*Pages 1--36 from Microsoft Word - NumbUtilPressJune29.doc* Numbering Resource Utilization in the United States as of December 31, 2004 Craig Stroup and John Vu Industry Analysis and Technology Division Wireline Competition Bureau Federal Communications Commission August 2005 This report is available for reference in the FCC's Reference Information Center, Courtyard Level, 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554. Several private firms specialize in locating, duplicating, and distributing FCC documents. Documents may be purchased by calling Best Copy and Printing, Inc. at (202) 488- 5300 or via their website at www. bcpiweb. com. This and many other useful reports can also be downloaded from the FCC-State Link Internet site at www. fcc. gov/ wcb/ stats. 1 Table of Contents Executive Summary……………………………………………………………………………… …2 Findings……………………………………………………………………………………………. . 2 Background ……………………………………………………………………………………… …3 Analysis and Results ………………………………………………………………………………. 6 Additional Information ……………………………………………………………………………. 10 Technical Details ………………………………………………………………………………….. 11 Number Utilization by Carrier Type ………………………………………………………………. 13 Detail of Number Utilization: Non- rural Carriers (Reported at the Thousands- block Level) ……. 13 Detail of Number Utilization: Rural Carriers (Reported at the NXX Level) …………………… …13 Telephone Number Utilization by State …………………………………………………………… 14 Number of Carriers Reporting Numbering Resources ……………………………………………. . 15 Telephone Number Utilization by Area Code …………………………………………………… …16 Assigned, Aging and Available Telephone Numbers by Area Code ……………………………… 21 Pooled Thousands- blocks …………………………………………………………………………. 26 Increased Utilization and Telephone Numbers Saved due to Thousands- Block Pooling ………… …27 Number Utilization for Specialized Nongeographic Area Codes ………………………………… …27 Average ILEC Utilization Rates by Number of Thousands- blocks Held in a Rate Center ……… …28 Average Cellular/ PCS Utilization Rates by Number of Thousands- blocks Held in a Rate Center …29 Average CLEC Utilization Rates by Number of Thousands- blocks Held in a Rate Center ……… . 30 Average Paging Utilization Rates by Number of Thousands- blocks Held in a Rate Center ……… 31 Alternate Sources of NPA- NXX Assignments ……………………………………………………. 32 Utilization over Time ……………………………………………………………………………… 32 NPA- NXX Assignments, Returns and Net Assignments ………………………………………… …33 Telephone Number Porting Activity Since Wireless Pooling Started…………………………… …34 2 6 Analysis and Results Table 1 shows the total quantity of telephone numbers reported by the carriers and the number of 10,000 blocks (or NXXs) that were re ported. Table 1 also shows the quantity of telephone numbers that carriers reported for each of the six ca tegories described above. The percentages for each of the six categories are provided as well. Carriers have reported usage data on over 128,000 NXXs. This is up from the 125,000 NXXs from the previous fili ng (data for June 30, 2004). As the NANPA calculates that about 132,000 NXXs have been assigned to United States carriers, 16 this round of submissions (data for December 31, 2004) appears to have garnered usable information on over 96% of the numbering resources assigned to carriers in the United States. Although the reporting level is high, many carriers still had not provided usable utilization data by March 29, 2005, the cut- off date for inclusion in this report. Carriers filing FCC Forms 502 reported that nearly 550 million telephone numbers were assigned to end users, and that more than 665 million were available for assignment. Thus, the quantity of numbers available for assignmen t exceeds the number already assigned to end users. These 665 million available numbers do not include any telephone numbers in NXXs that had not yet been assigned to a carrier. As more NXXs are assigned to carriers by the NANPA, and more area codes are opened, mo re numbers will become available. Intermediate, reserved, aging and administrative categories collectively account for another 86 million telephone numbers of the NXXs assigne d to carriers. The quantity of ILEC assigned numbers is down slightly, reflecting the decreasing number of ILEC lines. 17 The quantity of cellular/ PCS assigned numbers is up, reflecting that sector’s growth. Table 2 presents utilization statistics for carriers reporting at the thousands- block level (carriers that do not meet the statutory definition of a rural carrier are required to report at the thousands- block level). Table 3 presents statistics for rural carriers, which are required to report only at the 10,000 block level. 18 As might be expected, overall utilization rates are lower in rural areas (16% of telephone numbers are assigned to end users) than in more urban areas (44% of telephone number s are assigned to end users). Table 4 shows utilization statistics on a state- by- state basis. As might be expected, states that are relatively rural and have low population densities have a lower percentage of numbers that have been assigned to end- user customers than in more urban, populous states. Again, carriers report for only those numbers that have been assigned to them, so the quantity of 16 The NANPA lists the codes that have been assigned on their web site: http:// www. nanpa. com/ reports/ r eports_ cocodes_ assign. html. 17 See Industry Analysis Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, Local Telephone Competition: Status as of December, 2004 (Table 1) (2005). 18 See March 2000 NRO Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 7604- 05, para. 71 . A small number of rural carriers may operate in areas with pooling. As all carriers in pooling areas are required to report at the thousands- block level, rural carriers in pooling areas, if any, should be included in Table 2 rather than Table 3. 7 7 available numbers does not include any of the NXXs that had not yet been assigned to a carrier. Table 5 shows the number of carriers reporting telephone number utilization data for each state. Carriers are required to report their NRUF data at the operating company number (OCN) level. 19 Carriers typically obtain one or more OCNs per state in which they operate. The number of carriers in each state is determined by counting the number of OCNs reported in each state. Table 6 shows utilization statistics on an area co de- by- area code basis. The table also shows the total number of OCNs that reported in each area code. Wherever a small number of carriers report data for an area code, the information is withheld to prevent release of proprietary data. Again, carriers report for only those numbers that have been assigned to them, so the quantity of available numbers does not include any of the NXXs in the state that had not yet been assigned to a carrier. Table 7 shows actual quantities of assigned, aging and available numbers for wireline carriers (ILECs and CLECs), and for cellular/ PCS carriers (wireless carriers). This information is presented on an area code- by- area code basis. The information in Table 7 is useful for at least two reasons. First, there is no information on the number of working telephone lines in each area code. The number of work ing lines per area code cannot be perfectly divined from this information. Although cellular/ PCS carriers typically assign one geographic telephone number to each subscriber, wireline carriers sometimes do not. Some wireline customers want multiple telephone numbers associated with a smaller number of lines. This is common when the customer has a PBX. Other cust omers, especially those expecting many inbound calls, such as from a help line, want a single telephone number that serves many lines. Thus, the quantity of telephone numbers in an area code provides only a rough guide to the number of lines served in each area code. Second, the information in Table 7 provides th e only information available for examining churn. 20 After a customer disconnects from a carrier’s network and chooses not to port the number to another carrier, that carrier will hold a number out of circulation (“ age” the number) for up to ninety days if the customer was a residential subscriber, and up to one year if the customer was a business subscriber. Therefore, the quantity of aging numbers gives some indication of the number of customers that have disconnected from the carrier’s network in the previous three months to a year. Aging numbers, however, do not give a perfect indication of churn, because not all carriers age their numbers for the full time allowed. In particular, where carriers cannot immediately obtain new numbers from the NANPA or the pooling administrator because of area code rationing, and the carriers have no other available numbers to assign to end users, carriers may assign end users telephone numbers that have not been aged for the full time that the states have prescribed. (Thousands- block pooling alleviates this problem by making more numbering resources 19 See March 2000 NRO Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 7 594, para. 41. Carriers obtain OCNs from the National Exchange Carrier Association. 20 Churn is the rate at which customers change carriers. 8 8 available.) Moreover, as mentioned in the previous paragraph, wireline carriers do not always issue one telephone number per line. Thus, as with line counts, churn rates can only be roughly estimated from the data in Table 7. Table 8 focuses on telephone number pooling. A thousands- block is potentially poolable when 90% or more of the numbers are classifi ed as available for assignment. Pooling is required in the top 100 MSAs. 21 Pooling also is occurring in other areas where a state commission has exercised delega ted authority to require pool ing. Carriers also have voluntarily implemented pooling in certain areas. The Commission established an initial roll- out schedule for thousands- block numb er pooling for wireline carriers, which was completed in December 2003. 22 Table 8 shows the number of thousands- blocks th at carriers have received from the Pooling Administrator. Table 8 also shows the total number of thousands- blocks in rate centers where pooling exists, and shows th e percentage of those thousands blocks that are pooled. Wireless carriers are listed separately from CLECs and ILEC s because wireless carriers started porting on November 24, 2003. Table 9 examines the efficacy of thousands- blo ck pooling. Table 9 shows the utilization of the thousands- blocks that were distributed by th e Pooling Administrator, and the utilization rate that would have resulted had whole NXXs been issued. 23 Overall, if whole NXXs had been issued instead of individual thousands- blocks, utilization within those blocks would have been 12.9%. With pooling, however, utiliz ation was 49.7%, nearly a four- fold increase. Another way of measuring the benefit of pooling is examining the quantity of telephone numbers saved through pooling. With pooling, 53.4 million telephone numbers were distributed to carriers in pooling areas. Had there been no pooling, 206.4 million telephone numbers would have been distributed to the carriers. Thus, 153 million telephone numbers have been saved through thousands- block pooling. Table 10 shows utilization data for two specialized nongeographic area codes: 500 and 900. Area code 500 is used for “follow me” service, which, among other things, can be used to 21 The composition of MSAs may change over time. If a rate center is part of a top 100 MSA at any time after 1990, then the FCC generally requires number pooling. See Numbering Resource Optimization, CC Docket N os. 9 9 -200, 95- 116 , Fourth Report and Order in CC Docket No. 99- 200 and CC Docket No. 9 5- 116, and Fourth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in CC Docket No. 9 9 -200, FCC 03- 126 (rel. June 18, 2003) (Fourth Report and O rder). 22 See The Common Carrier Bureau Announces The First Quarter Schedule For National Thousands- Block Number Pooling, CC Docket No. 99 -200, Public Notice, 17 FCC Rcd 103 (2001). See also Numbering Resource Optimization, CC Docket Nos. 99- 200, Order, 17 FCC Rcd 7347 (2002). 23 Calculating the utilization rate had whole NXXs been issued was a 4- step process: 1) the number of thousands- blocks that a carrier held in a rate center was determined; 2) that number was rounded up to the next ten, which is the number of thousands- blocks the carrier would have received if it had received whole NXXs; 3) the number in step 2 was multiplied by 1, 000 to calculate the total q uantity of telephone numbers the carrier would have had in the rate center; 4) the number of telephone numbers in that rate center that the carrier assigned to end users was then divided by the quantity of telephone numbers calculated in step 3. 9 9 route an incoming call to different phone numbers, depending on the time of day. Area code 900 is used for information services where the caller is not charged the normal long distance rates set by the caller’s long dist ance carrier, but usually is charged much higher prices that are preset by the call’s recipient. Figures 1 through 4 focus on utilization rates as a function of the number of thousands- blocks that the carriers hold within a local geographic area. 24 We have used rate centers as our measure of local geographic area because thousands blocks are as signed to carriers on a rate-center basis. 25 Carriers serving densely populated areas may need more than one thousands block (each thousands block cont ains one thousand numbers) to provide service. In these densely populated areas, carriers should generally be able to achieve higher utilization rates than carriers serving less densely populated areas, where one thousands block (or in many rural areas, a whole NXX) may be used to serve just a few customers. Figure 1 shows average ILEC utilization rates as a function of the number of thousands-blocks in a rate center held by a carrier. The points in the figures were calculated using a three- step process. First, thousands- blocks were grouped depending on the number of thousands- blocks held by a carrier within a ra te center. Second, the number of thousands-blocks held in a rate center was rounded to the nearest ten, to help protect the confidentiality of the data. Third, the average utilization rates were calculated for each of the groups (i. e., from the group of 10 thousands- blocks per rate center through the group of 1,000 thousands-blocks per rate center). 26 For example, for all instances where a carrier reported from 5 to 14 (which round to 10) thousands- blocks in a ra te center, the average utilization rate was calculated. A similar average utilization rate was calculated for all instances where, for a carrier in a rate center, the number of thousands- blocks in a rate center was rounded to 20, 30, and so on through 1,000. To preserve carrier confidentiality, some data points have been collapsed into a single data point. For exampl e, if there were only two companies with 350 thousands- blocks in a rate center, and anothe r two companies with 360 thousands- blocks in a rate center, those data points were collapsed. This way, no carrier- specific data are released. Figures 2 through 4 show the same information for Cellular/ PCS carriers, CLECs, and paging carriers. Table 11 focuses on NPA- NXX assignment informa tion. There are three different databases that contain sources of NPA- NXX assignmen t information: NANPA’s NRUF database, NANPA’s NANP Administration System (NAS) database of NPA- NXX assignments, and the Local Exchange Routing Guide (LERG). 27 For a variety of reasons, the databases are not 24 For the purposes of these figures, the utilization rate is defined as the number of telephone numbers assigned to end- user customers divided by 1,000 (the number of telephone numbers in the thousands block). 25 A rate center is a geographic area used to determine distances and prices for local and long distance calls. 26 In order to prevent disclosure of proprietary information, we have grouped some individual data points into clusters so that the specific utilization data for individual carriers cannot be divined by comparing the individual plot points with other data sources. 27 The NAN PA’ s assignment information can be found online: http:// www. nanpa. com/ reports/ r eports_ cocodes_ assign. html. The analys is in Table 11 examines only those 10 10 identical. Timing is a large factor in the differences. For instance, during an area code split, a carrier will maintain both the old and new NPA- NXXs in its systems during the phase called permissive dialing. 28 After permissive dialing ends, the carrier should remove the old NPA- NXXs from its systems. During permissi ve dialing, some carriers report utilization data for both the old and the new NPA- NXXs. Further, some carriers may not remove the old NPA- NXXs from their systems promptly after permissive dialing ends, and may therefore report utilization data on both the old and the new NPA- NXXs. Also, carriers sometimes delay updating the LERG after an NP A- NXX has been removed from their switch or when the carrier has given the NPA- NXX back to the NANPA. Thus, the NRUF database, the LERG and the NANPA assignment da tabase may not be identical. Table 11 shows the number of NPA- NXXs that appear in the three databases. Table 12 shows the percentage of numbers that have been assigned to end users over time. The only clear trend is that the utilization rate for paging continues to drop because the paging market is shrinking. Table 13 shows, on a quarterly basis, the num ber of NXX assignments made by the NANPA, the number of NXXs that have been return ed to the NANPA, and the number of net NXX assignments to carriers. The table shows that fewer NXXs ge nerally are being issued each quarter, and that carriers c ontinue to return unneeded NPA- NXXs to the NANPA for reassignment. Table 14 shows the quantity of telephone numbe rs that have been ported since wireless pooling started on November 24, 2003. The tabl e shows that most porting activity is intramodal, that is between two landline carriers or between two cellular/ PCS carriers. Also, because landline porting started in 1998, there ar e many more landline to landline ports than there are cellular/ PCS to cellular/ PCS ports. In recent months, however, there was more monthly porting volume between cellular/ PCS carriers than between landline carriers. Additional Information Additional information too lengthy to include in this report is contained on the Commission’s website. 29 The first set of additional information lists the more than 3,000 filers. The list includes the service provider’s name, its parent name, and its OCN. The second set of information shows, by carrier type and by rate center, the number of assigned telephone numbers and the number of thousands blocks re ported in that rate center. Some information has been redacted (asteriske d out), to prevent the potential release of non- codes that N AN PA marked “assigned” (i. e., this study does not ex amine those codes marked “protected”, “reserved”, “unassignable”, or “vacant”). The LERG is published monthly by Telcordia Technologies. 28 During permissive dialing, a phone number may be called by using either the old or the new NPA. 29 This report and additional numbering information can be found at http:// www. fcc. gov/ wcb/ iatd/ number. html. All of the Industry Analysis & Technology Division’s reports are available on the web, and are conveniently categorized. See http:// www. fcc. gov/ wcb/ stats. 11 11 public data. The information also includes the Metropolitan Statistical Area/ Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area in which the rate center resides. 30 The pooling information submitted by NeuStar is also available, and includes the NPA, NXX, X (block number), recipient carrier, da te of assignment for the block and other information about the block. NeuStar submitted pooling data as of April 28, 2005. For consistency, only blocks with effective dates through December 31, 2004 were used in creating the tables for this report. Technical Details The following material provides technical details on the data and procedures used in this analysis. With respect to Tables 1 through 3, the reader should note that the number of unique NXXs for each carrier t ype does not add up to the total number of unique NXXs. 31 This occurs when multiple carriers report data for the same numbering resource. In addition, some carriers reported at the thousands- block level and other carriers reported at the NXX level for the same NXX. In the past, when numbers were transferred from an ILEC to another carrier, these numbers were classified as “assigned” because those numbers could not be used elsewhere in the ILEC’s own system. According to the Comm ission’s standardized definitions, however, these numbers are classified as “intermediate” numbers. It appears that some large carriers have not reported these numbers as intermediate numbers. Because, in many instances, we were unable to match submissions that report intermediate numbers with submissions that report numbers as being received from another carrier, we had to create filters to ensure that numbers were not double counted. For ease of comparison, Figures 1 through 4 plot utilization rates only when there were 1,000 or fewer thousands- blocks in a rate center. Some ILECs and Cellular/ PCS carriers reported more than 1,000 unique thousands- blocks in a sing le rate center. For both types of carriers, however, the average utilization rates in these instances (where the carrier has more than 1,000 thousands blocks in a rate center) were the same as the instances where the carrier has just fewer than 1,000 thousands blocks in a rate center. Therefore, the figures show only the data where the carriers reported up to 1,000 thousands- blocks within a rate center. This allows a linear scale to be used. In some instances, we observed that some CLECs had a large number of thousands- blocks in a single rate center. Although most CLECs do not have e nough end- user lines in a rate center to warrant having so many thousands- blocks in that rate center, there are at least two 30 The rate center’s V& H coordinates from the LERG we re used to determine in which MSA/ PMSA the rate center resided. If the rate center is not in an MS A/ PMSA, then the MSA/ PMSA variable is left blank. 31 In some instances, more than one carrier reported numbering utilization data for the same NPA- NXX. Tables 1- 3 report on the number of uniq ue NPA- N XXs that were re ported by each carrier type and by the industry as a whole. 12 12 reasons that a CLEC would do s o. First, some CLECs provide service to unified messaging services, such as e- fax . 32 These services use large quantities of numbers. 33 Second, some CLECs are operating in areas undergoing area co de splits, where the area code will change for many of its thousands- blocks . When this happens, a CLEC may maintain two thousands-blocks (one using the old area code, and another using the new area code) in its systems for a period of time so that callers can adapt to the new area code. * * * * We invite users of this information to provide suggestions for improved data collection and analysis by using the attached customer response form, e- mailing comments to craig. stroup@ fcc. gov , john. vu@ fcc. gov , or calling the Industry Analysis and Technology Division at (202) 418- 0940 (for TTY, call (202) 418- 0484). 32 Unified messaging services allow en d users to receive multiple types of messages (such as voice mail and faxes) at one phone number. Typically, these message s are then digitized and e- mailed to the end user. Because the end user does not need to answer the call personally, the messages can be sent to any phone number in the United States. Thus, unified messaging se rvice providers can operate efficiently by obtaining a large number of thousands blocks in a single rate center. 33 Carriers assigning numbers to unified messaging services are instructed to report numbers as “intermediate” until the numbers are assigned by the unified messaging service providers to end users. Some carriers have assigned large q uantities of numbers to unified messaging services but may not have received information back from the unified messaging company as to whether any of those numbers had been assigned to end users. This may explain why some carriers reported dozens of NXXs in a single rate center, yet still classified all those numbers as intermediate rather than assigned. 13 Table 1 Number Utilization by Carrier Type as of December 31, 2004 Assigned Intermediate Reserved Aging Admin Available 1 Total Unique Carrier Type (Thousands of telephone numbers) NXXs ILEC 305,132 14,208 7,127 17,148 10,048 216,851 570,514 60,391 Cellular/ PCS 183,998 3,912 1,424 9,218 3,108 135,212 336,872 37,809 CLEC 51,112 7,168 4,087 2,425 1,185 245,871 311,849 35,566 Paging 8,469 2,210 2,359 688 140 68,384 82,250 6,188 All Reporting Carriers 548,712 27,498 14,998 29,479 14,480 666,318 1,301,485 128,097 2 ILEC 53.5% 2.5% 1.2% 3.0% 1.8% 38.0% 100.0% Cellular/ PCS 54.6% 1.2% 0.4% 2.7% 0.9% 40.1% 100.0% CLEC 16.4% 2.3% 1.3% 0.8% 0.4% 78.8% 100.0% Paging 10.3% 2.7% 2.9% 0.8% 0.2% 83.1% 100.0% All Reporting Carriers 42.2% 2.1% 1.2% 2.3% 1.1% 51.2% 100.0% Table 2 Detail of Number Utilization: Non- rural Carriers (Reported at the Thousands- block Level) Assigned Intermediate Reserved Aging Admin Available 1 Total Unique Carrier Type (Thousands of telephone numbers) NXXs ILEC 294,565 13,250 5,896 16,316 9,683 162,526 502,237 53,604 Cellular/ PCS 181,758 3,749 1,257 9,040 3,017 128,689 327,511 36,899 CLEC 50,627 7,167 3,909 2,393 1,152 239,929 305,176 34,921 Paging 8,096 1,965 2,210 627 102 67,025 80,024 5,994 All Reporting Carriers 535,046 26,131 13,273 28,376 13,954 598,169 1,214,948 119,692 2 ILEC 58.7% 2.6% 1.2% 3.2% 1.9% 32.4% 100.0% Cellular/ PCS 55.5% 1.1% 0.4% 2.8% 0.9% 39.3% 100.0% CLEC 16.6% 2.3% 1.3% 0.8% 0.4% 78.6% 100.0% Paging 10.1% 2.5% 2.8% 0.8% 0.1% 83.8% 100.0% All Reporting Carriers 44.0% 2.2% 1.1% 2.3% 1.1% 49.2% 100.0% Table 3 Detail of Number Utilization: Rural Carriers (Reported at the NXX Level) Assigned Intermediate Reserved Aging Admin Available 1 Total Unique Carrier Type (Thousands of telephone numbers) NXXs ILEC 10,567 958 1,231 832 365 54,324 68,277 6,822 Cellular/ PCS 2,240 164 167 178 90 6,523 9,362 916 CLEC 485 1 178 33 33 5,943 6,673 663 Paging 373 244 149 61 38 1,360 2,225 194 All Reporting Carriers 13,666 1,367 1,725 1,103 526 68,149 86,537 8,581 2 ILEC 15.5% 1.4% 1.8% 1.2% 0.5% 79.6% 100.0% Cellular/ PCS 23.9% 1.7% 1.8% 1.9% 1.0% 69.7% 100.0% CLEC 7.3% 0.0% 2.7% 0.5% 0.5% 89.1% 100.0% Paging 16.8% 11.0% 6.7% 2.7% 1.7% 61.1% 100.0% All Reporting Carriers 15.8% 1.6% 2.0% 1.3% 0.6% 78.8% 100.0% Source: Numbering Resource Utilization/ Forecast Reports data filed with NeuStar, Inc. as of March 29, 2005 (96% of NXXs reporte d). 1 Includes only telephone numbers in NXXs assigned to carriers and are therefore available for assignment to customers. Does not include any numbers in NXXs that have not yet been assigned to carriers. 2 Unduplicated total. Note: Figures may not add due to rounding. 13 14 Table 4 Telephone Number Utilization by State as of December 31, 2004 Assigned Intermediate Reserved Aging Administrative Available 1 Total State/ jurisdiction 000s %000s %000s %000s %000s %000s %000s Alabama 7,733 38.5 503 2.5 213 1.1 605 3.0 262 1.3 10,744 53.6 20,060 Alaska 1,081 24.5 19 0.4 15 0.3 54 1.2 17 0.4 3,216 73.1 4,403 Arizona 10,528 53.3 455 2.3 189 1.0 626 3.2 162 0.8 7,782 39.4 19,741 Arkansas 3,769 26.7 765 5.4 88 0.6 245 1.7 316 2.2 8,915 63.2 14,098 California 66,419 43.6 7,558 5.0 1,019 0.7 3,204 2.1 2,104 1.4 72,048 47.3 152,351 Colorado 10,290 52.4 95 0.5 119 0.6 580 2.9 257 1.3 8,307 42.3 19,647 Connecticut 6,717 43.2 386 2.5 126 0.8 247 1.6 252 1.6 7,826 50.3 15,553 Delaware 2,199 53.0 39 1.0 88 2.1 99 2.4 19 0.5 1,705 41.1 4,150 District of Columbia 3,560 66.6 22 0.4 154 2.9 158 3.0 22 0.4 1,427 26.7 5,343 Florida 33,561 49.4 1,706 2.5 504 0.7 2,315 3.4 1,025 1.5 28,819 42.4 67,930 Georgia 16,689 44.3 1,597 4.2 304 0.8 1,435 3.8 434 1.2 17,238 45.7 37,697 Guam Not shown to protect carrier confidentiality Hawaii 2,616 57.3 25 0.5 14 0.3 99 2.2 73 1.6 1,741 38.1 4,568 Idaho 2,391 40.6 26 0.4 70 1.2 108 1.8 67 1.1 3,230 54.8 5,892 Illinois 23,822 40.8 1,122 1.9 875 1.5 1,033 1.8 573 1.0 30,912 53.0 58,337 Indiana 9,570 36.5 405 1.5 322 1.2 433 1.7 276 1.1 15,228 58.0 26,235 Iowa 4,819 28.8 142 0.9 174 1.0 249 1.5 136 0.8 11,220 67.0 16,740 Kansas 4,337 26.2 609 3.7 118 0.7 237 1.4 271 1.6 11,011 66.4 16,583 Kentucky 6,774 33.6 578 2.9 128 0.6 374 1.9 128 0.6 12,179 60.4 20,161 Louisiana 7,770 37.0 482 2.3 149 0.7 587 2.8 195 0.9 11,809 56.3 20,993 Maine 2,218 42.7 37 0.7 64 1.2 86 1.7 27 0.5 2,759 53.1 5,192 Maryland 12,739 51.5 81 0.3 391 1.6 557 2.2 136 0.6 10,855 43.8 24,759 Massachusetts 16,609 47.0 126 0.4 706 2.0 714 2.0 208 0.6 16,976 48.0 35,338 Michigan 18,452 36.4 600 1.2 920 1.8 815 1.6 500 1.0 29,342 58.0 50,629 Minnesota 10,164 39.9 172 0.7 339 1.3 477 1.9 152 0.6 14,149 55.6 25,452 Mississippi 4,139 27.2 254 1.7 129 0.8 335 2.2 172 1.1 10,178 66.9 15,207 Missouri 9,769 34.3 481 1.7 756 2.7 604 2.1 398 1.4 16,478 57.8 28,485 Montana 1,301 23.2 37 0.7 39 0.7 68 1.2 27 0.5 4,130 73.7 5,601 Nebraska 3,082 30.2 157 1.5 24 0.2 128 1.3 74 0.7 6,754 66.1 10,220 Nevada 5,194 57.1 399 4.4 39 0.4 221 2.4 118 1.3 3,127 34.4 9,097 New Hampshire 2,785 42.9 17 0.3 67 1.0 93 1.4 30 0.5 3,506 54.0 6,498 New Jersey 18,297 45.4 253 0.6 690 1.7 1,077 2.7 227 0.6 19,724 49.0 40,268 New Mexico 2,936 43.6 52 0.8 26 0.4 170 2.5 54 0.8 3,496 51.9 6,735 New York 36,191 51.6 813 1.2 1,643 2.3 1,831 2.6 487 0.7 29,166 41.6 70,132 North Carolina 15,064 42.4 788 2.2 147 0.4 888 2.5 378 1.1 18,292 51.4 35,556 North Dakota 973 18.9 39 0.8 20 0.4 39 0.8 26 0.5 4,062 78.7 5,159 Northern Marianas Is. Not shown to protect carrier confidentiality Ohio 19,061 38.7 526 1.1 745 1.5 860 1.7 441 0.9 27,564 56.0 49,198 Oklahoma 5,150 27.8 564 3.0 101 0.5 264 1.4 353 1.9 12,092 65.3 18,525 Oregon 6,376 45.0 188 1.3 74 0.5 331 2.3 176 1.2 7,008 49.5 14,153 Pennsylvania 23,081 42.1 295 0.5 938 1.7 955 1.7 310 0.6 29,230 53.3 54,809 Puerto Rico 3,617 57.5 15 0.2 24 0.4 275 4.4 68 1.1 2,292 36.4 6,292 Rhode Island 2,491 53.7 7 0.1 67 1.4 81 1.7 14 0.3 1,974 42.6 4,634 South Carolina 6,939 43.6 444 2.8 74 0.5 442 2.8 275 1.7 7,758 48.7 15,932 South Dakota 1,117 21.1 28 0.5 29 0.5 52 1.0 27 0.5 4,037 76.3 5,290 Tennessee 10,263 41.3 539 2.2 152 0.6 681 2.7 202 0.8 13,013 52.4 24,850 Texas 40,000 40.8 2,468 2.5 891 0.9 2,535 2.6 1,966 2.0 50,299 51.2 98,160 Utah 4,802 46.4 61 0.6 67 0.6 260 2.5 88 0.9 5,082 49.1 10,360 Vermont 2,000 44.1 6 0.1 52 1.1 34 0.8 39 0.9 2,399 52.9 4,531 Virgin Islands Not shown to protect carrier confidentiality Virginia 15,137 53.6 107 0.4 477 1.7 718 2.5 187 0.7 11,636 41.2 28,262 Washington 12,133 46.7 1,144 4.4 147 0.6 634 2.4 362 1.4 11,567 44.5 25,987 West Virginia 2,224 35.7 35 0.6 89 1.4 102 1.6 46 0.7 3,726 59.9 6,222 Wisconsin 8,648 34.0 186 0.7 364 1.4 382 1.5 279 1.1 15,607 61.3 25,466 Wyoming 842 25.1 13 0.4 12 0.3 42 1.2 35 1.1 2,405 71.8 3,349 Totals 548,712 42.2 27,498 2.1 14,998 1.2 29,479 2.3 14,480 1.1 666,318 51.2 1,301,485 Source: Numbering Resource Utilization/ Forecast Reports data filed with NeuStar, Inc. as of March 29, 2005. 1 Includes only telephone numbers in NXXs assigned to carriers and are therefore available for assignment to customers. Does not include any numbers in NXXs that have not yet been assigned to carriers. Note: Figures may not add due to rounding. 14 15 Table 5 Number of Carriers Reporting Numbering Resources as of December 31, 2004 1 Paging Unduplicated State/ jurisdiction ILEC 2 Cellular/ PCS 2 CLEC 2 Carriers 2 Total Alabama 32 26 23 7 88 Alaska 18 9 2 1 30 Arizona 15 18 23 7 63 Arkansas 31 17 17 7 72 California 22 19 52 13 106 Colorado 33 19 22 8 81 Connecticut 3 8 22 5 38 Delaware 1 8 16 5 30 District of Columbia 1 8 20 5 34 Florida 15 24 47 10 96 Georgia 35 25 43 8 111 Guam 0 3 1 1 4 Hawaii 2 7 4 2 15 Idaho 21 20 15 5 61 Illinois 59 23 42 7 131 Indiana 43 18 34 9 104 Iowa 155 19 48 4 226 Kansas 45 19 22 7 93 Kentucky 21 23 34 7 85 Louisiana 21 17 26 7 71 Maine 23 10 15 2 50 Maryland 2 15 32 6 55 Massachusetts 3 12 29 5 49 Michigan 35 22 37 9 103 Minnesota 87 19 47 5 158 Mississippi 18 22 25 4 69 Missouri 45 23 33 9 110 Montana 19 9 14 4 46 Nebraska 49 14 13 4 80 Nevada 11 13 22 7 53 New Hampshire 13 13 15 7 48 New Jersey 2 11 33 7 53 New Mexico 17 15 12 5 49 New York 36 17 41 12 106 North Carolina 28 18 35 5 86 North Dakota 34 11 16 2 63 Northern Marianas Islands 1 2 0 0 3 Ohio 37 23 36 11 107 Oklahoma 45 22 19 8 94 Oregon 32 17 30 5 84 Pennsylvania 33 22 47 9 111 Puerto Rico 1 7 1 1 10 Rhode Island 1 7 14 5 27 South Carolina 21 16 29 4 70 South Dakota 46 8 12 2 68 Tennessee 26 26 33 5 90 Texas 65 37 63 18 183 Utah 8 7 10 4 51 Vermont 1 2 0 0 29 Virgin Islands 12 17 18 4 3 Virginia 15 19 38 7 79 Washington 25 17 38 9 88 West Virginia 7 18 17 5 47 Wisconsin 90 21 30 8 149 Wyoming 15 13 9 3 40 Unduplicated Tota l 1,285 374 1,185 106 2,950 Source: Numbering Resource Utilization/ Forecast Reports data filed with NeuStar, Inc. as of March 29, 2005. 1 Company numbers determined by counting operating company numbers (OCNs). Carriers typically obtain at least one OCN per state in which they do business. Thus, carriers with multiple OCNs are counted multiple times. 2 Carriers occasionally misclassify the type of service that they provide. For instance, the CLEC operations of ILECs are occasionally classified as ILEC operations. 15 16 Table 6 Telephone Number Utilization by Area Code as of December 31, 2004 Area Code State/ Jurisdiction Area Code Opened Assigned Intermediate Reserved Aging Admin Available OCNs 201 New Jersey Jan- 47 48.8% 0.5% 1.6% 2.8% 0.5% 45.7% 44 202 District of Columbia Jan- 47 66.6% 0.4% 2.9% 3.0% 0.4% 26.7% 34 203 Connecticut Jan- 47 45.3% 3.0% 0.8% 1.8% 2.0% 47.2% 37 205 Alabama Jan- 47 45.3% 2.9% 0.3% 3.5% 1.5% 46.4% 44 206 Washington Jan- 47 60.0% 1.4% 0.4% 3.4% 1.6% 33.2% 40 207 Maine Jan- 47 42.7% 0.7% 1.2% 1.7% 0.5% 53.1% 50 208 Idaho Jan- 47 40.6% 0.4% 1.2% 1.8% 1.1% 54.8% 61 209 California Jan- 58 37.3% 6.0% 0.6% 1.8% 1.3% 52.9% 45 210 Texas Nov- 92 56.5% 3.6% 0.6% 3.1% 1.2% 35.0% 34 212 New York Jan- 47 72.8% 0.2% 6.0% 3.6% 1.3% 16.2% 27 213 California Jan- 47 39.0% 5.7% 0.9% 2.3% 2.4% 49.7% 44 214 Texas Jan- 47 53.9% 0.4% 0.7% 3.2% 1.7% 40.1% 48 215 Pennsylvania Jan- 47 53.3% 0.8% 2.7% 2.0% 0.8% 40.5% 34 216 Ohio Jan- 47 42.3% 0.8% 2.1% 2.4% 0.9% 51.5% 36 217 Illinois Jan- 47 32.6% 0.8% 2.1% 1.2% 1.2% 62.1% 46 218 Minnesota Jan- 47 23.0% 0.8% 0.6% 1.1% 0.5% 73.9% 65 219 Indiana Jan- 47 40.5% 2.4% 1.1% 2.1% 1.1% 52.8% 38 224 Illinois Jan- 02 36.8% 0.4% 1.6% 1.6% 0.3% 59.3% 20 225 Louisiana Aug- 98 45.6% 2.4% 0.3% 3.2% 1.1% 47.4% 36 228 Mississippi Sep- 97 31.1% 0.6% 0.6% 2.6% 0.7% 64.4% 29 229 Georgia Aug- 00 27.0% 6.1% 0.5% 2.1% 0.6% 63.7% 39 231 Michigan Jun- 99 25.9% 0.5% 0.9% 1.0% 0.6% 71.1% 35 234 Ohio Oct- 00 1.4% 0.0% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 98.2% 7 239 Florida Mar- 02 47.4% 1.5% 0.9% 1.9% 0.4% 47.8% 29 240 Maryland Jun- 97 38.6% 0.7% 0.9% 1.4% 0.3% 58.1% 42 248 Michigan May- 97 43.7% 1.3% 1.6% 1.8% 0.8% 50.7% 40 251 Alabama Jun- 01 40.6% 1.8% 1.4% 3.3% 1.4% 51.6% 40 252 North Carolina Mar- 98 33.1% 0.2% 0.3% 1.4% 0.3% 64.7% 28 253 Washington Apr- 97 48.5% 8.1% 0.5% 2.8% 1.0% 39.0% 36 254 Texas May- 97 29.1% 1.4% 0.9% 2.0% 3.0% 63.6% 42 256 Alabama Mar- 98 36.2% 2.5% 0.9% 3.0% 1.1% 56.3% 46 260 Indiana Jan- 02 34.8% 0.5% 0.8% 1.7% 2.2% 59.9% 32 262 Wisconsin Sep- 99 32.2% 0.5% 1.3% 1.3% 0.9% 63.7% 40 267 Pennsylvania Jul- 99 32.6% 1.0% 0.5% 1.2% 0.3% 64.5% 35 269 Michigan Jul- 02 36.3% 0.7% 1.2% 1.8% 1.1% 58.9% 41 270 Kentucky Apr- 99 28.4% 3.6% 0.3% 1.5% 0.7% 65.5% 50 276 Virginia Sep- 01 32.4% 0.1% 0.6% 1.4% 0.7% 64.8% 28 281 Texas Nov- 96 44.3% 3.3% 0.7% 3.1% 1.1% 47.6% 41 301 Maryland Jan- 47 58.7% 0.1% 1.5% 2.6% 0.7% 36.4% 37 302 Delaware Jan- 47 53.0% 1.0% 2.1% 2.4% 0.5% 41.1% 30 303 Colorado Jan- 47 64.6% 0.3% 0.6% 3.1% 1.9% 29.5% 38 304 West Virginia Jan- 47 35.7% 0.6% 1.4% 1.6% 0.7% 59.9% 47 305 Florida Jan- 47 56.1% 4.4% 0.6% 5.3% 1.3% 32.3% 44 307 Wyoming Jan- 47 25.1% 0.4% 0.3% 1.2% 1.1% 71.8% 40 308 Nebraska Jan- 55 17.0% 1.5% 0.3% 1.0% 0.8% 79.4% 47 309 Illinois Jan- 57 32.1% 9.0% 0.9% 1.1% 1.2% 55.7% 52 310 California Nov- 91 54.0% 4.7% 0.7% 2.5% 1.2% 36.9% 45 312 Illinois Jan- 47 44.1% 2.6% 1.8% 1.6% 1.5% 48.4% 42 313 Michigan Jan- 47 42.3% 1.6% 3.6% 2.9% 0.9% 48.7% 34 314 Missouri Jan- 47 51.1% 2.7% 2.6% 2.8% 1.4% 39.4% 32 315 New York Jan- 47 39.1% 0.4% 1.6% 1.6% 0.7% 56.7% 46 316 Kansas Jan- 47 38.2% 3.5% 0.5% 2.1% 2.4% 53.3% 29 317 Indiana Jan- 47 48.2% 2.0% 1.6% 2.2% 0.9% 45.2% 43 318 Louisiana Jan- 57 29.8% 1.6% 0.2% 2.3% 0.7% 65.4% 38 319 Iowa Jan- 47 34.2% 1.5% 0.6% 1.7% 1.6% 60.3% 59 320 Minnesota Mar- 96 26.5% 0.3% 1.0% 1.4% 0.4% 70.4% 59 321 Florida Nov- 99 50.7% 1.8% 0.6% 3.1% 0.9% 42.9% 42 323 California Jun- 98 42.0% 3.7% 0.5% 2.6% 1.2% 50.0% 44 16 17 Table 6 Telephone Number Utilization by Area Code as of December 31, 2004 Area Code State/ Jurisdiction Area Code Opened Assigned Intermediate Reserved Aging Admin Available OCNs 325 Texas Apr- 03 26.7% 1.6% 1.4% 1.4% 2.5% 66.4% 37 330 Ohio Mar- 96 39.3% 0.5% 1.6% 1.6% 0.9% 56.0% 39 334 Alabama Jan- 95 32.3% 2.5% 1.9% 2.3% 1.2% 59.7% 46 336 North Carolina Dec- 97 44.2% 3.1% 0.3% 2.5% 1.1% 48.8% 48 337 Louisiana Oct- 99 32.4% 2.4% 0.3% 2.1% 1.0% 61.9% 39 339 Massachusetts May- 01 17.6% 0.3% 0.2% 0.4% 0.7% 80.7% 12 340 US Virgin Islands Jun- 97 Not shown to protect carrier confidentiality 3 347 New York Oct- 99 43.1% 5.3% 0.5% 3.6% 0.9% 46.6% 26 351 Massachusetts May- 01 Not shown to protect carrier confidentiality 1 352 Florida Dec- 95 42.2% 1.9% 0.2% 2.0% 0.8% 52.9% 33 360 Washington Jan- 95 44.2% 1.8% 0.5% 2.0% 1.3% 50.1% 58 361 Texas Feb- 99 29.8% 2.5% 0.5% 1.9% 1.7% 63.7% 35 386 Florida Feb- 01 42.3% 3.4% 0.3% 2.4% 0.7% 50.9% 40 401 Rhode Island Jan- 47 53.7% 0.1% 1.4% 1.7% 0.3% 42.6% 27 402 Nebraska Jan- 47 35.7% 1.6% 0.2% 1.4% 0.7% 60.5% 53 404 Georgia Jan- 47 59.1% 3.3% 0.7% 6.0% 2.3% 28.6% 42 405 Oklahoma Jan- 47 40.2% 4.0% 0.4% 2.0% 1.9% 51.5% 43 406 Montana Jan- 47 23.2% 0.7% 0.7% 1.2% 0.5% 73.7% 46 407 Florida Apr- 88 51.0% 3.0% 0.7% 3.8% 0.9% 40.6% 44 408 California Jan- 59 50.2% 4.8% 0.7% 2.4% 1.2% 40.7% 44 409 Texas Nov- 82 31.8% 7.4% 0.4% 2.4% 1.3% 56.6% 35 410 Maryland Oct- 91 62.2% 0.2% 2.4% 3.0% 0.7% 31.5% 39 412 Pennsylvania Jan- 47 42.1% 0.2% 2.0% 1.7% 0.8% 53.1% 32 413 Massachusetts Jan- 47 51.7% 0.1% 1.5% 1.4% 0.3% 44.9% 33 414 Wisconsin Jan- 47 49.8% 1.7% 2.1% 2.7% 1.3% 42.5% 29 415 California Jan- 47 45.0% 3.3% 0.5% 2.2% 0.9% 48.1% 46 417 Missouri Jan- 50 30.7% 1.4% 5.5% 2.5% 2.0% 57.8% 51 419 Ohio Jan- 47 32.1% 2.5% 1.4% 1.4% 1.3% 61.4% 56 423 Tennessee Sep- 95 39.6% 1.9% 0.3% 2.3% 0.7% 55.2% 44 425 Washington Apr- 97 47.2% 7.0% 0.6% 2.3% 1.8% 41.1% 36 430 Texas Feb- 03 9.6% 47.8% 9.6% 0.0% 4.1% 29.0% 4 432 Texas Apr- 03 33.3% 0.9% 1.8% 2.2% 1.9% 59.9% 32 434 Virginia Jun- 01 40.2% 0.2% 1.1% 1.8% 0.7% 56.1% 27 435 Utah Sep- 97 24.8% 0.9% 0.6% 1.1% 0.6% 71.9% 48 440 Ohio Aug- 97 37.4% 1.0% 1.5% 1.3% 0.4% 58.3% 39 443 Maryland Jun- 97 36.1% 0.4% 1.0% 1.3% 0.4% 60.7% 37 469 Texas Jul- 99 32.7% 1.2% 1.5% 2.2% 1.2% 61.1% 38 478 Georgia Aug- 00 37.0% 6.1% 0.9% 2.9% 1.4% 51.7% 38 479 Arkansas Jan- 02 33.2% 4.8% 0.8% 2.0% 2.4% 56.8% 34 480 Arizona Mar- 99 65.4% 0.7% 1.1% 3.9% 0.8% 28.1% 33 484 Pennsylvania Jun- 99 27.3% 0.5% 1.2% 0.7% 0.3% 70.1% 45 501 Arkansas Jan- 47 31.7% 5.8% 0.5% 1.9% 2.8% 57.4% 34 502 Kentucky Jan- 47 44.4% 2.7% 0.4% 3.0% 1.0% 48.5% 36 503 Oregon Jan- 47 53.1% 1.6% 0.5% 2.8% 1.6% 40.4% 47 504 Louisiana Jan- 47 48.9% 3.7% 0.3% 4.4% 1.2% 41.5% 32 505 New Mexico Jan- 47 43.6% 0.8% 0.4% 2.5% 0.8% 51.9% 49 507 Minnesota Jan- 54 22.9% 0.2% 0.7% 1.0% 0.3% 74.9% 66 508 Massachusetts Jul- 88 54.0% 0.3% 2.2% 2.2% 0.8% 40.6% 40 509 Washington Jan- 57 36.0% 5.5% 0.8% 2.0% 1.2% 54.5% 50 510 California Sep- 91 41.8% 4.8% 0.4% 2.2% 1.3% 49.5% 41 512 Texas Jan- 47 50.3% 2.8% 1.3% 3.1% 2.3% 40.2% 42 513 Ohio Jan- 47 54.3% 0.4% 1.2% 2.9% 1.2% 40.0% 37 515 Iowa Jan- 47 44.8% 0.8% 0.8% 1.8% 0.9% 50.9% 51 516 New York Jan- 51 50.2% 0.9% 1.8% 2.0% 0.7% 44.4% 36 517 Michigan Jan- 47 35.7% 0.6% 1.3% 1.2% 1.1% 60.1% 50 518 New York Jan- 47 44.3% 0.4% 2.8% 1.8% 0.7% 50.0% 46 520 Arizona Mar- 95 50.3% 1.6% 0.9% 2.5% 0.8% 43.8% 40 530 California Nov- 97 31.0% 8.2% 0.3% 1.2% 1.2% 58.1% 50 17 18 Table 6 Telephone Number Utilization by Area Code as of December 31, 2004 Area Code State/ Jurisdiction Area Code Opened Assigned Intermediate Reserved Aging Admin Available OCNs 540 Virginia Jul- 95 47.4% 1.2% 1.4% 2.2% 1.0% 46.8% 45 541 Oregon Nov- 95 36.9% 1.0% 0.5% 1.9% 1.0% 58.7% 62 551 New Jersey Dec- 01 49.4% 2.7% 0.3% 3.0% 1.4% 43.3% 5 559 California Nov- 98 34.5% 6.6% 0.3% 1.8% 1.6% 55.2% 32 561 Florida May- 96 54.5% 3.6% 0.6% 4.3% 1.3% 35.6% 40 562 California Jan- 97 42.0% 2.3% 0.7% 2.6% 2.0% 50.4% 44 563 Iowa Mar- 01 29.9% 0.8% 0.4% 2.3% 0.5% 66.1% 51 567 Ohio Jan- 02 6.2% 0.1% 0.6% 0.1% 0.2% 92.7% 16 570 Pennsylvania Dec- 98 39.3% 0.4% 2.3% 2.8% 0.5% 54.7% 47 571 Virginia Mar- 00 56.4% 0.2% 0.7% 3.1% 0.3% 39.4% 24 573 Missouri Jan- 96 27.2% 0.9% 3.6% 1.7% 1.1% 65.6% 42 574 Indiana Jan- 02 38.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.7% 0.9% 57.4% 35 580 Oklahoma Nov- 97 14.2% 1.9% 0.8% 0.7% 2.0% 80.5% 52 585 New York Nov- 01 58.3% 0.6% 4.5% 1.0% 0.3% 35.2% 29 586 Michigan Sep- 01 37.9% 0.6% 3.8% 1.6% 0.2% 55.8% 35 601 Mississippi Jan- 47 30.0% 1.7% 0.8% 2.5% 1.8% 63.2% 43 602 Arizona Jan- 47 58.0% 1.7% 0.7% 4.0% 0.9% 34.7% 36 603 New Hampshire Jan- 47 42.9% 0.3% 1.0% 1.4% 0.5% 54.0% 48 605 South Dakota Jan- 47 21.1% 0.5% 0.5% 1.0% 0.5% 76.3% 68 606 Kentucky Jan- 55 24.0% 2.8% 1.2% 1.3% 0.4% 70.3% 37 607 New York Jan- 54 39.2% 0.5% 1.0% 1.1% 0.3% 57.9% 31 608 Wisconsin Jan- 55 36.5% 0.8% 1.7% 1.5% 1.3% 58.2% 65 609 New Jersey Jan- 57 49.2% 1.0% 1.5% 2.5% 0.5% 45.3% 39 610 Pennsylvania Jan- 94 51.4% 0.5% 2.1% 2.0% 0.5% 43.5% 49 612 Minnesota Jan- 47 57.9% 1.0% 3.1% 2.8% 1.1% 34.1% 38 614 Ohio Jan- 47 48.5% 1.3% 1.6% 1.8% 0.7% 46.0% 36 615 Tennessee Jan- 54 45.8% 2.7% 0.7% 2.9% 1.0% 46.9% 42 616 Michigan Jan- 47 43.0% 1.0% 2.2% 1.9% 1.6% 50.4% 42 617 Massachusetts Jan- 47 56.4% 0.3% 3.4% 2.8% 0.8% 36.3% 37 618 Illinois Jan- 47 31.2% 0.7% 2.1% 1.7% 1.4% 62.8% 49 619 California Jan- 82 49.0% 5.0% 0.5% 2.5% 1.4% 41.6% 37 620 Kansas Feb- 01 14.8% 5.5% 1.0% 1.0% 0.8% 76.8% 55 623 Arizona Mar- 99 57.9% 1.1% 0.6% 4.3% 1.2% 34.8% 29 626 California Jun- 97 44.1% 4.2% 0.8% 2.4% 1.7% 46.8% 44 630 Illinois Aug- 96 43.5% 1.6% 1.2% 1.6% 0.7% 51.3% 39 631 New York Nov- 99 42.8% 1.7% 1.5% 2.6% 0.4% 51.0% 37 636 Missouri May- 99 31.7% 0.6% 1.4% 1.5% 0.6% 64.2% 31 641 Iowa Jul- 00 17.8% 0.3% 1.1% 1.2% 0.7% 78.8% 60 646 New York Jul- 99 58.3% 3.1% 1.3% 4.2% 0.7% 32.4% 33 650 California Aug- 97 38.5% 4.7% 0.5% 1.6% 1.1% 53.6% 40 651 Minnesota Jul- 98 58.9% 0.7% 2.4% 2.6% 0.8% 34.7% 42 660 Missouri Oct- 97 13.5% 1.4% 1.2% 1.2% 1.5% 81.2% 45 661 California Feb- 99 35.9% 8.1% 1.0% 1.7% 1.3% 52.0% 40 662 Mississippi Apr- 99 22.6% 1.9% 1.0% 1.7% 0.6% 72.2% 48 670 Northern Marianas Islan d Jul- 97 Not shown to protect carrier confidentiality 3 671 Guam Jul- 97 49.8% 3.6% 0.0% 7.2% 1.4% 38.0% 4 678 Georgia Jan- 98 38.0% 1.8% 1.2% 2.8% 0.8% 55.4% 55 682 Texas Oct- 00 25.3% 0.1% 1.1% 2.4% 2.1% 69.0% 17 701 North Dakota Jan- 47 18.9% 0.8% 0.4% 0.8% 0.5% 78.7% 63 702 Nevada Jan- 47 61.4% 4.9% 0.6% 3.3% 1.2% 28.6% 34 703 Virginia Jan- 47 64.6% 0.2% 2.2% 3.0% 0.5% 29.4% 39 704 North Carolina Jan- 47 46.9% 3.5% 0.5% 3.3% 1.4% 44.3% 46 706 Georgia May- 92 39.5% 4.9% 0.8% 2.8% 1.0% 50.9% 68 707 California Jan- 59 36.1% 5.5% 0.3% 1.4% 1.3% 55.6% 47 708 Illinois Nov- 89 38.2% 0.8% 2.0% 1.9% 0.8% 56.3% 39 712 Iowa Jan- 47 19.8% 0.8% 1.9% 0.8% 0.3% 76.3% 89 713 Texas Jan- 47 55.9% 2.6% 1.1% 3.6% 0.9% 35.8% 40 714 California Jan- 51 49.8% 3.9% 0.5% 2.4% 1.5% 42.0% 46 18 19 Table 6 Telephone Number Utilization by Area Code as of December 31, 2004 Area Code State/ Jurisdiction Area Code Opened Assigned Intermediate Reserved Aging Admin Available OCNs 715 Wisconsin Jan- 47 25.0% 0.5% 0.5% 1.2% 1.2% 71.5% 81 716 New York Jan- 47 49.8% 0.5% 1.8% 2.1% 1.0% 44.8% 31 717 Pennsylvania Jan- 47 51.7% 0.4% 1.6% 2.3% 0.7% 43.3% 38 718 New York Sep- 84 60.4% 1.7% 3.1% 4.3% 0.8% 29.6% 35 719 Colorado Mar- 88 47.0% 0.8% 0.7% 3.0% 0.9% 47.5% 47 720 Colorado Jun- 98 50.6% 0.4% 0.5% 3.8% 1.1% 43.6% 24 724 Pennsylvania Feb- 98 31.0% 0.6% 1.0% 1.3% 0.4% 65.7% 48 727 Florida Jul- 98 52.8% 0.4% 0.8% 3.0% 3.1% 39.9% 39 731 Tennessee Feb- 01 25.2% 1.3% 0.2% 1.6% 0.6% 71.1% 33 732 New Jersey Jun- 97 46.9% 0.8% 2.3% 2.7% 0.6% 46.7% 41 734 Michigan Dec- 97 39.6% 3.0% 1.2% 1.4% 0.8% 54.1% 41 740 Ohio Dec- 97 27.2% 1.0% 1.2% 1.4% 1.0% 68.2% 48 754 Florida Aug- 01 Not shown to protect carrier confidentiality 3 757 Virginia Jul- 96 55.9% 0.2% 1.4% 2.8% 0.6% 39.2% 32 760 California Mar- 97 43.1% 5.1% 0.7% 2.1% 1.6% 47.5% 52 763 Minnesota Feb- 00 50.7% 0.8% 0.8% 2.6% 0.6% 44.6% 40 765 Indiana Feb- 97 26.8% 1.4% 1.3% 1.2% 0.8% 68.5% 60 770 Georgia Aug- 95 55.9% 4.5% 0.3% 5.0% 1.0% 33.2% 44 772 Florida Feb- 02 48.9% 2.1% 0.9% 3.1% 2.6% 42.5% 31 773 Illinois Oct- 96 47.2% 1.4% 1.0% 3.3% 0.7% 46.3% 41 774 Massachusetts May- 01 21.8% 1.3% 1.0% 0.9% 0.4% 74.7% 27 775 Nevada Dec- 98 51.8% 3.8% 0.3% 1.3% 1.4% 41.4% 37 781 Massachusetts Sep- 97 41.3% 0.4% 1.2% 2.0% 0.4% 54.6% 35 785 Kansas Jul- 97 20.6% 3.8% 0.4% 1.1% 1.5% 72.6% 54 786 Florida Mar- 98 47.7% 1.8% 0.9% 4.3% 1.0% 44.2% 33 787 Puerto Rico Mar- 96 57.5% 0.2% 0.4% 4.4% 1.1% 36.4% 10 801 Utah Jan- 47 56.2% 0.4% 0.6% 3.2% 0.9% 38.6% 28 802 Vermont Jan- 47 44.1% 0.1% 1.1% 0.8% 0.9% 52.9% 29 803 South Carolina Jan- 47 44.7% 4.3% 0.4% 2.8% 1.9% 46.0% 57 804 Virginia Jun- 73 53.2% 0.2% 2.4% 2.6% 0.7% 40.8% 36 805 California Jan- 57 41.3% 4.7% 0.8% 1.8% 1.6% 49.8% 43 806 Texas Jan- 57 26.4% 2.8% 0.4% 1.7% 1.3% 67.3% 48 808 Hawaii Jan- 57 57.3% 0.5% 0.3% 2.2% 1.6% 38.1% 15 810 Michigan Dec- 93 35.0% 1.4% 1.8% 1.6% 2.4% 57.7% 38 812 Indiana Jan- 47 31.5% 1.4% 1.1% 1.2% 1.0% 63.6% 46 813 Florida Jan- 53 56.1% 0.5% 0.9% 2.9% 3.2% 36.4% 42 814 Pennsylvania Jan- 47 39.6% 0.6% 1.1% 1.3% 0.7% 56.7% 38 815 Illinois Jan- 47 37.7% 1.1% 1.3% 1.4% 1.1% 57.4% 61 816 Missouri Jan- 47 40.4% 2.3% 1.1% 2.4% 1.5% 52.2% 44 817 Texas Jan- 53 41.0% 1.6% 1.1% 2.7% 1.5% 52.2% 50 818 California Jan- 84 48.2% 5.4% 0.6% 2.2% 1.3% 42.3% 44 828 North Carolina Mar- 98 40.0% 1.2% 0.3% 2.7% 1.2% 54.6% 40 830 Texas Jul- 97 24.4% 1.0% 1.0% 1.8% 1.2% 70.6% 40 831 California Jul- 98 33.7% 10.2% 3.2% 1.5% 2.1% 49.3% 35 832 Texas Jan- 99 42.7% 1.0% 0.9% 3.2% 0.9% 51.4% 35 843 South Carolina Mar- 98 41.6% 1.9% 0.4% 2.9% 2.0% 51.1% 41 845 New York Jun- 00 43.9% 1.5% 2.2% 2.2% 0.6% 49.5% 47 847 Illinois Jan- 96 51.4% 1.2% 1.2% 1.8% 0.6% 43.8% 40 848 New Jersey Dec- 01 40.4% 0.1% 0.2% 4.0% 0.1% 55.3% 9 850 Florida Jun- 97 41.2% 1.7% 1.5% 2.6% 1.4% 51.6% 47 856 New Jersey Jun- 99 38.2% 0.4% 1.5% 2.3% 0.4% 57.3% 37 857 Massachusetts May- 01 20.8% 0.6% 0.3% 2.0% 1.0% 75.4% 19 858 California Jun- 99 47.2% 3.5% 0.9% 1.9% 1.8% 44.7% 33 859 Kentucky Apr- 00 39.6% 2.0% 0.9% 1.7% 0.5% 55.4% 44 860 Connecticut Aug- 95 41.0% 1.9% 0.9% 1.4% 1.3% 53.6% 32 862 New Jersey Dec- 01 32.2% 0.7% 0.1% 2.9% 0.1% 64.0% 17 863 Florida Sep- 99 33.7% 1.5% 1.1% 1.7% 1.9% 60.1% 36 864 South Carolina Dec- 95 44.6% 2.0% 0.6% 2.6% 1.2% 49.0% 38 19 20 Table 6 Telephone Number Utilization by Area Code as of December 31, 2004 Area Code State/ Jurisdiction Area Code Opened Assigned Intermediate Reserved Aging Admin Available OCNs 865 Tennessee Nov- 99 49.0% 2.6% 1.2% 2.7% 1.0% 43.6% 32 870 Arkansas Apr- 97 19.6% 5.5% 0.7% 1.5% 1.7% 71.1% 46 901 Tennessee Jan- 47 54.5% 2.6% 1.1% 4.7% 0.8% 36.3% 30 903 Texas Nov- 90 33.2% 3.5% 0.8% 1.8% 1.6% 59.0% 60 904 Florida Jan- 65 52.4% 4.2% 0.4% 4.0% 1.5% 37.5% 40 906 Michigan Jan- 61 19.8% 0.5% 0.8% 0.7% 0.6% 77.6% 22 907 Alaska Jan- 57 24.5% 0.4% 0.3% 1.2% 0.4% 73.1% 30 908 New Jersey Nov- 90 37.5% 0.7% 1.1% 2.1% 0.6% 58.0% 42 909 California Nov- 92 49.1% 3.6% 0.9% 2.8% 1.3% 42.3% 42 910 North Carolina Nov- 93 37.2% 1.0% 0.3% 2.0% 0.9% 58.6% 42 912 Georgia Jan- 54 36.4% 5.1% 1.7% 3.4% 0.7% 52.8% 45 913 Kansas Jan- 47 44.1% 0.8% 0.8% 2.1% 2.5% 49.7% 42 914 New York Jan- 47 43.4% 1.3% 1.4% 1.7% 0.7% 51.4% 40 915 Texas Jan- 47 45.2% 2.6% 0.4% 2.8% 10.7% 38.3% 31 916 California Jan- 47 50.2% 3.9% 0.3% 2.3% 1.3% 42.1% 40 917 New York Jan- 92 53.8% 0.6% 0.4% 2.9% 0.3% 41.9% 28 918 Oklahoma Jan- 53 31.2% 3.4% 0.4% 1.7% 1.8% 61.5% 62 919 North Carolina Jan- 54 48.0% 2.6% 0.6% 2.6% 1.4% 44.8% 43 920 Wisconsin Jul- 97 31.7% 0.4% 1.7% 1.2% 0.8% 64.1% 62 925 California Mar- 98 38.1% 5.4% 0.5% 1.5% 1.0% 53.6% 38 928 Arizona Jun- 01 34.1% 6.3% 1.5% 1.3% 0.5% 56.3% 45 931 Tennessee Sep- 97 28.6% 1.6% 0.3% 2.0% 0.7% 66.9% 45 936 Texas Feb- 00 34.6% 4.9% 0.5% 1.7% 1.2% 57.2% 33 937 Ohio Sep- 96 36.8% 0.9% 1.6% 1.7% 0.6% 58.3% 41 939 Puerto Rico Sep- 01 57.5% 0.4% 1.2% 3.8% 0.8% 36.3% 4 940 Texas May- 97 26.0% 1.4% 0.5% 1.6% 4.9% 65.7% 55 941 Florida May- 95 46.8% 1.1% 0.9% 2.5% 1.8% 46.9% 40 947 Michigan Sep- 02 48.0% 3.7% 1.0% 2.1% 1.2% 44.0% 42 949 California Apr- 98 57.8% 4.9% 1.3% 2.6% 1.1% 32.3% 35 952 Minnesota Feb- 00 51.4% 1.1% 0.5% 2.2% 0.4% 44.4% 37 954 Florida Sep- 95 51.9% 3.8% 0.7% 4.3% 1.3% 38.0% 43 956 Texas Jul- 97 44.0% 2.8% 0.9% 3.2% 3.2% 46.0% 30 970 Colorado Apr- 95 38.0% 0.5% 0.5% 2.1% 0.8% 58.0% 52 971 Oregon Oct- 00 30.7% 1.4% 0.3% 1.5% 0.5% 65.7% 27 972 Texas Sep- 96 49.4% 1.2% 0.8% 2.8% 2.5% 43.3% 47 973 New Jersey Jun- 97 49.7% 0.4% 2.1% 3.3% 0.7% 43.7% 43 978 Massachusetts Sep- 97 40.7% 0.4% 1.7% 1.6% 0.5% 55.0% 39 979Texas Feb- 00 26.7% 3.7% 1.3% 1.8% 2.0% 64.5% 39 980 North Carolina Apr- 01 37.7% 12.1% 0.2% 2.8% 0.7% 46.5% 13 985 Louisiana Feb- 01 32.7% 1.5% 3.2% 2.3% 0.9% 59.5% 35 989 Michigan Apr- 01 30.6% 0.7% 1.3% 1.2% 0.9% 65.4% 46 Source: Numbering Resource Utilization/ Forecast Reports data filed with NeuStar, Inc. as of March 29, 2005. 20 21 Table 7 Assigned, Aging and Available Telephone Numbers by Area Code (in thousands except OCNs) Wireline (ILECs and CLECs) Wireless (Cellular/ PCS) Area Code Assigned Aging Available OCNs Assigned Aging Available OCNs 201 2,224 157 2,327 29 1,195 42 434 9 202 2,780 118 826 21 735 39 232 8 203 2,343 94 2,865 25 1,204 46 390 8 205 1,684 148 1,719 23 963 58 613 16 206 1,996 125 1,082 27 1,016 45 264 9 207 1,478 60 1,981 38 683 25 654 10 208 1,632 70 2,215 36 749 38 971 20 209 1,251 55 1,882 24 833 45 647 13 210 1,753 107 1,331 23 1,046 47 89 8 212 5,566 269 1,241 21 51 7 7 5 213 1,126 69 1,010 27 474 28 483 8 214 2,054 140 1,841 34 1,561 78 286 8 215 3,282 124 2,255 21 1,004 33 336 8 216 1,290 63 1,428 19 630 41 593 10 217 1,096 41 2,498 27 644 21 721 15 218 652 30 2,807 54 395 22 554 9 219 724 42 942 17 436 18 412 13 224 113 0 172 13 135 11 228 7 225 896 63 823 19 468 34 367 12 228 400 34 783 13 236 21 396 13 229 645 45 1,471 21 346 32 750 15 231 794 29 2,069 22 325 14 743 10 234 2 0 52 4 Not shown to protect carrier confidentiality 3 239 856 33 781 13 536 23 465 11 240 713 17 1,779 25 728 35 346 13 248 1,949 89 2,715 26 1,025 30 420 8 251 726 64 919 24 417 29 442 13 252 1,082 38 2,259 14 533 29 809 12 253 1,183 71 1,224 24 599 30 96 9 254 679 53 1,694 25 399 24 559 12 256 1,343 122 1,984 24 883 64 1,242 18 260 626 37 942 17 349 12 668 10 262 1,099 45 2,195 25 474 18 414 9 267 725 7 2,649 26 762 47 247 8 269 821 37 1,286 23 414 22 556 13 270 1,274 60 3,179 30 582 39 1,010 15 276 370 15 721 15 157 8 333 12 281 2,251 189 2,989 29 1,004 42 82 8 301 3,300 153 1,960 21 1,058 37 228 11 302 1,627 77 1,314 17 547 22 194 8 303 3,791 196 1,741 21 1,115 38 115 11 304 1,391 53 2,846 24 812 48 808 18 305 2,889 286 946 26 1,015 55 406 10 307 530 27 1,372 24 309 15 1,022 13 308 311 21 1,820 37 203 8 566 8 309 951 33 2,034 36 525 18 445 12 310 2,898 136 1,994 28 1,569 75 341 8 312 2,412 72 1,566 26 503 22 924 9 313 1,506 83 1,495 21 958 81 902 8 314 1,870 111 1,658 19 1,160 51 385 8 315 1,258 54 2,314 30 738 28 414 11 316 564 34 1,027 12 341 17 140 11 317 1,932 100 2,054 28 990 28 370 9 318 1,097 89 2,543 24 637 44 1,121 11 319 773 41 1,638 47 420 19 425 10 21 22 Table 7 Assigned, Aging and Available Telephone Numbers by Area Code (in thousands except OCNs) Wireline (ILECs and CLECs) Wireless (Cellular/ PCS) Area Code Assigned Aging Available OCNs Assigned Aging Available OCNs 320 567 26 1,795 42 264 17 398 13 321 832 47 1,024 26 638 27 150 9 323 1,655 106 2,690 27 1,083 63 221 8 325 433 23 1,023 22 197 9 225 12 330 1,743 77 2,521 22 1,059 36 994 12 334 985 65 1,558 29 617 51 1,139 14 336 1,863 114 2,081 32 941 45 768 14 337 910 61 1,575 25 498 30 955 11 339 16 0 145 9 Not shown to protect carrier confidentiality 3 340 Not shown to protect carrier confidentiality 1 Not shown to protect carrier confidentiality 2 347 108 8 630 19 869 72 426 7 351 0 0 0 0 Not shown to protect carrier confidentiality 1 352 1,126 47 1,349 16 696 38 671 11 360 2,083 94 2,506 43 882 42 733 11 361 652 42 1,111 22 421 28 1,036 11 386 708 44 848 23 417 21 341 12 401 1,799 49 1,438 15 664 30 261 7 402 1,707 60 3,409 38 850 39 828 12 404 2,112 287 743 26 1,638 96 532 10 405 1,280 67 2,083 24 828 39 376 13 406 829 32 3,070 33 468 36 986 9 407 1,884 165 1,694 28 974 46 187 9 408 2,445 114 1,803 27 1,096 52 513 9 409 579 48 1,128 19 335 23 347 13 410 3,660 184 1,547 24 1,033 43 147 9 412 1,652 67 2,493 20 921 35 421 9 413 1,637 38 1,520 18 423 19 162 11 414 1,228 54 973 13 684 43 380 9 415 2,171 109 2,380 28 914 41 423 9 417 1,000 90 1,972 33 499 30 778 13 419 1,474 67 2,991 37 863 31 1,123 14 423 1,256 76 1,754 23 774 40 831 18 425 1,619 82 1,665 24 605 26 194 9 430 Not shown to protect carrier confidentiality 2 Not shown to protect carrier confidentiality 1 432 447 22 942 18 221 10 203 8 434 676 28 971 14 338 16 437 10 435 537 21 1,404 28 270 13 846 17 440 1,305 44 2,235 23 612 23 525 11 443 1,055 20 2,930 24 1,035 56 502 9 469 390 18 1,372 29 404 36 105 8 478 625 50 752 19 341 25 499 14 479 600 33 1,172 22 425 30 521 6 480 1,906 115 883 18 681 40 200 10 484 944 20 3,349 32 504 19 302 12 501 905 49 1,803 21 588 41 753 9 502 1,262 100 1,558 19 828 41 494 12 503 2,669 158 2,397 35 1,174 45 274 9 504 1,303 136 904 18 720 49 356 9 505 1,890 104 2,307 29 1,012 64 931 15 507 676 27 2,882 52 405 20 645 11 508 2,895 121 2,521 26 1,079 39 284 9 509 1,325 76 2,228 31 697 36 780 15 510 1,831 92 2,212 24 1,062 59 607 9 512 2,035 120 1,670 26 985 46 394 12 513 2,021 97 1,383 22 1,035 65 508 10 22 23 Table 7 Assigned, Aging and Available Telephone Numbers by Area Code (in thousands except OCNs) Wireline (ILECs and CLECs) Wireless (Cellular/ PCS) Area Code Assigned Aging Available OCNs Assigned Aging Available OCNs 515 1,014 45 1,363 36 479 13 283 11 516 1,587 73 1,356 23 1,198 40 535 8 517 1,084 35 1,951 32 532 20 558 14 518 1,371 60 1,950 27 727 25 256 11 520 1,375 61 1,052 23 669 40 529 12 530 1,245 46 2,694 30 632 24 574 14 540 1,454 63 1,237 25 839 42 921 16 541 1,439 78 2,499 40 782 34 957 17 551 0 0 0 0 82 5 72 5 559 1,138 57 2,226 18 773 40 390 9 561 1,659 135 870 26 854 46 402 8 562 1,351 88 1,904 28 880 50 394 8 563 429 41 1,247 40 264 11 249 9 567 29 0 598 9 18 1 107 7 570 1,397 124 2,203 32 759 30 609 12 571 134 5 237 16 401 24 110 6 573 830 59 2,538 22 537 28 765 16 574 650 31 908 20 357 13 542 11 580 565 26 4,035 29 353 18 1,161 17 585 1,497 12 996 17 631 22 182 9 586 795 33 1,069 22 578 19 623 8 601 1,317 110 2,805 24 777 64 1,372 15 602 2,226 166 933 20 1,212 71 644 10 603 1,970 67 2,590 28 771 25 806 13 605 698 36 3,150 58 414 16 865 8 606 750 42 2,253 21 329 18 905 14 607 721 21 1,327 18 378 11 253 11 608 1,088 49 1,892 47 645 23 722 13 609 1,695 103 1,902 23 1,192 41 466 9 610 3,034 129 2,810 33 1,067 35 243 10 612 1,181 72 795 22 1,077 37 438 12 614 1,920 72 2,103 23 933 28 279 8 615 1,830 129 2,319 27 955 51 245 11 616 991 44 1,241 23 573 22 352 13 617 3,119 172 2,218 24 1,153 45 356 8 618 1,000 42 2,591 30 640 48 639 15 619 1,556 82 1,319 20 1,245 58 437 8 620 462 40 3,197 38 315 15 849 13 623 710 52 456 16 329 25 131 9 626 1,383 65 1,744 27 965 62 285 8 630 2,188 86 2,326 23 1,071 33 1,188 9 631 1,654 119 2,464 25 793 31 271 7 636 783 38 1,686 19 209 7 267 8 641 403 34 2,111 47 235 8 703 12 646 905 56 664 25 1,209 98 509 8 650 1,726 73 2,524 24 614 26 342 9 651 1,555 68 1,037 28 525 21 160 10 660 300 29 2,387 28 195 15 584 15 661 992 52 1,664 23 683 29 278 9 662 891 63 2,779 30 477 41 1,501 16 670 Not shown to protect carrier confidentiality 1 Not shown to protect carrier confidentiality 2 671 Not shown to protect carrier confidentiality 1 Not shown to protect carrier confidentiality 3 678 1,365 130 3,299 37 1,193 58 381 15 682 69 2 302 12 81 12 106 5 701 600 24 3,036 50 373 14 997 11 23 24 Table 7 Assigned, Aging and Available Telephone Numbers by Area Code (in thousands except OCNs) Wireline (ILECs and CLECs) Wireless (Cellular/ PCS) Area Code Assigned Aging Available OCNs Assigned Aging Available OCNs 702 1,915 120 1,078 21 1,129 44 102 8 703 3,674 187 1,793 26 1,195 38 114 8 704 2,325 177 2,179 31 1,135 68 725 11 706 1,682 118 2,091 37 998 74 1,115 24 707 1,517 54 2,636 25 780 33 488 14 708 1,413 70 2,121 23 902 41 814 9 712 557 25 2,401 74 238 9 655 14 713 2,961 211 1,842 27 1,044 55 90 8 714 2,174 106 1,997 28 1,478 68 352 8 715 980 35 2,603 61 500 36 1,597 17 716 1,255 52 1,352 18 741 31 291 10 717 1,864 91 1,989 24 1,053 41 272 9 718 4,144 294 2,209 25 633 47 129 8 719 1,280 88 1,228 27 556 32 505 13 720 929 60 1,010 15 710 63 397 8 724 1,288 55 3,445 31 678 24 524 13 727 1,445 79 1,108 23 729 30 300 9 731 451 29 1,217 18 261 15 645 12 732 2,530 166 2,529 26 968 37 380 10 734 1,496 50 2,496 26 764 24 383 10 740 1,081 61 2,987 27 584 25 977 15 754 Not shown to protect carrier confidentiality 1 Not shown to protect carrier confidentiality 2 757 2,107 103 1,229 15 1,067 56 616 11 760 1,753 84 2,178 33 1,099 53 488 11 763 999 49 1,016 28 258 14 74 9 765 986 48 2,507 40 501 18 1,156 14 770 3,340 347 1,778 26 950 38 146 11 772 572 35 434 16 308 14 220 10 773 1,809 130 1,915 24 1,346 92 748 10 774 66 2 508 18 251 11 580 8 775 1,709 34 1,245 19 401 20 376 13 781 2,319 119 3,123 22 533 19 394 8 785 701 42 3,147 35 422 17 789 15 786 392 21 564 22 737 71 449 8 787 Not shown to protect carrier confidentiality 2 1,938 197 1,102 7 801 2,867 169 1,996 15 1,079 55 472 9 802 1,693 25 2,092 18 278 10 246 7 803 1,678 106 1,402 38 821 52 876 15 804 1,716 82 1,214 19 800 42 487 12 805 1,627 78 1,979 27 958 38 638 9 806 739 45 2,339 30 448 28 658 13 808 1,690 57 1,225 6 895 41 275 7 810 734 42 1,520 21 577 18 423 12 812 1,243 51 2,558 29 627 21 1,134 12 813 1,859 99 1,101 27 899 39 341 9 814 1,296 47 2,076 20 611 18 564 15 815 1,540 56 2,896 40 895 33 574 15 816 1,347 96 2,341 25 850 36 362 13 817 1,925 139 3,268 37 1,108 59 143 7 818 2,130 103 1,909 26 1,301 53 306 8 828 1,150 88 1,572 26 590 30 695 12 830 474 39 1,527 23 258 16 445 13 831 703 31 1,111 18 404 19 230 9 832 474 26 1,451 26 1,104 93 421 7 843 1,541 120 1,766 28 818 43 906 11 24 25 Table 7 Assigned, Aging and Available Telephone Numbers by Area Code (in thousands except OCNs) Wireline (ILECs and CLECs) Wireless (Cellular/ PCS) Area Code Assigned Aging Available OCNs Assigned Aging Available OCNs 845 1,329 75 1,629 28 597 20 385 14 847 3,098 115 2,784 24 1,226 31 588 9 848 Not shown to protect carrier confidentiality 3 95 9 112 6 850 1,410 90 1,940 24 884 56 729 17 856 1,374 88 2,208 25 464 21 177 7 857 8 0 160 12 90 9 193 7 858 1,269 52 1,256 20 433 17 168 7 859 1,040 44 1,661 22 629 27 549 15 860 2,035 66 3,364 19 1,028 36 391 8 862 11 0 19 8 140 14 282 9 863 694 36 1,173 20 415 18 654 10 864 1,243 83 1,388 26 760 35 577 10 865 890 60 888 19 537 18 196 11 870 690 60 2,813 27 508 30 1,445 16 901 1,299 123 747 16 810 60 340 10 903 1,197 72 2,293 34 708 36 906 18 904 1,552 124 1,109 22 926 62 394 11 906 415 11 1,259 16 140 9 913 6 907 758 32 2,807 20 321 22 391 9 908 1,334 99 2,660 27 943 29 672 10 909 1,520 89 1,122 25 1,036 58 417 7 910 1,195 66 2,008 27 757 41 949 12 912 814 81 1,089 26 491 41 719 16 913 990 52 1,343 25 493 18 187 11 914 1,373 64 1,714 25 826 24 570 10 915 642 35 582 15 353 24 142 10 916 2,036 90 1,774 23 1,107 56 401 10 917 579 27 426 15 2,902 165 313 8 918 1,253 70 2,980 42 757 39 856 15 919 2,166 134 2,139 27 1,072 42 602 13 920 1,140 41 2,093 39 683 28 973 18 925 1,471 55 2,188 22 652 27 399 9 928 834 28 1,339 24 429 18 708 17 931 654 48 1,671 26 424 26 697 15 936 537 23 990 19 274 16 279 11 937 1,325 62 2,179 24 769 35 831 12 939 0 0 0 0 92 6 58 4 940 521 34 1,627 35 277 14 346 15 941 903 44 834 21 497 19 418 12 949 1,511 68 1,429 26 672 25 226 8 951 1,043 45 782 23 925 42 234 8 952 1,269 56 1,125 27 205 8 51 8 954 2,234 200 1,392 27 1,096 62 412 9 956 895 57 895 18 602 51 541 10 970 1,192 72 1,716 31 587 26 951 17 971 88 2 348 18 130 9 118 9 972 3,183 186 2,706 32 447 22 68 8 973 2,898 210 2,694 29 990 47 192 9 978 2,095 86 3,110 26 662 24 418 8 979507 26 1,117 22 273 14 481 11 980 42 4 30 5 50 3 84 8 985 694 53 1,159 18 364 20 659 14 989 1,136 40 2,155 25 476 18 1,102 17 Source: Numbering Resource Utilization/ Forecast Reports data filed with NeuStar, Inc. as of March 29, 2005. 25 26 Table 8 Thousands- blocks Assigned through Pooling as of December 31, 2004 ILECs and CLECs Cellular/ PCS Pooled Thousands- Total Thousands- Percent of total blocks Pooled Thousands- Total Thousands- Percent of total blocks State blocks blocks reported 1 that are pooled blocks blocks reported 1 that are pooled Alabama 143 9,158 1.6% 358 5,867 6.1% Alaska 0 0 NM0 0 NM Arizona 316 11,182 2.8 491 5,341 9.2 Arkansas 299 4,977 6.0 78 3,441 2.3 California 2,512 92,719 2.7 5,272 34,945 15.1 Colorado 277 11,371 2.4 221 4,612 4.8 Connecticut 485 10,823 4.5 444 3,115 14.3 Delaware 196 3,079 6.4 112 792 14.1 District of Columbia 97 3,882 2.5 158 1,006 15.7 Florida 1,380 39,340 3.5 1,718 19,108 9.0 Georgia 432 20,107 2.1 713 9,403 7.6 Guam 0 0 NM0 0 NM Hawaii 24 2,985 0.8 93 1,230 7.6 Idaho 73 2,777 2.6 87 1,544 5.6 Illinois 3,020 32,225 9.4 1,726 15,031 11.5 Indiana 347 12,492 2.8 448 6,357 7.0 Iowa 61 3,477 1.8 202 2,779 7.3 Kansas 133 5,286 2.5 127 2,080 6.1 Kentucky 185 8,662 2.1 260 4,473 5.8 Louisiana 253 9,621 2.6 324 4,931 6.6 Maine 189 2,050 9.2 154 1,153 13.4 Maryland 877 17,464 5.0 655 5,315 12.3 Massachusetts 1,028 25,962 4.0 984 7,026 14.0 Michigan 959 27,460 3.5 913 12,445 7.3 Minnesota 454 11,967 3.8 363 4,635 7.8 Mississippi 85 5,028 1.7 75 2,747 2.7 Missouri 582 12,980 4.5 474 6,263 7.6 Montana 25 1,337 1.9 10 732 1.4 Nebraska 48 2,682 1.8 79 1,585 5.0 Nevada 62 4,824 1.3 220 1,873 11.7 New Hampshire 471 4,182 11.3 157 1,593 9.9 New Jersey 1,148 26,906 4.3 1,228 9,191 13.4 New Mexico 73 2,827 2.6 162 1,655 9.8 New York 2,540 43,280 5.9 3,660 17,410 21.0 North Carolina 587 18,870 3.1 632 9,499 6.7 North Dakota 6 786 0.8 4 342 1.2 Northern Marianas 0 0 NM0 0 NM Ohio 898 26,284 3.4 502 12,375 4.1 Oklahoma 254 7,900 3.2 267 3,693 7.2 Oregon 197 7,632 2.6 374 3,375 11.1 Pennsylvania 2,086 32,604 6.4 1,393 10,761 12.9 Puerto Rico 14 1,306 1.1 240 2,649 9.1 Rhode Island 116 3,294 3.5 115 963 11.9 South Carolina 194 7,918 2.5 284 4,537 6.3 South Dakota 3 480 0.6 2 236 0.8 Tennessee 423 11,902 3.6 329 5,965 5.5 Texas 1,553 52,533 3.0 1,706 19,656 8.7 Utah 568 5,914 9.6 127 2,418 5.3 Vermont 127 2,854 4.4 87 501 17.4 Virgin Islands 0 0 NM0 0 NM Virginia 768 16,252 4.7 914 7,856 11.6 Washington 318 16,719 1.9 485 6,192 7.8 West Virginia 228 3,381 6.7 89 1,451 6.1 Wisconsin 254 9,621 2.6 202 5,589 3.6 Wyoming 3 210 1.4 5 140 3.6 #V/ 0! Totals 27,371 699,572 3.9% 29,723 297,876 10.0% Source: Pooling data provided by NeuStar. Numbering Resource Utilization/ Forecast forms filed with NeuStar, Inc. as of April 28, 2004. 1 Includes only those thousands- blocks in rate centers with pooling. NM - Not meaningful. 26 27 Table 9 Increased Utilization and Telephone Numbers Saved due to Thousands- Block Pooling as of December 31, 2004 Numbers Numbers Needed Utilization had Increased Utilization Numbers Assigned Total Percent had Whole NXXs Whole NXXs of Thousands- blocks Saved Due Carrier Type OCNs to End- users 1 Numbers 1 Utilized Been Issued Been Issued due to Pooling to Pooling ILEC 97 1,967,132 2,979,000 66.0% 6,150,000 32.0% 34.0% 3,171,000 Cellular/ PCS 242 17,156,663 29,343,000 58.5% 65,280,000 26.3% 32.2% 35,937,000 CLEC 841 7,410,178 21,036,000 35.2% 134,960,000 5.5% 29.7% 113,924,000 Total 1,180 26,533,973 53,358,000 49.7% 206,390,000 12.9% 36.9% 153,032,000 1 Includes only those telephone numbers in blocks on which carriers reported utilization data. Source: Numbering Resource Utilization/ Forecast Reports data filed with NeuStar, Inc. as of March 29, 2005. NeuStar also provided data on Thousands- block pooling. Table 10 Number Utilization for Specialized Nongeographic Area Codes as of December 31, 2004 Assigned Intermediate Reserved Aging Admin Available 1 Total Unique Specialized Area Codes (Thousands of telephone numbers) NXXs 1,868 620 11 730 34 1,517 4,780 475 39.1% 13.0% 0.2% 15.3% 0.7% 31.7% 100.0% 962 0 61 0 640 800 79 12.0% 0.3% 0.0% 7.7% 0.0% 80.0% 100.0% 1 Includes only those telephone numbers in blocks on which carriers reported utilization data. Source: Numbering Resource Utilization/ Forecast Reports data filed with NeuStar, Inc. as of March 29, 2005. 500 900 27 28 Figure 1 ILECs: Average Utilization Rates by Number of Thousands- Blocks Held in a Rate Center 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 Number of thousands- blocks held in a single rate center N ote: number of thousands- blocks has been rounded to the nearest ten. 28 29 Figure 2 Cellular/ PCs Carriers: Average Utilization Rates by Number of Thousands- Blocks Held in a Rate Center 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 Number of thousands- blocks held in a single rate center N ote: number of thousands- blocks has been rounded to the nearest ten. 29 30 Figure 3 CLECs: Average Utilization Rates by Number of Thousands- Blocks Held in a Rate Center 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 Number of thousands- blocks held in a single rate center N ote: number of thousands- blocks has been rounded to the nearest ten. 30 31 Figure 4 Pa ging Carriers: Avera ge Utilization Rates b y Number of Thousands- Blocks Held in a Rate Center 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 Number of thousands- blocks held in a single rate center N ote: number of thousands- blocks has been rounded to the nearest ten. 31 32 Table 13 NPA- NXX Assignments, Returns and Net Assignments NPA- NXXs NPA- NXXs Net Quarter Assigned Returned Assignments 1998 Q3 1,554 0 1,554 1998 Q4 2,375 0 2,375 1999 Q1 3,019 0 3,019 1999 Q2 4,693 95 4,598 1999 Q3 4,202 164 4,038 1999 Q4 3,993 545 3,448 2000 Q1 4,552 775 3,777 FCC Issued First NRO Order 1 2000 Q2 4,126 923 3,203 2000 Q3 3,497 818 2,679 2000 Q4 3,235 1,146 2,089 FCC Issued Second NRO Order 1 2001 Q1 3,095 1,725 1,370 2001 Q2 3,136 1,320 1,816 2001 Q3 2,112 1,611 501 2001 Q4 2,055 1,402 653 FCC Issued Third NRO Order 1 2002 Q1 1,731 1,199 532 2002 Q2 2,392 1,260 1,132 2002 Q3 1,954 587 1,367 2002 Q4 1,101 558 543 2003 Q1 897 533 364 2003 Q2 1,007 431 576 FCC Issued Fourth NRO Order 1 2003 Q3 802 580 222 2003 Q4 539 244 295 2004 Q1 888 182 706 2004 Q2 728 323 405 2004 Q3 748 160 588 2004 Q4 761 319 442 2005 Q1 1,113 249 864 1 See text footnote 2 for full citation. Source: NPA- NXX data from NeuStar, Inc. NPA- NXX Assigments, Returns, and Net Assignments 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 5,000 1998 Q4 1999 Q1 1999 Q2 1999 Q3 1999 Q4 2000 Q1 2000 Q2 2000 Q3 2000 Q4 2001 Q1 2001 Q2 2001 Q3 2001 Q4 2002 Q1 2002 Q2 2002 Q3 2002 Q4 2003 Q1 2003 Q2 2003 Q3 2003 Q4 2004 Q1 2004 Q2 2004 Q3 2004 Q4 2005 Q1 Assignments Returns Net Assignments 33 34 Table 14 Telephone Number Porting Activity Since Wireless Porting Started 1 Landline to Landline to Cellular/ PCS to Cellular/ PCS Month Landline Cellular/ PCS Cellular/ PCS to Landline Total In database as of 2003 November 30 2 25,530,000 6,000 61,000 1,000 25,598,000 December 561,000 13,000 796,000 2,000 1,372,000 2004 January 809,000 24,000 713,000 1,000 1,547,000 February 711,000 65,000 591,000 2,000 1,369,000 March 776,000 79,000 632,000 1,000 1,488,000 April 718,000 49,000 613,000 1,000 1,381,000 May 756,000 73,000 689,000 1,000 1,519,000 June 789,000 165,000 873,000 2,000 1,829,000 July 656,000 143,000 806,000 3,000 1,608,000 August 3 786,000 95,000 824,000 * 1,705,000 September 701,000 43,000 787,000 1,000 1,532,000 October 899,000 97,000 738,000 5 1,000 1,735,000 November 736,000 131,000 736,000 5 2,000 1,605,000 December 692,000 86,000 910,000 5 1,000 1,689,000 2005 January 698,000 53,000 808,000 5 2,000 1,561,000 February 936,000 81,000 735,000 5 1,000 1,753,000 March 1,257,000 74,000 815,000 5 2,000 2,148,000 April 936,000 81,000 735,000 5 1,000 1,753,000 In database as of April 30 4 32,975,000 1,040,000 11,311,780 5 16,000 34,031,000 * Indicates a number between 1 and 499. Source: Raw data from NeuStar, Inc. Rollups performed by Industry Analysis and Technology Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, FCC. 1 Monthly figures include numbers that were ported back to the original carrier, or where the subscriber with the ported number terminated service. 2 Includes 25.3 million landline to landline ports, 3,000 landline to Cellular/ PCS ports, 60,000 Cellular/ PCS to Cellular/ PCS ports, and less than 1,000 Cellular/ PCS to landline ports in the database prior to November 2003. Wireless portability started November 24, 2003. 3 Due to a data problem, does not include numbers that were ported back to the original carrier, or where the subscriber with the ported number terminated service. 4 For the below reasons, the "in database as of" numbers are not equal to the sum of the numbers above them. The local number portability database was designed solely for the purpose of routing calls. As such, it retains only the most recent porting activity for any given number. So if a consumer ports a number from Carrier A to Carrier B, and later the consumer then ports the number from Carrier B to Carrier C, the "in database as of" numbers will not reflect the original port from Carrier A to Carrier B. Also, numbers that revert back to the original carrier, either through a customer porting back to the original carrier, or discontinuing service with that number, are dropped from the database. Lastly, area code splits can cause a number that was at one time ported from Carrier A to Carrier B to again be ported from Carrier A to Carrier B, as the database record must be updated to reflect the new area code. When this happens the old number disappears from the database. 5 Excludes significant porting activity between Cingular and AT& T Wireless following the closing of their merger. 34 35 Customer Response Publication: Numbering Resource Utilization in the United States as of December 31, 2004. You can help us provide the best possible information to the public by completing this form and returning it to the Industry Analysis and Technology Division of the FCC's Wireline Competition Bureau. 1. Please check the category that best describes you: ____ press ____ current telecommunications carrier ____ potential telecommunications carrier ____ business customer evaluating vendors/ service options ____ consultant, law firm, lobbyist ____ other business customer ____ academic/ student ____ residential customer ____ FCC employee ____ other federal government employee ____ state or local government employee ____ Other (please specify) 2. Please rate the report: Excellent Good Satisfactory Poor No opinion Data accuracy (_) (_) (_) (_) (_) Data presentation (_) (_) (_) (_) (_) Timeliness of data (_) (_) (_) (_) (_) Completeness of data (_) (_) (_) (_) (_) Text clarity (_) (_) (_) (_) (_) Completeness of text (_) (_) (_) (_) (_) 3. Overall, how do you Excellent Good Satisfactory Poor No opinion rate this report? (_) (_) (_) (_) (_) 4. How can this report be improved? 5. May we contact you to discuss possible improvements? Name: Telephone #: To discuss the information in this report, contact: 202- 418- 0940 or for users of TTY equipment, call 202- 418- 0484 Fax this response to or Mail this response to 202- 418- 0520 FCC/ WCB/ IATD Washington, DC 20554 36