*Pages 1--37 from Microsoft Word - NumbUtilPressMar27.doc* Numbering Resource Utilization in the United States as of June 30, 2005 Craig Stroup and John Vu Industry Analysis and Technology Division Wireline Competition Bureau Federal Communications Commission May 2006 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 Wireline Competition Bureau Statistical Reports Internet site at www. fcc. gov/ wcb/ stats. 1 3 Background The United States uses ten- digit telephone numbers, which are organized in accordance with the North American Numbering Plan (NANP). 3 The NANP divides the country into separate geographic areas called numbering plan areas (NPAs), more commonly called area codes. Calls between these areas are generally dialed using the three- digit area code, followed by a seven- digit local telephone number. When the NANP was established in 1947, only 78 area codes were assigned to carriers in the United States. Only 36 new codes were added through 1989. But the rate of activation increased dramatically. In the 1990s, 109 new area codes were activated in the United States. 4 Because the remaining supply of unassigned area codes is diminishing, and because a premature exhaust of area codes imposes significant costs on consumers, the Commission has taken a number of steps to ensure that the limited numbering resources are used efficiently. Among other things, the Commission requires carriers to submit data on numbering resource utilization and forecasts twice a year. The information is submitted using FCC Form 502, which is known as the Numbering Resource Utilization/ Forecast (NRUF) form. 5 Carriers controlling numbering resources for the purpose of providing services to their customers are required to file their NRUF forms with the North American Numbering Plan Administrator (NANPA) 6 by February 1 and August 1 of each year. 7 The administrator compiles the information submitted into a database and provides that database to the Commission. 8 The information in this report presents number utilization as of June 30, 2005. It reflects all corrections and submissions that the NANPA received through October 4, 2005. 9 Historically, local telephone companies received geographic numbers in blocks of 10,000. These blocks of 10,000 numbers are often called NXXs, or central office codes, and are identifiable as the first three digits of a seven- digit telephone number. 10 One of the recent 3 The North American Numbering Plan is used in the United States and its territories, and in Canada, Bermuda, and many Caribbean nations, including Anguilla, Antigua and Barbuda, the Bahamas not in the Caribbean, Barbados, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Grenada, Jamaica, Montserrat, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Trinidad and Tobago, and the Turks and Caicos Islands. The data contained in this report are all limited to the United States and its overseas territories. 4 NeuStar, Inc. publishes a database containing information about each area code on its website: http:// www. nanpa. com/ npa/ allnpas. zip. 5 See March 2000 NRO Order. FCC Form 502 and most other FCC forms can be downloaded from www. fcc. gov/ formpage. html. 6 The current NANPA is NeuStar, Inc. 7 July 2000 NRO Order. 8 The NANPA’s database is continually updated because not all carriers file by the prescribed date, and because carriers sometimes file updated information throughout the year. 9 Not all carriers filed their NRUF forms by the August 1, 2005 deadline. 10 A ten- thousands block is the block of 10,000 telephone numbers that have the same area code and the same NXX. 3 5 numbers and other numbers used for network purposes. Available numbers are numbers that are generally available for assignment to customers. 14 Some carriers receive telephone numbers from other carriers. When this occurs, the carrier that received its numbers from another carrier (as opposed to directly from the NANPA) is required to report utilization data for those numbers, and to mark those numbers as having been received from other carriers. 15 The vast majority of numbering resources reported were part of geographic area codes. That is, the numbers were part of area codes that are associated with specific regions of the United States or another country. For instance, area code 406 is associated with Montana, and area code 506 is associated with New Brunswick, Canada. Carriers are also required to report on utilization of some non- geographic area codes, such as 500 numbers and 900 numbers (which are described later in this report). Carriers use other types of non- geographic numbering resources as well: millions of numbers are used to provide toll- free services using non- geographic area codes such as 800, 888, 877 and 866. These numbering resources are managed separately; they are neither surveyed on FCC Form 502, nor is their utilization presented in this report. 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 reported. Table 1 also shows the quantity of telephone numbers that carriers reported for each of the six categories described above. The percentages for each of the six categories are provided as well. Carriers have reported usage data on 128,800 NXXs. This is up from the 128,000 NXXs from the previous filing (data for December 31, 2004). As the NANPA calculates that about 133,500 NXXs have been assigned to United States carriers, 16 this round of submissions (data for June 30, 2005) appears to have garnered usable information on over 97% 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 October 4, 2005, the cut-off date for inclusion in this report. 14 For precise definitions of these categories, see 47 C. F. R. § 52.15. 15 This means that sometimes more than one carrier can report utilization data for the same thousands- block (or ten- thousands block). Carriers receiving numbers from another carrier are required to report utilization data for those numbers on a different page (of FCC Form 502) than the page that carriers use to report numbers received directly from the NANPA. Not all carriers that received numbers from other carriers filed on the correct page, however, so within the database it can appear that more than one carrier has reported data for the same block of numbers. Carriers that receive numbers from other carriers are also required to report on any telephone numbers received from the NANPA. 16 The NANPA lists the codes that have been issued on their web site: http:// www. nanpa. com/ reports/ reports_ cocodes_ assign. html. 5 6 Carriers filing FCC Forms 502 reported that nearly 565 million telephone numbers were assigned to end users, and that nearly 659 million were available for assignment. Thus, the quantity of numbers available for assignment exceeds the number already assigned to end users. These 659 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, more numbers will become available. Intermediate, reserved, aging and administrative categories collectively account for another 90 million telephone numbers of the NXXs assigned 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 (15% of telephone numbers are assigned to end users) than in more urban areas (45% of telephone numbers 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 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 code- by- area code basis. The table also shows the total number of OCNs 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. 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. 19 See March 2000 NRO Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 7594, para. 41. Carriers obtain OCNs from the National Exchange Carrier Association. 6 7 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 working 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 customers, 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 the 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 that 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. For several reasons, aging numbers, however, do not give a perfect indication of churn. Aside from not measuring numbers ported to another carrier, 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 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 classified 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 delegated authority to require pooling. 22 Carriers also have voluntarily implemented pooling in certain areas. The Commission established an initial 20 Churn is the rate at which customers change carriers or disconnect service. 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 Nos. 99- 200, 95- 116, Fourth Report and Order in CC Docket No. 99- 200 and CC Docket No. 95- 116, and Fourth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in CC Docket No. 99- 200, FCC 03- 126 (rel. June 18, 2003) (Fourth Report and Order). 22 The Commission recently granted authority to the West Virginia, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Michigan, and Missouri commissions to expand pooling to areas outside of the top 100 MSAs. The Commission is also seeking comment on whether it should delegate authority to all states to implement mandatory pooling. Numbering Resource Optimization, Order and Fifth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in CC Docket No. 99- 200, FCC 06- 14 (released February 24, 2006). 7 8 roll- out schedule for thousands- block number pooling for wireline carriers, which was completed in December 2003. 23 Table 8 shows the number of thousands- blocks that 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 the percentage of those thousands blocks that are pooled. Wireless carriers are listed separately from CLECs and ILECs because wireless carriers started porting on November 24, 2003. Table 9 examines the efficacy of thousands- block pooling. Table 9 shows the utilization of the thousands- blocks that were distributed by the Pooling Administrator, and the utilization rate that would have resulted had whole NXXs been issued. 24 Overall, if whole NXXs had been issued instead of individual thousands- blocks, utilization within those blocks would have been 14.4%. With pooling, however, utilization was 52.0%, 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, 76.3 million telephone numbers were distributed to carriers in pooling areas. Had there been no pooling, 276.2 million telephone numbers would have been distributed to the carriers. Thus, nearly 200 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 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 distance 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. 25 We have used rate centers as our measure of local geographic area because thousands blocks are assigned to carriers on a rate-center basis. 26 Carriers serving densely populated areas may need more than one thousands block (each thousands block contains one thousand numbers) to provide service. In these densely populated areas, carriers should generally be able to achieve higher utilization rates 23 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). 24 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 quantity 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. 25 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). 26 A rate center is a geographic area used to determine distances and prices for local and long distance calls. 8 9 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 rate 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). 27 For example, for all instances where a carrier reported from 5 to 14 (which round to 10) thousands- blocks in a rate 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 example, if there were only two companies with 350 thousands- blocks in a rate center, and another 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 information. There are three different databases that contain sources of NPA- NXX assignment information: NANPA’s NRUF database, NANPA’s NANP Administration System (NAS) database of NPA- NXX assignments, and the Local Exchange Routing Guide (LERG). 28 For a variety of reasons, the databases are not 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. 29 After permissive dialing ends, the carrier should remove the old NPA- NXXs from its systems. During permissive 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 NPA- 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 database may not be identical. Table 11 shows the number of NPA- NXXs that appear in the three databases. 27 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. 28 The NANPA’s assignment information can be found online: http:// www. nanpa. com/ reports/ reports_ cocodes_ assign. html. The analysis in Table 11 examines only those codes that NANPA marked “assigned” (i. e., this study does not examine those codes marked “protected”, “reserved”, “unassignable”, or “vacant”). The LERG is published monthly by Telcordia Technologies. 29 During permissive dialing, a phone number may be called by using either the old or the new NPA. 9 10 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. Cellular/ PCS and CLEC utilization rates are generally increasing. Table 13 shows, on a quarterly basis, the number of NXX assignments made by the NANPA, the number of NXXs that have been returned to the NANPA, and the number of net NXX assignments to carriers. The table shows that fewer NXXs generally are being issued each quarter, and that carriers continue to return unneeded NPA- NXXs to the NANPA for reassignment. Tables 14 through 16 display information on telephone number porting. All telephone number porting information in this report is derived from the local number portability database, which was designed solely for the purpose of routing calls. 30 There are several reasons that the quantity of ported numbers in the database at any given time does not equal the sum of numbers ported in prior months. When consumers who have already ported their telephone numbers do so again, the porting database retains only the most recent porting activity for those numbers. Consumers can also port their numbers back to the original carrier. 31 When this happens, it is counted as a port even though the number drops out of the porting database. 32 Table 14 shows, on a monthly basis, the quantities of telephone numbers that have been ported since wireless pooling started on November 24, 2003. The table shows that most porting activity is intramodal, that is between two landline carriers or between two mobile carriers. Table 15 shows the quantity of telephone numbers in the porting database at the end of each quarter. Table 16 is based on ports in the database as of December 31, 2005, and shows the quarter in which the numbers were ported. Additional Information Additional information too lengthy to include in this report is contained on the Commission’s website. 33 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. 30 NeuStar, Inc. is the portability administrator. NeuStar operates seven different porting databases. The Commission combines information from these databases into a combined database. 31 When a customer who is using a ported number discontinues service entirely, the ported number also goes back to the original carrier. 32 Area code splits can cause a number that was at one time ported from Carrier A to Carrier B to appear to be reported from Carrier A to Carrier B, as the database record must be updated to reflect the new area code. When this happens, the old porting record also disappears from the database. 33 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. 10 11 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 reported in that rate center. Some information has been redacted (asterisked out), to prevent the potential release of non-public data. The information also includes the Metropolitan Statistical Area/ Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area in which the rate center resides. 34 The pooling information submitted by NeuStar is also available, and includes the NPA, NXX, X (block number), recipient carrier, date of assignment for the block and other information about the block. NeuStar submitted pooling data as of October 17, 2005. For consistency, only blocks with effective dates through June 30, 2005 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 type does not add up to the total number of unique NXXs. 35 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 Commission’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 single 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. 34 The rate center’s V& H coordinates from the LERG were used to determine in which MSA/ PMSA the rate center resided. If the rate center is not in an MSA/ PMSA, then the MSA/ PMSA variable is left blank. 35 In some instances, more than one carrier reported numbering utilization data for the same NPA- NXX. Tables 1- 3 report on the number of unique NPA- NXXs that were reported by each carrier type and by the industry as a whole. 11 12 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 enough end- user lines in a rate center to warrant having so many thousands- blocks in that rate center, there are at least two reasons that a CLEC would do so. First, some CLECs provide service to unified messaging services, such as e- fax. 36 These services use large quantities of numbers. 37 Second, some CLECs are operating in areas undergoing area code 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). 36 Unified messaging services allow end users to receive multiple types of messages (such as voice mail and faxes) at one phone number. Typically, these messages 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 service providers can operate efficiently by obtaining a large number of thousands blocks in a single rate center. 37 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 quantities 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. 12 Table 1 Number Utilization by Carrier Type as of June 30, 2005 Assigned Intermediate Reserved Aging Admin Available 1 Total Unique Carrier Type (Thousands of telephone numbers) NXXs ILEC 302,725 13,865 7,021 17,799 10,183 221,981 573,576 60,650 Cellular/ PCS 197,308 2,574 2,256 10,713 3,295 130,831 346,976 40,073 CLEC 56,932 9,018 4,483 3,060 1,188 238,963 313,644 36,673 Paging 7,999 2,189 2,354 747 130 67,154 80,573 5,892 All Reporting Carriers 564,964 27,647 16,115 32,319 14,795 658,928 1,314,768 128,803 2 ILEC 52.8% 2.4% 1.2% 3.1% 1.8% 38.7% 100.0% Cellular/ PCS 56.9% 0.7% 0.7% 3.1% 0.9% 37.7% 100.0% CLEC 18.2% 2.9% 1.4% 1.0% 0.4% 76.2% 100.0% Paging 9.9% 2.7% 2.9% 0.9% 0.2% 83.3% 100.0% All Reporting Carriers 43.0% 2.1% 1.2% 2.5% 1.1% 50.1% 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 292,930 13,038 5,718 16,972 9,831 169,405 507,894 54,111 Cellular/ PCS 195,887 2,516 2,116 10,576 3,228 126,207 340,530 39,463 CLEC 56,455 9,004 4,324 3,033 1,151 231,865 305,833 35,916 Paging 7,609 1,943 2,164 671 91 65,617 78,095 5,675 All Reporting Carriers 552,881 26,501 14,323 31,253 14,301 593,094 1,232,352 120,849 2 ILEC 57.7% 2.6% 1.1% 3.3% 1.9% 33.4% 100.0% Cellular/ PCS 57.5% 0.7% 0.6% 3.1% 0.9% 37.1% 100.0% CLEC 18.5% 2.9% 1.4% 1.0% 0.4% 75.8% 100.0% Paging 9.7% 2.5% 2.8% 0.9% 0.1% 84.0% 100.0% All Reporting Carriers 44.9% 2.2% 1.2% 2.5% 1.2% 48.1% 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 9,796 827 1,303 827 352 52,577 65,682 6,562 Cellular/ PCS 1,422 59 140 136 67 4,623 6,446 780 CLEC 476 14 159 27 37 7,098 7,811 620 Paging 390 246 190 76 39 1,537 2,478 217 All Reporting Carriers 12,084 1,146 1,792 1,066 494 65,835 82,416 8,163 2 ILEC 14.9% 1.3% 2.0% 1.3% 0.5% 80.0% 100.0% Cellular/ PCS 22.1% 0.9% 2.2% 2.1% 1.0% 71.7% 100.0% CLEC 6.1% 0.2% 2.0% 0.3% 0.5% 90.9% 100.0% Paging 15.7% 9.9% 7.7% 3.1% 1.6% 62.0% 100.0% All Reporting Carriers 14.7% 1.4% 2.2% 1.3% 0.6% 79.9% 100.0% Source: Numbering Resource Utilization/ Forecast Reports data filed with NeuStar, Inc. as of October 4, 2005 (97% of NXXs reported). 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 13 Table 4 Telephone Number Utilization by State as of June 30, 2005 Assigned Intermediate Reserved Aging Administrative Available 1 Total State/ jurisdiction 000s % 000s % 000s % 000s % 000s % 000s % 000s Alabama 7,958 39.1 471 2.3 241 1.2 496 2.4 289 1.4 10,906 53.6 20,362 Alaska 1,137 24.3 22 0.5 14 0.3 48 1.0 38 0.8 3,413 73.0 4,672 Arizona 10,913 54.3 433 2.2 170 0.8 618 3.1 161 0.8 7,801 38.8 20,097 Arkansas 4,101 29.2 766 5.4 86 0.6 253 1.8 185 1.3 8,674 61.7 14,066 California 68,406 44.2 7,955 5.1 919 0.6 3,578 2.3 2,095 1.4 71,712 46.4 154,666 Colorado 10,511 52.8 70 0.4 132 0.7 539 2.7 257 1.3 8,396 42.2 19,905 Connecticut 6,735 44.1 394 2.6 236 1.5 288 1.9 199 1.3 7,431 48.6 15,283 Delaware 2,292 53.2 29 0.7 91 2.1 78 1.8 21 0.5 1,796 41.7 4,308 District of Columbia 3,701 67.3 26 0.5 156 2.8 140 2.6 22 0.4 1,452 26.4 5,497 Florida 34,648 49.8 1,808 2.6 403 0.6 2,688 3.9 1,110 1.6 28,900 41.5 69,556 Georgia 17,265 45.0 1,664 4.3 328 0.9 1,560 4.1 444 1.2 17,080 44.5 38,342 Guam Not shown to protect carrier confidentiality Hawaii 2,697 55.4 11 0.2 11 0.2 103 2.1 83 1.7 1,960 40.3 4,866 Idaho 2,454 42.1 20 0.3 39 0.7 116 2.0 68 1.2 3,137 53.8 5,834 Illinois 24,176 41.5 1,207 2.1 1,222 2.1 1,479 2.5 596 1.0 29,633 50.8 58,313 Indiana 9,957 37.8 346 1.3 328 1.2 542 2.1 339 1.3 14,841 56.3 26,354 Iowa 4,849 28.3 118 0.7 182 1.1 224 1.3 136 0.8 11,624 67.8 17,133 Kansas 4,227 26.3 534 3.3 106 0.7 239 1.5 166 1.0 10,807 67.2 16,078 Kentucky 7,125 34.6 500 2.4 144 0.7 362 1.8 243 1.2 12,198 59.3 20,572 Louisiana 7,942 37.3 493 2.3 102 0.5 559 2.6 272 1.3 11,919 56.0 21,287 Maine 2,255 44.5 23 0.5 68 1.3 104 2.1 29 0.6 2,585 51.1 5,064 Maryland 13,108 53.3 78 0.3 421 1.7 514 2.1 138 0.6 10,335 42.0 24,594 Massachusetts 17,206 47.6 200 0.6 715 2.0 713 2.0 215 0.6 17,118 47.3 36,167 Michigan 19,166 38.8 539 1.1 824 1.7 942 1.9 578 1.2 27,351 55.4 49,401 Minnesota 10,270 39.4 197 0.8 484 1.9 514 2.0 165 0.6 14,429 55.4 26,059 Mississippi 4,258 26.5 246 1.5 120 0.8 323 2.0 185 1.1 10,918 68.0 16,051 Missouri 10,088 34.4 344 1.2 743 2.5 618 2.1 263 0.9 17,242 58.8 29,299 Montana 1,362 23.1 12 0.2 54 0.9 70 1.2 28 0.5 4,377 74.1 5,904 Nebraska 3,126 30.3 145 1.4 29 0.3 136 1.3 77 0.7 6,790 65.9 10,302 Nevada 5,402 57.4 390 4.1 48 0.5 259 2.7 117 1.2 3,196 34.0 9,413 New Hampshire 2,997 44.4 13 0.2 79 1.2 91 1.3 33 0.5 3,537 52.4 6,749 New Jersey 18,888 46.8 306 0.8 743 1.8 1,239 3.1 239 0.6 18,909 46.9 40,324 New Mexico 3,091 45.2 29 0.4 29 0.4 154 2.3 62 0.9 3,466 50.7 6,831 New York 37,396 52.1 895 1.2 2,073 2.9 2,083 2.9 366 0.5 29,009 40.4 71,824 North Carolina 15,668 42.8 746 2.0 195 0.5 1,063 2.9 509 1.4 18,412 50.3 36,593 North Dakota 1,011 18.6 39 0.7 22 0.4 40 0.7 27 0.5 4,281 79.0 5,420 Northern Marianas Is Not shown to protect carrier confidentiality Ohio 19,635 39.5 633 1.3 687 1.4 1,063 2.1 540 1.1 27,200 54.7 49,758 Oklahoma 5,276 28.8 565 3.1 113 0.6 302 1.6 246 1.3 11,810 64.5 18,312 Oregon 6,526 46.7 66 0.5 89 0.6 348 2.5 179 1.3 6,775 48.5 13,983 Pennsylvania 23,884 43.3 254 0.5 990 1.8 1,137 2.1 312 0.6 28,568 51.8 55,145 Puerto Rico 3,235 62.0 20 0.4 12 0.2 200 3.8 65 1.2 1,687 32.3 5,218 Rhode Island 2,569 53.1 6 0.1 66 1.4 75 1.6 14 0.3 2,112 43.6 4,842 South Carolina 7,293 45.0 404 2.5 96 0.6 526 3.2 278 1.7 7,619 47.0 16,216 South Dakota 1,152 21.4 23 0.4 29 0.5 52 1.0 28 0.5 4,093 76.1 5,376 Tennessee 10,600 42.3 520 2.1 162 0.6 612 2.4 305 1.2 12,861 51.3 25,059 Texas 41,093 42.5 2,577 2.7 864 0.9 2,732 2.8 2,062 2.1 47,446 49.0 96,774 Utah 4,806 44.9 37 0.3 93 0.9 451 4.2 86 0.8 5,219 48.8 10,692 Vermont 2,060 45.1 5 0.1 53 1.2 48 1.0 49 1.1 2,352 51.5 4,566 Virgin Islands 143 46.2 10 3.3 30 9.6 31 10.0 2 0.6 94 30.3 309 Virginia 15,630 54.5 54 0.2 494 1.7 722 2.5 178 0.6 11,612 40.5 28,691 Washington 12,547 45.7 1,133 4.1 317 1.2 670 2.4 367 1.3 12,420 45.2 27,454 West Virginia 2,223 36.9 16 0.3 79 1.3 104 1.7 45 0.7 3,558 59.1 6,025 Wisconsin 8,927 35.2 208 0.8 374 1.5 415 1.6 246 1.0 15,177 59.9 25,347 Wyoming 861 25.0 9 0.2 11 0.3 41 1.2 36 1.0 2,481 72.1 3,439 Totals 564,964 43.0 27,647 2.1 16,115 1.2 32,319 2.5 14,795 1.1 658,928 50.1 1,314,768 Source: Numbering Resource Utilization/ Forecast Reports data filed with NeuStar, Inc. as of October 4, 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 14 Table 5 Number of Carriers Reporting Numbering Resources as of June 30, 2005 1 Paging Unduplicated State/ jurisdiction ILEC 2 Cellular/ PCS 2 CLEC 2 Carriers 2 Total Carriers Alabama 31 22 23 8 84 Alaska 22 9 1 1 33 Arizona 17 16 23 6 62 Arkansas 31 17 17 7 72 California 25 18 52 15 109 Colorado 33 14 21 9 77 Connecticut 4 7 20 5 36 Delaware 1 7 19 5 32 District of Columbia 1 7 20 4 31 Florida 11 22 48 10 91 Georgia 36 23 44 9 112 Guam 0 2 1 0 3 Hawaii 2 5 5 3 15 Idaho 20 18 13 6 57 Illinois 58 22 40 6 126 Indiana 42 17 39 8 106 Iowa 160 18 51 4 233 Kansas 44 18 23 7 92 Kentucky 21 23 39 7 89 Louisiana 21 15 26 8 70 Maine 21 8 13 3 45 Maryland 2 14 33 6 55 Massachusetts 4 10 32 4 50 Michigan 36 18 37 7 98 Minnesota 89 14 51 5 159 Mississippi 19 20 26 5 70 Missouri 47 21 33 11 112 Montana 20 7 15 4 46 Nebraska 49 12 15 4 80 Nevada 11 12 25 8 56 New Hampshire 13 11 14 6 44 New Jersey 3 10 33 6 52 New Mexico 17 14 11 4 46 New York 38 15 47 10 110 North Carolina 28 17 38 6 89 North Dakota 36 9 15 2 62 Northern Marianas 1 2 0 0 2 Ohio 38 21 40 10 109 Oklahoma 43 19 19 9 90 Oregon 29 15 26 4 74 Pennsylvania 33 21 48 8 110 Puerto Rico 1 6 1 0 8 Rhode Island 1 7 13 5 26 South Carolina 23 14 30 4 71 South Dakota 47 6 13 1 67 Tennessee 27 24 33 6 90 Texas 67 36 57 16 175 Utah 17 13 16 4 50 Vermont 8 6 8 4 26 Virgin Islands 1 3 0 0 4 Virginia 17 15 40 6 78 Washington 24 14 33 8 79 West Virginia 6 16 15 6 43 Wisconsin 91 19 30 8 148 Wyoming 17 9 12 3 41 Unduplicated Total 1,305 368 1,195 118 2,981 Source: Numbering Resource Utilization/ Forecast Reports data filed with NeuStar, Inc. as of October 4, 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 15 Table 6 Telephone Number Utilization by Area Code as of June 30, 2005 Area Code State/ Jurisdiction Area Code Opened Assigned Intermediate Reserved Aging Admin Available OCNs 201 New Jersey Jan- 47 51.0% 0.9% 1.9% 3.4% 0.5% 42.3% 41 202 District of Columbia Jan- 47 67.3% 0.5% 2.8% 2.6% 0.4% 26.4% 31 203 Connecticut Jan- 47 46.1% 3.1% 1.8% 2.2% 1.6% 45.2% 34 205 Alabama Jan- 47 46.3% 2.4% 0.4% 2.8% 1.8% 46.4% 42 206 Washington Jan- 47 57.1% 1.7% 3.5% 2.8% 1.5% 33.3% 35 207 Maine Jan- 47 44.5% 0.5% 1.3% 2.1% 0.6% 51.1% 45 208 Idaho Jan- 47 42.1% 0.3% 0.7% 2.0% 1.2% 53.8% 57 209 California Jan- 58 38.6% 6.7% 0.1% 1.9% 1.4% 51.2% 45 210 Texas Nov- 92 57.4% 3.2% 1.2% 3.2% 1.4% 33.7% 35 212 New York Jan- 47 74.1% 0.2% 6.3% 3.8% 0.2% 15.5% 28 213 California Jan- 47 39.7% 4.7% 0.6% 2.5% 2.0% 50.5% 47 214 Texas Jan- 47 54.7% 0.6% 0.7% 3.5% 2.5% 38.0% 47 215 Pennsylvania Jan- 47 56.2% 0.6% 2.9% 2.4% 0.8% 37.0% 36 216 Ohio Jan- 47 44.1% 1.0% 2.1% 2.8% 0.8% 49.2% 35 217 Illinois Jan- 47 31.8% 0.8% 3.0% 1.4% 1.6% 61.4% 44 218 Minnesota Jan- 47 22.4% 1.4% 0.9% 1.1% 0.6% 73.5% 66 219 Indiana Jan- 47 41.1% 2.2% 1.6% 2.4% 1.4% 51.3% 37 224 Illinois Jan- 02 33.2% 0.9% 1.3% 1.6% 0.4% 62.6% 23 225 Louisiana Aug- 98 45.0% 2.7% 0.3% 3.4% 1.5% 47.1% 34 228 Mississippi Sep- 97 31.2% 0.8% 0.4% 2.6% 0.8% 64.2% 29 229 Georgia Aug- 00 27.5% 6.0% 0.5% 2.3% 0.9% 62.9% 35 231 Michigan Jun- 99 27.3% 0.5% 1.0% 1.1% 0.7% 69.5% 35 234 Ohio Oct- 00 5.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.8% 94.0% 6 239 Florida Mar- 02 49.0% 1.3% 0.7% 2.4% 0.5% 46.0% 28 240 Maryland Jun- 97 42.9% 0.6% 0.4% 1.7% 0.3% 54.0% 41 248 Michigan May- 97 46.5% 1.6% 1.2% 2.2% 0.8% 47.6% 36 251 Alabama Jun- 01 39.6% 2.0% 3.1% 2.5% 1.4% 51.3% 40 252 North Carolina Mar- 98 33.3% 0.2% 0.2% 1.5% 0.4% 64.4% 30 253 Washington Apr- 97 47.3% 7.7% 0.5% 2.8% 1.0% 40.8% 34 254 Texas May- 97 29.6% 1.1% 0.6% 2.3% 3.3% 63.2% 41 256 Alabama Mar- 98 37.3% 2.2% 0.5% 2.1% 1.1% 56.8% 43 260 Indiana Jan- 02 35.4% 0.4% 0.7% 1.8% 2.0% 59.7% 30 262 Wisconsin Sep- 99 34.0% 0.7% 1.5% 1.5% 0.3% 62.1% 36 267 Pennsylvania Jul- 99 33.5% 0.8% 0.5% 2.0% 0.3% 62.9% 35 269 Michigan Jul- 02 37.3% 1.0% 1.1% 1.8% 1.1% 57.8% 40 270 Kentucky Apr- 99 28.8% 3.1% 0.5% 1.5% 0.8% 65.4% 51 276 Virginia Sep- 01 29.9% 0.1% 0.6% 1.5% 0.5% 67.4% 31 281 Texas Nov- 96 46.4% 3.5% 0.6% 3.3% 1.2% 45.0% 39 301 Maryland Jan- 47 59.6% 0.1% 2.0% 2.1% 0.7% 35.4% 36 302 Delaware Jan- 47 53.2% 0.7% 2.1% 1.8% 0.5% 41.7% 32 303 Colorado Jan- 47 64.9% 0.2% 0.7% 2.8% 1.9% 29.5% 36 304 West Virginia Jan- 47 36.9% 0.3% 1.3% 1.7% 0.7% 59.1% 43 305 Florida Jan- 47 55.2% 4.7% 0.4% 5.8% 1.2% 32.8% 41 307 Wyoming Jan- 47 25.0% 0.2% 0.3% 1.2% 1.0% 72.1% 41 308 Nebraska Jan- 55 16.9% 1.4% 0.2% 1.1% 0.9% 79.5% 48 309 Illinois Jan- 57 31.8% 8.7% 1.2% 1.4% 1.3% 55.5% 51 310 California Nov- 91 54.4% 4.4% 0.5% 2.9% 1.2% 36.6% 48 312 Illinois Jan- 47 45.4% 2.8% 2.4% 2.8% 1.5% 45.1% 40 313 Michigan Jan- 47 44.2% 1.8% 3.4% 3.6% 1.3% 45.7% 32 314 Missouri Jan- 47 52.8% 1.4% 2.3% 3.0% 1.1% 39.4% 33 315 New York Jan- 47 36.8% 0.5% 4.6% 1.8% 0.7% 55.8% 45 316 Kansas Jan- 47 39.9% 2.4% 0.4% 2.1% 1.7% 53.4% 30 317 Indiana Jan- 47 48.1% 1.8% 2.0% 2.8% 1.0% 44.2% 44 318 Louisiana Jan- 57 29.4% 1.7% 0.2% 2.2% 1.7% 64.8% 37 319 Iowa Jan- 47 35.5% 1.3% 0.7% 1.6% 1.9% 59.1% 57 16 16 Table 6 Telephone Number Utilization by Area Code as of June 30, 2005 Area Code State/ Jurisdiction Area Code Opened Assigned Intermediate Reserved Aging Admin Available OCNs 320 Minnesota Mar- 96 24.7% 0.5% 1.0% 2.0% 0.4% 71.4% 58 321 Florida Nov- 99 52.5% 1.9% 0.6% 3.6% 0.9% 40.4% 41 323 California Jun- 98 42.9% 3.8% 0.5% 3.0% 1.1% 48.8% 47 325 Texas Apr- 03 26.4% 1.4% 1.3% 1.6% 2.5% 66.8% 36 330 Ohio Mar- 96 40.2% 0.6% 1.6% 2.1% 1.0% 54.5% 42 334 Alabama Jan- 95 32.5% 2.6% 1.8% 2.4% 1.4% 59.3% 42 336 North Carolina Dec- 97 45.2% 2.7% 0.4% 2.8% 1.3% 47.6% 51 337 Louisiana Oct- 99 33.3% 2.0% 0.3% 2.1% 0.6% 61.7% 38 339 Massachusetts May- 01 18.6% 0.4% 0.1% 0.3% 0.6% 80.0% 13 340 Virgin Islands Jun- 97 46.2% 3.3% 9.6% 10.0% 0.6% 30.3% 4 347 New York Oct- 99 46.5% 5.3% 1.1% 4.2% 0.8% 42.1% 30 351 Massachusetts May- 01 Not shown to protect carrier confidentiality 1 352 Florida Dec- 95 42.9% 1.8% 0.2% 2.5% 0.8% 51.8% 33 360 Washington Jan- 95 42.6% 1.4% 0.4% 2.0% 1.2% 52.4% 53 361 Texas Feb- 99 33.9% 3.2% 0.6% 2.2% 2.0% 58.2% 33 386 Florida Feb- 01 43.6% 3.7% 0.3% 3.1% 0.8% 48.5% 39 401 Rhode Island Jan- 47 53.1% 0.1% 1.4% 1.6% 0.3% 43.6% 26 402 Nebraska Jan- 47 36.1% 1.4% 0.3% 1.4% 0.7% 60.1% 52 404 Georgia Jan- 47 59.9% 3.5% 0.7% 6.3% 2.5% 27.0% 43 405 Oklahoma Jan- 47 40.8% 3.9% 0.5% 2.2% 1.3% 51.2% 44 406 Montana Jan- 47 23.1% 0.2% 0.9% 1.2% 0.5% 74.1% 46 407 Florida Apr- 88 51.6% 2.8% 0.6% 4.0% 0.8% 40.1% 41 408 California Jan- 59 50.5% 4.9% 0.9% 2.7% 0.8% 40.1% 45 409 Texas Nov- 82 33.1% 6.0% 0.6% 2.6% 1.4% 56.3% 36 410 Maryland Oct- 91 62.0% 0.2% 2.7% 2.6% 0.7% 31.8% 38 412 Pennsylvania Jan- 47 44.3% 0.1% 2.1% 2.1% 0.8% 50.5% 31 413 Massachusetts Jan- 47 49.9% 0.1% 1.4% 1.6% 0.3% 46.6% 33 414 Wisconsin Jan- 47 52.0% 2.0% 2.3% 3.0% 1.0% 39.6% 28 415 California Jan- 47 44.7% 3.7% 0.8% 2.5% 1.1% 47.3% 49 417 Missouri Jan- 50 27.1% 1.9% 5.4% 1.7% 1.1% 62.8% 50 419 Ohio Jan- 47 32.4% 3.5% 1.2% 2.0% 1.8% 59.1% 56 423 Tennessee Sep- 95 39.8% 1.9% 0.2% 2.3% 1.0% 54.9% 46 425 Washington Apr- 97 46.4% 6.7% 0.5% 2.9% 1.8% 41.8% 35 430 Texas Feb- 03 9.6% 47.8% 9.6% 0.0% 4.1% 29.0% 4 432 Texas Apr- 03 32.0% 1.6% 1.7% 2.7% 2.1% 60.0% 30 434 Virginia Jun- 01 41.1% 0.1% 1.3% 1.8% 0.7% 55.0% 28 435 Utah Sep- 97 24.8% 0.6% 0.8% 1.6% 0.6% 71.5% 46 440 Ohio Aug- 97 39.2% 1.3% 1.2% 2.1% 0.4% 55.8% 39 443 Maryland Jun- 97 39.6% 0.5% 0.9% 1.6% 0.3% 57.1% 36 469 Texas Jul- 99 38.3% 1.9% 1.6% 2.9% 0.8% 54.4% 34 478 Georgia Aug- 00 36.4% 5.8% 0.9% 3.4% 1.2% 52.3% 39 479 Arkansas Jan- 02 34.4% 4.7% 0.8% 2.1% 1.4% 56.6% 36 480 Arizona Mar- 99 66.3% 0.6% 0.8% 4.0% 0.8% 27.6% 30 484 Pennsylvania Jun- 99 28.1% 0.4% 0.9% 0.8% 0.3% 69.6% 44 501 Arkansas Jan- 47 37.3% 5.9% 0.4% 1.9% 2.0% 52.6% 36 502 Kentucky Jan- 47 48.4% 2.8% 0.7% 2.5% 1.7% 43.9% 37 503 Oregon Jan- 47 54.5% 0.4% 0.7% 2.9% 1.6% 39.8% 40 504 Louisiana Jan- 47 49.6% 4.0% 0.5% 3.6% 1.3% 41.1% 34 505 New Mexico Jan- 47 45.2% 0.4% 0.4% 2.3% 0.9% 50.7% 46 507 Minnesota Jan- 54 22.0% 0.1% 3.1% 1.3% 0.3% 73.2% 68 508 Massachusetts Jul- 88 55.4% 0.5% 2.2% 2.3% 0.8% 38.9% 34 509 Washington Jan- 57 36.8% 5.4% 0.7% 2.1% 1.3% 53.8% 47 510 California Sep- 91 41.9% 5.0% 0.7% 2.4% 1.2% 48.8% 43 512 Texas Jan- 47 51.8% 3.5% 1.1% 3.2% 2.3% 38.0% 42 513 Ohio Jan- 47 54.2% 0.4% 1.0% 2.8% 1.2% 40.5% 34 17 17 Table 6 Telephone Number Utilization by Area Code as of June 30, 2005 Area Code State/ Jurisdiction Area Code Opened Assigned Intermediate Reserved Aging Admin Available OCNs 515 Iowa Jan- 47 45.4% 0.6% 0.8% 1.7% 1.0% 50.6% 48 516 New York Jan- 51 52.2% 1.0% 2.0% 2.3% 0.7% 41.8% 34 517 Michigan Jan- 47 41.7% 0.8% 1.2% 1.6% 1.4% 53.3% 48 518 New York Jan- 47 43.3% 0.3% 2.0% 2.1% 0.7% 51.6% 47 520 Arizona Mar- 95 51.0% 1.6% 0.8% 2.5% 0.9% 43.2% 39 530 California Nov- 97 32.0% 8.9% 0.3% 1.3% 1.0% 56.5% 50 540 Virginia Jul- 95 48.9% 0.2% 1.8% 2.2% 1.0% 45.8% 45 541 Oregon Nov- 95 38.6% 0.4% 0.5% 2.0% 1.0% 57.4% 55 551 New Jersey Dec- 01 48.2% 2.4% 0.5% 4.0% 1.3% 43.6% 4 559 California Nov- 98 36.1% 7.0% 0.2% 1.9% 1.4% 53.5% 35 561 Florida May- 96 53.8% 4.0% 0.5% 4.7% 1.4% 35.6% 38 562 California Jan- 97 42.4% 2.6% 0.7% 2.7% 2.0% 49.5% 43 563 Iowa Mar- 01 30.0% 0.7% 0.3% 2.0% 0.5% 66.6% 50 567 Ohio Jan- 02 7.2% 0.6% 0.7% 0.2% 0.3% 91.0% 18 570 Pennsylvania Dec- 98 39.8% 0.3% 3.1% 2.8% 0.6% 53.4% 47 571 Virginia Mar- 00 56.3% 0.2% 0.8% 2.7% 0.2% 39.8% 26 573 Missouri Jan- 96 27.5% 1.1% 3.5% 1.9% 0.5% 65.5% 44 574 Indiana Jan- 02 39.5% 0.7% 1.0% 2.1% 0.9% 55.7% 34 580 Oklahoma Nov- 97 14.8% 1.9% 0.8% 0.9% 1.3% 80.4% 48 585 New York Nov- 01 54.7% 0.5% 6.0% 1.0% 0.3% 37.5% 28 586 Michigan Sep- 01 39.4% 0.8% 3.6% 1.7% 0.3% 54.3% 34 601 Mississippi Jan- 47 29.1% 1.6% 0.7% 2.2% 1.7% 64.7% 44 602 Arizona Jan- 47 59.0% 1.6% 0.8% 3.7% 0.9% 34.1% 32 603 New Hampshire Jan- 47 44.4% 0.2% 1.2% 1.3% 0.5% 52.4% 44 605 South Dakota Jan- 47 21.4% 0.4% 0.5% 1.0% 0.5% 76.1% 67 606 Kentucky Jan- 55 24.3% 1.9% 0.9% 1.3% 1.8% 69.7% 39 607 New York Jan- 54 38.6% 0.5% 1.8% 1.1% 0.6% 57.3% 31 608 Wisconsin Jan- 55 37.8% 0.8% 1.7% 1.8% 1.3% 56.6% 66 609 New Jersey Jan- 57 51.3% 0.7% 1.5% 2.5% 0.5% 43.5% 36 610 Pennsylvania Jan- 94 56.1% 0.4% 2.4% 2.2% 0.5% 38.3% 44 612 Minnesota Jan- 47 58.6% 0.7% 3.2% 2.4% 1.3% 33.8% 36 614 Ohio Jan- 47 48.7% 1.3% 1.9% 2.5% 1.5% 44.2% 36 615 Tennessee Jan- 54 49.6% 2.6% 0.6% 2.6% 1.5% 43.1% 39 616 Michigan Jan- 47 44.2% 0.8% 2.2% 2.2% 1.9% 48.7% 37 617 Massachusetts Jan- 47 58.0% 0.5% 3.1% 3.0% 0.9% 34.6% 37 618 Illinois Jan- 47 31.2% 0.5% 2.5% 1.6% 1.4% 62.8% 47 619 California Jan- 82 49.3% 4.6% 0.4% 2.4% 1.5% 41.7% 40 620 Kansas Feb- 01 14.7% 4.1% 1.1% 1.0% 0.3% 78.9% 55 623 Arizona Mar- 99 60.2% 0.9% 1.5% 4.2% 1.2% 32.0% 27 626 California Jun- 97 44.0% 4.2% 0.7% 2.3% 1.4% 47.4% 48 630 Illinois Aug- 96 44.4% 1.9% 2.0% 2.8% 0.7% 48.3% 35 631 New York Nov- 99 44.2% 2.0% 1.6% 2.8% 0.4% 49.0% 36 636 Missouri May- 99 33.2% 0.6% 1.6% 1.7% 0.6% 62.4% 30 641 Iowa Jul- 00 16.7% 0.2% 1.3% 1.0% 0.4% 80.5% 61 646 New York Jul- 99 59.7% 3.3% 1.9% 4.4% 0.7% 30.0% 34 650 California Aug- 97 38.7% 5.1% 0.7% 1.8% 1.0% 52.8% 39 651 Minnesota Jul- 98 58.8% 0.9% 2.5% 2.8% 0.7% 34.3% 41 660 Missouri Oct- 97 12.9% 1.0% 1.1% 1.3% 0.7% 83.1% 47 661 California Feb- 99 38.6% 8.7% 0.3% 2.1% 1.3% 48.9% 42 662 Mississippi Apr- 99 22.0% 1.7% 0.9% 1.6% 0.7% 73.1% 53 670 Northern Marianas Jul- 97 Not shown to protect carrier confidentiality 2 671 Guam Jul- 97 Not shown to protect carrier confidentiality 3 678 Georgia Jan- 98 40.4% 2.4% 1.3% 3.1% 0.8% 52.0% 54 682 Texas Oct- 00 28.0% 0.4% 3.9% 2.6% 1.8% 63.3% 17 701 North Dakota Jan- 47 18.6% 0.7% 0.4% 0.7% 0.5% 79.0% 62 702 Nevada Jan- 47 61.6% 4.6% 0.7% 3.8% 1.2% 28.1% 37 703 Virginia Jan- 47 65.6% 0.3% 1.8% 2.4% 0.5% 29.3% 38 704 North Carolina Jan- 47 48.1% 3.2% 0.5% 4.1% 1.5% 42.5% 46 706 Georgia May- 92 40.3% 4.8% 1.0% 3.0% 1.0% 49.9% 67 707 California Jan- 59 36.5% 6.3% 0.7% 1.6% 1.1% 53.8% 46 18 18 Table 6 Telephone Number Utilization by Area Code as of June 30, 2005 Area Code State/ Jurisdiction Area Code Opened Assigned Intermediate Reserved Aging Admin Available OCNs 708 Illinois Nov- 89 39.9% 1.1% 2.8% 3.5% 0.7% 52.1% 36 712 Iowa Jan- 47 17.7% 0.7% 1.8% 0.7% 0.3% 78.8% 94 713 Texas Jan- 47 56.0% 2.6% 0.8% 3.7% 1.0% 35.8% 38 714 California Jan- 51 50.1% 4.0% 0.6% 2.6% 1.6% 41.1% 48 715 Wisconsin Jan- 47 25.2% 0.5% 0.4% 1.1% 1.3% 71.4% 82 716 New York Jan- 47 48.0% 0.5% 2.9% 2.4% 0.8% 45.3% 31 717 Pennsylvania Jan- 47 52.4% 0.4% 1.5% 2.4% 0.5% 42.7% 36 718 New York Sep- 84 63.6% 1.8% 3.8% 5.8% 0.3% 24.8% 34 719 Colorado Mar- 88 48.1% 0.7% 0.4% 2.8% 0.9% 47.1% 40 720 Colorado Jun- 98 51.5% 0.4% 1.0% 3.4% 1.0% 42.7% 24 724 Pennsylvania Feb- 98 30.8% 0.5% 1.1% 2.1% 0.5% 65.0% 46 727 Florida Jul- 98 53.7% 0.5% 1.0% 3.5% 3.7% 37.7% 40 731 Tennessee Feb- 01 25.4% 1.0% 0.9% 1.5% 0.8% 70.3% 34 732 New Jersey Jun- 97 48.0% 1.0% 2.3% 3.1% 0.6% 45.1% 37 734 Michigan Dec- 97 44.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.6% 0.8% 51.6% 37 740 Ohio Dec- 97 28.3% 0.8% 0.9% 1.5% 1.1% 67.5% 48 754 Florida Aug- 01 70.4% 5.0% 0.5% 7.2% 1.2% 15.7% 4 757 Virginia Jul- 96 58.0% 0.1% 1.6% 3.3% 0.6% 36.4% 27 760 California Mar- 97 43.9% 5.8% 0.6% 2.3% 1.5% 45.8% 55 763 Minnesota Feb- 00 50.9% 0.7% 0.8% 2.5% 0.6% 44.5% 41 765 Indiana Feb- 97 28.7% 1.4% 0.9% 1.6% 0.9% 66.6% 57 769 Mississippi Mar- 05 Not shown to protect carrier confidentiality 1 770 Georgia Aug- 95 56.1% 4.7% 0.3% 5.3% 0.9% 32.6% 45 772 Florida Feb- 02 46.1% 2.2% 0.9% 3.3% 2.4% 45.3% 29 773 Illinois Oct- 96 49.4% 1.6% 1.7% 4.3% 0.7% 42.3% 37 774 Massachusetts May- 01 21.3% 1.0% 0.6% 0.8% 0.4% 75.9% 27 775 Nevada Dec- 98 52.2% 3.5% 0.2% 1.4% 1.4% 41.3% 36 781 Massachusetts Sep- 97 42.1% 0.7% 1.5% 1.7% 0.5% 53.5% 35 785 Kansas Jul- 97 19.0% 4.2% 0.4% 1.2% 0.9% 74.3% 54 786 Florida Mar- 98 50.4% 2.4% 0.6% 5.0% 1.0% 40.8% 32 787 Puerto Rico Mar- 96 62.1% 0.4% 0.2% 3.8% 1.3% 32.3% 8 801 Utah Jan- 47 54.6% 0.2% 0.9% 5.5% 0.9% 37.9% 28 802 Vermont Jan- 47 45.1% 0.1% 1.2% 1.0% 1.1% 51.5% 26 803 South Carolina Jan- 47 46.3% 3.8% 0.3% 3.5% 2.0% 44.2% 52 804 Virginia Jun- 73 54.2% 0.2% 2.5% 2.8% 0.4% 39.9% 31 805 California Jan- 57 41.9% 5.1% 0.4% 1.9% 1.9% 48.8% 44 806 Texas Jan- 57 26.3% 2.8% 0.4% 1.7% 1.9% 66.9% 46 808 Hawaii Jan- 57 55.4% 0.2% 0.2% 2.1% 1.7% 40.3% 15 810 Michigan Dec- 93 35.6% 1.6% 1.6% 1.9% 2.6% 56.7% 35 812 Indiana Jan- 47 34.0% 1.0% 0.9% 1.6% 1.7% 60.7% 51 813 Florida Jan- 53 55.0% 0.5% 0.8% 3.4% 3.5% 36.7% 41 814 Pennsylvania Jan- 47 38.6% 0.5% 1.0% 1.2% 0.7% 58.1% 38 815 Illinois Jan- 47 38.5% 1.4% 1.9% 1.6% 1.3% 55.5% 62 816 Missouri Jan- 47 42.9% 0.8% 0.8% 2.5% 1.2% 51.8% 42 817 Texas Jan- 53 45.4% 1.8% 0.9% 2.8% 2.3% 46.7% 47 818 California Jan- 84 48.6% 5.2% 0.6% 2.4% 1.4% 41.9% 48 828 North Carolina Mar- 98 39.8% 1.2% 0.4% 2.8% 1.5% 54.4% 43 830 Texas Jul- 97 25.4% 0.9% 0.9% 1.9% 1.1% 69.8% 41 831 California Jul- 98 34.2% 10.7% 0.5% 1.7% 1.9% 51.0% 35 832 Texas Jan- 99 46.8% 1.6% 0.7% 3.6% 0.9% 46.4% 34 843 South Carolina Mar- 98 43.6% 1.6% 0.4% 3.1% 1.8% 49.5% 44 845 New York Jun- 00 43.7% 1.5% 2.3% 1.9% 0.5% 50.1% 47 847 Illinois Jan- 96 52.1% 1.5% 1.7% 2.8% 0.5% 41.3% 36 848 New Jersey Dec- 01 46.2% 0.2% 0.3% 4.0% 0.1% 49.3% 8 850 Florida Jun- 97 42.8% 1.3% 0.4% 3.1% 1.5% 50.9% 47 856 New Jersey Jun- 99 38.6% 0.5% 1.5% 2.3% 0.4% 56.7% 35 857 Massachusetts May- 01 24.6% 0.6% 0.2% 1.9% 0.9% 71.9% 20 858 California Jun- 99 46.8% 3.5% 0.8% 2.2% 2.0% 44.8% 34 859 Kentucky Apr- 00 40.2% 1.6% 0.9% 1.8% 0.5% 55.0% 45 860 Connecticut Aug- 95 42.0% 2.0% 1.3% 1.5% 1.0% 52.2% 30 19 19 Table 6 Telephone Number Utilization by Area Code as of June 30, 2005 Area Code State/ Jurisdiction Area Code Opened Assigned Intermediate Reserved Aging Admin Available OCNs 862 New Jersey Dec- 01 37.9% 1.0% 0.3% 4.4% 0.4% 56.1% 15 863 Florida Sep- 99 36.7% 1.1% 0.6% 2.1% 2.2% 57.3% 39 864 South Carolina Dec- 95 45.2% 2.1% 1.2% 3.1% 1.3% 47.0% 36 865 Tennessee Nov- 99 49.2% 2.7% 1.1% 2.5% 1.0% 43.5% 31 870 Arkansas Apr- 97 20.3% 5.5% 0.7% 1.5% 0.8% 71.2% 47 901 Tennessee Jan- 47 55.1% 2.7% 0.9% 3.9% 1.6% 36.0% 29 903 Texas Nov- 90 32.9% 4.0% 0.8% 2.1% 2.3% 57.8% 57 904 Florida Jan- 65 53.4% 4.2% 0.5% 4.3% 1.5% 36.1% 38 906 Michigan Jan- 61 23.8% 0.6% 0.8% 1.0% 2.0% 71.8% 23 907 Alaska Jan- 57 24.3% 0.5% 0.3% 1.0% 0.8% 73.0% 33 908 New Jersey Nov- 90 38.9% 0.7% 1.3% 2.6% 0.8% 55.7% 38 909 California Nov- 92 50.2% 4.0% 0.9% 2.9% 1.5% 40.6% 43 910 North Carolina Nov- 93 37.2% 1.0% 0.7% 2.6% 1.3% 57.2% 39 912 Georgia Jan- 54 37.4% 4.8% 1.5% 3.7% 0.7% 51.9% 48 913 Kansas Jan- 47 44.9% 1.5% 0.6% 2.3% 1.8% 49.0% 42 914 New York Jan- 47 44.9% 1.5% 1.7% 2.0% 0.7% 49.1% 38 915 Texas Jan- 47 50.3% 2.3% 1.1% 3.3% 6.1% 37.0% 26 916 California Jan- 47 50.9% 4.1% 0.5% 2.6% 1.4% 40.5% 42 917 New York Jan- 92 55.3% 0.7% 0.5% 2.8% 0.3% 40.5% 25 918 Oklahoma Jan- 53 32.4% 3.6% 0.5% 1.9% 1.4% 60.2% 60 919 North Carolina Jan- 54 47.8% 2.7% 0.8% 2.8% 1.9% 43.8% 43 920 Wisconsin Jul- 97 33.2% 0.4% 1.9% 1.3% 0.8% 62.4% 59 925 California Mar- 98 38.0% 5.7% 0.5% 1.6% 0.9% 53.3% 37 928 Arizona Jun- 01 35.0% 5.9% 0.8% 1.2% 0.4% 56.7% 44 931 Tennessee Sep- 97 28.7% 1.2% 0.5% 1.6% 1.3% 66.7% 42 936 Texas Feb- 00 35.3% 4.5% 0.8% 1.8% 0.8% 56.8% 31 937 Ohio Sep- 96 37.1% 1.0% 1.3% 1.9% 0.7% 57.9% 41 939 Puerto Rico Sep- 01 Not shown to protect carrier confidentiality 3 940 Texas May- 97 28.7% 1.7% 0.4% 1.8% 5.5% 61.9% 50 941 Florida May- 95 47.8% 1.2% 0.9% 3.0% 2.2% 44.9% 40 947 Michigan Sep- 02 Not shown to protect carrier confidentiality 1 949 California Apr- 98 48.8% 3.9% 1.0% 2.4% 1.3% 42.6% 44 951 California Jul- 04 59.2% 4.2% 0.8% 2.9% 1.4% 31.5% 36 952 Minnesota Feb- 00 51.5% 1.0% 0.5% 2.4% 0.5% 44.1% 36 954 Florida Sep- 95 50.2% 4.6% 0.6% 4.8% 1.3% 38.5% 41 956 Texas Jul- 97 45.8% 2.9% 0.5% 3.4% 3.3% 44.0% 27 970 Colorado Apr- 95 38.0% 0.3% 0.7% 2.0% 0.9% 58.2% 51 971 Oregon Oct- 00 34.4% 1.7% 0.8% 1.7% 0.4% 61.0% 22 972 Texas Sep- 96 51.2% 1.1% 0.8% 3.2% 2.5% 41.1% 44 973 New Jersey Jun- 97 50.5% 0.7% 2.5% 3.8% 0.7% 41.7% 43 978 Massachusetts Sep- 97 41.7% 0.7% 1.9% 1.5% 0.5% 53.8% 38 979 Texas Feb- 00 28.5% 4.1% 1.3% 2.1% 2.4% 61.5% 38 980 North Carolina Apr- 01 46.4% 6.7% 0.2% 6.0% 4.6% 36.0% 13 985 Louisiana Feb- 01 34.1% 1.4% 1.4% 2.3% 1.1% 59.7% 33 989 Michigan Apr- 01 31.0% 0.7% 1.2% 1.2% 1.0% 64.9% 43 Source: Numbering Resource Utilization/ Forecast Reports data filed with NeuStar, Inc. as of October 4, 2005. 20 20 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 2,241 192 2,066 28 1,262 45 413 8 202 2,858 77 853 21 803 61 208 7 203 2,369 112 2,679 23 1,205 60 335 7 205 1,638 90 1,781 24 1,064 73 554 13 206 2,063 110 1,242 24 1,064 42 257 7 207 1,483 52 1,831 34 720 51 621 8 208 1,643 73 2,159 33 801 42 934 18 209 1,261 59 1,822 25 902 47 626 12 210 1,767 109 1,312 24 1,162 53 116 7 212 5,655 287 1,190 23 56 9 2 4 213 1,163 74 1,055 30 503 31 473 7 214 2,065 162 1,744 33 1,624 74 254 8 215 3,318 131 1,929 25 1,132 64 298 7 216 1,319 78 1,312 18 718 46 611 9 217 1,099 50 2,605 28 630 24 719 13 218 659 27 2,837 54 377 22 554 9 219 737 40 967 19 465 30 378 11 224 131 0 264 15 153 13 270 8 225 853 53 860 18 512 51 360 11 228 400 30 847 14 253 24 378 11 229 644 46 1,514 20 386 40 723 12 231 849 28 2,041 24 349 20 746 8 234 Not shown to protect carrier confidentiality 3 Not shown to protect carrier confidentiality 3 239 856 43 728 14 596 29 456 9 240 756 20 1,569 25 792 42 353 12 248 1,960 116 2,503 25 1,127 31 372 7 251 728 37 972 24 468 35 468 12 252 1,056 38 2,302 15 588 36 792 13 253 1,208 75 1,353 24 634 34 122 7 254 650 63 1,708 25 446 24 548 11 256 1,331 72 2,036 23 983 61 1,241 15 260 631 39 983 17 381 13 664 8 262 1,121 50 2,191 23 513 20 391 8 267 815 31 2,723 27 794 65 246 7 269 843 35 1,249 23 441 25 540 12 270 1,273 49 3,270 32 660 50 1,026 13 276 376 17 902 19 171 10 331 10 281 2,262 200 2,654 28 1,051 38 121 7 301 3,307 119 1,835 21 1,101 38 209 10 302 1,650 47 1,407 20 611 31 164 7 303 3,805 188 1,756 22 1,182 29 94 8 304 1,364 50 2,724 21 829 53 768 16 305 2,830 313 998 24 1,069 59 361 9 307 562 29 2,007 29 296 13 462 9 308 309 23 1,853 38 213 10 589 8 309 939 43 2,180 37 562 24 423 11 310 2,966 165 2,017 31 1,667 84 379 7 312 2,389 120 1,401 27 518 50 904 8 313 1,510 115 1,398 21 1,056 90 803 7 314 1,939 128 1,664 19 1,232 54 417 8 315 1,296 70 2,466 31 728 29 438 9 316 579 33 1,046 14 376 17 141 10 317 1,884 123 2,131 31 1,101 49 318 8 318 1,074 68 2,687 24 673 61 1,015 9 319 812 37 1,620 48 441 19 423 7 21 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 320 534 46 1,942 43 274 20 384 11 321 847 51 916 26 706 40 195 8 323 1,674 111 2,665 30 1,189 90 276 7 325 426 27 1,045 20 218 11 221 12 330 1,752 106 2,486 25 1,139 43 943 11 334 979 60 1,595 29 651 61 1,140 11 336 1,867 121 2,124 36 1,051 62 689 12 337 928 51 1,642 24 572 44 983 10 339 18 0 169 10 Not shown to protect carrier confidentiality 3 340 Not shown to protect carrier confidentiality 1 Not shown to protect carrier confidentiality 3 347 202 11 635 23 1,090 105 534 7 351 0 0 0 0 Not shown to protect carrier confidentiality 1 352 1,127 64 1,377 18 781 48 641 9 360 2,126 102 2,926 41 953 41 713 8 361 611 42 1,068 21 458 26 621 10 386 694 54 817 24 476 30 315 10 401 1,828 45 1,584 14 706 29 261 7 402 1,706 60 3,378 39 887 42 838 10 404 2,067 291 711 28 1,741 111 427 9 405 1,290 76 2,064 25 885 42 361 12 406 858 40 3,302 35 501 30 1,001 7 407 1,893 163 1,686 26 1,096 66 231 8 408 2,454 142 1,810 28 1,159 54 503 8 409 605 52 1,119 20 370 24 360 12 410 3,674 149 1,500 25 1,070 48 159 8 412 1,666 94 2,312 21 960 34 409 7 413 1,663 44 1,704 19 461 22 164 10 414 1,252 64 939 14 722 46 346 8 415 2,139 131 2,390 31 961 43 407 8 417 841 50 2,334 32 543 36 798 12 419 1,438 116 2,900 40 937 33 1,069 12 423 1,242 65 1,851 27 847 55 784 16 425 1,613 115 1,759 25 650 26 194 7 430 Not shown to protect carrier confidentiality 2 Not shown to protect carrier confidentiality 1 432 412 24 967 18 246 11 190 7 434 682 25 939 15 366 21 427 9 435 557 44 1,615 30 299 13 779 13 440 1,342 82 2,134 23 663 23 495 10 443 1,102 23 2,679 25 1,155 69 539 8 469 422 27 1,174 26 462 40 72 7 478 613 61 838 24 378 31 481 10 479 610 35 1,177 24 461 30 524 6 480 1,934 121 888 18 758 42 215 8 484 1,055 19 3,620 34 546 27 291 9 501 1,103 50 1,535 21 625 41 754 10 502 1,298 65 1,241 22 908 51 511 10 503 2,671 169 2,340 31 1,235 44 256 6 504 1,287 87 990 20 781 65 339 8 505 1,933 92 2,244 28 1,124 60 965 14 507 665 43 2,969 55 421 20 641 10 508 2,966 136 2,392 23 1,134 32 276 7 509 1,344 82 2,200 29 748 36 809 13 510 1,814 109 2,174 26 1,117 58 639 8 512 2,030 128 1,569 27 1,048 44 363 11 513 1,967 88 1,460 22 1,093 67 487 8 22 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 515 1,025 45 1,368 35 504 12 282 9 516 1,614 83 1,297 23 1,246 40 529 7 517 1,111 39 1,355 32 569 25 564 12 518 1,432 75 2,137 30 735 30 273 9 520 1,386 60 1,066 24 725 44 510 10 530 1,243 55 2,616 32 695 25 565 13 540 1,460 59 1,181 28 908 50 948 13 541 1,433 84 2,288 36 847 36 1,019 15 551 0 0 0 0 90 7 81 4 559 1,160 62 2,144 21 845 41 378 8 561 1,690 154 919 24 936 55 422 8 562 1,343 89 1,884 27 943 56 376 7 563 425 35 1,261 41 280 11 263 7 567 35 0 615 12 23 1 121 6 570 1,398 127 2,127 33 766 27 656 12 571 159 8 281 18 416 20 109 6 573 832 72 2,637 26 600 26 774 14 574 646 38 878 21 388 16 516 9 580 549 29 3,898 27 375 17 1,141 14 585 1,495 16 1,049 17 588 21 247 8 586 779 38 991 23 609 19 615 7 601 1,307 80 3,285 25 847 84 1,304 15 602 2,250 145 957 19 1,283 75 633 8 603 2,126 60 2,620 27 829 29 782 11 605 704 39 3,180 60 448 14 893 6 606 816 36 2,605 23 333 27 685 14 607 726 21 1,376 20 397 11 248 9 608 1,112 59 1,862 50 683 24 700 12 609 1,722 96 1,832 23 1,295 51 420 7 610 3,064 129 2,139 31 1,114 38 213 8 612 1,196 61 800 24 1,114 32 410 8 614 1,949 105 2,078 25 1,003 37 262 7 615 1,849 95 1,999 25 1,040 57 205 10 616 1,010 53 1,199 20 614 26 345 11 617 3,198 187 2,039 26 1,211 38 367 7 618 1,002 44 2,665 29 683 42 644 14 619 1,590 82 1,383 23 1,315 60 438 7 620 496 38 3,030 37 214 10 783 14 623 731 52 423 16 362 24 128 8 626 1,385 64 1,830 31 1,021 57 264 7 630 2,226 108 2,178 22 1,081 97 1,187 8 631 1,646 126 2,334 26 858 34 268 7 636 798 43 1,632 18 235 9 272 8 641 369 28 2,242 49 247 9 732 11 646 1,027 49 609 27 1,444 133 632 7 650 1,720 85 2,514 24 649 26 339 8 651 1,548 78 1,040 29 561 20 166 8 660 296 35 2,664 30 211 16 601 15 661 1,011 60 1,451 25 752 35 285 8 662 887 50 3,134 36 523 54 1,463 15 670 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 2 678 1,446 136 3,214 37 1,325 77 318 14 682 69 3 301 12 105 14 92 5 701 618 28 3,224 51 392 12 1,030 9 23 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 702 1,951 153 1,024 23 1,239 46 163 7 703 3,752 152 1,767 27 1,283 35 130 7 704 2,388 201 2,186 33 1,250 115 631 9 706 1,697 121 2,054 38 1,086 87 1,127 21 707 1,517 68 2,596 27 831 33 470 12 708 1,471 80 2,028 23 918 132 717 8 712 482 21 2,621 79 258 7 662 14 713 2,962 214 1,804 26 1,126 59 50 7 714 2,201 117 2,006 30 1,577 74 349 7 715 988 34 2,623 62 536 35 1,618 16 716 1,316 59 1,475 20 748 45 306 9 717 1,936 98 1,966 24 1,120 44 299 7 718 4,178 371 1,824 25 733 75 93 7 719 1,268 80 1,181 23 590 29 495 10 720 958 59 978 15 730 52 417 7 724 1,272 115 3,607 31 739 25 521 11 727 1,449 97 1,032 25 792 37 308 8 731 448 24 1,265 19 292 21 629 11 732 2,545 195 2,519 25 1,059 41 340 8 734 1,470 61 2,340 25 984 27 357 8 740 1,110 61 2,990 29 641 23 972 14 754 Not shown to protect carrier confidentiality 1 Not shown to protect carrier confidentiality 3 757 2,120 106 1,070 14 1,125 78 618 8 760 1,760 97 2,113 35 1,206 59 467 10 763 1,006 51 1,030 30 280 12 76 8 765 992 57 2,413 40 571 26 1,086 12 769 Not shown to protect carrier confidentiality 1 0 0 0 0 770 3,313 363 1,756 27 1,038 47 96 10 772 566 41 462 15 326 17 297 9 773 1,803 138 1,780 23 1,431 145 748 9 774 80 2 755 19 291 11 569 7 775 1,742 37 1,297 20 432 20 357 12 781 2,362 100 3,069 24 568 17 383 7 785 678 48 3,264 36 344 15 734 14 786 416 23 671 21 859 93 334 8 787 Not shown to protect carrier confidentiality 2 1,599 166 747 6 801 2,744 340 2,045 17 1,156 53 427 7 802 1,734 24 2,070 16 296 24 227 6 803 1,636 119 1,320 34 914 74 811 14 804 1,756 84 1,155 17 845 51 493 9 805 1,636 84 1,962 29 1,015 38 629 8 806 754 48 2,426 30 480 30 686 12 808 1,715 60 1,275 7 946 42 308 5 810 700 48 1,440 21 606 20 424 10 812 1,280 62 2,441 33 747 33 1,084 12 813 1,860 121 1,161 27 988 51 378 8 814 1,306 45 2,295 24 645 18 580 12 815 1,564 62 2,950 42 930 36 561 14 816 1,448 104 2,365 24 915 35 333 12 817 2,020 156 2,742 35 1,178 42 143 7 818 2,181 111 1,932 30 1,384 62 332 7 828 1,140 88 1,641 30 654 38 702 10 830 481 42 1,416 24 256 14 471 13 831 697 37 1,183 20 433 18 236 8 832 548 29 1,348 26 1,226 108 387 7 24 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 843 1,625 124 1,823 32 944 62 870 10 845 1,327 61 1,678 30 644 23 401 12 847 3,126 144 2,734 23 1,225 91 498 8 848 Not shown to protect carrier confidentiality 3 104 9 102 5 850 1,362 97 1,910 26 958 69 679 15 856 1,390 89 2,230 24 504 25 162 7 857 31 1 181 13 96 9 191 7 858 1,246 63 1,278 21 459 16 165 7 859 1,075 42 1,735 25 685 39 563 14 860 2,029 71 3,159 18 1,033 41 381 7 862 13 0 13 8 164 20 248 7 863 784 44 1,129 24 473 25 661 9 864 1,271 96 1,391 27 821 48 540 7 865 891 47 921 20 576 27 180 9 870 683 61 2,881 27 567 34 1,398 16 901 1,315 82 814 16 871 73 276 9 903 1,179 89 2,336 35 784 42 923 15 904 1,579 139 1,109 22 1,024 69 388 9 906 418 10 1,272 18 143 13 420 5 907 805 34 3,023 23 330 14 372 9 908 1,339 117 2,526 26 994 33 654 8 909 1,547 91 1,151 25 1,137 61 316 7 910 1,208 86 2,094 26 829 58 908 10 912 831 89 1,088 29 561 48 755 15 913 966 60 1,327 26 529 16 171 10 914 1,398 75 1,566 26 854 26 577 8 915 662 44 533 14 410 24 135 8 916 2,048 103 1,735 25 1,188 63 379 9 917 582 17 284 14 2,879 157 367 7 918 1,249 79 2,863 40 818 41 833 15 919 2,187 136 2,215 29 1,158 62 552 11 920 1,155 47 2,047 38 732 25 952 16 925 1,453 67 2,207 22 687 25 400 8 928 860 28 1,409 25 479 19 708 15 931 616 34 1,772 25 479 27 620 13 936 536 26 965 17 294 16 290 10 937 1,327 75 2,294 26 847 38 778 10 939 0 0 0 0 Not shown to protect carrier confidentiality 3 940 504 38 1,364 33 295 13 319 12 941 894 53 787 23 544 25 409 10 947 0 0 0 0 Not shown to protect carrier confidentiality 1 949 1,527 85 1,390 28 713 24 211 7 951 1,098 55 757 23 1,004 47 272 7 952 1,278 63 1,136 27 227 8 52 7 954 2,154 221 1,518 26 1,195 80 391 8 956 871 65 849 17 677 50 543 8 970 1,214 70 1,920 33 623 26 841 12 971 99 3 310 15 152 10 136 7 972 3,158 206 2,475 32 528 25 92 7 973 2,918 254 2,527 31 1,061 49 234 8 978 2,146 76 3,068 27 711 26 404 7 979 489 31 926 21 296 16 449 10 980 42 4 30 6 76 11 61 7 985 684 40 1,169 18 413 32 651 12 989 1,153 40 2,207 25 509 24 1,083 14 Source: Numbering Resource Utilization/ Forecast Reports data filed with NeuStar, Inc. as of October 4, 2005. 25 25 Table 8 Pooled Thousands- blocks as of June 30, 2005 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 308 9,846 3.13 685 6,319 10.84 Alaska 0 0 NM 8 10 80.00 Arizona 610 11,614 5.25 956 5,737 16.66 Arkansas 359 5,203 6.90 180 3,636 4.95 California 6,313 101,829 6.20 8,244 37,195 22.16 Colorado 569 12,319 4.62 464 4,989 9.30 Connecticut 728 10,880 6.69 658 3,233 20.35 Delaware 257 2,920 8.80 178 830 21.45 District of Columbia 146 3,962 3.69 286 1,100 26.00 Florida 2,853 41,725 6.84 3,606 20,782 17.35 Georgia 855 22,184 3.85 1,210 10,286 11.76 Guam 0 0 NM 0 0 NM Hawaii 54 3,042 1.78 171 1,313 13.02 Idaho 111 2,901 3.83 156 1,515 10.30 Illinois 4,376 35,105 12.47 2,512 15,798 15.90 Indiana 885 14,332 6.17 802 7,092 11.31 Iowa 187 4,297 4.35 353 3,336 10.58 Kansas 343 7,831 4.38 349 2,897 12.05 Kentucky 336 9,735 3.45 549 4,846 11.33 Louisiana 535 11,461 4.67 823 5,492 14.99 Maine 254 2,167 11.72 211 1,269 16.63 Maryland 1,302 16,734 7.78 1,225 5,670 21.60 Massachusetts 2,240 26,355 8.50 1,490 7,314 20.37 Michigan 1,993 26,557 7.50 1,692 13,006 13.01 Minnesota 675 13,155 5.13 606 5,412 11.20 Mississippi 298 6,309 4.72 202 3,529 5.72 Missouri 928 15,099 6.15 835 6,877 12.14 Montana 105 1,881 5.58 16 1,012 1.58 Nebraska 86 2,937 2.93 128 1,857 6.89 Nevada 172 6,232 2.76 541 2,183 24.78 New Hampshire 617 4,365 14.14 220 1,633 13.47 New Jersey 2,404 27,500 8.74 1,838 9,634 19.08 New Mexico 88 2,845 3.09 265 1,811 14.63 New York 4,415 44,489 9.92 5,501 19,177 28.69 North Carolina 1,151 21,984 5.24 1,207 10,322 11.69 North Dakota 8 760 1.05 13 431 3.02 Northern Marianas 0 0 NM 0 0 NM Ohio 1,700 28,454 5.97 1,014 13,108 7.74 Oklahoma 423 9,765 4.33 476 3,826 12.44 Oregon 360 7,663 4.70 602 3,551 16.95 Pennsylvania 3,227 35,534 9.08 2,353 11,597 20.29 Puerto Rico 38 1,310 2.90 381 1,677 22.72 Rhode Island 196 3,231 6.07 173 1,012 17.09 South Carolina 556 8,171 6.80 476 4,706 10.11 South Dakota 7 813 0.86 22 576 3.82 Tennessee 778 13,415 5.80 655 6,724 9.74 Texas 2,783 62,199 4.47 3,570 21,254 16.80 Utah 842 6,396 13.16 232 2,520 9.21 Vermont 143 2,501 5.72 132 528 25.00 Virgin Islands 0 0 NM 0 0 NM Virginia 1,180 16,606 7.11 1,571 8,355 18.80 Washington 843 18,553 4.54 877 6,498 13.50 West Virginia 277 3,050 9.08 154 1,526 10.09 Wisconsin 570 10,532 5.41 346 5,810 5.96 Wyoming 46 1,024 4.49 10 685 1.46 Totals 50,530 759,772 6.7% 51,224 321,496 15.9% Source: Pooling data provided by NeuStar. 1 Includes only those thousands- blocks in rate centers with pooling. NM - Not meaningful. 26 26 Table 9 Increased Utilization and Telephone Numbers Saved due to Thousands- Block Pooling as of June 30, 2005 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 89 2,312,176 3,238,000 71.4% 7,050,000 32.8% 38.6% 3,812,000 Cellular/ PCS 555 25,751,233 40,958,000 62.9% 83,600,000 30.8% 32.1% 42,642,000 CLEC 882 11,612,210 32,091,000 36.2% 185,500,000 6.3% 29.9% 153,409,000 Total 1,526 39,675,619 76,287,000 52.0% 276,150,000 14.4% 37.6% 199,863,000 1 Includes only those telephone numbers in pooled blocks on which carriers reported utilization data. Source: Numbering Resource Utilization/ Forecast Reports data filed with NeuStar, Inc. as of October 4, 2005. NeuStar also provided data on Thousands- block pooling. Table 10 Number Utilization for Specialized Nongeographic Area Codes as of June 30, 2005 Assigned Intermediate Reserved Aging Admin Available 1 Total Unique Specialized Area Codes (Thousands of telephone numbers) NXXs 1,490 790 4 1,069 27 2,741 6,120 505 24.3% 12.9% 0.1% 17.5% 0.4% 44.8% 100.0% 86 2 6 3 0 592 690 69 12.5% 0.3% 0.9% 0.5% 0.0% 85.8% 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 October 4, 2005. 500 900 27 27 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 Note: number of thousands- blocks has been rounded to the nearest ten. 28 28 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 Note: number of thousands- blocks has been rounded to the nearest ten. 29 29 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 Note: number of thousands- blocks has been rounded to the nearest ten. 30 30 Figure 4 Pa ging Carriers: Avera ge 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 Note: number of thousands- blocks has been rounded to the nearest ten. 31 31 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 2005 Q2 778 330 448 2005 Q3 716 246 470 2005 Q4 705 203 502 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 Q3 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 2005 Q2 2005 Q3 2005 Q4 Assignments Returns Net Assignments 33 33 Table 14 Telephone Number Porting Activity Since Wireless Pooling Started 1 Landline to Landline to Mobile Cellular/ PCS Month Landline Mobile Mobile 2 to Landline Total (thousands) (thousands) 2003 November 3 561 2 61 1 625 December 638 12 756 1 1,407 2004 January 809 24 713 1 1,547 February 711 65 591 2 1,369 March 776 79 632 1 1,488 April 718 49 613 1 1,381 May 756 73 689 1 1,519 June 789 165 873 2 1,829 July 656 143 806 3 1,608 August 4 786 95 824 * 1,705 September 701 43 787 1 1,532 October 899 97 738 1 1,735 November 736 131 736 2 1,605 December 692 86 910 1 1,689 2005 January 698 53 808 2 1,561 February 936 81 735 1 1,753 March 1,257 74 815 2 2,148 April 959 55 797 1 1,812 May 892 56 862 1 1,811 June 1,064 38 1,153 2 2,257 July 1,006 62 982 2 2,052 August 1,203 42 933 2 2,179 September 1,114 31 835 2 1,982 October 991 37 866 2 1,896 November 1,023 29 826 2 1,880 December 1,079 22 1,031 2 2,135 Cumulative Total 22,450 1,644 20,372 39 44,505 * Indicates a number between 1 and 499. Source: Raw data from Local Number Portability Administrator (NeuStar, Inc.). Rollups performed by the Industry Analysis and Technology Division staff, Wireline Competition Bureau. 1 Monthly figures include numbers that were ported back to the original carrier, or where the subscriber with the ported number terminated service. 3 Wireless porting started November 24, 2003. These figures include all ports during the month of November, which for ports from or to a wireless carrier, includes a small number of test ports that happened prior to November 24. 4 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. 2 Excludes significant porting activity between Cingular and AT& T Wireless following the closing of their merger in October 2004. 34 34 Table 15 Telephone Numbers Remaining in the Porting Database at the End of Each Quarter 1 Landline to Landline to Mobile to Mobile to Total Year Quarter Landline Mobile Mobile Landline (In Thousands) (In Thousands) 1999 Second 1,840 * * * 1,840 Third 2,658 * * * 2,658 Fourth 3,854 * * * 3,854 2000 First 5,029 * * * 5,029 Second 5,781 * * * 5,781 Third 7,595 * * * 7,595 Fourth 9,146 * * * 9,146 2001 First 10,567 * * * 10,567 Second 12,310 * * * 12,310 Third 14,610 * * * 14,610 Fourth 15,519 * * * 15,519 2002 First 16,810 * * * 16,810 Second 18,210 * * * 18,210 Third 19,862 * * * 19,862 Fourth 21,449 * * * 21,449 2003 First 22,781 * * * 22,781 Second 23,723 * * * 23,723 Third 24,796 * * * 24,796 Fourth 25,869 16 795 2 26,682 2004 First 28,462 173 2,686 3 31,324 Second 28,371 406 4,635 4 33,417 Third 29,396 667 6,874 9 36,945 Fourth 30,607 832 9,041 11 41,491 2005 First 32,399 1,001 10,860 16 44,276 Second 34,169 1,092 12,956 19 48,236 Third 36,013 1,201 14,804 23 52,041 Fourth 37,650 1,245 16,475 29 55,399 2 Excludes significant porting activity between Cingular and AT& T Wireless following the closing of their merger. Source: Raw data from Local Number Portability Administrator (NeuStar, Inc.). Rollups performed by the Industry Analysis and Technology Division staff, Wireline Competition Bureau. * Wireless portability started November 24, 2003. A small number of test ports were conducted before then. 1 Numbers ported because customer changed carriers. The database contains the date when the telephone number record was last updated. For most telephone numbers, this was the most recent port. For those telephone numbers affected by area code changes, however, the date refers to when the record was updated to reflect the new area code. See the text for a fuller discussion. 35 35 Table 16 Numbers in the Porting Database by Quarter in Which They Were Most Recently Ported 1 December 2005 2 Ported During Landline to Landline to Mobile to Mobile to Year Quarter Landline Mobile Mobile Landline (In Thousands) (In Thousands) 1998 First 0 3 *** Second 3 * * * Third 41 * * * Fourth 140 * * * 1999 First 237 * * * Second 362 * * * Third 422 * * * Fourth 529 * * * 2000 First 571 * * * Second 610 * * * Third 755 * * * Fourth 873 * * * 2001 First 900 * * * Second 1,072 * * * Third 1,119 * * * Fourth 1,289 * * * 2002 First 1,150 * * * Second 1,297 * * * Third 1,713 * * * Fourth 1,711 * * * 2003 First 1,282 * * * Second 1,378 * * * Third 1,379 * * * Fourth 1,324 10 568 1 2004 First 1,813 128 1,372 1 Second 1,796 134 1,615 2 Third 1,864 210 1,920 6 Fourth 1,798 237 2,029 3 2005 First 2,267 176 1,941 2 Second 2,464 121 2,320 2 Third 2,821 134 2,340 3 Fourth 2,686 84 2,370 3 1 Numbers ported because customer changed carriers. 3 Number is between 0 and 499. Source: Raw data from Local Number Portability Administrator (NeuStar, Inc.). Rollups performed by the Industry Analysis and Technology Division staff, Wireline Competition Bureau. 2 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 database will not reflect the original port from Carrier A to Carrier B. Also, numbers that revert back to the original carrier (either because the customer ports the number back to the original carrier or because the customer discontinues service with that number) are dropped from the database. Lastly, area code splits can make a number appear to be ported later than it actually was. * Wireless portability started November 24, 2003. A small number of test ports were conducted before then. 36 36 Customer Response Publication: Numbering Resource Utilization in the United States as of June 30, 2005. 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 37