally planned to test the LANP method of Stratus Computers and USIntelco in Rochester, but that trial was canceled. The Manhattan trial, testing the CPC method, began in early February of this year. The New York DPS, however, now considers CPC to be, at best, an interim method and has changed the trial's emphasis from the technical aspects of the method to the operational and administrative aspects of the intercompany procedures that are required to change a  Y -customer from one local exchange provider to another.Y; * xPd-ԍ NY DPS Portability Trial Report at 67.Y MCI, one of the original  Y -proponents of CPC, no longer views CPC as a viable longterm method.U< @* xP-ԍSee MCI Further Comments at 3.U  Y -24. ` ` A group of telecommunications service providers conducted a technical trial of the LANP method in Seattle, Washington, during 1995. That trial ended in  Y-December 1995.=* xP-ԍThe participants included: US Intelco, Electric Lightwave Inc., USWest, Stratus Computer, Teleport  xP-Communications Group, GTEINS, and ITN. Notice, 10 FCC Rcd at 12357 & n.23. The objective of the technical trial was to identify the technical, operational, and administrative issues that arise when a telephone number is not associated with a specific geographic location. Because the trial revealed certain technical and operational difficulties with the LANP technology, the Washington task force on number portability declined to adopt LANP. The Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission has not adopted LANP, and the companies involved in the trial have ceased advocating LANP.  X-` ` 3. State Interim Measures  Y-25.` ` Carriers are providing interim portability measures in a number of states, either voluntarily or pursuant to state commission orders. According to NARUC and other parties to the proceeding, LECs are providing RCF, DID, and/or other comparable arrangements in Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin,"7( =0*((L"  Y-and Wyoming.> * xPy-ԍNARUC April 17, 1996 Ex Parte Filing at 4, 29, 59, 72, 74, 77, 86, 100, 114, 118, 130, 135, 139;  xPA-USTA Ex Parte Letter at 2, from Mary McDermott, to William Caton, FCC, CCDocket No. 95116, filed  xP -Mar. 25, 1996 (USTA March 25, 1996 Ex Parte Letter). See also Ameritech February 21, 1996 Ex Parte Filing at 23; Texas PUC Comments at 4. According to USTA, Alabama and Minnesota are considering interim portability requirements, while North Carolina requires carriers to negotiate interim  Y-portability as part of their interconnection agreements.`?* xP3-ԍUSTA March 25, 1996 Ex Parte Letter at 2.`  Y- V III. REPORT AND ORDER ׃  XI- A.` ` Importance of Service Provider Number Portability   X -XX` ` 1.X Background !  Y -26. ` ` In the Notice, we tentatively concluded that number portability benefits consumers of telecommunications services and would contribute to the development of competition among alternative providers of local telephone and other telecommunications  Y -services.V@ @* xP-ԍNotice, 10 FCC Rcd at 1235861.V With respect to service provider portability, we sought comment on the effects that local number portability, or lack thereof, would have on the local exchange marketplace. Specifically, we sought comment on the value consumers place on their telephone numbers, the deterrent effect that a lack of number portability would have on consumer decisions to change service providers, and any resultant effect on competition  Y5-between incumbent local service providers and new competitors in local markets.DA5* xP-ԍId. at 12358.D  X-X X` ` 2.X Discussion !  Y-27.IMPORTANTCOMP` ` Since we adopted the Notice, Congress passed the 1996 Act, which requires all LECs to "provide, to the extent technically feasible, number portability in  Y-accordance with requirements prescribed by the Commission."JB` * xP"-ԍ47U.S.C.  251(b)(2).J The 1996 Act defines number portability as "the ability of users of telecommunications services to retain, at the same location, existing telecommunications numbers without impairment of quality, reliability, or convenience when switching from one telecommunications carrier to"f B0*(({"  Y-another."HC* xPy-ԍ47 U.S.C.  153(30).H Accordingly, we hereby modify our proposed definition of number portability to conform to the statutory definition of number portability and note that the statutory  Y-definition of this term is synonymous with the Notice's definition of "service provider  Y-portability."DX* xP-ԍFor description of service and location number portability, see infra 172, 174.  Y-28.  SL IMP ` ` Although some incumbent LECs assert that local exchange market  Yv-competition will develop without number portability,Ev* xP -ԍPacific Bell Comments at 6; NYNEX Reply Comments at 1112; USTA Comments at1. the record developed in this proceeding confirms the congressional findings that number portability is essential to  YH-meaningful competition in the provision of local exchange services.FXHx* xPq-ԍSee, e.g., ALTS Comments at 26; Missouri PSC Comments at 23; Michigan PSC Staff Reply Comments at 4; NARUC Comments at 4; NCTA Comments at 45; Ohio PUC Comments at 3; CompTel Comments at1, 34. Several state commissions have also recognized the significant role that number portability will play in  Y -the development of local exchange competition.G  * xPc-ԍSee supra STATEIMPLEMNT21שSTATEIMPORT22. For instance, the New York DPS, in its recent Order adopting LRN, determined  xP+-that number portability is essential to the development of vigorous local telephone service competition. See NY  xP-DPS Portability Trial Report at 2. See also Florida PSC Comments at 1, 4; Maryland PSC Reply Comments at 2; Pennsylvania PUC Reply Comments at 2. We, therefore, affirm our tentative conclusion that number portability provides consumers flexibility in the way they use their telecommunications services and promotes the development of competition among alternative providers of telephone and other telecommunications services.  Y -29.STUDY PARA ` ` SURVEY SAYSWe note that several studies described in the record demonstrate the reluctance of both business and residential customers to switch carriers if they must change numbers. For example, MCI has stated that, based on a nationwide Gallup survey, 83percent of business customers and 80percent of residential customers would be unlikely to change local service providers if they had to change their telephone  Y4-numbers.H4 * xPe -ԍMCI Comments at 23. See also Notice, 10 FCC Rcd at 12358; MFS Comments at 23, app. A. Time Warner Holdings states that consumers are 40percent less likely to  Y-change service providers if a number change is required.TI* xP"-ԍTime Warner Holdings Comments at 6.T Citizens Utilities notes that approximately 85percent of the discussions that its subsidiary, ELI, has with potential customers about switching providers end when those potential customers learn that they  Y-must change their telephone numbers.TJ* xP)'-ԍCitizens Utilities Comments at 34.T The study commissioned by Pacific Bell"0J0*((" concludes that, without portability, new entrants would be forced to discount their local exchange service and other competing offerings by at least 12percent below the incumbent LECs' prices in order to induce customers to switch carriers due to customers'  Y-resistance to changing numbers.K* xP4-ԍSee, e.g., MCI Comments at 3 n.3; MFS Reply Comments at 12; Pacific Bell Comments at 34, 68; TRA Reply Comments at 34.  Y-30.` ` The ability of end users to retain their telephone numbers when changing service providers gives customers flexibility in the quality, price, and variety of telecommunications services they can choose to purchase. Number portability promotes competition between telecommunications service providers by, among other things, allowing customers to respond to price and service changes without changing their telephone numbers. The resulting competition will benefit all users of telecommunications services. Indeed, competition should foster lower local telephone prices and, consequently, stimulate demand for telecommunications services and increase economic growth.  Y -31.IMPORTANTCOMP2` ` Conversely, the record demonstrates that a lack of number portability likely would deter entry by competitive providers of local service because of the value  Yy-customers place on retaining their telephone numbers.Ly * xPJ-ԍSee, e.g., Notice, 10 FCC Rcd at 1235859; Cablevision Lightpath Reply Comments at 4; Maryland PSC Reply Comments at 2; Omnipoint Comments at 13. Business customers, in particular, may be reluctant to incur the administrative, marketing, and goodwill costs associated with changing telephone numbers. As indicated above, several studies show that customers are reluctant to switch carriers if they are required to change telephone  Y-numbers.]Mx* xPF-ԍSee supra STUDY PARA29.] To the extent that customers are reluctant to change service providers due to the absence of number portability, demand for services provided by new entrants will be depressed. This could well discourage entry by new service providers and thereby frustrate the procompetitive goals of the 1996 Act.  X- B.` ` The Commission's Role   X|-` ` 1. Background  YN-32.` ` In the Notice, we tentatively concluded that the Commission has a significant interest in promoting the nationwide availability of number portability due to  Y -its impact on interstate telecommunications.VN * xP%-ԍNotice, 10 FCC Rcd at1236162.V We based this interest on four grounds: " N0*((-"  Y-(1)our obligation to promote an efficient and fair telecommunications system;O * xPy-ԍSee 47 U.S.C. 151 (requiring the Commission to make available to all people of the United States "a rapid, efficient, Nationwide, and worldwide wire and radio communication service"); 47 U.S.C.202 (requiring that the charges, practices, classifications, regulations, facilities, and services of common carriers not be unreasonably discriminatory). (2)the inability to separate the impact of number portability between intrastate and interstate  Y-telecommunications;ZP* xP3-ԍNotice, 10 FCC Rcd at 12361 & n.34.Z (3)the likely adverse impact deploying different number portability solutions across the country would have on the provision of interstate telecommunications  Y-services;DQ@* xP -ԍId. at 12363.D and (4)the impact that number portability could have on the use of the  Y-numbering resource,GR* xP-ԍId. at1236162.G that is, ensuring that the use of numbers is efficient and does not contribute to area code exhaust.  YH- 33.` ` In the 1996 Act, Congress expressly assigned to the Commission exclusive  Y1-jurisdiction over that portion of the NANP that pertains to the United States.TS1` * xPB-ԍSee 47U.S.C.251(e)(1).T Moreover, Congress directed the Commission to prescribe regulations for LEC provision of number portability: section 251(b)(2) requires carriers "to provide, to the extent technically feasible, number portability in accordance with the requirements prescribed by  Y -the Commission."JT * xPv-ԍ47 U.S.C.  251(b)(2).J  X -` ` 2. Positions of the Parties  Yy-!34. ` ` Prior to passage of the 1996 Act, some LECs asserted that the Commission should neither adopt, nor direct the adoption of, number portability without performing a  YK-thorough cost/benefit analysis.UK * xP|-ԍBell Atlantic Comments at 1819; NYNEX Comments at1516; NYNEX Reply Comments at14; SBC Communications Comments at10. Most parties, however, now agree that the 1996 Act  Y4-clearly directs this Commission to implement longterm number portability.V4* xP"-ԍSee, e.g., Bell Atlantic Further Comments at 2; NCTA Further Comments at 2; Omnipoint Further  xP#-Comments at 2. See also BellSouth Further Comments at 4 (Act represents congressional declaration of Commission's exclusive occupation of regulatory field of number resources); MFS Further Comments at 2, 89 (section 251(e)(1) gives Commission exclusive jurisdiction over number portability issues, but allows Commission to delegate that authority to states). Moreover, some parties contend that this mandate reflects the fact that Congress has weighed the"V0*((("  Y-costs and benefits of implementing number portability.W* xPy-ԍOmnipoint Further Comments at 7; Time Warner Holdings Further Comments at 1, 3. USTA adds, however, that the Commission may consider economic efficiencies in determining what rules to  Y-implement.TXX* xP-ԍUSTA Further Reply Comments at 23.T  Y-"35. ` ` Several commenters, while agreeing that the Commission should take a  Y-leadership role, urge us to leave certain implementation issues to the states.YX* xP& -ԍCalifornia PUC Further Reply Comments at 2; Florida PSC Comments at 2; Michigan PSC Staff Reply Comments at 2; NARUC Reply Comments at 12; Ohio PUC Comments at 2; USTA Further Reply Comments at 1, 67. USTA  Yv-advocates allowing the states to determine their own deployment schedules.$ZXv* xP/-ԍUSTA Further Reply Comments at 67 (asserting that this is consistent with section251(f)(2), which allows LECs with less than 2% of the nation's access lines to petition the states for suspension or modification of sections251(b) or 251(c)).$ The California PUC asserts that the Commission's jurisdiction over number portability is not exclusive, and that states must be allowed to implement number portability methods that  Y1-are most compatible with local exchange competition in each state.\[1( * xP -ԍCalifornia PUC Further Reply Comments at 2.\  X -` ` 3. Discussion  Y -#36. ANALYZE ` ` We believe that Congress has determined that this Commission should develop a national number portability policy and has specifically directed us to prescribe the requirements that all local exchange carriers, both incumbents and others, must meet  Y-to satisfy their statutory obligations.X\ * xP-ԍSee 47 U.S.C  251(b)(2), (d).X Section 251(b)(2) requires LECs "to provide, to the extent technically feasible, number portability in accordance with the requirements  Yb-prescribed by the Commission."I]bH * xP[-ԍ47 U.S.C  251(b)(2).I Moreover, section251(e)(1)'s assignment to the Commission of exclusive jurisdiction over that portion of the NANP that pertains to the United States gives us authority over the implementation of number portability to the  Y-extent that such implementation will affect the NANP.T^* xP#-ԍSee 47U.S.C.251(e)(1).T Consistent with the role assigned to the Commission by the 1996 Act, the record developed in this proceeding overwhelmingly indicates that the Commission should take a leadership role with respect"h^0*(("  Y-to number portability._* xPy-ԍSee, e.g., General Communication Comments at 1; Pacific Bell Comments at 9; Texas PUC Comments at 2; US Airwaves Comments at 1. We, therefore, affirm our conclusion that we should take a leadership role in developing a national number portability policy. We further note that, in light of Congress's mandate to us to prescribe requirements for number portability, it is not necessary to engage in a cost/benefit analysis as to whether to adopt rules that require LECs to provide number portability in the first instance. We may consider economic and other factors, however, when determining the specific requirements in such rules.  YH-$37.` ` The 1996 Act directs this Commission to adopt regulations to implement  Y1-number portability,J`1 * xP -ԍ47 U.S.C. 251(d)(1).J and we believe it is important that we adopt uniform national rules regarding number portability implementation and deployment to ensure efficient and consistent use of number portability methods and numbering resources on a nationwide basis. Implementation of number portability, and its effect on numbering resources, will have an impact on interstate, as well as local, telecommunications services. Ensuring the interoperability of networks is essential for deployment of a national number portability regime, and for the prevention of adverse impacts on the provision of interstate telecommunications services or on the use of the numbering resource. We believe that allowing number portability to develop on a statebystate basis could potentially thwart the intentions of Congress in mandating a national number portability policy, and could retard the development of competition in the provision of telecommunications services.  X- C.` ` Performance Criteria for LongTerm Number Portability   X-` ` 1. Background  Y-%38.` `  IIIA3 In the Notice, we sought comment on what longterm number portability methods would be in the public interest. Specifically, we sought comment on various number portability proposals offered by different industry participants, including  Y|-proposals by AT&T, MCI Metro, Stratus Computer and USIntelco, and GTE.Va|* xP-ԍNotice, 10 FCC Rcd at 1236365.V We also sought comment on the extent to which these proposals would support certain services that we deemed important. We tentatively concluded that any method should support operator services and emergency services because they are critical to public safety and  Y -are important features of the public switched network.Db @* xP%-ԍId. at 12365.D We  EXHAUST also tentatively concluded  Y -that any number portability proposal should efficiently use telephone numbers.;c * xP'-ԍId. ; In" ` c0*((," addition, we discussed and sought comment on which of three call processing scenarios  Y-(i.e., which carrier performs the database query in a database method), or any  Y-alternative, would best serve the public interest.d* xPK-ԍId. at 1236566. For descriptions of these scenarios, see infra PROCESS SCENARIOS42. We sought comment on whether telephone numbers should be portable within local calling areas, throughout a particular area code, statewide, regionally, nationwide, or on some other basis, and how the geographic scope of portability would impact different types of carriers and their billing systems. We also asked whether number portability could be provided nationwide  Y_-without significant network modifications.Se_X* xPh -ԍNotice, 10 FCC Rcd at 12367.S  X1-` ` 2. Positions of the Parties  Y -&39.` ` Performance criteria versus selection of architecture. Commenting parties differ on whether the Commission should establish performance criteria or guidelines that any number portability method must meet, or require the implementation of one national portability method. Many parties, including several state regulatory agencies, cable interests, and LECs, favor establishment of broad guidelines and interoperability criteria  Y-for implementing a longterm portability method.JfX* xP)-ԍSee, e.g., Cablevision Lightpath Reply Comments at 6; Missouri PSC Comments at 3; Pacific Bell  xP-Comments at 9. See also Ericsson Comments at3 (asserting that there may be other longterm methods the Commission and industry have not yet identified).J NYNEX maintains that this approach would encourage cooperative industry resolutions for a true number portability method and would properly account for legitimate state interests in the deployment of number portability. NYNEX further claims that guidelines would allow the Commission to ensure the implementation of compatible methods, with seamless call flows and service operation, without expending scarce resources by focusing on the detailed implementation  Y-of every method in each region of the country.g* xP-ԍNYNEX Comments at15, 17. See also Pacific Bell Comments at1314; USTA Comments at7. The California Department of Consumer Affairs contends that the 1996 Act's procompetitive policies mandate that the  Y-portability method adopted be flexible and allow for future innovation.dh* xP! -ԍCA Consumer Affairs Further Reply Comments at 2, 4.d GTE urges the Commission to determine the type of routing information to be employed, but leave  Y-selection of the triggering mechanism to the individual carriers.i( * xP#-ԍGTE Further Reply Comments at 6; see also Pacific Bell Further Reply Comments at6. SBC Communications asserts that section251(d)(1) only requires the Commission to outline principles for a" i0*((" longterm method within six months of enactment of the 1996 Act, not to adopt a specific  Y-method.j* xPb-ԍSBC Communications Further Reply Comments at 5; see also USTA Further Reply Comments at 5.  Y-'40.` ` Conversely, some parties contend that requiring a single, national method would avoid the implementation of numerous inconsistent and inefficient approaches, and  Y-the need for carriers to adapt to different requirements in different states.kX* xP-ԍSee, e.g., ACTA Comments at 67; PCIA Comments at 8; Telecommunications Resellers Comments at 1, 1415. Jones Intercable argues that allowing number portability to develop statebystate would give the  Y_-incumbent LECs the opportunity to delay development of local exchange competition.l_* xP -ԍJones Intercable Comments at 23; Jones Intercable Reply Comments at5; PCIA Comments at 8. BellSouth and Nortel argue that a single longterm method is necessary to minimize the costs of implementation, operation, and maintenance; to protect billing systems against  Y -problems created by use of differing SS7 parameters; and to foster network integrity.hm @* xP -ԍBellSouth Comments at34; Nortel Reply Comments at23.h PCIA claims that a stateregulated market would inhibit development of a nationwide  Y -wireless network.In * xPm-ԍPCIA Comments at 8 n.23.I Arch/AirTouch Paging adds that deployment of different portability  Y -methods would adversely impact interstate telecommunications.Vo ` * xP-ԍArch/AirTouch Paging Comments at 89.V Bell Atlantic and PCIA  Y -argue that a national method is more likely to conserve scarce numbering resources.bp * xP_-ԍBell Atlantic Comments at10; PCIA Comments at 8.b Bell Atlantic further claims, however, that each individual carrier should be allowed the flexibility to utilize whatever architecture or technology within its own network best  Yy-enables that carrier to implement whatever national method is selected.qy * xP-ԍBell Atlantic Comments at1011; Bell Atlantic Further Comments at2; see also Ameritech Further Comments at 9. Moreover, some parties urge the Commission to select a particular method to be implemented  YK-nationwide,rK* xP!-ԍSee, e.g., AT&T Further Reply Comments at 7; MCI Ex Parte Letter at 1, from Donald F. Evans, to  xP"-Richard Metzger, FCC, CCDocket No.95116, filed June19, 1996 (MCI June19, 1996 Ex Parte Letter). while others advocate allowing the industry to select the specific method.sK0* xP,$-ԍSee, e.g., Bell Atlantic Reply Comments at15; BellSouth Comments at 3536.  Y-(41.` ` Commenting parties suggest numerous performance criteria with which any longterm number portability method must comply. These include: (1)the ability to"s0*(('"  Y-support emergency services, i.e., 911 and enhanced 911 (E911) services;t* xPy-ԍSee, e.g., Arch/AirTouch Paging Reply Comments at8, 16, Attachment at 1213 (911 and E911 services are particularly critical for wireless networks); California PUC Comments at9; NENA Reply Comments at12 (service provider portability will not necessarily affect E911 services, but location portability will); NENA Further Comments at 23 (asserting that statutory definition of "number portability" requires supporting emergency services). (2) the ability  Y-to support existing network services and capabilities, (e.g., operator and directory services, vertical and advanced services, custom local area signaling services (also known  Y-as "CLASS"), toll free and paypercall services, and intercept capabilities);ux* xP -ԍSee, e.g., Bell Atlantic Comments at12; Competitive Carriers Comments at7, 23; GO Communications Comments at6.  Y-(3)efficient use of numbering resources;v* xP% -ԍSee, e.g., California PUC Comments at9; General Communication Comments at4; USWest Comments at1519. (4) no initial change of telephone numbers;w( * xP}-ԍSee, e.g., CCTA Reply Comments at78; GO Communications Comments at6; New York DPS Comments at8. (5) no reliance on network facilities of, or services provided by, other service providers  Yv-(e.g., incumbent LECs) in order to route calls;FxXv * xP-ԍSee, e.g., AT&T Comments at1516; CCTA Reply Comments at8 (noting that RTP displaces the routing and addressing preferences of new entrants by requiring the use of routing and addressing schemes developed and implemented by incumbent LECs); Sprint Comments at3, 1516.F (6) no degradation in service quality or  Y_-network reliability (e.g., no significant increase in call setup time);`y_* xP-ԍSee, e.g., AT&T Comments at1516; Bell Atlantic Comments at 12; Teleport Comments at11. Cincinnati Bell urges that a method that minimizes database queries would best protect system reliability, impairment of which is prohibited by the 1996 Act. Cincinnati Bell Further Reply Comments at 2. Pacific Bell maintains that reasonable differences in delay or variation in treatment between ported and nonported numbers are permitted by the 1996 Act. Pacific Bell Further Reply Comments at 5 (citing statutory definition of telecommunications service).` (7) reliance on  YH-existing network infrastructure and functionalities to the extent possible;zH* xP-ԍ UPGRADE See, e.g., BellSouth Comments at24, 34; ITN Comments at34; MCI Comments at78. Cf. ACTA Comments at11. (8) equal  Y1-application to both incumbents and new entrants (i.e., carriers who receive ported  Y -numbers must also provide portability);y{X p* xP;"-ԍSee, e.g., BellSouth Reply Comments at1718; Illinois Commerce Commission Comments at2;  xP#-Omnipoint Reply Comments at68. But see Time Warner Holdings Further Comments at 2 n.3 (asserting that Commission is authorized to forbear from imposing duty to provide portability on nonincumbent LECs).y (9) no proprietary interests or licensing fees;| * xP[%-ԍSee, e.g., Ameritech February 21, 1996 Ex Parte Filing at 8; MCI Comments at78; MFS Comments at1011." |0*(( "  Y-(10)the ability to migrate to location and service portability;C}X* xPy-ԍSee, e.g., GTE Comments at23; ITN Reply Comments at2; MCI Comments at78. Cf. USTA Comments at910 (asserting that equipment costs for service portability would redirect capital away from deployment of services and create upward pressure on service prices).C  Y-and (11) no adverse impact in areas where portability has not been deployed.V~* xP-ԍSee, e.g., ITN Comments at34.V  Y-)42.PROCESS SCENARIOS` ` Call processing scenarios. In the Notice, we discussed three call processing scenarios. They were: (1)the terminating "access" provider (TAP) scenario, under which the database query is performed by the terminating access provider (usually the incumbent LEC, who recovers interstate access charges from interexchange carriers (IXCs) for terminating traffic under our existing access charge regime); (2)the originating service provider (OSP) scenario, under which the originating service provider performs the database query; and (3)the "N minus 1" (N1) scenario, under which the carrier immediately prior to the terminating service provider performs the database query  Y -or dip.V x* xP,-ԍNotice, 10 FCC Rcd at 1236566.V In addition, ITN suggests a "firstswitchthatcan" approach, under which the first switch that handles the call and has the capability to do the database dip performs the  Y -query._ * xP-ԍITN Comments at 1; ITN Reply Comments at1, 4._  Y -*43. ` ` Pacific Bell and Bell Atlantic recommend that carriers should be permitted to choose a call processing scenario to enable them to implement the QOR triggering  Yy-mechanism in addition to LRN.)Xy* xP-ԍSee Bell Atlantic Ex Parte Letter at 3, from Patricia E. Koch, to William Caton, FCC, CCDocket  xP-No.95116, filed May 13, 1996 (Bell Atlantic May 13, 1996 Ex Parte Letter); Pacific Bell Further Comments at 34.) These parties assert that QOR would eliminate unnecessary database queries, thereby decreasing the number of databases necessary to provide number portability and the transmission capacity between switches and  Y4-databases.4 * xP-ԍBell Atlantic May 13, 1996 Ex Parte Letter at 3; Pacific Bell Further Comments at 78. In contrast, AT&T argues against allowing carriers to choose a call processing scenario, such as QOR, because doing so would delay deployment of a longterm number portability method and would result in significant network interoperability  Y-issues.H * xP#-ԍAT&T Ex Parte Letter at 35, from Betsy J. Brady, to Jason Karp, FCC, CCDocket No.95116, filed  xP$-Apr. 24, 1996 (AT&T April 24, 1996 Ex Parte Letter). MCI opposes implementation of QOR because it forces competitive LECs to"0*(("  Y-rely on the incumbent LEC's network and results in inefficient routing.* xPy-ԍMCI Ex Parte Letter at 24, from Donald F. Evans, to Richard Metzger, FCC, CCDocket No.95 xPA-116, filed Apr. 23, 1996 (MCI April 23, 1996 Ex Parte Letter). AT&T and MCI also argue against use of the RTP or QOR triggering mechanisms because they treat  Y-transferred and nontransferred numbers differently, * xP-ԍAT&T Ex Parte Presentation at 11, CCDocket No. 95116, filed May 22, 1996 (AT&T May 22, 1996  xPk-Ex Parte Filing); MCI April 23, 1996 Ex Parte Letter at 3. and significantly increase postdial  Y-delay and the potential for call blocking.ux* xP -ԍAT&T Further Reply Comments at 6; MCI Further Reply Comments at 35.u  Y-+44. ` `  PROCESS LOOK AHEADTAP SCEN Most of the parties that favor the Commission's selection of a particular call processing scenario prefer the N1 scenario because they believe it allows database  Y_-queries to be made at the most efficient points in the process of routing telephone calls._* xP-ԍSee, e.g., MCI Comments at18; New York DPS Comments at9; Time Warner Holdings Comment at 17. In contrast, ITN states that use of the N1 scenario may hinder the evolution from  Y1-localized to national number portability environments.L1` * xPB-ԍITN Reply Comments at1, 4.L BellSouth contends that the Commission need not select a particular scenario because all four triggering mechanisms (OSP, TAP, N1, and LookAhead) could exist simultaneously through engineering and  Y -business arrangements.M * xP-ԍBellSouth Comments at2627.M Citizens Utilities and NCTA oppose the TAP scenario because it requires routing most calls to the incumbent LEC networks, thus denying terminating  Y -access charges to competitive providers.NX * xP-ԍNCTA Comments at 10; Citizens Utilities Comments at12. Cf. Florida PSC Comments at8 (arguing that the TAP scenario limits the number of carriers that have access to the database and reduces implementation costs by limiting the method to areas where competition is developing).N  Y-,45.` ` Rating and billing. Several LECs, MCI, and MFS contend that any longterm method should preserve existing rating and billing systems to minimize costs and  Yb-impact.b* xP!-ԍSee, e.g., MCI Comments at78; MFS Comments at1011; USTA Comments at7. Conversely, AT&T and Florida PSC argue that any longterm method should  YK-permit flexible rating and billing schemes.cK0* xP,$-ԍAT&T Comments at1516; Florida PSC Comments at7.c Pacific Bell, USWest, and BellSouth also argue that the Commission must in this proceeding address billing problems, including  Y-issues relating to proper mileage, rating, calling cards, and billing format.* xP'-ԍBellSouth Comments at2425; Pacific Bell Comments at18; USWest Comments at24. "P0*((7"Ԍ X-ԙ ` ` 3. Discussion  Y--46.` ` Performance criteria versus selection of architecture. We conclude that establishing performance criteria that a LEC's number portability architecture must meet would better serve the public interest than choosing a particular technology or specific architecture. First, we believe that to date there appears to be sufficient momentum to deploy compatible methods, if not an identical method, nationwide. Every state that has selected a particular architecture for implementation within its state boundaries has  YH-selected the same method, LRN, and numerous states are reportedly following suit.rH* xP -ԍSee supra  CHOSE21 שSCHEDULED22.r With the exception of some of the incumbent LECs, most parties that advocate selection  Y -of a particular method at this time are also supporting the LRN method.oX X* xP# -ԍSee, e.g., Ameritech, AT&T, Central Telephone Co. of Illinois, MCI, MFS, Teleport, Time Warner  xP -Holdings, and Sprint Joint Ex Parte Letter at 1, to Regina Keeney, FCC, CCDocket No.95116, filed May 8,  xP-1996 (Ameritech et al. May 8, 1996 Joint Ex Parte Letter).o Under these circumstances, mandating the implementation of a particular number portability architecture, or mandating that the same architecture be deployed nationwide, appears unnecessary. Second, such a mandate might actually delay the implementation of number portability. We are reluctant, based on the record in this proceeding, to select one of the proposed longterm methods. According to a number of parties, none of the currently supported methods, including LRN, has been tested or described in sufficient detail to permit the Commission to select the particular architecture without further consultation  Yb-with the industry.Xbx* xP-ԍSee GTE Ex Parte Presentation at 2, CC Docket No. 95116, filed Feb. 7, 1996 (GTE February 7,  xPS-1996 Ex Parte Filing); GTE Ex Parte Presentation at 34, CC Docket No. 95116, filed Mar. 27, 1996 (GTE  xP-March 27, 1996 Ex Parte Filing); Pacific Bell Comments at 1517; NYNEX Reply Comments at 5. If, however, we were to direct an industry body to recommend a specific number portability architecture, it would likely delay the implementation of number portability that already is underway in several states, and would create significant uncertainty for those switch vendors currently modifying switch software to accommodate LRN. Third, dictating implementation of a particular method could foreclose the ability of carriers to improve on those methods already being deployed or to implement hybrid (but compatible) methods.  Y-.47.` ` We believe that our establishment of criteria for longterm number portability methods, however, will ensure an appropriate level of national uniformity, while maintaining flexibility to accommodate innovation and improvement. The deployment of a uniform number portability architecture nationwide will be important to the efficient functioning of the public switched telephone network and will reduce the costs of implementing number portability nationwide by allowing switch vendors to spread the costs of development over more customers. Moreover, a uniform deployment will allow switch manufacturers to work toward a single standard, thus avoiding the situation where different manufacturers partition the market among different methods. "0*(( "Ԍ Y-ԙ/48.CMS` ` Performance Criteria. We thus adopt the following minimum criteria. Any longterm number portability method, including call processing scenarios or triggering, must:  Y-X(1)X` ` support existing network services, features, and capabilities;Ƥ`  Yv-X(2)X` ` efficiently use numbering resources;Ƥ`  YH-X(3)X` ` not require end users to change their telecommunications numbers;Ƥ`  Y -X(4)X` ` not require telecommunications carriers to rely on databases, other network facilities, or services provided by other telecommunications carriers in order to route calls to the proper termination point;Ƥ`  Y -X(5)X` ` not result in unreasonable degradation in service quality or network reliability when implemented; Ƥ`  Yy-X(6)X` ` not result in any degradation of service quality or network reliability when customers switch carriers;Ƥ`  Y4-X(7)X` ` not result in a carrier having a proprietary interest;!`  Y-X(8)X` ` be able to accommodate location and service portability in the future; and Ƥ`  Y-X(9)X` ` have no significant adverse impact outside the areas where number portability is deployed.Ƥ` We discuss each of these performance criteria in turn below.  YN-049. SUPPORT ` ` First, we require that any longterm method support existing network services, features, or capabilities, such as emergency services, CLASS features, operator and directory assistance services, and intercept capabilities. The 1996 Act requires that consumers be able to retain their numbers "without impairment of quality, reliability, or  Y-convenience when switching from one telecommunications carrier to another."R* xPk!-ԍSee 47U.S.C. 153(30).R Moreover, customers are not likely to switch carriers and retain their telephone numbers if they are required to forego services and features to which they have become accustomed. Thus, any longterm method that precludes the provision of existing"!X0*(("" services and features would place competing service providers at a competitive  Y-disadvantage.* xPb-ԍMoreover, we have found that the provision of some services, such as caller ID and emergency services, is in the public interest. For example, our rules require passage of calling party information because national availability of caller ID enables a multitude of services, efficiency gains, and additional choices for  xP-consumers. See Rules and Policies Regarding Calling Number Identification Service Caller ID, Report and  xP-Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 9 FCC Rcd 1764, 176566 (1994), aff'd, Public Util.  xPJ-Comm'n of California v. FCC, 75F.3d1350 (9th Cir. 1996).  Y-150. CAPABLE ` ` The public interest also requires that service provider portability not impair the provision of network capabilities that are important to public safety, such as emergency services and intercept capabilities. In our proposal to ensure that PBXs and CMRS providers support enhanced 911 services, we reaffirmed that 911 services enable telephone users to receive fast response to emergency situations, and that broad availability of 911 and E911 services best promotes "safety of life and property through  Y1-the use of wire and radio communication."1@* xP"-ԍRevision of the Commission's Rules to Ensure Compatibility with Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling  xP-Systems, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 9FCCRcd6170, 617172 (1994) (quoting 47U.S.C. 151). In addition, the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act requires telecommunications carriers generally to provide capabilities that enable secure, reliable, and nonintrusive law enforcement interception of call setup information and call content so that law enforcement agencies  Y -can intercept and monitor calls when necessary.?@ * xP-ԍCommunications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA), Pub. L. No. 103414, 108 Stat. 4279  xP-(1994), 47U.S.C.1001 et seq. Under CALEA, the term "telecommunications carrier" means a person or entity that is engaged in the transmission or switching of wire or electronic communications as a common carrier. The term includes commercial mobile service providers, as well as providers of wire or electronic communication switching or transmission service if the Commission finds that such service substantially replaces local telephone exchange service. The requirements of CALEA do not extend to information service providers or any class or category of telecommunications carriers that the Commission exempts by rule. 47U.S.C.1001(8).?  Y -251.` ` Second, we require that any longterm method efficiently use numbering resources. Telephone numbers are the means by which commercial and residential consumers gain access to, and reap the benefits of, the public switched telephone  Yb-network.`b* xP!-ԍNumbering Plan Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 2591.` In recent years, the explosive growth of wireless services has caused an  YK-equally dramatic increase in the consumption of telephone numbers.K0* xP,$-ԍTwo out of three new telephone numbers go to wireless subscribers. See CTIA Ex Parte Letter at 1, from Robert F. Roche, to Mindy Littell, FCC, CC Docket No. 95116, filed June 3, 1996 (CTIA June 3, 1996  xP%-Ex Parte Letter). The total number of cellular subscribers more than doubled between 1993 and 1995. In December 1993, there were 16,009,461 cellular subscribers, and, in December 1995, cellular subscribers  xPL'-totalled 33,785,661. Trends in Telephone Service, Industry Analysis Division, Common Carrier Bureau,"L'0*((e'" Federal Communications Commission, at 63 (May 1996). Indeed, in January"KX0*(( " 1995, carriers began to deploy interchangeable NPA (INPA) codes because all NPA  Y-codes had been exhausted.UXX* xP-ԍNumbering Plan Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 2593. NPA codes, commonly known as area codes, have historically been of the format N0/1X, where N may be any number from 2 to 9, 0/1 is either 0 or 1, and X  xP-may be any number from 0 to 9. INPAs have the format NXX. Id.U The anticipated shortage of numbers has prompted several  Y-BOCs to propose the use of area code overlays.x* xP-ԍSee, e.g., Proposed 708 Relief Plan and 630 Numbering Plan Area Code by Ameritech Illinois, Declaratory Ruling and Order, 10FCCRcd4596, 4598 (1995). The increased use of overlays and area code splits has resulted in both industry and consumer inconvenience and confusion. The consumption rate of NANP resources is likely to accelerate with the entry of new  Y-wireline and wireless carriers.v* xP-ԍSee Numbering Plan Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 2595, 2617, 2629.v Thus, we conclude that deploying a longterm number portability method that rapidly depletes numbering resources would undermine the efforts of the industry, the states, and the Commission to ensure sufficient numbering resources.  Y1-352.` ` Third, deployment of a longterm method should not require customers to make any telecommunications number change. The 1996 Act mandates that end users be able "to retain ... existing telecommunications numbers ... when switching from one  Y -telecommunications carrier to another."H ` * xP-ԍ47U.S.C.153(30).H Requiring any number change would contravene this basic requirement. Congress noted that the ability to switch service  Y -providers is only meaningful if customers can retain their telephone numbers.p * xP_-ԍH.R. Rep. No. 204, 104th Cong., 1st Sess., pt.1, at 72 (1995).p  Y-453.INDEPENDENCE` ` Fourth, we require that any longterm method ensure that carriers have the ability to route telephone calls and provide services to their customers independently from the networks of other carriers. Requiring carriers to rely on the networks of their competitors in order to route calls can have several undesirable effects. For example, dependence on the original service provider's network to provide services to a customer that has switched carriers contravenes the choice made by that customer to change service providers. In addition, such dependence creates the potential for call blocking by the original service provider and may make available to the original service provider proprietary customer information. Moreover, methods which first route the call through the original service provider's network in order to determine whether the call is to a ported number, and then perform a query only if the call is to be ported, would treat ported numbers differently than nonported numbers, resulting in ported calls taking longer to complete than unported calls. This differential in efficiency would disadvantage the carrier to whom the call was ported and impair that carrier's ability to compete"e 0*(({"  Y-effectively against the original service provider.* xPy-ԍAT&T April 24, 1996 Ex Parte Letter at 78 (increased call completion time on calls to alternative carriers' networks will likely be incorrectly perceived as reflecting an inferior quality of service, and incumbent  xP -carriers may seek to exploit call completion differentials); MCI April 23, 1996 Ex Parte Letter at 14 (in interexchange market, competitors can and will use "imperceptible" differences in post dial delay to their marketing advantage). Finally, dependence on another carrier's network also reduces the new service provider's ability to control the routing of telephone calls to its customers, thus inhibiting its ability to control the costs of such routing. For these reasons, a longterm number portability method should not require dependency on another carrier's network. We note that this criterion does not prevent individual carriers from determining among themselves how to process calls, including a method by which a carrier voluntarily agrees to use the original service provider's  Y_-network.h_x* xP -ԍSee infra ALTERNATIVE SCENARIOS62.h  Y1-554. ` ` We recognize that this criterion will effectively preclude carriers from implementing QOR. Those carriers that oppose QOR argue that it would treat ported and nonported numbers differently, force reliance on the incumbent LEC's network, increase postdial delay and the potential for call blocking, result in inefficient routing, create significant network interoperability issues, and delay deployment of a longterm number  Y -portability method.&X * xPw-ԍSee, e.g., AT&T April 24, 1996 Ex Parte Letter at 35; MCI April 23, 1996 Ex Parte Letter at 24;  xP?-AT&T May 22, 1996 Ex Parte Filing; AT&T Further Reply Comments at 6; MCI Further Reply Comments at 35.& There is little evidence in the record to support the claim that allowing carriers to implement QOR would result in significant cost savings. Pacific Bell submitted summary figures indicating that it would save approximately $14.2 million per year assuming that 20 percent of subscribers port their numbers if it implemented  Yb-QOR.|Xb( * xP;-ԍPacific Bell Ex Parte Letter at 7, from Alan F. Ciamporcero, to William Caton, FCC, CC Docket No.  xP-95116, filed June 6, 1996 (Pacific Bell June 6, 1996 Ex Parte Letter). According to the estimates submitted by Pacific Bell, higher levels of penetration would result in lower levels of cost savings.| These savings, which represent less than 0.2 percent of Pacific Bell's total annual operating revenues, appear insignificant in relation to the potential economic and noneconomic costs to competitors if QOR is used. According to AT&T, using QOR on Lucent switches is more cost effective only if less than 12 percent of subscribers have ported their numbers. Similarly, AT&T asserts that using QOR on Siemens switches is more cost effective only if less than 23 percent of subscribers have ported their  Y-numbers.H * xP$-ԍAT&T Ex Parte Presentation at 4, CCDocket No. 95116, filed May 30, 1996 (AT&T May 30, 1996  xP%-Ex Parte Filing). In addition, because carriers using QOR may be required to send a QOR message to another carrier's switch to determine if a customer has transferred the number, the second carrier must have the ability to recognize and respond to the QOR"0*(("  Y-message, which also may increase its costs._* xPy-ԍAT&T May 22, 1996 Ex Parte Filing at 10._ Based on the record before us, we conclude that the competitive benefits of ensuring that calls are not routed through the original carrier's network outweigh any cost savings that QOR may bring in the immediate future.  Y-655. RELIABLE ` ` Fifth, as a general matter, we require that the implementation of any longterm method not unreasonably degrade existing service quality or network reliability. Consumers, both business and residential, rely on the public switched telephone network for their livelihood, health and safety. Jeopardizing the reliability of the network would stifle business growth and economic development, and endanger individuals' personal safety and convenience. Consumers, both business and residential, have also come to expect a certain level of quality and convenience in using basic telecommunications services. We note that this Commission has repeatedly affirmed its commitment to  Y -maintaining service quality and network reliability. X* xP-ԍSee Expanded Interconnection with Local Telephone Company Facilities, Report and Order and Notice  xP-of Proposed Rulemaking, 7FCCRcd7369, 7380 & n.38 (1992); Intelligent Networks, Notice of Proposed  xPn-Rulemaking, 8 FCCRcd 6813, 6814 (1993); Network Reliability: A Report to the Nation, Compendium of Technical Papers, presented by the Federal Communications Commission's Network Reliability Council (June  xP-1993) (NRC Report); Policy and Rules Concerning Rates for Dominant Carriers, Second Report and Order, 5  xP-FCC Rcd 6786, 682932 (1990); Reform for Local Exchange Carriers Subject to Rate of Return Regulation, 58  xP-Fed. Reg. 36,145 (1993) (to be codified at 47 C.F.R. pts. 61, 65, 69); Provision of Access for 800 Service, Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration and Second Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 6FCCRcd5421, 542526 (1991). We, therefore, require that any longterm method of providing number portability not cause any unreasonable degradation to the network or the quality of existing services. This requirement extends to degradation that affects carriers operating, and end users obtaining services, outside as well as within the area of portability.  YK-756. ` ` Sixth, once longterm number portability is implemented, we require that customers not experience any degradation of service quality or network reliability when they port their numbers to other carriers. We reiterate that the 1996 Act requires that consumers be able to retain their numbers "without impairment of quality, reliability, or  Y-convenience when switching from one telecommunications carrier to another."H( * xP -ԍ47 U.S.C. 153(30).H We interpret this mandate to mean, at a minimum, that when a customer switches carriers, that customer must not experience a greater dialing delay or call set up time, poorer transmission quality, or a loss of services (such as CLASS features) due to number  Y-portability compared to when the customer was with the original carrier.UX * xP%-ԍSee AT&T April24, 1996 Ex Parte Letter at 7 (arguing that method that imposes incremental postdial delay on calls to ported numbers and not on calls to nonported numbers violates 47 U.S.C. 153(30)); MCI  xP'-April 23, 1996 Ex Parte Letter at 3 (same).U"0*((}"Ԍ Y-ԙ857.` ` Seventh, we require that no carrier have a proprietary interest in any long term method. A telecommunications carrier may not own rights to, or have a proprietary interest in, number portability technology. We believe that the requirement in the 1996 Act that the costs of number portability be borne on a competitively neutral basis precludes carrier ownership of the longterm method, and their collection of licensing or  Y-other fees for use of the method.X* xP-ԍWe note that AT&T and its former technology division, Lucent Technologies, have forsworn any  xP-proprietary interest in LRN. See AT&T Ex Parte Letter at 2, from Gerard Salemme, to Regina Keeney, FCC,  xP-CC Docket No. 95116, filed March 12, 1996 (AT&T March 12, 1996 Ex Parte Letter).  In addition, it would be competitively unfair if a LEC providing portability were to benefit directly, through licensing fees or a proprietary interest, from its competitors' use of portability. We note that one of the first criteria required by the Illinois task force in selecting a number portability method was that it be  Y1-nonproprietary.1* xP -ԍIllinois Commerce Commission Ex Parte Presentation at 11, CCDocket No. 95116, filed June19,  xP-1996 (ICC June19, 1996 Ex Parte Filing).  Y -958. BURDENS ` ` Eighth, we require that any longterm method be able to accommodate service and location portability in the future. Although we do not at this time mandate provision of service or location portability, we recognize that service and location portability have certain benefits, and we may take steps to implement them in the future  Y -if demand for these services develops. @* xP-ԍSee infra  S/LOC182שS/LOC2183, S/LOC3187. As our society becomes increasingly mobile, the importance that consumers attribute to the geographic identity of their telephone  Yy-numbers may change.Zy* xP-ԍSee infra  S/LOC3187.Z It is, therefore, in the public interest to take steps now to ensure that we do not foreclose realization of future economies of scope.  Y4-:59.` ` Finally, we require that any longterm method not have a significant adverse impact on carriers operating, and end users obtaining services, outside the area of number portability. We believe it is fundamentally unfair to impose any new or different obligations on carriers and customers that do not benefit from service provider portability. Indeed, we are adopting a phased approach to implementation so that number portability is available only in the most populous local markets where competition already  Y-has begun to develop or is likely to develop in the near term.Y` * xP"-ԍSee infra  INDEED82.Y  Y|-;60.` ` We do not believe it is necessary to require that a longterm method utilize existing network infrastructure and functionalities to the extent possible, as some"e 0*(({"  Y-commenting parties have suggested.[* xPy-ԍSee supra note UPGRADE122.[ Minimizing the costs of implementing a longterm method should be in the best interests of all the parties involved in such implementation. This conclusion is also consistent with our tentative conclusion that the carrierspecific costs that are not directly related to number portability must be borne by the individual  Y-carriers.bX* xP-ԍSee infra SPECIFIC COSTS226.b Thus, existing local service providers have an incentive to minimize the extent of the necessary modifications and upgrades, as well as the costs of implementing number portabilityspecific software. Moreover, while new entrants may not need to modify existing networks, they must deploy and build networks with at least the same capabilities as those of the incumbents if they are to provide number portability.  Y -<61. ` ` We also decline to require carriers that receive ported numbers also to provide portability because we believe the 1996 Act renders such a requirement unnecessary. Specifically, section 251(b)(2) imposes a duty to provide number portability  Y -on all LECs incumbents as well as new entrants.J * xPn-ԍ47 U.S.C. 251(b)(2).J In light of the fact that the 1996 Act applies this duty across all LECs, establishing a reciprocity performance criterion would be needlessly redundant.  Yy-=62.ALTERNATIVE SCENARIOSALTERNATIVE SCENARIOS` ` Call processing scenarios. We decline to specify the carrier that must perform the database query in a database method, because we recognize that individual carriers may wish to determine among themselves how to process calls under alternative  Y4-scenarios.4x* xP]-ԍFor explanations of the call processing scenarios, see supra PROCESS SCENARIOS42. We therefore leave to local exchange carriers the flexibility to choose and negotiate the scenario that best suits their networks and business plans, as long as they act consistently with the requirements established by this Order. While our criterion requiring carriers to be able to route calls and provide service independently from other carriers' networks may preclude unilateral use of the TAP scenario by a particular carrier, there may be instances where carriers agree to use the TAP scenario, or where the terminating provider is the only carrier capable of performing the database query. In those instances, our performance criterion would not preclude use of the TAP scenario.  Ye->63.` ` Rating and billing. Finally, we decline to regulate the rating and billing of local wireline calls to end users in connection with a longterm number portability method. Traditionally, the billing and rating of local wireline calls including the establishment of mileage standards, procedures for calling cards, and billing format have been left to the purview of the states and the carriers themselves. While several" !0*((," parties have raised rating and billing questions with regard to number portability, we  Y-believe that such issues are more properly addressed by the states.q* xPb-ԍThis does not limit the Commission's ability to take action with regard to rate centers, however, as rate center issues may affect the efficient administration of numbering resources. Rate centers are defined by the local exchange carrier and approved by the state utility commission. Billing between rate centers is calculated based on the distance between the center points in the rate centers. Because each carrier must have a unique NXX in each rate center in a calling area, a carrier's ability to establish rate centers potentially could contribute to number exhaust.q  X- D.` ` Mandate of Number Portability   Xv-` ` 1. Background  YH- ?64.` ` In the Notice, we sought comment on the estimated time to design, build,  Y1-and deploy a longterm service provider number portability system.S1@* xP"-ԍNotice, 10 FCC Rcd at 12371.S We also requested that parties address what network and other modifications would be necessary to effect  Y -the transition to portability.: * xP-ԍId.: The 1996 Act mandates that all LECs "provide, to the extent technically feasible, number portability in accordance with requirements prescribed  Y -by the Commission."J ` * xP-ԍ47U.S.C.251(b)(2).J  X -` ` 2. Position of the Parties  Yy-@65.` ` Mandate Implementation By A Date Certain. The competitive local exchange providers generally contend that the Commission should mandate the  YK-availability of number portability by a date certain.K * xP-ԍSee, e.g., CompTel Comments at89; Jones Intercable Reply Comments at5, 7; Teleport Comments at12. The incumbent LECs, however, caution the Commission not to act with undue haste by mandating the implementation of  Y-number portability by a date certain.H * xP"-ԍSee, e.g., BellSouth Reply Comments at5; NYNEX Comments at10; SBC Communications  xP"-Comments at10; GTE Further Comments at 2, 710. See also Cincinnati Bell Comments at6. Indeed, BellSouth claims that the 1996 Act's omission of a deadline for implementation indicates Congress's intent not to require a  Y-date certain at this time.Y* xP@&-ԍBellSouth Further Reply Comments at 45.Y It adds that the industry must first give careful attention to developing an implementation checklist that will ensure that the necessary tasks for the""00*(("  Y-implementation are properly identified and performed.M* xPy-ԍBellSouth Comments at5455.M Instead of establishing a mandatory implementation date, some LECs contend that the Commission should direct an industry body, such as the INC, to determine the most appropriate schedule for  Y-deployment of a longterm solution.kX* xP-ԍSee, e.g., id. at 47; NYNEX Comments at 1011.k Other commenters argue that the implementation  Y-schedule should be determined by state regulatory bodies.s* xP= -ԍSee e.g., Ameritech Reply Comments at 8; USTA Comments at6.s Pacific Bell warns that a Commissionmandated solution at this time would be premature and cites a late proposal introduced by ITN as an illustration that the optimal solution may not yet have been  Y_-introduced._x* xP -ԍPacific Bell Reply Comments at8. In its comments, ITN proposed a threestage number portability method which utilizes AIN triggering to query one or more databases which contain customer "profile" information, such as Preferred IXC Carrier identification codes and customer network addresses. ITN Comments at 414. ITN's method was proposed for the first time in mid1995 after a number of other methods had been proposed, and has garnered little industry support, according to the record.  Y1-A66.` ` The wireless industry offers various implementation plans. For instance, PageNet urges the Commission to establish federal guidelines for number portability, and at a specified time in the future, to evaluate the industry's standards using the guidelines  Y -through a notice and comment proceeding.I ( * xP-ԍPageNet Comments at57.I However, Omnipoint believes the Commission should act more aggressively in mandating service provider portability by a  Y -date certain.R * xP'-ԍOmnipoint Reply Comments at 910.R  Y-B67.` ` Time Estimates for Deployment. Parties differ on their estimates for deployment. AT&T asserts that virtually all of the equipment vendors participating in the Illinois number portability task force indicate that they can provide most upgrades  YK-necessary to implement LRN by the second quarter of 1997.KH * xPD -ԍSee, e.g., AT&T Reply Comments at24; AT&T Further Comments at 6; Sprint Further Comments at 2. As noted above, Illinois,  Y4-Georgia, and Colorado plan to deploy LRN in mid1997.rX4* xP#-ԍCO PUC LNP Order at 2; Ameritech February 21, 1996 Ex Parte Filing at 12, 54; GA PSC Portability Order at 57; AT&T Further Comments at 4 n.5, 7; GA PSC Portability Order at 57; NARUC April 17, 1996  xP%-Ex Parte Filing at 32; Time Warner Holdings February12, 1996 Ex Parte Filing at 5.r New York also expects to deploy LRN in mid1997, though deployment in certain AT&T switches is expected to"#0*((("  Y-begin earlier.m* xPy-ԍNY DPS Portability Trial Report at 4, 6, 7, Attachment at 2.m Michigan has ordered that implementation of longterm number  Y-portability in Michigan start at the same time that implementation begins in Illinois.TX* xP-ԍMI PSC Interconnection Order at 43.T BellSouth, however, estimates that three to five years are required to deploy a number  Y-portability system that addresses all the necessary issues.J* xPT-ԍBellSouth Comments at54.J  Y-C68. ` ` Parties also differ on the interpretation of "technically feasible" as that term is used in section 251(b)(2) of the 1996 Act. GTE argues that the term should not be equated with "technically possible" because cost and timing considerations cannot be  YH-separated from the concept of technical feasibility.Hx* xPq-ԍGTE Further Comments at 45; see also Cincinnati Bell Further Reply Comments at 4. GTE also maintains that no longterm solution proposed is currently technically feasible, since they all require further  Y -information on costs, operation, and reliability. * xP-ԍGTE Further Reply Comments at 15. See also Pacific Bell Further Reply Comments at 24; SBC Communications Further Reply Comments at 4. Bell Atlantic contends that deploying a system that is technically feasible, but inefficient, may not be consistent with Congress's  Y -goal of a "rapid, efficient" telecommunications system.x ` * xP-ԍBell Atlantic Further Reply Comments at 4 (quoting 47U.S.C. 151).x Bell Atlantic and BellSouth also claim that LRN is merely a call handling protocol, as opposed to a technical solution  Y -for number portability.  * xP_-ԍId. at 3; BellSouth Further Reply Comments at 36. But see ALTS Further Reply Comments at 78 (criticizing characterization of LRN as mere addressing scheme or separation of number portability into triggering and routing functions as attempts to increase unnecessarily involvement of incumbent LECs' networks in LRN implementation).  Y-D69. ` ` In contrast, Time Warner Holdings and Cox argue that "feasible" must be given common dictionary meaning "capable of being done, executed or effected" and  Yb-does not mean "commercially available."b* xP -ԍTime Warner Holdings Further Comments at 45 (quoting American Textile Manufacturers Institute v.  xP!-Donovan, 452 U.S. 490, 509 (1981)); Cox Further Reply Comments at 2 (same). Time Warner Holdings points out that equal access and 800 number portability proved to be technically feasible even when they were  Y4-not commercially available.jX40* xP%-ԍTime Warner Holdings Further Comments at 5. But see Bell Atlantic Further Reply Comments at 2 & n.4 (asserting that (1) AT&T agreed to make equal access available as part of its consent decree arrangement and (2) 800 number portability was commercially in use before the Commission ordered its deployment).j Time Warner Holdings claims, moreover, that LECs control commercial availability because vendors will not develop and manufacture"$P0*((7"  Y-portability methods until LECs demand them.\* xPy-ԍTime Warner Holdings Further Comments at 5.\ Similarly, Sprint argues that technically feasible does not mean that every operational and regulatory issue must be resolved  Y-before any decision on national number portability can be made.VX* xP-ԍSprint Further Reply Comments at 34.V Sprint further claims that Congress's use of the phrase "technically feasible" precludes any consideration of  Y-economic feasibility.u* xP= -ԍId. at 56; see also ALTS Further Reply Comments at 23.u AT&T and MCI argue that LRN is technically feasible, although  Y-they do not explicitly address the precise meaning of the statutory language.ux* xP -ԍAT&T Further Reply Comments at 3; MCI Further Reply Comments at 23.u  Y_-E70.` ` Phased Implementation. Most parties addressing the implementation of  YH-number portability caution against a flashcut approach (i.e., deployment nationwide  Y1-simultaneously).1* xP-ԍSee, e.g., US West Comments at 22; Illinois Commerce Commission Comments at 9; GTE Further Comments at 8. USTA argues that because section251(b)(2) only requires provision of number portability, not deployment of the necessary software and network upgrades,  Y -LECs need only deploy portability upon a bona fide request.X ` * xP-ԍUSTA Further Reply Comments at 7 & n.4.X Most parties, however, recommend that service provider portability be deployed on a permarket basis within a  Y -period of time specified by the Commission.} * xPv-ԍSee, e.g., Citizens Utilities Comments at8, 17; Nextel Comments at5.} For example, Competitive Carriers proposes that service provider portability be implemented in the 100 largest MSAs within  Y -24 months of this Order. * xP-ԍCompetitive Carriers Comments at 15. See also Jones Intercable Reply Comments at 78. Similarly, Sprint proposes that the Commission adopt a phased approach requiring local service providers to deploy a longterm solution upon  Yy-receipt of a bona fide request from a certified carrier: (1)in the top 100 MSAs by the end of fourth quarter 1997; (2)in the next 135 MSAs, within 34 years after this Order is issued; and (3)within any remaining areas, beginning in the fifth year after this Order is  Y4-issued.4* xP!-ԍSprint Comments at1112; Sprint Reply Comments at5; Sprint Further Comments at 5, 6. See also Teleport Comments at12. Omnipoint maintains that service provider portability should be made available  Y-in the top 100 MSAs between October of 1997 and October of 1998,Oh* xP6%-ԍOmnipoint Reply Comments at 9.O while GO Communications proposes implementation of service provider portability in the major"%0*((6"  Y-metropolitan areas by early 1997.Y* xPy-ԍGO Communications Reply Comments at 67.Y MFS supports a final cutover in the 100 largest MSAs by October 1997, with an initial cutover in the top 35 MSAs on March31,  Y-1997.EX* xP-ԍMFS Comments at89.E It adds that, in order to deploy this capability as competition develops in specific markets, number portability should be implemented by LECs within 18 months of activation of an NXX code in the Local Exchange Routing Guide (LERG) and  Y-assignment to a competitor.Q* xP& -ԍMFS Further Reply Comments at4.Q AT&T has indicated that LRN deployment could begin in the third quarter of 1997 in one MSA in each of the seven BOC regions, followed by deployment in at least three additional MSAs per region during both fourth quarter 1997  YH-and first quarter 1998.`Hx* xPq-ԍAT&T April 24, 1996 Ex Parte Letter at 2.` Once this initial phase is completed, AT&T suggests that the Commission could require LRN to be deployed in at least four additional MSAs during  Y -both second and third quarters 1998, or 105 MSAs total.: * xP-ԍId.: AT&T's proposed plan would result in deployment of LRN software in a total of 7 MSAs in third quarter 1997, 21 additional MSAs in fourth quarter 1997, 21 additional MSAs in first quarter 1998, 28 additional MSAs in second quarter 1998, and 28 additional MSAs in third quarter  Y -1998.: * xP-ԍId.: AT&T further asserts that its proposed schedule would require major switch manufacturers to update switch software at a rate of 53 switches per week, and that one  Y-major switch manufacturer has claimed that it alone can update 50switches per week.^( * xPi-ԍAT&T May30, 1996 Ex Parte Filing at 3.^ MCI urges that number portability be deployed in the top 100 MSAs, by population, over  Yb-a 10 month period beginning no later than June 30, 1997.b * xP-ԍMCI June19, 1996 Ex Parte Letter at 1. MCI recommends a schedule requiring implementation in  xP-particular MSAs each month. See id. at 1. After implementation is complete in the initial 100 MSAs, MCI recommends that the remaining MSAs be converted based on written requests from carriers filed with the Commission, which may order implementation in a particular MSA to be completed within six months of the  Y-request.@* xP#-ԍId. at 1.@ MCI and Time Warner Holdings also support the notion of requiring number"&0*((" portability implementation within six months of a request of a telecommunications  Y-carrier.6* xPy-ԍSee id. (arguing for requiring provision of number portability in areas outside of 100 largest MSAs within six months of a request); Time Warner Holdings Comments at 1416 (arguing for requirement that number portability be provided within six months after request of another telecommunications carrier); Time  xP-Warner Holdings Ex Parte Presentation at 3, CCDocket No.95116, filed February 26, 1996 (Time Warner  xP-Holdings Feb. 26, 1996 Ex Parte Filing).6 Finally, Ameritech argues it is premature to set a deployment schedule for  Y-LRN because there are several operational issues yet to be resolved.Y* xP-ԍAmeritech Further Reply Comments at 34.Y It further argues that schedules proposed by various carriers are too aggressive and exceed the resources  Y-of the industry.B* xPt -ԍId. at 45.B  Yv-F71. VENDORS ` ` Switch vendors assert that LRN software will be generally available for service providers to deploy in 1997. Lucent Technologies plans general availability of LRN software for March 21, 1997, for its 1A ESS switch; March 31, 1997, for its 5ESS Y1-2000 switch; and May 1, 1997, for its 4ESS switch.`1* xP-ԍLucent May20, 1996 Ex Parte Letter at 1.` Lucent asserts that, after the new software becomes generally available, it will be able to support up to 50 software release updates per week for the 5ESS and 1A ESS switches for North America (each release  Y -update upgrades the software for one switch).@ ? * xP-ԍId. at 2.@ Nortel states that its LRN software will be available in the second quarter of 1997 for its DMS100, DMS200, and DMS500 switches, and will be available in the third quarter of 1997 for its DMS10 and TOPS  Y -switches.b * xP'-ԍNortel May 29, 1996 Ex Parte Letter at 12.b Siemens StrombergCarlson asserts that its LRN software will be available for testing on its EWSD switch in its Release 14.E generic in October 1996, and will be  Yy-generally available in the first quarter of 1997.ay_ * xP-ԍSiemens May20, 1996 Ex Parte Letter at 1.a Siemens further claims that upgrades to EWSD switches deployed within the top 100 MSAs can be completed within five months  YK-of the date of general availability.@K * xP -ԍId. at 2.@ Ericsson asserts that its LRN software for Ericsson  Y4-SCPst4* xPd#-ԍFor a definition of SCP, see infra note SMS/SCP288.t will be generally available in the second quarter of 1997, and that its LRN  Y-software for Ericsson SSPs* xP%-ԍA service switching point (SSP) is a storedprogram controlled switching system that has the functional capability to differentiate intelligent network calls and interact with SCPs. will be generally available in the third quarter of 1997.dg* xP-ԍEricsson May21, 1996 Ex Parte Letter at 1.d "'X0*((7" Ericsson expects that 67 switch upgrades can be accomplished each week, with each  Y-upgrade taking 34 days.:X* xP-ԍId.:  Y-G72.` ` The Illinois Commerce Commission argues that a phased approach implementing number portability in those areas where local competition is developing may be more costeffective and more feasible technically than a nationwide uniform  Yv-deadline.\v* xP -ԍIllinois Commerce Commission Comments at9.\ Similarly, USWest contends that a nationwide uniform deadline for service provider portability is neither practical nor necessary due to differing levels of  YH-competition.KHx* xPq-ԍUSWest Comments at2223.K Sprint asserts that a phased implementation will accommodate the concerns of the small LECs, arguing that a phased approach best balances the need for  Y -rapid deployment with the capital constraints facing individual carriers.G * xP-ԍSprint Comments at12.G Nextel asserts that a phased approach is more efficient because it results in the introduction of number  Y -portability where the demand for service provider portability is greatest.s * xP5-ԍNextel Comments at5. See also Pacific Bell Comments at25.s Bell Atlantic and US West contend that state agencies should determine when and where service provider portability should be introduced within their respective jurisdictions. Alternatively, US West suggests that the Commission could use the same approach to implementing service provider portability that it adopted in implementing equal access for  Yy-independent LECs.fy( * xPR-ԍBell Atlantic Comments at11; US West Comments at23.f  YK-H73.` ` Rural and Small LEC Exemption. In comments filed prior to passage of the 1996 Act, GVNW, TDS Telecom, NECA, and OPASTCO argue that, if the Commission mandates the implementation of number portability, it should exempt small  Y-and rural LECs from such a mandate.s  * xPo!-ԍSee GVNW Comments at7; OPASTCO Comments at10; NECA Comments at2; TDS Telecom Comments at23, 5, 9 (arguing that the Commission must be able to point to nationwide public benefits stemming from number portability before rural, residential, and small business customers are burdened with the costs of portability).s GNVW, NECA, and NTCA claim that the demand for service provider portability is significantly less in areas served by rural and"(0*((" small LECs because local exchange competition is not likely to develop there soon, if at  Y-all.* xPb-ԍSee, e.g., GVNW Comments at2; NECA Comments at2; NTCA Comments at 12.  X-` ` 3. Discussion  Y-I74. ` ` Section 251(b) requires that all local exchange carriers, as defined by section 153(26), "provide, to the extent technically feasible, number portability in  Y_-accordance with requirements prescribed by the Commission."W_X* xPh -ԍ47U.S.C.153(26), 251(b)(2).W We believe that requiring implementation of longterm number portability by a date certain is consistent with the 1996 Act's requirement that LECs provide number portability as soon as they can do so and will advance the 1996 Act's goal of encouraging competition in the local  Y -exchange market.J * xP-ԍ47U.S.C.251(b)(2).J The record indicates that at least one longterm method will be available for deployment in mid1997.  Y -J75. ` ` We decline the suggestion of some parties that we direct an industry body to determine an appropriate implementation plan. The INC has been analyzing the issues surrounding number portability for over two years. Delegating responsibility for number portability implementation to an industry group such as the INC would unnecessarily delay implementation of number portability. Similarly, we reject BellSouth's arguments in favor of delaying implementation for three to five years. We believe such a delay is inconsistent with the 1996 Act's requirement that LECs make number portability available when doing so is technically feasible, as well as with the procompetitive goals of the 1996 Act, and would not serve the public interest.  Y-K76. ` ` Carriers filing comments in this proceeding have suggested various deployment schedules, with most suggesting deployment within two years of a  Y-Commission order or sooner. x* xP-ԍSee, e.g., AT&T April 24, 1996 Ex Parte Letter at 2; Citizens Utilities Comments at 8, 17; Competitive Carriers Comments at 15; GO Communications Reply Comments at 67; Jones Intercable Reply  xPc -Comments at 78; MCI June19, 1996 Ex Parte Letter; MFS Comments at 89; Omnipoint Reply Comments at 910; Teleport Comments at 12. According to current schedules in Illinois, Georgia, Colorado, Maryland, and New York, AT&T's LRN method is scheduled for deployment  Y|-(most likely excluding necessary field testing) beginning in mid1997.\|` * xP$-ԍSee supra SCHEDULED22.\ Thus, the record indicates that one method for providing number portability will be available in mid1997. "N) 0*((k"Ԍ Y-L77. PHASED ` ` Pursuant to our statutory authority under the 1996 Act, we require local exchange carriers operating in the 100 largest MSAs to offer longterm service provider portability commencing on October 1, 1997, and concluding by December 31, 1998,  Y-according to the deployment schedule set forth in AppendixF.e* xP4-ԍSee infra app. D for list of 100 largest MSAs.e We require deployment in one MSA in each of the seven BOC regions by the end of fourth quarter 1997, 16 additional MSAs by the end of first quarter 1998, 22 additional MSAs by the end of second quarter 1998, 25 additional MSAs by the end of third quarter 1998, and 30  Y_-additional MSAs by the end of fourth quarter 1998.H_X* xPh -ԍSee infra app. F.H As a practical matter, this obligation requires LECs to provide number portability to other telecommunications carriers providing local exchange or exchange access service within the same MSA. This schedule is consistent with switch vendor estimates that software for at least one longterm number portability method will be generally available for deployment by carriers  Y -around mid1997, and with the schedule proposed by AT&T. * xP-ԍSee supra VENDORS71; AT&T April 24, 1996 Ex Parte Letter at 2. One major switch manufacturer has claimed that it alone can support the deployment of number portability  Y -software in 50 switches per week. x* xP-ԍSee AT&T May30, 1996 Ex Parte Letter at 3; Lucent May20, 1996 Ex Parte Letter at 2. We conclude that a schedule consistent with AT&T's proposed schedule, which would require all of the major switch manufacturers collectively to update switch software at a total rate of 53 switches per week, appears workable.  YK-M78.CHIEF DEPLOY ` ` We note that, in establishing this schedule, we have relied upon representations of switch vendors concerning the dates by which the necessary switching  Y-software will be generally available.Z* xP-ԍSee supra VENDORS71.Z As a result, our deployment schedule depends directly upon the accuracy of those estimates and the absence of any significant technical problems in deployment. We delegate authority to the Chief, CommonMONITORING Carrier Bureau, to monitor the progress of local exchange carriers implementing number portability, and to direct such carriers to take any actions necessary to ensure compliance with this deployment schedule. We expect that the industry will work together to resolve any outstanding issues, technical or otherwise, which are involved with providing longterm number portability in accordance with our requirements and deployment schedule. We note that while we prescribe the time constraints within which LECs must implement number portability, we strongly encourage carriers to provide such portability before the Commissionimposed deadlines.  Y -N79. CHIEF DEPLOY2 ` ` In addition, we direct the carriers that are members of the Illinois Local Number Portability Workshop to conduct a field test of LRN or another technically"*0*((+ " feasible longterm number portability method that comports with our performance criteria  Y-concluding no later than August 31, 1997.* xPb-ԍWe note that the following carriers are currently members of the Illinois Local Number Portability Workshop: AmeritechIllinois, GTE North, GTE South, Central Telephone Company of Illinois, AT&T Communications, MCI Telecommunications, Sprint Communications, MCI Metro Transmission Services, MFS  xP-Intelenet of Illinois, Teleport Communications Group, and Southwestern Bell Mobile Systems. See Ameritech  xP-et al. May 8, 1996 Joint Ex Parte Letter at 1 n.2. This directive would also apply to any carrier that joins the workshop after release of this Order. We select the Chicago area for the field test because the record indicates that the Illinois workshop was responsible for drafting requirements for switching software currently being developed by switch manufacturers. Because of the significant work which has been done on behalf of the Illinois workshop, we believe the Chicago area is the best site within which to conduct a field test. The field test should encompass both network capability and billing and ordering systems, as well as maintenance arrangements. We delegate authority to the Chief, Common Carrier Bureau, to monitor developments during the field test. We further direct that the carriers participating in the test jointly file with the Bureau a report of their findings within 30 days following completion of the test. While we do not routinely order field testing of telecommunications technologies as part of rulemaking proceedings, we have a significant interest in ensuring the integrity of the public switched network as number portability is deployed nationwide. We believe a field test will help to identify technical problems in advance of widespread deployment, thereby safeguarding the network.  Y-O80.` ` After December31, 1998, each LEC must make longterm number portability available in smaller MSAs within six months after a specific request by another telecommunications carrier in the areas in which the requesting carrier is operating or plans to operate. Telecommunications carriers may file requests for number portability beginning January 1, 1999. Such requests should specifically request longterm number portability, identify the discrete geographic area covered by the request, and provide a tentative date six or more months in the future when the carrier expects to need number portability in order to port prospective customers.  Y-P81.` ` We believe that this deployment schedule is consistent with the requirements of sections 251(b)(2) and (d), which give the Commission responsibility for establishing regulations regarding the provision of number portability to the extent  Y|-technically feasible.O|@* xPm!-ԍ47 U.S.C.  251(b)(2), (d).O As the record indicates, longterm number portability requires the  Ye-use of one or more databases.^e* xP#-ԍSee infra ONE OR MORE91.^ Such databases have yet to be deployed. As indicated above, the methods for providing longterm number portability that would satisfy our criteria require the development of new switching software that is not currently available, but is under development. The record indicates, however, that at least one method of longterm number portability will be technically feasible by mid1997. Requiring number" +` 0*((" portability to be fully operational in the largest 100 MSAs by December 31, 1998, would allow a reasonable amount of time to install the appropriate generic and application  Y-software in the relevant switches.Z* xPK-ԍSee supra VENDORS71.Z Moreover, such a phased deployment is preferable to implementing nationwide number portability simultaneously in all markets (or implementing this service in multiple large MSAs at the same time) because a phased deployment would be less likely to impose a significant burden on those carriers serving  Yv-multiple regions of the country.~vX* xP -ԍSee US West Comments at 22; Illinois Commerce Commission Comments at 9.~ Specifically, our phased approach spreads the implementation over 15 months, thus easing the burden on carriers serving multiple regions by limiting the number of MSAs in which implementation is required during a particular calendar quarter. In addition, the burden on such carriers should be less than that upon carriers in smaller markets because the latter may be required to undertake hardware upgrades whereas larger carriers may already have upgraded their switches. Our phased approach would also avoid the potential strain on vendors caused by implementation in all the largest 100 MSAs on or around a single date, as well as help to safeguard the integrity of the public switched telephone network.  Y-Q82. INDEED ` ` In addition, we believe that our phased implementation of longterm number portability is in the public interest and supported by the record. Our phased deployment schedule takes in account the differing levels of local exchange competition that are likely to emerge in the different geographic areas throughout the country. Thus, our deployment schedule is designed to ensure that number portability will be made available in those regions where competing service providers are likely to offer alternative services. We believe that competitive local service providers are likely to be  Y-providing service in the major metropolitan areas soon.F* xP-ԍCompetition has already begun in several MSAs. See Teleport Ex Parte Letter at 14, from Paul  xPP-Kouroupas, to William Caton, FCC, CC Docket No. 95116, filed Mar. 29, 1996 (Teleport March 29, 1996 Ex  xP-Parte Letter). AT&T has applied for certification in all 50 states. AT&T Ex Parte Letter at 2, from Frank  xP-Simone, to William F. Caton, FCC, CCDocket No. 95116, filed Mar. 29, 1996 (AT&T March 29, 1996 Ex  xP-Parte Letter). F In those areas beyond the 100 largest MSAs, however, the actual pace of competitive entry into local markets should determine the need for service provider portability. We therefore agree with those parties that argue that, in markets outside of the 100 largest MSAs, longterm number portability should be deployed within six months of a specific request from another  Y|-telecommunications provider. |* xP#-ԍSee MCI June19, 1996 Ex Parte Letter (arguing in favor of requiring provision of number portability in areas outside of 100 largest MSAs within six months of a request); Time Warner Holdings Comments at 1416 (arguing in favor of requirement that number portability be provided within six months after request of  xP&-another telecommunications carrier); Time Warner Holdings February 26, 1996 Ex Parte Filing at 3. We believe a sixmonth interval is appropriate given the"|, 0*((m" more significant network upgrades that may be necessary for carriers operating in these smaller areas.  Y-R83.` ` We note that the 1996 Act exempts rural telephone companies from the "duty to negotiate . . . the particular terms and conditions of agreements to fulfill the [interconnection] duties" created by the 1996 Act, including the provision of number portability, and that carriers satisfying the statutory criteria contained in section251(f)  Y_-may be exempt from the obligations to provide number portability as set forth herein.V_* xP-ԍSee 47 U.S.C.251(c), (f).V In addition, section 251(f)(2) permits a LEC with fewer than two percent of the country's total installed subscriber lines to petition a state commission for suspension or  Y -modification of the requirements of section 251.J X* xP# -ԍ47 U.S.C. 251(f)(2).J In our recent notice of proposed rulemaking implementing sections 251 and 252 of the Communications Act, we address the application of this statutory exemption, and we believe that specific application of  Y -such provisions is best addressed in that proceeding.` * xPn-ԍInterconnection NPRM at 260261.` We intend to establish regulations to implement these provisions by early August 1996, consistent with the requirements of  Y -section 251(d). x* xP-ԍ47 U.S.C. 251(d)(1) (mandating that Commission implement requirements of section 251 within six months of enactment of 1996 Act).  Yy-S84. ` ` In our Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Billed Party Preference (BPP), we stated that the Commission would further consider the feasibility of implementing BPP in the upcoming proceeding to implement the 1996 Act's local number  Y4-portability requirements in section 251(b)(2).4* xP-ԍBilled Party Preference for InterLATA 0+ Calls, Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, CC  xP}-Docket No. 9277, FCC 96253, 4 (rel. June 6, 1996) (BPP Second Further Notice). We recognize that our deployment schedule may have implications for the provision of BPP, the ability of a customer to designate in advance which Operator Service Provider (OSP) should be billed when that customer makes a call from a pay telephone. This capability may involve querying a  Y-database, similar to the proposed longterm number portability methods. In the BPP  Y-Second Further Notice, we noted that the record indicated that the cost of BPP would likely be substantial, and we sought comment on the costs of requiring OSPs to disclose their rates for 0+ calls in a variety of circumstances. In that Notice, we reaffirmed our belief that BPP would generate significant benefits for consumers, but stated that, at this time, unless local exchange providers were required to install the facilities needed to perform database queries for number portability purposes, the incremental cost to query the database for the customer's preferred OSP would outweigh the potential incremental"7-( 0*((["  Y-benefits that BPP would provide.:* xPy-ԍId.: While we continue to recognize the benefits that could be achieved through such an approach, we note that creating the capability for all LECs to query OSP databases would require a uniform deadline to nationwide number portability which, for the reasons discussed above, is not in the public interest. Nonetheless, as indicated by our deployment schedule, LECs in the 100 largest MSAs will be required to install the capability to query number portability databases by December 31, 1998, which could then potentially be utilized for BPP in those markets.  YH-T85.  WAIVE ` ` Finally, we delegate to the Chief, Common Carrier Bureau, the authority to waive or stay any of the dates in the implementation schedule, as the Chief determines is necessary to ensure the efficient development of number portability, for a period not to  Y -exceed 9 months (i.e., no later than September 30, 1999). In the event a carrier is unable to meet our deadlines for implementing a longterm number portability method, it may file with the Commission, at least 60 days in advance of the deadline, a petition to extend the time by which implementation in its network will be completed. We emphasize, however, that carriers are expected to meet the prescribed deadlines, and a carrier seeking relief must present extraordinary circumstances beyond its control in order to obtain an extension of time. A carrier seeking such relief must demonstrate through substantial, credible evidence the basis for its contention that it is unable to comply with our deployment schedule. Such requests must set forth: (1) the facts that demonstrate why the carrier is unable to meet our deployment schedule; (2) a detailed explanation of the activities that the carrier has undertaken to meet the implementation schedule prior to requesting an extension of time; (3) an identification of the particular switches for which the extension is requested; (4) the time within which the carrier will complete deployment in the affected switches; and (5) a proposed schedule with milestones for meeting the deployment date.  X|- E.` ` Database Architecture and Administration   XN-` ` 1. Background  Y -U86.` ` In the Notice, we sought comment on the type of database architecture that would best serve the public interest and the technical feasibility of deploying a single  Y-national database or a series of regionally distributed databases.SX* xP"-ԍNotice, 10 FCC Rcd at 12367.S We also sought comment on the type of information that should be contained within such database(s) and  Y -who should have access to such database(s).: * xP]&-ԍId.: Finally, we sought comment on  Y!-administration of the number portability database(s), i.e., who should administer and"!.x0*(("" maintain the database(s), how should they be funded, how should the administrator(s) be  Y-selected, and what responsibilities should the administrator(s) be given.G* xPb-ԍId. at 1236768.G  X-` ` 2. Position of the Parties  Y-V87.` ` Many parties assert that any longterm number portability solution will  Yv-require the use of one or more databases.vX* xP -ԍACTA Comments at10; General Communication Comments at5; GO Communications Comments  xPG -at6. See also Seattle LANP Trial Comments at3. Jones Intercable states that use of a database solution: (1) makes numbering information available to numerous competing carriers; (2) provides the platform to offer other types of number portability; and (3) permits the  Y1-deployment of other advanced services.V1* xP-ԍJones Intercable Reply Comments at 8.V ACTA, AT&T, and Citizens Utilities assert that the database architecture of a longterm solution should resemble the architecture  Y -used for the toll free database, but with databases distributed on a regional basis.} @* xP-ԍACTA Comments at10; AT&T Comments at17; Citizens Utilities Comments at14.} US Intelco and MCI note that multiple, regional databases, rather than one national database,  Y -will be necessary to process the data for all portable geographic numbers./X * xPV-ԍMCI Comments at19; USIntelco Comments at6. See also Citizen Utilities Comments at14 (adding that it is not feasible to expand the 800 database or its architecture to include local number portability given the magnitude of such an undertaking)./ Only Scherers Communications claims that a single national database will be able to accommodate all portable numbers, geographic and nongeographic, and will ensure  Y-consistency and cost efficiency.W  * xP1-ԍScherers Communications Comments at2.W  Yb-W88.` ` AT&T and several BOCs support the ability of individual carriers to download information from the regional databases to routing systems associated with their  Y4-own networks, i.e., downstream databases. 4 * xPe -ԍSee, e.g., AT&T Comments at17; BellSouth Reply Comments at17; Pacific Bell Comments at11.  xP-!-For definitions of SMS and SCP, see infra note SMS/SCP288. Several other parties add that access to the regional databases must be open, and carriers, individually or collectively, must be permitted to develop routing databases that obtain information from the regional  Y-databases. * xPx%-ԍSee, e.g., General Communication Comments at5; MCI Comments at17; NCTA Comments at11. ITN contends that an architecture of regionallydeployed SCPs which correspond to blocks of NPANXXs would give carriers the option of maintaining their"/h 0*(("  Y-own customer records or having a third party provider perform such functions.G * xPy-ԍITN Comments at 1820.G It adds that such openness in data management will help ensure number portability to all service providers, including providers of service to end users and various other intelligent  Y-network service providers.: X* xP-ԍId.:  Y-X89.` ` Almost all parties, incumbent LECs and new entrants, support  Yv-administration of the database(s) by a neutral third party.v* xP -ԍSee, e.g., AT&T Comments at34; Omnipoint Reply Comments at8; SBC Communications Comments at23. MFS adds that the operator of a number portability database must not be able to gain a competitive advantage by  YH-manipulating the data or controlling access to the database.DH@* xP9-ԍMFS Comments at13.D ACTA urges that the database administrator be a nonprofit organization selected through a competitive bidding process that excludes LECs and IXCs, with responsibilities established by the North  Y -American Numbering Plan Administrator (NANPA).{ * xP-ԍACTA Comments at1112. See also BellSouth Reply Comments at2021.{  Y -Y90.` ` Competitive Carriers assert that the database(s) should include only service provider portabilityspecific information, and that the carriers using the database should  Y -be responsible for the integrity of these data. ` * xP-ԍCompetitive Carriers Comments at18. See also General Communication Comments at5. Teleport claims that an industry group should determine the contents of any distributed databases, subject to the Commission's  Yy-criteria.Hy * xP-ԍTeleport Comments at9.H The Texas Advisory Commission also asserts that the database(s) should  Yb-easily integrate with 911 databases.Yb * xP-ԍTexas Advisory Commission Comments at3.Y  X4-` ` 3. Discussion  Y-Z91.ONE OR MORE` ` Section 251(b) directs the Commission to establish requirements governing the provision of number portability without specifically addressing the appropriate  Y-database architecture necessary for longterm number portability.T* xP%-ԍSee 47 U.S.C. 251(b)(2).T We find that an architecture that uses regionallydeployed databases best serves the public interest and is"00*(("  Y-supported by the record.* xPy-ԍSee, e.g., ACTA Comments at10; AT&T Comments at17; USIntelco Comments at6. The deployment of multiple regional databases will facilitate the ability of LECs to provide number portability by reducing the distance that such carriers will have to transmit carrier routing information. This, in turn, should reduce the costs of routing telephone calls based on such data. Moreover, a nationwide system of regional databases would relieve individual carriers of the burden of deploying multiple number portability databases over various geographic areas. A regionallydeployed database system will ensure that carriers have the number portability routing information necessary to route telephone calls between carriers' networks, and will also promote uniformity in the provision of such number portability data. We agree with those parties arguing that one national number portability database is not feasible. The potential amount of information that such a database would be required to process would, according to parties in this proceeding, likely become overwhelming as number  Y -portability is deployed nationwide.h X* xP-ԍSee MCI Comments at19; USIntelco Comments at6.h  Y -[92.` ` We also conclude that it is in the public interest for the number portability databases to be administered by one or more neutral third parties. Both the record and the Commission's recent decision to reorganize the administration of telephone numbers  Yy-under the NANP support neutral third party administration of these facilities.y* xP-ԍSee, e.g., ACTA Comments at1112; MFS Comments at13; Omnipoint Reply Comments at8;  xP-Numbering Plan Order, 11FCCRcd at 2596, 2604, 2609, 2613. We also note that section 251(e)(1) requires the Commission to "create or designate one or more impartial entities to administer telecommunications numbering and to make such numbers  Y4-available on an equitable basis."J4@* xP%-ԍ47 U.S.C. 251(e)(1).J Neutral third party administration of the databases containing carrier routing information will facilitate entry into the communications marketplace by making numbering resources available to new service providers on an efficient basis. It will also facilitate the ability of local service providers to transfer new customers by ensuring open and efficient access for purposes of updating customer records. As we stated above, the ability to transfer customers from one carrier to another, which includes access to the data necessary to perform that transfer, is important  Y-to entities that wish to compete in the local telecommunications market.* xP"-ԍSee supra  IMPORTANTCOMP27שIMPORTANTCOMP231. Neutral third party administration of the carrier routing information also ensures the equal treatment of  Ye-all carriers and avoids any appearance of impropriety or anti-competitive conduct.e` * xPv%-ԍNumbering Plan Order, 11FCCRcd at 259596; Proposed 708 Relief Plan and 630 Numbering Plan  xP>&-Area Code by Ameritech Illinois, 10 FCC Rcd 4596, 4604, recon. pending (1995). Such administration facilitates consumers' access to the public switched network by"N1 0*((z" preventing any one carrier from interfering with interconnection to the database(s) or the processing of routing and customer information. Neutral third party administration would thus ensure consistency of the data and interoperability of number portability facilities,  Y-thereby minimizing any anti-competitive impacts.c* xP4-ԍNumbering Plan Order, 11FCCRcd at 259596.c  Y-\93.` ` We hereby direct the NANC to select as a local number portability administrator(s) (LNPA(s)) one or more independent, nongovernmental entities that are not aligned with any particular telecommunications industry segment within seven months  YH-of the initial meeting of the NANC.HX* xPQ -ԍOnly the United States participants in the NANC shall be involved in the selection of the LNPA(s). Selection of the LNPA(s) falls within the duties  Y1-we established for the NANC in the Numbering Plan Order and the NANC Charter.`1* xP -ԍNumbering Plan Order, 11FCCRcd at 2609.` The NANC charter describes the scope the NANC's activities: XThe purpose of the [NANC] is to advise the [Commission] and to make recommendations, reached through consensus, that foster efficient and impartial number administration. The [NANC] will develop policy on numbering issues, initially resolve disputes, and select and provide  Y-guidance to the North American Numbering Plan Administrator.|Xx* xP-ԍCharter of the North American Numbering Council, approved Oct.5, 1995, on file with Network  xP-Services Division, Common Carrier Bureau, FCC. See also FCC Requests Nominations for Membership on the  xPI-North American Numbering Council Advisory Committee, 10FCCRcd9991 (1995).|Ƥ The fundamental purpose of the NANC is to act as an oversight committee with the  YK-technical and operational expertise to advise the Commission on numbering issues.`K* xP-ԍNumbering Plan Order, 11FCCRcd at 2609.` The Commission has already directed the NANC to select a NANPA. We believe the designation of a centralized entity to select and oversee the LNPA(s) is preferable to ensure consistency and to provide a national perspective on number portability issues, as well as to reduce the costs of implementing a national number portability plan.  Y-]94.` ` We believe that the NANC is especially wellsituated to handle matters relating to local number portability administration because of its similarity to the administration of central office codes. Both functions rely heavily on the use of databases, and both involve administration of NANP resources, only at different levels. Administration of number portability data is essentially the administration of telephone numbers (as opposed to NXX codes) between different carriers. "72( 0*((["Ԍ Y-^95. ` ` We believe that the NANC should determine, in the first instance, whether one or multiple administrators should be selected, whether LNPA(s) can be the same entity selected to be the NANPA, how the LNPA(s) should be selected, the specific duties of the LNPA(s), and the geographic coverage of the regional databases. Once the NANC has selected the LNPA(s) and determined the locations of the regional databases, it must report its decisions to the Commission. The NANC should also determine the technical interoperability and operational standards, the user interface between telecommunications carriers and the LNPA(s), and the network interface between the SMS and the downstream databases. Finally, the NANC should develop the technical  Y1-specifications for the regional databases, e.g., whether a regional database should consist  Y -of a service management system (SMS) or an SMS/SCP pair.%  * xP -ԍ SMS/SCP An SMS is a database or computer system not part of the public switched network that, among other things: (1) interconnects to an SCP and sends to that SCP the information and call processing instructions needed for a network switch to process and complete a telephone call; and (2) provides telecommunications carriers with the capability of entering and storing data regarding the processing and completing of a telephone call. An SCP is a database in the public switched network which contains information and call processing instructions needed to process and complete a telephone call. The network switches access an SCP to obtain such information. Typically, the information contained in an SCP is obtained from the SMS. % In reaching its decisions, the NANC should consider the most costeffective way of accomplishing number portability. We note that it will be essential for the NANPA to keep track of information regarding the porting of numbers between and among carriers. We thus believe it necessary for the NANC to set guidelines and standards by which the NANPA and LNPA(s) share numbering information so that both entities can efficiently and effectively administer the assignment of the numbering resource. For example, the NANC might require that the databases easily integrate with 911 databases.  YK-_96.` ` We recognize that authorizing the NANC to select a LNPA(s) may have an impact on Illinois's April1996 selection of LockheedMartin as the administrator of the Illinois SMS, as well as the Maryland and Colorado task forces' plans to release their  Y-RFPs for their SMS administrators in the second quarter of 1996.!* xPO-ԍSee Ameritech May 15, 1996 Ex Parte Filing at 3; MD PSC Report at app. 1 at 17; CO PUC May9, 1996 News Release; CO PUC May29, 1996 News Release. Therefore, in light of these and other ongoing efforts by state commissions, we conclude that any state that prefers to develop its own statewide database rather than participate in a regionallydeployed database may opt out of its designated regional database and implement a state Y-specific database.T" * xPK$-ԍSee 47 U.S.C. 251(d)(3).T We direct the Chief, Common Carrier Bureau, to issue a Public Notice that identifies the administrator selected by the NANC and the proposed locations of the regional databases. A state will have 60 days from the release date of the Public Notice to notify the Common Carrier Bureau and NANC that the state does not wish to"e3 "0*((]" participate in the regional database system for number portability. Carriers may challenge a state's decision to opt out of the regional database system by filing a petition with the Commission. Relief will be granted if the petitioner can demonstrate that the state decision to opt out would significantly delay deployment of permanent number portability or result in excessive costs to carriers. We note that state databases would have to meet the national requirements and operational standards recommended by the NANC and adopted by this Commission. In addition, such state databases must be technically compatible with the regional system of databases and must not interfere with the scheduled implementation of the regional databases.  Y -`97. ` ` We further note that any administrator selected by a state prior to the release of this Order that wishes to bid for administration of one of the regional databases must submit a new proposal in accordance with the guidelines established by the NANC. We emphasize that nothing in this section affects any other action that the Commission may take regarding the delegation and transfer of functions related to number administration. We delegate authority to the Chief, CommonMONITORING2 Carrier Bureau, to monitor the progress of the NANC in selecting the LNPA(s) and in developing and implementing the database architecture described above.  YK-a98.` ` We believe that telecommunications carriers should have open access to all regional databases. Just as we conclude all carriers must have equal access to any longterm number portability method, and that no portion of a longterm number portability method should be proprietary to any carrier, we further conclude that all carriers must have equal and open access to all regionallydeployed databases containing number portabilityspecific data. Allowing particular carriers access to the databases over others would be inherently discriminatory and anti-competitive. All carriers providing number portability need to have access to all relevant information to be able to provide customers with this important capability. We thus conclude that the 1996 Act, in addition to general rules of equity and competitive neutrality, requires equal and open access to all regionallydeployed databases for all carriers wishing to interconnect.  Y7-b99.` ` We believe that, at this time, the information contained in the number portability regional databases should be limited to the information necessary to route telephone calls to the appropriate service providers. The NANC should determine the specific information necessary to provide number portability. To include, for example, the information necessary to provide E911 services or proprietary customerspecific information would complicate the functions of the number portability databases and  Y!-impose requirements that may have varied impacts on different localities.#!* xP&$-ԍMarion County Comments at 12; NENA Reply Comments at 13; US West Comments at 18. For instance, because different localities have adopted different emergency response systems, the regional databases would have to be configured in such a fashion as to provision the appropriate emergency information to each locality's particular system. Similarly, special"h$4X#0*((%" systems would need to be developed to restrict access to proprietary customerspecific information. In either instance, the necessary programming to add such capabilities to the regional databases would complicate the functionality of those databases.  Y-c100.` ` Because we require open access to the regional databases, it would be inequitable to require carriers to disseminate, by means of those databases, proprietary or customerspecific information. We therefore contemplate that the regional deployment of databases will permit individual carriers to own and operate their own downstream databases. These carrierspecific databases will allow individual carriers to provide number portability in conjunction with other functions and services. To the extent that individual carriers wish to mix information, proprietary or otherwise, necessary to provide other services or functions with the number portability data, they are free to do so at their downstream databases. We reiterate, however, that a carrier may not withhold any information necessary to provide number portability on the grounds that such data are combined with other information in its downstream database; it must furnish all information necessary to provide number portability to the regional databases as well as to its own downstream database.  Yb-d101.` ` Carriers that choose not to access directly the regional databases or deploy their own downstream databases can seek access to the carrierspecific databases deployed by other carriers. The provision of access to network elements and facilities of incumbent LECs is addressed in our proceeding implementing section251 of the  Y-Communications Act.$* xP-ԍInterconnection NPRM at 10716; see generally id. at II.B.2.c. We believe the issue of access to incumbent LECs' carrierspecific databases by other carriers for purposes of number portability is best addressed in that proceeding. Parties may negotiate thirdparty access to nonincumbent LECs' carrierspecific databases on an individual basis.  Y-e102.` ` In the Numbering Plan Order, we concluded that the Commission should invoke its statutory authority to recover its costs for regulating numbering activities, including costs incurred from the establishment, oversight of, and participation in the  YN-NANC.t%NX* xPW-ԍ47 U.S.C. 152; Numbering Plan Order, 11FCCRcd at 2623.t The Commission is required to institute a rulemaking proceeding annually to adjust the schedule of regulatory fees to reflect its performance of activities relating to enforcement, policy and rulemaking, user information services, and international  Y -activities, pursuant to the relevant appropriations legislation.J& * xP#-ԍ47 U.S.C.159(b)(2).J Therefore, we intend to include the additional costs incurred by the Commission related to NANC and regulating number portability in the fiscal 1997 adjustment of the schedule of regulatory fees. In that proceeding, we will assess the nature and amount of the additional burdens imposed" 5x&0*((!" by the activities authorized here, and all interested parties will be afforded an opportunity to comment.  X-   X-F.` ` Currently Available Number Portability Measures   Xv-X` ` 1. Background !  YH-f103.` ` In the Notice, we discussed certain currently available number portability measures that LECs can use to provide service provider number portability. We focused on RCF and DID and acknowledged that the use of either method for number portability  Y -has significant limitations.' * xP| -ԍNotice, 10 FCC Rcd at 1236970. The limitations of RCF described in the Notice include: (1) INTERIMEXHsignificant strain on number plan administration and contribution to area code exhaustion; (2) failure to support several custom local area signalling services and other vertical features, and possible degradation of transmission quality; (3) limits on the number of calls to customers of the same competing service provider that can be handled at any one time; (4) preclusion of efficient routing of calls by competing networks since the incumbent LEC is always involved in the routing of calls even to a customer who has chosen to change to another provider; and (5) recovery of interstate access charges from IXCs by the LEC instead of the competing local  xP-service provider. Id. at 12369. DID has many of the same limitations as RCF, such as the inability to support certain CLASS features, the possible degradation of transmission quality, and limits on how many calls can be  xP-processed at any one time. Id. at 1236970. We sought comment on the costs of implementing these  Y -measures, and on their limitations and disadvantages.D( ` * xP-ԍId. at 12370.D We also requested that parties discuss whether these currently available measures can be improved so that they are  Y -workable, longterm solutions, and if so, at what cost.:) * xP_-ԍId.: Finally, we sought comment on how the costs of providing service provider portability using RCF and DID should be  Y-recovered.D* * xP-ԍId. at 12371.D  Xb-X` ` 2. Implementation of Currently Available Number Portability  XK-Measures !  X-` `  a.Positions of the Parties  Y-g104.` ` Commenting parties, with the exception of several of the incumbent LECs,  Y-generally agree that the technical limitations described in the Notice render the interim  Y-measures unacceptable in the long term.+* xP&-ԍSee, e.g., Cablevision Lightpath Reply Comments at 810; Competitive Carriers Comments at 1819;  xPJ'-General Communications Comments at 4. Cf. Bell Atlantic Comments at 57; NYNEX Comments at 7, 9. Indeed, many parties point out additional"6h+0*((" disadvantages of RCF and DID, such as: longer call setup times, incumbent access to competitors' proprietary information, complicated resolution of customer complaints,  Y-increased potential for call blocking, and substantial costs to new entrants.,* xPK-ԍSee, e.g., Cablevision Lightpath Reply Comments at 10; Teleport Comments at 7; MCI Comments at 22. Bell Atlantic counters that calls forwarded by RCF in its network can support CLASS features if the cocarrier has modern digital switching equipment and common channel signalling, and it adds that there is no limit on the number of calls RCF can handle  Yv-simultaneously.O-v * xPG -ԍBell Atlantic Comments at 57.O  YH-h105.` ` Many of the new entrants, nevertheless, urge the Commission to require  Y1-incumbent LECs to provide interim measures until a longterm solution is implemented...X1* xP-ԍSee, e.g., NCTA Comments at 12; MCI Reply Comments at 13; Telecommunications Resellers  xPZ-Comments at 16. See also Competitive Carriers Comments at 19 (urging Commission to endorse certain improvements to interim measures).. These carriers generally caution that use of interim solutions should not delay  Y -implementation of a permanent solution./ * xP-ԍSee, e.g., Ad Hoc Telecommunications Users Committee Reply Comments at 5; NCTA Comments at 1213; GSA Reply Comments at 6. While acknowledging that RCF and DID are already technically feasible and generally available, several LECs argue that the  Y -Commission need not take action on interim measures.t0  ( * xP-ԍSee, e.g., Ameritech Further Comments at 67 (Act confirms appropriateness of RCF and DID as interim methods); Bell Atlantic Further Reply Comments at 67 (asserting that section252 and interconnection agreements sufficiently guarantee provision of interim measures); NYNEX Comments at 7; USTA Further Comments at 2.t They generally focus, instead,  Y -on phasing in a longterm solution.O1X * xP-ԍSee, e.g., Ameritech Comments at 5; Bell Atlantic Comments at 1920; BellSouth Comments at 4647.  xPG-But see GTE Further Comments at 8 (short time frame for implementation mandated by Act compels Commission to impose temporary instead of permanent method).O  Y-i106.` ` AT&T and MCI initially argued for using a mediumterm database  Yy-solution, namely, the Carrier Portability Code (CPC) method,2y0* xPZ"-ԍCPC is a database number portability method originally proposed by MCI, DSC Communications,  xP"#-Nortel, Tandem Computers, and Siemens StrombergCarlson. See supra CPC14, 23. because of its advantages  Yb-over RCF or DID,3X b* xP%-ԍAT&T Comments at3132 (CPC is compatible with LRN, supports an N1 call processing scenario, avoids routing calls through incumbent LEC networks, permits carriers to own or provide for their own routing  xP+'-databases, and supports vertical features); MCI Comments at1014. See also ACTA Reply Comments at9, 12"+'20*((N'" (CPC: (1)does not require development of switching systems; (2)does not impact billing systems; (3)can be implemented with minimum service/feature interaction; (4)can be rolled out on a regional basis; (5)does not affect LIDB, operator functions, or the format of the calledparty number; and (6)can evolve into AT&T's LRN solution). but subsequently favored implementing LRN as soon as possible.#4b* xPx-ԍSee generally AT&T February 6, 1996 Ex Parte Filing; MCI Ex Parte Letter, from Donald F. Evans,  xP@-to Regina Keeney, FCC, CCDocket No.95116, filed Mar. 15, 1996 (MCI March 15, 1996 Ex Parte Letter).# "b740*((I" NYNEX and SBC Communications claim that adopting CPC as an interim solution would result in wasted and duplicative efforts. They note that CPC fails to support certain services, such as ISDN calls, pay phone calls, and CLASS features when customers place a call into an NXX from which a number has been transferred to a different service provider, and that CPC may prevent an operator from identifying the switch serving a  Y-"ported" number, thereby interfering with busy line verification of that line.w5* xPF -ԍNYNEX Reply Comments at3, 67; SBC Reply Comments at10, 11 n.17, 15.w  Y_-j107. ` ` Potential new entrants into the local exchange market generally contend  YH-that requiring interim number portability is consistent with the 1996 Act. 6H* xP-ԍThe Texas Advisory Commission urges the Commission to clarify that states may include public health and safety requirements, such as Automatic Location Information (ALI) retrieval of the directory number, for interim measures based on section 253(b). According to the Texas Advisory Commission, this section allows states to impose requirements to protect the public safety and welfare. Texas Advisory Commission Further Reply Comments at 3 (citing 47 U.S.C. 253(b)).  Indeed, MFS maintains that the 1996 Act requires immediate implementation of interim measures until  Y -longterm portability is implemented.R7 H * xP-ԍMFS Further Comments at 14, 78.R Teleport notes that the Bell Operating Companies, at least, are required to provide interim number portability as a condition of  Y -entry into the interLATA8 * xPu-ԍFor purposes of this proceeding, we define the terms "local access and transport area" or "LATA" and "interLATA service" as defined in 47 U.S.C.  153(25) and 153(21), respectively. market.P9 0* xP-ԍTeleport Further Comments at 2.P MCI agrees that interim measures should be made available until longterm portability is implemented, and argues that section4(i) of the Communications Act authorizes the Commission to perform any acts "necessary and proper" to execute section251(b)(2), and that such authority is preexisting and remains  Y-in effect. :* xP#-ԍMCI Further Comments at 8 & n.15; MCI Ex Parte Letter, from Leonard S. Sawicki, to Matthew  xP#-Harthun, FCC, CCDocket No.95116, filed Mar. 29, 1996 (MCI March 29, 1996 Ex Parte Letter).  ALTS contends that Congress clearly contemplated that the Commission should require interim measures until longterm portability is available because otherwise BOCs could satisfy the competitive checklist of section271(c)(2)(B)(xi) for entry in"b8:0*((+"  Y-interLATA services without providing any form of number portability.N;* xPy-ԍALTS Further Comments at 45.N AT&T argues that interim arrangements are incapable of preserving the functionality for longterm number portability required by the 1996 Act, but should be provided until longterm  Y-number portability can be deployed.W<X* xP-ԍAT&T Further Comments at 9, 10 & n.20.W  Y-k108. ` ` US West, in contrast, asserts that the Commission's jurisdiction over interim measures is unclear because sections153(30) and 251(b)(2), giving the Commission jurisdiction over number portability, appear to include only permanent  YH-portability.\=H* xP -ԍUS West Further Reply Comments at 9 & n.10.\ Cox and NCTA claim that the interim measures do not satisfy the "without impairment of quality, reliability, or convenience" standard in the definition of number  Y -portability in 47 U.S.C. section153(30).g> x* xPC-ԍCox Further Comments at 6; NCTA Further Comments at 4.g  Y -l109. ` ` Several of the cable interests argue that, although section271(c)(2)(B)(xi) allows the BOCs initially to satisfy the competitive checklist for entry into interLATA services by providing only interim measures, the BOCs are also required to provide longterm portability to fulfill the checklist requirements. Moreover, Cox and Time Warner Holdings warn that the Commission will lose its leverage to encourage prompt implementation of longterm portability once the BOCs are permitted to provide inregion  Yb-interLATA services pursuant to section271.|?b* xP-ԍCox Further Comments at 7; Time Warner Holdings Further Comments at 8n.19.| NCTA asserts that, since section271(c)(2)(B)(xi) distinguishes between "interim" measures and "regulations pursuant to section251 to require number portability," the portability required by  Y-section251 is longterm number portability.Q@* xPf-ԍNCTA Further Comments at 5 n.11.Q CCTA urges the Commission to review and require BOC progress toward deployment of a longterm method when BOCs apply for inregion interLATA market entry, and to deny a BOC application if the BOC tries to  Y-delay implementation of longterm portability.QA( * xP!-ԍCCTA Further Comments at 3, 89.Q Cox goes further and argues that, after the Commission adopts number portability rules, BOCs must implement longterm service provider portability, not just interim measures, before they can obtain interexchange and manufacturing relief under section271 because interim measures do not satisfy  Y|-section251.MB| * xP&-ԍCox Further Comments at 57.M In response, Ameritech contends that provision of interim measures, and"|9H B0*((" later compliance with the Commission's portability rules, satisfies the BOC checklist and notes that section271(d)(4) directs the Commission not to limit or extend the checklist  Y-terms.C* xPK-ԍAmeritech Further Reply Comments at 6. See also BellSouth Further Reply Comments at 2 n.5, 5; NYNEX Further Reply Comments at 6.  X-` `  b.Discussion  Yv-m110. ` ` The 1996 Act requires that carriers "provide, to the extent technically feasible, number portability in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the  YH-Commission."TDH * xP -ԍSee 47 U.S.C. 251(b)(2).T Number portability is defined in the 1996 Act as "the ability of users of telecommunications services to retain, at the same location, existing telecommunications numbers without impairment of quality, reliability, or convenience when switching from  Y -one telecommunications carrier to another."RE * xPd-ԍSee 47 U.S.C. 153(30).R The record indicates that currently technically feasible methods of providing number portability, such as RCF and DID, may impair to some degree either the quality, reliability, or convenience of  Y -telecommunications services when customers switch between carriers.F @* xP-ԍSee, e.g., AT&T Further Comments at 9; Cox Further Comments at 6; NCTA Further Comments at 4. Because of these drawbacks, some may argue that the use of RCF and DID methods for providing number portability would not satisfy the requirements of sections 3(30) and 251(b)(2). We disagree. Section 251(b)(2) specifically requires carriers to provide number portability, as defined in section 3(30), "to the extent technically feasible." Thus, because currently RCF and DID are the only methods technically feasible, we believe that use of these methods, in fact, comports with the requirements of the statute. We believe that the 1996Act contemplates a dynamic, not static, definition of technically feasible number portability methods. Under this view, LECs are required to offer number portability through RCF, DID, and other comparable methods because they are the only methods that currently are technically feasible. LECs are required by this Order to begin the deployment of a longterm number portability solution by October 1, 1997, because, based on the evidence of record, such methods will be technically feasible by that date. We believe that this conclusion is consistent with Congress's goal of developing a national number portability framework, as well as the general purpose of the Act to "promote competition...in order to secure lower prices and higher quality services for American telecommunications consumers and encourage the rapid deployment of new  Y7-technologies."tG7* xP%-ԍSee 1996 Act, 110 Stat. 56 (statement of 1996 Act's purpose).t " :` G0*((K"Ԍ Y-n111.` ` This interpretation finds further support in section271(c)(2)(B)(xi), which sets forth the competitive checklist for BOC entry into inregion interLATA services. That section requires the BOCs wishing to enter the inregion interLATA market: (1) to provide interim number portability through RCF, DID, and other comparable arrangements "until the date by which the Commission issues regulations pursuant to section251 to require number portability," and then (2) to comply with the Commission's  Yv-regulations.[Hv* xP-ԍSee 47 U.S.C. 271(c)(2)(B)(xi).[ There will necessarily be a significant time period between the adoption date of these rules and the availability of longterm number portability measures. Therefore, were the Commission to promulgate rules providing only for the provision of longterm number portability, during this time period the BOCs could satisfy the competitive checklist without providing any form of number portability. This could be true even if they had been providing interim number portability pursuant to the checklist prior to the effective date of the Commission's regulations. We do not believe that Congress could have intended this result. We, therefore, agree with MFS, ALTS, MCI, and AT&T that Congress intended that currently available number portability measures be provided until a longterm number portability method is technically feasible and available.  Yy-o112. ` ` We conclude that we had authority to require the provision of currently available methods of service provider portability prior to passage of the 1996 Act. In the  YK-Notice, we tentatively concluded that sections 1 and 202 of the Communications Act  Y4-establish a federal interest in the provision of number portability.I4X* xP=-ԍSee Notice, 10 FCC Rcd at 1236162 (citing 47 U.S.C.  151 requiring the Commission to make available to all people of the United States "a rapid, efficient, nationwide, and worldwide wire and radio communications service;" 47 U.S.C.  202 requiring that the charges, practices, classifications, regulations,  xP-facilities, and services of common carriers not be unreasonably discriminatory; Proposed 708 Relief Plan and  xP]-630 Numbering Plan Area Code by Ameritech Illinois, Declaratory Ruling and Order, 10 FCC Rcd 4596, 460102 (1995)). Specifically, we  Y-concluded in the Notice that such interest arises from: (1) our obligation to promote an  Y-efficient and fair telecommunications system;VJ* xP-ԍNotice, 10 FCC Rcd at 1236162.V (2) the inability to separate the impact of  Y-number portability between intrastate and interstate telecommunications;KK` * xP -ԍId. at 12361 & n.34.K (3) the potential adverse impact deploying different number portability solutions across the  Y-country would have on the provision of interstate telecommunications services;DL * xPb#-ԍId. at 12362.D and  Y-(4)the impact number portability could have on the use of the numbering resource,:M * xP%-ԍId.: that is, ensuring that the use of numbers is efficient and does not contribute to area code exhaust. We now affirm these tentative conclusions and conclude that we have"|;M0*((" jurisdiction to require the provision of currently available number portability methods, independent of the statutory changes adopted in the 1996 Act.  Y-p113.` ` There are also substantial policy reasons that support our requiring LECs to provide currently available number portability measures. The ability of customers to keep their telephone numbers when changing carriers, even with some impairment in call setup time or vertical service offerings, is critical to opening the local marketplace to  Y_-competition.eN_* xP-ԍSee supra SURVEY SAYS29ש32.e By facilitating entry of new carriers into the local market, currently available number portability measures will increase competition in local markets which will result in lower prices and higher service quality for telecommunications services consistent with the goals of the 1996 Act. Several parties to this proceeding likewise advocate that such measures are necessary for the development of effective local  Y -exchange competition.O X* xP-ԍSee, e.g., Cablevision Lightpath Reply Comments at 89; Jones Intercable Comments at 4.  Y -q114.` ` We note that sections 251(b)(2) and 251(d) give to the Commission the authority to prescribe requirements for the provision of number portability. Pursuant to that authority, we mandate the provision of currently available number portability measures as soon as reasonably possible upon receipt of a specific request from another  Yb-telecommunications carrier, including from wireless service providers.YPb* xP-ԍSee 47 U.S.C. 251(b)(2), (d).Y By conditioning the obligation to provide currently available number portability measures upon a specific request, number portability will be offered only in those areas where a competing local exchange carrier seeks to provide service. Thus, it avoids the imposition of number portability implementation costs on carriers (and end users) in areas where no competitor is operating.  Y-r115.` ` We agree with the many parties who claim that the technical limitations  Y-described in the Notice that handicap all currently available measures for providing number portability render them unacceptable as longterm solutions. Despite Bell  Y|-Atlantic's claims to the contrary for its own network,OQ|x* xP -ԍBell Atlantic Comments at 57.O the record indicates that currently available number portability measures are inferior to LRN portability or any other method that meets our performance criteria. The 1996 Act, and particularly the BOC checklist in section 271, clearly contemplates that these methods should serve as only temporary  Y -measures until longterm number portability is implemented.`R * xP%-ԍSee, e.g., AT&T Further Comments at 910.` As indicated above, the 1996 Act requires that number portability be provided, to the extent technically feasible," <R0*((;"  Y-without impairment of quality, reliability, and convenience.aS* xPy-ԍSee 47 U.S.C.  153(30), 251(b)(2).a Therefore, when a number portability method that better satisfies the requirements of section 251(b)(2) than currently available measures becomes technically feasible, LECs must provide number portability by means of such method. In addition, we find that the existing measures fail to satisfy our criteria set forth for any longterm solution; for example, they depend on the original service provider's network, may result in the degradation of service quality, and are wasteful of the numbering resource. For these reasons, we do not believe that longterm use of the currently available measures is in the public interest. We emphasize that we encourage all LECs to implement a longterm solution that meets our technical standards as soon as possible. We also note that BOCs must comply with the requirements set forth in this Order, including the requirement to provide currently available measures, in  Y -order to satisfy the BOC competitive checklist.[T X* xP -ԍSee 47 U.S.C. 271(c)(2)(B)(xi).[ Upon the date on which longterm portability must be implemented according to our deployment schedule, BOCs must provide longterm number portability and will be subject to an enforcement action under  Y -section 271(d)(6) if they fail to do so.U * xPW-ԍ47 U.S.C.  271(d)(6) (allowing Commission, among other sanctions, to suspend or revoke approval of BOC application to provide interLATA services).  Y-s116.` ` We decline to require a "mediumterm" or shortterm database solution such as CPC. The increased costs of implementing this approach are unwarranted given the imminent implementation of a longterm solution that meets our criteria. In addition, devoting resources to implement a mediumterm database solution, which is currently not  Y4-available, may delay implementation of a longterm database solution.V4@* xP%-ԍSee Time Warner Holdings Comments at 13 & n.16 (implementation of CPC would take approximately six months). We note that the Colorado, Georgia, Illinois, and Ohio state commissions have declined to adopt, and the California and Maryland task forces have declined to recommend, CPC as an interim  Y-solution,W * xP8-ԍSee CA LNP Task Force Report at 4446; CO PUC LNP Order; CO PUC Proposed Rules Regarding  xP -Local Number Portability, Decision Adopting Rules, Docket No. 95R554T, at attachment A at 4 (adopted Feb.7, 1996); ICC LNP Order; GA PSC Portability Order at 6; MD PSC Report; Ohio PUC Competition Order at sectionXIV. while the emphasis on New York's CPC trial has shifted in favor of  Y-concentrating on the adoption of LRN.XX * xP $-ԍNY DPS Portability Trial Report at 67.X We also note that several parties originally advocating CPC have since retreated from that view and now instead support  Y-implementing a longterm database solution as soon as possible.Y* xPk'-ԍTime Warner Holdings February 12, 1996 Ex Parte Filing; AT&T February 28, 1996 Ex Parte Filing. To the extent carriers"=Y0*((" wish to provide a mediumterm database solution, such as CPC, however, we do not prevent them from doing so.  X-` ` 3.X Cost Recovery for Currently Available Number Portability  X-Measures !  Xv-` `  a.Positions of the Parties  YH-t117. ` ` In comments filed before passage of the 1996 Act, Cablevision Lightpath argues that all carriers should pay incremental, costbased rates for interim measures and suggests, as an example, an annual surcharge based on the product of the incremental  Y -cost of switching and minutes of traffic forwarded._Z * xP| -ԍCablevision Lightpath Reply Comments at 1113._ AT&T and MCI agree with Cablevision Lightpath and endorse the formula used by the New York Department of Public Service, which allocates the costs of providing interim measures across all carriers  Y -based on the product of switching and transport costs, and minutes of forwarded traffic.[ X* xP-ԍMCI March 29, 1996 Ex Parte Filing; AT&T Further Reply Comments at 8 n.30; MCI March 15,  xP-1996 Ex Parte Filing; MCI Further Reply Comments at 910. Cablevision Lightpath urges, however, the Commission to ban incumbent LECs from treating the costs of currently available number portability as exogenous adjustments to  Yy-their interstate price cap indices.\\y* xP-ԍCablevision Lightpath Reply Comments at 13.\ GSA, Jones Intercable, and the Users Committee  Yb-point out that the shortterm incremental costs of providing interim measures are low.]b@* xPS-ԍGSA Reply Comments at 5; Jones Intercable Comments at 5; Users Committee Comments at 4.  Y4-u118.` ` Many of the new entrants advocate placing much of the burden of costrecovery for interim measures on the incumbent LECs. Jones Intercable, along with several other cable interests, argues that the incumbent LECs and new LECs should recover the costs of interim measures under a "bill and keep" system, under which incumbent LECs and new entrants would not charge each other for interim number portability arrangements that require them to forward calls of customers who have  Y-changed service providers.^* xP+!-ԍSee, e.g., Jones Intercable Comments at 5; Jones Intercable Reply Comments at 1112; NCTA  xP!-Comments at 13; Time Warner Holdings Comments at 2122. See also Competitive Carriers Comments at 12. In the alternative, Jones Intercable contends that incumbent LECs' charges for interim number portability services should be equal to or less than the">( ^0*(("  Y-LECs' incremental cost of providing those services.W_* xPy-ԍJones Intercable Reply Comments at 12.W Teleport also supports the  Y-provision of interim portability measures with no intercarrier usage charges.`X* xP-ԍTeleport Comments at1516; Teleport Reply Comments at16. See also MFS Further Comments at 8.  Y-v119. ` ` Several commenters propose large discounts comparable to those mandated  Y-for nonequal access during the transition to equal access.a* xP= -ԍCompetitive Carriers Comments at 12. See also General Communication Reply Comments at 5; Time Warner Holdings Comments at 2122. Competitive Carriers assert that allowing LECs to charge retail prices would discourage provision of longterm  Yv-number portability.Ubv@* xPg -ԍCompetitive Carriers Comments at 20.U MCI argues that portability is a network function, not a service, and proposes that all local carriers share the costs or at least that incumbent LECs not be  YH-allowed to recover more than the incremental costs.cH* xP-ԍMCI Reply Comments at 1416. MCI adds that state commissions must review the cost bases for the  xP-tariffs implementing RCF and DID. Id. at 16. AT&T and MFS argue that any interim measures should be provided at rates that encourage incumbents to offer the most  Y -efficient routing available, or reflect these measures' inferior quality and true costs.md ( * xP-ԍAT&T Comments at 15 n.21; MFS Further Reply Comments at 89.m ALTS and MFS further argue that competitive local exchange carriers should be entitled  Y -to retain all terminating access charges.me * xPU-ԍALTS Further Comments at 7; MFS Further Reply Comments at 9.m Similarly, MCI and NCTA argue that the terminating access charges paid by IXCs should be shared with the competitor that  Y -actually completes calls forwarded to it.f H * xP-ԍMCI Ex Parte Letter, from Donald F. Evans, to Regina Keeney, FCC, CC Docket No. 95116, filed  xP-May 28, 1996 (MCI May 28, 1996 Ex Parte Letter); NCTA Comments at 13.  Y-w120.` ` AT&T and MCI argue that the 1996 Act requires that the costs of providing interim number portability measures be borne by all telecommunications  Yb-carriers on a competitively neutral basis.ogb* xP!-ԍAT&T Further Comments at 10 & n.20; MCI Further Comments at 8.o MFS argues that interim measures should be provided at no cost or in the alternative, allocated on revenues net of payments to  Y4-intermediaries.Qh40* xP%-ԍMFS Further Reply Comments at 9.Q Several LECs, in contrast, claim that the competitively neutral standard prohibits requiring incumbent LECs to subsidize their competitors by providing interim"?h0*((F"  Y-measures for free or at deeply discounted rates.i* xPy-ԍSee, e.g., Bell Atlantic Further Reply Comments at 7; GTE Further Reply Comments at 67; Pacific Bell Further Reply Comments at 8 n.16. Ameritech asserts that section251(e)(2)'s "competitively neutral" standard for cost recovery does not apply to interim portability at all. It asserts that interim portability is addressed in section271(c)(2)(B)(xi), and therefore the Commission is not authorized under the BOC checklist to eliminate or discount interim portability rates below levels that state  Y-commissions have already judged reasonable.Wj * xP^ -ԍAmeritech Further Reply Comments at 8.W Similarly, BellSouth argues that Congress's endorsement of interim RCF and DID arrangements in the BOC checklist, and the 1996 Act's structure of requiring stateapproved carrier negotiations for interconnection agreements, compel the conclusion that RCF and DID cost recovery  Y1-issues be left to the states.Wk1* xP-ԍBellSouth Further Reply Comments at 8.W  X -` `  b.Discussion  Y -x121. ` ` In light of our statutory mandate that local exchange carriers provide number portability through RCF, DID, or other comparable arrangements until a longterm number portability approach is implemented, we must adopt cost recovery principles for currently available number portability that satisfy the 1996 Act. We emphasize that the cost recovery principles set forth below will apply only until a longterm number portability method can be deployed. As we have indicated, deployment of longterm number portability should begin no later than October 1997, so currently available number portability arrangements, and the associated cost recovery mechanism, should be in place for a relatively short period.  Y-y122. ` ` It is also important to recognize that the costs of currently available number portability are incurred in a substantially different fashion than the costs of longterm number portability arrangements. First, the capability to provide number portability through currently available methods, such as RCF and DID, already exists in most of today's networks, and no additional network upgrades are necessary. In contrast, longterm, or database, number portability methods require significant network upgrades, including installation of number portabilityspecific switch software, implementation of SS7 and IN or AIN capability, and the construction of multiple number portability databases. Second, the costs of providing number portability in the immediate term are incurred solely by the carrier providing the forwarding service. Longterm number portability, in contrast, will require all carriers to incur costs associated with the installation of number portabilityspecific software and the construction of the number portability databases. Those costs will have to be apportioned in some fashion among all carriers. Finally, we note that, initially, the costs of providing currently available" @@k0*((!" number portability will be incurred primarily by the incumbent LEC network because most customers will be forwarding numbers from the incumbents to the new entrants.  Y-z123. ` ` Parties have advanced a wide range of methods for recovering the costs of currently available number portability measures, including arrangements whereby neither carrier charges the other for provision of such measures and incremental, costbased pricing schemes. In addition, several states have adopted different cost recovery mechanisms. For example, in Florida, carriers have negotiated appropriate rates for currently available measures. The Louisiana PSC has adopted a twotiered approach to pricing of currently available measures. In the first instance, carriers are permitted to negotiate an appropriate rate. If the parties cannot agree upon a rate, the PSC will determine the appropriate rate that can be charged by the forwarding carrier based on cost studies filed by the carriers. These rates are not required to be set at longrun incremental costs (LRIC) or total service longrun incremental costs (TSLRIC),  Y -however.l * xP7-ԍLouisiana PSC Regulations for Competition in the Local Telecommunications Market, General Order, Docket No. U20883, at section 801, PartD (Mar. 15, 1996).  Y-{124.` ` In addition, incumbents and new entrants have voluntarily negotiated a variety of cost recovery methods. Carriers in Rochester, New York, for example, are voluntarily using a formula that allocates the incremental costs of currently available number portability measures, through an annual surcharge assessed by the carrier from which the number is transferred. The charge assessed on each carrier is the product of the total number of forwarded minutes and the incremental perminute costs of switching and transport, multiplied by the ratio of a particular carrier's forwarded telephone numbers relative to total working numbers in the area. In addition, Rochester Telephone has agreed not to charge competitors for the first $1 million of the cost of number  Y-portability.m * xP-ԍNYNEX Ex Parte Filing, CC Docket No. 95116, filed Mar. 22, 1996 (NYNEX March 22, 1996 Ex  xPZ-Parte Filing). The New York DPS has adopted this formula for the New York  Y-Metropolitan area as well.nx* xP-ԍNY PSC Order Clarifying March 8, 1995 Number Portability Order, Case No. 94C0095, at 34 &  xP-n.1 (issued and effective Mar. 8, 1995), submitted in NARUC April 17 Ex Parte Filing at vol. 1A at 32. Ameritech and MFS recently entered into an agreement for Ameritech's fivestate region under which MFS will pay Ameritech $3 per line per month for interim measures. MFS plans to seek regulatory approval to allocate that cost under a formula that would require MFS to pay a portion of the $3 charge equal to the ratio of MFS's gross telecommunications service revenues, net of its payments to other carriers,  Y7-to Ameritech's gross telecommunications revenues, net of payments to other carriers.MoX7* xP%-ԍInterconnection Agreement under Sections 251 and 252 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, dated as of May 17, 1996, by and between Ameritech Information Industry Services, a division of Ameritech  xPH'-Services, Inc. on behalf of Ameritech Illinois and MFS Intelenet of Illinois, Inc.; MFS White Paper Number"H'n0*((k'"Ԍ < ԙ6  xP-6Portability Requirements of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, April 30, 1996 (MFS White Paper, 1996).M"7Ao0*((="Ԍ Y-ԙ|125. ` ` Our cost recovery principles for currently available methods, of course, must comply with the statutory requirements of the 1996 Act. In addition, consistent with the procompetitive objectives of the 1996 Act, we seek to create incentives for LECs, both incumbents and new entrants, to implement longterm number portability at the earliest possible date, since, as we have noted, longterm number portability is clearly preferable to existing number portability methods. The principles we adopt should also mitigate any anticompetitive effects that may arise if a carrier falsely inflates the cost of currently available number portability.  Y1-}126. ` ` In our interconnection proceeding, we have sought comment on our tentative conclusion that the 1996 Act authorizes us to set pricing principles to ensure that rates for interconnection, unbundled network elements, and collocation are just,  Y -reasonable, and nondiscriminatory.Xp * xP+-ԍInterconnection NPRM at 117.X We need not, however, reach in this proceeding the issue of whether section 251 generally gives us authority over pricing for interconnection because the statute sets forth the standard for the recovery of number portability costs and grants the Commission the express authority to implement this standard. Specifically, section 251(e)(2) requires that the costs of "number portability be borne by all telecommunications carriers on a competitively neutral basis as determined  Yb-by the Commission."Tqb* xP1-ԍSee 47 U.S.C.  251(e)(2).T We therefore conclude that section 251(e)(2) gives us specific authority to prescribe pricing principles that ensure that the costs of number portability are allocated on a "competitively neutral" basis.  Y-~127.` ` In exercising our authority under section 251(e)(2), we conclude that we should adopt guidelines that the states must follow in mandating cost recovery mechanisms for currently available number portability methods. To date, the state commissions have adopted different cost recovery methods. We seek to articulate general criteria that conform to the statutory requirements, but give the states some flexibility during this interim period to continue using a variety of approaches that are consistent with the statutory mandate. The states are also free, if they so choose, to require that tariffs for the provision of currently available number portability measures be filed by the carriers.  Y -128. ` ` In establishing the standard for number portability cost recovery, section 251(e)(2) sets forth three specific elements, which we must interpret. First, we must determine the meaning of number portability "costs;" second, we must interpret the phrase "all telecommunications carriers;" and third, we must construe the meaning of the phrase "competitively neutral." "!Bq0*((""Ԍ Y-129. ` ` The costs of currently available number portability are the incremental costs incurred by a LEC to transfer numbers initially and subsequently forward calls to new service providers using existing RCF, DID, or other comparable measures. According to the record, the costs of RCF differ depending on where the call originates in a carrier's network. Calls that originate on the switch from which a number has been forwarded (intraoffice calls) result in fewer costs than calls that originate from other switches (interoffice calls). This is because fewer transport and switching costs are incurred in the forwarding of an intraoffice call. The BOCs claim, for example, that there are essentially three costs incurred in the provision of RCF for an intraoffice call: (1) switching costs incurred by the original switch in determining that the number is no longer resident; (2) switching costs incurred in performing the RCF translation, which identifies the address of the receiving switch; and (3) switching costs incurred in redirecting the call from the original switch to the switch to which the number has been  Y -forwarded.r  * xPN-ԍAmeritech Ex Parte Filing at 2, CCDocket No.95116, filed Feb.20, 1996 (Ameritech February 20,  xP-1996 Ex Parte Filing); Bell Atlantic Ex Parte Filing at 1 & 3, CCDocket No.95116, filed June19, 1996 (Bell  xP-Atlantic June19, 1996 Ex Parte Filing); BellSouth Ex Parte Filing, CCDocket No.95116, filed Mar. 21,  xP-1996 (BellSouth March 21, 1996 Ex Parte Filing). The BOCs further assert that the additional costs incurred for an interoffice call include: (1) the transport costs incurred in directing the call from the tandem or end office to the office from which the number was transferred and back to the tandem or end  Y-office; and (2) remote tandem or end office switching costs.hs* xP-ԍAmeritech February 20, 1996 Ex Parte Filing at 2.h There is conflicting evidence in the record on whether these costs are incurred on a perminute, percall, or  Yb-some fixed basis.tb@* xPS-ԍSee Ameritech Ex Parte Filing at 23, CCDocket No.95116, filed Mar. 26, 1996 (Ameritech March  xP-26, 1996 Ex Parte Filing); NYNEX March 22, 1996 Ex Parte Filing. State commissions in some states have set costbased rates for currently available number portability measures. In order to do so, states have used different methods of identifying costs, including LRIC, TSLRIC, and direct embedded cost studies. In California and Illinois, the state commissions set costbased fixed monthly rates for RCF, while in New York and Maryland, the commissions set cost Y-based rates for minutes of use.u* xP8-ԍBell Atlantic March 22, 1996 Ex Parte Filing at 2; NYNEX March 22, 1996 Ex Parte Filing at 12. In addition, there is some evidence in the record that carriers incur some nonrecurring costs in the provision of currently available methods of  Y-number portability.5vX( * xP"-ԍSee Ameritech March 26, 1996 Ex Parte Filing at 2; BellSouth March 21, 1996 Ex Parte Filing at 2;  xPb#-US West Ex Parte Filing at 6, CCDocket No.95116, filed June 19, 1996 (US West June19, 1996 Ex Parte Filing).5 Several states, such as California, Illinois, and Maryland, have"CH v0*((" permitted the carrier forwarding a number to recover such nonrecurring costs as a one Y-time, nonrecurring charge.w* xPb-ԍAT&T Ex Parte Presentation at 1, CC Docket No. 95116 filed Mar. 13, 1996 (AT&T March 13,  xP*-1996, Ex Parte Filing).  Y-130. ` ` Section 251(e)(2) of the Communications Act requires that the costs of  Y-providing number portability be borne by "all telecommunications carriers."Jx * xPu-ԍ47 U.S.C. 251(e)(2).J No party commented on the meaning of the term "all telecommunications carriers." Read literally, the statutory language "all telecommunications carriers" would appear to include any provider of telecommunications services. Section 3 of the Communications Act defines telecommunications services to mean "the offering of telecommunications for a fee directly to the public, or to such classes of users as to be effectively available directly to  Y -the public, regardless of facilities used."Ny * xP{-ԍ47 U.S.C. 153(44), (46).N Under this reading, states may require all telecommunications carriers including incumbent LECs, new LECs, CMRS providers, and IXCs to share the costs incurred in the provision of currently available number portability arrangements. As discussed in greater detail below, states may apportion the incremental costs of currently available measures among relevant carriers by using competitively neutral allocators, such as gross telecommunications revenues, number of lines, or number of active telephone numbers.  Yb-131. CRIT1  ` ` NORMAL RETURNSection 251(e)(2) of the Act states that the costs of number portability are to be "borne by all telecommunications carriers on a competitively neutral basis as determined by the Commission." We interpret "on a competitively neutral basis" to mean that the cost of number portability borne by each carrier does not affect significantly any carrier's ability to compete with other carriers for customers in the marketplace. Congress mandated the use of number portability so that customers could change carriers with as little difficulty as possible. Our interpretation of "borne ... on a competitively neutral basis" reflects the belief that Congress's intent should not be thwarted by a cost recovery mechanism that makes it economically infeasible for some carriers to utilize number portability when competing for customers served by other carriers. Ordinarily the Commission follows cost causation principles, under which the purchaser of a service would be required to pay at least the incremental cost incurred in providing that service. With respect to number portability, Congress has directed that we depart from cost causation principles if necessary in order to adopt a "competitively neutral" standard, because number portability is a network function that is required for a carrier to compete with the carrier that is already serving a customer. Depending on the technology used, to price number portability on a cost causative basis could defeat the purpose for which it was mandated. We emphasize, however, that this statutory mandate"D@y0*(( " constitutes a rare exception to the general principle, long recognized by the Commission, that the costcauser should pay for the costs that he or she incurs.  Y-132. CRIT1  ` ` CN PRINCIPLESOur interpretation suggests that a "competitively neutral" cost recovery mechanism should satisfy the following two criteria. First, a "competitively neutral" cost recovery mechanism should not give one service provider an appreciable, incremental cost advantage over another service provider, when competing for a specific subscriber. In other words, the recovery mechanism should not have a disparate effect on the incremental costs of competing carriers seeking to serve the same customer. The cost of number portability borne by a facilitiesbased new entrant that wins a customer away from an incumbent LEC is the payment that the new entrant must make to the incumbent LEC. The higher this payment, the higher the price the new entrant must charge to a customer to serve that customer profitably, which will put the new entrant at a  Y -competitive disadvantage.z` * xPN-ԍWe recognize that the incumbent LEC and new entrant, when competing for a customer, will take into account not only the incremental cost of winning the customer, but also the incremental cost of losing a customer. The cost to an incumbent LEC of losing a customer who ports his or her number to a new entrant is the incremental cost of porting that number to the new entrant, less any payments made by the new entrant to the incumbent LEC. In theory, the higher the incremental costs of losing customers, the greater the incentive an incumbent LEC would have to offer a customer a low price to prevent a customer from porting his or her number, which would allow the incumbent LEC to avoid the number portability cost. For the interim period, however, we expect that the number of customers that will port their number will be small relative to the total number of customers an incumbent LEC serves. Since incumbent LECs offer local service on a tariffed basis to all customers, the incentive for an incumbent LEC to lower its price to all customers in order to avoid the cost of porting a small number of numbers will be small enough to be inconsequential in determining the incumbent LEC's price.  We thus interpret our first criterion as meaning that the incremental payment made by a new entrant for winning a customer that ports his number cannot put the new entrant at an appreciable cost disadvantage relative to any other carrier that could serve that customer.  Yb-133. CRIT1  ` ` An example illustrates the application of this criteria. When a facilitiesbased carrier that competes against an incumbent LEC for a customer, the incumbent LEC incurs no cost of number portability if it retains the customer. If the facilitiesbased carrier wins the customer, an incremental cost of number portability is generated. The share of this incremental cost borne by the new entrant that wins the customer cannot be so high as to put it at an appreciable cost disadvantage relative to the cost the incumbent LEC would incur if it retained the customer. Thus, the incremental payment by the new entrant if it wins a customer would have to be close to zero, to approximate the incremental number portability cost borne by the incumbent LEC if it retains the  Y-customer.{X * xP4%-ԍ Carriers taking unbundled elements or reselling services do not generate a cost of number portability. Thus, a low incremental payment by a facilitiesbased carrier is necessary in order not to disadvantage it relative to such resellers. "|E{0*((^"Ԍ Y-134. CRIT1  ` ` NORMAL RETURN2A couple of additional examples may further clarify and illustrate this criterion. On the one hand, a cost recovery mechanism that imposes the entire incremental cost of currently available number portability on a facilities-based new entrant would violate this criterion. This cost recovery mechanism would impose an incremental cost on a facilitiesbased entrant that neither the incumbent, nor an entrant that merely resold the incumbent's service, would have to bear, because neither the incumbent nor the reseller would have to use currently available number portability measures in order for the prospective customer to keep his or her existing number. On the other hand, a cost recovery mechanism that recovers the cost of currently available number portability through a uniform assessment on the revenues of all telecommunications carriers, less any charges paid to other carriers, would satisfy this  Y -criterion.%|x * xP| -ԍIf a state adopts this cost recovery mechanism, we require that a state's calculation of gross revenues for IXCs should include only those revenues generated in the state in which the charges are being assessed, on both an interstate and intrastate basis. This ensures that a carrier's bill reflects the level of its activities in a  xP-particular state and will prevent a carrier's being charged several times on the same revenues. Cf. Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 1995, Price Cap Treatment of Regulatory Fees Imposed by  xPd-Section 9 of the Act, Report and Order, 10 FCC Rcd 13512, 1355859 (1995) (adopting gross revenues less carrier charges for recovering regulatory fees).% This approach does not disparately affect the incremental cost of winning a specific customer or group of customers, because a LEC with a small share of the market's revenue would pay a percentage of the incremental cost of number portability that will be small enough to have no appreciable affect on the new entrant's ability to compete for that customer.  Yy-135.` ` The second criterion for a "competitively neutral" cost recovery mechanism is that it should not have a disparate effect on the ability of competing service providers to earn normal returns on their investment. If, for example, the total costs of currently available number portability are to be divided equally among four competing local exchange carriers, including both the incumbent LEC and three new entrants, within a specific service area, the new entrant's share of the cost may be so large, relative to its expected profits, that the entrant would decide not to enter the market. In contrast, recovering the costs of currently available number portability from all carriers based on each local exchange carrier's relative number of active telephone numbers would not violate this criterion, since the amount to be recovered from each carrier would increase with the carrier's size, measured in terms of active telephone numbers or some other measure of carrier size. In addition, allocating currently available number portability costs based on active telephone numbers results in approximately equal percustomer costs to each carrier. We also believe that assessing costs on a pertelephone number basis should give no carrier an advantage, relative to its competitors. An alternative mechanism that would also satisfy our competitive neutrality requirement would be to recover currently available number portability costs from all carriers, including local exchange, interexchange, and CMRS carriers, based on their relative number of presubscribed customers."F|0*(( "Ԍ Y-ԙ136. ` ` We conclude that a variety of approaches currently in use today essentially comply with our competitive neutrality criteria. One example is the formula voluntarily being used by carriers in Rochester, NY, and adopted by the NY DPS in the New York  Y-metropolitan area.\}* xP4-ԍNYNEX March 22, 1996 Ex Parte Filing.\ Specifically, this mechanism allocates the incremental costs of currently available number portability measures, through an annual surcharge assessed by the incumbent LEC from which the number is transferred. This surcharge is based on each carrier's number of ported telephone numbers relative to the total number of active  Y_-telephone numbers in the local service area.~_X* xPh -ԍThe formula as filed in the NYNEX tariff is:  0 !xxddddZddhx!{Total~Ported~Minutes~*~(Switching~+~Transport~Costs)}over{Total~ Working~Telephone~Numbers~(TNs)~Provided~by~the~Telephone~Company}~=~Charge~per~Working~TNXw P7XPXw P7XPXw P7XP^Total*PortedMinutesm Switching@ Transport Costs-.Total.Working. Telephone.Numbers5.TNsr .Provided .byM .the* . Telephone.CompanybCharge-perWorkingTN A() .( .)!ߞ   jAx dddd.xddhhOCharge~per~Working~TN~*~Number~of~Ported~TNs~Used~by~the~CLEC~=~Charge~per~CLECXw P7XPXw P7XPXw P7XP.Charge.per.Working.TN3.Number.of.Portedb .TNss .Used .byw .theT.CLECe.Charge0.per.CLEC..j  xP-NYNEX March 22, 1996 Ex Parte Filing. Similarly, as noted above, a cost recovery mechanism that allocates number portability costs based on a carrier's number of active telephone numbers (or lines) relative to the total number of active telephone numbers (or lines) in a service area would also satisfy the two criteria for competitive neutrality. As noted above, MFS in Illinois plans to seek regulatory approval for a similar formula that would allocate the costs of currently available measures between it and Ameritech based  Y -on each carrier's gross telecommunications revenues net of charges to other carriers.#  * xP-ԍThe formula proposed by MFS is: ` ` $3 (Incremental Costs of Number Portability in Illinois) * Market share based on gross telecommunications revenues net of payments to other carriers.(#` MFS White Paper, 1996 at 6, 12.# A third competitively neutral cost recovery mechanism would be to assess a uniform  Y -percentage assessment on a carrier's gross revenues less charges paid to other carriers.cX ~* xP-ԍCf. Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 1995, Price Cap Treatment of  xP-Regulatory Fees Imposed by Section 9 of the Act, Report and Order, 10 FCC Rcd 13512, 1355859 (1995) (adopting gross revenues less carrier charges for recovering regulatory fees). c Finally, we believe that a mechanism that requires each carrier to pay for its own costs of currently available number portability measures would also be permissible.  YK-137.` ` The cost recovery mechanisms described in the preceding paragraphs define payments made by new entrants to incumbent LECs for providing number portability. We recognize that incumbent LECs must make payments to new entrants if the incumbent LEC wins a customer of the new entrant that wants to port its number. To be competitively neutral, the incumbent LEC would have a reciprocal compensation arrangement with each new entrant. That is, the incumbent LEC would pay to the new"G0*((" entrant a rate for number portability that was equal to the rate that the new entrant pays the incumbent LEC.  Y-138. ` ` In contrast, requiring the new entrants to bear all of the costs, measured on the basis of incremental costs of currently available number portability methods, would not comply with the statutory requirements of section 251(e)(2). Imposing the full incremental cost of number portability solely on new entrants would contravene the statutory mandate that all carriers share the cost of number portability. Moreover, as discussed above, incremental costbased charges would not meet the first criterion for "competitive neutrality" because a new facilitiesbased carrier would be placed at an appreciable, incremental cost disadvantage relative to another service provider, when competing for the same customer. Rates for interim number portability would also not meet the second criterion if they approximate the retail price of local service. New entrants may effectively be precluded from entering the local exchange market if they are  Y -required to bear all the costs of currently available number portability measures. * xP7-ԍSee NYNEX March 22, 1996 Ex Parte Filing. NYNEX reports switching and transport costs of interim number portability of $0.01 per minute, and charges of $0.106 for a five minute local call during business hours, the period with the highest rates. The charge of $0.106 results from retail charges of $0.08 for the first three minutes and $0.013 per additional minute, as determined from its local tariffs on file with the NY PSC. Retail rates for call forwarding, to the extent they are set above incremental costs, would also not meet the principles of competitive neutrality for the same reasons that incremental costbased rates would not. Finally, placing the full cost burden of number portability on new entrants would also deter customers of incumbent carriers from transferring to a new service provider to the extent that the entrant passes on the cost of currently available number portability, in the form of higher prices for customers. In addition, if incumbent LECs were not required to bear a portion of the incremental costs of currently available number portability measures, they would have an incentive to delay implementation of a longterm number portability method.  Y-139.` ` A carrier has a number of options for seeking relief if it believes that the pricing provisions for number portability offered by a LEC violate the statutory standard in section 251(e)(2), the rules we set forth in this order, or statemandated cost recovery mechanisms. First, it may bring action against the carrier in federal district court pursuant to section 207 for damages or file a section 208 complaint against another  YN-carrier alleging a violation of the Act or the Commission's rules.TNx* xPw"-ԍSee 47 U.S.C. 252(e)(6).T Alternatively, the carrier may file a request for declaratory ruling with the Commission, seeking our view  Y -on whether the statute and our rules have been properly applied. * xP%-ԍWe will be initiating a proceeding to adopt expedited procedures regarding such complaints. Finally, carriers in many instances will be able to pursue existing avenues before their state commission if a dispute arises regarding recovery of currently available number portability costs."H0*(( "Ԍ Y-ԙ140.` ` Finally, in response to questions concerning the appropriate treatment of terminating access charges in the interim number portability context, we conclude that the meetpoint billing arrangements between neighboring incumbent LECs provide the appropriate model for the proper access billing arrangement for interim number portability. We decline to require that all of the terminating interstate access charges paid by IXCs on calls forwarded as a result of RCF or other comparable number portability measures be paid to the competing local service provider. On the other hand, we believe that to permit incumbent LECs to retain all terminating access charges would be equally inappropriate. Neither the forwarding carrier, nor the terminating carrier, provides all the facilities when a call is ported to the other carrier. Therefore, we direct forwarding carriers and terminating carriers to assess on IXCs charges for terminating access through meetpoint billing arrangements. The overarching principle is that the carriers are to share in the access revenues received for a ported call. It is up to the carriers whether they each issue a bill for access on a ported call, or whether one of them issues a bill to the IXCs covering all of the transferred calls and shares the correct portion of the revenues with the other carriers involved. If the terminating carrier is unable to identify the particular IXC carrying a forwarded call for purposes of assessing access charges, the forwarding carrier shall provide the terminating carrier with the necessary information to permit the terminating carrier to issue a bill. This may include sharing percentage interstate usage (PIU) data and may require the terminating entity to issue a bill based on allocated interstate minutes per IXC as derived from data provided by the forwarding carrier.  X- G. ` ` Number Portability by CMRS Providers  X-` ` 1. Background  Y|-141.` ` In our Notice, we sought comment and other information on the competitive significance of service provider portability for the development of  YN-competition between CMRS and wireline service providers.VN* xP-ԍNotice, 10 FCC Rcd at1235960.V We also sought comment on the current, and estimated future, demand of commercial mobile radio service customers for portable wireless telephone numbers when they change their service  Y -provider either to another CMRS provider or to a wireline service provider.: X* xP"-ԍId.: Finally, we sought comment on whether the burdens of implementing service provider portability (1) between CMRS carriers, and (2) between CMRS and wireline carriers are similar to  Y -the burdens of implementing service provider portability between wireline carriers.D * xP]&-ԍId. at12371.D "!Ix0*((""Ԍ X-` ` 2.  Position of the Parties  Y-142. ` ` Parties commenting on CMRS issues generally fall into three groups. One group consists of the providers of Personal Communications Services (PCS). The PCS providers are just beginning to build advanced wireless networks to enter the market. Their successful market entry depends largely upon convincing consumers of other  Yv-commercial mobile radio services, e.g., cellular, to switch to PCS. The PCS providers therefore want number portability to be implemented as soon as technically possible. A second group is composed primarily of cellular providers, along with paging and messaging service providers. Parties in this category are generally incumbent service providers with relatively less sophisticated systems. These parties generally claim that number portability is unnecessary in the CMRS marketplace and oppose being required to upgrade their networks for such capabilities at allegedly great expense. A third group includes parties, such as Ameritech and AT&T Wireless, that support implementation of number portability by CMRS providers, but on a later deployment schedule than wireline  Y -portability so as to allow time for technical issues specific to CMRS to be resolved.  * xP -ԍSee Ameritech May 15, 1996 Ex Parte Presentation at 14 (noting that wireless industry participation in Illinois Commerce Commission number portability workshop is not scheduled to begin until July1996); AT&T  xP-Wireless Services, Inc. Ex Parte Presentation at 11, CCDocket No.95116, filed May 24, 1996 (AT&T  xPx-Wireless May 24, 1996 Ex Parte Filing).  Yy-143.` ` Authority to Require CMRS Providers To Provide Number Portability. SBC Communications argues that CMRS providers have no obligation to provide number portability under the 1996 Act, since the 1996 Act's imposes that duty only on LECs, and the definition of LEC specifically excludes CMRS providers. As a result, SBC Communications claims, the Commission should examine CMRS portability separately  Y-from wireline portability.Z* xPg-ԍSBC Communications Further Comments at 3.Z Similarly, Bell Atlantic NYNEX Mobile, Arch/AirTouch Paging, and MobileMedia argue that the 1996 Act and its legislative history demonstrate that the number portability obligation of section251(b)(2) was not intended to apply to  Y-CMRS providers.@* xP-ԍArch/AirTouch Paging Further Comments at 34 & n.8; Bell Atlantic NYNEX Mobile Further Comments at 2; MobileMedia Further Comments at 35 (arguing that original House and Senate proposals (H.R. Rep. No.204, 104th Cong., 1stSess. 7172 (1995); S. Rep. No.23, 104thCong., 1stSess.1920 (1995)) specified that focus of section251(b)(2) was to develop competition in local exchange market, not any other competitive markets). BellSouth further argues that CMRS providers should not be  Y-required to offer portability until they compete directly with a LEC. * xPK$-ԍBellSouth Further Comments at 6; see also US West Further Reply Comments at 910. Moreover, Bell Atlantic NYNEX Mobile asserts that section332 of the Communications Act only"J 0*((" subjects CMRS providers to limited regulation, where there is a "clear cut need" for  Y-doing so. * xPb-ԍBell Atlantic NYNEX Mobile Further Comments at 3 n.3 (quoting Petition of the Connecticut Dep't of  xP*-Pub. Util. Control to Retain Regulatory Control of the Rates of Wholesale Cellular Service Providers, Report  xP-and Order, 10 FCCRcd 7025, 7031 (1995) (Petition of CT DPUC, Order), aff'd, Dep't of Pub. Util. Control  xP-v. FCC, 78F.3d 842 (2d Cir. 1996)).  Y-144. ` ` Importance of Number Portability to CMRS Providers. Most PCS providers maintain that number portability is important in the CMRS industry because it  Y-will promote competition between different types of CMRS providers.* xP -ԍSee, e.g., Omnipoint Comments at 3; Omnipoint Reply Comments at 12; PCIA Comments at 35. PCIA supports longterm number portability solutions for broadband PCS systems when they are technically feasible, and urges the Commission to set a consistent longterm nationwide  YH-policy for number portability.H@* xP9-ԍPCIA Ex Parte Presentation, CCDocket No.95116, filed May 23, 1996 (PCIA May23, 1996 Ex  xP-Parte Filing). Omnipoint, a winner of several licenses in the broadband PCS CBlock auction, explains that the success of PCS entry depends on  Y -whether PCS providers can attract a significant share of embedded cellular customers.X * xPc-ԍOmnipoint Comments at 3; Omnipoint Reply Comments at 9, 12 (urging implementation of service  xP+-provider portability in 100 largest MSAs between October 1997 and October 1998). See also MCI Comments at 34.  Y -145.` ` PCIA maintains that number portability is of considerable competitive importance to the broadband CMRS market because the advantages of portability will be a significant factor in consumers' decisions to change providers even though they must  Y -endure the inconvenience of changing equipment to do so.N * xP-ԍPCIA Reply Comments at 1214.N PCS Primeco claims that arguments made by incumbent cellular companies that downplay the importance of CMRS number portability are based on the fact that current cellular subscribers usually do not make their numbers widely known because, under existing cellular pricing plans, subscribers typically pay for both inbound and outbound calls. PCS Primeco contends that, since cellular and other CMRS customers do not distribute their numbers widely, such customers currently may not regard number portability as an important factor in deciding whether to switch CMRS providers. PCS Primeco asserts that in the future, as CMRS providers compete to become a substitute for wireline service, they will not assess charges on inbound calls, and CMRS customers will assign the same importance to  Y-number portability as wireline subscribers do today.~H * xP%-ԍPCS Primeco Reply Comments at 12; see also Pacific Bell Comments at8.~ PCIA argues similarly that portability will facilitate the convergence of and competition between CMRS and wireline services, which will likely result in cellular customers publishing their telephone"K0*(("  Y-numbers.* xPy-ԍPCIA Reply Comments at 13. See also Omnipoint Reply Comments at 12 & nn.18, 19. PCIA adds that the ability to transfer telephone numbers between wireline  Y-and CMRS carriers ameliorates "number exhaustion" concerns.{X* xP-ԍPCIA Comments at 5. "Number exhaustion" refers to a situation in which all numbers allotted for a particular function or region have been assigned. For example, in January 1995 there were no more available  xP-NPA codes (i.e., area codes) of the N0/1X format (e.g., 202 for the Washington, DC area) because all CO  xPJ-codes of the form NNX (i.e., the second three digits of a tendigit telephone number) within each of those NPA  xP-codes had been assigned. See Numbering Plan Order, 11FCCRcd at 2593.{ The Illinois Commerce Commission also considers number portability between wireline and CMRS providers  Y-important.\* xPt -ԍIllinois Commerce Commission Comments at 3.\  Y-146.CELL ARGUMENTS ` ` CTIA maintains that the CMRS industry supports the goal of full number portability for all telecommunications providers, including CMRS providers, but claims that the Commission should not delay implementation of service provider portability in  YH-the wireline networks while awaiting network solutions for CMRS carriers.H* xP-ԍCTIA Comments at 25; CTIA Reply Comments at 2; CTIA Further Reply Comments at 6. Most of the commenting cellular providers believe that number portability is not as important to CMRS providers as it is to wireline service providers because there is little current demand for CMRS number portability and because of the unique technical problems  Y -involved. ( * xP-ԍSee, e.g., Bell Atlantic NYNEX Mobile Comments at 1; Bell Atlantic NYNEX Mobile Reply Comments at 1; AirTouch/US West New Vector Reply Comments at 36. AT&T asserts that, while number portability is more important in the wireline market than the CMRS market, the Commission should not preclude such  Y -portability for CMRS carriers.I * xP-ԍAT&T Comments at 9 n.12.I Parties opposing CMRS portability generally argue that the benefits of CMRS portability are diminished by the following factors: (1) substantial competition already exists in the CMRS market since CMRS customers already may  Yy-choose from multiple competitive carriers;y* xP:-ԍSee, e.g., AirTouch/US West New Vector Reply Comments at 3; Bell Atlantic NYNEX Mobile Comments at 2. (2) CMRS customers place less value on their numbers, as indicated by the fact that they do not publish them, do not often make them available through directory assistance, and more frequently change their telephone  Y4-numbers due to competition and a variety of noncompetitive reasons;4h* xPM$-ԍAirTouch/US West New Vector Reply Comments at 4; CTIA Comments at 9, 10 & n.15; Bell Atlantic NYNEX Mobile Comments at 23. (3) number portability would impair the ability of a carrier to identify immediately the validity of a"L0*((("  Y-customer's number and thereby prevent fraudulent use of numbers;Z* xPy-ԍBell Atlantic NYNEX Mobile Comments at 4.Z (4) customers will have a disincentive to switch carriers because broadband PCS will require equipment that  Y-is not compatible with incumbent cellular equipment;DX* xP-ԍCTIA Comments at 9.D (5) number portability would adversely affect roaming capabilities because cellular carriers rely on the ability to  Y-identify a roaming cellular customer's "home carrier" by the NPA/NXX; * xP= -ԍAirTouch/US West New Vector Reply Comments at 9. Seealso Bell Atlantic NYNEX Mobile Comments at 3 (imposing wireless number portability is inadvisable because the Commission is considering multiple, related issues, such as interconnection, roaming, and resale, that would directly affect consideration of number portability); SBC Communications Comments at 6, 15, app. F. (6)service provider portability would require CMRS carriers to expand significantly the capacity of their roaming databases to provide additional information about each subscriber and his or  Y_-her current service provider;Z_* xP-ԍBell Atlantic NYNEX Mobile Comments at 4.Z and (7) CMRS uses different signalling protocols than  YH-wireline carriers, which will make implementation of number portability more difficult.`H` * xPY-ԍBell Atlantic NYNEX Mobile Reply Comments at 4.`  Y -147. ` ` Paging providers similarly oppose being required to provide number portability. Arch/AirTouch Paging claims that the recent proliferation of new area codes, the introduction of a variety of competing services, and the availability of 800 and 888 numbers (and possibly of portable 500 and 900 numbers) have reduced in general the  Y -importance of number portability for all carriers.V * xP_-ԍArch/AirTouch Paging Comments at 56.V Arch/AirTouch Paging further argues against the imposition of number portability on CMRS providers because it believes  Y-competition will continue to develop without number portability.@ * xP-ԍId. at 5.@ It maintains that various factors, such as price, service quality, coverage area, equipment functions, customer service, and enhanced service options can overcome the reluctance of customers  YK-to change carriers.]K* xP !-ԍArch/AirTouch Paging Reply Comments at 910.] PageNet argues that paging and messaging service providers should not be required to provide number portability because these services are already competitive, as no single carrier controls more than 12 percent of any paging market, and  Y-that markets, on average, have five competing carriers.M* xPW%-ԍPageNet Reply Comments at 5.M "M00*(("Ԍ Y-148. ` ` Deployment of LongTerm Solutions by CMRS Carriers. The PCS providers generally assert that CMRS providers will face technical burdens comparable to wireline carriers in updating their networks, and argue that there is no reason to treat  Y-CMRS providers differently from wireline carriers.* xP4-ԍSee, e.g., PCS Primeco Comments at 5; Pacific Bell Comments at 9; PCIA Reply Comments at 12. Some CMRS parties indicate that it is technically possible to update cellular and PCS networks to accommodate longterm  Y-number portability.X* xP-ԍSee, e.g., Competitive Carriers Reply Comments at 78; PCIA ExParte Presentation at 12, CC  xP^ -Docket No. 95116, filed Feb. 28, 1996 (PCIA February 28, 1996 Ex Parte Filing). PCIA acknowledges that implementation of number portability by CMRS providers presents technical difficulties specific to CMRS, but argues that such  Y_-difficulties can be overcome._* xP -ԍPCIA Reply Comments at 12, 14. See also Competitive Carriers Reply Comments at 78. PCIA asserts that most broadband carriers already plan  YH-to deploy the components necessary to implement LRN (i.e., SS7 signaling, AIN/IN to  Y1-do database queries and responses, and AIN triggers).1@* xP"-ԍPCIA ExParte Letter at 3, from Mark J. Golden, to William F. Caton, FCC, CCDocket No.95116,  xP-filed Mar. 12, 1996 (PCIA March 12, 1996 ExParte Letter). Omnipoint contends that implementation deadlines for number portability should apply equally to wireless and wireline carriers, and proposes implementation in the top 100 MSAs between October  Y -1997 and October 1998.R * xP5-ԍOmnipoint Reply Comments at 911.R Competitive Carriers argues that the Commission's number portability rules should be technologyneutral, and favors requiring implementation of number portability within 24months of the issuance of our Order throughout the top  Y -100MSAs. ( * xP-ԍCompetitive Carriers Comments at 13, 15; Competitive Carriers Reply Comments at 79.  Yy-149. ` ` In contrast, several cellular interests claim that upgrading cellular networks to handle number portability will require greater time and effort than adapting wireline networks, primarily because relatively few cellular networks have IN or AIN capabilities, and because the current sixdigitbased screening used to validate customer information  Y-and handle billing will have to be adapted to tendigitbased screening.X * xP -ԍSee AirTouch Cellular Ex Parte Presentation at 1017, CCDocket No.95116, filed May 15, 1996  xPN!-(AirTouch Cellular May 15, 1996 Ex Parte Filing); CTIA Ex Parte Presentation at 2529, CCDocket No.95 xP"-116, filed Apr.18, 1996 (CTIA April18, 1996 Ex Parte Filing); CTIA Further Comments at 46. These parties claim that the necessary standards for functions such as tendigitbased screening have yet  Y-to be developed.* xPx%-ԍSee AirTouch Cellular May 15, 1996 Ex Parte Filing at 1517; CTIA April18, 1996 Ex Parte Filing at 2829; CTIA Further Comments at 46. "N00*(("Ԍ Y-150. ` ` Several parties caution that implementing number portability for CMRS providers will require more time than for wireline service providers because to date, industry efforts aimed at developing number portability have focused on wireline carriers. For example, CMRS carriers did not participate in the Illinois number portability workshop and CMRS carriers generally have not participated in technical trials of number  Y-portability.FX* xP-ԍSee Ameritech May 15, 1996 Ex Parte Filing at 14 (noting that wireless industry participation in Illinois Commerce Commission number portability workshop is not scheduled to begin until July1996); PCIA  xP-March 12, 1996 Ex Parte Letter at 2.F PCIA estimates that it will be four to five years before CMRS networks  Yv-are capable of implementing longterm number portability.Yv* xP -ԍPCIA May 23, 1996 Ex Parte Filing.Y Similarly, AT&T Wireless argues that CMRS carriers must follow a different implementation schedule than  YH-wireline.hHx* xPq-ԍAT&T Wireless May 24, 1996 Ex Parte Filing at 11.h  Y -151.` ` Interim Number Portability Measures. Many of the CMRS carriers oppose  Y -requiring CMRS carriers to provide measures such as RCF and DID. * xP-ԍSee, e.g., Arch/AirTouch Paging Comments at 12; Bell Atlantic NYNEX Mobile Reply Comments at 5; Nextel Comments at 5. PCIA and Arch/AirTouch Paging claim that requiring interim measures would divert resources  Y -from, and thus delay implementation of, a longterm method. ` * xP-ԍSee PCIA March 12, 1996 ExParte Letter at 2; Arch/AirTouch Paging Comments at 1415. The paging service providers, in particular, oppose interim measures as not costjustified and unnecessary for  Y -the already competitive paging industry.nX * xPH-ԍArch/AirTouch Paging Comments at 1415; PageNet Comments at 89; PageNet Reply Comments at 6;  xP-see also PCIA Ex Parte Letter at 12, from Mark J. Golden, to William F. Caton, FCC, CCDocket No.95 xP-116, filed Mar. 28, 1996 (PCIA March 28, 1996 Ex Parte Letter).n According to PCIA, RCF and DID currently cannot be provided by mobile telephone switching offices and would be more problematic  Yy-and expensive to deploy in a CMRS network than in a wireline network.by* xP:-ԍPCIA March 12, 1996 Ex Parte Letter at 23.b For example, PCIA claims that RCF requires carriers to maintain a point of interconnection within each NPA in which it intends to provide such service, and that, currently, many broadband  Y4-CMRS carriers' switches do not interconnect at all such points.J4* xP#-ԍSee id. at 3.J In addition, PCIA asserts that most new broadband carriers are already planning to deploy the components necessary to implement a longterm database method as part of their initial network"O00*(("  Y-designs.:* xPy-ԍId.: Consequently, those new broadband carriers might have to spend as much or more to upgrade their networks to support interim measures as they would to upgrade to support a longterm database method. Because substantial resources would have to be devoted to modifying CMRS networks to support interim measures, and thus diverted away from modifying CMRS networks to support longterm number portability, requiring implementation of interim measures now might delay future implementation of the long Yv-term method.LvX* xP -ԍSee id. at 23.L Other CMRS carriers make claims of technical inefficiencies, but  Y_-acknowledge that RCF and DID are technically possible for CMRS providers today.t_* xP -ԍSee, e.g., Nextel Comments at 5; PageNet Reply Comments at 6.t  Y1-` ` 3. Discussion  Y -152.332` ` Authority to Require CMRS Providers to Provide Number Portability. Section251(b) requires local exchange carriers to provide number portability to all telecommunications carriers, and thus to CMRS providers as well as wireline service providers. The statute, however, explicitly excludes commercial mobile service providers from the definition of local exchange carrier, and therefore from the section251(b) obligation to provide number portability, unless the Commission concludes that they  Yz-should be included in the definition of local exchange carrier.Rzx* xP-ԍSee 47 U.S.C. 153(26).R Our recent NPRM on interconnection issues raised by the 1996 Act seeks comment on whether, and to what  YL-extent, CMRS providers should be classified as LECs.XL* xP-ԍInterconnection NPRM at 195.X Because we conclude that we have independent bases of jurisdiction over commercial mobile service providers, we need not decide here whether CMRS providers must provide number portability as local exchange carriers under section251(b).  Y-153. ` ` We possess independent authority under sections 1, 2, 4(i), and 332 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, to require CMRS providers to provide number portability as we deem appropriate. Ensuring that the portability of telephone numbers within the United States is handled efficiently and fairly is within our  Y}-jurisdiction under these other provisions of the Communications Act.D}* xP#-ԍ47 U.S.C. 151.D Sections 2 and 332(c)(1) of the Act give the Commission authority to regulate commercial mobile service providers as common carriers, except for the provisions of Title II that we specify are"OP( 0*((z"  Y-inapplicable. * xPy-ԍ47U.S.C.152, 332. Section 332 provides that "[a] person engaged in the provision of a service that is a commercial mobile service shall, insofar as such person is so engaged, be treated as a common carrier for purposes of this Act, except for such provisions of title II as the Commission may specify by regulation as inapplicable to that service or person." 47U.S.C.332(c)(1)(A). Section 1 of the Act requires the Commission to make available to all people of the United States "a rapid, efficient, Nationwide, and worldwide wire and  Y-radio communication service."D* xP3-ԍ47 U.S.C. 151.D The Commission's interest in number portability is bolstered by the potential deployment of different number portability solutions across the country, which would significantly impact the provision of interstate telecommunications  Y-services.@* xP~ -ԍSee, e.g., ACTA Comments at 67; Florida PSC Comments at 6; Omnipoint Comments at 5. Section1 also creates a significant federal interest in the efficient and uniform treatment of numbering because such a system is essential to the efficient  Y_-delivery of interstate and international telecommunications._* xP-ԍSee Proposed 708 Relief Plan and 630 Numbering Plan Area Code by Ameritech Illinois, Declaratory Ruling and Order, 10 FCC Rcd 4596, 4602 (1995). Implementation of longterm service provider portability by CMRS carriers will have an impact on the efficient use and uniform administration of the numbering resource. Section4(i) grants the Commission authority to "perform any and all acts, make such rules and regulations, and issue such orders, not inconsistent with [the Communications Act of 1934, as amended],  Y -as may be necessary in the execution of its functions."G ( * xP-ԍ47U.S.C.154(i).G We conclude that the public interest is served by requiring the provision of number portability by CMRS providers because number portability will promote competition between providers of local telephone services and thereby promote competition between providers of interstate access  Y-services. * xP-ԍSee Notice, 10FCCRcd at 12362; Expanded Interconnection with Local Telephone Company  xP-Facilities, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 9FCCRcd5154, 515859 (1994).  Yb-154.` ` Bell Atlantic NYNEX Mobile cites the CT DPUC Petition in support of its argument that the Commission can only regulate CMRS providers under section332 to the extent clearly necessary, and that regulation of number portability is not clearly  Y-necessary in the CMRS market.* xP"-ԍBell Atlantic NYNEX Mobile Further Comments at 3 n.3 (citing Petition of CT DPUC, Order, 10 FCCRcd at 7031). We conclude, however, that the CT DPUC Petition does not limit our authority to require CMRS providers to provide number portability to other CMRS or wireline carriers because that proceeding did not address the Commission's authority to require CMRS providers to provide number portability. That"Qh0*(("  Y-proceeding related solely to state authority to regulate rates of CMRS providers.o* xPy-ԍPetition of CT DPUC, Order, 10 FCCRcd at 7025, 703233.o We believe that imposing number portability obligations on CMRS providers will foster increased competition in the CMRS marketplace, and furthers our CMRS regulatory policy of establishing moderate, symmetrical regulation of all services, and a preference for curing market imperfections by lowering barriers to entry in order to encourage  Y-competition.X* xP-ԍSee Petition of CT DPUC, Order, 10 FCCRcd at 703334 (concluding that Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 validates the Commission's CMRS regulatory approach).  Y_-155.` ` Importance of Number Portability to CMRS Providers. We require cellular, broadband PCS, and covered specialized mobile radio (SMR) providers (as  Y1-defined in the First Report and Order in CC Docket 94-54),1* xP-ԍCOVERED SMR DEFInterconnection and Resale Obligations Pertaining to Commercial Mobile Radio Services, First Report and Order, CC Docket 94-54, FCC 96-263 (adopted June 12, 1996). which are the CMRS providers that are expected to compete in the local exchange market,LAUNDRY LIST to offer number portability. This mandate is in the public interest because it will promote competition among cellular, broadband PCS, and covered SMR carriers, as well as among CMRS and wireline providers. We therefore include those carriers in our mandate to provide longterm service provider portability, under the Commissionmandated performance criteria set forth above, pursuant to our authority under sections 1, 2, 4(i), and 332 of the  Y-Communications Act of 1934.p* xPI-ԍFor performance criteria, see supra   CMS48 .p This mandate applies when switching among wireline service providers and broadband CMRS providers, as well as among broadband CMRS providers, even if the broadband CMRS and wireline service providers or the two broadband CMRS providers are affiliated. We base this conclusion on our view, as discussed in the following paragraphs, that cellular, broadband PCS, and covered SMR providers will compete directly with one another, and potentially will compete in the future with wireline carriers.  Y-156.` ` We specifically exclude at this time paging and other messaging services,x* xP! -ԍBecause of the technical hurdles faced by paging and other messaging service providers, the minimal impact that paging and other messaging services have on local exchange competition, and the competitive nature of paging and within the paging industry, we conclude that the costs to paging companies to upgrade their networks to accommodate either interim or longterm number portability solutions, estimated at $30 million by  xPA#-one carrier, outweigh the competitive benefits derived from service provider portability. See, e.g., PCIA Comments at 5 n.17; PCIA Comments at 5; PCIA Reply Comments at 1516; Arch/Airtouch Paging Comments at 14. and the following CMRS providers as listed in Part20 of our rules: Private Paging, Business Radio Services, Land Mobile Systems on 220222MHz, Public Coast Stations, Public Land Mobile Service, 800MHz AirGround RadioTelephone Service, Offshore"R0*(("  Y-Radio Service, Mobile Satellite Services, Narrowband PCS Services.O* xPy-ԍSee 47C.F.R.20.9.O We do so because such services currently will have little competitive impact on competition between providers of wireless telephony service or between wireless and wireline carriers. Because local SMR licensees offering mainly dispatch services to specialized customers in a non-cellular system configuration do not compete substantially with cellular and broadband PCS providers, we also exclude them from the number portability requirements we adopt today. For similar reasons, we also specifically exclude at this time Local Multipoint Distribution Service (LMDS). If, however, any of these services begins to compete in the local exchange market, or if there are other public interest reasons to require them to provide number portability, we will reassess the exclusion of these services from the requirement to provide number portability.  Y -157.CMRS/CMRS COMPET ` ` Service provider portability between cellular, broadband PCS, and covered SMR providers is important because customers of those carriers, like customers of wireline providers, cannot now change carriers without also changing their telephone numbers. While we recognize that customers may need to purchase new equipment when  Y-switching among such CMRS providers,NX* xP-ԍSee CTIA Comments at 9.N the inability of customers to keep their telephone numbers when switching carriers also hinders the successful entrance of new  Yb-service providers into the cellular, broadband PCS, and SMR markets.tb* xP-ԍSee, e.g., Nextel Comments at 34; Omnipoint Comments at 34.t We believe, therefore, that service provider portability, by eliminating one major disincentive to switch carriers, will ameliorate customers' disincentive to switch carriers if they must purchase new equipment. We believe service provider portability will promote competition between existing cellular carriers, as well as facilitate the viable entry of new  Y-providers of innovative service offerings, such as PCS and covered SMR providers.Xx* xP-ԍAs of 1995, CMRS encompassed approximately 25 million cellular subscribers, 25 million pagers, and  xP-2 million SMR transmitters. See Implementation of Section 6002(B) of the Omnibus Reconciliation Act of  xP-1993, First Report, 10 FCC Rcd 8844, 8847 n.9 (1995) (First Report on CMRS). "S0*(("Ԍ Y-158. ` ` With the recent and expected future entry of new PCS providers, * xPy-ԍThe Commission has awarded or will award a total of 2074 broadband PCS licenses. The A and B Blocks are licensed within 51 Major Trading Areas (MTAs), and the C, D, E, and F Blocks are licensed within 493 Basic Trading Areas (BTAs). Ultimately, six broadband PCS providers will operate in each market.  xP-Amendment of the Commission's Rules to Establish New Personal Communications Services, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 9FCCRcd 4957, 4963 (1994).  and the  Y-growth of existing CMRS generally,9Xx* xP-ԍ The cellular industry has approached or exceeded 50% growth rates in each of the last 10 years.  xP-Doubledigit growth rates for CMRS are anticipated during the next several years. First Report on CMRS, 10 FCC Rcd at 8846, 8848, 885556.9 we believe it important that service provider portability for cellular, broadband PCS, and covered SMR providers be made available so as to remove barriers to competition among such providers. Removing barriers, such as the requirement of changing telephone numbers when changing providers, will likely stimulate the development of new services and technologies, and create incentives for carriers to lower prices and costs. We find unpersuasive arguments that number portability is unimportant because the CMRS market is already substantially competitive since CMRS customers already may choose from  Y1-multiple competitive carriers.1* xPz-ԍSee, e.g., AirTouch/US West New Vector Reply Comments at 3; Bell Atlantic NYNEX Mobile Comments at 2. Most CMRS customers today subscribe to cellular service because broadband PCS has been offered for a very short time, SMR service has typically been used for communications among mobile units of the same business  Y -subscriber (e.g., taxi dispatch), and mobile satellite services have typically been used  Y -only in rural areas.  * xPv-ԍSee First Report on CMRS, 10 FCC Rcd at 885561. We have recognized that covered SMR service  xP>-providers have the potential to compete with cellular and broadband PCS carriers. See Interconnection and  xP-Resale Obligations Pertaining to Commercial Mobile Radio Services, First Report and Order, CC Docket No. 94-54, FCC 96-263 (adopted June 12, 1996). The possibility of entry by new competitors can constrain monopolistic, or in this case, duopolistic, conduct by incumbent providers and thus serve the public interest by potentially lowering prices, improving service quality, and  Y-encouraging innovation.&X* xP-ԍFirst Report on CMRS, 10 FCC Rcd at 8871 (citing United States v. Waste Management, Inc., 743  xP-F.2d 976, 98283 (2d Cir. 1984); American Bar Association, IAntitrust Law Developments at 30711 (3d ed. 1992)).& We note that while the cellular industry, with two facilitiesbased carriers offering service in each market area, is more competitive than traditional monopoly telephone markets, it is far from perfectly competitive. The United States Government Accounting Office, the Department of Justice, and the Commission have  Y4-determined that only limited competition currently exists in the cellular market.+X4* xP%-ԍFirst Report on CMRS, 10 FCC Rcd at 886667 (citing Memorandum of the United States in Response  xP&-to the Bell Companies' Motions for Generic Wireless Waivers at 1418, United States v. Western Electric Co., 158F.R.D.211 (D.D.C. 1994), Civ. Action No. 820192, filed July 25, 1994; July 1992 Gen. Acct'g Off."m'0*(('" Rep., Telecommunications: Concerns About Competition in the Cellular Telephone Service Industry, GAO/RCED92220 at 2).+"4T 0*(( "Ԍ Y-ԙ159. ` ` We conclude that number portability will facilitate the entry of new service providers, such as PCS and covered SMR providers, into CMRS markets currently dominated by cellular carriers, and thus provide incentives for incumbent cellular carriers to lower prices and increase service choice and quality. Indeed, we noted recently that competition from PCS, alone, is expected to reduce cellular prices by as much as 40%  Y-over the next two years.` * xP^ -ԍFirst Report on CMRS, 10 FCC Rcd at 8871.` We believe that such procompetitive effects will be enhanced by eliminating the need for customers to change telephone numbers when switching providers of cellular services, broadband PCS, and covered SMR services.  Y1-160.WTB CITES ` ` INTEGRATE1We further conclude that number portability will promote competition between CMRS and wireline service providers as CMRS providers offer comparable local  Y -exchange and fixed commercial mobile radio services.  * xPd-ԍSee Amendment of the Commission's Rules to Permit Flexible Service Offerings in the Commercial  xP,-Mobile Radio Services, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 11FCCRcd2445 (1996) (Fixed CMRS Notice). See  xP-also Implementation of Section 3(n) and 332 of the Communications Act, Regulatory Treatment of Mobile  xP-Services, Second Report and Order, 9 FCC Rcd 1411, 1422 (1994) (Second CMRS Report and Order). The Commission has recognized on several occasions that CMRS providers, such as broadband PCS and  Y -cellular, will compete in the local exchange marketplace.' * xP-ԍSee, e.g., Fixed CMRS Notice, 11FCCRcd at 2447 (quoting Rule Making to Amend Parts 1, 2, 21, and 25 of the Commission's Rules to Redesignate the 27.5 29.5 GHz Frequency Band, to Reallocate the 29.5 30.0 GHz Band, to Establish Rules and Policies for Local Multipoint Distribution Service and for Fixed Satellite  xPv-Services, Third Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Supplemental Tentative Decision, 11FCCRcd53, 64 (rel.  xP>-July28, 1995) (Rule Making to Amend Parts 1, 2, 21, and 25)); First Report on CMRS, 10 FCC Rcd at 8869 xP-70; Omnipoint Reply Comments at 12. See also Southwestern Bell Mobile Systems, Inc., Memorandum  xP-Opinion and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 3386, 3395 (1995); Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications  xP-Act - Competitive Bidding, Second Report and Order, 9 FCC Rcd 2348, 2350 (1994); Sprint Corporation, 11 FCC Rcd 1850, 1863 (1996). ' For example, the Commission permitted Southwestern Bell Mobile Systems, Inc. to own local exchange facilities outside of Southwestern Bell's service area in order to "promote significant Commission objectives by encouraging local loop competition. The development of CMRS is one of several potential sources of competition that we have identified to bring  Yb-market forces to bear on the existing LECs."bh* xP{"-ԍSouthwestern Bell Mobile Systems, Inc., 11 FCC Rcd at 3395 (1995) (footnote omitted). The Commission also adopted an auction licensing mechanism to speed deployment of PCS and thereby "create competition for  Y4-existing wireline and wireless services."4* xP%-ԍImplementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act - Competitive Bidding, 9FCC Rcd at 2350. In addition, the Commission decided to permit foreign investment in Sprint Corporation based, in part, on a finding that a portion"UP0*((" of that investment would be used to fund PCS competition with wireline local exchange  Y-providers in the U.S. market.^* xPb-ԍSprint Corporation, 11 FCC Rcd at 1863.^ Finally, in the Fixed CMRS Notice, the Commission tentatively concluded that PCS and cellular providers will provide fixed CMRS local loop services, and that such carriers will directly compete with traditional wireline local  Y-exchange carriers.X* xP-ԍFixed CMRS Notice, 11FCCRcd at 2447 (quoting Rule Making to Amend Parts 1, 2, 21, and 25, 11FCCRcd at 27). We believe, for the reasons stated above, that service provider portability will encourage CMRSwireline competition, creating incentives for carriers to reduce prices for telecommunications services and to invest in innovative technologies,  Y_-and enhancing flexibility for users of telecommunications services._* xP -ԍSee Expanded Interconnection with Local Telephone Company Facilities, 9FCCRcdat 5155.  Y1-161.CMRS/WIRELINE COMPET` ` We find unpersuasive commenters' arguments that number portability is not a competitive issue for CMRS providers because consumers are not interested in  Y -retaining their CMRS numbers. @* xP-ԍSee AirTouch/US West New Vector Reply Comments at 4; CTIA Comments at 9, 10 & n.15; Bell Atlantic NYNEX Mobile Comments at 23. We recognize that currently customers of cellular, broadband PCS, and covered SMR providers may generally initiate more calls than they receive, and are reluctant to distribute their CMRS telephone numbers. We agree with the argument advanced by PCS Primeco that this reluctance generally is caused by the current cellular carrier pricing structures, under which customers pay for incoming calls,  Y-rather than lack of attachment to CMRS telephone numbers.y* xP-ԍSee Pacific Bell Comments at 8; PCS Primeco Reply Comments at 12.y Several parties have indicated that at least some CMRS providers intend to compete with wireline carriers in  Yb-the local exchange market. b( * xP;-ԍSee, e.g., AT&T Wireless Services, Inc. Ex Parte Letter at 2, from Cathleen A. Massey, to William  xP-F. Caton, FCC, CCDocket No.95116, filed May 28, 1996 (AT&T Wireless May 28, 1996 Ex Parte Letter); Competitive Carriers Comments at 13; Competitive Carriers Reply Comments at 8; Omnipoint Reply Comments  xP-at 12. See also PCIA Reply Comments at 13; PCS Primeco Reply Comments at 12. To do so effectively, CMRS carriers are likely to change  YK-their pricing structures to resemble more closely wireline pricing structures.XK* xP !-ԍSee PCS Primeco Reply Comments at 12 ("if wireless service is to more nearly ressemble [sic] plain old telephone service, calling party pays will have to become the rule rather than the exception for wireless service"). As broadband CMRS pricing structures are modified as a likely result of increased competition, and cellular, broadband PCS, and covered SMR become integrated and less functionally distinguishable from wireline services, customers may be more likely to make their CMRS telephone numbers known, and utilize numbering resources in a"V00*(("  Y-manner more comparable with that of the current wireline market.J* xPy-ԍSee id. at 2.J We, therefore, conclude that requiring number portability for cellular, broadband PCS, and covered SMR providers will enhance the development of competition among those providers and among CMRS and wireline service providers.  Y-162.` ` Deployment of LongTerm Solutions by CMRS Carriers. The record of this proceeding suggests that cellular, broadband PCS, and covered SMR providers will face burdens comparable to wireline carriers in modifying their networks to implement number portability, and that any technical issues that are unique to those carriers can be  Y1-resolved.1X* xP: -ԍSee, e.g., Competitive Carriers Reply Comments at 8; Pacific Bell Comments at 9; PCIA February 28,  xP -1996 Ex Parte Filing at 12; PCS Primeco Comments at 5. While a number of parties have raised CMRSspecific issues that must be resolved before CMRS carriers can effectively provide number portability, we conclude  Y -that the record demonstrates that none of these difficulties are insurmountable.b * xPd-ԍSee supra CELL ARGUMENTS146.b Several parties claim that CMRS networks can be updated to accommodate longterm number  Y -portability.)X @* xP-ԍSee, e.g., Competitive Carriers Comments at 13; Competitive Carriers Reply Comments at 78; PCIA  xP-ExParte Presentation at 12, CC Docket No. 95116, filed Feb. 28, 1996 (PCIA February 28, 1996 Ex Parte Filing).) In addition, the report on number portability recently released by the INC indicates that broadband CMRS roaming systems, including mobile station registration and call delivery, switches, protocols, and wireline interconnection arrangements can be  Y-updated to accommodate number portability.E` * xP-ԍINC Report at 4143.E PCIA asserts that most broadband  Yy-carriers already plan to deploy the components necessary to implement LRN (i.e., SS7  Yb-signaling, IN/AIN to do database queries and responses, and AIN triggers).`b * xP-ԍPCIA March 12, 1996 ExParte Letter at 3.` Omnipoint argues that the cellular industry has failed to demonstrate why CMRSspecific technical  Y4-issues cannot be worked out within the same time as wireline technical issues.P4 * xPe -ԍOmnipoint Reply Comments at 11.P  Y-163. ` ` A number of commenters, however, also suggest that implementation of service provider portability for broadband CMRS would necessitate more time than deployment of wireline methods. For instance, several cellular interests claim that upgrading cellular networks to handle number portability will require greater time and effort than adapting wireline networks, primarily because relatively few cellular networks have IN or AIN capabilities, and because the current sixdigitbased screening used to provide roaming, validate customer information, and handle billing will have to be"|W0*(("  Y-adapted to tendigitbased screening.* xPy-ԍSee AirTouch Cellular May 15, 1996 Ex Parte Filing at 1017; CTIA April18, 1996 Ex Parte Filing at 2529; CTIA Further Comments at 46. These parties claim that the necessary standards  Y-for functions such as tendigitbased screening have yet to be developed. * xP-ԍSee AirTouch Cellular May 15, 1996 Ex Parte Filing at 1517; CTIA April18, 1996 Ex Parte Filing at 2829; CTIA Further Comments at 46.  Y-164. ` ` It appears that while the wireline industry has already developed many of the standards and protocols necessary for wireline carriers to provide number portability, the CMRS industry is only beginning to address the additional standards and protocols specific to the provision of portability by CMRS carriers. The technical requirements for broadband CMRS portability have been given comparatively little attention compared to those for wireline. Initial state efforts have generally not addressed CMRS issues; for example, the Illinois Number Portability Workshop, which began studying wireline portability in April 1995, only plans to begin addressing CMRS portability in July  Y -1996. x* xP,-ԍAmeritech May 15, 1996 Ex Parte Filing at 1314; Nortel Ex Parte Presentation at 7, CCDocket  xP-No.95116, filed May 21, 1996 (Nortel May 21, 1996 Ex Parte Filing). Moreover, cellular, broadband PCS, and covered SMR providers face technical burdens unique to the provision of seamless roaming on their networks, and standards and protocols will have to be developed to overcome these difficulties. Therefore, based on the record, and the technical evidence presented both by the parties in this proceeding and the INC Report, we conclude that cellular, broadband PCS, and covered SMR providers should implement longterm service provider portability based on the following schedule.  YK-165. ` ` We require all cellular, broadband PCS, and covered SMR carriers to have the capability of querying appropriate number portability database systems in order to deliver calls from their networks to ported numbers anywhere in the country by December 31, 1998, the date by which wireline carriers must complete implementation of number portability in the largest 100 MSAs. This schedule will ensure that cellular, broadband PCS, and covered SMR providers will have the ability to route calls from their customers to a wireline customer who has ported his or her number, by the time a substantial number of wireline customers have the ability to port their numbers between  Y-wireline carriers.SX* xP"-ԍSee CTIA April 18, 1996 Ex Parte Filing at 2021 (asserting that even if number portability is limited to the wireline network, CMRS service providers must still modify their method of routing calls from their CMRS customers to wireline customers who have ported their numbers).S This capability to access a database for routing information can be accomplished in either of two ways. First, the carrier may implement hardware and  Ye-software upgrades (e.g., IN/AIN capabilities) similar to those needed in wireline networks. Since these upgrades do not require development of the standards and protocols necessary to support roaming, we believe that cellular, broadband PCS, and"7X 0*((L" covered SMR carriers should be able to complete these upgrades by the date by which wireline carriers must complete implementation of number portability in the largest 100 MSAs. Second, the carrier may make arrangements with other carriers that are capable of performing database queries. Cellular, broadband PCS, and covered SMR carriers operating in areas outside the largest 100 MSAs thus would need to make arrangements with other CMRS providers that have the capability to query databases, or with wireline carriers in the largest 100 MSAs, which will have completed deployment of number portability by December 31, 1998.  Y1-166.  RPTS ` ` We require all cellular, broadband PCS, and covered SMR carriers to offer service provider portability throughout their networks, including the ability to support  Y -roaming, by June 30, 1999.w * xP| -ԍ See Interconnection and Resale Obligations Pertaining to Commercial Mobile Radio Services, Second Report and Order and Third Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, CC Docket No. 94-54, FCC 96-284 (adopted June 27, 1996) (imposing manual roaming non-discrimination requirements). We recognize that customers may not  xP-be able to roam into some systems due to technical incompatibilities (e.g. different air interface technologies) between the system and the customer's handset. Nothing in this Order should be interpreted as requiring such capability.w The record indicates that additional time is needed to develop standards and protocols, such as tendigitbased screening, to overcome the technical burdens unique to the provision of seamless roaming on cellular, broadband  Y -PCS, and covered SMR networks. @* xP-ԍSee, e.g., AirTouch Cellular May 15, 1996 Ex Parte Filing at 1517; CTIA April18, 1996 Ex Parte Filing at 2829; CTIA Further Comments at 46. Individual carriers, of course, may implement number portability sooner, and we expect that some carriers will do so based on individual technical, economic, and marketing considerations. We believe a nationwide implementation date for number portability for cellular, broadband PCS, and covered SMR providers is necessary to ensure that validation necessary for roaming can be  YK-maintained.K* xP-ԍSee AirTouch Cellular May 15, 1996 Ex Parte Filing at 1017; CTIA April18, 1996 Ex Parte Filing at  xP\-2529; Nortel May 21, 1996 Ex Parte Filing at 57. We delegate authority to the Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, to establish reporting requirements in order to monitor the progress of cellular, broadband PCS, and covered SMR providers implementing number portability, and to direct such carriers to take any actions necessary to ensure compliance with this deployment schedule. We believe it necessary to establish reporting requirements for CMRS to ensure timely resolution of the standards issues unique to CMRS number portability, particularly roaming.  Y-167. WTB DEPLOY` ` We recognize, however, that additional technical issues may arise as the industry begins to focus on provision of portability by CMRS carriers. We therefore delegate authority to the Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, to waive or stay any of the dates in the implementation schedule, as the Chief determines is necessary to ensure the efficient development of number portability, for a period not to exceed 9"7Y 0*((="  Y-months (i.e., no later than September 30, 1999, for the first deadline, and no later than March 31, 2000, for the second deadline).  Y-168. ` ` In the event a carrier is unable to meet our deadlines for implementing a longterm number portability solution, it may file with the Commission at least 60 days in advance of the deadline a petition to extend the time by which implementation in its network will be completed. We emphasize, however, that carriers are expected to meet the prescribed deadlines, and a carrier seeking relief must present extraordinary circumstances beyond its control in order to obtain an extension of time. Carriers seeking such relief must demonstrate through substantial, credible evidence the basis for its contention that it is unable to comply with our deployment schedule. Such requests must set forth: (1) the facts that demonstrate why the carrier is unable to meet our deployment schedule; (2) a detailed explanation of the activities that the carrier has undertaken to meet the implementation schedule prior to requesting an extension of time; (3) an identification of the particular switches for which the extension is requested; (4) the time within which the carrier will complete deployment in the affected switches; and (5) a proposed schedule with milestones for meeting the deployment date.  Yb-169. ` ` Interim Number Portability Measures. We do not require CMRS providers to provide RCF, DID, or comparable measures. Different treatment of CMRS and wireline carriers in this instance is justified by their differing circumstances. According to the record, RCF and DID currently cannot be provided by mobile telephone switching  Y-offices.* xP-ԍPCIA March 12, 1996 Ex Parte Letter at 23; PCIA February 28, 1996 Ex Parte Filing at 12. Due to the different nature of CMRS networks and wireline networks, implementation of RCF or DID capability in a CMRS network appears far more  Y-problematic and expensive than in a wireline network.X* xP-ԍSee generally PCIA March 12, 1996 Ex Parte Letter; PCIA March 28, 1996 Ex Parte Letter. For example, PCIA claims that RCF requires carriers to maintain a point of interconnection within each NPA in which it intends to provide such service, and that currently, many broadband CMRS carriers'  Y-switches do not interconnect at all such points.j* xP,-ԍSee PCIA March 12, 1996 Ex Parte Letter at 3.j Moreover, cellular roaming systems would have to be modified to account for the fact that, under RCF, a number different than the one dialed is used to route the call. As a result, alternative means will have to be developed to enable CMRS carriers to validate mobile subscribers who have roamed  Y7-out of their service areas.7x* xP`#-ԍSee AT&T Wireless, Inc. Ex Parte Letter, from Cathleen A. Massey, to William Caton, FCC,  xP($-CCDocket No.95116, filed May 24, 1996 (AT&T May 24, 1996 Ex Parte Letter). Broadband carriers may also have to purchase new switches in order to provide RCF and DID. Moreover, most new broadband carriers are already planning to deploy the components necessary to implement a longterm database method" Z0*((,"  Y-as part of their initial network designs.`* xPy-ԍPCIA March 12, 1996 ExParte Letter at 3.` Consequently, those new broadband carriers might have to spend as much or more to upgrade their networks to support interim measures as they would spend to upgrade to support a longterm database method, and  Y-requiring implementation of both might delay implementation of the longterm method.BX* xP-ԍId. at 23.B We also find it significant that, while the wireline parties advocating full portability generally support interim measures, the CMRS parties advocating full portability  Yv-generally oppose interim measures.v* xP -ԍSee, e.g., id.; PCIA February 28, 1996 Ex Parte Filing at 12.  YH-170. ` ` We therefore conclude that it would be counterproductive to require CMRS carriers to provide interim measures since they can provide longterm portability comporting with our standards just as quickly and less expensively. We believe that relieving cellular, broadband PCS, and covered SMR carriers of the burden of providing interim measures will allow them to devote their full resources toward implementing a longterm method and thus enhance their ability to provide longterm portability on the  Y -same schedule as wireline carriers.` x* xP-ԍPCIA March 12, 1996 ExParte Letter at 2.` We note that CMRS carriers are, of course, free to provide interim number portability, if they choose to do so.  Yy-171. ` ` Number Transferability. A few parties raise the issue of number transferability, the ability of a reseller to transfer telephone numbers from one facilitiesbased carrier to another in order to permit the reseller's end user customers to retain their  Y4-existing telephone numbers. 4* xP-ԍSee, e.g., AirTouch/US West New Vector Reply Comments at8; CTIA Comments at2; CTIA Reply Comments at45 (asserting that approximately 13.2% of cellular customers change carriers annually); Time Warner Telecom Reply Comments at7, Exhibit (supporting obligation of cellular licensees to provide number  xPE-transferability). See also Notice, 10 FCC Rcd at 12360 n.31. Because the record does not establish any relationship between number transferability and number portability, and does not identify the technical issues involved in providing number transferability, we decline to address the provision of number transferability in this proceeding. We note that this issue has been raised in  Y-the Second CMRS Interconnection NPRM, and will be addressed in CCDocket No. 94 Y-54. * xPb#-ԍSee Interconnection and Resale Obligations Pertaining to Commercial Mobile Radio Services, Second  xP*$-Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 10FCCRcd10666 (1995).  X- "[H 0*(("  X-H.` ` Service and Location Portability   X-` ` 1. Background  Y-172.` ` While service provider portability refers to the ability of end users to retain the same telephone numbers as they change from one service provider to another, service portability refers to the ability of users of telecommunications services to retain existing telecommunications numbers without impairment of quality, reliability, or convenience when switching from one telecommunications service to another service provided by the same telecommunications carrier. We regard switching among wireline service providers and broadband CMRS providers, or among broadband CMRS providers, as changing service providers, not changing services, even if the broadband CMRS and wireline service providers or the two broadband CMRS providers are affiliated. We base this conclusion on our view that CMRS providers, such as cellular, broadband PCS, and covered SMR providers, compete directly with one another, and broadband CMRS  Y -providers potentially will compete in the future with wireline carriers. * xP -ԍSee supra  CMRS/CMRS COMPET157שCMRS/WIRELINE COMPET161.  Yy-173. ` ` Today, telephone subscribers must change their telephone number when  Yb-they change telephone service (e.g., from Plain Old Telephone Services (POTS) to Integrated Services Digital Network (ISDN)) because a particular service may be  Y4-available only through a particular switch. In our Notice, we sought comment on the demand for service portability and the extent to which a lack of service portability  Y-inhibits the growth of new services, such as ISDN.SX* xP-ԍNotice, 10 FCC Rcd at 12360.S We requested information on the relative importance of service portability to the decisions of end users when considering whether to switch from one service to another. We also sought comment on what public interest objectives would be served by encouraging (or possibly mandating) implementation of service portability, and how the Commission could encourage service  Y-portability.:* xP,-ԍId.:  Ye-174.` ` Location portability refers to the ability of users of telecommunications services to retain existing telecommunications numbers without impairment of quality,  Y7-reliability, or convenience when moving from one physical location to another.:7x* xP`#-ԍId.: Today, telephone subscribers must change their telephone numbers when they move outside the  Y -area served by their current central office. In our Notice, we sought comment on the demand for location portability and the geographic area in which portability might be desired by consumers. We asked what federal policy objectives would be served by"\0*(( !" encouraging (or possibly mandating) implementation of location portability, and how such  Y-objectives could be attained.:* xPb-ԍId.: We sought comment on the potential impact that location portability for wireline telephone numbers and the development of the 500 personal communications services market, which permits customers to be reached through a single  Y-telephone number regardless of their location, may have on each other.X* xP-ԍThe geographic mobility offered through 500 number services requires customers to change their existing telephone numbers to 500 numbers.  Xv-` ` 2. Position of the Parties  YH-175.` `  SL IMP Most parties agree that location portability and service portability do not have the same potential impact on consumer choice and on the development of local  Y -competition as service provider portability. * xP{-ԍSee, e.g., ACTA Comments at 46; California PUC Comments at 5; Pacific Bell Comments at 1112, 26. Pacific Bell and the Missouri PSC argue that the availability of service portability will be driven by market forces, and that product differentiation will stimulate customers to change their telecommunications  Y -services. * xP-ԍMissouri PSC Comments at 12; Pacific Bell Comments at 2526. See also ACTA Comments at 5. Ameritech and SBC Communications note that since the 1996 Act addresses only service provider portability, the Commission should not adopt rules mandating  Y -service and location portability. * xP-ԍAmeritech Further Comments at 1; SBC Communications Further Comments at 2. See also NYNEX Further Reply Comments at 46. OPASTCO claims that requiring service portability would strain the limited abilities of small LECs, and thus delay deployment of rural  Yy-infrastructure.Hy * xP-ԍOPASTCO Comments at 14.H The Missouri PSC and New York DPS argue that there currently is not  Yb-enough demand for ISDN to warrant requiring service portability.jb * xP-ԍMissouri PSC Comments at 12; New York DPS Comments at 5.j The Florida PSC, on the other hand, maintains that, in many cases, service portability is already available,  Y4-as long as the switch has the needed functionality.K4* xP!-ԍFlorida PSC Comments at 4.K  Y-176.` ` Most parties agree that implementation of location portability poses many  Y-problems, including: (1)loss of geographic identity of one's telephone number;* xP@&-ԍSee, e.g., AT&T Comments at 78; GVNW Comments at 56; Illinois Commerce Commission Comments at 13. (2)"]0*(("  Y-lack of industry consensus as to the proper geographic scope of location portability;BX* xPy-ԍSBC Communications Comments at 67; PCIA Comments at 4, 6. See also AT&T Comments at 8 n.11 (advocating location portability within each exchange); Ameritech Reply Comments at 1112 (advocating location portability on an NPA basis); PCS Primeco Comments at 5 (same).B (3) substantial modification of billing systems and the consumer confusion regarding charges  Y-for calls;* xPk-ԍSee, e.g., New York DPS Comments at 34; Pacific Bell Comments at 27; SBC Communications Comments at 7. (4) loss of the ability to use 7digit dialing schemes;b@* xP -ԍGVNW Comments at 910; US Airwaves Comments at 3.b (5) the need to  Y-restructure directory assistance and operator services;d* xP< -ԍGVNW Comments at 910; Pacific Bell Comments at 28.d (6) coordination of number  Y-assignments for both customer and network identification;G` * xP-ԍGVNW Comments at 910.G (7) network and switching  Y-modifications to handle a twotiered numbering system;O * xP.-ԍId.; ACTA Comments at 6.O (8) development and  Yv-implementation of systems to replace 1+ as toll identification;Gv * xP-ԍGVNW Comments at 910.G and (9) possible adverse  Y_-impact on E911 services.J_* xP -ԍNENA Reply Comments at 2.J  Y1-177.` ` Several BOCs maintain that the Commission should require location portability immediately because currently new entrants can serve larger geographic areas  Y -with a single switch.~ * xPT-ԍBellSouth Comments at 8; NYNEX Comments at 18 n.19; GTE Reply Comments at13.~ Some of these parties maintain that the ability of competing carriers to serve larger geographic areas from a single wire center may increase consumer demand for location portability, thus giving competing carriers an advantage over  Y -incumbent LECs. 0* xP-ԍBellSouth Comments at 8; NYNEX Comments at 18 n.19; SBC Communications Reply Comments at 67. MCI, SBC Communications, Nextel, and Arch/AirTouch Paging argue that, if location portability is implemented, it should be limited to the local calling  Y-area of a wireline carrier. * xP#-ԍMCI Comments at 23; SBC Communications Comments at 6; SBC Communications Reply Comments at 7; Nextel Comments at 5; Arch/AirTouch Paging Reply Comments at 18 n.63. MCI further maintains that allowing numbers to be transferred across NPA or state boundaries would negatively affect the numbering resource because individuals could remove numbers from the NPA by taking such"b^ 0*((v"  Y-numbers to other areas of the country.D * xPy-ԍMCI Comments at 23.D In contrast, GSA believes that the greater the  Y-geographic scope of location portability, the more meaningful the consumer benefits.I X* xP-ԍGSA Reply Comments at 7.I  Y-178.` ` While many parties believe location portability has some value, most parties maintain that its implementation should not delay implementation of service  Y-provider portability. * xP& -ԍSee, e.g., MCI Comments at 22; Teleport Comments at 6; Time Warner Holdings Comments at 89. At the same time, numerous parties, including incumbents, new entrants, and state commissions, argue that any number portability method adopted by the Commission should be capable of expanding to encompass location portability if such  YH-demand arises. Hx* xPq-ԍSee, e.g., BellSouth Comments at 8; US West Comments at 45; Teleport Comments at 6; Florida PSC Comments at 56; Illinois Commerce Commission Comments at 14; Ohio PUC Comments at 34. GSA, Nortel, and Bell Atlantic argue that a longterm portability  Y1-method should eventually encompass service and location portability.1* xP-ԍBell Atlantic Comments at12; GSA Comments at 57; Nortel Reply Comments at1. The National Emergency Numbering Association (NENA) contends the statutory definition of "number portability" in its broadest interpretation would limit any requirement to provide location  Y -portability to the area served by the same central office.t ` * xP-ԍNENA Further Comments at 2. See also 47 U.S.C. 153(46).t  Y -179. ` ` Pacific Bell and Time Warner Holdings argue that market forces should  Y -drive the development of location portability. * xPH-ԍPacific Bell Comments at 3; Time Warner Holdings Comments at 7; Time Warner Holdings Reply Comments at 7. Florida PSC, Missouri PSC, ACTA, Pacific Bell, BellSouth, and Sprint maintain that current market demand for location portability is mixed, and depends on such factors as the geographic scope of location  Yb-portability and costs of implementation.bH * xP[-ԍFlorida PSC Comments at 5; Missouri PSC Comments at1, 34; ACTA Comments at 4; Pacific Bell Comments at 1112, 26; BellSouth Comments at 78; Sprint Comments at 19. GSA, on the other hand, claims that demand for location portability is reflected in the increase in demand for 800 services and by the  Y4-demand for 500 services.C4* xP#-ԍGSA Comments at 6.C A number of wireless parties argue that wireless carriers  Y-already provide significant location portability.0* xP%-ԍAirTouch/US West New Vector Reply Comments at 7; CTIA Comments at 89; Bell Atlantic NYNEX Mobile Comments at 3. Finally, the New York DPS maintains that location portability, if limited to a rate center, will avoid the problems of customer"_0*((6" confusion, and that the 1996 Act does not prohibit provision of location portability within  Y-that limitation.T* xPb-ԍNew York DPS Further Comments at 2.T  Y-180.` ` OPASTCO, SBC Communications, and Nextel argue that location portability should only be provided through use of nongeographic numbers, such as 500  Y-services.SXX* xP-ԍOPASTCO Comments at 1516; SBC Communications Comments at 78; Nextel Comments at 4;  xP^ -Nextel Reply Comments at 3. See also Missouri PSC Comments at 6 (customers who wish to lose the geographic significance of their telephone number may use a servicespecific NPA).S GTE argues that its survey illustrates that customers are not adverse to a one Yv-time number change to a nongeographic number in order to have number portability.Ivx* xP -ԍGTE Reply Comments at 3.I Florida PSC maintains, however, that location portability and 500 services serve different purposes, with location portability providing the ability to take a phone number when a customer changes premises, and 500 services providing the ability to take a telephone  Y -number to different locations during the day, week, or month.K * xP-ԍFlorida PSC Comments at 5.K  X -` ` 3. Discussion  Y -181.` ` We decline at this time to require LECs to provide either service or location portability. This decision is not inconsistent with the 1996 Act, which mandates the provision of service provider portability, but does not address explicitly service or location portability. The 1996 Act's requirement to provide number portability is limited to situations when users remain "at the same location," and "switch[ ] from one telecommunications carrier to another," and thus does not include service and location  Y4-portability.R4* xP}-ԍSee 47 U.S.C.  153(30).R  Y-182. S/LOC ` ` While the 1996 Act does not require LECs to offer service and location portability, it does not preclude this Commission from mandating provision of these features if it would be in the public interest, nor does it prevent carriers from providing service and location portability, consistent with this Order, if they so choose. We believe, however, that requiring service or location portability now would not be in the public interest. As the record indicates, service provider portability is critical to the development of competition, but service and location portability have not been  Ye-demonstrated to be as important to the development of competition.be( * xP>&-ԍSee supra  SL IMP28, 175.b "N` 0*((z"Ԍ Y-183.  S/LOC2  ` ` Consistent with the result advocated by most parties commenting on this issue, we believe that a mandate for service portability is unnecessary for several reasons. First, and most importantly, requiring carriers to make the necessary switch and network modifications to accommodate service portability as well as service provider portability may delay implementation of the latter. Second, consumer demand for service portability is unclear. The record indicates that the benefits of service portability are limited because the current unavailability of this capability affects only customers who wish to change their current service to Centrex and ISDN services or vice versa. Since most nonbasic services offered by incumbent LECs are purchased in addition to (not in lieu of) basic services, implementation of service portability may actually lower demand for  Y -the alternate services if it raises their prices.\ * xP -ԍSee SBC Communications Comments at 8.\ Third, our requirement to provide service provider portability does not preclude carriers from offering service portability where they perceive a demand for it. In fact, our mandate will likely facilitate carriers' ability to provide service portability. Service provider portability will naturally drive the provision of service portability because if a user can receive a different service and keep the same number simply by switching carriers, service providers will have an incentive to offer service portability to keep those customers. Finally, carrier attempts to differentiate their products from those of other carriers will stimulate changes in services by customers, regardless of service portability.  Y4-184.` ` We also believe that, at this time, the disadvantages of mandating location portability outweigh the benefits. Our chief concern is that users currently associate area codes with geographic areas and assume that the charges they incur will be in accordance with the calling rates to that area. Location portability would create consumer confusion and result in consumers inadvertently making, and being billed for, toll calls. Consumers would be forced to dial ten, rather than seven, digits to place local calls to locations beyond existing rate centers. In order to avoid this customer confusion, carriers, and ultimately consumers, would incur the additional costs of modifying carriers' billing systems, replacing 1+ as a toll indicator, and increasing the burden on directory, operator, and emergency services to accommodate 10digit dialing and the loss of geographic identity.  Y -185. S/L2 ` ` In addition to the disadvantages, the demand for location portability is currently unclear. There is no consensus on the preferred geographic scope of location portability. Also, users who strongly desire location portability can use nongeographic numbers by subscribing to a 500 or toll free number. Finally, whereas having to change numbers deters users from switching service providers, we believe that a customer's decision to move to a new residential or business location generally would not be influenced significantly by the availability of number portability. Therefore, location portability will not foster the development of competition to the same extent as service provider portability. "h$aX0*((%"Ԍ Y-ԙ186.` ` We recognize that new entrants will be able to offer a greater range of location portability per switch due to their network architecture and because they will  Y-generally have fewer customers in the area covered by a switch./* xPK-ԍWe anticipate that a new entrant will employ equipment capable of serving a larger area per switch, and serve fewer customers in each area served by one switch, than incumbent LECs do presently. As a result, one switch of a new entrant could serve all customers in a certain area, while the incumbent LEC must use two or more switches to serve all customers in that area. Thus, the new entrant's network would be capable of geographically transferring telephone numbers across rate centers of incumbent LECs./ To avoid the consumer confusion and other disadvantages inherent in requiring location portability, however, we believe state regulatory bodies should determine, consistent with this Order, whether to require carriers to provide location portability. We believe the states should address this issue because we recognize that "rate centers" and local calling areas have been created by individual state commissions, and may vary from state to state. To the extent rate centers and/or local calling areas vary from state to state, the degree of location portability possible without causing consumer confusion may also vary. We therefore expect state regulatory bodies to consider the particular circumstances in their respective locales in determining whether to require carriers to implement location portability.  Y -187. S/LOC3 ` ` We recognize that location portability would promote consumer flexibility and mobility and potentially promote competition by allowing carriers to offer different levels of location portability in a competitive manner. Also, the importance that consumers attribute to the geographic identity of their telephone numbers may change, and our concerns regarding customer confusion may no longer hold true. For these reasons, we require any longterm method to have the capability of accommodating location and service portability if, in the future, demand increases or the burdens  Y-decrease.Zx* xPF-ԍSee supra  BURDENS58.Z  X- I.` ` 500 and 900 Number Portability   X-` ` 1. Background  Y-188.` ` Currently, consumers can purchase 500 or 900 services from either local exchange or interexchange carriers. A consumer subscribing to 500 service receives a 500 "area code" number that can be programmed to deliver calls wherever the consumer travels in the United States and in many locations around the world. 900 service is a calling service providing businesses with a method to deliver information, advice, or consultations quickly and conveniently by telephone. Individuals calling 500 or 900 subscribers dial 500 or 900 plus a 7digit number (NXXXXXX). When a call is placed to a 500 or 900 service telephone number, the originating LEC uses the NXX of the dialed number to identify the carrier serving either the owner of the 500 number, or the"b0*(( " business operating the 900 number service. The LEC then routes the call over the  Y-appropriate carrier's network. * xPb-ԍSee Ameritech Operating Companies et al. Petitions for Waiver of Sections 69.4(b) and 69.106 of Part  xP*-69 of the Commission's Rules, 9 FCC Rcd 7873 (Com. Car. Bur. 1994) (500 Access Order); AT&T Ex Parte Letter at 1, from Betsy J. Brady, to Jason Karp, FCC, CCDocket No.95116, filed May 17, 1996 (AT&T  xP-May 17, 1996 Ex Parte Letter).  Y-189.` ` In the Notice, we tentatively concluded that service provider portability for  Y-500 and 900 numbers is beneficial for customers of those services.S* xP -ԍNotice, 10 FCC Rcd at 12372.S We sought comment on this tentative conclusion and on the costs (monetary and nonmonetary) of  Yv-making such portability available.:v@* xPg -ԍId.: With respect to 500 service provider portability, we sought comment on the estimated costs of deploying and operating a database solution, and whether it would be technically feasible to upgrade the existing 800 database and  Y1-associated software to accommodate PCS N00 numbers.s X1* xP-ԍId. at 12375. The term "PCS" refers to a set of capabilities that allows some combination of personal mobility, terminal mobility and service profile management. In the number portability context, "PCS N00" is  xPB-used by the INC to include both 500 and other NPA codes. Id. at 12372 & n.57.s We also sought comment on whether it is feasible (both technically and economically) to provide PCS N00 service  Y -provider portability in a switchbased translation environment.:! * xP-ԍId.: Further, we sought comment on the following issues raised by the Industry Numbering Committee's (INC's) PCS N00 report: (1)who would be the owner/operator of an SMS administering a PCS N00 database; (2)how would that administrator be selected; (3)how would the costs of providing PCS N00 portability be recovered; and (4)by what date should PCS N00  Y-portability be deployed.F" * xP-ԍId. at 1237576F Finally, we sought comment on the ability of 900 number portability to lower prices and stimulate demand for 900 services, and on the costs of  Yb-deploying and operating the necessary database.D#b* xP# -ԍId. at 12374.D  X4-` ` 2. Positions of the Parties  Y-190.` ` In comments filed prior to passage of the 1996 Act, a majority of parties argue that consideration of 500 and 900 number portability is premature, as the current"c#0*(("  Y-costs of implementation outweigh any benefits. $X* xPy-ԍSee, e.g., Ameritech Comments at 13; AT&T Comments at 3940; Ohio PUC Reply Comments at 8; Telemation Comments at 23 (900 number portability is inconsistent with Telephone Disclosure and Dispute Resolution Act).  Indeed, several LECs maintain that the Commission should establish a separate docket to address the unique issues raised by 500  Y-and 900 service provider portability.%* xPk-ԍSee, e.g., Ameritech Comments at 13; Bell Atlantic Comments at 2324; USTA Reply Comments at 12.  Y-191.` ` In contrast, MCI, Citizens Utilities, Competitive Carriers, Florida Public Service Commission, and some CMRS providers contend that 500 and 900 number portability would benefit consumers, and that service provider portability for 500 and 900  Y_-numbers should be developed, as long as the costs are not prohibitive.&_@* xPP-ԍSee, e.g., MCI Comments at 24; Citizens Utilities Comments at 18; Competitive Carriers Comments at 23; Florida PSC Comments at 9; Arch/AirTouch Paging Comments at 6 & n.9, 1718. The information service providers generally agree that 900 portability should be mandated by the Commission as soon as possible to increase competition for information service provider traffic among IXCs, and to offer a more efficient and broader range of information  Y -services.' * xPL-ԍInteractive Services Comments at 23; Interactive Services Reply Comments at 1, 6; MCI Comments at 24; Teleservices Comments at 5.  Y -192.` ` Interactive Services, MCI, and Teleservices maintain that the toll free database can be modified to include 900 numbers at relatively modest cost, and that the implementation and administration of toll free number portability would provide a model  Y-for 500 and 900 number portability.( * xP1-ԍInteractive Services Reply Comments at 34; MCI Comments at 2728; Teleservices Comments at 79. Both Interactive Services and MCI note that parties have failed to provide relevant cost and benefit data in the record of this proceeding, and urge the Commission to require parties to submit data concerning the  YK-total costs of implementation and operation.q)K * xP|-ԍMCI Comments at 3132; Interactive Services Reply Comments at 4.q  Y-193.` ` Ameritech states that updating the existing toll free platform to support 900  Y-numbers is technically possible, but would require extensive systems modifications.J** xP#-ԍAmeritech Comments at 15.J Ameritech also states that it would be technically and economically infeasible to provide PCS N00 portability in a switchbased translation environment due to the memory"d*0*((" capacity limitations and the operational issues associated with updating the routing  Y-tables.+* xPy-ԍId. See also NYNEX Comments at 19 (existing switchedbased solution that provides 900 service today is not easily transferable to a portable architecture). Bell Atlantic states that it may be technically feasible to upgrade the existing toll free database to accommodate 500 and 900 numbers, but this would require extensive  Y-system changes.G,7* xP-ԍ Bell Atlantic Comments at 23.G NYNEX supports implementation of service provider portability for 500 numbers as proposed in the INC Report on PCS N00 Portability, which sets forth a  Y-fouryear implementation schedule.-* xP -ԍ NYNEX Comments at 19. See also Pacific Bell Comments at 23 (implementation of network to support 500 portability will require additional work as detailed in INC Report on PCS N00 Portability). USTA argues that 500 number portability can best be provided through a national, centralized database, similar to the toll free database, and notes that a 900 number portability solution may not be able to utilize the same platform as that contemplated for 500 number portability because of the differing structures of the  Y1-services associated with 900 number services.H.1* xP-ԍUSTA Comments at 1112.H  Y -194. ` ` Only two parties addressed the issue of 500 or 900 portability in comments filed after passage of the 1996 Act. Interactive Services asserts that the 1996 Act requires LECs to provide service provider portability for 900 numbers when technically feasible, and that the record in this proceeding demonstrates that longterm service  Y -provider portability for 900 numbers is technically feasible.^/ * xP-ԍInteractive Services Further Comments at 24.^ Interactive Services did not comment on whether service provider portability for 500 numbers is technically feasible. BellSouth states that the 1996 Act is silent with respect to the portability of  Yb-nongeographic numbers.Q0b? * xPR-ԍBellSouth Further Comments at 3.Q  X-` ` 3. Discussion  Y-195.` ` Section 251(b)(2) of the 1996 Act requires all LECs "to provide, to the extent technically feasible, number portability in accordance with requirements prescribed  Y-by the Commission."J1 * xPA#-ԍ47 U.S.C. 251(b)(2).J Section 3, in turn, defines number portability as "the ability of users of telecommunications services to retain, at the same location, existing telephone  Y-numbers . . . when switching from one telecommunications carrier to another."H2_ * xP&-ԍ47 U.S.C. 153(30).H "|e 20*(("Ԍ Y-196. ` ` While both LECs and interexchange carriers are able to provide 500 and  Y-900 services, such services are more frequently provided by IXCs.3* xPb-ԍSee Long Distance Carrier Code Assignments, Industry Analysis Division, Common Carrier Bureau, Federal Communications Commission (Jan. 1996) at 23, 43 (as of September 30, 1995, the BOCs, in the aggregate, were assigned 37 central office codes for 900 numbers, while interexchange carriers were assigned 321. Similarly, the BOCs were assigned 26 central office codes for 500 numbers, while all other American carriers, in the aggregate, were assigned 372). LECs, to date, have offered relatively few 500 and 900 services because the Bell Operating Companies, which serve over 76 percent of the nation's access lines, were precluded from offering  Y-interLATA services under the Modification of Final Judgment,;4 x* xP -ԍSee United States v. Western Elec. Co., 552F.Supp.131 (D.D.C. 1982), aff'd sub nom. Maryland v.  xP -United States, 460U.S. 1001 (1983); United States v. Western Elec. Co., 569F.Supp. 1057 (D.D.C.1983)  xP] -(Plan of Reorganization), aff'd sub nom. California v. United States, 464U.S.1013 (1983); see also United  xP% -States v. Western Elec. Co., Civil Action No.820192 (D.D.C. Apr.11, 1996) (vacating the MFJ).; and therefore could  Y-offer 500 and 900 services only on an intraLATA basis.5X` * xP-ԍUnder the 1996Act, BOCs now may provide interLATA services that originate outside of their inregion states, and may in the future provide inregion interLATA services upon our finding that they have met the requirements of section271. Conversely, 500 and 900 interLATA services, which account for most of the 500 and 900 numbers, have, up until now, been exclusively provided by IXCs. Thus, most users of 500 and 900 services obtain their numbers from IXCs, and not from LECs.  Y -197.` ` Although the statute does not define specifically the numbers that must be portable, the statute on its face imposes an obligation to provide number portability only  Y -on LECs.T6 * xP-ԍSee 47 U.S.C. 251(b)(2).T Because the statute's directive to provide number portability applies only to LECs, IXCs are not obligated under the 1996 Act to participate in making their numbers portable when their customers wish to move their numbers to another IXC or any other  Y -carrier offering 500 or 900 service.7 * xPh-ԍ As noted in the 500 Access Order, 500 service providers may include IXCs, cellular companies, enhanced service providers, and possibly even LECs. 9 FCC Rcd at 7873. In the case of 900 service, the "user" of the telecommunications service that wants to keep its number when switching carriers is the business that is offering a 900 service, not the end user that is purchasing the information service from the 900 service provider. A 900 service provider typically purchases transport from an IXC and uses a 900 number assigned to that IXC to offer its service. As a consequence, if a 900 service provider wishes to retain its number when switching from one carrier to another, the IXC (and not the LEC that provides exchange access to the IXC) is the party that would have to release the management of the number in question. Likewise, 500 service today is offered exclusively by IXCs, which have blocks of 500 numbers assigned to them for this purpose. When a 500 customer wishes to switch from one carrier to another, the IXC providing the 500 service (and not the LEC"fh70*((" that provides exchange access to the 500 service provider) would have to relinquish the number in question to the competing carrier. Thus, as a practical matter, portability for the vast majority of 500 and 900 numbers can occur only if the IXC releases to the new carrier management of the assigned 500 or 900 number that is to be ported.  Y-198. We recognize, however, that LECs increasingly may offer 500 and 900 services themselves in the future. To the extent they do, we conclude that those LECs would be obligated under the 1996 Act to offer number portability for their own 500 and 900 numbers to the extent "technically feasible." We believe we have insufficient evidence in this record to determine whether it is technically feasible for LECs to provide portability for their own 500 and 900 numbers. Neither the INC nor state number  Y -portability task forces have addressed the issue of 500 and 900 number portability.g8 * xP| -ԍSee, e.g., INC Report; CA LNP Task Force Report.g  Y -The record developed on this issue largely predates passage of the 1996 Act,'9X X* xP-ԍOnly two parties that filed comments in response to the Bureau's March 1996 Public Notice addressed  xP-the issue of 500 or 900 portability. See BellSouth Further Comments at 3; Interactive Services Further Comments at 24.' and as a consequence, few parties have focused on this issue. No party to this proceeding has suggested that any of the currently available methods, such as RCF or DID, or any of the long term methods currently under consideration, such as LRN, could be used to provide portability for nongeographic numbers. Instead, the parties that addressed this issue suggest that the current toll free database potentially could be modified to accommodate 500 and 900 numbers, but note that a host of major technical issues would need to be  YK-resolved.:Kx* xPt-ԍSee, e.g., Ameritech Comments at 15; Bell Atlantic Comments at 23; NYNEX Comments at 19; Pacific Bell Comments at 2324; USTA Comments at 12. The only party to this proceeding that argues that the Commission is required under the 1996 Act to mandate service provider portability for 900 numbers, Interactive Services, fails to address the fact that the statutory obligation to offer number portability falls only on LECs, and not on other carriers that offer 900 services. No party has addressed the technical feasibility of modifying the existing toll free database to make only those 500 and 900 numbers that are assigned to LECs portable. We, therefore, direct the INC to examine this issue, and file a report with this Commission within twelve months of the effective date of this order addressing the technical feasibility of requiring LECs to make their assigned 500 and 900 numbers portable, whether it be through modifying the existing toll free database or through another system. Upon receipt of this report, we will take appropriate action under the 1996 Act. "g:0*(( "  Y-V IV. FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING ׃  X- A.` ` LongTerm Number Portability Costs and Cost Recovery   X-` ` 1. Background  Y`-199.` ` In the Notice, we requested comment on appropriate cost recovery  YI-mechanisms regarding longterm number portability.V;I* xP -ԍNotice, 10 FCC Rcd at 1236768.V We also sought comment, data, studies, and other information on the costs associated with designing, building, and  Y -deploying longterm number portability.D< X* xP$ -ԍId. at 12368.D Section 251(e)(2) of the 1996 Act requires,  Y -inter alia, that the costs of number portability be borne by all telecommunications carriers  Y -on a competitively neutral basis.T= * xP-ԍSee 47 U.S.C.  251(e)(2).T  X -` ` 2. Positions of the Parties  Y-200.` ` In response to the July Notice, many parties assert that the costs of number  Yz-portability cannot be estimated until the industry adopts a particular architecture.>zx* xP-ԍSee, e.g., Bell Atlantic Comments at16; MCI Comments at1920; Michigan PSC Staff Reply Comments at3. While the incumbent LECs generally urge the Commission to continue to gather information concerning the potential costs and impacts on existing networks from ongoing state activities, a few parties offer rough estimates regarding the costs of implementing longterm number portability. We note that many of these estimates assume a significant  Y-level of location portability.'?X* xP-ԍ See, e.g., Cincinnati Bell Comments at9 (citing Ameritech's testimony before Michigan PSC estimating $5060 million for the Chicago LATA); GTE Comments atAttachmentA (estimating $1.65 billion to implement method such as LRN nationwide).'  Y-201. ` ` The incumbent LECs generally assert that the costs of providing longterm number portability should be borne on a "competitively neutral" basis by those carriers  Y-that cause or benefit from number portability.@ * xPL$-ԍSee, e.g., Bell Atlantic Comments at21; Cincinnati Bell Comments at10; NYNEX Comments at2122. They assert that specific cost recovery mechanisms cannot be established until a better understanding is developed regarding how"hH @0*(("  Y-number portability should be provided.A* xPy-ԍBellSouth Comments at5556; BellSouth Reply Comments at21; Pacific Bell Comments at14. Ameritech, however, proposes a cost recovery structure with three categories of costs: (1) administrative and overhead costs for SMS/databases to be recovered from all providers; (2)costs directly assignable to number portability deployment to be recovered from all LECs, both incumbents and new entrants, in proportion to the amount of telephone numbers that each has transferred to its switches; and (3)costs incurred to increase the capacity of existing infrastructure  Yv-to be borne mostly by incumbent LECs.BvX* xP -ԍAmeritech Reply Comments at57; Ameritech February 21, 1996 Ex Parte Filing at17. Some incumbent LECs also contend that the costs of deploying longterm number portability should be allocated between state and  YH-federal jurisdictions.^CH* xP -ԍAmeritech Comments at6; USTA Comments at13.^  Y -202.` ` Most other parties generally contend that all telecommunications carriers and their customers should bear the costs of longterm number portability because they all  Y -benefit from the service and price competition stimulated by portability.D x* xP-ԍSee, e.g., Florida PSC Comments at7; PCIA Comments at10; Users Committee Reply Comments at4. NonLEC parties generally contend that carrierspecific costs incurred in adapting existing systems to longterm number portability should be recovered, like other network upgrades such as  Y -AIN and SS7, through tariff and contract mechanisms.dEX * xP(-ԍSee, e.g., Competitive Carriers Comments at 21; General Communication Comments at56; GO  xP-Communications Reply Comments at 89. See also Teleport Reply Comments at89 (arguing that requiring carriers to bear their own internal costs would encourage them to minimize costs).d Sprint and AT&T advocate implementing portability on a regionbyregion basis (with costs amortized over several years) to minimize incumbent carriers' greater burdens for upgrading existing  Yb-networks.eFb * xP-ԍSprint Comments at1213; AT&T Reply Comments at 23.e Several parties also contend that the external costs of longterm number  YK-portability, i.e., the costs of designing, deploying, and operating facilities common to all  Y4-carriers, should be shared equitably among all affected carriers.G4 * xPe -ԍCitizens Utilities Comments at1011; SBC Communications Comments at 24; PageNet Comments at 13. Parties offer several  Y-different methods of allocating costs among the relevant carriers.H* xP#-ԍSee, e.g., Ameritech Reply Comments at7 (perquery basis); USAirwaves Comments at7 (charges in proportion to size of carrier's customer base); GO Communications Reply Comments at 89 (transaction or perquery basis); MFS Comments at13 (surcharge assessed per active telephone); NYNEX Comments at21 (costs allocated based on differing benefits derived from portability); Scherers Communications Comments at3 (database costs distributed based on usage, like toll free database); Teleport Reply Comments at910 (surcharge per local access line, assessed monthly or annually); USTA Comments at15 (onetime perline charge to switch"'G0*(('" carriers plus perquery charge for database access)."iXH0*(("Ԍ Y-ԙ203. ` ` After passage of the 1996 Act, and in response to the March Public Notice, several parties addressed the meaning of the statutory language "competitively neutral" as set forth in section 251(e)(2). Ameritech asserts that this standard requires that all costs be allocated to all telecommunications carriers on a basis that is independent of who  Y-incurred the cost or who uses portability, and that gives no competitor an advantage.IX* xP-ԍAmeritech Further Reply Comments at 78. See also Pacific Bell Further Reply Comments at 8. Ameritech criticizes proposals that would limit or exclude recovery of costs incurred by  Yv-incumbent LECs or allocate costs based on lines.^Jv* xP -ԍAmeritech Further Reply Comments at 7 & n.18.^ BellSouth urges the Commission to consider the types of infrastructure costs that all classes of carriers will bear in implementing number portability, not just incumbent LECs, in order to avoid imposing large financial burdens on any particular class of carriers, especially those not required to  Y -participate in portability.WK x* xPC-ԍBellSouth Further Reply Comments at 8.W GTE and Pacific Bell argue that requiring each carrier to bear its own costs would result in incumbent LECs paying most of the implementation  Y -costs, which is not competitively neutral.[LX * xP-ԍGTE Further Reply Comments at 7; Pacific Bell Further Reply Comments at 8. See also USTA Further Reply Comments at 89 & n.5 (also noting that Section252(d) contemplates that CLECs may pay incumbent LECs for operating, signalling, routing, billing, or other administrative support systems).[  Y -204. ` ` In contrast, ALTS, Omnipoint, and Cox maintain that competitive neutrality requires each carrier to bear its own costs, and that no carrier should be  Y-required to pay for upgrades to another carrier's network.M( * xPi-ԍALTS Further Comments at 67; Cox Further Reply Comments at 56; Omnipoint Further Comments at 8. Moreover, Cox argues that incumbent LEC proposals to require that the new entrants bear all number portability  Yb-costs are not competitively neutral because it would unreasonably burden those carriers.TNb * xP-ԍCox Further Reply Comments at 5, 6.T In addition, Cox asserts that, because new entrants will begin providing service at different times, it would be difficult to allocate costs on a competitively neutral basis  Y-unless each carrier bears its own costs of implementation.[OX* xP"-ԍCox Further Comments at 56 & n.5 (Cox also notes that the new entrant's cost per customer to upgrade to support number portability is likely to be higher than an incumbent's because the software and much of the hardware will cost the same amount regardless of how many customers are being served).[ Omnipoint asserts that"j0O0*(( " requiring carriers to compensate other carriers with less efficient systems and networks is  Y-competitively unfair.pP* xPb-ԍOmnipoint Reply Comments at8; Omnipoint Further Comments at 8.p  Y-205. ` ` US West advocates permitting LECs to recover their costs using a perline surcharge, claiming that all carriers are entitled to recover their implementation costs  Y-under the 1996 Act.7QXX* xP-ԍUS West Further Reply Comments at 78. See also Pacific Bell Further Reply Comments at 89 (asserting that the Commission need only adopt the basic contours of the cost recovery mechanism by August 8, 1996, to discharge its section251(e)(2) obligations).7 GTE suggests establishment of a "cost pool," under which each  Yv-subscriber would be assessed an amount, regardless of which carrier it used.QRvx* xP -ԍGTE Further Reply Comments at 8.Q Bell Atlantic claims that allowing incumbent LECs to recover their costs only from their customers, and not from other providers, is not competitively neutral because costs would be recovered only from those end users who do not use or benefit from portability, and  Y -higher incumbent LEC rates would encourage their customers to switch providers.[S * xP-ԍBell Atlantic Further Reply Comments at 5.[ USTA cautions that not permitting carriers to recover their costs through separate charges for number portability will result in an acrosstheboard increase in local rates, which, for  Y -incumbent LECs, must be approved by state regulators.RT * xP-ԍUSTA Further Reply Comments at 9.R  Y -206. ` ` In contrast, MFS maintains that the competitive neutrality requirement does not apply to end users at all, but rather requires an analysis of charges assessed to other,  Yy-competing telecommunications carriers.QUy( * xPR-ԍMFS Further Reply Comments at 6.Q Teleport argues that number portability costs should not be recovered from customers through a number portability surcharge, as such  YK-charges would deter customers from transferring their numbers.PVK * xP-ԍTeleport Further Comments at 5.P Cox asserts that GTE's pooling argument is not competitively neutral because it would create incentives  Y-for incumbents to inflate costs.WH * xP"-ԍCox Further Reply Comments at 6 (also noting that incumbents will be able to reduce costs by taking advantage of unused capacity, while new entrants will have to build their networks from scratch).  Y-207. ` ` MFS argues that the competitive neutrality standard in the 1996 Act requires that only the shared/common costs be borne by all telecommunications carriers,"kW0*(("  Y-and that such allocation should be done based on net revenues.X * xPy-ԍMFS Further Comments at 45. See also Omnipoint Further Comments at 9 (asserting that common  xPA-costs should be shared by competitors). But see Bell Atlantic Further Reply Comments at 6 (asserting that while revenues should include payments from consumers, they should not exclude any payments that carriers pay out to other carriers). It notes that all telecommunications users should not be interpreted to mean only a segment of the  Y-market, a single class of carriers, or a single class of customers.KY* xP3-ԍMFS Further Comments at 5.K MFS further argues that the shared/common costs could be recovered from each carrier's customer base, but  Y-not from other carriers in the form of increased charges.@Z@* xP -ԍId. at 7.@ TRA contends that section 251(e)(2) contemplates a competitively fair distribution of the common costs associated with number portability among only those carriers engaged in the provision of local exchange/exchange access services, not a general levy on all telecommunications  YH-providers.S[H* xP-ԍTRA Further Reply Comments at 78.S Teleport and Time Warner Holdings propose similar cost recovery mechanisms to MFS, but argue that the shared costs should be allocated based on the  Y -number of lines served, rather than net revenues.|\ ` * xP+-ԍTeleport Further Comments at 6; Time Warner Holdings Further Comments at 9.| ALTS argues that, in order to  Y -expedite the implementation of number portability, shared/common costs (e.g., costs associated with the number portability database(s)) should be recovered by a third party from all carriers on a per line basis, but notes that there is considerable economic logic in  Y -recovering such costs according to net revenues.P] * xP_-ԍALTS Further Comments at 7 n.5.P  X-` ` 3. Discussion  Yb-208.` ` We tentatively conclude that three types of costs are involved in providing longterm service provider portability: (1)costs incurred by the industry as a whole, such as those incurred by the thirdparty administrator to build, operate, and maintain the databases needed to provide number portability; (2)carrierspecific costs directly related  Y-to providing number portability (e.g., the costs to purchase the switch software implementing number portability); and (3)carrierspecific costs not directly related to  Y-number portability (e.g., the costs of network upgrades necessary to implement a database method). We seek comment on this tentative conclusion and ask whether other types of costs are involved in the provision of longterm service provider number portability. "|l ]0*(("Ԍ Y-209.` ` New section251(e)(2) of the Communications Act requires that the costs of establishing "number portability be borne by all telecommunications carriers on a  Y-competitively neutral basis as determined by the Commission."J^* xPK-ԍ47 U.S.C. 251(e)(2).J We tentatively conclude that the "competitively neutral" standard in section 251(e)(2) applies only to number portability costs, and not to cost recovery of carrierspecific, nonnumber portabilityspecific costs, such as upgrades to SS7 or AIN technologies. This interpretation is borne out by the plain language of the statute, which only requires that telecommunications carriers bear the costs of number portability. We also tentatively conclude that section 251(e)(2) does not address recovery of those costs from consumers, but only the allocation of such costs among carriers. We seek comment on these tentative conclusions. We also seek comment on the meaning of the statutory language "all telecommunications carriers" as that term is used in section 251(e)(2). We further seek comment on whether the Commission has authority to exclude certain groups of telecommunications carriers from the cost recovery mechanisms for number portability, and, if so, which carriers should be excluded.  Y-210.` ` In determining the cost recovery mechanism for currently available number portability measures, we set forth principles with which any competitively neutral cost recovery mechanism should comply. Specifically, we required that (1) a competitively neutral cost recovery mechanism should not give one service provider an appreciable, incremental cost advantage over another service provider, when competing for a specific subscriber; and (2) a competitively neutral cost recovery mechanism should not have a  Y-disparate effect on the ability of competing service providers to earn a normal return.R_X* xP-ԍSee supra 131135.R As in the case of currently available number portability measures, we believe that these principles equally apply to the allocation of costs incurred due to the implementation of longterm number portability. We, therefore, tentatively conclude that any longterm cost recovery method should comply with these principles. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion.  Ye-211.` ` In the above Report and Order, we conclude that any state that prefers to develop its own statewide number portability database rather than participate in a regionally deployed database may "opt out" of the national database plan and implement a state-specific database. Pursuant to the requirement of section 251(e)(2) that number portability costs be borne by all telecommunications carriers on a competitively neutral basis as determined by this Commission, we must establish pricing principles that are applied consistently to all carriers. Consequently, we tentatively conclude that the pricing for state-specific databases should be governed by the pricing principles established in this proceeding. We believe the use of our pricing mechanism -- even in states that opt out of the regional database system -- will help to maintain consistency between states, thereby improving the likelihood that competition will develop nationwide."#m_0*(($"Ԍ X-ԙ` `  a. ` Costs of Facilities Shared by All Carriers for the  X-Provision of Number Portability !  Y-212.` ` The costs of facilities shared by all telecommunications carriers for providing longterm number portability include, for example, the costs of building and administering regional databases. We seek comment on whether the database administrator(s) selected through the NANC should recover the costs of facilities shared by all telecommunications carriers for the provision of longterm number portability through a charge assessed only on those carriers using the databases or on all carriers whether or not they use the databases. We note that if a regional database consists only of the SMS, usage would consist of uploading and downloading number portability routing information. However, to the extent a database architecture is chosen that utilizes an SMS/SCP pair, usage additionally may include carrier queries to the regional SCP for purposes of providing routing instructions to carriers for individual calls. We seek comment on whether such costs, if recovered from all carriers, should be recovered on a nationwide or regional basis, and how they should be recovered on such bases. To the extent such costs are recovered on a nationwide basis, and multiple entities are selected to administer the regional databases, we seek comment on whether either one of the neutral thirdparty administrators or a separate entity should be designated to allocate the aggregate costs among each telecommunications carrier and determine the method by which such payments should be made.  Y-213.` ` With regard to those carriers responsible for bearing the costs of the shared facilities, we tentatively conclude that the recovery of the costs associated with these databases should be allocated in proportion to each telecommunications carrier's total gross telecommunications revenues minus charges paid to other carriers. We believe that the use of gross telecommunications revenues to allocate costs best comports with our principles for competitively neutral cost recovery set forth above. As we indicated in our discussion of currently available number portability measures, such allocator would not give any provider an appreciable, incremental cost advantage over another service provider, nor have a disparate effect on the ability of competing service providers to earn  Y7-a normal return.:`7* xP-ԍId.: In addition, gross telecommunications revenues are the least distortionary, among practical applications, of allocating costs across telecommunications  Y -carriers.a  X* xP"-ԍThe best method of allocating costs across carriers is economic profits. However, economic profits are not the same as accounting profits and as a practical matter are not measured. The second best alternative is  xP#-gross revenues. David N. Hyman, Public Finance: A Contemporary Application of Theory to Policy 474476 (2d ed., The Dryden Press 1987). We also believe it is appropriate to subtract out charges paid to other carriers, such as access charges, when determining the relevant amount of each carrier's telecommunications revenues for purposes of cost allocation. This is because the revenues attributable to such charges effectively would be counted twice in determining" n@a0*((!" the relative number portability costs each carrier should pay once for the carrier paying  Y-such charges and once for the carrier receiving them.bbX* xPb-ԍCf. Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 1995, Price Cap Treatment of  xP*-Regulatory Fees Imposed by Section 9 of the Act, Report and Order, 10 FCC Rcd 13512, 1355859 (1995) (adopting gross revenues less carrier charges for recovering regulatory fees).b As we concluded in the above Report and Order, and as Congress has determined in the 1996 Act, number portability will benefit all telecommunications carriers and users of telecommunications services  Y-through increased competition.c* xP= -ԍSee supra sectionIII.A.2; Senate Report at 1920; House Report at 72; see also 47U.S.C 153(30), 251(b)(2), 251(e)(2). We believe that a reasonable, equitable, and competitively neutral measure of such benefit is each telecommunications carrier's gross telecommunications revenues minus charges to other telecommunications carriers. We seek comment on whether this proposal for recovery of the costs associated with regional databases comports with the standard set forth in section 251(e)(2), and whether there exist alternative ways of allocating this type of cost among the relevant carriers.  Y -214. ` ` We currently require the NANPA to recover the costs of administering the NANP, and operating databases to perform such administration, from all telecommunications carriers. The recovery of these costs is allocated among all  Y -telecommunications carriers based on the carriers' gross revenues.jd @* xP-ԍSee Numbering Plan Order, 11 FCC Rcd at2627.j In our recent  Y -Interconnection NPRM, we tentatively concluded that we need not take any further action to comply with section 251(e)(2)'s mandate that the cost of establishing telecommunications numbering administration arrangements be borne by all telecommunications carriers on a competitively neutral basis, in light of the action taken  YK-in the Numbering Plan Order.beK* xP-ԍSee Interconnection NPRM at  252.b  Y-215. ` ` With the implementation of longterm number portability measures, all carriers, including currently regulated incumbent LECs, will incur costs specific to the deployment and usage of number portability databases. Therefore, we seek comment on whether incumbent LECs should be able to recover their portion of the costs of facilities shared by all carriers in providing longterm number portability from their end users or from other carriers, and whether the Commission should prescribe the particular cost recovery mechanism. To the extent parties argue that such costs should be recovered from other carriers, we seek comment on whether such carriers should include all telecommunications carriers, such as other local exchange providers, CMRS providers, IXCs, and resellers, or only those carriers that have received ported numbers. In addition, assuming that we prescribe a particular recovery mechanism, we ask parties to identify alternative ways carriers may recover this type of cost from carriers (or end users)." o` e0*((,"Ԍ Y-ԙ216.` ` We tentatively conclude the number portability costs of facilities shared by all carriers fall into three subcategories: (a) nonrecurring costs, including the development and implementation of the hardware and software for the database; (b) recurring (monthly or annually) costs, such as the maintenance, operation, security, administration, and physical property associated with the database; and (c)costs for uploading, downloading, and querying number portability database information. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion and ask whether there are other types of costs associated with the facilities that will be shared by all carriers.  Y1-217.` ` We seek comment on whether the first two subcategories, nonrecurring and recurring costs, should be recovered through monthly charges to the individual carriers using the database, allocated in proportion to each carrier's gross telecommunications revenues net of payments to other carriers, or from all carriers operating in areas where number portability is offered. We note that nonrecurring charges could be recovered in a onetime payment or over time.  Y-218.` ` We believe that there are at least two methods for recovering the third  Yy-subcategory of shared costs, i.e., the costs of uploading, downloading, or querying the database. First, these costs could be recovered through usage charges assessed on those carriers that either access the database to upload number portability routing information, download such information, or directly query the database. Those carriers, including IXCs, could then either recover such costs from their own customer base, or choose not to recover such costs.  Y-219.` ` Second, the upload, download, and/or perquery costs could be folded into the monthly charges assessed on the carriers using the databases, which would be allocated in proportion to each carrier's gross telecommunications revenues. We believe this approach is most appropriate in those instances where it is not practical to determine  Y|-the cost causer of the usage costs, e.g., perquery costs. Under current database approaches, there is no direct correlation between the number of queries made and the number of telephone numbers that have been forwarded because queries will be performed on all calls to a particular switch once any single number has been transferred from that switch. We invite commenting parties to provide credible, substantiated estimates of the amount of the usage costs, including upload, download, and perquery costs, to the extent applicable, and whether such costs will be incurred on a perminute, percall, or other basis. We also seek comment on these and alternative methods for recovering perquery costs. Parties are asked to state with specificity the advantages and disadvantages of each.  Y#-220.` ` In accordance with the 1996 Act, the costs of number portability are to be recovered from all telecommunications carriers on a competitively neutral basis. We seek comment on what steps we need to take to ensure that this requirement is satisfied for all shared industry costs. For instance, we seek comment on whether it is necessary for the Commission to establish a mechanism to ensure that the LNPA(s) recovers its"#'pe0*((P(" costs in a competitively neutral fashion. We also seek comment on what mechanism(s),  Y-e.g., federal tariffs, periodic reports, etc., should be utilized to ensure compliance with the statutory requirement and under what authority the Commission can impose such obligations. We note that section 251(e)(1) requires the Commission to create or designate one or more impartial entities to administer telecommunications numbering, and provides the Commission with exclusive jurisdiction over the NANP, and section 251(e)(2) gives the Commission the authority to establish rules by which carriers must  Y_-bear the costs of telecommunications numbering administration and number portability.Yf_* xP-ԍSee 47 U.S.C.  251(e)(1), (2).Y We seek comment on the relevance of these provisions to the Commission's authority to impose obligations on the LNPA(s).  X - ` `  b. ` Direct CarrierSpecific Costs to Implement Number  X -Portability !  Y -221.CARRIER-SPEC. COSTS` ` Carrierspecific costs directly related to number portability include, for example, the costs of purchasing the switch software necessary to implement a longterm number portability solution. There are at least two ways of allocating these carrierspecific costs. First, we could require individual carriers to bear their own costs of deploying number portability in their networks. Second, we could require all carriers in a given region to pool their number portability costs, which then would be spread across all carriers providing and using number portability based on some allocator, such as gross telecommunications revenues or number of subscriber lines. We seek comment on whether this proposal comports with the standard set forth in section 251(e)(2), and whether there exist alternative ways of allocating this type of cost among the relevant carriers.  Y-222.` ` We seek comment on whether we can and should mandate a mechanism by which incumbent LECs or others then may recover these costs, from either end users or other carriers (such as other local exchange service providers, CMRS providers, IXCs, and resellers), and ask that parties identify the jurisdictional basis for such authority.  Y7-223. ` ` If the Commission were to permit costs to be recovered from consumers, there are at least two options. One option would be to allow carriers the flexibility to recover their number portabilityspecific costs from their customers in whatever manner the carrier chooses. A second option would be to require carriers to recover their number portabilityspecific costs through a number portability charge assessed on their end user customers located in areas where number portability is available. We seek comment on the advantages and disadvantages of these proposals and any alternative mechanisms for recovering these costs from consumers. Parties favoring a specific option should comment on whether their preferred approach is consistent with principles of competitive neutrality."h$qXf0*((%"Ԍ Y-ԙ224.` ` We note that several additional issues are raised if the carrierspecific, number portabilityspecific costs are to be passed on to consumers. Therefore, we seek comment on whether, under any cost recovery mechanism, the cost to consumers should: (1) vary among carriers in a given geographic region; (2) remain constant among all carriers in a given geographic region; or (3) vary among different geographic regions,  Y-e.g., states or LATAs (while remaining constant within that region, i.e., state or LATA). For each of these approaches, we ask whether the costs to consumers should be permitted to change, for example, on a monthly or annual basis. We also seek comment on whether carriers should charge their customers a single, onetime charge, a monthly fee, or some percentage of the customer's monthly bill, to recover their carrierspecific number portabilityspecific costs. To the extent this Commission permits carriers to recover their costs through use of a number portability charge, we seek comment on whether such a charge should be specifically identified on consumer bills from those carriers as a separate line item. We seek comment on whether any such charge should be filed as a tariff at either the federal or state level.  Y-225. ` ` Finally, we seek comment on whether carriers should be permitted to recover carrierspecific, number portabilityspecific costs from other carriers, through increases in charges for regulated services. Parties that advocate increases in charges for regulated services are asked to specify which charges should be increased and under what jurisdictional authority the Commission can prescribe such increases.  X- ` `  c. ` Indirect CarrierSpecific Costs to Implement Number  X-Portability !  Y-226.SPECIFIC COSTS` ` We tentatively conclude that carrierspecific costs not directly related to number portability should be borne by individual carriers as network upgrades. As such, carrierspecific costs not directly related to number portability are not subject to the requirements set forth in section 251. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion and on alternative methods for recovering this type of cost.  Y7-227.` ` Carrierspecific costs that are not directly related to the provision of number portability include, for example, the costs of upgrading SS7 capabilities or adding intelligent network (IN) or advanced intelligent network (AIN) capabilities. These costs are associated with the provision of a wide variety of services unrelated to the provision of number portability, such as CLASS features. Provision of these services will facilitate the ability of incumbent carriers to compete with the offerings of new entrants.  Y"-228.` ` Incumbent LECs, as well as new entrants, will be required to incur these costs to support the provision of number portability and other services. While some incumbent LECs may have to upgrade existing networks and infrastructure, new entrants will need to design their networks from the outset to include these capabilities. Many incumbent LECs, though, may already have the necessary network capabilities to support the provision of longterm number portability, thus minimizing the need to incur upgrade"#'rf0*((P(" costs. By limiting the deployment of longterm portability to those geographic areas where carriers are already offering, or are likely to offer, competing telephone exchange and exchange access services, we limit these expenditures and their recovery to areas where the incumbent carriers would, solely for competitive reasons, likely upgrade their networks. We note that this approach is also consistent with that taken in implementing 800 number portability, where LECs recovered the core costs of deploying SS7  Yv-capabilities as network upgrades from all end users.gv* xP-ԍSee, e.g., Provision of Access for 800 Service, Report and Order, 4 FCC Rcd 2824, 2832 (1989),  xP-modified on recon., 6 FCC Rcd 5421, 5429 (1991).  YH-229.` ` We seek comment on whether we should specify a particular recovery mechanism for carrierspecific costs not directly related to number portability, and on alternative methods of recovering such costs from consumers or other carriers. In addition, we believe that due to the inevitable implementation of switch and other network upgrades to support longterm number portability and other AIN capabilities, networks will operate with greater efficiencies, resulting in increased productivity. We seek comment on whether such future network design modifications should be considered in determining the extent to which carriers may recover carrier specific, nonnumber portabilityspecific costs, and if so, how they should be considered.  Xb-` `  d. Price Cap Treatment  Y4-230. ` ` If this Commission were to specify a particular method of cost recovery from end users, such requirement would include companies that are subject to price cap treatment. Price cap regulation may affect carriers' ability to recover their costs under the methods described above, or other possible methods, because it restricts the flexibility with which price cap carriers may price various services. We tentatively conclude that price cap carriers should be permitted to treat as an exogenous cost any carrierspecific, number portabilityspecific costs they incur, but that such carriers should not be permitted to treat as an exogenous cost any carrierspecific, nonnumber portabilityspecific costs. These conclusions are consistent with our 800 Access proceeding where costs specific to 800 access were accorded exogenous cost treatment, while core SS7 costs were treated as  YN-general network upgrades.hN * xP -ԍSee Provision of Access for 800 Service, Second Report and Order, 8FCCRcd907, 911 (1993). We, therefore, seek comment specifically on how price cap companies should be permitted to recover costs for facilities shared by all carriers; carrierspecific, number portabilityspecific costs; and carrierspecific, nonnumber portabilityspecific costs. In particular, we seek comment on whether price cap companies should be permitted to treat exogenously any of the above number portabilityspecific cost categories. We also seek comment on whether these costs, alternatively, should be placed in a new price cap basket or an existing basket. If parties recommend that such costs are to be placed in an existing basket, we ask parties to identify which basket would be most appropriate. ""sh0*((#"Ԍ  X- B.` ` Procedural Matters   X- ` ` 1. Ex Parte   Y-231.` ` This is a non-restricted notice and comment rulemaking. Ex parte presentations are permitted, except during the Sunshine period, provided they are  Y_-disclosed as provided in the Commission's rules.|i_* xP-ЍSee generally 47 C.F.R. 1.1202, 1.1203, 1.1206(a).|  X1- ` ` 2. Regulatory Flexibility Act   Y -232.` ` As required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act,  Y -5U.S.C.601 et seq. (1981), the Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the expected impact on small entities resulting from the policies and proposals set forth in this Further Notice. The IRFA is contained in AppendixC to this Notice. The Secretary shall cause a copy of this Notice, including the IRFA, to be sent to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration in accordance with section 603(a) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.  XK-` ` 3. Notice and Comment Provision   Y-233.` ` Pursuant to applicable procedures set forth in sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.415 and 1.419, interested parties may file comments on this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) on or before August 16, 1996, and reply comments on or before September 16, 1996. To file formally in this proceeding, parties must file an original and twelve copies of all comments, reply comments, and supporting comments. Parties wanting each Commissioner to receive a personal copy of their comments must file an original plus sixteen copies. Comments and reply comments should be sent to the Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 1919 M Street, N.W., Room 222, Washington, D.C. 20554. In addition, parties should file two copies of any such pleadings with the Competitive Pricing Division, Common Carrier Bureau, Room 518, 1919 M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20554. Parties should also file one copy of any documents filed in this docket with the Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Services, Inc. (ITS, Inc.), 2100 M Street, N.W., Suite 140, Washington, D.C. 20037 (202/8573800). Comments and reply comments will be available for public inspection during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Room 239, 1919 M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C., 20554.  Y#-234. ` ` In order to facilitate review of comments and reply comments, both by parties and by Commission staff, we require that comments be no longer than forty (40)"h$tXi0*((%" pages and reply comments be no longer than twenty five (25) pages. Empirical economic studies, copies of relevant state orders, and proposed rule text will not be counted against these page limits. Specific rule proposals should be filed as an appendix to a party's comments or reply comments. Such appendices may include only proposed text for rules that would implement proposals set forth in the parties' comments and reply comments in this proceeding, and may not include any comments or arguments. Proposed rules should be provided in the format used for rules in the Code of Federal Regulations and should otherwise conform to the Comment Filing Procedures set forth in this order. Comments and reply comments must include a short and concise summary of the substantive  Y1-arguments raised in the pleading.j 1* xP -ԍ Comments and reply comments also must comply with section 1.49 and all other applicable sections of  xPr -the Commission's Rules. See 47 C.F.R.  1.49. However, we require here that a summary be included with all comments and reply comments, regardless of length. The summary may be paginated separately from the  xP -rest of the pleading (e.g., as "i, ii"). See 47 C.F.R.  1.49. Comments and reply comments also must clearly identify the specific portion of this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to which a particular comment or set of comments is responsive. Parties will not be permitted to  Y -file more than a total of ten (10) pages of ex parte submissions, excluding cover letters, except in response to direct requests from Commission staff. This would not include  Y -written ex parte filings made solely to disclose an oral ex parte contact. Ex parte filings in excess of this limit will not be considered as part of the record in this proceeding.  Yy-235. ` ` Parties also are asked to submit comments and reply comments on diskette. Such diskette submissions would be in addition to and not a substitute for the formal filing requirements addressed above. Parties submitting diskettes should submit them to Wanda M. Harris, Competitive Pricing Division of the Common Carrier Bureau, 1919 M Street, N.W., Room 518, Washington, D.C., 20554. Such a submission should be on a 3.5 inch diskette formatted in an IBM compatible form using MS DOS 5.0 and WordPerfect 5.1 software. The diskette should be submitted in "read only" mode. The diskette should be clearly labelled with the party's name, proceeding, type of pleading (comment or reply comments) and date of submission. The diskette should be accompanied by a cover letter.  XN-2v V. ORDERING CLAUSES אaVU  Y -236.` ` Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority contained in sections1, 4(i), 4(j), 201205, 218, 251, and 332 of the Communications Act as vamended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 201205, 218, 251 and 332, Part 20 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 20, is AMENDED, and Part52 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 52, is ADDED as set forth in Appendix B hereto. ""uj0*((#"Ԍ Y-237.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the policies, rules, and requirements set forth herein ARE ADOPTED, effective 30 days after publication of this Order in the Federal Register, except for collections of information subject to approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), which are effective 150 days following publication in the Federal Register.  Yv-238.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority contained in sections1, 4(i), 4(j), 201205, 218, 251, and 332 of the Communications Act as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 201205, 218, 251, and 332, a FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING IS HEREBY ADOPTED.  Y -239.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that BellSouth's Motion to Accept Late Filed Comments IS GRANTED.  Y -240.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that authority is delegated to the Chief,  Y -Common Carrier Bureau, as set forth supra in CHIEF DEPLOY78, CHIEF DEPLOY279,  WAIVE85 , MONITORING297, and to the Chief,  Y-Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, as set forth supra in  RPTS166 , WTB DEPLOY167. ` `  hh,FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ` `  hh,William F. Caton ` `  hh,Acting Secretary "vj0*((p"  X- w #Xj\  P6G;[hXP#  @A-@#Xj\  P6G;[hXP# ' VAPPENDIXA LIST OF PARTIES ă  Y- Comments: ` ` (filed on or before September12, 1995) Ad Hoc Coalition of Competitive Carriers (Competitive Carriers) Arch Communications Group & AirTouch Paging, jointly (Arch/AirTouch Paging) Association for Local Telecommunications Services (ALTS) Americas Carriers Telecommunication Association (ACTA) Ameritech Association of PublicSafety Communications OfficialsInternational (APCO) AT&T Corp. (AT&T) Bell Atlantic Telephone Companies (Bell Atlantic) Bell Atlantic NYNEX Mobile, Inc. (Bell Atlantic NYNEX Mobile) California Cable Television Association (CCTA) Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association (CTIA) Cincinnati Bell Telephone (Cincinnati Bell) Citizens Utilities Company (Citizens Utilities) Competitive Telecommunications Association (CompTel) The Ericsson Corporation (Ericsson) Florida Public Service Commission (Florida PSC) General Communication, Inc. (General Communication) General Services Administration (GSA) GO Communications Corporation (GO Communications) GTE Service Corporation (GTE) GVNW Inc./Management (GVNW) Illinois Commerce Commission Independent Telecommunications Network (ITN) Interactive Services Association (Interactive Services) Jones Intercable, Inc. (Jones Intercable) Kahn, David L. (David Kahn) LDDS WorldCom Marion County, Florida (Marion County) MCI Telecommunications Corporation (MCI) MFS Communications Company (MFS) Missouri Public Service Commission (Missouri PSC) National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC) National Cable Television Association (NCTA) National Exchange Carrier Association (NECA) National Emergency Number Association (NENA) National Telephone Cooperative Association (NTCA) National Wireless Resellers Association (Wireless Resellers) New York State Department of Public Service (New YorkDPS) Nextel Communications (Nextel) NYNEX Telephone Companies (NYNEX)"$'wj0*((P("ԌOmnipoint Corporation (Omnipoint) Organization for the Protection and Advancement of ` ` Small Telephone Companies (OPASTCO) Pacific Bell Paging Network, Inc. (PageNet) PCS Primeco, L.P. (PCS Primeco) Personal Communications Industry Association (PCIA) Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (Ohio PUC) Public Utilities Commission of the State of California (California PUC) Public Utility Commission of Texas (Texas PUC) SBC Communications, Inc. (SBC Communications) Scherers Communications Group (Scherers Communications) Seattle Local Area Number Portability Trial (Seattle LANP Trial) Sprint Corporation (Sprint) TDS Telecommunications Corp. (TDS Telecom) Telecommunications Resellers Association (TRA) Teleport Communications Group (Teleport) Telemation International, Inc. (Telemation) Teleservices Industry Association (Teleservices) Texas Advisory Commission on ` ` State Emergency Communications (Texas Advisory Commission) Time Warner Communications Holdings (Time Warner Holdings) U.S.Airwaves, Inc. (US Airwaves) US Intelco Networks, Inc. (US Intelco) USWest United States Small Business Administration, Chief Counsel for Advocacy (Small Business Administration) United States Telephone Association (USTA) Yellow Pages Publishers Association (Yellow Pages)  XN- Late filed Comments: BellSouth Corporation and BellSouth Telecommunications (BellSouth) (filed Sept.13, 1995) "xj0*(("  Y- Replies: ` ` (filed on or before October12, 1995) ACTA Competitive Carriers Ad Hoc Telecommunications Users Committee (Users Committee) AirTouch Communications & US West NewVector ` ` Group (jointly) (AirTouch/US West NewVector) Arch/AirTouch Paging ALTS Ameritech AT&T Bell Atlantic Bell Atlantic NYNEX Mobile BellSouth Cablevision Lightpath, Inc. (Cablevision Lightpath) CCTA California PUC Cincinnati Bell CTIA General Communication GO Communications GSA GTE Interactive Services ITN Jones Intercable David L.Kahn MCI MFS Michigan Public Service Commission Staff (Michigan PSC Staff) NARUC NENA Nextel Niagara Telephone Co. (Niagara Telephone) (filed Sept. 22, 1995) Nortel NYNEX Ohio PUC Omnipoint Pacific Bell PageNet PCIA PCS Primeco Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (Pennsylvania PUC) SBC Communications"$'yj0*((P("ԌSprint TRA Teleport Texas Advisory Commission Time Warner Holdings Time Warner TeleCommunications (Time Warner Telecom) US Intelco USTA  X1- Late Filed Reply Comments: Maryland Public Service Commission (Maryland PSC) (filed October13, 1995)  Y - Further Comments:  (filed on or before March29, 1996) Arch/AirTouch Paging ALTS Ameritech AT&T Bell Atlantic Bell Atlantic NYNEX Mobile BellSouth CCTA Cox Enterprises (Cox) GTE Interactive Services MCI MFS MobileMedia Communications (MobileMedia) NARUC NCTA NENA New York DPS NYNEX Omnipoint OPASTCO Pacific Bell PCIA SBC Communications Sprint TRA Teleport Time Warner Holdings"$'zj0*((P("ԌUSTA  X- Late Filed Further Comments: Georgia Public Service Commission (Georgia PSC) (filed April1, 1996) Hillborough County, Florida (filed April 1, 1996)  YH- Further Reply Comments: (filed on or before April5, 1996) Arch/AirTouch Paging Ameritech ALTS AT&T Bell Atlantic BellSouth California Department of Consumer Affairs (CA Consumer Affairs) California PUC Cincinnati Bell CTIA Cox GTE MCI MFS MobileMedia NYNEX Pacific Bell SBC Communications Sprint TRA Texas Advisory Commission Time Warner Holdings US West USTA" {j0*(("  Y-    @A-B-@V APPENDIX B Final Rules  X-aV aVAMENDMENTS TO THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS aV aV aV& PART 20 COMMERCIAL MOBILE RADIO SERVICES aVU  Y`- Part 20 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) is amended as follows:  Y2-1.XThe authority citation for Part 20 continues to read as follows: ! AUTHORITY: Secs. 4, 303, and 332, 48 Stat. 1066, 1082, as amended; 47 U.S.C.154, 303, and 332, unless otherwise noted.  Y -2.XSection 20.15 is amended by adding paragraph (e) to read as follows:!  X-  20.15` ` Requirements under Title II of the Communications Act !` X(e) For obligations of commercial mobile radio service providers to provide local number portability, see 47 CFR 52.11.!  X-  PART 52 NUMBERING ĐaVU Part 52 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) is added to read as follows:  Y}-1.The authority citation for Part 52 is added to read as follows: AUTHORITY: Section 4, 48 Stat. 1066, as amended; 47 U.S.C. 154, unless otherwise noted. Interpret or apply sec. 153, 154, 20104, 218, 2257, 2512, 271, 48 Stat. 1070, as amended, 1077; 47 U.S.C. 20104, 218, 2257, 2512, 271 unless otherwise noted.  Y-2.The table of contents for Part 52 is added to read as follows:  X -  Subpart B Local Number Portability. aV  X"-aVU 52.1` ` X Definitions.!  X#- 52.3` ` X Deployment of LongTerm Database Methods for Number Portability by LECs.!  XR%- 52.5` ` X Database Architecture and Administration.!  X;&- 52.7` ` X Deployment of Transitional Measures for Number Portability.! ";&|j0*((`'"Ԍ X- 52.9` ` X Cost Recovery for Transitional Measures for Number Portability.!  X- 52.11` ` X Deployment of LongTerm Database Methods for Number Portability by CMRS Providers.!  X- 52.12 52.99  [Reserved] !  Yv-3.Part 52 is added to read as follows:  XH- Subpart B Local Number Portability.  Y - 52.1` ` X Definitions .! XAs used in this subpart:!  Y -X(a) The term broadband PCS has the same meaning as that term is defined in section 24.5 of this chapter, 47 CFR 24.5.!  Y|-X(b) The term cellular service has the same meaning as that term is defined in section 22.99 of this chapter, 47 CFR 22.9.!  Y9-X(c) The term database method means a number portability method that utilizes one or more external databases for providing called party routing information.!  Y-X(d) The term downstream database means a database owned and operated by an individual carrier for the purpose of providing number portability in conjunction with other functions and services.!  Y-X(e) The term incumbent local exchange carrier means, with respect to an area, the local exchange carrier that (1) on February8, 1996, provided telephone exchange service in such area; and (2) (i) on February8, 1996, was deemed to be a member of the exchange carrier association pursuant to section69.601(b) of the Commission's regulations (47CFR69.901(b)); or (ii) is a person or entity that, on or after February8, 1996, became a successor or assign of a member described in clause(i).!  Y-X(f) The term local exchange carrier means any person that is engaged in the provision of telephone exchange service or exchange access. For purposes of this subpart, such term does not include a person insofar as such person is engaged in the provision of a commercial mobile service under 47U.S.C. 332(c).!  Yu$-X(g) The term local number portability administrator (LNPA) means an independent, nongovernmental entity, not aligned with any particular telecommunications industry segment, whose duties are determined by the NANC.! "2'}j0*((P("Ԍ Y-X(h) The term location portability means the ability of users of telecommunications services to retain existing telecommunications numbers without impairment of quality, reliability, or convenience when moving from one physical location to another.!  Y-X(i) The term longterm database method means a database method that complies with the performance criteria set forth in section52.3(a) of this chapter, 47CFR52.3(a).!  Y5-X(j) The term North American Numbering Council (NANC) means an advisory committee created under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C., App (1988), to advise the Commission and to make recommendations, reached through consensus, that foster efficient and impartial number administration. !  Y -X(k) The term number portability means the ability of users of telecommunications services to retain, at the same location, existing telecommunications numbers without impairment of quality, reliability, or convenience when switching from one telecommunications carrier to another.!  YS-X(l) The term regional database means an SMS database or an SMS/SCP pair that contains information necessary for carriers to provide number portability in a region as determined by the NANC.!  Y-X(m) The term service control point (SCP) means a database in the public switched network which contains information and call processing instructions needed to process and complete a telephone call. The network switches access an SCP to obtain such information. Typically, the information contained in an SCP is obtained from the SMS.!  Yq-X(n) The term service management system (SMS) means a database or computer system not part of the public switched network that, among other things: (1) interconnects to an SCP and sends to that SCP the information and call processing instructions needed for a network switch to process and complete a telephone call; and (2) provides telecommunications carriers with the capability of entering and storing data regarding the processing and completing of a telephone call.!  Y -X(o) The term service portability means the ability of users of telecommunications services to retain existing telecommunications numbers without impairment of quality, reliability, or convenience when switching from one telecommunications service to another, without switching from one telecommunications carrier to another.!  YJ&-X(p) The term service provider portability means the ability of users of telecommunications services to retain, at the same location, existing"5'~j0*((P(" telecommunications numbers without impairment of quality, reliability, or convenience when switching from one telecommunications carrier to another.!  Y-X(q) The term telecommunications means the transmission, between or among points specified by the user, of information of the user's choosing, without change in the form or content of the information as sent and received.!  Ya-X(r) The term telecommunications carrier means any provider of telecommunications services, except that such term does not include aggregators of telecommunications services (as defined in 47U.S.C.226(a)(2)).!  Y -X(s) The term telecommunications service means the offering of telecommunications for a fee directly to the public, or to such classes of users as to be effectively available directly to the public, regardless of the facilities used.!  Y -X(t) The term transitional measure means a method such as Remote Call Forwarding (RCF), Flexible Direct Inward Dialing (DID), or other comparable and technically feasible arrangement that allows one local exchange carrier to transfer telephone numbers from its network to the network of another telecommunications carrier, but does not comply with the performance criteria set forth in section 52.3(a) of this chapter, 47CFR52.3(a).!  X-  52.3` ` X Deployment of LongTerm Database Methods for Number  X-Portability by LECs. ! X(a) Subject to subsections (b) and (c), all local exchange carriers (LECs) must provide number portability in compliance with the following performance criteria:!  Ym-X` ` (1) supports network services, features, and capabilities existing at the time number portability is implemented, including but not limited to emergency services, CLASS features, operator and directory assistance services, and intercept capabilities;!  Y- XX` ` (2)X efficiently uses numbering resources;Ƥ  Y -XX` ` (3)X does not require end users to change their telecommunications numbers;Ƥ  Y#-XX` ` (4)X does not require telecommunications carriers to rely on databases, other network facilities, or services provided by other telecommunications carriers in order to route calls to the proper termination point;Ƥ "+'j0*((P("Ԍ Y-XX` ` (5)X does not result in unreasonable degradation in service quality or network reliability when implemented; Ƥ  Y-XX` ` (6)X does not result in any degradation in service quality or network reliability when customers switch carriers;Ƥ  Yv-` ` (7)X does not result in a carrier having a proprietary interest;!  YH-XX` ` (8)X is able to migrate to location and service portability; and Ƥ  Y -XX` ` (9)X has no significant adverse impact outside the areas where number portability is deployed.Ƥ X(b) All LECs must provide a longterm database method for number portability in the 100 largest Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) by December 31, 1998, in accordance with the deployment schedule set forth in AppendixA to Part 52 of this chapter.! X(c) Beginning January 1, 1999, all LECs must make a longterm database method for number portability available within six months after a specific request by another telecommunications carrier in areas in which that telecommunications carrier is operating or plans to operate.! X(d) The Chief, Common Carrier Bureau, may waive or stay any of the dates in the implementation schedule, as the Chief determines is necessary to ensure the efficient development of number portability, for a period not to exceed 9 months  Y-(i.e., no later than September 30, 1999).! X(e) In the event a LEC is unable to meet the Commission's deadlines for implementing a longterm database method for number portability, it may file with the Commission at least 60 days in advance of the deadline a petition to extend the time by which implementation in its network will be completed. A LEC seeking such relief must demonstrate through substantial, credible evidence the basis for its contention that it is unable to comply with the deployment schedule set forth in Appendix A to Part52 of this chapter. Such requests must set forth: (1) the facts that demonstrate why the carrier is unable to meet the Commission's deployment schedule; (2) a detailed explanation of the activities that the carrier has undertaken to meet the implementation schedule prior to requesting an extension of time; (3) an identification of the particular switches for which the extension is requested; (4) the time within which the carrier will complete deployment in the affected switches; and (5) a proposed schedule with milestones for meeting the deployment date. ! ":&j0*((`'"ԌX(f) The Chief, CommonMONITORING Carrier Bureau, shall monitor the progress of local exchange carriers implementing number portability, and may direct such carriers to take any actions necessary to ensure compliance with the deployment schedule set forth in Appendix A to Part 52 of this chapter. ! X(g) Carriers that are members of the Illinois Local Number Portability Workshop must conduct a field test of any technically feasible longterm database method for number portability in the Chicago, Illinois, area concluding no later than August31, 1997. The carriers participating in the test must jointly file with the Common Carrier Bureau a report of their findings within 30 days following completion of the test. The Chief, Common Carrier Bureau, shall monitor developments during the field test.!  X -  52.5` ` X Database Architecture and Administration. ! X(a) The North American Numbering Council (NANC) shall direct establishment of a nationwide system of regional SMS databases for the provision of longterm database methods for number portability.! X(b) All telecommunications carriers shall have equal and open access to the regional databases.! X(c) The NANC shall select a local number portability administrator(s) (LNPA(s)) to administer the regional databases within seven months of the initial meeting of the NANC.! X(d) The NANC shall determine whether one or multiple administrator(s) should be selected, whether the LNPA(s) can be the same entity selected to be the North American Numbering Plan Administrator, how the LNPA(s) should be selected, the specific duties of the LNPA(s), the geographic coverage of the regional databases, the technical interoperability and operational standards, the user interface between telecommunications carriers and the LNPA(s), the network interface between the SMS and the downstream databases, and the technical specifications for the regional databases.! X(e) Once the NANC has selected the LNPA(s) and determined the locations of the regional databases, it must report its decisions to the Commission.! X(f) The information contained in the regional databases shall be limited to the information necessary to route telephone calls to the appropriate telecommunications carriers. The NANC shall determine what specific information is necessary.! "#'j0*((P("ԌX(g) Any state may opt out of its designated regional database and implement a statespecific database. A state must notify the Common Carrier Bureau and NANC that it plans to implement a statespecific database within 60 days from the release date of the Public Notice issued by the Chief, Common Carrier Bureau, identifying the administrator selected by the NANC and the proposed locations of the regional databases. Carriers may challenge a state's decision to opt out of the regional database system by filing a petition with the Commission.! X(h) Individual state databases must meet the national requirements and operational standards recommended by the NANC and adopted by the Commission. In addition, such state databases must be technically compatible with the regional system of databases and must not interfere with the scheduled implementation of the regional databases. ! X(i) Individual carriers may download information necessary to provide number portability from the regional databases into their own downstream databases. Individual carriers may mix information needed to provide other services or functions with the information downloaded from the regional databases at their own downstream databases. Carriers may not withhold any information necessary to provide number portability from the regional databases on the grounds that such data has been combined with other information in its downstream database.!  Y-  52.7` ` X Deployment of Transitional Measures for Number Portability. ! X(a) All LECs shall provide transitional measures, which may consist of Remote Call Forwarding (RCF), Flexible Direct Inward Dialing (DID), or any other comparable and technically feasible method, as soon as reasonably possible upon receipt of a specific request from another telecommunications carrier, until such time as the LEC implements a longterm database method for number portability in that area.!  X -  52.9` ` X Cost Recovery for Transitional Measures for Number  X-Portability. ! X(a) Any cost recovery mechanism for the provision of number portability pursuant to section 52.7(a) of this chapter, 47 CFR 52.7(a), that is adopted by a state commission must not:! X` ` (1)give one telecommunications carrier an appreciable, incremental cost advantage over another telecommunications carrier, when competing for a specific  YR%-subscriber (i.e., the recovery mechanism may not have a disparate effect on the incremental costs of competing carriers seeking to serve the same customer); or !";&j0*((`'"ԌX` ` (2)have a disparate effect on the ability of competing telecommunications carriers to earn a normal return on their investment.!  X-  52.11` `  Deployment of LongTerm Database Methods for Number  X-Portability by CMRS Providers. ! X(a) By June 30, 1999, all cellular, broadband PCS, and covered SMR providers must provide a longterm database method for number portability, including the ability to support roaming, in compliance with the performance criteria set forth in section52.3(a) of this chapter, 47 CFR 52.3.! X(b) By December 31, 1998, all cellular, broadband PCS, and covered SMR  Y -providers (as defined in Interconnection and Resale Obligations Pertaining to  Y -Commercial Mobile Radio Services, First Report and Order, CC Docket 94-54, FCC 96-263 (adopted June 12, 1996)) must have the capability to obtain routing information, either by querying the appropriate database themselves or by making arrangements with other carriers that are capable of performing database queries, so that they can deliver calls from their networks to any party that has retained its number after switching from one telecommunications carrier to another.! X(c) The Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, may waive or stay any of the dates in the implementation schedule, as the Chief determines is necessary to ensure the efficient development of number portability, for a period not to exceed  Y-9 months (i.e., no later than September 30, 1999, for the deadline in subsection(b), and no later than March 31, 2000, for the deadline in subsection(a)).! X(d) In the event a carrier subject to subsections (a) and (b) is unable to meet the Commission's deadlines for implementing a longterm number portability method, it may file with the Commission at least 60 days in advance of the deadline a petition to extend the time by which implementation in its network will be completed. A carrier seeking such relief must demonstrate through substantial, credible evidence the basis for its contention that it is unable to comply with subsections (a) and (b). Such requests must set forth: (1) the facts that demonstrate why the carrier is unable to meet our deployment schedule; (2) a detailed explanation of the activities that the carrier has undertaken to meet the implementation schedule prior to requesting an extension of time; (3) an identification of the particular switches for which the extension is requested; (4) the time within which the carrier will complete deployment in the affected switches; and (5) a proposed schedule with milestones for meeting the deployment date. ! ":&j0*((`'"ԌX(e) The Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, may establish reporting requirements in order to monitor the progress of cellular, broadband PCS, and covered SMR providers implementing number portability, and may direct such carriers to take any actions necessary to ensure compliance with this deployment schedule.!  X_-  52.12 52.99 [Reserved] "Hj0*(("  Y- V APPENDIX A to Part 52 Deployment Schedule  X-_Vfor LongTerm Database Methods for Local Number Portability ă XImplementation must be completed by the carriers in the relevant MSAs during the periods specified below:Ƥ T ddx !ddxI8 T      X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:63. Richmond, VAxxZ 917,000  Yf-?64. Albany, NYxxZ 875,000  YO-@65. Honolulu, HIxxZ 874,000  Y8-A66. Birmingham, ALxxZ 872,000  Y!-B67. Greenville, SCxxZ 837,000  Y -C68. Fresno, CAxxZ 835,000  Y-D69. Syracuse, NYxxZ 754,000  Y-E70. Tulsa, OKxxZ 743,000  Y -F71. Tucson, AZxxZ 732,000  Y!-G72. Ventura, CAxxZ 703,000  Y"-H73. Cleveland, OHxxZ 677,000  Y#-I74. El Paso, TXxxZ 665,000  Yi$-J75. Omaha, NExxZ 663,000  YR%-K76. Albuquerque, NMxxZ 646,000  Y;&-L77. Tacoma, WAxxZ 638,000  Y$'-M78. Scranton, PAxxZ 637,000H$'0*((P(r$$ (##((HԌ Y-N79. Knoxville, TN 631,000  Y-O80. Gary, IN 620,000  Y-P81. Toledo, OH 614,000  Y-Q82. Allentown, PA 612,000  Y-R83. Harrisburg, PA 610,000  Y-S84. Bakersfield, CA 609,000  Yv-T85. Youngstown, OH 604,000  Y_-U86. Springfield, MA* 584,000  YH-V87. Baton Rouge, LA 558,000  Y1-W88. Jersey City, NJ 552,000  Y -X89. Wilmington, DE 539,000  Y -Y90. Little Rock, AR 538,000  Y -Z91. New Haven, CT* 527,000  Y -[92. Charleston, SC 522,000  Y -\93. Sarasota, FL 518,000  Y -]94. Stockton, CA 518,000  Y-^95. Ann Arbor, MI 515,000  Yy-_96. Mobile, AL 512,000  Yb-`97. Wichita, KS 507,000  YK-a98. Columbia, SC 486,000  Y4-b99. Vallejo, CA 483,000  Y-c100. Fort Wayne, IN 469,000"0*((r$" H0*((r$$8D%D%((Hԯ * Population figures for New England's city and town based MSAs are for 1992, while others are for 1994. X` px (#%'0*,.8135@8: