Network Reliability and Interoperability Council IV (NRIC IV)

Summary of Meeting

July 14, 1999

Panelist-Presenters

FCC Staff Members Present

I. INTRODUCTION

NRIC IV convened its fourth meeting at 2:00 P.M. on July 14, 1999 in the Commission Meeting Room at the new headquarters of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission), 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554. In accordance with Public Law 92-463 (the Federal Advisory Committee Act), the meeting was open to the public. Approximately 100 people attended this meeting. An audio feed of the meeting was provided through the Year 2000 website maintained by the FCC (www.fcc.gov/year2000). The meeting was also carried on closed circuit television (with close captioning) to the meeting room and to various sites around the Commission.

Mr. Frank Ianna, President, AT&T Network Services, presided at the meeting on behalf of Mr. Michael Armstrong, the NRIC Chairman and the Chairman and CEO of AT&T. FCC Commissioner Michael Powell, chair of the FCC’s Year 2000 Task Force, and co-chair of the Telecom Sector Group of the President’s Council for Year 2000 Conversion, briefly mentioned the ongoing planning for the Information Coordination Center (ICC), run by the President’s Council. Commissioner Powell noted the FCC’s role in telecom industry information reporting involving the ICC, and the National Communications System, or NCS, during the millennium rollover.

Focus Group 1

Mr. P.S. Sahni (AT&T), presented the key messages for the three subcommittees of Focus Group 1, which are the Assessment Subcommittee; the Testing Subcommittee; and the Contingency Planning Subcommittee. The three subcommittees make up Focus Group 1, which was created to examine the impact of Year 2000 on networks.

Key Messages: Major local and long distance carriers are currently estimated to be over 98% complete with their remediation and implementation programs, with the target date for completion set for September 1999. Mr. Sahni noted that there is no new information to report with regard to the small and mid-size local telephone carriers, which forecast completion in the 3rd and 4th quarters of 1999. The FCC is confirming their progress through a survey sent in June, 1999, to be available for NRIC in October 1999, with other sources also expecting information in this area.

With regard to the international assessment, Mr. Sahni explained that the risk profile of international traffic to and from the United States has improved relative to the April 14 NRIC meeting. High volume traffic (greater than 100 million minutes) from 53 countries improved their status by June of 1999, with 51% now in the "low risk" range, up from 18% in March 1999. These 53 countries make up 90% of the international traffic to the U.S.; the other 10% comes from 165 countries (with less than 100 million minutes), with 67% of these countries remaining in the high risk category.

On testing, domestic U.S.: covers the majority of local and long distance switch and signaling vendors, has been completed or scheduled by major local and long distance carriers, with no further interoperability testing warranted. International testing completed under the International Telecommunication Union, or ITU, covers major international gateway switch vendors and North American service providers, with additional tests scheduled.

Mr. Sahni noted the information sharing of contingency planning, specifically, the jointly-sponsored NRIC and USTA (United States Telephone Association) hands-on workshop that took place on April 27, 1999, with the purpose of enhancing industry awareness of contingency planning, particularly for small carriers. He noted the presence of contingency planning guidelines and "what-if" scenarios on the NRIC website, at <www.nric.org>.

Mr. Sahni also mentioned the communications plan data collection, with the NCS’s National Coordinating Center, or NCC, as the focal point for domestic and international sources on Year 2000, with work still in progress. The sources include major local and long distance carriers, industry forums, ITU members, and government agencies. The NCC will share information with the ICC, as well as the FCC, earlier noted by Commissioner Powell. Finally, USTA was exploring the possibility of posting information on the web, to share with smaller industry partners.

Overall, Mr. Sahni presented a combined assessment from the 3 subcommittees that the risk of failure to the domestic public switched telephone network as minimal, but the lack of information from the small and mid-size carriers is a concern. Internationally, the risk of failure between the North American region and other world regions also is minimal. Some international impacts, however, may include delays in call set-up due to network congestion in some foreign networks, and degradation of service quality over time due to non-Y2K compliant components in some foreign networks. Finally, unpredictable infrastructure failures, such as the electric, oil, and gas sectors, could adversely affect telecom networks.

Focus Group 1, Subcommittee 1 - Assessment

Gerry Roth (GTE) delivered his presentation on telecom network assessment. He noted that the large local and long distance carriers in the United States were more than 98% complete with remediation and implementation in June, and echoed Mr. Sahni’s concerns about the lack of information from smaller carriers. He noted three sources of information on small and mid-size carriers, including the FCC’s June 1999 survey, information coming from NARUC (the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners), and from USTA. Mr. Roth noted that, while call processing is not likely to be impacted, unpredicted infrastructure failures, changes in consumer behavior, or failure of Customer Premises Equipment (CPE) by businesses could have adverse impacts on calling ability.

With regard to international traffic into the U.S., 80% of that traffic is from medium to low risk countries, which is up from 66 % in January of 1999. Risk perceptions of 83% of the United States’ key telecommunications partners improved or stayed the same. The evaluation of 219 countries showed small substantial changes in aggregate status. On a regional scale, North America and the Caribbean improved their risk perception scores; Eastern Europe worsened, and there was no substantial change in the following regions: Asia Pacific, Central and South America, the Indian Sub-Continent, the Middle East and North Africa, Sub Saharan Africa and Western Europe.

Mr. Roth noted, however, that some countries may be doing better than they are saying. But what does all this mean? He noted that the perception of risk might be more a measure of communication about Y2K than about the actual status of Y2K. The lack of information from some countries is troubling, he said. The likely impacts internationally are that there will be no Year 2000 issues in remediated networks. There may be other issues, such as congestion, re-routing, and minor delays. Also, non-Y2K compliant networks may experience problems locally. His three recommendations: bring in additional informational sources, particularly on the small and mid-size carriers, focus on the uncertainties, and look for additional test results.

Commissioner Powell noted one additional source of information on small carriers, describing a recent press release from the National Telephone Cooperative Association, or NTCA, which represents many rural and small telephone carriers, noting that a recent voluntary survey performed by NTCA showed improvement in the readiness of smaller carriers. The information is available at <www.ntca.org>.

Commissioner Powell also asked about the small percentage of work remaining to be done by large carriers, given the large carriers’ previous projected completion date by the end of June, and whether the remaining percent was a substantive difference in the amount of work to be done. Mr. Roth replied that in March, the major companies thought they could complete their work by June, and while the major companies are all done with their switches, they did not make the deadline.

John Pasqua (AT&T) noted that in the time remaining, the large carriers would individually do more testing and contingency planning, and try to prevent "contamination" of their Year 2000 ready networks – "undoing" Year 2000 readiness, by introduction of additional systems.

Mr. Ianna (AT&T) asked for clarification on an issue of foreign networks, that Year 2000 failures will look like typical network failures, where calls cannot terminate, and it is known there is a problem, but that problem does not propagate.

Focus Group 1, Subcommittee 2 - Testing

L. Scerbo (Telcordia) presented on the results of Year 2000 interoperability testing. Subcommittee 2 was chartered to assess Year 2000 industry testing status and plans, to collect and review data, analyze any gaps, and develop recommendations based on the testing done. Sub-groups within subcommittee 2 explored Year 2000 testing best practices, Year 2000 network vendor compliance information, and Year 2000 interoperability testing. The initial review of replies to a best practice questionnaire was completed in March 1999, leading to the conclusion that industry has documented processes for testing and related functions. The information will be posted on the NRIC website www.nric.org for the purpose of information sharing, and primarily targeting the small and mid-size telecom industry partners.

With regard to the unit testing efforts of common equipment vendors, Mr. Scerbo noted the listing of common products of top vendors, including compliant version and model numbers, the vendors’ URL listings for quick updates, which was first posted on the NRIC site www.nric.org on April 14, 1999, and updated June 11, 1999. Again, the intent behind posting the unit testing information was to share information with smaller telecom industry partners.

On interoperability testing, Mr. Scerbo noted that a testing survey was mailed January 22, 1999, with responses due February 12. Raw data analysis was completed March 18, 1999, and analysis and initial recommendations made April 14, 1999, at the third NRIC meeting. The testing survey information was based on 78 companies, with additional testing information provided by other industry groups. These additional sources include the Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions (ATIS, and which presented information on its Phase 12 testing today), the Telco Year 2000 Forum, the Canadian Telecommunications Industry Forum, the ITU, and bilateral testing service providers.

Mr. Scerbo wanted to emphasize that all this testing was simply the product of people doing their jobs, and that the test results provided no news of Year 2000 problems, which is good news. He described and showed matrices of the testing coverage, showing the wireline to wireline domestic switching, domestic signaling and transport, and international to North American switching. The information will be posted on the web after today’s meeting; but essentially the testing subcommittee looked for any gaps and tried to fill them. In regard, Mr. Scerbo explained that participants in the testing effort created switch combinations likely to be present in the public network.

The first finding and recommendation concerns Internet Service Provider (ISP) interoperability; that is, interoperability of ISPs with the Internet backbone networks. Mr. Scerbo explained that the NRIC testing subcommittee identified this as a gap and reported to the President’s Council in June, and remains a hot issue. The second finding, based on the readiness status analysis of Subcommittee 1, is to explore the impacts of Y2K compliant network to non-compliant network interoperability. The assumption is that dates and date-related information are not relevant to the functionality of trunking, signaling, and data interfaces of all vendors between network providers. Therefore, the Testing Subcommittee believes that Y2K ready network equipment will not fail to operate with non-Y2K ready network equipment, and that potential impacts in the non-Y2K ready networks will not propagate between interfacing networks.

Non-Y2K ready networks may experience limited service or blocking caused by degraded performance of its own network, problems with billing or maintenance tools, or problems with operator interfaces, such as incorrect date or day of week information especially after February 28, 2000. Therefore, the testing subcommittee strongly urged all network providers to work with vendors to understand the potential impacts of non-Y2K ready equipment on their own networks.

Focus Group 1, Subcommittee 3 – Contingency Planning

Ronnie Lee Bennett (Lucent) discussed the communications plan, the contingency planning workshop, and the planning matrix. With regard to the communications plan, this involves the notification of incident reporting during the millennium rollover, between the ICC, the public, the FCC, NCS, Department of Defense (DoD), industry groups and the individual companies as well. The NCS’s NCC, has a database with 22 information elements, and participants have agreed upon components of company specific or national information.

Mr. Bennett also referred to the contingency planning workshop jointly sponsored by the USTA and NRIC on April 27, which targeted smaller industry partners, with about 50 such companies in attendance. He also mentioned the wealth of contingency planning information available on the NRIC website www.nric.org, including a matrix of 38 "what-if" scenarios.

Commissioner Powell referred to the schematic of reporting relationship as the current thoughts to be developing, and noted the direct link between the FCC and the ICC, requiring that industry share information with the FCC as well as the NCS/NCC. Frank Ianna (AT&T) asked that the record reflect the Commissioner’s remarks, that the schematic reporting chart be considered temporal, and he also pledged his company’s full support for the open quality of reporting sought by the Commission. Commissioner Powell also discussed the post-rollover meeting, where lessons will be shared, possibly involving some extension of the NRIC IV charter.

Focus Group 2 – Customer Premises Equipment and Y2K

Bill Blatt (Nortel) presented for the group focusing on Customer Premises Equipment, or CPE, reiterating where work stands at this time. He stated that there are no major problems/issues that cannot be handled with planning, including 911 calling. Using a simple end-to-end view of 911 service, he showed the breakdown of NRIC, FCC, and other government/industry informational sources. He also noted the whole order of second order processing, such as dispatch, time stamp, recording and mapping functions that occur within the Public Safety Answering Point, or PSAP, which was not examined by NRIC.

He re-capped from the last NRIC meeting, in April, when 10% of the PSAPs were reported to be ready for Y2K processing. Mr. Blatt then provided May data that showing that 34% were remediated, with 47% in progress, with no data available for 19% of the PSAPs, where the telephone company has no relationship with the PSAP other than providing a connection. The numbers came from PSAPs within the territories of the members of the Telco Year 2000 Forum. He mentioned the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which has a survey showing that 91% of the PSAPs will be ready by January 1, 2000.

Focus Group 2 will continue to monitor the information from FEMA, the National Emergency Number Association (NENA), and the Telco Forum on PSAPs. Regarding the need for awareness on PSAP readiness, Mr. Blatt mentioned the letter Commissioner Powell sent to emergency managers in the states as extremely helpful. Mr. Blatt also urged consumer awareness, where consumers have the actual numbers of fire, police, and emergency services, such as local hospitals, handy in case of emergency, any emergency, and not just for Year 2000.

Focus Group 3 – Network Reliability

Ray Albers (Bell Atlantic) presented for Focus Group 3. The Network Reliability Steering Committee (NRSC), formed by the Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions, or ATIS, to keep monitoring network health and report trends within the industry. In first quarter 1999 highlights, available at www.atis.org/atis/nrsc/document.htm, all failure categories in the "green," but procedural error-related outages were in the "yellow," the second consecutive quarter in which procedural outages was the majority root cause of all reported outages.

In fact, the NRSC created an outage study team in 1998 to address the "human factor" in outages. The key findings of that team, available at www.atis.org/atis/nrsc/nrschome.htm, were to improve technology implementation to reduce human involvement and human errors, and to implement best practices and information sharing at the industry level to prevent and eliminate procedural outages. Key recommendations were that the NRSC develop a standard format template for recording of outages reported to the FCC; review "best practices;" have equipment vendors create designs to minimize the potential for human error; have service providers better document procedures to minimize human error; provide specialized training to contain outages and to restore service rather than fixing the equipment first; and perform comprehensive root cause analyses whenever outages do occur.

With regard to facilities outages (cable cuts) the Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS) formulated a best practices study for cross-industry use, not just telecom. Emphasizing prevention, they planned to review state laws regarding digging, and risk analysis, with NRSC facilities solutions teams involved in the OPS study.

Focus Group 3, Subcommittee 1 – Best Practices

Rick Harrison (Telcordia) presented information about the work plan, based on the NRSC outage reporting, best practices from NRC II and NRIC IV, and re-categorizing, or broadening the scope of the same, particularly for new entrants. The best practices list now contains 83 best practices, involving a questionnaire on the 83 practices, with information on what has worked/what has not worked, and supplier and carrier comments. The survey respondents, representing 84% of the access lines, may be updated with additional responses by August. Supplier survey information was more limited.

With regard to analyzing the findings, the first conclusion/observation is that no new best practices have been identified, and that all existing best practices have been rated as effective. Review of power outage reports supports the need for following existing best practices. For essential services (911), the preliminary findings were that best practices with high implementation cost also had a high response of not being implemented, which may be a customer decision.

For procedural best practices, the volume of procedures is increasing and also increasing the opportunity for errors. Other reasons are the increasing complexity of networks, the implementation of Local Number Portability, or LNP, and Y2K software changes. High implementation of procedural best practices within industry, however, may mean that companies have a policy, not necessarily being followed, because, as mentioned previously, procedural outages show an increase rather than a decrease.

Subcommittee 2 – Data Analysis and Future Considerations

PJ Aduskevicz presented for subcommittee 2, stating that future consideration of best practices to expand beyond traditional wireline, with work being performed by 4 teams. Team 1, the Interface Team, will consider outage reporting such as a singular reporting system, for multiple government and industry entities. Team 2, the Current Process Team, will analyze current outage reporting requirements and data for incidents of leased capacity or sub-network situations. Team 3, the Future Considerations Team, will look at other industry segments and tools the Commission may need to consider for inclusion in the outage reporting criteria, for current and future telecom services. Team 4, the Recommendations Team, will suggest a direction for reporting outages or incidents that adversely affect current and future telecom services, and prepare a final report.

The meeting was adjourned at 4:00 PM.