Report and 
Recommendation on 
Request of Telcordia 
Technologies, Inc. to 
Resolve Dispute 
Concerning NANC 
Change Orders 
429, 430, and 435
Prepared by
North American Numbering Council
[DATE]
Report and Recommendation on Telcordia Dispute
[DATE]
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .....................................................................................1
SECTION 1.0 BACKGROUND ........................................................................2
SECTION 2.0 ISSUES.....................................................................................5
SECTION 3.0 NANC DISPUTE PROCESS.....................................................5
3.1 The Formal Dispute Process ...............................................................5
3.2 Initial Scheduling and Comment Round...............................................5
3.2.1 Initial Scheduling..................................................................................5
3.2.2 Comments Received – August 2009....................................................6
3.3 FCC Docket 09-109 .............................................................................8
3.4 Interim Report and Second Comment Round......................................9
SECTION 4.0 ANALYSIS...............................................................................11
4.1 The Adoption of the Change Orders Was Not Substantively 
Defective............................................................................................11
4.1.1 Telcordia’s Argument.........................................................................11
4.1.2 IP Voice, SMS, and MMS Constitute “Telephone Calls” ....................11
4.1.3 The URIs Are “Necessary to Route Telephone Calls”........................13
4.2 Telcordia’s Procedural Arguments Are Moot .....................................17
SECTION 5.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION............................18
Report and Recommendation on Telcordia Dispute
[DATE]
Page 1
Executive Summary
The North American Numbering Council ("NANC") herein addresses a request for 
resolution of a dispute concerning the decision by the North American Portability 
Management LLC ("NAPM") to adopt and execute Amendment 72 to the extent that it 
includes Change Orders NANC 429, 430, and 435.  Change Orders 429, 430, and 435 
provide for the inclusion in the Number Portability Administration Center ("NPAC") 
database and provision through that database of Uniform Resource Identifier ("URI") 
fields for Voice, Multimedia Messaging Service ("MMS"), and Short Messaging Service 
("SMS").
The request was submitted by Telcordia Technologies, Inc. ("Telcordia") on May 26, 
2009, pursuant to Section 52.26(b)(3) of the Federal Communications Commission 
("FCC" or "Commission") rules.1 Telcordia challenges the adoption of these change 
orders on both substantive and procedural grounds.  Substantively, Telcordia argues 
that the change orders are defective because it believes that the URI fields do not meet 
with the Section 52.25(f) requirement that information in the number portability 
databases "shall be limited to the information necessary to route telephone calls to the 
appropriate telecommunications carriers."2 Procedurally, Telcordia argues that the 
change orders are defective because neither the NANC nor the Commission made an 
express finding that the URIs constitute "necessary" information.3
The NANC has thoroughly reviewed Telcordia's arguments and has considered 
comment from numerous industry members and users of the NPAC database.  Based 
upon this extensive record, the NANC has concluded that Telcordia's request should be 
dismissed and the URIs should be fully operational in the NPAC database.  For the 
reasons discussed below, the change orders at issue are "necessary to route telephone 
calls," within the meaning and intention of the Commission.  Statutory law and 
interpretations by the FCC and by courts make clear that the meanings ascribed to 
these terms by Telcordia are unduly narrow.  Also, Telcordia’s argument is at odds with 
the FCC’s stated belief that “Congress’s intent is that number portability be a ‘dynamic 
concept’” that accommodates changes in communications technology and 
consumption.4 Furthermore, because of the NANC has now determined that the URI 
  
1 47 C.F.R. § 52.26(b)(3)
2 47 C.F.R. § 52.25(f).
3 Id.
4 See Telephone Number Requirements for IP-Enabled Services Providers, WC Docket No. 07-
243, Report and Order, Declaratory Ruling, Order on Remand, and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 22 
FCC Rcd 19,531, 19,544 ¶ 23 (2007) ("Interconnected VoIP LNP Order").
Report and Recommendation on Telcordia Dispute
[DATE]
Page 2
fields are “necessary” within the meaning of Section 52.25(f), the procedural arguments 
of Telcordia are moot.  
NANC recommends that the Commission approve of this dispute resolution, dismiss 
Telcordia's pending Petition and Request for Standstill Order, as they relate to matters 
discussed herein, and allow the change orders at issue to remain in effect.
Section 1.0 Background
The present dispute concerns the inclusion into the NPAC by the NAPM LLC of three 
URI fields that were approved by the NANC's Local Number Portability Administration 
Working Group ("LNPA WG") in 2008.  The three URIs are intended to facilitate efficient 
transmission of voice, MMS, and SMS communications between Internet Protocol ("IP") 
based services by assisting in associating telephone numbers with the IP addresses of 
the destination device.  The URIs will reduce the complexity of routing some IP-based 
communications and will also aid in billing.  The change orders at issue are Change 
Orders NANC 429 (Voice), NANC 430 (MMS), and NANC 435 (SMS).
Change Orders 429 and 430 were originally included in Change Order 400, which was 
referred to the FCC by the NANC without recommendation in June of 2005.5 Although 
Change Order 400 was recommended for inclusion in the NPAC by the Local Number 
Portability Administration Working Group ("LNPA WG"),6 neither the NANC nor the 
Future of Numbering Working Group ("FoN WG") reached consensus in favor of 
adopting the change order.  The debate at the time concerned whether the URIs were 
properly within the scope of the NPAC.  
In the beginning of 2005, the FCC directed the NAPM LLC to hold Change Order 400 in 
abeyance, pending its consideration of the implications of the proposed changes.7  
However, in late 2007, the Commission adopted an order taking a number of steps 
intended to ensure that consumers continue to benefit from local number portability.8  
Among other things, this Order clarified that the LNP rules should apply to 
interconnected Voice over Internet Protocol ("VoIP") service providers.  In light of this 
  
5 See NANC Minutes (June 28, 2005) at 2-3, available at
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-260515A1.pdf. 
6 LNPA WG, April 2005 Meeting, Final Minutes at 14.
7 See Letter from Thomas J. Navin, Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau to Robert C. Atkinson, 
Chair, North American Numbering Council (Aug. 11, 2005) available at http://www.nanc-
chair.org/docs/nowg/Change_Order_399_Letter_from_WCB_Chief_8-11-05.pdf. 
8 See Interconnected VoIP LNP Order.
Report and Recommendation on Telcordia Dispute
[DATE]
Page 3
development, the Wireline Competition Bureau Chief informed the NANC that it could 
reconsider Change order 400 rather than continue to hold it in abeyance.9
In May 2008, the LNPA WG separated Change Order 400 into four separate change 
orders, including Change Order 429 for a Voice URI and Change Order 430, which 
addresses an MMS URI.10 One month later, the LNPA WG also added Change Order 
435 to create a field for an SMS URI.11 Ultimately, the LNPA WG reached consensus 
that three of the IP data parameters, i.e., Change Orders 429, 430, and 435, should be 
forwarded to the NAPM LLC for consideration and inclusion in the NPAC.  The NAPM 
LLC received the Change Orders, approved them, and asked the NPAC database 
administrator to include them in the NPAC via Amendment 72 to the Master 
Agreements.
In May 2009, Telcordia filed a Request for Dispute Resolution before the NANC, under 
Section 52.26(b)(3) of the FCC rules,12 as well as a Petition and a Request for Standstill 
Order before the FCC. 13 In its Request, Telcordia asserted that the Change Orders 
were improperly adopted by the LNPA WG because there was no express 
determination made by the NANC or the Commission that the fields being added to the 
NPAC database were “necessary to route telephone calls to the appropriate 
telecommunications carriers,” as required by Section 52.25(f) of the FCC rules.14
Additionally, Telcordia argues that because some of the URIs facilitate IP-based routing 
of “information services” and because voice, SMS, and MMS communications were 
being routed successfully without these URIs, these fields could not be considered 
“necessary” to the routing of “telephone calls.”
Pursuant to Section 52.11 and 52.26 of the FCC rules, the NANC initiated this formal 
dispute resolution process in July 2009.  As discussed in more detail in Section 3.0 
below, for more than a year since, a panel of NANC members has served as a Dispute 
  
9 Letter from Dana R. Shaffer, Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau, to Thomas M. Koutsky, Chair, 
North American Numbering Council at 1 (Feb. 4, 2008).
10 LNPA WG, May 2008 Meeting, Final Minutes at 19.
11 LNPA WG, June 2008 Meeting, Final Minutes at 4.
12 See 47 C.F.R. § 52.26(b)(3).
13 See Letter from John Nakahata, Counsel to Telcordia Technologies, Inc., to Thomas Koutsky, 
Chairman, North American Numbering Council (filed May 26, 2009) (“Telcordia Request”); Petition of 
Telcordia Technologies, Inc. to Reform or Strike Amendment 70, to Institute a Competitive Bidding for 
Number Portability Administration, and to End the NAPM LLC’s Interim Role in Number Portability 
Administration Contract Management, WC Docket Nos. 07-149, 09-109 (filed May 20, 2009); Letter from 
John T. Nakahata, Counsel to Telcordia Technologies, Inc., to Julie Veach, Acting Chief, Wireline 
Competition Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, WCB Docket No. 07-149 (filed May 22, 
2009).
14 See 47 C.F.R. § 52.25(f).
Report and Recommendation on Telcordia Dispute
[DATE]
Page 4
Resolution Team to provide the NANC with an impartial and focused review of the 
dispute by participants that were not directly involved in the process of considering 
these three Change Orders.  Initially the Team consisted of NANC Chair Thomas M. 
Koutsky, Chairman Betty Ann Kane of the Public Service Commission of the District of 
Columbia, and Don Gray of the Nebraska Public Service Commission.  Upon the 
departure of Chairman Koutsky in August of 2009, members Kane and Gray carried on 
the task of investigating the dispute and composing a report and recommendation on 
the matter.
Report and Recommendation on Telcordia Dispute
[DATE]
Page 5
Section 2.0 Issues 
Telcordia’s Request for Dispute Resolution raises three primary issues.  
· First, how should the NANC interpret and apply the phrase “necessary to route 
telephone calls to the appropriate telecommunications carrier,” as it is used in 
Section 52.25(f) of the FCC’s rules?
· Second, are the URI fields added by Change Orders 429, 430, and 435 
consistent with this interpretation?
· Third, is the long-established LNPA WG practice of considering and 
recommending Change Orders procedurally sound?
As is made clear in Section 4.0 below, having addressed the first two questions and 
made a determination that the fields at issue are necessary for telephone call routing, 
the third question is essentially mooted. However, to provide guidance and avoid future 
confusion, we still address the fundamental validity of the established change order 
process below.
Section 3.0 NANC Dispute Process
3.1 The Formal Dispute Process
The formal dispute resolution process with regard to number portability administration is 
set forward in Commission Rule 52.26(b)(3).15 That rule provides that “[t]he NANC shall 
provide ongoing oversight of number portability administration, including oversight of the 
regional LLCs, subject to Commission review.” Any party with an issue relating to 
number portability may seek to have that dispute addressed “under the auspices of the 
NANC” and the rule provides that in the event of a dispute, “the NANC shall issue a 
written report summarizing the positions of the parties and the basis for the 
recommendation adopted by the NANC.”  The rule further provides that the “NANC 
Chair shall submit its proposed resolution of the disputed issue to the Chief of the 
Wireline Competition Bureau as a recommendation for Commission review,” that the 
FCC Wireline Competition Bureau “will place the NANC’s proposed resolution on public 
notice,” and that within 90 days of conclusion of the FCC comment cycle, “the Chief of 
the Wireline Competition Bureau may issue an order adopting, modifying, or rejecting 
the recommendation.”  If the Bureau takes no action within that time period, the NANC 
recommendation “will be deemed to have been adopted by the Bureau.”
3.2 Initial Scheduling and Comment Round
3.2.1 Initial Scheduling
  
15 47 C.F.R. § 52.26(b)(3).
Report and Recommendation on Telcordia Dispute
[DATE]
Page 6
After receiving Telcordia’s Request for Dispute Resolution, former Chairman Koutsky 
initiated the formal dispute resolution process on July 7, 2009 through a memorandum 
to the NANC members.  In that memorandum, Chairman Koutsky set forth the initial 
processes that would be followed and established a dispute resolution team composed 
of himself, NANC member Betty Ann Kane and NANC member Don Gray, who would 
review the request and make any appropriate recommendations for addressing the 
dispute.  Shortly thereafter, Commissioner Kane and Mr. Gray outlined a schedule for 
the dispute resolution process including the receipt and review of written comments on 
the legal and factual questions raised by Telcordia and with a target of adopting a report 
and recommendation for submission to the Wireline Competition Bureau in the Fall of 
2009.  All written comments and other record submissions compiled during the course 
of the dispute resolution process were made publicly available online on a special 
section of the NANC Chair website, at http://www.nanc-chair.org/docs/dispute.html. 
3.2.2 Comments Received – August 2009
In August 2009, the dispute resolution team received four written submissions 
responding to the Telcordia request.  Of these four, three opposed the substantive and 
procedural arguments posed by Telcordia.  The fourth was filed by Telcordia itself.  
Besides Telcordia, the on-the-record commenters were COMPTEL, Neustar, and T-
Mobile.  With the exception of Telcordia, the commenters uniformly agreed that 
Telcordia's interpretation of Section 52.25(f) was inappropriately constrained. Moreover, 
these commenters uniformly supported inclusion of Change Orders 429, 430, and 435 
to the NPAC database.
3.2.2.1 COMPTEL Comments
On August 14, 2009, COMPTEL submitted comments in which it asserted that the 
information provided by the three new URI fields is necessary for the routing of certain 
types of telephone calls and should be included in the NPAC database.16 COMPTEL 
argued that Telcordia misinterpreted Section 52.25(f) to mean that the inclusion of the 
information in the NPAC must be necessary to route telephone calls.  In reality, 
COMPTEL asserts, Section 52.25(f) requires that the information added to the database 
be of the sort necessary to telephone call routing, regardless of whether its inclusion in 
the NPAC is the only viable means of providing the data.17 The information provided by 
the URIs at issue, according to COMPTEL, satisfies this definition.  
COMPTEL also takes issue with Telcordia's claim that the URI fields for SMS and MMS 
are impermissible because these services do not constitute "telephone calls."  
  
16 See Letter from Karen Reidy, Vice President, Regulatory Affairs, COMPTEL, to Betty Ann Kane, 
Don Gray, and Thomas M. Koutsky, North American Numbering Council at 1 (filed August 14, 2009) 
available at http://www.nanc-chair.org/docs/mtg_docs/COMPTEL_Comments_on_Telecordia_dispute.pdf
("COMPTEL Comments").
17 Id. at 2.
Report and Recommendation on Telcordia Dispute
[DATE]
Page 7
COMPTEL points out that the FCC has interpreted the term "call" more expansively that 
traditional voice communications, and both the Commission and the courts have 
specifically indicated that SMS communications constitute a call, at least when made to 
a telephone number.18
3.2.2.2 Neustar Comments
On August 14, 2009, Neustar, the NPAC database administrator, filed comments 
opposing the arguments made by Telcordia.  Neustar asserts that the procedural 
arguments made by Telcordia are baseless, and points out that the process followed 
with respect to Change Orders 429, 430, and 435—wherein the LNPA WG reached 
consensus on the change orders, recommended them to the NAPM LLC, and the 
NAPM LLC subsequently approved them for inclusion in the NPAC—resembles that 
followed in the case of hundreds of prior change orders with no previous complaints 
being filed.  Neustar goes on to address the substantive arguments raised by Telcordia.  
Namely, Neustar asserts that precedent demonstrates that the term "telephone call" 
should be read broadly enough to encompass the SMS and MSS communications 
facilitated by the present change orders.  Neustar also points out that there is long-
established precedent for supporting non-voice call information services through the 
NPAC, such as Custom Local Area Signaling Services ("CLASS") and Line Information 
Data Bases ("LIDB"), including also fields to permit routing of Wireless SMS text 
messaging.  Further, Neustar argues that Telcordia's narrow reading of the meaning of 
"necessary" to route telephone calls is refuted by the policies articulated in the FCC's 
LNP orders, including the Commission's policy in favor of promoting technological 
development. 
3.2.2.3 T-Mobile Comments
T-Mobile USA Inc. ("T-Mobile") filed comments on August 17, 2009, in support of the 
validity of the change orders.  T-Mobile asserts that the LNPA WG and NAPM LLC 
followed NANC Operating Principles and appropriate industry consensus and 
supermajority procedures in approving the NANC Change Orders.  Like the other 
commenters, T-Mobile points out that the NPAC database has long supported ancillary 
services and that the Commission has expressed a belief that number portability is 
meant to be a "dynamic concept" that accommodates change.  T-Mobile also refutes 
the competitive harms alleged by Telcordia.  T-Mobile points out that NPAC data is 
available to all users on a competitively neutral basis, that Telcordia has already been 
selected as the sole provider of service provider ENUM services, and that 
implementation of the new parameters is option for all vendors.  T-Mobile argues that 
the URIs will enhance efficiency and competition in call routing.
  
18 Id. at 3-4 (citing Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 
1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd. 14014, 14115 (2003) (“TCPA Order”); Satterfield v. Simon & 
Schuster, 2009 WL 1708081 (9th Cir. Jun 19, 2009)). 
Report and Recommendation on Telcordia Dispute
[DATE]
Page 8
3.2.2.4 Telcordia Response
In its August 31, 2009 Reply in support of its Request, Telcordia restates its position 
that the plain language of Section 52.25(f) supports its arguments and that there has 
been no demonstrations that the URIs at issue are necessary for successful routing of 
telephone calls.  Telcordia asserts that the FCC rules and NANC's own Guidelines and 
Operating Principles make clear that an express determination of necessity must be 
made by NANC when the necessity of the information is called into question.  Telcordia 
asserts that the word "necessary" must be interpreted to have some limiting effect, and 
that the positions of the other commenters would allow the NPAC to greatly exceed its 
intended mission and scope.  Telcordia asserts that the reason that there are existing 
NPAC fields to support information services such as SMS is that these services 
predated number portability, and without their inclusion in the NPAC, portability would 
have "broken" these services.  However, argues Telcordia, the present change orders 
do not "fix" any "broken" services, as these services can already be routed via ENUM 
databases, and thus the fields are not necessary.
3.3 FCC Docket 09-109
Prior to filing its Request for Dispute Resolution, Telcordia filed with the FCC on May 
20, 2009 a Petition requesting, among other things, that the Commission intervene to 
prevent the NAPM LLC and the NPAC database administrator from activating the three 
change orders at issue here.19 On August 6, 2009, the Commission established 
Wireline Competition Bureau docket number 09-109, placed this petition on Public 
Notice, and requested comments and reply comments on this issue.20 The Commission 
received a total of nine initial comments and six reply comments from a cross-section of 
interested parties.  As these filings are not a part of the formal record in this dispute—
and a substantial portion of Telcordia's petition and the responses it garnered focused 
on issues outside the scope of the present proceeding—they will not be fully reviewed 
herein.  However, some general observations can be made.
Of the fifteen total comments and reply comments received by the Commission, thirteen 
opposed Telcordia's petition, one suggested that the Commission should institute a 
rulemaking proceeding to consider aspects of the petition, and the last filing was by 
Telcordia itself.  Many of the arguments for and against the change orders were 
repeated in this proceeding and need not be reiterated here.  Some commenters added 
to the discourse by highlighting the consumer and industry benefits of including these 
  
19 See Petition of Telcordia Technologies, Inc. to Reform or Strike Amendment 70, to Institute a 
Competitive Bidding for Number Portability Administration, and to End the NAPM LLC’s Interim Role in 
Number Portability Administration Contract Management (filed May 20, 2009).
20 See Wireline Competition Bureau Seeks Comment on Telcordia Petition to Reform or Strike 
Amendment 70, to Institute Competitive Bidding for Number Portability Administration, and to End the 
NAPM LLC’s Interim Role in Number Portability Administration Contract Management, Public Notice, WC 
Docket No. 09-109, 24 FCC Rcd 10,271 (2009).
Report and Recommendation on Telcordia Dispute
[DATE]
Page 9
URIs in the NPAC.  For example, tw telecom asserted that “[b]y incorporating the IP 
Voice, MMS, and SMS URIs in the database already used for routing circuit-switched 
telephone calls, IP voice and text messaging traffic can be transmitted more efficiently 
and with fewer routing errors.”21 XO Communications LLC also pointed out the 
increased efficiency of including the URIs in the NPAC and asserted that “[c]arriers 
should be able to decide which IP routing option is the most efficient solution;” while 
“[r]esolution of this dispute as Telcordia requests could increase the costs of number 
portability to all carriers and slow the roll-out of new IP-based services that will benefit 
consumers and spur the competition envisioned by the Telecommunications Act of 
1996.”22
3.4 Interim Report and Second Comment Round
On May 21, 2010, in an effort to move towards resolution of this proceeding, Chairman 
Betty Ann Kane issued an interim update and status report in which the dispute 
resolution team discussed some of the legal and policy issues that would influence its 
decision in this matter.23 The interim report also indicated that the NANC was 
continuing to accept comments from parties on the issues raised by Telcordia’s 
Request.  Nine written filings from eight parties were subsequently received.  Again 
here, the overwhelming majority of the submissions were wholly opposed to Telcordia’s 
request.
Among the parties commenting in opposition to Telcordia’s request in the most recent 
round of filings were the NAPM LLC, Neustar, COMPTEL, a coalition of NPAC users 
including major wireless and wireline interests, and two state public utility commissions.  
Again, the only filings sympathetic to Telcordia’s request came from Telcordia itself and 
Comcast.  Although the parties largely reiterated the arguments made earlier, several 
commenters, prompted by the Interim Report’s reference to four policy questions raised 
by the 2005 Future of Numbering Working Group Report and Recommendation on 
Change Orders 399 and 400, discussed the potential costs that would be imposed due 
to the population of the new URI fields upon NPAC users that choose not use the new 
fields.  These commenters explained that due to move away from “transactional pricing” 
for porting transactions and the express elimination of any charges associated with 
creating and populating the new fields in the NPAC database under Amendments 70 
and 72, there would be no appreciable increase in costs as a result of the addition of the 
URI fields.24 The Connecticut Department of Public Utility Control and the Rhode Island 
  
21 Reply Comments of tw telecom inc., WC Docket No. 09-109 at 5 (filed Sept. 29, 2009).
22 Comments of XO Communications LLC, WC Docket No. 09-109 at 2-3 (filed Sept. 8, 2009).
23 See Letter from The Honorable Betty Ann Kane, Chairman, District of Columbia Public Service 
Commission, to the North American Numbering Council (May 21, 2010) available at http://www.nanc-
chair.org/docs/May/May10_Telcordia_Interim_Report.doc. 
24 See, e.g., Letter from Melvin Clay and Timothy Decker, North American Portability Management 
LLC to the Honorable Betty Ann Kane and Don Gray, North American Numbering Council (filed July 29, 
2010); Comcast Response to NANC at 2 (filed July 30, 2010).
Report and Recommendation on Telcordia Dispute
[DATE]
Page 10
Public Utilities Commission also submitted comments expressing legal and policy 
support for a definition of “telephone call” that is broader than the one espoused by 
Telcordia.25
  
25 See Letter from Kimberley J. Santopietro, Executive Secretary, Connecticut Department of Public 
Utility Control, to the Honorable Betty Ann Kane and Don Gray, North American Numbering Council (filed 
August 16, 2010); Letter from Elia Germani, Chairman, Rhode Island Public Utilities Commission, to the 
Honorable Betty Ann Kane, Chairman, North American Numbering Council (filed Sept. 10, 2010).
Report and Recommendation on Telcordia Dispute
[DATE]
Page 11
Section 4.0  Analysis
Based on the extensive record discussed above, the NANC has conducted an analysis 
of the issues raised by Telcordia’s Request for Dispute resolution and has determined 
that the addition to the NPAC database of the new URI fields through Change Orders 
429, 430, and 435 were neither substantively nor procedurally defective. 
4.1 The Adoption of the Change Orders Was Not Substantively Defective
As detailed below, our analysis leads us to the conclusion that the adoption of Change 
Order 429, 430, and 435 was not substantively defective, and the URIs at issue are 
"necessary to route telephone calls," as required by Section 52.25(f) of the 
Commission's rules.
4.1.1 Telcordia’s Argument
The gist of Telcordia’s substantive argument is that the URI fields at issue were 
inappropriate for addition to the NPAC database because they do not constitute 
information “necessary to route telephone calls.”26 Telcordia argues that the phrase 
telephone calls refers to voice-based telecommunications services switched between 
telecommunications providers.  As SMS and MMS are information services, and the 
fields at issue are intended to facilitate IP-IP routing, Telcordia argues that they cannot 
be considered telephone calls.  Moreover, Telcordia asserts that, even if the IP Voice, 
SMS, and MMS communications constitute telephone calls, the URI fields at issue here 
are not “necessary” to route them, as these communications are currently being routed 
successfully over the PSTN using the existing NPAC fields, and carrier ENUM 
databases will continue to facilitate IP routing of these communications.
4.1.2 IP Voice, SMS, and MMS Constitute “Telephone Calls”
We find that the term "telephone calls," as used by the Commission in 47 C.F.R. 
§52.25(f) includes both telecommunications services and information services, and thus 
is broad enough to encompass the communications facilitated by the URIs added to the 
NPAC database in Change Orders 429, 430, and 435.
The term “telephone calls” has been used to mean more than just basic voice 
transmission service on numerous occasions.27 As numerous commenters pointed out, 
  
26 47 C.F.R. § 52.25(f).
27 See Telecommunications Carriers’ Use of Customer Proprietary Network Information and Other 
Customer Information, 22 FCC Rcd 6927, 6956 ¶ 56 (2007); Federal-State Joint Board on Universal 
Service, CC Docket No. 96-45, Report to Congress, 13 FCC Rcd 11501, 11544 (1998) (Stevens Report)
(deferring classification of  “‘phone-to-phone’ IP telephony” services).
Report and Recommendation on Telcordia Dispute
[DATE]
Page 12
the Telecommunications Consumer Protection Act of 1991 ("TCPA"),28 which protects 
consumers from various telemarketing practices, prohibits “telephone calls,” which 
include the transmission of information services consisting of “artificial or prerecorded 
voice” messages to residential lines.29 In implementing the TCPA, the FCC has 
expressly stated that the TCPA’s prohibition on autodialed telephone calls 
“encompasses both voice calls and text calls to wireless numbers including, for 
example, short message service (SMS) calls.”30 Recent court opinions also support a 
broad interpretation of the term “telephone call.”  In particular, both the Ninth Circuit and 
the Arizona Supreme Court have held that the TCPA’s prohibition on certain 
telemarketing calls extends to text messages.31
Additionally, the nature of the NPAC database itself supports a reading of Rule 52.25(f) 
that includes information services.  Since its inception, the NPAC database has included 
fields related to information services.  “Software Release 1.0” included fields associated 
with Inter-Switch Voice Messaging Message Waiting Indicating (ISVM MWI).  “Software 
Release 2.0” added fields to permit routing of Wireless Short Message Service (SMS) 
text messaging.32 Both ISVM33 and SMS34 are clearly associated with information 
  
28 47 U.S.C. § 227.
29 Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991; Request 
of ACA International for Clarification and Declaratory Ruling, 23 FCC Rcd 559, 560 (2008); see also 47 
C.F.R. § 64.1200 et seq.
30 Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, 18 FCC 
Rcd 14014, 14115 (2003); see also Rules and Regulations Implementing and Controlling the Assault of 
Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act of 2003; Rules and Regulations Implementing the 
Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, 19 FCC Rcd 15927, 15934 (2004) (stating that the 
“prohibition on using automatic telephone dialing systems to make calls to wireless phone numbers 
applies to text messages (e.g., phone-to-phone SMS), as well as voice calls”).
31 See Satterfield v. Simon & Schuster, 2009 WL 1708081 (9th Cir. June 19, 2009); Joffe v. Acacia 
Mortgage Corp., 211 Ariz. 325 (2006); see also See, e.g., Lozano v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 
No. 09 CV 6344, 2010 WL 1197884 at * 8 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 23, 2010) (“The court agrees with the FCC’s 
interpretation of section 227 of the TCPA applies to text messages . . . .  Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged 
that the text message . . . constitutes a call for the purposes of the TCPA.”); Abbas v. Selling Source, LLC
No. 09 CV 3413, 2009 WL 4884471 at * 7 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 14, 2009) (“The court agrees with the FCC's 
interpretation that congressional findings and intent apply with equal force to SMS messages. The court 
concludes that an SMS message is a "call" within the meaning of the TCPA.”).
32 Report and Recommendation on NANC Change Orders 399 & 400, Future of Numbering Working 
Group at 7 (June 10, 2005) (FoN WG Report).
33 ISVM, a voice mail service provided on a centralized basis, is an information service.  Like plain 
voice mail, this service allows users to store information and interact with stored information unrelated to 
the placing of a telephone call.  These characteristics place voice mail, as well as electronic mail, firmly in 
the enhanced (information) service category.  See Amendment of Section 64.702 of the Commission’s 
Rules and Regulations (Second Computer Inquiry), 84 FCC.2d 50, 54-55 (1980).
Report and Recommendation on Telcordia Dispute
[DATE]
Page 13
services, yet delivery of these services has long been facilitated by fields in the NPAC 
database.
This definition of "telephone call" is also consistent with the one contained in the NAPM 
agreement.  As T-Mobile and other commenters pointed out, the NAPM agreement 
defines "a call" as the transmission of information (video, pictures, audio/music, 
messages, text data or a combination of these) by use of messages or transmission of 
provisioning data associated with information sessions, subscribers and network 
equipment and devices (e.g., discovery, connection, presence, location, authentication, 
billing usage, maintenance, and parameter negotiation).35 The term “routing” means 
transporting calls. For these purposes, Internet addresses and naming protocols (URLs, 
URIs, IP addresses, etc.) are considered call routing information {if} they are associated 
with a telephone number.
Based on the foregoing analysis, we determine that IP Voice, SMS, and MMS 
communications should all be considered "telephone calls" for the purposes of Section 
52.25(f).  These communications are each routed by means of telephone number 
addressing.  Moreover, these services have become commonplace and customary 
functionalities of contemporary telephone-based communications.  As explained by the 
Connecticut Department of Public Utility Control and the Rhode Island Public Utilities 
Commission, a narrower definition of "telephone call" as being limited only to traditional
voice communications transmitted over the PSTN would undermine important law 
enforcement and consumer protection goals, including the prevention of telemarketer 
abuse and spamming.36
4.1.3 The URIs Are “Necessary to Route Telephone Calls”
Having determined that IP Voice, SMS, and MMS communications constitute "telephone 
calls" for the purpose of LNP, it follows logically that the URIs at issue are "necessary to 
route telephone calls," as required by 47 C.F.R. § 52.25(f).  Accordingly, we find that 
    
34 SMS is a store-and-forward method of transmitting messages to and from wireless devices.  
Store-and-forward technology is generally considered a characteristic of an information service.  See, 
e.g., Policy and Rules Concerning the Interstate, Interexchange Marketplace, Further Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking, 13 FCC Rcd 21531, 21533 (1998).
35 See Letter from Anna Miller, T-Mobile USA, Inc., to the Honorable Betty Ann Kane, Don Gray and 
Thomas M. Koutsky (filed August 17, 2009) ("T-Mobile Comments") available at http://www.nanc-
chair.org/docs/mtg_docs/T-Mobile_Letter_re_NANC_dispute_081709.pdf. 
36 Telcordia argues that the term “telephone calls” can have one meaning in one section of the rules 
and another meaning in a different area of the rules.  See Letter from John Nakahata, Counsel for 
Telcordia, to the Honorable Betty Ann Kane and Don Gray (filed September 10, 2010)(“Telcordia Letter”)  
available at http://www.nanc-chair.org/docs/mtg_docs/Telcordia_Letter_091010.pdf.  We believe that this 
practice would be bound to lead to confusion and should be avoided where possible.  As described 
above, the meaning of the term “telephone calls” in Section 52.25(f) should be consistent with the 
meanings in use by the courts and the industry.
Report and Recommendation on Telcordia Dispute
[DATE]
Page 14
Telcordia's interpretation of the term "necessary" is overly restrictive and contrary to 
stated FCC policy.
Report and Recommendation on Telcordia Dispute
[DATE]
Page 15
4.1.3.1 Telcordia's Definition of "Necessary" is Unduly Constrained
The use of the term “necessary” was never intended to exclude alternative routing 
information.  Read in context with the First LNP Order, which first articulated the rule, it 
is clear that the rule was designed to ensure that the database only contained 
information related to routing, as opposed to E911 or CPNI information, not to exclude 
information otherwise helpful to effectively and efficiently route telephone calls. 
We believe that, at this time, the information contained in the number 
portability regional databases should be limited to the information 
necessary to route telephone calls to the appropriate service providers. 
The NANC should determine the specific information necessary to provide 
number portability.   To include, for example, the information necessary to 
provide E911 services or proprietary customer-specific information would 
complicate the functions of the number portability databases and impose 
requirements that may have varied impacts on different localities. For 
instance, because different localities have adopted different emergency 
response systems, the regional databases would have to be configured in 
such a fashion as to provision the appropriate emergency information to 
each locality's particular system.  Similarly, special systems would need to 
be developed to restrict access to proprietary customer-specific 
information.  In either instance, the necessary programming to add such 
capabilities to the regional databases would complicate the functionality of 
those databases.37
As explained in Neustar's comments, the quoted text above makes clear that the 
Commission's intention was not to limit the functionality of the LNP databases, but 
rather the commission was concerned with the databases becoming bloated with 
irrelevant data that might inadvertently impose locality-specific configurations and 
regulations on the regional databases, thereby unnecessarily complicating the process 
and potentially thwarting its smooth operation.  This rationale does not apply to the URI 
fields at issue here.
Section 52.25(i)—which provides that "[i]ndividual carriers may mix information needed 
to provide other services or functions with the information downloaded from the regional 
databases at their own downstream databases"—also supports this reading of 
"necessary."38 This rule simply clarifies that although information that has nothing to do 
with routing generally—such as E911 and CPNI information—should not be included in 
the NPAC database, it still may be included in the downstream databases.  Again, the 
First LNP Order is instructive.  Therein, the Commission explained that this rule is 
  
37 Telephone Number Portability, First Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking, CC Docket No. 95-116, 11 FCC Rcd 8352, 8403-04 (1996) (“First LNP Order”).
38 47 C.F.R. § 52.25(i).
Report and Recommendation on Telcordia Dispute
[DATE]
Page 16
intended to keep the LNP databases free from customer-specific, proprietary, and other 
information that is only relevant to separate services being offered by carriers, apart 
from call routing.  
Because we require open access to the regional databases, it would be 
inequitable to require carriers to disseminate, by means of those 
databases, proprietary or customer-specific information. We therefore 
contemplate that the regional deployment of databases will permit 
individual carriers to own and operate their own downstream databases. 
These carrier-specific databases will allow individual carriers to provide 
number portability in conjunction with other functions and services. To the 
extent that individual carriers wish to mix information, proprietary or 
otherwise, necessary to provide other services or functions with the 
number portability data, they are free to do so at their downstream 
databases. We reiterate, however, that a carrier may not withhold any 
information necessary to provide number portability on the grounds that 
such data are combined with other information in its downstream 
database; it must furnish all information necessary to provide number 
portability to the regional databases as well as to its own downstream 
database.39
The Commission’s intent is further clarified by its flexible use of the term “necessary” in 
other rules.  Contrary to Telcordia's argument that the Supreme Court's decision in 
AT&T Corp. v. Iowa Utils. Bd. limits the appropriate definition of "necessary," this 
decision only confirms the Commission's intent.40 In AT&T Corp. v. Iowa Utils. Bd.,41
the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the FCC’s “flexible” interpretation of the word 
“necessary” in the text of rules adopted at the same time as the Commission adopted 
Section 52.25(f).  However, the Supreme Court opinion only stands for the proposition 
that the FCC may not interpret the word “necessary” in a limitless way under Section 
251(d)(2) of the Communications Act.  Iowa Utils. Bd. does not prescribe a specific 
meaning for "necessary" as used in Section 52.25 of the FCC's rules.  Instead the case 
demonstrates that the FCC itself used the word “necessary” flexibly when it drafted 
rules in 1996 and 1997.  As such, in 1996, when the FCC used the term “necessary,” it 
plainly intended to use a flexible term.
Moreover, it has always been recognized that the concept of number portability—via the 
NPAC database—encompasses more than the mere routing of telephone calls.  
Appendix D to the LNPA WG Report, which has been codified in the Commission’s 
rules, provides that NPAC users must be carriers or entities under contract with a carrier 
  
39 First LNP Order, at 8404.
40 See Telcordia August 31, 2009 Reply at 12.
41 525 U.S. 366, 388 (1999).
Report and Recommendation on Telcordia Dispute
[DATE]
Page 17
“to provide billing, routing, and/or rating” services for that carrier.42 In order to achieve 
efficient number portability, the NPAC database must contain much information that is 
not strictly "necessary to route telephone calls" under Telcordia's espoused definition.  
4.1.3.2 Local Number Portability is a "Dynamic Concept"
The reconsideration of Change Order 400 was prompted by the Commission's 2007 
order extending LNP obligations to interconnected VoIP providers.43 In that order the 
Commission made clear that facilitating the routing of IP to IP services is a proper 
function of the NPAC database.  As various commenters have noted, in that order the 
Commission expressed an understanding that Congress intended consumers to retain 
the benefits of LNP as technology advances.  The Commission stated that "to ensure 
that consumers retain this benefit as technology evolves, we continue to believe that 
Congress’s intent is that number portability be a “dynamic concept” that accommodates 
such changes . . . .  Similarly, the Act provides ample authority for the logical extension 
of porting obligations due to technological changes in how telephone service is provided 
to end-user consumers."44 Given this statement of LNP policy, addition of the three IP 
URI fields at issue in the present dispute is a logical extension of the NPAC database.  
Telcordia's narrow interpretation of “necessary to route telephone calls” would prohibit 
the inclusion of any new technologies for the routing of telephone calls in the NPAC 
database because there will always exist the possibility of using the legacy circuit-
switched network to facilitate routing.45 Without the new URIs, many IP 
communications are capable of being routed by transcoding the data from its original IP 
format into the time division multiplexing ("TDM") format used by circuit-switched 
networks, routing the call through the PSTN to the terminating provider, and finally 
retranscoding the data back to IP for delivery to the end user.  However, as technology 
continues to advance, this process may create unforeseen complications, and it is 
irrefutably less efficient than performing direct IP to IP routing.  This is plainly 
inconsistent with the FCC’s expression of the "dynamic concept" of LNP and its general 
policy favoring the rapid deployment of next-generation communications services.  
Our analysis is informed by recent actions by the Commission to improve the 
convenience, efficiency, and service equivalency of LNP.  For example, in light of 
technological development and other improvements, the Commission recently reduced 
the allowable porting interval for simple wireline and simple intermodal port requests 
  
42 LNPA WG Report, App. D, § 12.2.4, incorporated in by reference in 47 C.F.R. § 52.26(a).
43 See Interconnected VoIP LNP Order; Letter from Dana R. Shaffer, Chief, Wireline Competition 
Bureau, to Thomas M. Koutsky, Chair, North American Numbering Council (Feb. 4, 2008).
44 Interconnected VoIP LNP Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 19,544, ¶ 23.
45 See Telcordia Request at 13-14 (“All of these types of messages—IP-IP voice traffic, MMS and 
SMS—can be completed today using the NPAC only to identify the service provider ID associated with a 
ported number.”).
Report and Recommendation on Telcordia Dispute
[DATE]
Page 18
from four business days to one business day.46 In doing so, the Commission observed 
that “the telecommunications landscape has changed dramatically, and technological 
advances have enabled number porting to be accomplished in a much shorter time 
period.”47 In light of these changes, the Commission determined that streamlining the 
LNP process was an appropriate way to strike the balance “between enabling 
consumers to realize the benefits of LNP and the current technological and business 
capabilities of service providers.”48
The IP URIs at issue offer substantial consumer benefits in terms of improved call 
quality and expanded services.  The FCC has stated that number portability should be 
provided "without impairment of quality, reliability, or convenience."49 As the NAPM 
LLC, Neustar, and the Joint Comments of the carriers point out, these URIs will be 
increasingly important to ensuring that new services are able to be delivered reliably to 
all users, and to enabling IP communications across different carrier networks.  For 
example, in considering Change Order 435 on an IP SMS URI, the LNPA WG 
recognized that this field will be useful in facilitating the growth of SMS—traditionally a 
wireless-focused service—into the wireline world.  As the WG explained "[t]he 
availability of the SMS URI will allow originating carriers to recognize SMS capable TNs 
so that IP based carriers delivering service to traditionally 'landline' numbers from 
wireless TNs can determine if the TN is SMS capable and use the URI for terminating 
network routing information."50 As such, the inclusion of these URIs in the NPAC will 
help promote service equivalency and will help ensure that users are able to seamlessly 
send and receive the communications in the form they expect, regardless of the 
destination network or device.
Based upon the above discussion, we conclude that the three IP URIs at issue here are 
an appropriate means of responding to the ongoing transition toward IP-based 
communications and promoting technological development.  Moreover, we conclude 
that Commission policy envisions exactly this role for LNP.  As such, we hereby 
determine that the information contained in Change Orders 429, 430, and 435 are 
"necessary to route telephone calls," pursuant to Section 52.25(f) of the FCC rules.
4.2 Telcordia’s Procedural Arguments are Moot
Having determined that the Change Orders at issue are "necessary to route telephone 
calls," the NANC finds that Telcordia’s procedural arguments are moot.  The NANC 
  
46 See Local Number Portability Porting Interval and Validation Requirements, WC Docket No. 07-
244, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 24 FCC Rcd 6084 (2009).
47 Id. at 6087, ¶ 7.
48 Id. at 6089, ¶ 7.
49 First LNP Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 8366-67.
50 Change Order 435, NANC LNPA WG.
Report and Recommendation on Telcordia Dispute
[DATE]
Page 19
finding that the URIs in question are “necessary” obviates any need for further 
consideration of this issue by the LNPA WG or any other NANC working group.   
Section 5.0  Conclusion and Recommendation
The NANC has reached the following conclusions regarding the three issues identified 
in Section 2.0, supra.
· First, the NANC rejects the unduly constrained definition ascribed by Telcordia to 
the phrase “necessary to route telephone calls to the appropriate 
telecommunications carrier,” as it is used in Section 52.25(f) of the FCC’s rules.  
Telcordia's definition is contrary to established Congressional, FCC, and NANC 
policy.  Instead, the NANC concludes that the definition of "call" used in the 
NAPM Agreement is more appropriate for the purposes of this case.  And the 
word "necessary" must be interpreted consistent with the "dynamic concept" of 
LNP as defined by the FCC.
· Second, the URI fields added by Change Orders 429, 430, and 435 are 
consistent with the Section 52.25(f) requirement that information in the NPAC 
database be "necessary to route telephone calls."  These URIs will increase 
routing efficiency and facilitate the development of new IP based services, 
ensuring that consumers continue to enjoy the benefits of LNP.
· Third and finally, because the NANC has now determined that the URI fields are 
necessary within the meaning of Section 52.25(f), there can no longer be any 
concern on Telcordia’s part that the NANC never made such a finding with 
respect to these URIs.  The procedural arguments made by Telcordia regarding 
the process through which these Change Orders were adopted are mooted by 
the substantive determinations made herein.  
Pursuant to Section 52.26(b)(3) of the FCC rules, the NANC must make a 
recommendation for resolution of the present dispute for submission to the Chief of the 
Wireline Competition Bureau.51 In light of the foregoing, NANC hereby recommends 
that the Chief endorse the conclusions reached herein and allow the implementation 
and population of the new URIs to proceed unhindered.  Moreover, to the extent that 
they pertain to the discrete issues discussed herein, the NANC recommends that the 
FCC dismiss the Petition and Standstill Request related to the implementation of 
Amendment 70, filed by Telcordia.52
  
51 47 C.F.R. § 52.26(b)(3).
52 See Petition of Telcordia Technologies, Inc. to Reform or Strike Amendment 70, to Institute a 
Competitive Bidding for Number Portability Administration, and to End the NAPM LLC’s Interim Role in 
Number Portability Administration Contract Management (filed May 20, 2009); Letter from John T. 
Report and Recommendation on Telcordia Dispute
[DATE]
Page 20
    
Nakahata, Counsel to Telcordia Technologies, Inc., to Julie Veach, Acting Chief, Wireline Competition 
Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, WCB Docket No. 07-149 (filed May 22, 2009).