SEPARATE STATEMENT OF
COMMISSIONER JONATHAN S. ADELSTEIN
Approving in Part, Concurring in Part
Re:      IP-Enabled Services; Telephone Number Portability; CTIA Petitions for Declaratory 
Ruling on Wireline-Wireless Porting Issues; Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis; 
Numbering Resources Optimization; Telephone Number Requirements for IP-Enabled 
Service Providers; Local Number Portability Porting Interval and Validation 
Requirements; WC Docket No. 04-36, CC Docket Nos. 95-116 and 99-200, WC Docket 
Nos. 07-243 and 07-244; Report and Order, Declaratory Ruling, Order on Remand, and 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FCC 07-188), Oct. 31, 2007.
Through this Order we expand the availability of local number portability, which has 
provided important benefits to consumers through the ability to take their number with them 
when they change providers.  Congress viewed the ability of consumers to keep their phone 
numbers to be an important component of the effort to develop local phone competition and 
consumer choice, and our experiences of the past four years have borne out this prediction.
I’m pleased that this Order extends number portability to interconnected voice over the 
Internet (VoIP) providers.  To their credit, many interconnected VoIP providers have 
acknowledged the need to offer number portability to their customers.  I fully agree with the 
Order’s conclusion that consumers reasonably expect that they will have the ability to take their 
number with them when they switch to another provider, whether they subscribe to an 
interconnected VoIP providers or another provider of telecommunications services.  So, I support 
the decision to apply these requirements evenly.
I also appreciate the Order’s efforts to address the process for completing requested ports.  
Given the Order’s findings that many ports are delayed due to difficulties with “burdensome 
porting-related procedures,” the Commission should take steps to improve this process, not only 
for providers but also for consumers.  In this respect, I am particularly hopefully that we can 
work to reduce the porting interval for simple porting requests, so that consumers are left on hold  
no longer than necessary.
This Order also responds to a 2005 remand from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 
District of Columbia Circuit by re-imposing number portability requirements on small carriers.  
The Commission’s prior decision to extend these requirements to small carriers was stayed 
because the Commission failed to comply with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA).  While this 
Order checks a box by completing the final analysis required by the RFA, we miss an 
opportunity here to address the some of the critical and expensive underlying issues – such as the 
transport costs associated with calls to ported numbers – that are exacerbated by our porting 
requirements.  
Four years ago, when these portability requirements were first imposed, I called on the 
Commission to resolve this critical intercarrier compensation issue as quickly and 
comprehensively as possible, so I’m disappointed that we’ve made no more progress since then, 
and fail to do so here.  Although this Commission could do more to recognize and address the 
unique needs of small providers, I am pleased that small providers will have the ability to raise 
these issues before state commissions through the process set out by Congress in Section 
251(f)(2) and I will concur to this portion of the Order.