PIM_102

During iconectiv LNPA transition testing of a local system, issues were discovered that impacts the execution and/or verification of an Industry Test Case (ITC) required for certification.  These issues relate to a nonconformance to Industry Specification(s), an undocumented capability or feature, or a difference of interpretation (between LNPAs) of an Industry Specification.  The specific issue herein needing resolution concerns recovery Active SVs that were modified.  The modified SV data recovered was different than the local system was expecting.

Download the document PIM_102

PIM_101

During iconectiv LNPA transition testing of a local system, issues were discovered that impacts the execution and/or verification of an Industry Test Case (ITC) required for certification.  These issues relate to a nonconformance to Industry Specification(s), an undocumented capability or feature, or a difference of interpretation (between LNPAs) of an Industry Specification.  The specific issue herein needing resolution concerns the SV Query Response for an Audit.  The local system SV Query Response did not match the specifications.

Download the document PIM_101

PIM_100

During iconectiv LNPA transition testing of a local system, issues were discovered that impacts the execution and/or verification of an Industry Test Case (ITC) required for certification.  These issues relate to a nonconformance to Industry Specification(s), an undocumented capability or feature, or a difference of interpretation (between LNPAs) of an Industry Specification.  The specific issue herein needing resolution concerns recovery of Service Provider Relative Distinguished Name (RDN).  The RDN did not match specifications. 

Download the document PIM_100

PIM 99

During iconectiv LNPA transition testing of a local system, issues were discovered that impacts the execution and/or verification of an Industry Test Case (ITC) required for certification.  These issues relate to a nonconformance to Industry Specification(s), an undocumented capability or feature, or a difference of interpretation (between LNPAs) of an Industry Specification.  The specific issue herein needing resolution concerns an SV Query Response Relative Distinguished Name (RDN).  The RDN did not match specifications.

Download the document PIM 99

PIM 98

During iconectiv LNPA transition testing of a local system, issues were discovered that impacts the execution and/or verification of an Industry Test Case (ITC) required for certification.  These issues relate to a nonconformance to Industry Specification(s), an undocumented capability or feature, or a difference of interpretation (between LNPAs) of an Industry Specification.  The specific issue herein needing resolution concerns recovery of Network Data delete transactions.  The local system expected optional attributes to be present in the recovered data.

Download the document PIM 98

PIM 97

During iconectiv LNPA transition testing of a local system, issues were discovered that impacts the execution and/or verification of an Industry Test Case (ITC) required for certification.  These issues relate to a nonconformance to Industry Specification(s), an undocumented capability or feature, or a difference of interpretation (between LNPAs) of an Industry Specification.  The specific issue herein needing resolution concerns Modifying the Old SP Authorization by the Old SP.  The local system expected different results than were exhibited.

Download the document PIM 97

PIM 96

During iconectiv LNPA transition testing of a local system, issues were discovered that impacts the execution and/or verification of an Industry Test Case (ITC) required for certification.  These issues relate to a nonconformance to Industry Specification(s), an undocumented capability or feature, or a difference of interpretation (between LNPAs) of an Industry Specification.  The specific issue herein needing resolution concerns recovery of Network Data objects.  The Local System expected optional attributes in recovery messages.

Download the document PIM 96

PIM 95

During iconectiv LNPA transition testing of a local system, issues were discovered that impacts the execution and/or verification of an Industry Test Case (ITC) required for certification.  These issues relate to a nonconformance to Industry Specification(s), an undocumented capability or feature, or a difference of interpretation (between LNPAs) of an Industry Specification.  The specific issue herein needing resolution concerns Disconnect Requests with Effective Release Date in the Past.  Local System expected behavior does not match specifications.

Download the document PIM 95

PIM 94

During iconectiv LNPA transition testing of a local system, issues were discovered that impacts the execution and/or verification of an Industry Test Case (ITC) required for certification.  These issues relate to a nonconformance to Industry Specification(s), an undocumented capability or feature, or a difference of interpretation (between LNPAs) of an Industry Specification.  The specific issue herein needing resolution concerns scoped and filtered queries for SVs including a NOT filter.  NOT filters are not required to be supported in the specifications.

Download the document PIM 94

PIM 93

During iconectiv LNPA transition testing of a local system, issues were discovered that impacts the execution and/or verification of an Industry Test Case (ITC) required for certification.  These issues relate to a nonconformance to Industry Specification(s), an undocumented capability or feature, or a difference of interpretation (between LNPAs) of an Industry Specification.  The specific issue herein needing resolution concerns the creation of port-to-original (PTO) SVs.  The PTO SV create message did not conform to the specifications.

Download the document PIM 93

PIM 92

During iconectiv LNPA transition testing of a local system, issues were discovered that impacts the execution and/or verification of an Industry Test Case (ITC) required for certification.  These issues relate to a nonconformance to Industry Specification(s), an undocumented capability or feature, or a difference of interpretation (between LNPAs) of an Industry Specification.  The specific issue herein needing resolution concerns the Optional Data XML string not in certain messages.  The XML string does not conform to the XSD specification.

Download the document PIM 92

PIM 91

During iconectiv LNPA transition testing of a local system, issues were discovered that impacts the execution and/or verification of an Industry Test Case (ITC) required for certification.  These issues relate to a nonconformance to Industry Specification(s), an undocumented capability or feature, or a difference of interpretation (between LNPAs) of an Industry Specification.  The specific issue herein needing resolution concerns the Completion Timestamp in the SWIM Processing Results notification.  The Completion Timestamp field does not conform to the industry specification.

Download the document PIM 91

PIM 90

During iconectiv LNPA transition testing of a local system, issues were discovered that impacts the execution and/or verification of an Industry Test Case (ITC) required for certification.  These issues relate to a nonconformance to Industry Specification(s), an undocumented capability or feature, or a difference of interpretation (between LNPAs) of an Industry Specification.  The specific issue herein needing resolution the Synchronous field in messages.  The Synchronous field does not conform to the industry specification.

Download the document PIM 90

PIM 89

During iconectiv LNPA transition testing of a local system, issues were discovered that impacts the execution and/or verification of an Industry Test Case (ITC) required for certification.  These issues relate to a nonconformance to Industry Specification(s), an undocumented capability or feature, or a difference of interpretation (between LNPAs) of an Industry Specification.  The specific issue herein needing resolution concerns the user ID field in the access control structure of messages.  The user ID field does not conform to the industry specification.

Download the document PIM 89

PIM 88

Some Service Providers do not have a contact number to assist with porting fallout questions.  Instead, the carriers rely on e-mail.  There are not any documented guidelines around using email for porting fallout such as timing of the response and an escalation path if a response is not received via e-mail.

Download the document PIM 88

PIM 87

LNPA WG Best Practices reflect the consensus of the working group regarding the preferred processes for porting.  Best Practice 0004, N-1 Carrier Methodology Clarification, was originally submitted by the working group in December 2001.  The most current version 5.0 was a result of revisiting the practice in January 2005.

The best practice states that the N-1 carrier is responsible for performing the dip and describes the role of a “donor carrier” in certain situations.  To clarify the meaning of this term, the LNPA WG confirms the donor carrier is the A-Block Code Holder designated in the LERG for the NPA-NXX of the called number (default carrier for routing calls based on the NPA-NXX of the called number).

The LNPA WG periodically reviews the Best Practices to determine whether each remains applicable to the current porting environment.  Based on these reviews, a practice may be modified or deleted.

Bright House believes BP4 requires additional detail and edits as it relates to donor carrier.

Download the document PIM 87

PIM 85

Consumers are experiencing negative porting experiences as a result of the lack of uniformity and clarity in processes that drives port completion timeframes. We are allowing resellers to validate on any field at whim and this is causing significant impacts to the porting process. We need uniformity in the resellers porting requirements, we need set guidelines surrounding wireless reseller port out validation requirements and we feel a best practice is the place to start.

Download the document PIM 85

PIM 84

There is not an industry defined process interval for Wireless to Wireline and Wireless to Wireless  reseller ports.  Reseller ports are not considered simple ports, they are complex.  There is not any documentation to date around expectations of the timing of a port out response when the losing service provider is a reseller. In other words, how long does a reseller have to respond to a wireless port out or an intermodal port out request?

Download the document PIM 84

PIM 83

Initially, a request was made by a number of Service Providers in the LNPA Working Group for Neustar to create a report that reflects all wireless Service Providers that have Long T1 and T2 Timers set in their NPAC SP Profiles.

At the November 2014 LNPA WG meeting, this PIM 0083 was accepted for further discussion.  During the discussion, Service Providers requested that the report be expanded to include additional information as outlined below in Section 2.

Download the document PIM 83

PIM 82

Due to the automated processing of large quantities of ports, there are occasions (rare, but can happen) that an Old Provider may have auto-issued a FOC and then their downstream systems may discover a legitimate reason the port should stop.  The Old Provider then is allowed by ATIS LSOG order processes, to send a Reject and/or JEP to the New Provider.  It has been determined that some New Providers are not reacting to these subsequent JEP/Reject’s, even though it can be proven those messages did indeed reach the New Provider.  When a New Provider ignores those subsequent messages, this in-effect means the new provider has “taken” a number without a valid LSR still in play.

Download the document PIM 82

PIM 81

It has come to the attention of Providers that a New Provider is using an NPAC modify message to unilaterally move up the port due date once the T1/T2 timers have been stopped due to both matching SV Creates arriving at NPAC.  This unilateral acceleration of the Due Date (DD) by the New Provider, when not agreed to via a concurred LSR Supplement, is service affecting to the end user and goes against industry practice and the intent of the FCC mandated NANC’s LNP Process Flows, Figure 9, Flow A, Step 3 and Figure 10, Flow AA Step 4, which both state, “No NPAC SV may activate before the SV due date/time.”

Download the document PIM 81

PIM 80

A significant quantity of ported/pooled NPAC database records currently contain LRNs that are in a different LATA than their associated ported/pooled telephone numbers (TNs).  This is resulting in customer complaints that they are not receiving all of their telephone calls.

Download the document PIM 80

PIM 79

Item 1.) Url link inside BP36 which says,

        ““NANC Inter-Service Provider LNP Operational Flows” is broken.

Item 2.) Change title of BP to be “VoIP Porting Obligations.

Item 3.) Add some helpful VoIP cites to the BP.

Download the document PIM 79

PIM 78

Per LNPA WG Recommendations, carriers will use the “standardized” LSR as developed by OBF for simple wireline-to-wireline and intermodal ports to support 1DP.  Small carriers have until Feb. 2, 2011 to adopt 1DP.  However, until all ONSP carriers are supporting 1DP and using the OBF standard LSOG for intermodal or wireline ports an NNSP will need to send some carriers the "old" type of LSRs and other carriers the "new standard" LSR.  The "standardized" LSR will have only 8 to 14 mandatory fields (pending FCC ruling) and the current mixture of non-standardized LSRs may have many more mandatory and ONSP proprietary fields.  Therefore, NNSP carriers supporting 1DP will have to support two types of LSRs during the transition period until Feb. 2, 2011 and track which carrier uses which.  Otherwise, they will have to deal with more fallout caused by sending an incompatible LSR to the ONSP.

This will also affect wireless to wireline ports since wireless carriers use WICIS 4.0 currently and will use WICIS 5.0 (the sunrise date for WICIS 5.0 is June 6 but each carrier may adopt WICIS 5.0 as they deem fit until Feb. 13, 2011 when WICIS 4.0 sunsets and all carriers must be on WICIS 5.0).  WICIS 5.0 was adopted for supporting 1DP but until all wireless carriers support 1DP some will still require certain fields to be in an LSR so they can be mapped to a WPR.

However, until the FCC rules on the 8 vs. 14 mandatory fields, and all carriers aresupporting 1DP (and have had time to modify their systems), there may be carriers that support medium timers but utilize a prior version of port request (e.g., WICIS 4.0 or prior version of LSOG).

Download the document PIM 78

PIM 77

Porting delay problems, caused by a lack of communication/interaction between the ONSP and their OLSP (Reseller) during the data validation stage of the port, have been increasing in frequency.  The result is causing delays in the end users ability to port their number.

Download the document PIM 77

PIM 76

Inadequate notification by service providers when they make changes to their systems or processes that other service providers must use to request a customer service record or to initiate a request to port a telephone number.

Download the document PIM 76

PIM 75

The LNPA-WG reached consensus on a best practice related to pass code/PIN verification (Best Practice 60). The best practice states that a provider cannot use a provider assigned pass code/PIN as validation or require the pass code/PIN to obtain a CSR. The new best practice will help in preventing unnecessary delays of porting, whether the delay is intentional or not.

Download the document PIM 75

PIM 74

Definition of the word sends in the LNP Provisioning Flows Narratives in the context of a response.

Download the document PIM 74

PIM 73

The disconnection of the telephone number the customer would like ported creates significant delays/the inability of the NSP to port the number from the OSP.

Download the document PIM 73

PIM 72

Requirement to provide security code/password/pin is causing significant delays in the ability of end users to port away from an existing provider because the end users do not know what the security code/password/pin is.

Download the document PIM 72

PIM 71

Allowing the OLSP to initiate the cancellation may cause an interruption in service and duplicate billing depending on the timing of the cancellation.

Download the document PIM 71

PIM 70

In today's version of the NANC flows, both slides 1 and 2 indicate the LSR-FOC process should be used for the processing of ALL intermodal ports (both wireless and wireline). This needs to be revisited and updated to reflect the industry decision.

Download the document PIM 70

PIM 69

The process for porting telephony service when bundled with Digital Subscriber Line (DSL) service in some cases requires the customer to contact the current service provider requesting the DSL be split from the telephony service.

Download the document PIM 69

PIM 68

A carrier created a very large quantity of ISP subscription versions (aka TN ports) in their pooled 1K blocks with the same routing information carried at the block level over a short time period, causing a significant increase in ports and leading to a performance and capacity issue for a number of Industry LSMS's.

Download the document PIM 68

PIM 67

The Verizon Wireless Network Repair Bureau (NRB) is experiencing a marked increase in the number of trouble tickets opened for Intercarrier SMS problems related to customers who have Ported In their numbers to Verizon Wireless (VZW). These new VZW customers are unable to receive text messages from customers of the carrier they left due to the data in the Old Service Provider's system(s) not being fully deactivated or cleaned-up.

Download the document PIM 67

PIM 66

Mass Updates made by NPAC do not persist any modify request data.

Download the document PIM 66

PIM 65

In the current notification prioritization, there is no way to indicate priority levels for the notifications generated upon the disconnection of NPBs. These disconnects can potentially generate thousands of unwanted notifications for each of the SVs within the block.

Download the document PIM 65

PIM 64

LTI initiated transactions are broadcast to the SOAs

Download the document PIM 64

PIM 63

The issue is that some carriers are requiring that the customer have service for 30 days before they will approve a port out request. According to the FCC Mandate, a Service provider can refuse to port in customers but they cannot refuse to port out.

Download the document PIM 63

PIM 62

Planned maintenance activities are a necessary part of doing business, however the length of outages impacting the ability of Service Providers to port numbers through their systems needs to be limited to a maximum of 60 consecutive hours. Additionally, Trading Partners should provide 30 days notice of planned porting outages. If 30 days is not possible, a minimum of 14 days notice should be provided.

Download the document PIM 62

PIM 61

Out-dated dial-up access to the LTI (Low Tech Interface) is producing slow and unreliable compliance with mandated FCC number porting requirements and procedures.

Download the document PIM 61

PIM 60

Socket Telecom ("Socket") is attempting to port numbers away from a LEC to serve a customer that wishes to change its local service provider. Socket will be replacing the customer's current local exchange service with a tariffed Out of Calling Scope Service (either Remote Call Forward or Foreign Exchange Service) in conjunction with Socket's local exchange service. The LEC that is currently serving the customer is refusing to port the number on the grounds that the definition of number portability as defined in Section 147 U.S.C. 151 (30) is specifically defined as excluding attempts to change the serving location of the customer. The LEC is calling this "location portability" and is taking the position that it has no obligation to port a number if the customer's service location will change as a result of the number port.

Download the document PIM 60

PIM 59

Process for unlocking the 911 record.

There is a problem in identifying a solidified process for unlocking the 911 record for VoIP carriers.

Download the document PIM 59

PIM 58

Some end users are unable to port their telephone numbers because the NXX code is not opened for portability in the NPAC SMS. Usually, this can be resolved by communication between the two service providers. However, in some cases the old service provider (OSP) contacts are not available, or the OSP refuses to make the code portable.

Download the document PIM 58

PIM 57

Attempting to port a consumer when a Reseller abruptly discontinues business and/or declares bankruptcy.

Download the document PIM 57

PIM 56

While all carriers receive updates in their LSMS when porting customers, some carriers are not provisioning their LNP databases correctly. When this scenario occurs, customers are not able to terminate or receive calls from those carrier's networks that did not provision their LNP databases.

Download the document PIM 56

PIM 55

Intermodal porting faces a challenge in the form of a process gap between the wireless and wireline carriers after a confirmation has been received. The 2 processes are not in synch, causing fall out and delays.

Download the document PIM 55

PIM 54

Comcast is requesting NANC support a standard porting interval for wireline to wireline and wireline to wireless of one day based on certain criteria

Download the document PIM 54

PIM 53

Carriers are taking back numbers that have been ported out several months or even years because their systems do not reflect a valid FOC was sent. In many cases they have not removed the number from their number inventory and they have re-assigned the TN to another customer.

Download the document PIM 53

PIM 52

Carriers are receiving blocks in which the Intra-Service Provider ports (ISPs) have not been completed by the donor provider prior to being donated to the pool. These blocks should be considered unusable due to the issues and rippling effects caused when the receiving service provider begins to assign customers out of the block.

Download the document PIM 52

PIM 51

Currently a carrier can open a Code (NPA-NXX) for portability in the NPAC whether or not they own the NPA-NXX.

Download the document PIM 51

PIM 50

A large number of wire line to wireless ports fail the automated process because they are from large accounts where the customer service record (CSR) is too large to return on a CSR query. The CSR is needed to complete an LSR.

Download the document PIM 50

PIM 49

Service Providers do not have clear direction in the NANC flows regarding the proper porting procedure for Type 1 numbers

Download the document PIM 49

PIM 48

"Both the NIIF Company Specific Contact Directory and the National LNP Contact Directory are documents used by several companies to assist in troubleshooting LNP problems as well as for general intercompany contact information. During the course of using these directories it was suggested a new category for pos-port carrier-to-carrier support was necessary. In addition, some contact information is either missing or is not current for those that have submitted information. This PIM also suggests more publicity in order to get those carriers not listed would be encouraged to do so. "

Download the document PIM 48

PIM 47

The intention of this PIM is to discuss minimum industry intermodal standards for purging old/abandoned ports. This issue is related to WNPO Issue 04-13- 'Purge Old Port Requests with No Response' and OBF Wireless Committee issue 2665.

Download the document PIM 47

PIM 46

The existing NPAC Filter Management process only allows a filter to be applied for a particular NPA-NXX if that particular NPA-NXX has previously been entered into NPAC.

Download the document PIM 46

PIM 45

When there are errors in local service requests to port a number some service providers only respond identifying a single error. Additional LSRs and responses are required until all errors are finally cleared. This can result in a need to create many LSRs in order to clear all errors and complete a port.

Download the document PIM 45

PIM 44

Wire line carriers rules for developing a local service request (LSR) in order to port a number are unique to each carrier, dynamic and complex requiring dozens of different fields. Each carrier can set their own rules and requirements for porting numbers from them. Each field may be required to match exactly to the information as it appears in validation fields for both wire line and wireless ports. Any difference, even slight, can result in a port request being rejected. The number of validation fields for wire line LSR porting process makes it very difficult and costly to port numbers from wire line carriers. Porting to these complex requirements takes a great deal of time and typically requires manual intervention, which inhibits and discourages porting and the automation of the porting process.

Download the document PIM 44

PIM 43

Verizon Wireless has concerns about the volume of port transactions that the NPAC can process per second when mass changes need to be made and broadcasted to the industry. Now that wireless service providers are porting throughout the United States, Verizon Wireless expects that the volume of port transactions will increase in general, and mass changes may need to be made more frequently as well.

Download the document PIM 43

PIM 42

The wireless process for porting based on developing and sending a 'wireless port request' (WPR) does not collect and provide all the information that is needed to map to the wireline "local service request" (LSR). Fields that are required for wire line porting may have no relevance to wireless porting. Where the information is not available the ports fail. The LSOP committee intentionally made these fields 'optional' because of wireless number portability. Some individual ILEC business rules still require these fields.

Download the document PIM 42

PIM 41

Outside of NANC 323 - SPID Migrations, when carriers acquire or trade markets, unexpected fallout can occur for their LNP trading partners during the time the markets are being transitioned from one SPID to the other. This fallout can be difficult to resolve, customer expectations may be set incorrectly, and general porting confusion may occur if trading partners are not informed of the changes within a reasonable time period prior to the changes taking place.

Download the document PIM 41

PIM 40

"The intention of this PIM is to discuss minimum industry standards for LNP readiness that must be adhered to by all companies in order to port. "

Download the document PIM 40

PIM 39

Current wireline business practices allow carriers flexibility to set their own unique "business rules" or porting requirements and change them as often as needed. Some carriers will change their business rules as often as several times a month. These frequent changes to carrier unique requirements significantly increases porting cost, error and fall-out, and inhibits the automation of porting processes.

Download the document PIM 39

PIM 38

The current -x object (1k Pool Block) tunable of 5 business days between the Create and Activate is too long and acts as a constraint against service providers.

Download the document PIM 38

PIM 37

"The intention of this PIM is to discuss minimum industry standards for LNP readiness that must be adhered to by all companies in order to port. "

Download the document PIM 37

PIM 36

NPANXXs are sometimes opened in the wrong NPAC region.

Download the document PIM 36

PIM 35

Why are all service providers required to participate in certification testing if the vendors are already completing the same testing?

Download the document PIM 35

PIM 34

Wireless carriers are not receiving customer service records (CSRs) from all wire line network service providers when porting 'Type 1' numbers from other wireless service providers who are leasing the number. Wireless port requests do not contain the needed information to complete a wire line local service request (LSR). The CSR is required to complete the LSR and the port.

Download the document PIM 34

PIM 33

"We have to pay for a non-discretionary ""Active Like TN's in a NPA-NXX Report"" when taking over a code to verify blocks that are over 10% contaminated."

Download the document PIM 33

PIM 32

Wireless carriers are not receiving customer service records (CSRs) from all wire line network service providers when a reseller is the local service provider. Wireless port requests do not collect the needed information to complete a wire line local service request (LSR). The CSR is a primary source of information needed to complete the LSR and port the number.

Download the document PIM 32

PIM 31

"Wireless cannot process ""Jeopardizes"" following confirms from wireline service providers when they are not able to meet the original due date and time."

Download the document PIM 31

PIM 30

There is differing interpretation of N-1 Number Portability Querying responsibilities, and whether wireless carriers are obligated to perform default NP Queries when the N-1 carrier fails to dip the call.

Download the document PIM 30

PIM 29

Due to inconsistent inter-modal processes some customers are experiencing loss of service between disconnects and activations.

Download the document PIM 29

PIM 28

When porting between wireless and wireline there is an interface difference between WPRR (wireless) and FOC (wireline). FOC allows for a due date and time change on confirms. WPRR does not allow a due date and time change on confirms. When wireline send a FOC with DDT change on a confirm the wireless carrier's cannot process the change and does not allow port to complete.

Download the document PIM 28

PIM 27

There is no way to get an SV out of Cancel Pending status other than waiting out the timers. The timers could take up to 24 business hours (two 9-hour Cancel Pending timers plus 6-hour Conflict timer --9+9+6=24 business hours).

Download the document PIM 27

PIM 26

The NPAC Testbed hardware platform does not reflect a production environment to support volume performance tests.

Download the document PIM 26

PIM 25

Will retailers have access to the porting database to determine which carriers/markets customers can port into and out of?

Download the document PIM 25

PIM 24

"Blocks that are being assigned to Service Providers are either contaminated when they are donated as a non-contaminated block or the blocks have been contaminated over 10%. This is causing customers to be out of service or blocks being exchanged for a less contaminated or non-contaminated block. In addition when the PA has assigned a block, at times the block is being rejected in the NPAC for not having the NXX as opened in the NPAC as portable. "

Download the document PIM 24

PIM 23

The LRNs, NXX data, and NXX-X data and effective dates of the data in the NPAC are not always in synch with those in the Telcordia Business Integrated Routing and Rating Database System (BIRRDS).

Download the document PIM 23

PIM 22

Customers have been taken out of service inadvertently in some cases when the New Service Provider continues with a port, that has been placed into Conflict by the Old Service Provider, after the 6 hour Conflict Resolution Timer has expired, instead of investigating why the port was placed into Conflict.

Download the document PIM 22

PIM 21

Ported-In TN records left behind in NPAC Database and in SPs Network after some SPs seize to provide Service (e.g., Bankruptcy). This will result in incomplete calls.

Download the document PIM 21

PIM 20

Porting after a code is returned from a carrier going out of business and scheduled for disconnect.

Download the document PIM 20

PIM 19

We have noticed there are a lot of Intra-provider ports from a pooling block to the same SPID and LRN.

Download the document PIM 19

PIM 18

The NANC flows and narratives for Local Number Portability need to be updated to accommodate wireless resellers and the different timeframes and business model for wireless service providers.

Download the document PIM 18

PIM 17

Some carriers offer both wireless and wireline services.  With the integration of the wireless industry into Local Number Portability, there needs to be an efficient way for other carriers to determine whether a request to port a number comes from the wireline or the wireless division of that company.

Download the document PIM 17

PIM 16

Erroneous Local Exchange Routing Guide (LERG) Updates:

NPA/NXX codes are being marked as portable in LERG 6.  The code holder is then porting directory numbers in, out and/or within that NPA/NXX code.  After some porting activity has occurred, the code holder goes into LERG 6 and then changes the NPA/NXX from a portable code to an unportable code.   Any directory numbers, which have been ported in that block of numbers, are stranded.

Download the document PIM 16

PIM 15

In order to change the NXX code “ownership” from one service provider to another in NPAC, any active ported numbers within that code must be deleted before the ownership change can be performed.  This temporarily prevents these ported customers from receiving most calls until their subscription record is recreated.                              

Download the document PIM 15

PIM 14

When an NXX code containing ported telephone numbers is disconnected in the network, calls placed to those ported subscribers fail immediately before an LNP query can be performed in order to route on the NPA-NXX of the Location Routing Number (LRN).                             

Download the document PIM 14

PIM 11

A process for moving 1k blocks between switches, within the same company, within the same rate center using EDR functionality is needed to satisfy the FCC's requirement to manage TN inventory by rate center rather than wirecenter.

Download the document PIM 11

PIM 10

The lack of standards regarding the routing and charging of calls to ported numbers is causing the CLECs to assign an inordinate number of LRNs to each switch site.

Download the document PIM 10

PIM 09

LNP calls failing resulting in trouble tickets.

Download the document PIM 09

PIM 08

Telephone numbers get ported from a specific JIP with the incorrect LRN which route customer to wrong receiving office.

Download the document PIM 08

PIM 06

The process of updating 9-1-1 Address Location Identification (ALI) databases, due to Local Number Portability (LNP), should be done utilizing the unlock/migrate process found in the NENA LNP standards. For those customers who both port and move, a process of delete/migrate has been added to NENA LNP standards in March 2000.  Those 9-1-1 database providers not yet utilizing the delete/migrate process should be taking active steps to implement it.

Download the document PIM 06

PIM 05

There are certain instances where customer lines are ported in  error i.e. “Inadvertent Porting”.  There are several circumstances under which this may occur.

Download the document PIM 05

PIM 02

The Slow Horse Sub-committee is in the process of developing an availability requirement for service provider LSMS systems. It is the purpose of this document to define the service provider maintenance window.  This specifies when and for how long a service provider can be unavailable.

Download the document PIM 02