LNPA Wireless Subcommittee working group meeting, 2000/01/10

Jerry Gill, Bell South Cellular

Anne Cummins, AT&T Wireless

Maggie Lee, Illuminet

Mark Wood, SBC Wireless

Kathy Henly, Neustar

Marcel Champagne, Neustar

Richard X, GTE

Gene Perez, Intermedia

Gene Johnston, Neustar

Linda Godfrey, Airtouch/Vodaphone

Brian Agbert, Sprint PCS

Lorien Pratt , Evolving Systems

-----------------

Introductions

Reviewed and accepted agenda

JIP discussion

Brian Agbert: Sprint is using JIP, as a geographical location identifier. It is the identifier of the originating switch, which may or may not be the LRN. Used in the IAM portion of the message. Billing is the main purpose of it.

Wireline switch standards require the use of JIP. The JIP was developed to support billing in a number portability environment. Without JIP there is no way to ensure the owner of the originating switch since the telephone number no longer has geographic significance. The JIP is populated with the LRN if the switch if LNP capable or with an NPA-NXX assigned to the originating switch if the switch is not LNP capable. Further if a switch is the N-1 carrier and chooses to use default routing, the ILEC tandem will enter the appropriate data in the JIP parameter (should be the NPA-NXX of the calling party switch).

Wireless TR45.2 standards indicate that the JIP is optional. Wireless T1S1.6 standards have the use of the JIP parameter under study. The WNPSC gap analysis indicates that following wireless local number portability billing for inter-exchange carriers will be impacted unless the JIP is populated since the wireless NPA-NXXs opened for portability will no longer have geographic significance. Inter-exchange carriers need the JIP to be able to differentiate between wireless switches (know the originating switch) when long distance is billed separately from local service, e.g. the LD carrier bills the end user separate from the wireless carriers billing to the end user or when a carrier is reselling LD service under its brand, e.g. the LD carrier bills the local carrier in bulk for end user LD charges. In effect, the JIP identifies for the inter-exchange carrier the appropriate recording and billing agreements that is in place for the end user or the carrier, if the carrier is reselling LD minutes of used

.

The WNPSC will develop a liaison letter to wireless standard groups TR45.2 and T1S1.6 indicating the wireless requirement for JIP in an LNP environment. This letter will be reviewed at the February meeting before it is issued to the wireless standard groups, TR45 and T1S1.6.

Intercarrier communications process

The document that recommends the standard implementation for wireless inter-carrier communications is complete. It is currently being reviewed by the CTIA legal staff. When that work is complete it will go to the CTIA Board of Directors for approval. We expect the document to be ready for distribution on Jan. 14^th. It will be sent with a cover letter to venders and wireless carriers. The letter will request written contributions by February 11^th and will include an invitation to an industry wide forum in Kansas City on February 24 and 25^th. The Forum’s purpose is to clarify concerns and to obtain endorsement of the standard recommendation.

Test plan update:

The test committee has met several times and right now we’re at the stage where we are trying to narrow down the test scripts. It looks like the subteam will meet their June 30 completion date. Three conference calls have been scheduled for Jan 14^th, Feb 3^rd, and Feb 21^st. The conference bridge for the 14^th has been arranged. The call in number is 800-838-2199. The pass code is 1899410. A face-to-face is scheduled for Feb. 29 1:00 to 5:00 pm and March 1^st 8:00 am to 5:00 pm in Tampa. Jerry requested that carriers (wireline and wireless) get their testing SMEs to review the draft that he sent out and get inputs back to him as soon as possible. Anne indicated that she would request that the LNPAWG distribute the Testing draft as well as the meeting information to the LNPAWG members. The test team will use the format of the scripts discussed in previous meetings to track what the Chicago plan looks like. Jerry reported that the team has outstanding test contributions that exist based on work that Jerry had done with an ATT representative in the middle of 1999. He does not have a single additional contribution. All companies need to support it, criticize it, or provide additional test scripts. It is incumbent on each company to verify this. Send contributions to jhill3@bellsouth.net. Jerry also reported that a new co-chair will be determined soon to replace Jim Grasser.

Updates on operations teams

Maggie Lee:

East cost had a meeting on the 7^th.

Talked about the wireless porting test plans. Same as what we already discussed.

Talked about number pooling. Had an update on where the states stood at that time.

Next east coast conference call is Feb 9. March is face to face in Dallas, morning before ops west starts. East cost will have separate meeting in the morning, then will join in with ops west committee.

Team leadership for the LNP east coast: 3 chairs now are stepping down. So far, Anne Henderson of AT&T, Terise Mooney of Frontier, and possibly a GTE representative have volunteered to step into the vacant chair positions.

Last topic was a 911 unlock and migrate issue. MCI brought up a significant problem with moving E911 data. Generally the problem is that unlock is not taking place in a timely manner. NANA recommendation is to do the migration within 1 business day. Basically this means that if law enforcement needed to do a trap and called the NPAC IVR they would get the new carrier’s identity.

Gene Perez comment Ops West:

LNP seems pretty much done; there are a few things (multi-service ports with resellers, multicode splits, trouble logs: post-LNP activities that have surfaced). They seem to be spending a lot more time with wireline/wireless pooling and number pooling.

The NANC report?

Jim Grasser has volunteered to write the section on feature interaction: operator services, etc. This should be a recap of the issues as they have already been work in the industry. It is probably something that you can get from the wireless subcommittee report. Brian Egbert volunteered to write this section.

Anne asked members to get their writing assignments to her by Febuary 21^st so that she could prepare the first draft for the March meeting. In March we will begin word-smithing the report.