20021031Comments.pdf

-aasl
il[CE IYED flrILED i]
UB0? oCT 3 I PH I+: t+9
I...,, .. - -r i :-ri!LltJ
uItLl I iIs cili{i{t55l0t
Kenneth C. Howell,ISB No. 3235
HAWLEY TROXELL ENNIS & HAWLEY LLP
877 Main Street, Suite 1000
P.O. Box 1617
Boise,ID 83701-1617
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorneys for Westem Wireless Corporation
Before the
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
Boiser ldaho
ln the Matter of
The Petition of Potlatch Telephone
Company, CenturyTel of the Gem State,
and the Idaho Telephone Association for a
Declaratory Order Prohibiting the use of
"Virtual" NXX calling
CaseNo. GNR-T-02-16
OrderNo 29125
COMMENTS OF
WESTERN WIRELESS CORPORATION
Western Wireless Corporation, doing business in Idaho as Cellular One ("Western
Wireless"), hereby submits comments in opposition to the Petition for Declaratory Order
("Petition")1. As explained herein, the establishment of different rating and routing
points for numbers or NXXs is legally permissible and necessary to establish an efficient
and operationally-effective telecommunication network.
I Petition of Potlatch Telephone Company; CenturyTel of Idaho, CenturyTel of the Gem State, and the
Idaho Telephone Association for Declaratory Order Regarding the Use of Virhral NPAA{XX Calling
Patterns ("Petition")
COMMENTS OF WESTERN WIRELESS CORPORATION - I-
99999.0423.6'n6t5.t
lntroduction and Summary
Western Wireless is a facilities-based provider of Commercial Mobile Radio
Service ("CMRS") with state-of-the-art telecommunications facilities in place throughout
a 19-state, 800,000 square mile coverage area. ln Idaho, Western Wireless provides
facilities-based cellular telephone services in North Idaho. As a cellular service provider,
Western Wireless requires the use of local number resources in those areas of Idaho where
the Company provides facilities-based local services. Establishing different rating and
routing points for numbers is critical for Western Wireless to establish an efficient and
operationally-effective telecommunications network in Idaho.2
The Petition is an incumbent local exchange carrier ("ILEC") centric depiction of
numbering plan administration. At its surface, the Petition seems to deal with the
potential threat of a number assignment scenario that may have an adverse impact on the
petitioners. However, a careful examination of the Petition reveals that it would have a
much broader negative impact on competition, local service providers, and consumers,
and therefore the Commission should reject the Petition as it relates to the accessibility
and use of telephone numbers assigned to facilities-based local service providers.
I. The Petition Would Have A Broad Negative Impact On Competition, Local
Service Providers, And Consumers.
The Petition focuses on one aspect of telephone number implementation labeled
'virtual' NXX. This is a powerful label that can be easily misconstrued. A definition of
'virtual' NXX is offered by the Petitioners and by the Commission in the Notice of
Petition.3 However, both these definitions are slightly different from the FCC definition,
different than definitions used in other states, and different from definitions used in
interconnection agreements established between telecommunications carriers.
2 Western Wireless uses the phrase "establishing different rating and routing points" as opposed to "virtual
NXX" because, to the extent there is a difference, Western Wireless is a facilities-based service provider in
the areas in which it would obtain local numbers.
3 Notice of Petition for Declaratory Order, Notice of Modified Procedure, Notice of
Intervention Deadline, Order No. 29125 (Service Date October 4,2002),p.1
COMMENTS OF WESTERN WIRELESS CORPORATION - 2-
99999.0423.6'7t6ts.t
The Petitioner's definition of 'virtual' NXX describes the use of telephone
numbers rated out of an exchange and assigned to "customers with no physical presence
in that exchange". The Petitioners also provide an example of how a 'virtual' NXX could
be implemented. This single example is used to demonstrate how 'virtual' NXX would
disrupt the status quo of local landline calling patterns.
The Petitioner's go on to expand their petition to include 'VNXX-like
arrangements' without providing a full disclosure of what these 'like' arrangements may
include. There are many implementations of 'VNXX-like' arrangements that shed avery
different light on what is at stake in this Petition. These 'like' arrangements provide
sharp distinctions between the way some competitive local exchange carriers ("CLECs")
use 'virtual' NXX and the way other telecommunications carriers use 'VNXX-like'
arrangements.
The impact of the Petition on Western Wireless is not entirely clear, given the fact
there is a common denominator that links the semantics and the applications surrounding
'virtual' NXX and 'VNXX-like' arrangements. The commonality is a relatively simple
concept that has been in widespread use for some time. As depicted below, it is the
assignment of telephone numbers that have a network routing point that is different from
the rate center assigned to the NPA-NXX.
NPA-NXX with Separate Rating and Routing Points
Rating Point:
By NANPA rules, the LEC exchange
is the 'Rating Point' for an NXX.
Rate Center'A'
Routing Point:
Commonly a Point of lnterconnection
at the LATA tandem outside the local
rate center exchange a]ea.
COMMENTS OF WESTERN WIRELESS CORPORATION - 3-
99999.0423 671615.1
There are several reasons why telecommunication service providers would utilize
separate rating and routing points for telephone numbers assigned by the North American
Numbering Plan Administrator (NANPA). The Petition focuses on one application of
separate rating and routing points that has been used by a subset of one tlpe of
telecommunications carrier in some markets. However, the impact of the Petition would
disable prudent and entirely permissible use of separate rating and routing points for all
carriers in Idaho. The Commission's consideration of any action involving numbers must
account for the legitimate use by telecommunications carriers, especially CMRS carriers,
of assigned numbers with separate rating and routing points.
II. Consideration Must Be Given to the Role of CMRS Providers
The case made by the petitioners ignores the common, important, and valid use of
separate NXX rating and routing points by CMRS providers.
a. A CMRS Provider's Use of 66Virtual NXX-like arrangements" Differs From
the Examples Provided by the Petitioners
CMRS providers do not use separate rating and routing points for assigned NXX
codes in the manner defined by the Petitioners. CMRS providers obtain NXX codes only
in areas where they:
i. are licensed to provide wireless services,
ii. have built local network radio coverage for customer access, and
iii. t1pically assign a customer a telephone number containing a particular
NXX code only if the customer has a community of interest with the rate
center to which the code is rated.
It is noteworthy that these circumstances do not differ in a material way from what the
Petitioners' claim to be the appropriate guiding criteria for assignment of an NXX.
COMMENTS OF WESTERN WIRELESS CORPORATION - 4.
99999.0423.61 t6t5.l
b. CMRS Providers Seek To Establish Efficient Interconnection Arrangements
Many CMRS providers use separate rating and routing points for NXXs assigned
to their networks. This practice reflects the differences in network topology between
ILECs and CMRS providers. CMRS providers usually design their network to operate
with a single switch that covers a broad geography that typically encompasses multiple
ILEC exchanges and/or serving ileas. The large geographic areas covered by mobile
service and a wireless switch demands efficient transport networking. As shown below,
routing to a point of interconnection at a tandem switch is an efficient method for
interconnection between ILECs and CMRS providers.
Shared Transport Example for Separate Rating and Routing Points
COMMENTS OF WESTERN WIRELESS CORPORATION - 5-
ILEC End Ofie
Rate Center 1
ILEC End Offe
Rate Cenier I
ILEC End Ofi@
Rate Center 1
ILEC End Ofie
Rale Center 1
99999.0423.67t6t5.1
This shared transport network architecture benefits all interconnecting carriers. The
existing tandem transport network is used to transport calls between networks, thus
recognizing that in nearly all cases common or shared transport is less costly and more
efficient than dedicated transport. This is certainly true in rural areas where the volume
of traffic exchanged between a wireless carrier and each ILEC (especially each ILEC end
office) is quite low. Utilization of NXXs with separate rating and routing points is often
the most efficient means to establish numbers local to end users. This utilization puts
local numbers in the hands of real customers who spend the majority of their time in the
community where the numbers are rated.
By seeking a ban on NXXs with separate rating and routing points, the Petitioners
are seeking to establish an inefficient network transport system, as shown below, that only
benefits the ILECs, who typically provide all transport services within their service area.
lmpact of Eliminating Separate Rating and Routing Points
Rating and
Routing Points
This inefficient network architecture would require interconnecting carriers to
build new, dedicated facilities to exchange traffic. High volume traffic routes may
warrant dedicated facilities, but most routes in rural areas do not. From the examples
shown above, it is clear that the only thing 'virtual' about the use of separate rating and
routing points for a CMRS NXX is that it enables the utilization of existing, shared,
transport facilities instead of requiring dedicated, inefficient facilities to each rate center
supporting an NXX.
COMMENTS OF WESTERN WIRELESS CORPORATION - 6-
99999.0423 611615.1
c. CMRS Providers Are Facilities-Based Competitive Local Service Providers in
Rural Areas
CMRS carriers provide competitive facilities-based local service in rural areas and,
in most areas, CMRS is the only competitive choice consumers have for local telephone
service. If adopted, the Petition would go a long ways to reestablishing the ILECs'
control over the local services market and potentially foreclose competitive local
telephone service alternatives to rural areas.
The FCC has embraced the notion that telephone numbers are a critical element of
a competitive telecommunication services market. In the Second Report and Order, the
FCC concluded "ensuring fair and impartial access to numbering resources is a critical
component of encouraging a robust, competitive telecommunications market".4 Today,
Westem Wireless' mobile subscribers are generally able to place calls to any of the
Petitioner's landline customers in the state without incurring toll. However, the reverse is
not true. In most cases, landline callers to Western customers are forced to dial and pay
toll charges, even if the call is from one family member calling from home to another
family member in the same area. [n order to compete effectively in rural areas, CMRS
providers have to overcome this disparity. One way to overcome the limitations of
landline dialing scope is to establish local NXXs with separate rating and routing points.
Throughout the country CMRS providers compete with the ILECs for customers and
telecommunications traffic. Granting the restrictions sought by the Petitioners or
redefining traffic destined to a "virtual" NXX as toll would create significant barriers to
competition by CMRS providers and would result in increased costs to Idaho's
consumers.
III. Current Rules and Competitive Opportunity Must Be Preserved
The guidelines and criteria for allocation of numbers is the responsibility of
Neustar, the North American Numbering Plan Administrator (NANPA).5 By law, the
NANPA applies fair and equitable criteria for access to numbers for all carriers. There is
a Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, ll FCC Rcd
19392,19508 (1996) ("Second Report and Order")
5 The fCC has delegated this authority under section 251(e) of the Act to Neustar 47 C.F.R. 52.15
COMMENTS OF V/ESTERN WIRELESS CORPORATION - 7-
99999.0423.67 t6t5. I
a carefully designed industry standard process regarding the assignment of NXX codes.6
All carriers must use this process and adhere to its output, which is published as the Local
Exchange Routing Guide (LERG). Review of any current version of the LERG will
demonstrate that industry use (CMRS, CLEC, and ILEC) of separate rating and routing
points is common.
It is interesting to note that there is nothing contained in the guidelines or
definitions that are used by the entity responsible for administering the NANP that speaks
to a 'virtual' NXX. The guidelines do, however, explicitly permit the use of different
rating and routing points for NXX assignmentsT. Certain aspects of separate rating and
routing for NXXs are currently under review by the FCC.8 The issues raised and the
comments offered at the FCC have direct bearing on the Petition at hand in Idaho.
IY. Many of the Petitioners' Claims Are Misplaced
' The Petitioners make many claims conceming numbering applications that are in
effect in other jurisdictions. Some of these claims are misleading in that the Petitioners
provide an incomplete assessment of the issues. Other Petitioner claims are just wrong.
a. 'Virtual' NXX is Not an Inappropriate Use of Numbering Resources
The ILECs seem to believe that because they already have their local numbers,
(which, in many cases, are woefully underutilizede) other carriers' access to numbers in
the same local area is, de facto, inappropriate. The implication is that assignment of
numbers to new service providers is inefficient and that competition is a 'waste' of
numbers.
Use of sep arute ratingand routing points, however, is an efficient use of
numbering resources. Expanding the number of customers that can be served with one
NXX results in a much more efficient use of numbering resources. In markets where
6 Central Office Code (NXX) Assignment Guidelines, INC 95-0407-008, Alliance for Telecommunications
Industry Solutions, Industry Numbering Committee
7 Central Office Code (NXX) Assignment Guidelines, Section 4.1
'FCC Public Notice DAO2-1740, Comment Sought on Sprint Petition for Declaratory Ruhng Regarding the
Routing and Rating of Traffrc by ILECs, July 18, 2002,CC Docket No, 0l-92
e Many LEC exchanges have full 10,000 mrmber blocks to serve an exchange area of less than 10% of that
population.
COMMENTS OF WESTERN WIRELESS CORPORATION - 8-
99999.0423.67 t6t5.l
Western Wireless is able to assign numbers capable of receiving incoming calls from a
broad population base within its service area, Western Wireless regularly achieves NXX
number block utilization in excess of 85%o.
b. The Petitioners' Proposed oEnd-To-End Analysis' Criteria Is Conclusive.
The Pbtitioner's contend that an 'end-to-end analysis' of a telephone call is one
way to determine whether a call should be treated as local or not. The application of this
analysis to an ILEC-CLEC call produces one result, as illustrated in the Petition, but a
completely different result is realized when you apply this analysis to ILEC-CMRS calls.
Right now, a call from a Western Wireless customer that is standing in the driveway of
almost any one of the Petitioners' customers must be dialed as a 1+ call.l0 The call is
routed from an ILEC to an IXC to the LATA tandem where Western Wireless has a point
of interconnection, all of which is within a 'stone's throw' of the call originator. Using
'end-to-end analysis,' it would seem this would qualify as a local call.ll This example
demonstrates the fallacy of the Petitioner's position as it relates to calls to or from a
CMRS network.
c. Consideration must be made of the potential underlying ILEC motivation
The Petitioners raise the prospect that allowing industry standard use of NPA-
NXX assignments, labeled '\rNXX and VNXX-like services,' is not in the public interest.
Yet the arguments made by the Petitioners indicate that it isn't the public's interest that is
at stake. This preemptive effort to bar a common industry practice from Idaho is likely no
more than a thinly disguised effort to preserve ILEC revenue streams from a combination
of high access rates and the retail margins received on toll calls made through their own
long distance affiliates. All of this revenue comes at the expense of competition and real
dollars paid out of the pockets of Idaho consumers.
The Petitioner's rely on the impact to themselves should their traditional local
calling areas be compromised in any way. The presumption is that the traditional local
l0 Western Wireless has NXXs rated out of Grangeville, Boise, and Pocatello. Boise has a local calling area
which includes nine of the Petitioner's exchanges. The Pocatello local calling area includes 13 of the
Petitioner's exchanges.
rr Western believes that the FCC has already determined that any call to or from a cellular subscriber that
originates and terminates in the same MTA is a local call. See Second Report and Order.
COMMENTS OF WESTERN WIRELESS CORPORATION - 9-
99999.0423.6',1 t6t5.t
calling area should be imposed as an everlasting constraint for what should be considered
a local call. Idaho consumers would certainly prefer, and deserve, broader local calling
made available through competition.
III. Conclusion
Public interest is best served by competition and the availability of choice for
Idaho consumers. The Commission should therefore deny the Petition to the extent it
would prevent a CMRS provider from establishing different rating and routing points for
its number resources.
DArED rHIS 3frof october ,2002.
HAWLEY TROXELL ENMS &
By
Idaho State Bar No. 3235
877 Main Street, Suite 1000
P.O. Box 1617
Boise,ID 83701-1617
[phone]
[phone] (far()
COMMENTS OF WESTERN WIRELESS CORPORATION - IO.
99999.0423.6?1615. I
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on thirfu{^yof October ,2OO2,I caused to be served
a true copy of the foregoing COMMENTS OF WESTERN WIRELESS CORPORATION
by the method indicated below, and addressed to each of the following:
IDAHO TELEPHONE ASSOCIATION
Conley Ward
Givens Pursley, LLP
277 N.6th Street
P.O. Box 2720
Boise,ID 83701
Clay Sturgis
Senior Manager
Moss Adams LLP
601 Riverside, Ste. 1800
Spokane, WA9920L-0063
POTLATCH TELEPHONE COMPANY
Morgan W. Richards
Moffatt, Thomas, Barrett, Rock & Fields, Chtd.
101 S. Capitol Blvd., 1Oth Floor
P.O. Box 829
Boise,ID 83701
Gail Long, Manager - External Relations
Potlatch Telephone Company
P.O. Box 1566
Oregon City, OR 97045-1566
COMMENTS OF V/ESTERN VTIRELESS CORPORATION - 11-
-/u.S.Mail, Postage Prepaid
Hand Delivered
-/-U.S. Mail, Postage Prepaid
Hand Delivered
Overnight Mail
Telecopy
t/u.t.Mail, Postage Prepaid
Hand Delivered
Overnight Mail
Telecopy
lu.t.Mail, Postage Prepaid
Hand Delivered
Overnight Mail
Telecopy
Overnight Mail
Telecopy
99999.0421.671615.1
CENTURYTEL OF IDAHO,
CENTURYTEL OF THE GEM STATE
Morgan W. Richards
Moffatt, Thomas, Barrett, Rock & Fields, Chtd.
l0l S. Capitol Blvd., 10th Floor
P.O. Box 829
Boise,ID 83701
Ted Hankins
Director, State Government Relations
Centurytel of Idaho
P.O. Box 4065
Monroe, LA 712ll-4065
COMMISSION STAFF
Donald L. Howell, II
Deputy Attorney General
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
472W. Washington
P.O. Box 83720
Boise, D 83720-0074
Doug Cooley
Telecommunications Analyst
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
472W. Washington
P.O. Box 83720
Boise, D 83720-0074
WORLDCOM.INC.
Dean J. Miller
McDevitt & Miller, LLP
P.O. Box 2564
Boise,ID 83701
Susan Travis
WorldCom,Inc.
707 lTth Street, 36th Floor
Denver, CO 80202
COMMENTS OF WESTERN WIRELESS CORPORATION - 12-
//V U.S. Mail, Postage Prepaid
Hand Delivered
Overnight Mail
Telecopy
,/u.r.Mail, Postage Prepaid
Hand Delivered
Overnight Mail
Telecopy
( U.S. Mail, Postage Prepaid
Hand Delivered
Overnight Mail
Telecopy
^/u
.t.Mail, Postage Prepaid
Hand Delivered
Overnight Mail
Telecopy
AtMail, Postage Prepaid
Hand Delivered
Overnight Mail
Telecopy
Ju.r,Mail, Postage Prepaid
Hand Delivered
Overnight Mail
Telecopy
99999.0423.67 t6t5.t
SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS CO.
Eric S. Heath, Attorney
Sprint Legal & External Affairs
100 Spear Street, Ste. 930
San Francisco, CA 94105
OWEST CORPORATION
Mary S. Hobson
Stoel Rives, LLP
101 S. Capitol Blvd., Ste. 1900
Boise,ID 83702-5958
LEVEL 3 COMMLINICATIONS. LLC
Dean J. Miller
McDevitt & Miller, LLP
P.O. Box 2564
Boise,ID 83701
Peter Blisard
Level 3 Communications, LLC
1025 Eldorado Blvd.
Broomfield, CO 80021
TIME WARNER TELECOM
Dean J. Miller
McDevitt & Miller, LLP
P.O. Box 2564
Boise,ID 83701
Brian Thomas
Time Warner Telecom
223 Taylor Avenue North
Seattle, WA 98109
--/-U.S. Mail, Postage Prepaid
Hand Delivered
Overnight Mail
Telecopy
/.u.t Mail, Postage Prepaid
Hand Delivered
Overnight Mail
Telecopy
U.S. Mail, Postage Prepaid
Hand Delivered
Overnight Mail
Telecopy
Telecopy
--IZU.S. Mail, Postage Prepaid
Hand Delivered
Ju .t.Mail, Postage Prepaid
Hand Delivered
Overnight Mail
Telecopy
/u., Mail, Postage Prepaid
Hand Delivered
Overnight Mail
Overnight Mail
Telecopy
COMMENTS OF WESTERN WIRELESS CORPORATION - 13-
l
VERZON NORTHWEST. INC.
Dean Randall
Specialist - Regulatory Affairs
Verizon Northwest, Inc.
P.O. Box 1100
Beaverton, OR 97075-1 100
Terry Haynes
Senior Staff Consultant - Regulatory
Verizon Northwest, Inc.
P.O. Box 152092
kving, TX 75015
AT&T COMMUNICATIONS OF THE MOUNTAIN
STATES INC.
Mary B. Tribby
Rebecca B. DeCook
AT&T Communications of the Mountain States,Inc.
1875 Lawrence St., Suite 1401
Denver, CO 80202
Cathy L. Brightwell
AT&T Communications of the Mountain States,Inc.
2120 CatonWaS Suite B
Olympia WA 98502-1106
l/u.s.Mail, Postage Prepaid
Hand Delivered
Overnight Mail
Telecopy
-J-U.S. Mail, Postage Prepaid
Hand Delivered
Ovemight Mail
Telecopy
-t/-u .t.Mail, Postage Prepaid
Hand Delivered
Ovemight Mail
Telecopy
-/u .t.Mail, Postage Prepaid
Hand Delivered
Overnight Mail
Telecopy
Kenneth C. Howell
COMMENTS OF WESTERN WIRELESS CORPORATION. 14-
99999.0427.671615.1