ub1ic ‘crbite Qtommiion of tlje itritt of Qlotumbia
1325 G Street, NW, 81h Floor
Washington, D.C. 20005
(202) 626-5100
www.dcpsc.org
Betty Ann Kane
Chairman
October 13, 2015
Mr. Matthew DelNero
Chief
Wireline Competition Bureau
Federal Communications Commission
445 Twelfth Street, SW
Washington, D.C. 20554
RE: NANC Local Number Portability Administration Working Group
Recommended Clarification to LNP Best Practice 0004
Dear Mr. DelNero:
At the September 30, 2015 meeting of the North American Numbering Council (NANC),
the NANC concurred with the recommendation of the Local Number Portability
Administration Working Group (LNPA WG) to clarify the meaning of the term “donor
carrier”, as it appears on Page ii of the “LNPA WG Interpretation of N-i Carrier
Architecture” (in the third bullet; a/k/a LNP Best Practice 0004 V.5, Attached). The LNPA
WG confirms that the donor carrier in this scenario is the A-Block Code Holder designated
in the LERG for the NPA-NXX of the called number. The A-Block holder is the default
carrier for routing calls based on the NPA-NXX of the called number. In the instance
where a TN is ported out of a pooled thousands block, the thousands block holder is not
the A-Block Code Holder, nor the donor carrier in the context of these EAS N-i
responsibilities. The call is default routed to the actual A-Block Code Holder, who is
responsible for performing the LNP dip. The NANC requests that this clarification to LNP
Best Practice 0004 be adopted by the Federal Communications Commission Wireline
Competition Bureau.
Parenthetically, I bring to your attention that LNP Best Practice 4 V.5 was the result of a
request in 2004 by then NANC Chair Robert Atkinson for the LNPA WG to address in part,
the various Extended Area Service (EAS) call routing situations and recommend the
parties who would perform the LNP dips necessary to insure proper call routing. Page ii
of the “LNPA WG Interpretation of N-i Carrier Architecture” is where these EAS-related
Mathew DelNero
Wireline Competition Bureau
Federal Communications Commission
October 13, 2015
Page 2
call scenarios are explained. As shown in the January 19, 2005 NANC meeting Minutes,
this LNPA WG document was reviewed with the full NANC. These meeting Minutes also
document that Page 11 would be submitted by NANC Chair Atkinson to the FCC’s WCB
for further action. NANC Chair Atkinson sent a letter to the WCB on July 25, 2005
(Attached) wherein he recommended that “on the NANC’s behalf, that the Commission
endorse all of the LNPA WG’s recommendations (particularly the EAS proposals) and, as
quickly as possible, take any other steps that may be necessary to encourage service
providers to abide by them.” Unfortunately, the FCC WCB has not acted on this NANC
recommendation. Accordingly, I request that in association with the aforementioned
recommendation regarding the clarification to LNP Best Practice 0004 that the FCC WCB
also endorse the underlying LNP Best Practice 0004 V.5.
Please feel free to contact me, or the LNPA Working Group, Tn-Chairs: Paula Jordan
Campagnoli, (Paula.Camracjnoli@T-Mobile.com), Ron Steen, (rs7566@att.com), or Dawn
Lawrence (dawn.rJawrence@xo.com) if you or members of your staff have any questions
regarding this NANC submittal.
Sincerely,
F
C
Betty Ann Kane
Chairman
North American Numbering Council
Attachments (2)
cc: Kris Monteith, FCC
Ann Stevens, FCC
Marilyn Jones, FCC
NANC Members