Before the

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

+----------------------------------+----+------------------------------+
| In the Matter of                 | *  | WT Docket No. 01-184         |
|                                  | *) |                              |
| Verizon Wireless's Petition for  | ** | CC Docket No. 95-116         |
| Partial Forbearance from the     |    |                              |
| Commercial Mobile Radio Services | *  |                              |
| Number Portability Obligation    | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
| And                              |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
| Telephone Number Portability     | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
+----------------------------------+----+------------------------------+

**MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER**

**Adopted: July 16, 2002 Released: July 26, 2002**

By the Commission: Commissioners Abernathy and Martin approving in part,
dissenting in part, and issuing separate statements; Commissioner Copps
issuing a statement.

# Introduction

1.  In this Order, we deny, in part, Verizon Wireless's (Verizon)
    petition for permanent forbearance from the Commission's wireless
    local number portability (LNP) rules.[^1] We find, however, that
    extending the LNP implementation deadline for a period of one year
    until November 24, 2003, will allow adequate time to resolve all
    outstanding LNP implementation issues, including training personnel
    and other non-technical tasks, and critically, public safety
    coordination. It will also allow wireless carriers to focus on the
    successful implementation of thousands-block number pooling and will
    reduce the burdens and potential risks associated with the
    simultaneous implementation of thousands-block number pooling and
    porting. By providing a transition between number pooling and number
    portability, we ensure that our critical numbering optimization
    goals are met before the obligation to implement LNP becomes due. We
    also find that the competitive reasons that lead the Commission to
    require wireless LNP remain valid today and that there are
    sufficient competitive and consumer benefits in terms of innovative
    service offerings, higher quality services, and lower prices to
    justify the cost of implementing LNP in the near future.

## Number Portability for CMRS Providers

2.  Section 251(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the
    Act) requires local exchange carriers (LECs) to provide service
    provider LNP, to the extent technically feasible, in accordance with
    requirements prescribed by the Commission.[^2] On July 2, 1996, the
    Commission released its *First Report and Order* on number
    portability, which promulgated rules and deployment schedules for
    the implementation of number portability.[^3] Although Commercial
    Mobile Radio Service (CMRS) carriers are not LECs, and thus are not
    included in section 251(b), the Commission also required number
    portability for CMRS carriers.[^4] The Commission determined that
    implementation of LNP, which would enable wireless subscribers to
    keep their phone numbers when changing carriers, would enhance
    competition between these carriers as well as promote competition
    between wireless and wireline carriers.[^5] This determination was
    supported at the time by many in the wireless industry, particularly
    new Personal Communications Services (PCS) providers, who viewed
    wireless LNP as important to promoting competition with more
    established cellular carriers.[^6] The Commission also concluded
    that "\[i\]mplementation of long-term service provider portability
    by CMRS providers will have an impact on the efficient use and
    uniform administration of the numbering resource."[^7]

3.  The Commission required cellular, broadband PCS, and covered
    specialized mobile radio (SMR) carriers to have the capability to
    deliver calls from their networks to ported numbers anywhere in the
    country by December 31, 1998.[^8] In addition, CMRS carriers were
    required to offer service provider LNP, including the ability to
    support roaming, throughout their networks by June 30, 1999.[^9] The
    Commission delegated authority to the Chief of the Wireless
    Telecommunications Bureau (Bureau), to extend the dates contained in
    the CMRS implementation schedule up to nine months.[^10] On
    reconsideration, the Commission upheld its decision to impose number
    portability requirements on CMRS providers, with some
    clarifications.[^11]

4.  On November 24, 1997, the Cellular Telecommunications and Internet
    Association (CTIA)[^12] filed a petition with the Bureau to exercise
    its delegated authority to extend the CMRS service provider number
    portability deadline by nine months.[^13] On September 1, 1998, the
    Bureau granted the requested nine-month extension, stating that it
    was necessary to provide additional time for the wireless industry
    to develop and test standards in order to ensure efficient
    deployment of wireless number portability.[^14] As a result of the
    *Bureau Extension Order*, the deadline for CMRS carriers to offer
    service provider portability was extended from June 30, 1999, to
    March 31, 2000.[^15]

5.  On December 16, 1997, CTIA filed a petition with the Commission
    under section 10 of the Act,[^16] requesting that the Commission
    forbear from imposing LNP obligations on CMRS providers until the
    completion of the five-year buildout period for broadband PCS
    carriers. On February 8, 1999, the Commission granted the petition
    and extended the deadline for CMRS providers to offer service
    provider LNP in the largest 100 MSAs until November 24, 2002.[^17]
    The Commission found that limited forbearance was justified because
    the three-prong test for forbearance had been met. Considering
    evidence that competition in the wireless market had increased
    significantly as the result of recent service launches by broadband
    PCS and SMR carriers, and that prices were falling at least in part
    because of the entry of the new competitors, the Commission found
    that LNP requirements were not necessary, at that time, to ensure
    just and reasonable charges and practices in the wireless
    industry.[^18] The Commission also found that LNP requirements were
    not necessary to protect consumers at that time because evidence
    showed that demand for LNP among consumers was low and that
    consumers were routinely switching among wireless carriers even
    without LNP.[^19] Finally, the Commission determined that
    forbearance was consistent with the public interest for both
    technical and competitive reasons. The Commission found that the
    wireless industry needed additional time to develop and deploy LNP
    technology and that forbearance would also give CMRS carriers
    flexibility to complete network buildout, technical upgrades, and
    other improvements that were likely to have a more immediate impact
    on enhancing wireless service and promoting competition.[^20]

6.  Although the Commission concluded that a limited period of
    forbearance was appropriate, it expressly rejected arguments for
    complete forbearance from the wireless number portability
    requirements.[^21] The Commission found that the competitive reasons
    that led it to mandate wireless number portability in the *First
    Report and Order* remained fundamentally valid and indicated that it
    remained committed to the basic regulatory approach outlined in
    prior orders.[^22] The Commission stated that the new implementation
    schedule did not relieve CMRS carriers of their underlying
    obligation to implement LNP and that carriers were expected to work
    toward implementation during the interim period.[^23] In February
    2000, the Commission affirmed its decision against permanent
    forbearance on reconsideration.[^24]

## Numbering Exhaust and Numbering Resource Optimization

7.  At the time of the *1999 Forbearance Order*, the Commission had not
    adopted thousands-block number pooling requirements. However, the
    Commission there stated its intention to develop standards for
    number conservation methods, including pooling, and to initiate a
    rulemaking proposing certain non-LNP based numbering optimization
    techniques applicable to all telecommunications carriers. On June 2,
    1999, the Commission released a notice of proposed rulemaking on
    numbering resource optimization.[^25]

8.  In its *First Report and Order* on numbering resource
    optimization,[^26] the Commission adopted several administrative and
    technical measures to allow it to closely monitor the use of
    numbering resources within the North American Numbering Plan (NANP).
    To accommodate the increasing need for new telephone numbers caused,
    in part, by the introduction of new wireless and wireline devices,
    the Commission also adopted a system for allocating numbers in
    blocks of 1,000 rather than 10,000 (thousands-block number pooling).
    This system is designed to provide for more efficient allocation of
    numbers by not giving carriers more numbers than they can use. The
    Commission determined that all carriers, including wireless
    carriers, would be required to participate in thousands-block number
    pooling once they became LNP-capable. In the *Second Report and
    Order* on numbering resource optimization, the Commission declined
    to adopt a transition period between the time that CMRS carriers
    must implement LNP and the time they must participate in pooling,
    finding that carriers had failed to provide sufficient evidence that
    they would be unable to implement pooling by the deadline for
    implementation of LNP. [^27]

9.  BellSouth, Cingular, CTIA, Qwest, and Sprint filed petitions seeking
    reconsideration of the Commission's decision to require simultaneous
    implementation of number pooling and number portability.[^28] These
    carriers asserted that they needed additional time to make changes
    to their systems to be able to implement pooling.[^29] Sprint argued
    that the Commission's decision not to establish a separate and
    phased-in implementation plan for CMRS pooling was unexplained and
    contrary to precedent.[^30] In the *Third Report and Order* on
    numbering resource optimization, the Commission again declined to
    alter the implementation date for covered CMRS carriers to
    participate in pooling, noting that it was in the public interest to
    require covered CMRS carriers to participate in pooling as soon as
    possible to maximize number utilization efficiency.[^31]

## Verizon Forbearance Petition and Comments

10. On July 26, 2001, Verizon filed a petition requesting that the
    Commission permanently forbear from imposing LNP requirements on
    covered CMRS providers under section 10 of the Act.[^32] In its
    forbearance petition, Verizon argues that the wireless LNP
    requirements will impose "complex technical burdens and expenses
    that are not justified by tangible competitive benefits."[^33]
    Verizon also contends that wireless carriers need not implement LNP
    to be able to participate in thousands-block number pooling. Verizon
    contends that although carriers must make certain changes to their
    network architecture to be able to pool, they would need to make
    additional changes and incur considerably greater burdens to be able
    to provide LNP.[^34] Verizon does not seek additional time to
    implement pooling, and commits to participate in pooling by November
    24, 2002, but contends that granting forbearance from the wireless
    LNP requirements will allow CMRS carriers to focus on successfully
    meeting the pooling deadline.

11. The majority of CMRS carriers submitting comments support Verizon's
    request for permanent forbearance. They agree with Verizon that the
    benefits of requiring wireless carriers to implement LNP do not
    outweigh the costs associated with implementing LNP.[^35] For
    example, Cingular claims that implementation of LNP will involve
    enormous costs and will not provide wireless subscribers with better
    rates, coverage, or service quality.[^36] AT&T Wireless argues that
    permanent forbearance from the LNP requirements is appropriate
    because portability has not been necessary for the development of
    competition in the wireless industry and will not be needed to
    promote further competition.[^37] Other wireless carriers, on the
    other hand, argue that the Commission should retain the LNP
    requirements with certain modifications.[^38] Leap Wireless, for
    instance, opposes any delay of the wireless LNP mandate, stating
    that the public interest benefits in the form of increased
    competition and conservation of numbering resources outweigh the
    costs associated with implementing LNP.[^39] Leap proposes that the
    Commission maintain LNP requirements for wireless carriers but
    clarify that carriers need only be capable of porting numbers out to
    other carriers and that they need not develop the capability to port
    numbers in.[^40] Nextel suggests that the Commission allow an
    eighteen to twenty-four month transition period between the
    implementation of LNP and pooling.[^41]

12. A number of carriers supporting permanent forbearance have also
    argued in the alternative that in the event the Commission deems
    permanent forbearance inappropriate, the Commission should delay the
    wireless LNP implementation date by a significant amount of time.
    Sprint argues, for example, that if the Commission decides against
    permanent forbearance, it should temporarily forbear from imposing
    LNP requirements on wireless carriers for three years and reexamine
    the need for the LNP requirements at the second anniversary of the
    temporary forbearance order.[^42] AT&T argues that the Commission
    should forbear from imposing the wireless LNP requirements for a
    minimum of thirty months.[^43]

13. State utility commissions generally oppose Verizon's request for
    permanent forbearance. Some are skeptical about Verizon's claim that
    wireless carriers can participate in pooling before implementing
    LNP.[^44] Others argue that wireless LNP is necessary to avoid the
    stranding of numbers associated with wireless churn.[^45] Some state
    commissions also contend that forbearing from imposing LNP
    requirements would stifle further development of competition within
    the wireless industry and between the wireless and wireline
    industries and therefore would be contrary to the public
    interest.[^46] Moreover, state commenters argue that Verizon has
    failed to provide a sufficient explanation of the costs it claims it
    will have to bear to implement portability and has made no attempt
    to identify the benefits of portability for consumers.[^47] Wireless
    resellers also oppose Verizon's request for permanent forbearance,
    arguing that wireless LNP is critical to maintaining a vibrant
    resale market.[^48]

# DISCUSSION

## Forbearance Analysis Under Section 10

14. Section 10(a) of the Act provides that the Commission must forbear
    from applying any regulation or provision of the Act to a
    telecommunications carrier if the Commission determines that:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
(1) enforcement of such regulation is not necessary to ensure that the
    charges, practices, classifications, or regulations by, for, or in
    connection with that telecommunications carrier or
    telecommunications service are just and reasonable, and are not
    unjustly or unreasonably discriminatory;

(2) enforcement of such regulation or provision is not necessary for the
    protection of consumers; and

(3) forbearance from applying such provision or regulation is consistent
    with the public interest.[^49]

    If we determine that there is competition in the wireless market, we
    then must determine whether the LNP requirements are still warranted
    under the standards set out in section 10. Although there has been
    growth in competition in the wireless industry, we find that
    permanent forbearance is not justified under the second and third
    prongs of the section 10 forbearance test; *i.e*. we conclude that
    LNP requirements for wireless carriers are necessary to protect
    consumers and are consistent with the public interest.[^50] We
    therefore deny the Verizon petition for permanent forbearance, as
    discussed below.

### Consumer Protection

15. The second prong of the section 10 forbearance test requires that we
    determine whether enforcement of the wireless number portability
    requirements is necessary for the protection of consumers. Verizon
    argues that sustained competitive pressure encourages CMRS providers
    to maximize consumer satisfaction.[^51] Verizon explains that
    customers who are dissatisfied with their wireless service
    frequently switch service providers even in the absence of LNP.[^52]
    Moreover, Verizon asserts that sections 201 and 202 of the Act
    already ensure sufficient consumer protection.[^53] Opponents of
    Verizon's petition argue that wireless LNP is necessary to protect
    those wireless consumers who would otherwise be prevented from
    changing service providers because of their unwillingness to give up
    their telephone number.[^54]

16. *Discussion*. We conclude that a permanent forbearance from the LNP
    requirements for CMRS carriers is not consistent with the protection
    of consumers. In the *1999 Forbearance Order*, the Commission found
    that immediate implementation of the LNP requirements was not
    necessary to protect consumers because evidence showed that demand
    for LNP among consumers was low and that consumers were routinely
    switching among wireless carriers even without LNP.[^55] The
    Commission emphasized, however, that it continued to view wireless
    LNP as providing important benefits to consumers.[^56] The
    Commission found that although extending the LNP implementation
    deadline until November 2002 would not harm consumers, it was likely
    that, in the longer term, wireless number portability would become
    an increasingly important issue for consumers.[^57] The Commission
    anticipated that, as wireless service rates continued their downward
    trend, there would be a greater likelihood that consumers would view
    their wireless phones as a potential substitute for their wireline
    phones and thus the ability of consumers to port their numbers was
    likely to become an increasingly important factor in consumer
    choice.[^58]

17. We find that the market is developing along the lines anticipated in
    the *1999 Forbearance Order*. Many wireless consumers are beginning
    to change the way in which they use their wireless phones. For
    example, carriers have begun to offer pricing plans providing large
    buckets of air time for a fixed monthly rate.[^59] Some commenters
    contend that subscribers on these plans, motivated to use all of
    their allotment of minutes, use their cell phones for incoming calls
    more frequently and give out their cell phone numbers more
    freely.[^60] Indeed, recent data shows a 51 percent increase in
    minutes of use for wireless subscribers during the period of July
    through December between 2001 and 2000.[^61] Other evidence
    demonstrates that wireless-wireline competition, while still
    limited, is increasing. A survey by the Yankee Group, for instance,
    found that about three percent of mobile telephone subscribers rely
    on their wireless phone as their only phone and another survey
    conducted by the Consumer Electronics Association found that three
    in ten wireless phone users say that they would rather give up their
    home telephone than their wireless phone.[^62] In addition, a USA
    Today/CNN/Gallup poll found that 18 percent of wireless phone owners
    use their wireless phone as their primary phone.[^63] In the
    *Seventh Annual CMRS Competition Report,* we also found data
    suggesting that wireless plans are substituting for traditional
    wireline long distance.[^64] For example, we noted one analyst's
    claim that 20 percent of AT&T's customers, or 5 million people, have
    replaced some wireline long distance usage with wireless. We also
    found that an increasing number of wireless carriers offer service
    plans designed to compete directly with wireline local telephone
    service.[^65]

18. As these trends continue, and as wireless service subscribers
    increase the frequency with which they give out their mobile
    telephone number, we anticipate that an increasing number of
    consumers will be reluctant to change wireless service providers
    unless they can keep the same number.[^66] Unless LNP is available,
    increasing numbers of wireless service consumers - especially those
    who routinely provide their wireless number to others - will find
    themselves forced to stay with carriers with whom they may be
    dissatisfied because the cost of giving up their wireless phone
    number in order to move to another carrier is too high. In fact,
    several hundred consumers have filed comments indicating that they
    already feel restricted in switching among carriers because of their
    inability to take their number with them.[^67] Similarly, as more
    consumers choose to use wireless instead of wireline services, the
    inability to transfer their wireline number to a wireless service
    provider may slow the adoption of wireless by those consumers that
    wish to keep the same telephone number they had with their wireline
    service provider. As the Commission found in the *1999 Forbearance
    Order*, we continue to view wireless LNP as providing important
    benefits to consumers. We find that by denying permanent forbearance
    from the wireless LNP requirements, we ensure that as the wireless
    industry continues to mature, and wireless subscribers become
    significantly more invested in their phone numbers, they will be
    able to experience the benefits of LNP.

### Public Interest

19. The third prong of the section 10 forbearance standard requires us
    to consider whether forbearance is consistent with the public
    interest. Verizon argues that permanent forbearance will not impair
    the public interest in competition because sufficient competition
    exists in the wireless industry without LNP and because there is no
    evidence that LNP will actually bring about increased levels of
    competition.[^68] Verizon also argues that permanent forbearance
    will allow carriers to continue to focus their resources on further
    buildout of their networks.[^69] Finally, Verizon claims that
    forbearance will allow carriers to focus on pooling and thus will
    serve the public interest in conservation of numbering
    resources.[^70]

20. *Discussion.* In the *1999 Forbearance Order*, the Commission
    determined that temporary forbearance at that time was consistent
    with the public interest for both competitive and technical reasons.
    In rejecting requests for permanent forbearance, however, the
    Commission found that the competitive reasons that led it to require
    wireless LNP in the *First Report and Order* remained fundamentally
    valid.[^71] The Commission indicated that the wireless LNP
    requirements were intended to increase competition both within the
    CMRS marketplace and with wireline carriers, which in turn would
    provide incentives for all carriers to provide innovative service
    offerings, higher quality services, and lower prices.[^72] The
    Commission affirmed these findings on reconsideration.[^73] We
    remain convinced that wireless LNP will result in these competitive
    benefits in the long term. Accordingly, we find that permanent
    forbearance is not in the public interest.

21. Moreover, as the Commission discussed in the *1999 Forbearance
    Order*[^74] and on reconsideration, we are not convinced that market
    forces would ensure implementation of LNP. Although certain carriers
    may want all wireless carriers to implement LNP because they believe
    it will result in a net gain of subscribers, other carriers may feel
    differently and will not have any incentive to implement LNP because
    they may be convinced that industry-wide LNP will only serve to make
    it easier for their subscribers to leave them. Consequently, it is
    unlikely for the entire industry to agree to move to wireless LNP
    voluntarily. In addition, there may be economic disincentives for
    any individual carrier to be the first to voluntarily adopt full
    LNP, which would provide its subscribers the flexibility to switch
    to a different carrier while retaining their current phone numbers.
    This is because, absent the implementation of full LNP by other
    wireless carriers, that carrier could not gain any new wireless
    customers from the non-participating wireless carriers. As a result,
    to ensure that consumers have the ability to switch carriers while
    retaining their phone numbers, we must require wireless carriers to
    implement LNP.

22. As discussed above, wireless phone numbers have become more
    important to consumers. Consumers taking advantage of flat rate
    pricing plans are using their wireless phones more frequently and
    giving out their wireless phone numbers more freely. For these
    consumers, the inability to take their wireless phone number with
    them is an additional impediment to these consumers switching
    service providers.[^75] Maintaining LNP requirements, by contrast,
    will eliminate this disincentive to switching among carriers and
    consumers will be free to choose among carriers based on factors
    such as price, service, and coverage. Competitive pressure on
    carriers will intensify, as carriers will be forced to compete on
    the basis of the price and quality of the service they offer to
    consumers, without regard to a customer's phone number. Maintaining
    LNP requirements will also make it easier for newer carriers to
    offer service to existing wireless consumers who would switch
    carriers but for lack of ability to port their wireless phone
    number.[^76]

## Extension of LNP Deadline

23. Although we find that permanent forbearance from the wireless LNP
    requirements would not be consistent with the public interest, as we
    discuss above in section III. A., we find that a limited extension
    of the LNP implementation deadline is warranted. We emphasize that
    our action here should not be interpreted as diminishing our view
    that wireless number portability is an increasingly important factor
    in consumer choice. We find that extending the LNP implementation
    deadline for a period of one year until November 24, 2003, is
    warranted to provide adequate time to resolve all outstanding LNP
    implementation issues, including personnel training and other
    non-technical issues, and critically, public safety coordination.
    The extension will allow carriers to focus on the successful
    implementation of thousands-block number pooling and to guard
    against any potential network disruptions that might result from
    simultaneous implementation of thousands-block number pooling and
    porting.

24. Carriers have submitted evidence demonstrating that implementation
    of the network architecture necessary for pooling is particularly
    complex for wireless carriers because of the mobile nature of
    wireless service and the need to support roaming.[^77] Particularly,
    carriers have indicated that separation of the Mobile Directory
    Number (MDN) and Mobile Identification Number (MIN) will require
    changes to a large number of systems and must be accomplished by
    every wireless carrier, including those operating in markets where
    pooling will not initially be implemented, by November 24, 2002, to
    support roaming with pooled numbers nationwide.[^78] By extending
    the deadline for implementation of wireless LNP for one year, we
    allow carriers to focus on successfully completing all of the tasks
    necessary for pooling. We note that wireless carriers have committed
    to participating in thousands-block number pooling by November 24,
    2002, and have also indicated that they will devote considerable
    resources to correct the unforeseen technical challenges surrounding
    a successful implementation. [^79] We fully expect wireless carriers
    to fulfill this commitment.

25. In addition, evidence from the record shows that delays in the
    delivery of switch software by some vendors have compressed the LNP
    implementation schedule, thereby reducing the time available to
    conduct inter-carrier testing.[^80] Carriers assert that the limited
    period of inter-carrier testing that would be permitted under the
    current schedule jeopardizes the successful implementation of
    porting and increases the difficulty of simultaneous implementation
    of porting and pooling.[^81] Carriers have also expressed concern
    over whether their networks will be prepared to handle the querying
    volumes associated with porting and pooling transactions.[^82] AT&T,
    for example, notes that total CMRS porting and pooling volumes have
    been estimated to be as much as 78.6 million in 2003.[^83] Carriers
    worry that if their networks are not sufficiently prepared to handle
    the combined volumes from porting and pooling, pooling efforts will
    be adversely affected because calls will not route properly to
    pooled blocks, making them unusable as a number resource until
    problems are resolved.[^84] To guard against any potential network
    disruptions, we find that extending the deadline for implementation
    of LNP for a period of one year is appropriate and adequate. We find
    that a one year extension is reasonable because it not only provides
    a transition period between implementation of thousands-block number
    pooling and porting but also allows carriers time to observe and
    correct any problems that may occur after pooling is implemented
    before having to implement LNP.[^85]

26. We note that some states oppose a grant of any extension because of
    doubts about whether CMRS carriers will be able to fully participate
    in pooling before implementing LNP.[^86] These states are concerned
    that Verizon and the other CMRS carriers propose some form of
    limited pooling that would result in number pools available to only
    one particular carrier, number pools segregated by type of carrier,
    or CMRS carriers not being able to donate numbers to pools.[^87]
    Evidence from the record suggests that these concerns are unfounded.
    Although previously, the Commission indicated that implementation of
    LNP was a necessary precursor to the implementation of number
    pooling,[^88] evidence from the record now leads us to conclude that
    it is technically possible for wireless carries to fully participate
    in pooling before implementing LNP.[^89] Specifically, we have found
    that it is not number portability itself, but rather the location
    routing number (LRN) network architecture that is necessary to
    establish pooling capability.[^90] The majority of the CMRS carriers
    submitting comments agree that once CMRS carriers establish an LRN
    network architecture they may fully participate in pooling.[^91]
    CMRS carriers have made assurances that they will be able to donate
    and utilize blocks of numbers from all carrier types within a given
    rate center and there will be no need for separate pools by carrier
    or type of carrier.[^92] Moreover, carriers commit to being able to
    participate in other numbering optimization methods that are
    dependent on LRN network architecture, such as unassigned number
    porting (UNP) and individual telephone number pooling (ITN), should
    the Commission require utilization of those conservation measures at
    some point in the future.[^93]

27. We also note that some states argue that portability is necessary to
    help address the problem of numbers associated with wireless churn
    being stranded during the aging process.[^94] In its comments, NARUC
    explains that the telephone numbers of consumers switching wireless
    carriers are typically stranded for a period of 45 days after the
    carrier winning the customer assigns the customer a new number.[^95]
    The subscriber's original number is held in reserve and cannot be
    immediately reassigned. NARUC contends if CMRS carriers were
    required to port some of these numbers, there would be significant
    numbering resource savings.[^96] Although we agree that portability
    could help relieve this problem, evidence from the record indicates
    that the resulting savings in numbering resources would not be
    significant enough to justify the imposition of LNP requirements
    prior to the expiration of the limited period of extension we adopt
    today to address this problem. For example, AT&T estimates that only
    2.7% of the numbers in its inventory are held in the aging category
    at any given time.[^97] In addition, our June 30, 2001, Numbering
    Resource Utilization data shows that only 4% of all numbers held by
    wireless carriers were in the aging category.[^98] Moreover, as
    Cingular points out, there are administrative restrictions on CMRS
    carriers' ability to obtain additional numbering resources that
    would prevent them from obtaining additional numbers based on an
    inventory of aging disconnected numbers.[^99]

28. We reject requests for a longer extension. Several carriers argue
    that, if the Commission determines that permanent forbearance from
    the wireless LNP requirements is not appropriate, it should, at a
    minimum, extend the LNP implementation deadline for a period of
    anywhere between eighteen months to three years.[^100] We decline to
    permit such a delay in the implementation of wireless LNP.[^101] As
    discussed above, we find that wireless number portability will
    promote competition by making it easier for consumers to switch
    carriers to pursue better features, coverage, and prices. Delay
    beyond the one year period we adopt today could impair the
    development of competition unnecessarily and harm consumers.
    Carriers have also expressed concern about making LNP-related
    system-wide changes to their network during their busy holiday sales
    season, i.e., during the months of November and December.[^102] We
    are not persuaded that these concerns justify allowing an extension
    beyond the one year period we adopt today. Nothing prevents carriers
    from implementing portability before the November 24, 2003, deadline
    if they are concerned about making changes to their networks during
    their busy holiday sales season.

29. We are not persuaded that the costs of LNP will outweigh the
    benefits consumers will experience from the ability to switch
    carriers while retaining the same number. Although supporters of
    Verizon's petition argue that the costs associated with LNP will be
    significant,[^103] other parties have submitted evidence indicating
    that the relative cost of implementing LNP will be low. For example,
    using Cingular's estimate that it will have on-going annual costs
    associated with LNP of \$50 million, ASCENT notes that this cost
    would be spread across a subscriber base of roughly 30 million
    subscribers, resulting in a per-subscriber monthly assessment of 10
    to 20 cents.[^104] Moreover, Leap Wireless notes that costs
    associated with LNP will be small compared to other expenses for
    operations and network upgrades.[^105] Citing Sprint's estimate that
    it will need to spend \$26 million to implement LNP, Leap notes that
    Sprint spent \$3.327 billion on capital expenditures last
    year.[^106] Leap states that Sprint's LNP cost would represent a
    fraction of one percent of its capital expenditures for a single
    year.[^107] We therefore find that the consumer benefits of LNP
    justify imposing these costs on wireless carriers.[^108]

30. We are not persuaded by arguments that a longer extension of the LNP
    implementation deadline is necessary to allow wireless carriers to
    focus on compliance with other regulatory requirements.[^109]
    Wireless carriers have in fact already received extensions of time
    to develop and implement technology associated with E911 and CALEA.
    For example, as of October 2001, the top six nationwide carriers had
    received waivers of the Commission's E911 rules[^110] and were
    granted additional time to deploy handsets with automatic location
    identification (ALI) capability. In addition, with respect to
    CALEA,[^111] a number of carriers have received additional time to
    implement core capabilities under the J-standard. Considering that
    this relief allows carriers, in the near term, to devote resources
    that were dedicated to compliance with these requirements to other
    endeavors, we find that requiring wireless carriers to deploy LNP
    after the expiration of the limited extension period we adopt today
    will not impose an undue burden. Because of the preceding findings,
    absent extraordinary circumstances, we expect wireless carriers to
    comply with the schedule set forth in this Order. We would be
    generally circumspect about granting any additional requests for
    more time especially if such requests make the same arguments
    addressed herein.

31. Under the terms of the extension we adopt today, a CMRS carrier
    located in one of the largest 100 MSAs that receives a request[^112]
    by February 24, 2003, from another carrier to allow end-users to
    port their telephone numbers, must be capable of doing so by
    November 24, 2003.[^113] After November 24, 2003, wireless carriers
    in the largest 100 MSAs must be capable of allowing end-users to
    port their telephone numbers if another carrier has made a request
    for portability. Such carriers must do so within 30 to 180 days of
    the request, depending on the nature of the changes required to the
    particular switch.[^114] Outside the largest 100 MSAs, CMRS carriers
    that receive a request to allow end users to port their telephone
    numbers must be capable of doing so within six months after
    receiving the request or within six months after November 24, 2003,
    whichever is later.[^115] This extension of LNP mandates does not
    alter CMRS carriers' obligation to participate in thousands-block
    number pooling by November 24, 2002. In addition, this extension
    does not change the requirement that all CMRS carriers must support
    roaming nationwide for customers with pooled numbers by November
    24, 2002. That is, if a customer with a pooled number roamed into
    another CMRS carrier's network, that CMRS carrier would support that
    customer's ability to make and receive calls.[^116]

32. We note that several small rural carriers have argued that MIN/MDN
    separation is not necessary for wireless carriers to participate in
    pooling and that, if the Commission extends the implementation date
    for number portability, it should prevent carriers from using
    MIN/MDN separation to implement pooling.[^117] These carriers
    offered an alternative approach for allowing number pooling to
    proceed without the need for MIN/MDN separation. Because we only
    extend the LNP implementation deadline by one year and because there
    is insufficient evidence in the record for us to conclude that any
    alternative routing mechanisms these carriers propose are
    practicable, we see no reason to resolve this dispute in the context
    of the pending forbearance petition or to otherwise compel the
    wireless industry to consider any alternative approaches. [^118]

33. Finally, we reject the requests of Vermont and California to
    recognize state authority to independently impose LNP requirements
    on CMRS carriers.[^119] Uniform, national rules for number
    portability are necessary to minimize confusion and additional
    expense related to compliance with inconsistent regulatory
    requirements.

# CONCLUSION

34. We deny, in part, Verizon's request for permanent forbearance
    because we find that wireless LNP is necessary to preserve consumer
    choice and enhance competition among CMRS carriers and between the
    wireless and wireline industries. We find that extending the LNP
    implementation deadline is appropriate, however, to reduce burdens
    associated with the simultaneous implementation of porting and
    pooling and we extend the LNP implementation deadline for a period
    of one year until November 24, 2003. The actions we take here will
    help ensure that our critical numbering resource optimization goals
    are met while at the same time advancing the achievement of our
    equally important competition policy and consumer protection goals.

# ORDERING CLAUSES

35. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to sections 4(i) and 10 of
    the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. sections
    154(i) and 160, the Petition for Forbearance filed by Verizon
    Wireless on July 26, 2001, is DENIED to the extent stated herein.

    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

    Marlene H. Dortch

    Secretary

    **Appendix A**

    **List of Parties**

    **Comments**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
1.  Carl Alexander

2.  ALLTEL Communications, Inc. (ALLTEL)

3.  Association of Communications Enterprises (ASCENT)

4.  AT&T Wireless Services, Inc. (AT&T Wireless)

5.  California Public Utilities Commission and the People of the State
    of California (California Commission)

6.  Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association (CTIA)

7.  Cingular Wireless LLC (Cingular)

8.  Connecticut Department of Public Utility Control (Connecticut
    Commission)

9.  Dobson Communications Corp. (Dobson)

10. Paul Hass

11. Marc Horowirz

12. Iowa Utilities Board (Iowa Commission)

13. Maryland Public Service Commission (Maryland Commission)

14. Michigan Public Service Commission (Michigan Commission)

15. National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC)

16. Nebraska Public Service Commission (Nebraska Commission)

17. New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission (New Hampshire Commission)

18. New York Department of Public Service (New York Commission)

19. Ohio Public Utilities Commission (Ohio Commission)

20. Rural Cellular Association (RCA)

21. Amitai Sela

22. Joseph Sokol-Margolis

23. Sprint PCS (Sprint)

24. State Coordination Group

25. Texas Public Utility Commission (Texas Commission)

26. Verizon

27. Verizon Wireless

28. Vermont Public Service Board (Vermont Commission)

29. Jesse Vincent

30. Joint Comments of VoiceStream Wireless and United States Cellular
    Corp. (VoiceStream and US Cellular)

31. Samuel Weiler

32. WorldCom, Inc. (WorldCom)

    **Replies**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
1.  ACS Wireless, Inc. (ACS)

2.  ALLTEL

3.  ASCENT

4.  AT&T Wireless

5.  BellSouth Corp. (BellSouth)

6.  Business Service Center, Inc., Conestoga Mobile Systems, Inc.,
    Com-Nav, Inc., Redi-Call Communications Company and Salisbury Mobile
    Telephone, Inc. (Paging Companies)

7.  California Commission

8.  CTIA

9.  Cingular

10. Cox Communications, Inc. (Cox)

11. Illinois Commerce Commission (Illinois Commission)

12. Leap Wireless International (Leap Wireless)

13. Mid-Missouri Cellular

14. Neustar, Inc. (Neustar)

15. Nextel Communications, Inc. (Nextel)

16. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (Pennsylvania PUC)

17. Public Service Cellular

18. RCA

19. SBC Communications, Inc. (SBC)

20. Sprint

21. United States Telecom Association (USTA)

22. Verizon

23. Verizon Wireless

24. VoiceStream and US Cellular

25. Samuel Weiler

26. Western Wireless Corp. (Western)

27. WorldCom

STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER KATHLEEN Q. ABERNATHY, DISSENTING IN PART

> *Re: Verizon Wireless Petition for Partial Forbearance from the
> Commercial Mobile Radio Services Number Portability Obligation and
> Telephone Number Portability, WT Docket No. 01-184, CC Docket No.
> 95-116, Memorandum Opinion and Order (adopted July 16, 2002).*

The Commission today extends for one year the compliance deadline for
wireless carriers to achieve local number portability (LNP). I believe,
however, that the public interest would be better served by a lengthier
delay and that the record in this proceeding supports a more substantial
delay. In addition, recent events in the capital markets and the
Commission's wireless competition report underscore the need for
regulatory restraint. Moreover, there is nothing in this record to
indicate that there is a substantial risk of competitive harm if we
grant a lengthier delay. That is why we should resist substituting our
judgment for the market's judgment of how best to serve consumers.

Wireless local number portability is not statutory.[^120] Rather, the
Commission in 1996 determined that LNP should be required for wireless
carriers based largely on concerns about new carriers competing with
entrenched cellular providers.[^121] Later, LNP was justified based on
numbering conservation concerns. In 1999, the Commission granted
forbearance from wireless LNP until November 24, 2002 .[^122]

The case for temporary forbearance is even stronger today than it was in
1999. As the 1999 Commission put it, "\[t\]he record indicates that the
demand for wireless number portability among CMRS consumers is currently
low and that consumers are more concerned about competition in other
areas such as price and service quality."[^123] The Commission thus
found that granting an extension would give carriers greater flexibility
to complete build out and other improvements likely to have a more
immediate impact on enhancing service to the public and promoting
competition.[^124] Today, I find little record support for the
conclusion that consumers would readily prefer LNP to better coverage,
lower prices, or more innovation services. Capital is a zero sum game;
resources spent on this mandate in a competitive market will have an
impact on other products and services that benefit consumers, including
price, coverage, innovation and other mandates such as E911. Moreover,
mandates impose costs that sap the strength and viability of the
wireless market. Over the longer term, it is the strength of that market
that we will rely on to deliver valued service, innovation, coverage and
price competition to American consumers. The burden of additional
mandates is particularly acute for providers in rural areas or those
with small customer bases who are not capable of spreading their costs
across millions of customers. I am therefore concerned that the
short-term competition considerations that are used to justify this
order may be offset by the longer-term impact of weaker and fewer
competitors, particularly in rural and underserved areas.

In describing the wireless LNP obligation over the years, the Commission
has generally pointed to four factors in assessing the timeliness of the
mandate: (1) number conservation, (2) wireline/wireless competition, (3)
wireless/wireless competition, and (4) technical considerations. I
believe these considerations support a delay into 2004.

\(1\) Number Conservation: It was originally thought that LNP was a
necessary condition precedent to number pooling conservation measures.
That is no longer the case. Indeed, wireless carriers' pooling
responsibilities are not, and should not, be delayed by today's Order.
Therefore, despite previous concerns, significant numbering conservation
is not tied to the LNP mandate.[^125]

\(2\) Wireline/Wireless Competition: Wireline/wireless substitution
appears to run at around 3% and is increasing. Continued significant
declines in long distance revenues prompted in part by wireless
substitution underscores this trend. Thus, it does not appear that LNP
is essential for wireline/wireless competition.[^126] In addition,
wireless carriers who believe that wireline/wireless competition
warrants it, can opt into LNP and port numbers from wireline carriers.
Indeed, at least one carrier has indicated that it will implement LNP in
November 2002 based on its business plan ― with or without a mandate.
For these reasons, I do not believe wireline/wireless competition
supports mandating LNP in the short term.

\(3\) Wireless/Wireless Competition: In granting forbearance in 1999,
the Commission stated that "not only is CMRS competition currently
growing rapidly without LNP, but in the near term, LNP does not appear
to be critical to ensuring that this growth continues."[^127] Along
virtually every metric, the competitive landscape has only improved:
subscribership has grown, prices have fallen, and build out continues.
Nonetheless, I recognize that one day wireless/wireless competition will
likely provide the most valid rationale for any wireless LNP obligation.
As consumers become increasingly attached to their numbers, the
inability to port may distort consumer choice. When the tipping point is
reached, one would expect (1) consumers to stick with their current
carriers longer and (2) carriers with market share to become more
entrenched thus thwarting new competitor entry. In turn, one would
expect to see at least two objective signs that the marketplace is ripe
for an LNP mandate: (a) a slow-down in churn and (b) smaller carriers
supporting LNP. Neither has yet occurred.

> \(a\) Churn: In 1999, the Commission cited to consistently high churn
> as further evidence of the lack of consumer harm from
> forbearance.[^128] Prior FCC orders also concluded that consumers did
> not closely identify with their phone numbers.[^129] Therefore, to the
> extent that consumers have come to identify increasingly with their
> numbers, one would expect a slow in churn. Based on Commission data,
> we have not seen any significant decline in churn over time. Nor has
> any party to this proceeding produced any evidence of a significant
> decline in churn in any market segment or region of the country.
> Number portability cannot be justified based on a slow-down in churn
> due to increased customer identification with their numbers.

\(b\) Carriers Without Market Share Support: One would expect carriers
with smaller market share to be enthusiastic about LNP as a tool to pry
away existing customers from larger providers. Yet, while a few carriers
(such as Leap) oppose delay, the four smallest national players (Sprint,
Nextel, Alltel and Voicestream) all support significant delay. These
carriers presumably believe their market resources are better spent in
other areas of the business. As the Commission stated in 1999, delay
would "give carriers greater flexibility to complete build out and other
improvements likely to have a more immediate impact on enhancing service
to the public and promoting competition." These other efforts include
coverage, customer service, and/or price -- three areas which consumers
consistently identify as very important in selecting a carrier. Shifting
these resources to LNP substitutes government's judgment for the
carrier's judgment on how best to compete and satisfy customers.

\(4\) Technological Considerations: Technical concerns also warrant some
delay. As the public safety community has pointed out in support of a
short delay, there are serious concerns about the impact of imposing
pooling and porting and the corresponding impact on E911. We do not yet
know how pooling will affect network performance or whether the existing
LNP infrastructure is capable of handling the estimated increase in port
volumes resulting from wireless implementation.

Based on these considerations, the Commission unanimously agrees that
the 1999 Commission guessed wrong as to the appropriate date to impose
LNP; however, unlike my colleagues, I believe implementation in 2004
would have been the sounder policy.

STATEMENT OF

COMMISSIONER MICHAEL J. COPPS

*Re: Verizon Wireless's Petition for Partial Forbearance from the
Commercial Mobile Radio Services Number Portability Obligation and
Telephone Number Portability, Memorandum Opinion and Order (WT Docket
No. 01-184; CC Docket No. 95-116) (July 16, 2002).*

Today we grant wireless carriers a one year delay of their local number
portability responsibilities. I believe that a shorter delay would have
sufficed. But faced with the alternative of a longer delay, and because
the Order strongly reaffirms the necessity of LNP rules and states that
carriers must meet this new schedule absent extraordinary circumstances,
I support the Order.

A brief delay of LNP responsibilities is warranted. If for no other
reason, a short delay is appropriate to allow carriers and public safety
answering points to coordinate so there are no negative effects on 911
emergency response. APCO, NENA, and NASNA suggested that a short period
of time would allow such coordination and would ensure that any network
changes are accomplished effectively.[^130] I find their arguments
persuasive.

Many colleagues from State Commissions around the country believe that
porting changes are likely less expensive than carriers suggest. They
believe that carriers don't need a long delay to accomplish pooling, and
that, in fact, porting actually assists the pooling effort. They also
believe that delay would not serve the public interest, would undermine
competition, would fail to protect consumers, and could result in number
exhaustion problems.[^131] I am mindful of these arguments, and
appreciate the effort our State colleagues have made in participating in
our proceeding. In fact, their input has significantly enhanced the
quality of our dialogue on local number portability.

I believe that a delay shorter than one year would have provided
carriers with ample time to resolve all LNP, pooling, and public safety
concerns. However, I support today's Order because it is significantly
superior to such options as an even longer delay or, worse, to
forbearance that would result from Commission inaction. A failure to
reach agreement within one year of the Petition would have resulted,
under the Communications Act, in an automatic grant of the request for
permanent forbearance of LNP responsibilities.

In addition, I support this Order because it strongly reaffirms the
Commission's determination that LNP rules are in the public interest and
important for the protection of consumers, for competition, and because
market forces without an FCC rule could create a "first mover problem"
where no nationwide wireless company would step forward and offer
portability unilaterally for fear that other companies would not
reciprocate.

Finally, I support this Order because it explains that the Commission
reviewed, considered, and found unpersuasive carrier arguments that a
permanent waiver, or a waiver of longer than one year, was necessary.
The Commission considered arguments that a longer delay was needed to
allow time for pooling changes, inter-carrier testing, and to account
for delays in the delivery of switch software. We also considered
whether a longer delay was necessary because of the potentially large
querying volumes associated with porting and pooling, because the delay
ends during the busy holiday season, because of the costs of
LNP-associated changes, so that carriers could focus on other
responsibilities, such as E911 and CALEA, and for reasons raised in the
other arguments on the record. The Commission found that none of these
arguments justified a delay of longer than one year.

Carriers were granted their first delay of LNP responsibilities in
1998.[^132] They received their second delay in 1999.[^133] Carriers
receive their third delay today. I hope we are resolved that on November
24, 2003, rather than a fourth delay, we will be able to deliver number
portability to American consumers.

**SEPARATE STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER KEVIN J. MARTIN,**

**APPROVING IN PART AND DISSENTING IN PART**

*Re: Verizon Wireless's Petition for Partial Forbearance from the
Commercial Mobile Radio Services Number Portability Obligation*,
Memorandum Opinion and Order, WT Docket No. 01-184, CC Docket No. 95-116

I vote in support of the Commission's decision to deny Verizon's
petition for permanent forbearance from the Commission's wireless number
local portability (LNP) rules but to grant carriers a twelve-month
extension to come into compliance. I dissent, however, from this item's
discussion of the legal standard used to assess Verizon's petition.

**1.** Under the standard adopted by the majority, I do not find a
sufficient basis for granting Verizon's petition for permanent
forbearance, and I agree that the Commission's LNP mandate is
"important" for the protection of consumers.

As I have previously explained, I believe that competition is preferable
to regulation. Market forces are the best method of delivering choice,
innovation, and affordability to consumers across our nation. But that
does not mean that the Commission has no role to play. The Commission
has an important role to play in creating an environment in which
competition can flourish. And where there are market failures, the
Commission may need to step in and take action.

The inability of consumers to keep their phone numbers when they switch
carriers can be an impediment to competition. It imposes a cost to
switching carriers, which, for many consumers, could be significant. In
order to make a switch, consumers must contact the full range of people
from whom they expect to receive calls, and many must also change
business cards, letterhead, advertisements, and professional
directories. These costs not only provide a disincentive for consumers
that may want to switch providers, they also disadvantage new entrants
to the market.

Thus, LNP can be important for competition. It allows consumers to
choose a cheaper or more innovative wireless service without incurring
some of these not insignificant switching costs. Moreover, it allows
consumers more easily to replace their wireline phones with wireless
phones, providing direct competition to the incumbent wireline telephone
providers. A recent poll found that 18 % of wireless phone owners use
their wireless phones as their primary phones. LNP may be an important
part of ensuring that competition with wireline phones continues to
grow.

The ability of new entrants to compete with established providers may
become an even more important issue as additional deregulatory steps
that the Commission has already taken go into effect. For example, the
spectrum cap regulations, which limit the amount of spectrum any carrier
can hold and thus ensure that there can be at least four competitors in
any given market, will sunset January 1, 2003. In the post-spectrum-cap
environment, in which some further consolidation may occur, the ability
of smaller, new entrants to compete with even larger wireless carriers
may be critical to maintaining a vibrant competitive wireless market and
thereby ensure that consumers continue to receive the most innovative
and affordable services.

For all of these reasons, I support the Commission's conclusion that our
LNP rules are consistent with the protection of consumers and thus not
to forbear permanently from applying them. I also support the
Commission's decision to delay implementing those rules for a period of
one year. Several public safety groups -- the National Emergency Number
Association (NENA), the Association of Public-Safety Communications
Officials-International, Inc. (APCO), and the National Association of
State Nine One One Administrators (NASNA) -- have sought a sixth-month
delay to ensure our E911 rules are implemented effectively in
conjunction with LNP. As I have stated before, implementation of E911
must be a fundamental priority, and I agree that a short delay of LNP
requirements is appropriate to ensure this implementation is not
jeopardized. I also find merit in certain carriers' claims that
implementing LNP at the same time that they implement pooling will
create hardship, due to the need to ensure the technical workability of
each functionality. While I know that some carriers would have liked an
even longer delay, I believe we have struck a fair balance between the
carriers' needs and those of consumers.

**2.** Although I support the Commission's conclusion under the
forbearance standard adopted by the majority, I would have preferred to
change this standard. Section 10 of the Communications Act (47 U.S.C. §
160) states in relevant part: "Any \[forbearance\] petition shall be
deemed granted if the Commission does not deny the petition for failure
to meet the requirements for forbearance under subsection (a) of this
section within one year after the Commission receives it." 47 U.S.C. §
160(c). Subsection (a) in turn states:

> \[T\]he Commission shall forbear from applying any regulation or any
> provision of this chapter to a telecommunications carrier or
> telecommunications service, or class of telecommunications carriers or
> telecommunications services, in any or some of its or their geographic
> markets, if the Commission determines that --
>
> \(1\) enforcement of such regulation or provision is not necessary to
> ensure that the charges, practices, classifications, or regulations
> by, for, or in connection with that telecommunications carrier or
> telecommunications service are just and reasonable and are not
> unjustly or unreasonably discriminatory;
>
> \(2\) enforcement of such regulation or provision is not necessary for
> the protection of consumers; and
>
> \(3\) forbearance from applying such provision or regulation is
> consistent with the public interest.

47 U.S.C. § 160(a).

I believe that the present item fails to give sufficient content to this
language, in particular its use of the term "necessary." Section 10
requires, among other things, that forbearance be granted if enforcement
of the challenged regulation is not "necessary" to ensure that charges,
practices, etc., are just and reasonable, and enforcement of the
regulation is not "necessary" for the protection of consumers. 47 U.S.C.
§ 160(a). In this item, the Commission does not offer a definition of
"necessary," although it suggests that the term means something like
"consistent with" or "important." For example, the item's analysis rests
on the conclusion that "permanent forbearance from the LNP requirements
for CMRS carriers is not *consistent with* the protection of consumers"
and finds that "we continue to view wireless LNP as providing
*important* benefits to consumers." Order ¶¶ 16, 18 (emphasis added). I
find this ambiguity particularly troubling, because, in another context,
the Commission has recently argued explicitly that the term "necessary"
means "useful" or "appropriate." *See* FCC's Petition for Rehearing or
Rehearing *En Banc*, *Fox Television Stations, Inc. v. FCC*, Nos.
00-1222, *et al.*, 2002 WL 1343461, at 5 (D.C. Cir. Jun 21, 2002)
("Terms such as 'necessary' and 'required' must be read in their
statutory context and, so read, can reasonably be interpreted as meaning
'useful' or 'appropriate' rather than 'indispensable' or 'essential.'").
As I have explained elsewhere, I believe the term "necessary" should
mean something more than merely "useful" or "appropriate." *See*
Separate statement of Commissioner Kevin J. Martin, *Implementation of
the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992;
Development of Competition and Diversity in Video Programming
Distribution: Section 628(c)(5) of the Communications Act; Sunset of
Exclusive Contract Prohibition*, Report and Order, CS Docket No. 01-290
(adopted June 13, 2002). Rather, I believe the term should be read in
accordance with its plain meaning, to mean something closer to
"essential." In any event, I believe that it should mean something more
than merely "useful," "appropriate," "consistent with," or "important."

I am also troubled by the fact that this item does not state that the
burden, in judging a forbearance petition, is on the Commission. The
language of section 10 places affirmative obligations on the Commission.
Subsection (c) requires that a forbearance petition is automatically
granted (the "petition shall be deemed granted") absent an action of the
Commission to deny the petition. Subsection (a) then directs the
Commission to "determine" specific factors and then mandates forbearance
("the Commission shall forbear") if those factors are met. This language
makes grant of a forbearance petition the default outcome, placing the
burden of justifying a denial of a forbearance petition on the
Commission. In other words, the statute requires the Commission, when
faced with a petition to forbear from applying a particular regulation,
to grant the petition unless it can justify continued application of the
regulation.

Despite this statutory language, the Commission has, in the past, placed
the burden on forbearance petitioners to demonstrate that a regulation
is no longer necessary. *See*, *e.g.*, *Personal Communications Industry
Association's Broadband Personal Communications Services Alliance's
Petition for Forbearance for Broadband Personal Communications
Services*, 13 FCC Rcd 16857, ¶ 25 (1998) ("\[T\]he record does not show
that today's market conditions eliminate all remaining concerns about
whether broadband PCS providers' rates and practices are just,
reasonable, and non-discriminatory."). While the present item appears to
offer some improvement, it does not address this past precedent or
explicitly state where the burden lies. In my view, the Commission ought
to clarify that the burden lies with the Commission.

For these reasons, I dissent from the item's discussion of the
forbearance standard. These are matters of critical importance to me,
and, in this item, are of critical significance. As I explained above, I
am comfortable deciding that LNP is "useful" for or even "consistent
with" the protection of consumers. However, it is less clear that LNP
could meet the more appropriate and higher standard of the statute --
"necessary" -- and I am disappointed that this question was not the
subject of our debate.

[^1]: 47 C.F. R. § 52.31.

[^2]: 47 U.S.C. § 251(b).

[^3]: Telephone Number Portability, CC Docket No. 95-116, *First Report
    and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*, 11 FCC Rcd
    8352 (1996) (*First Report and Order*).

[^4]: The Commission imposed number portability requirements on CMRS
    carriers pursuant to its authority under sections 1, 2, 4(i), and
    332 of the Act. *See* 47 U.S.C. §§ 1, 2, 4(i), and 332.

[^5]: *First Report and Order,* 11 FCC Rcd at 8434-36, paras. 157-160.

[^6]: *Id*. at 8426, para. 144.

[^7]: *Id*. at 8431-32, para. 153.

[^8]: *Id*. at 8440, para. 165. This gave CMRS carriers the ability to
    deliver telephone calls made by their customers on a wireless phone
    to wireline customers who have retained their telephone number but
    switched service providers.

[^9]: *Id*. at para. 166.

[^10]: *Id*. at para. 167.

[^11]: Telephone Number Portability, CC Docket No. 95-116, *First
    Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration*, 12 FCC Rcd 7236,
    7313, paras. 136-37 (1997) (*First Memorandum Opinion and Order*).
    The Commission clarified that under the CMRS implementation
    schedule, by June 30, 1999, CMRS providers were required to (1)
    offer service provider portability in the largest 100 MSAs where a
    request was received at least nine months before the deadline, and
    (2) be able to support nationwide roaming. Although only CMRS
    carriers in the largest 100 MSAs were required to offer service
    provider portability by the June 30, 1999, deadline, all CMRS
    carriers were required to support roaming by that date. This
    requirement was intended to ensure that if a customer with a ported
    number roamed into another CMRS carrier's network, that CMRS carrier
    would support that customer's ability to make and receive calls.

[^12]: At the time CTIA filed its petition, it was known as the Cellular
    Telecommunications and Industry Association.

[^13]: Telephone Number Portability, Petition for Extension of
    Implementation Deadlines of the Cellular Telecommunications Industry
    Association, CC Docket No. 95-116 (filed Nov. 24, 1997).

[^14]: Telephone Number Portability, Petition for Extension of
    Implementation Deadlines of the Cellular Telecommunications Industry
    Association, CC Docket No. 95-116, *Memorandum Opinion and Order*,
    13 FCC Rcd 16315, 16317, para. 7 (1998) (*Bureau Extension Order*).

[^15]: *Id*. In the *Bureau Extension Order*, the Commission took no
    action with respect to the requirement that by December 31, 1998,
    all cellular, broadband PCS, and covered SMR providers have the
    capability to deliver calls from their networks to ported numbers.

[^16]: 47 U.S.C. § 160.

[^17]: Telephone Number Portability, Cellular Telecommunication and
    Industry Association's Petition for Forbearance from Commercial
    Mobile Radio Services Number Portability Obligations, WT Docket No.
    98-229, *Memorandum Opinion and Order*, 14 FCC Rcd 3092 (1999)
    (*1999 Forbearance Order*). On December 15, 1998, the Commission
    exercised its authority under 47 U.S.C. § 160(c) to extend the
    one-year period for decision by 90 days, which moved the deadline
    for Commission action on the CTIA petition to March 16, 1999.

[^18]: *Id*. at 3101-02, para. 19.

[^19]: *Id*. at 3103, para. 22.

[^20]: *Id*. at 3104-05, para. 25.

[^21]: *Id*. at 3112-13, para. 40.

[^22]: *Id*.

[^23]: *Id*. at 3117, para. 49.

[^24]: Telephone Number Portability, Cellular Telecommunications and
    Industry Association's Petition for Forbearance from Commercial
    Mobile Radio Services Number Portability Obligations, WT Docket No.
    98-229, *Order on Reconsideration*, 15 FCC Rcd 4727, 4733, para. 12
    (2000) (*Order on Reconsideration*).

[^25]: Numbering Resource Optimization, CC Docket No. 99-200, *Notice of
    Proposed Rulemaking*, 14 FCC Rcd 10322 (1999).

[^26]: Numbering Resource Optimization, CC Docket No. 99-200, *Report
    and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*, 15 FCC Rcd
    7574 (2000) (*Numbering Resource Optimization* *First Report and
    Order*).

[^27]: Numbering Resource Optimization, CC Docket No. 99-200, *Second
    Report and Order, Order on Reconsideration in CC Docket No. 96-98
    and CC Docket No. 99-200, and Second Further Notice of Proposed
    Rulemaking*, 16 FCC Rcd 306 at 328, para. 50 (2000) (*Numbering
    Resource Optimization* *Second Report and Order*).

[^28]: BellSouth Petition for Reconsideration and Clarification, CC
    Docket No. 99-200 at 12-15 (filed March 12, 2001); CTIA Petition for
    Reconsideration, CC Docket No. 99-200 at 5-14 (filed March 12,
    2001); Cingular Wireless LLC Petition for Reconsideration of the
    Second Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration, CC Docket No.
    99-200 at 3-13 (filed March 12, 2001) (*Cingular Petition*);
    Petition for Reconsideration of Qwest Corp*.*, CC Docket No. 99-200
    at 2-5 (filed March 12, 2001) (*Qwest Petition*); Sprint Corporation
    Petition for Reconsideration and Clarification, CC Docket No. 99-200
    at 5-12 (filed March 12, 2001) (*Sprint Petition*).

[^29]: *See* *Cingular Petition* at 3-6; *Qwest Petition* at 5.

[^30]: *Sprint Petition* at 5-12.

[^31]: Numbering Resource Optimization, CC Docket No. 99-200, *Third
    Report and Order*, 17 FCC Rcd 252, 263, para. 23 (2001).

[^32]: Verizon Wireless Petition Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 160 for Partial
    Forbearance from the Commercial Mobile Radio Services Number
    Portability Obligation, WT Docket No. 01-184 (filed July 26, 2001)
    (*Verizon Wireless Forbearance Petition*).

[^33]: *Verizon Wireless Forbearance Petition* at 2.

[^34]: *Id.* at 4.

[^35]: ACS Wireless, ALLTEL, AT&T Wireless, Cingular Wireless, Dobson
    Communications, Sprint PCS, United States Cellular, VoiceStream
    Wireless, and Western Wireless all filed comments supporting
    Verizon's petition. Comments and Reply Comments filed in response to
    the Verizon Wireless Petition are listed in Appendix A.

[^36]: Cingular Comments at 3.

[^37]: AT&T Wireless Comments at 6-7.

[^38]: *See* Cox Reply Comments; Leap Wireless Reply Comments;
    Mid-Missouri Cellular Reply Comments; Nextel Reply Comments; and
    Public Service Cellular Reply Comments.

[^39]: Leap Wireless Reply Comments at 1.

[^40]: *Id*. at 1-2.

[^41]: Letter from Laura H. Phillips, Counsel for Nextel Communications,
    Inc., to Magalie Roman Salas, Secretary, FCC, at 2 (filed Jan. 22,
    2002) (*Nextel Ex Parte*).

[^42]: Letter from Luisa L. Lancetti, Vice President, Regulatory Affairs
    -- PCS, to Magalie Roman Salas, Secretary, FCC (filed Jan. 18, 2002)
    (*Sprint Ex Parte*).

[^43]: Letter from Suzanne K. Toller, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, to
    Magalie Roman Salas, Secretary, FCC (filed Jan. 18, 2002) (*AT&T*
    *Ex Parte*).

[^44]: *See, e.g*., Michigan Commission Comments at 1-2; NARUC Comments
    at 3; New Hampshire Commission Comments at 10; New York Commission
    Comments at 2; Pennsylvania Commission Reply Comments at 5-8; and
    State Coordination Group Comments at 4.

[^45]: *See*, Maryland Commission Comments at 2; NARUC Comments at 2-3;
    Ohio Commission Comments at 4; Texas Commission Comments at 2-3.

[^46]: *See*, California Commission Comments at 9-10; Connecticut
    Commission Comments; Iowa Commission Comments at 2; New Hampshire
    Commission Comments at 10-12; New York Commission Comments at 3;
    Ohio Commission Comments at 4-8; State Coordination Group Comments
    at 4; Texas Commission Comments at 4. *See also* Letter from Loretta
    M. Lynch , President, California PUC, to Michael Powell, Chairman,
    FCC at 1, 3-4 (filed Nov. 19, 2001) (*California* *Ex Parte*);
    Letter from James Bradford Ramsay, NARUC, General Counsel, to
    Michael Powell, Chairman, FCC, at 1-2 (filed Nov. 29, 2001) (*NARUC*
    *Ex Parte*).

[^47]: *See*, California Commission Comments at 14-18; Iowa Commission
    Comments at 3; New Hampshire Commission Comments at 3-6, 8-9; State
    Coordination Group Comments at 5-8.

[^48]: ASCENT Comments at 13-14; WorldCom Comments at 8-9.

[^49]: 47 U.S.C. § 160(a). Section 10(b) of the Act provides that, in
    making the determination about whether forbearance would be
    consistent with the public interest, the Commission "shall consider
    whether forbearance from enforcing the provision or regulation will
    promote competitive market conditions, including the extent to which
    such forbearance will enhance competition among providers of
    telecommunications services." 47 U.S.C. § 160(b).

[^50]: Because we conclude that Verizon's request fails the second and
    third prongs of section 10, we need not address whether the LNP
    requirement is necessary under the first prong set forth in section
    10(a)(1). 47 U.S.C. § 160(a)(1).

[^51]: *Verizon Wireless Forbearance Petition* at 22.

[^52]: *Id*. 22-23.

[^53]: *Id*. at 23. Section 201 of the Act requires carriers to provide
    service on terms that are just and reasonable. Section 202 prohibits
    carriers from engaging in unreasonable discrimination. *See* 47 U.S.
    C. §§ 201-202.

[^54]: California Commission Comments at 9.

[^55]: *1999 Forbearance Order*, 14 FCC Rcd at 3103, para. 22.

[^56]: *Id*. at para. 23

[^57]: *Id.*

[^58]: *Id*. at 3103-04.

[^59]: WorldCom Comments at 5-6. *See also* Linda J. Mutschler *et al*.,
    *The Next Generation VI*: Wireless in the US, United States Telecom
    Services-Wireless/Cellular, Merrill Lynch, Mar. 8, 2002 at 57-63.

[^60]: *Id*.

[^61]: June 2001 CTIA Survey (minutes of use through 2000), at 169; Todd
    Rethemeier *et al*., *Talk is Cheaper, Demand is Steeper*, Bear
    Sterns, Equity Research, May 21, 2002, at 1 (citing CTIA 2001 MOU
    results). CTIA aggregated all of the carriers' MOUs from July 1
    through December 31, then divided by the average number of
    subscribers, and then divided by six.

[^62]: Judy Saries, *Wireless Users Hanging Up on Landline Phones*,
    NASHVILLE BUSINESS JOURNAL, Feb. 2, 2001; *Will Wireless Phones Make
    Traditional Home Telephones Obsolete?*, News Release, Consumer
    Electronics Association, Apr. 6, 2000.

[^63]: Michelle Kessler, *18% See Cellphones As Their Main Phones*, USA
    TODAY, Feb. 1, 2002, at B1.

[^64]: Implementation of Section 6002(b) of the Omnibus Reconciliation
    Act of 1993, Annual Report and Analysis of Competitive Market
    Conditions with Respect to Commercial Mobile Services, *Seventh
    Report*, FCC 02-179 at 34 (rel. July 3, 2002) (*Seventh CMRS
    Competition Report*).

[^65]: *Id*.

[^66]: WorldCom Comments at 5-6.

[^67]: Some of these consumers have noted that, in determining whether
    to switch carriers, they must consider costs associated with
    replacing business cards and stationery. *See e.g*., Comment from
    Alan Martin (filed Jan. 29, 2002); Comment from Alan Furman (filed
    Nov. 28, 2001); Comment from Robert F. Bergen (filed Nov. 28, 2001);
    Comment from Thomas A. Goodman (filed Nov. 28, 2001); Comment from
    Kristine Mighion (filed Feb. 1, 2002); Comment from Chris Britton
    (filed Feb. 7, 2002); and Comment from Mark Matthews (filed Feb. 7,
    2002).

[^68]: *Verizon Wireless Forbearance Petition* at 26.

[^69]: *Id*. at 25.

[^70]: *Id*. at 29-30.

[^71]: *1999 Forbearance Order*, 14 FCC Rcd at 3112, para. 40.

[^72]: *Id*. at 3112-13.

[^73]: *Order on Reconsideration* 15 FCC Rcd at 4733, para. 12.

[^74]: *1999 Forbearance Order*, 14 FCC Rcd at 3113, para. 41.

[^75]: *See* Letter from Michael Mowery, General Counsel, Telephia to
    Magalie Roman Salas, Secretary, FCC (filed Jan. 22, 2002) (noting
    that 40% of respondents to Telephia survey questionnaire selected "I
    don't want to change my current phone number" as one reason for
    remaining with their current carrier).

[^76]: *See* Leap Wireless Comments at 4; Nextel Comments at 2; WorldCom
    Comments at 8. *See also*, Letter from James F. Barker, Latham &
    Watkins on behalf of Leap Wireless, to William F. Caton, Acting
    Secretary, FCC (filed Feb. 12, 2002) (submitting declaration from
    Dr. Peter Crampton, Professor of Economics at the University of
    Maryland).

[^77]: AT&T Comments at 11.

[^78]: AT&T Comments at 12; *Verizon Wireless Forbearance Petition* at
    Appendix 5.

[^79]: *See* Testimony from Ms. Anna Miller, Director of Numbering
    Policy, VoiceStream Wireless, on behalf of CTIA, to the Subcommittee
    on Telecommunications and the Internet, June 26, 2002.

[^80]: AT&T Comments at 15-16.

[^81]: AT&T Reply Comments at 11.

[^82]: AT&T Comments at 17; Cingular Comments at 19; VoiceStream and US
    Cellular Comments at 15-16.

[^83]: *AT&T Ex Parte* at 3.

[^84]: *Id.* at 5. We note that in a recent ex parte filing, CTIA has
    also expressed concern about the ability of the Number Portability
    Administration Center (NPAC) to handle the volume of number ports
    that will result from wireless LNP. *See* Letter from Michael
    Altschul, Senior Vice President, Regulatory Affairs and General
    Counsel, CTIA, to Tom Sugrue, Chief, Wireless Telecommunications
    Bureau, and Dorothy Attwood, Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau
    (filed Mar. 28, 2002). In response to CTIA's filing, Neustar
    indicated that the NPAC would be prepared to handle anticipated
    porting volume. *See* Letter from Joseph F. Franlin, Senior Vice
    President, Operations, Neustar, to Tom Sugrue, Chief, Wireless
    Telecommunications Bureau, and Dorothy Attwood, Chief, Wireline
    Competition Bureau (filed Apr. 2, 2002). We find that Neustar will
    be able to handle increased pooling and porting volumes as a result
    of CMRS carriers' participation in number pooling and number
    portability.

[^85]: We note that, while not addressing the merits of Verizon's
    petition for forbearance, APCO, NENA, and NASNA have expressed
    concern about potential degradation of 911 services for customers
    who port numbers, and urge the Commission to enforce the LNP
    performance criteria set forth in section 52.23 of the Commission's
    rules. *See* Letter from James R. Hobson, Counsel for NENA, to
    Magalie Roman Salas, Secretary, FCC (filed Jan. 30, 2002) at 2-3.
    While we recognize these concerns, to the extent that wireless
    carriers are deploying automatic location identification technology
    in their networks according to compliance plans approved by the
    Commission, we conclude that they will satisfy the performance
    criteria in section 52.23 with respect to provision of emergency
    services.

[^86]: *See* NARUC Comments at 3; New Hampshire Commission Comments at
    10; New York Commission Comments at 2-3.

[^87]: New Hampshire Commission Comments at 10; New York Commission
    Comments at 2-3.

[^88]: *See, e.g*., *1999 Forbearance Order*, 14 FCC Rcd at 3113, para.
    43; *Order on Reconsideration*, 15 FCC Rcd 4732-33, para. 11;
    *Numbering Resource Optimization* *First Report and Order*, 15 FCC
    Rcd at 7633-34, paras. 136-37.

[^89]: AT&T Wireless Comments at 3-4; Cingular Wireless Comments at
    15-16; Sprint Comments at 7-8; *Verizon Wireless Forbearance
    Petition* at 9-11; VoiceStream and US Cellular Comments at 10.

[^90]: *Id.* Under the LRN network architecture, a unique ten-digit
    number -- the location routing number or LRN -- is assigned to each
    central office switch to identify each switch in the network for
    call routing purposes. The LRN then serves as a network address.
    *See* Telephone Number Portability, CC Docket No. 95-116, *Second
    Report and Order*, 12 FCC Rcd 12281, 12288 (1997).

[^91]: AT&T Wireless Comments at 3-4; Cingular Wireless Comments at
    15-16; Sprint Comments at 7-8; Verizon Wireless Forbearance Petition
    at 9-11; VoiceStream and US Cellular Comments at 10. *But see*,
    Mid-Missouri Cellular Comments at 15-20; Public Service Cellular
    Comments at 11-16, arguing that MIN/MDN separation, which, according
    to the majority of carriers, is a critical element of the LRN
    infrastructure, is not necessary for pooling.

[^92]: AT&T Reply Comments at 15; Verizon Wireless Reply Comments at 21.

[^93]: AT&T Reply Comments at 15-16.

[^94]: NARUC Comments at 2-3; Ohio Commission Comments at 4; Texas
    Commission Comments at 2-3; Maryland Commission Comments at 2.

[^95]: NARUC Comments at 2.

[^96]: *Id*.

[^97]: AT&T Reply Comments at 16.

[^98]: *See* FCC, Common Carrier Bureau, Industry Analysis Division,
    *Numbering Resource Utilization in the United States as of June 30,
    2001*, Table 1 (November 2001) (*November 2001 Numbering Resource
    Utilization Report*). This report may be downloaded
    (filename:utilizationjune2001.pdf) from the FCC-State Link Internet
    site at \<<http://www.fcc.gov/ccb/stats>\>.

[^99]: Cingular Reply Comments at 17.

[^100]: *See* Letter from Suzanne K. Toller, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
    on behalf of AT&T Wireless, to Magalie Roman Salas, Secretary, FCC
    (filed Jan. 18, 2002) (recommending that Commission forbear from
    wireless LNP for minimum of 30 months); Letter from Luisa L.
    Lancetti, Sprint, to Magalie Roman Salas, Secretary, FCC (filed Jan.
    18, 2002) (recommending forbearance from wireless LNP for at least
    three years); Letter from Diane J. Cornell, CTIA, to Magalie Roman
    Salas (filed Dec. 5, 2001) (recommending that, at minimum,
    Commission should extend porting deadline for two years); and Letter
    from Laura H. Phillips, Counsel for Nextel, to Magalie Roman Salas,
    Secretary, FCC (filed Jan. 22, 2002) (recommending that Commission
    adopt transition period between implementation of porting and
    pooling of between eighteen to twenty-four months).

[^101]: Because we adopt a blanket one year extension of the LNP
    implementation deadline, we do not address the proposal from Leap
    Wireless contained in their July 9, 2002 ex parte letter. *See*,
    Letter from Harvey P. White, Chairman & CEO, Leap Wireless to
    Michael Powell, Chairman, FCC (filed July 9, 2002).

[^102]: ALLTEL Comments at 7-8.

[^103]: *See* Cingular Comments at 4; Sprint Comments at 6; and Verizon
    Wireless Reply Comments at 17.

[^104]: ASCENT Reply Comments at 13.

[^105]: Leap Wireless Reply Comments at 12.

[^106]: *Id*. at 13. Sprint later estimated its costs to install LNP to
    be over \$86 million. *Sprint Ex Parte* at 5.

[^107]: *Id*.

[^108]: We note that Leap Wireless, Cox Communications, and WorldCom
    have suggested that, instead of granting forbearance, the Commission
    should require wireless carriers to implement the capability to
    "port out" numbers but remove the requirement that carriers be able
    to "port in" numbers. *See* Cox Comments at 2-4, Leap Wireless
    Comments at 13-14, and Letter from Tally Frenkel, Associate
    Attorney, WorldCom, to Magalie Roman Salas, Secretary, FCC (filed
    Nov. 30, 2001). We do not adopt this approach because, as indicated
    above, we find that the consumer benefits of LNP justify imposing
    the associated costs on carriers. Moreover, there is insufficient
    evidence in the record for us to conclude that the technical
    requirements for the approach suggested by these parties are
    appreciably different from those for full LNP, or that it would
    result in significant cost savings.

[^109]: *See e.g*., ALLTEL Comments at 8-10.

[^110]: *See* Revision of the Commission's Rules to Ensure Compatibility
    with Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems, CC Docket No. 94-102,
    Request for Waiver by AT&T Wireless Services, Inc., *Order*, 16 FCC
    Rcd 18253 (2001); Request for Waiver by Cingular Wireless LLC,
    *Order*, 16 FCC Rcd 18305 (2001); Wireless E911 Phase II
    Implementation Plan of Nextel Communications, Inc., *Order*, 16 FCC
    Rcd 18277 (2001); Request for Waiver by Sprint Spectrum L.P. d/b/a
    Sprint PCS, *Order*, 16 FCC Rcd 18330 (2001); and Request for Waiver
    by Verizon Wireless, *Order*, 16 FCC Rcd 18364 (2001), *Fourth
    Memorandum Opinion and Order*, 15 FCC Rcd 17442 (2000).

[^111]: See 47 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq.

[^112]: Requests to allow end-users of one wireless carrier to port
    their telephone numbers to another carrier are made on a per-switch
    basis in the scenarios described in this paragraph. *See* 47 C.F.R.
    § 52.31 (a)(1).

[^113]: Because we extend the date by which carriers must provide LNP,
    the date by which carriers must submit requests for deployment is
    also extended by one year, until February 24, 2003. *See* 47 C.F.R §
    52.31 (a)(1)(ii). We note that the Commission is currently
    considering whether to change its rules and extend LNP requirements
    to all carriers in the largest 100 MSAs, regardless of whether they
    receive a request to deploy LNP. *See* Numbering Resource
    Optimization, Telephone Number Portability, CC Docket No. 99-200, CC
    Docket No. 95-116, *Third Order on Reconsideration in CC Docket No.
    99-200, Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in CC Docket No.
    99-200, and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in CC
    Docket No. 95-116*, FCC 02-73 (rel. Mar. 14, 2002).

[^114]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 52.31 (a)(1)(iv).

[^115]: *See First Memorandum Opinion and Order*, 12 FCC Rcd at 7314,
    para. 137.

[^116]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 20.12(c), 52.31(a)(2).

[^117]: *See* Ex Parte Comments from Missouri RSA No. 7 Limited
    Partnership, Illinois Valley Cellular Partnerships, Public Service
    Cellular, Farmers Cellular Telephone, and Northwest Missouri
    Cellular Limited Partnership (filed Mar. 26, 2002).

[^118]: We note that carriers choosing not to implement the industry
    selected MIN/MDN separation solution are not excused from their
    obligation to deliver valid call back numbers to Public Safety
    Answering Points (PSAPs), in accordance with the Commission's
    enhanced 911 (E911) rules. *See* 47 C.F.R. § 20.18(d).

[^119]: Vermont Commission Comments at 3, 5-8; California Commission
    Reply Comments at 10-11.

[^120]: 47 U.S.C. 251 (b)(2).

[^121]: *Telephone Number Portability*, 11 FCC Rcd 8352 (1996). The
    emergence of six national wireless carriers without a LNP mandate
    has eviscerated this rationale.

[^122]: *Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association's Petition for
    Forbearance From Commercial Mobile Radio Services Number Portability
    Obligations and Telephone Number Portability*, Memorandum Opinion
    and Order, 14 FCC Rcd 3092 (1999) ("*1999 Order*").

[^123]: *Id*. at ¶ 22.

[^124]: *Id.* at ¶¶ 25-26.

[^125]: Some have argued that LNP could make a difference in terms of
    aging numbers etc. Any potential increase in numbering efficiency
    would be marginal from these efforts.

[^126]: There may be other very good reasons why wireline customers
    would not want their numbers ported to a wireless phone ― including
    the availability of that number to telemarketers and directory
    assistance.

[^127]: *1999 Order* at ¶ 19.

[^128]: *Id.* at ¶ 23.

[^129]: ***Id.*** at ¶ 34.

[^130]: *See*, Letter from James R. Hobson, Counsel for NENA, to Magalie
    Roman Salas, Secretary, FCC (filed Jan. 30, 2002).

[^131]: *See, generally*, NARUC Comments; California Commission
    Comments; Connecticut Commission Comments; Iowa Commission Comments;
    Maryland Commission Comments; Michigan Commission Comments; New
    Hampshire Commission Comments; New York Commission Comments; Ohio
    Commission Comments; Pennsylvania Commission Comments; State
    Coordination Group Comments; Texas Commission Comments; Letter from
    Loretta M. Lynch, President, California PUC, to Michael Powell,
    Chairman FC (filed Nov. 19, 2001); Letter from James Bradford
    Ramsey, NARUC, General Counsel, to Michael Powell, Chairman, FCC
    (filed Nov. 20, 2001).

[^132]: *Petition for Extension of Implementation of the Cellular
    Telecommunications Industry Association*, CC Docket No. 95-116,
    Memorandum Opinion and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 16315 (1998).

[^133]: *Petition for Forbearance from Commercial Mobile Radio Services
    Number Portability Obligations*, WT Docket No. 98-229, Memorandum
    Opinion and Order, 14 FCC Rcd 3092 (1999).