**Before the**

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

+----------------------------------+----+------------------------------+
| In the Matter of                 | *  | CC Docket No. 95-116         |
|                                  | *) |                              |
| Telephone Number Portability --  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
| Carrier Requests for             | *  |                              |
| Clarification of                 | *) |                              |
| Wireless-Wireless Porting Issues | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
+----------------------------------+----+------------------------------+

**MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER**

**Adopted: October 3, 2003 Released: October 7, 2003**

By the Commission: Commissioner Abernathy issuing a separate statement.

**TABLE OF CONTENTS**

[Paragraph]{.underline}

I. iNTRODUCTION 1

II\. Background 3

III\. Discussion

A. Business Rules 10

B. Contract Abrogation 13

C. Request Requirement 19

D. The Porting Interval 25

E. Porting of Numbers Served by Type 1 Interconnection 27

F. Requirement to Support Nationwide Roaming 33

IV\. PROCEDURAL MATTERS AND ORDERING CLAUSES

A. Regulatory Flexibility Act 42

B. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis 43

C. Ordering Clauses 44

# iNTRODUCTION

1.  In this order, we offer further guidance to the industry as it nears
    the November 24, 2003, deadline to provide wireless local number
    portability (LNP). The guidance we offer today is applicable to
    wireless-wireless porting only. We intend to address issues related
    to wireline-wireless porting in a separate order. Today, in response
    to a Petition for Declaratory Ruling/Application for Review,[^1] we
    hold that while carriers may agree to rules with their customers via
    contract, such rules may not restrict carriers' obligations to port
    numbers to other carriers upon receipt of a valid request to do so.

2.  In addition, we address several separate LNP implementation issues
    that have been raised in the context of the Cellular
    Telecommunications & Internet Association's May 13^th^ Petition for
    Declaratory Ruling.[^2] We clarify that wireless carriers may not
    refuse a request to provide LNP from another wireless carrier on the
    basis of the lack of proximity of the requesting carrier's switch to
    the porting out carrier's switch. We confirm also that
    interconnection agreements are not required for wireless to wireless
    porting and that, in cases where wireless carriers are unable to
    reach agreement regarding the terms and conditions of porting, all
    such carriers must port numbers upon receipt of a valid request from
    another carrier, with no conditions. We encourage wireless carriers
    to complete "simple" ports within the industry-established two and
    one half hour porting interval. We find that no action is necessary
    regarding the porting of numbers served by Type 1 interconnection
    because carriers are migrating these numbers to switches served by
    Type 2 interconnection or are otherwise developing solutions.
    Finally, we reiterate the requirement that wireless carriers support
    roaming nationwide for customers with pooled and ported numbers, and
    we address outstanding petitions for waiver of the roaming
    requirement.

# Background

3.  On May 13, 2003, the Cellular Telecommunications & Internet
    Association (CTIA) filed a Petition for Declaratory Ruling, asking
    the Commission to resolve several outstanding LNP implementation
    issues.[^3] One of the issues CTIA raised was the
    wireless-to-wireless "porting interval," which refers to the amount
    of time it takes to complete the process of porting a number from
    one wireless carrier to another. The wireless industry has
    established a two and one half hour porting interval as a guideline
    for ports between wireless carriers.[^4] In its Petition, however,
    CTIA urged the Commission to adopt a porting interval in its rules
    to provide uniformity and certainty in the porting process. CTIA
    further asked for guidance on how carriers should comply with the
    Commission's wireless E911 requirements during the porting interval.

4.  In addition to raising porting interval issues, the Petition sought
    a Commission ruling on whether CMRS carriers are required to enter
    into interconnection agreements as a pre-condition to porting
    numbers.[^5] Although CTIA presented this issue primarily in the
    context of wireline-wireless porting, which we do not address in
    this order, some wireless carriers filed comments in response to the
    Petition asserting that this issue affects wireless-wireless porting
    also. In particular, certain rural wireless carriers asserted that
    in order for one wireless carrier to request number portability from
    another, the requesting carrier must have a local point of presence,
    local numbering resources, and local interconnection with the
    porting out carrier in the rate center with which the ported number
    is associated.[^6] In a subsequent *ex parte* filing responding to
    the rural carriers, CTIA urged the Commission to address this issue
    in the wireless-wireless context.[^7]

5.  Finally, CTIA's Petition urged the Commission to address several
    other wireless-wireless porting issues, including the porting of
    numbers served by Type 1 interconnection and the requirement to
    support nationwide roaming with ported and pooled numbers.

6.  On May 20, 2003, Verizon Wireless filed a letter asking the
    Commission to address so-called "business rules" associated with the
    wireless porting process. Specifically, Verizon requested
    confirmation from the Commission that wireless carriers may not
    impose restrictions on the porting-out process, beyond necessary
    customer validation requirements.[^8] Verizon argued that, in the
    absence of clear guidance from the Commission, carriers might
    attempt to impose non-porting related conditions as an impediment to
    porting, e.g., by refusing to port if a customer owes an early
    termination fee to the old service provider or otherwise has an
    arrearage on an account.[^9] Verizon argued that the Commission must
    ensure a level playing field for porting and that one carrier should
    not be allowed to implement portability subject to restrictive
    conditions, while other carriers allow customers to leave freely
    upon validation of identity.[^10]

7.  On July 3, 2003, the Wireless Telecommunication Bureau (Bureau)
    released a letter providing guidance on certain issues raised by
    CTIA and Verizon.[^11] First, the Bureau addressed the implication
    of the porting interval for E911, clarifying that carriers could use
    a mixed service approach in completing port requests.[^12] The
    Bureau clarified that a carrier's obligations during a "mixed
    service" period would extend only to delivering the 911 call and
    available calling party information.[^13]

8.  Next, the Bureau addressed the issue of whether carriers may impose
    restrictions on the porting out process, beyond necessary customer
    validation requirements to prevent fraud. The Bureau clarified that,
    under the Act and the Commission's rules, carriers are required to
    port a number when they receive a valid request and may not refuse
    to port a number while attempting to collect fees, or settle an
    account, or for other reasons unrelated to validating a customer's
    identity. [^14]

9.  On August 1, 2003, ALLTEL, AT&T Wireless, Cingular Wireless, Nextel,
    and Sprint (collectively "Wireless Petitioners") filed a petition
    seeking clarification or invalidation of the "business rules"
    portion of the Bureau's letter.[^15] The Wireless Petitioners
    contended that they do not view the letter as legally binding, but
    that in light of the fact that at least one carrier has asserted
    that the letter has binding affect, they believe that the industry
    would benefit from clarification of the legal status of the letter.
    The carriers requested that the Commission rule that the statement
    in the Bureau letter regarding unconditional porting is
    non-binding.[^16] In the alternative, the group requested that the
    Commission review the Bureau letter and invalidate the Bureau's
    statement regarding unconditional porting on the grounds that such
    action: (1) exceeded authority delegated to the Chief of the
    Wireless Telecommunications Bureau; (2) violated the Administrative
    Procedure Act; (3) abrogated contracts without the requisite
    finding; and (4) created unsound public policy.[^17]

# Discussion

## Business Rules

10. The Wireless Petitioners contend that if binding, the Bureau's
    letter would establish a "new" requirement---that wireless carriers
    port a number anytime they receive a verified porting request---in
    an area in which the Commission has issued no detailed rules.[^18]
    The carriers claim that if the guidance in the Bureau's letter is
    deemed binding, it would abrogate carriers' contractual rights,
    upset the delicate balance of benefits and obligations in wireless
    service arrangements, and harm rather than serve the public
    interest.[^19] The carriers ask the Commission to clarify that the
    Bureau's letter constitutes non-binding guidance, or in the
    alternative, that the Commission invalidate the Bureau's directive
    on unconditional porting.[^20]

11. In considering whether the LNP rules permit carriers to impose
    restrictions on the porting out process, we must first analyze the
    definition of number portability. Under the Act and the Commission's
    rules, number portability is defined as the "ability of users of
    telecommunications services to retain at the same location, existing
    telecommunications numbers without impairment of quality,
    reliability, or convenience when switching from one
    telecommunications carrier to another."[^21] We interpret this
    language to mean that consumers must be able to change carriers
    while keeping their telephone number as easily as they may change
    carriers without taking their telephone number with them. Today, in
    the absence of portability, consumers may change service providers
    at any time, regardless of their standing with their current
    provider. We believe, therefore, that consumers should have the same
    flexibility to change service providers in a porting environment.
    Accordingly, we conclude that carriers may not impose non-porting
    related restrictions on the porting out process.

12. With respect to the Wireless Petitioners' argument that the Bureau
    exceeded the scope of its delegated authority, we find that the
    issue is rendered moot since the Commission is addressing the merits
    of the Wireless Petitioners substantive claims.[^22]

## Contract Abrogation

13. The group contends that preventing carriers from imposing
    restrictions on the porting-out process would interfere with
    carriers' existing contractual provisions, including those that
    establish minimum contract terms, early termination fees, and credit
    requirements.[^23] The group contends that, as long as carriers have
    the option of delaying the port until the customer satisfies any
    outstanding financial obligations, the forgoing provisions allow
    carriers a reasonable opportunity to recover their investment in the
    customer.[^24] In addition, the carrier group contends, the delay of
    a port in such circumstances reminds the customer of the outstanding
    obligations and allows the customer to make an informed decision
    about whether to proceed with the port. According to the carrier
    group, preventing carriers from imposing restrictions on the
    porting-out process would disrupt this equilibrium and effectively
    prevent carriers from recovering their full investment.[^25]
    Moreover, the Wireless Petitioners argue, the policy would have an
    even greater effect where a contract explicitly provides that the
    carrier is not obligated to port a number if the customer's account
    is not paid in full.[^26] The carriers contend that such provisions
    are a fair and elemental part of the carrier customer bargain, where
    the provider of the service need not perform a new service if the
    beneficiary has not paid for the service already rendered.[^27] The
    carriers argue that they have the right to include such bargained
    for provisions in their service agreements and that the Bureau may
    not unilaterally abrogate such provisions.[^28]

14. We disagree that preventing carriers from imposing restrictions on
    the porting-out process interferes with carriers' existing
    contractual provisions concerning minimum contract terms, early
    termination fees, credit requirements, or other similar provisions.
    Although we prevent carriers from imposing restrictions on porting
    beyond necessary customer validation procedures, this does not in
    any way invalidate provisions in carrier contracts pertaining to
    minimum contract terms, early termination fees, credit requirements,
    or other similar provisions. Nor do we prevent carriers from
    recovering their investment in their customers, as carriers remain
    free to seek compensation for any breach of contractual agreements.
    We clarify only that carriers may not hold a customer's number while
    attempting to settle the customer's account.

15. Carriers may include provisions in their customer contracts on
    issues such as early termination and credit worthiness, but, to the
    extent that carriers' customer contracts have provisions stating
    specifically that consumers may not port their number before
    settling their account, we find such provisions to be without effect
    on the carrier's porting obligation. The Commission's number
    portability rules impose on carriers an obligation to port numbers
    to other carriers upon receipt of a valid request to do so.[^29]
    Specifically, section 52.31 of the rules provides that, by the
    implementation deadline, "CMRS providers must provide a long term
    database method for number portability, including the ability to
    support roaming ... in switches for which another carrier has made a
    specific request for the provision of number portability...."[^30]
    Because of this requirement, carriers may not avoid their obligation
    to port numbers by establishing contracts with third parties, such
    as consumers. Accordingly, provisions in consumer contracts that
    purport to limit porting between carriers are ineffective.

16. We disagree also with the Wireless Petitioners' argument that
    preventing carriers from imposing restrictions on the porting-out
    process constitutes unsound public policy. As explained above, we do
    not sanction or encourage consumers to breach their contractual
    obligations. Nor do we prevent carriers from collecting any
    outstanding fees or charges from consumers pursuant to traditional
    contractual remedies. We clarify only that carriers may not refuse
    to complete a port while attempting to collect fees or settle an
    account with a customer. We do not prevent carriers from alerting a
    customer to the consequences of terminating service prior to the end
    of the carrier's agreement with the customer. For example, if
    carriers wish to, they may agree among themselves to notify a
    customer during the porting process that an unpaid bill or
    unfulfilled contract remains with the porting out carrier. Indeed,
    we would encourage carriers to come to such arrangements to provide
    their customers with all the information they need to decide whether
    it is in their best interest to actually switch to another carrier.

17. Moreover, we disagree with the Wireless Petitioners' argument that
    preventing carriers from imposing restrictions on the porting-out
    process will harm consumers or affect carriers' abilities to offer
    discounted rates or improved features.[^31] Preventing carriers from
    imposing restrictions on porting will benefit consumers by
    preventing carriers from establishing barriers to competitive
    switching. With consumers able to switch more freely among carriers,
    competitive pressure will encourage carriers to compete for
    customers by offering lower prices and new services.

18. As the industry implements portability, we intend to monitor the
    effect of our directive. If there is evidence indicating any
    widespread abuse of the porting process, we will reexamine this
    issue to determine whether any further action is necessary.

## Request Requirement

19. The comments filed in response to CTIA's Petition have revealed
    divergent views about whether wireless-wireless porting can occur in
    the absence of an interconnection agreement between the requesting
    carrier and the porting out carrier. As noted above, some rural
    wireless carriers have asserted that in order for one wireless
    carrier to request number portability from another, the requesting
    carrier must have a local point of presence, local numbering
    resources, and local interconnection with the porting out carrier in
    the rate center with which the ported number is associated.[^32]
    These carriers contend that, absent such preconditions, LNP will
    lead to massive customer confusion and discrimination against small
    and rural carriers.[^33] Therefore, the rural carriers claim that
    requests for portability from carriers without interconnecting
    facilities and agreements need not be considered "bona fide"
    requests for portability. Guidelines for wireless porting recently
    proposed by a group of rural wireless carriers provide for porting
    only where the conditions outlined above are met.[^34]

20. In response, CTIA and several carriers argue that carriers should
    not be allowed to impose these types of conditions on
    wireless-wireless porting. They contend that porting is technically
    feasible regardless of whether the requesting carrier has a presence
    or numbering resources in the rate center, or interconnects directly
    with the porting out carrier, and that limiting the obligation to
    port numbers on this basis would be economically inefficient, waste
    numbering resources, and frustrate the competitive objectives of
    LNP. They further note that in the absence of Commission
    clarification on this issue, some wireless carriers have rejected
    porting requests unless these conditions are met, potentially
    impeding the availability of wireless LNP in their areas by the
    November 24 deadline.[^35]

21. In light of this divergence of views, we take this opportunity to
    reiterate the number portability requirements for wireless-wireless
    porting. However, we do not here address the issues related to
    wireline-wireless porting. Issues associated with wireline-wireless
    porting will be addressed in a separate item, and we affirm that
    none of the actions we take here today bind the Commission in any
    way in taking future action on the implementation of
    wireline-wireless porting. Section 52.31 of the rules provides that,
    by the LNP implementation deadline, all CMRS carriers must provide a
    long term database method for number portability in switches for
    which another carrier has made a request for the provision of number
    portability.[^36] Nothing in the rules provides that wireless
    carriers must port numbers only in cases where the requesting
    carrier has numbering resources and/or a direct interconnection in
    the rate center associated with the number to be ported and wireless
    carriers may not demand that carriers meet these conditions before
    porting. Similarly, any agreements establishing terms for
    interconnection are also not required between wireless carriers. Of
    course, nothing would prevent carriers from entering into
    interconnection agreements on a voluntary basis; however, no carrier
    may unilaterally refuse to port with another carrier because that
    carrier will not enter into an interconnection agreement.

22. Limiting wireless-wireless porting based on wireline rate centers as
    the rural wireless carriers suggest would also undermine the
    competitive benefits of wireless LNP. The Commission established
    number portability requirements for wireless carriers to spur
    increased competition, thereby creating incentives for wireless
    carriers to offer lower prices and higher quality service. But the
    practical effect of limiting wireless-wireless porting based on
    wireline rate centers would be to limit the ability of some
    consumers to port their telephone numbers from one wireless carrier
    to another. We see no reason to impose such restrictions on the
    competitive alternatives available to wireless consumers. Because
    wireless service is spectrum-based and mobile in nature, wireless
    carriers do not utilize or depend on the wireline rate center
    structure to provide service: wireless licensing and service areas
    are typically much larger than wireline rate center boundaries, and
    wireless carriers typically charge their subscribers based on
    minutes of use rather than location or distance.

23. We also note that some rural wireless carriers have expressed
    concern about potential rating issues that may be associated with
    transporting calls to ported numbers. For example, RTG asserts that,
    in porting numbers to wireless carriers that do not have a point of
    presence in the local area, a donating rural wireless carrier
    delivering a call to a ported number would be forced to deliver the
    call outside of its local service area and thereby incur transport
    charges that were not factored into its rate design.[^37] We
    recognize the concerns of these wireless providers, but find that
    they are outside the scope of this order. The requirements of our
    wireless LNP rules on wireless carriers do not vary depending on how
    calls to the number will be rated and routed after the port occurs.
    We also note that the rating and routing issues raised by the rural
    wireless carriers have been raised in the context of non-ported
    numbers and are before the Commission in other proceedings.[^38]
    Therefore, without prejudging the outcome of any other proceeding,
    we decline to address these issues further as they relate to
    wireless to wireless LNP.

24. Although our rules allow carriers to determine on their own what
    type of agreement to use to facilitate porting and ensure efficient
    exchange of information, we are concerned about delays in
    implementation that could result from uncertainty regarding baseline
    requirements for porting or from carriers' inability to reach
    agreements. In light of these concerns, we find it appropriate to
    address how porting should be implemented in cases where carriers
    cannot reach agreement. As stated above, the number portability
    rules require carriers to port upon receipt of a request from
    another carrier to do so.[^39] Under this requirement, in cases
    where carriers are not able to reach agreement, carriers must port
    numbers upon request, with no conditions. Absent an agreement
    setting additional terms, carriers need only share basic contact and
    technical information sufficient to perform the port.[^40] We trust
    that by clarifying this default requirement, we will eliminate
    uncertainty and provide an incentive for carriers to reach agreement
    quickly. Moreover, this requirement will ensure that carrier
    negotiations do not delay the availability of portability for
    consumers, while permitting carriers the flexibility to negotiate
    porting agreements that meet their particular needs.

## The Porting Interval

25. In its May 13^th^ petition, CTIA asserts that, although the porting
    interval is primarily a concern with respect to ports between
    wireless and wireline carriers, disputes regarding the porting
    interval may also affect wireless to wireless ports where certain
    wireless carriers refuse to complete a port within the two and one
    half hour porting interval that has been established by industry
    working groups.[^41] While the majority of wireless carriers support
    the industry guideline,[^42] a number of rural wireless carriers
    responding to CTIA May 13^th^ petition argue that the Commission
    should not mandate a porting interval for all carriers.[^43] The
    carriers argue that, instead, the porting interval is a matter that
    can be addressed by contact between the donor and recipient carriers
    based on the requirements of a particular market.[^44] The rural
    carriers assert that adopting a two and one half hour wireless
    porting interval would be unduly burdensome to rural carriers who
    lack resources to implement such an interval.[^45]

26. We share CTIA's concern about potential delays that could occur in
    cases where carriers refuse to comply with the industry-established
    porting interval. Members of the wireless industry have worked
    together cooperatively over the past several years to establish
    procedures for wireless porting, and have determined that simple
    ports between wireless carriers should take no longer than two and
    one half hours to complete.[^46] We view this industry standard as
    feasible and would encourage carriers to complete wireless-wireless
    ports within this timeframe. Although we recognize the concerns that
    some carriers have expressed, there is insufficient evidence for us
    to conclude that it is technically or operationally infeasible for
    these carriers to meet the industry standard that carriers have
    worked to develop. At the same time, because wireless LNP
    implementation is still in its early stages, we do not see a present
    need to propose formally incorporating the industry standard into
    our rules. We encourage all members of the industry to continue to
    work together to make further refinements to porting procedures as
    LNP is implemented and to continue their efforts to facilitate the
    process of porting for consumers. We also note that even though we
    are not proposing to adopt a mandatory wireless porting interval at
    this time, the reasonableness standard of section 201 of the
    Communications Act of 1934[^47] does apply to the amount of time
    carriers take to complete port requests. It may be unreasonable for
    carriers to take longer than two and one half hours to complete a
    port. If we receive numerous complaints from consumers about the
    length of the porting process as wireless LNP is implemented, we
    will reexamine this issue to determine whether further action is
    required.

## Porting of Numbers Served by Type 1 Interconnection

27. In its May 13^th^ Petition, CTIA urges the Commission to address
    BellSouth's claims with respect to porting by wireless carriers
    using Type 1 interconnection. CTIA refers to comments filed by
    BellSouth in response to its January 23^rd^ Petition, in which
    BellSouth argues that because the industry has been unable to reach
    consensus on procedures for Type I porting, the Commission should
    initiate a rulemaking to examine the issue more closely.[^48]
    BellSouth explains that Type 1 numbers reside in an end office of a
    LEC and are assigned to a Type 1 interconnection group, which
    connects the wireless carrier's switch and the LEC's end office
    switch. All traffic terminating to Type 1 wireless numbers routes to
    the LEC Type 1 interconnection office.[^49] BellSouth explains that,
    because of this interconnection arrangement, a wireline LEC will
    always be involved in the porting of a Type 1 wireless number,
    regardless of whether the porting is between two wireless carriers
    or a wireless and wireline carrier.[^50]

28. BellSouth asserts that, because wireline carriers are involved in
    porting of numbers served by Type 1 interconnection, a number of
    issues are raised. For example, BellSouth notes that porting of Type
    1 numbers must pass rate center validation.[^51] Another issue,
    BellSouth asserts, concerns central office code administration and
    the NPAC. BellSouth explains that, although dedicated Type 1 codes
    are designated in the Local Exchange Routing Guide (LERG) as owned
    by the wireless service provider, the codes reside in a wireline end
    office switch. According to BellSouth, this presents an issue with
    indicating the correct service provider ID ownership in the NPAC
    database.[^52] BellSouth argues that the industry has experienced
    difficulty reaching consensus on the processes and requirements for
    coordinating service orders and developing interfaces to accommodate
    Type 1 porting.[^53]

29. CTIA argues that the Commission can achieve resolution of these
    matters by granting its rate center petition and affirming the right
    of all consumers to port their numbers, including those served by
    Type 1 interconnection. CTIA contends that granting its rate center
    petition would oblige wireline carriers to develop a new procedure
    to honor port requests involving wireless carriers that does not
    involve rate center validation. CTIA further contends that the
    Commission need not establish the procedures for Type 1 porting
    itself, it need only establish the right of customers to port
    numbers to and from CMRS providers irrespective of wireline rate
    center boundaries, including customers served by Type 1
    interconnection.[^54]

30. As CTIA acknowledges, the NANC has been working to address issues
    associated with Type 1 porting over the past several years.[^55]
    Specifically, the NANC's Local Number Portability Administration
    Working Group released a report last November addressing Type 1
    interconnection.[^56] The report proposed that service providers be
    allowed to migrate the telephone number blocks associated with Type
    1 interconnection from the wireline switches into wireless switches
    which would interface with the Public Switched Telephone Network
    over Type 2 interconnection trunks. The report found that migrating
    numbers into wireless switches offers advantages to wireless
    carriers and minimizes the number of complex porting activities
    involving wireline carriers. The report noted, however, that
    carriers would not be required to migrate Type 1 number blocks.

31. In light of the consensus recommendation in the Working Group
    report, it appears that members of the industry have been working
    cooperatively to address the issues associated with porting numbers
    served by Type 1 interconnection and have made substantial progress.
    We support the recommendations of the Working Group report and
    strongly encourage carriers to pursue a migration strategy. As noted
    in the Working Group Report, the migration strategy offers several
    significant advantages, including allowing wireless carriers to
    offer advanced services to their Type 1 customers, and reducing the
    number of complex wireline ports.[^57]

32. For numbers that are not migrated, evidence from the record suggests
    that carriers are working to finalize procedures to ensure that
    these numbers may be ported. Particularly, BellSouth, in an *ex
    parte* filing, indicates that it has developed and implemented
    switch translations to facilitate the porting of numbers served by
    Type 1 interconnection.[^58] Accordingly, it appears that even apart
    from pursuing a migration strategy, carriers have made significant
    progress in addressing issues associated with porting numbers served
    by a Type 1 interconnection and that further Commission action is
    not necessary at this time. As porting is implemented, we intend to
    closely monitor Type 1 porting to determine whether any additional
    action is needed.

##  Requirement to Support Nationwide Roaming

33. In its May 13^th^ petition, CTIA argues that the Commission needs to
    clarify when the requirement to support nationwide roaming goes into
    effect for rural and small carriers.[^59] CTIA notes that several
    rural carriers have filed petitions for extension of the deadline
    for supporting roaming,[^60] and argues that these requests pose
    genuine claims and raise serious implications for consumers and
    carriers alike. CTIA argues that the Commission must resolve these
    issues to ensure that carriers clearly understand their obligations
    with respect to roaming.

34. Under Commission rules and orders, all wireless carriers were
    required to support roaming by customers with pooled or ported
    numbers by November 24, 2002.[^61] The requirement to support
    roaming was intended to ensure that if a customer with a ported or
    pooled number roams into another wireless carrier's network, that
    carrier will support the customer's ability to make and receive
    calls. We expect carriers to comply with their regulatory
    obligations and support roaming nationwide for customers with pooled
    and ported numbers. We do not agree with CTIA that, because several
    carriers have filed requests for extension, the rules regarding
    roaming are unclear. Nevertheless, we take this opportunity to
    resolve outstanding extension requests.

35. *Pine Belt.* On November 22, 2002, Pine Belt PCS, Inc. and Pine Belt
    Cellular (Pine Belt) filed a petition seeking an extension of the
    November 24, 2002, deadline for wireless carriers to provide
    nationwide roaming support for end-users with pooled or ported
    numbers.[^62] Pine Belt requested a one-year extension of the
    November 24, 2002, deadline. In addition to the extension of the
    deadline to support roaming, Pine Belt also requested a waiver or
    temporary extension of the Commission's requirement under section
    20.18(d) of the rules that carriers deliver valid call back numbers
    to Public Safety Answering Points (PSAPs) in the areas where they
    are providing Phase I Enhanced 911 (E911) service. On September 23,
    2003, Pine Belt filed an amended petition for waiver, requesting an
    additional six months, until May 23, 2004, to provide nationwide
    roaming support for customers with pooled or ported numbers.[^63]

36. The Commission's rules provide that the Commission may suspend or
    waive its rules, in whole or in part, for "good cause shown."[^64]
    In addition, the Commission may waive specific requirements of a
    rules where, in view of unique or unusual factual circumstances,
    application of the rule would be inequitable, unduly burdensome, or
    contrary to the public interest, or if the applicant has no
    reasonable alternative.[^65] The courts have found that waiver is
    appropriate "if special circumstances warrant a deviation from the
    general rule and such deviation will serve the public
    interest."[^66]

37. We find that the extension of time that Pine Belt requests is
    warranted in view of Pine Belt's particular circumstances. Pine Belt
    has demonstrated its efforts to minimize disruptions to roamers
    during the temporary extension period. Specifically, Pine Belt
    reports that it has informed PSAPs in its service area of its
    inability to provide a correct call back number for roamers on its
    network served by ported or pooled numbers and has developed a
    procedure for PSAPs to notify Pine Belt in any case where a PSAP
    experiences difficulty handling a 911 call on Pine Belt's
    network.[^67] Since it filed its original petition, Pine Belt
    indicates, it has not received reports from any PSAP indicating
    problems relating to call back roamers. Pine Belt commits to
    maintaining this procedure throughout the term of the extension
    period and to reporting any notification from PSAPs to the
    Commission. In view of Pine Belt's efforts, and the limited
    potential for disruption to E911 service, we find that it would be
    appropriate to grant the relief Pine Belt requests. Moreover,
    considering that Pine Belt does not serve an area in the largest 100
    MSAs and therefore is not required to offer LNP to its own customers
    until May 24, 2004, at the earliest, we find that it is not
    unreasonable to permit Pine Belt a limited amount of additional time
    to complete the network upgrades necessary to support roaming. We
    therefore, grant Pine Belt's request for an extension until May 23,
    2004, of the deadline for support of roaming by customers with
    ported or pooled numbers.

38. *Kodiak Wireless.* On November 22, 2002, Kodiak Wireless (Kodiak)
    filed a petition seeking an extension of the November 24, 2002,
    deadline to support roaming nationwide for customers with pooled and
    ported numbers.[^68] Kodiak, a small, rural CMRS provider argued
    that it had been particularly burdened by the costs of providing
    roaming support for phones with pooled or ported numbers because of
    its limited resources. Kodiak argued that its resources were already
    strained by the need to meet other federal mandates such as E911. As
    a result, Kodiak indicated that it would not be able to meet the
    November 24, 2002, deadline and requested a partial waiver and an
    extension of the deadline to July 1, 2003. On February 11, 2003,
    Kodiak filed an Amendment to its petition, requesting to shorten the
    amount of time it requested to meet the Commission's requirements
    from the end of the second quarter of 2003 to February 28,
    2003.[^69]

39. Subsequently, on February 27, 2003, Kodiak filed a letter indicating
    that it had completed the necessary upgrades to its networks and was
    able to support roaming for customers with pooled or ported
    numbers.[^70] Because Kodiak has informed the Commission that its
    system is now capable of supporting roaming for customers with
    pooled or ported numbers in accordance with Commission requirements,
    we conclude that it no longer necessary to address Kodiak's pending
    request for additional time in which to meet the deadline to support
    roaming, and we dismiss that request as moot.

40. *Litchfield County Cellular*. On January 24, 2003, Litchfield County
    Cellular (Litchfield) filed an addendum to its petition for
    extension of time to support nationwide roaming of ported and pooled
    numbers by November 24, 2002.[^71] Litchfield's original petition
    requested a two-month extension of the November 24, 2002 deadline.
    On January 17, 2003, the Commission granted Litchfield's two-month
    extension.[^72] In its January 24^th^ addendum, Litchfield requested
    an additional thirty days, until February 24, 2003, to meeting it
    regulatory obligations, citing delays in the timeline for receiving
    and installing necessary upgrades and equipment.

41. Because Litchfield's request concerns an extension for a period of
    time that has already passed and because there is no evidence
    indicating that Litchfield currently seeks any additional time to
    prepare its network to support roaming of customers with ported or
    pooled numbers, we conclude that it is no longer necessary to
    address Litchfield's pending request for extension and we dismiss
    that request as moot.

# PROCEDURAL MATTERS AND ORDERING CLAUSES

## Regulatory Flexibility Act

42. The Commission is not required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5
    U.S.C. § 604 to prepare a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis of the
    possible economic impact of this order on small entities.

## Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis

43. This order does not contain an information collection.

## Ordering Clauses

44. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the CTIA May 13^th^ Petition for
    Declaratory Ruling is GRANTED IN PART, and the Wireless Petitioners'
    August 1, 2003, Petition for Declaratory Ruling or in the
    Alternative, Petition for Review IS DENIED.

45. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Pine Belt's September 23, 2003, Amended
    Petition for Waiver IS GRANTED.

46. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Kodiak Wireless's November 22, 2002,
    Petition for Limited Waiver and Extension of Time IS DISMISSED.

47. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Litchfield Cellular's January 24, 2003,
    Petition for Limited Waiver and Extension of Time IS DISMISSED.

> FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Marlene H. Dortch

Secretary

**SEPARATE STATEMENT OF**

**COMMISSIONER KATHLEEN Q. ABERNATHY**

*Re: Telephone Number Portability -- Carrier Requests for Clarification
on Wireless-Wireless Porting Issue, CC Docket No. 95-116*

This Order is an important step in providing additional necessary
guidance to wireless carriers concerning the implementation of
wireless-to-wireless local number portability (LNP). There is no doubt
that as wireless LNP is implemented, customers will benefit from the
ability to port their numbers to whatever wireless or wireline service
provider they choose.

Nonetheless, despite the best efforts of the Commission and the industry
to ensure that wireless LNP is fully implemented, there is a potential
for operational problems to arise, as can happen with the rollout of any
new technology. For example, at least one study has estimated that as
many as six million customers may to seek to port numbers the first week
our new rules take effect (with volumes dropping dramatically after the
first week). As the porting framework is tested, it is possible that
some customers may experience delays in the porting between carriers and
other potential problems may arise.

Accordingly, it is critical for the Commission and industry to continue
to work collaboratively to ensure that wireless LNP is fully available
to the American public and to educate consumers about the process.
Industry must work diligently to implement these requirements on a
timely basis and cooperate with one another to complete the porting
process. Perhaps most importantly, industry and the FCC need to ensure
that customers understand their rights.

[^1]: Telephone Number Portability, CC Docket No. 95-116, Petition for
    Declaratory Ruling or, in the Alternative, Application for Review of
    ALLTEL Communications, Inc., AT&T Wireless Services, Inc., Cingular
    Wireless, Nextel Communications, and Sprint Corp., filed Aug. 1,
    2003 (Wireless Carrier Group Petition).

[^2]: Telephone Number Portability, CC Docket No. 95-116, Petition for
    Declaratory Ruling of CTIA, filed May 13, 2003 (May 13^th^
    Petition). We note that issues pertaining to wireless-wireline
    porting that have been raised in CTIA's May 13^th^ petition and in
    other pleadings will be addressed separately.

[^3]: *Id.*.

[^4]: *See* North American Numbering Council Local Number Portability
    Administration Working Group Report on Wireless Wireline
    Integration, May 8, 1998, CC Docket No. 95-116 (filed May 18, 1998)
    (First Report on Wireless Wireline Integration); North American
    Numbering Council Wireless Number Portability Subcommittee Report on
    Wireless Number Portability Technical, Operational, and
    Implementation Requirements Phase II, CC Docket No. 95-116 (filed
    Sept. 26, 2000); ATIS Operations and Billing Forum, Wireless
    Intercarrier Communications: Interface Specification for Local
    Number Portability, Version 2, at § 2 p. 6 (Jan. 2003).

[^5]: May 13^th^ Petition at 16-23.

[^6]: *Ex Parte* Presentation of the Rural Wireless Working Group Re:
    Rural Wireless Number Portability Guidelines, Section 1.3, (filed
    Aug. 25, 2003) (Rural Wireless Working Group Filing).

[^7]: Letter from Diane Cornell, CTIA to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary,
    FCC (filed Aug. 26, 2003).

[^8]: Letter from John T. Scott, III, Verizon Wireless to Marlene H.
    Dortch, Secretary, FCC, CC Docket No. 95-116 (filed May 20, 2003).

[^9]: *Id*. at 2.

[^10]: *Id*. at 1.

[^11]: Letter from John B. Muleta, Chief, Wireless Telecommunications
    Bureau to John T. Scott, III, Verizon Wireless and Michael Altschul,
    CTIA CC Docket No. 95-116, DA 03-2190 (rel. July 3, 2003) (Bureau
    Letter).

[^12]: *Id*. at 2.

[^13]: *Id*. at 2-3.

[^14]: *Id.* at 3.

[^15]: *See* Wireless Carrier Group Petition. The carriers did not seek
    clarification or review of that portion of the Bureau's letter
    pertaining to the implication of the porting interval for E911.

[^16]: *Id*. at 2.

[^17]: *Id*.

[^18]: *Id*. at 9.

[^19]: *Id*. at 6.

[^20]: *Id*.

[^21]: 47 U.S.C. § 153 and 47 C.F.R. § 52.21(k).

[^22]: Wireless Carrier Group Petition at 7-8.

[^23]: *Id*. at 17.

[^24]: *Id*.

[^25]: *Id*.

[^26]: *Id*. at 18.

[^27]: *Id.*

[^28]: *Id*.

[^29]: 47 CFR §§ 52.23, 52.31.

[^30]: 47 C.F.R. § 52.31.

[^31]: Wireless Carrier Group Petition at 20-21.

[^32]: Rural Telecommunications Group (RTG) Comments on CTIA's May
    13^th^ Petition at ii.

[^33]: *Id*.

[^34]: *Ex Parte* Presentation of the Rural Wireless Working Group Re:
    Rural Wireless Number Portability Guidelines, Section 1.3, (filed
    Aug. 25, 2003) (Rural Wireless Working Group Filing).

[^35]: Letter from Diane Cornell, CTIA to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary,
    FCC (filed Aug. 26, 2003).

[^36]: 47 C.F.R. § 52.31.

[^37]: RTG Comments on CTIA's May 13^th^ Petition at 4.

[^38]: *See, e.g*. In the Matter of Sprint Petition for Declaratory
    Ruling, Obligation of Incumbent LECs to Load Numbering Resources
    Lawfully Acquired and to Honor Routing and Rating Points Designated
    by Interconnecting Carriers, Sprint Petition for Declaratory Ruling,
    CC Docket No. 01-92 (filed July 18, 2002).

[^39]: 47 C.F.R. § 52.31.

[^40]: Sprint's profile information exchange process is an example of
    the type of contact and technical information that would trigger an
    obligation to port. *See,* Letter from Luisa L. Lancetti, Vice
    President PCS Regulatory Affairs, Sprint Corp. to John B. Muleta,
    Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (filed Sept. 23, 2003);
    Letter from Luisa L. Lancetti, Vice President, PCS Regulatory
    Affairs, Sprint Corp. to John B. Muleta, Chief, Wireless
    Telecommunications Bureau and William Maher, Chief, Wireline
    Competition Bureau (filed August 8, 2003).

[^41]: May 13^th^ Petition at 8.

[^42]: *See e.g*., Cingular Comments on CTIA's May 13^th^ Petition at
    26-27, Sprint Comments on CTIA's May 13^th^ Petition at 10, T-Mobile
    Comments on CTIA's May 13^th^ Petition at 7.

[^43]: RTG Comments on CTIA's May 13^th^ Petition at 12.

[^44]: *Id*.

[^45]: *Id*.

[^46]: *See* North American Numbering Council Local Number Portability
    Administration Working Group Report on Wireless Wireline
    Integration, May 8, 1998, CC Docket No. 95-116 (filed May 18, 1998)
    (First Report on Wireless Wireline Integration); North American
    Numbering Council Wireless Number Portability Subcommittee Report on
    Wireless Number Portability Technical, Operational, and
    Implementation Requirements Phase II, CC Docket No. 95-116 (filed
    Sept. 26, 2000); ATIS Operations and Billing Forum, Wireless
    Intercarrier Communications: Interface Specification for Local
    Number Portability, Version 2, at § 2 p. 6 (Jan. 2003). We note that
    the two and one half hour interval does not apply to complex ports.
    Complex ports are ports that generally require more time for
    coordination due to factors such as number of lines, multiple
    geographic locations, multiple time zones, involvement of multiple
    service providers, or other similar factors. Simple ports generally
    involve fewer complicating factors, e.g. single-line account port.

[^47]: 47 U.S.C. § 201.

[^48]: BellSouth Comments on CTIA's January 23^rd^ Petition at 3.

[^49]: *Id*. at 2.

[^50]: *Id*.

[^51]: BellSouth explains that in order to pass rate center validation,
    both the donor switch and the recipient switch must reside in the
    same toll message rate center. BellSouth asserts that this issue
    could block the following types of ports: wireless to wireless (Type
    1 to Type 1), wireless to wireline (Type 1 to BST or reseller), and
    wireline to wireless (BST or reseller to Type 1). *See* Letter from
    Kathleen B. Levitz, Vice President-Federal Regulatory, BellSouth
    Corp. to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC at 7 (filed May 1, 2003).

[^52]: *Id*. at 8.

[^53]: BellSouth Comments on CTIA's May 13^th^ Petition at 12.

[^54]: May 13^th^ Petition at 28.

[^55]: May 13^th^ Petition at 28-29.

[^56]: Local Number Portability Working Group Report on the Migration of
    Numbers Associated with Type 1 Interconnection Arrangements (dated
    June 28, 2002) (revised Nov. 12, 2002) (Migration Report).

[^57]: *Id*. at 2, 5.

[^58]: *See* Letter from Kathleen B. Levitz, Vice President-Federal
    Regulatory, BellSouth, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, CC
    Docket No. 95-116 (dated July 23, 2003).

[^59]: May 13^th^ Petition at 31.

[^60]: *See* Petition for Waiver by Pine Belt PCS, Inc. and Pine Belt
    Cellular, Inc. CC Docket No. 99-200 and 95-116, WT Docket No.
    01-184, filed Nov. 22, 2002 (Pine Belt Petition); Petition for
    Limited Waiver and Extension of Time by Kodiak Wireless, LLC, CC
    Docket No. 99-200, filed Nov. 22, 2002; Petition for Limited Waiver
    and Tension of Time by Cellular Phone of Kentucky, Inc., CC Docket
    No. 99-200, filed Nov. 22, 2002; Petition for Limited Waiver and
    Extension of Time by Litchfield Cellular, CC Docket No. 99-200,
    filed Nov. 22, 2002.

[^61]: *See* 47 C.F.R. 52.31(a); *See also* Verizon Wireless Petition
    for Partial Forbearance from the Commercial Mobile Radio Services
    Number Portability Obligation, WT Docket No. 01-184, and CC Docket
    No. 95-116, *Memorandum Opinion and Order*, 17 FCC Rcd 14972, 14976,
    para. 31.

[^62]: *See* Pine Belt Petition.

[^63]: Amended Petition for Waiver by Pine Belt PCS, Inc. and Pine Belt
    Cellular, Inc. CC Docket Nos. 99-200, 95-116, WT Docket No. 01-184,
    filed Sept. 23, 2003 (Pine Belt's Amended Petition).

[^64]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.3.

[^65]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.925(b)(3)(ii).

[^66]: *See* Northeast Cellular Telephone Co. v. FCC, 897 F. 2d 1164,
    1166 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (citing WAIT Radio v. FCC 418 F. 2d 1153 (D.C.
    Cir. 1969)).

[^67]: *See* Letter from John Kuykendall, Kraskin, Lesse & Cosson, LLC
    to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC (filed Mar. 24, 2003).

[^68]: Petition for Limited Waiver and Extension of Time by Kodiak
    Wireless, LLC, CC Docket No. 99-200 (filed Nov. 22, 2002).

[^69]: Letter from Georgina L.O. Feigen, Wilkinson Barker Knauer, LLP to
    Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC (filed Feb. 11, 2003).

[^70]: Letter from Georgina L.O. Feigen, Wilkinson Barker Knauer, LLP to
    Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC (filed Feb. 27, 2003).

[^71]: Letter from William J. Sill, Wilkinson Barker Knauer, LLP to
    Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC (filed Jan. 24, 2003).

[^72]: Letter from James D. Schlichting, Deputy Bureau Chief, Wireless
    Telecommunications Bureau to William J. Sill, Wilkinson Barker
    Knauer, LLC, CC Docket No. 99-200, DA 03-165 (rel. Jan. 17, 2003).