Sparring on WNP forbearance

Last summer, Verizon Wireless (www.verizonwireless.com) called on the FCC (www.fcc.gov) to lift the wireless number portability (WNP) requirement. Verizon wants the commission to retain number pooling, which is coupled with WNP because they share the same basic technology; both are slated to begin Nov. 24, 2002.

Verizon’s petition illustrates that full portability-capability is not necessary for number pooling; only the location routing number (LRN) architecture is needed. Furthermore, the carrier argues that portability, originally required to foster competition, is unnecessary given the industry’s gladiator-like competition. That, coupled with portability’s technical burdens and expenses, make WNP “regulatory overkill,” according to Verizon’s petition.

On Aug. 7, the FCC put Verizon’s petition on public notice. Comments were due Sept. 21 and reply comments are due by Oct. 22. To no surprise, several carriers and CTIA (www.wow-com.com) have filed in support of Verizon. CTIA argued that, at the very least, the commission should detach the pooling obligation from portability to ensure that pooling occurs on schedule.

Another industry group, the Rural Cellular Association (RCA; www.rca-usa.org) supports Verizon’s petition and wants more. RCA wants the FCC to eliminate “the requirement that CMRS carriers implement software upgrades in their network to support nationwide roaming for number portability,” their filing states.

AT&T Wireless’ (www.attws.com) supportive filing states that the decision to require pooling and porting to begin together “was based in part on the FCC’s erroneous conclusion that full WNP capability was a prerequisite to number pooling.”

AT&T Wireless also argues that there exists no evidence that wireless consumers seek WNP. A filing from the New York State Department of Public Service (NYDPS; www.dps.state.ny.us) provide evidence to the contrary.

“The NYDPS has received complaints from customers that their ability to switch wireless carriers is hampered by their inability to retain their numbers,” their filing states.

Other carriers noticeably supported Verizon’s opinion that WNP would incur overwhelming expenses on carriers. A joint filing from VoiceStream (www.voicestream.com) and U.S. Cellular (www.uscc.com) states that the commission’s last WNP deadline extension recognized that portability implementation would cost the industry up to $1 billion.

“An expenditure of this magnitude will necessarily divert finite capital from being invested in capabilities that the public wants (e.g., wireless Internet and other 3G applications),” the joint filing states.

Cingular (www.cingular.com) and Sprint PCS (www.sprintpcs.com) threw out cost estimates, saying WNP expenses would hinder improvements in service quality and adherence to other regulatory mandates (such as CALEA and E-911), respectively. Cingular estimates WNP will cost the carrier more than $250 million in the next five years. Sprint PCS estimates full portability systems will require 170,000 man-hours and $26 million between now and Nov. 24, 2002.

Three carriers pointed to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11 and the subsequent performance of mobile networks as another reason for the FCC to erase WNP.

“The tragic events of September 11 and their aftermath have confirmed that CMRS networks have become a vital and reliable component of the Public Switched Telephone Network,” the joint filing of VoiceStream and U.S. Cellular states. “The magnitude of deployment required to flash cut both WNP and pooling concurrently, however, clearly risks degradation of network reliability and service quality.”

Sprint PCS concurs, stating that the “commission should not put at risk the ability of the wireless industry to continue to maintain reliable networks.”

Other carriers that filed in favor of Verizon’s petition include Alltel (www.alltel.com) and Dobson (www.Dobson.net). WorldCom’s (www.worldcom.com) filing against Verizon points to the advantages of WNP for wireless resellers. The filing also points to the five-and-a-half years (including two deadline extensions) wireless carriers have had to implement WNP.

“Verizon Wireless’ petition is nothing more than an untimely, unauthorized and unsubstantiated petition for further reconsideration,” the filing states. “Verizon Wireless, and perhaps other CMRS carriers, have essentially avoided compliance with an objectionable rule by seeking delay after delay.”

Verizon’s petition uses the commission’s Feb. 1999 decision to extend the WNP deadline to its current date, in which the FCC noted that WNP was not necessary at that time to promote competition, as evidence that “the commission recognized that WNP is not necessary for competition in the CMRS industry,” Verizon’s petition states. WorldCom refutes this, calling it an attempt “to revise history” by Verizon. WorldCom references comments in the commission’s order that state, “in the longer term, wireless number portability will be an increasingly important issue for consumers.”

Other groups that filed against Verizon’s petition include the Association of Communications Enterprises, the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, public utilities commissions from New Hampshire and Texas and the Vermont Public Service Board.