Wireless services catch numbering administration unprepared

Mobile Phone News,  May 3, 1993  

• E-mail
• Print
• Link

The phone number shortage facing mobile communications services has led wireless service operators to spearhead change in the North American Numbering Plan (NANP) and its administration by Bellcore. The industry is up in arms because of the North American Numbering Plan Administration's (NANPA's) alleged reluctance to allocate more numbers for wireless use.

The key to telecommunications and new service development is telephone-number availability, and it is the NANPA's job to issue additional area code numbers. However, new services have caused a number scarcity and the NANPA's subsequent hesitation to issue additional numbers. The NANPA blames this number crunch on the onslaught of wireless services including, cellular, paging and emerging personal communications services (PCS).

The NANPA underestimated the demand for new numbers. According to the NANPA, today's dynamic telecom industry environment is in dramatic contrast to preceding decades, when there was only a marginal need for a detailed numbering plan for the future. "A numbering plan for the future that facilitates the evolution of telecommunications is now urgently required," the NANPA said in its "Proposal on the Future of Numbering in World Zone 1."

...Mobile Industry Presses for New Administrator

The mobile communications industry is not sitting back and accepting the numbering problem blame. Washington, D.C.-based wireless associations Telocator and the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association (CTIA) are facing the dilemma and challenging the institution previously vested with the job of issuing new numbers. CTIA and Telocator maintain the mobile industry has been discriminated against by Bellcore, the administrator of the NANP. Concerns echo in the wireless marketplace that Bellcore, owned by the Bell operating companies, cannot fairly administer the NANP due to conflict-of-interest issues.

The mobile industry has urged Bellcore to create an independent Policy Group to establish fair numbering policies and guidelines for number and code allocation. Bellcore denies wrongdoing and counters that it has urged the wireless industry to provide input for the NANP but has seen little interest among wireless industry members.

The issues raised by the mobile community are being debated in FCC comments, reply comments (CC Docket No. 92-237) and public forums. Without expedient resolution to the numbering problem, the mobile communications industry's growth temporarily may be curtailed.

The mobile industry alleges the NANPA has neglected its non-geographic and portable numbering needs while satisfying the Bell operating companies' numbering requirements. Non-geographic codes are not tied to a specific region and would allow efficient call-routing to roaming subscribers and new services. Non-geographic numbering, a number that follows a user around, provides for numbering portability an integral mobile service component.

However, in Bellcore's reply comments, it vehemently denies any NANP wrongdoing or any favoritism shown toward the regional Bell operating companies. On non-geographic numbering resources and portability, numbering issues near and dear to the mobile industry, Bellcore's Edition 2 of the Long Term Numbering Plan proposal states it specifically addresses cellular companies' need for non-geographic numbering.

Another issue is the debate whether cellular and paging carriers should be permitted to obtain PCS NOO-NXX codes and non-geographic international numbering plan area's (INPAs). The NANPA said it supports cellular companies' needs for non-geographic numbering for terminal and personal mobility. The NANPA said it recognizes the mobile community's needs but has been slow in assigning non-geographic numbering resources because it sought cellular industry input.

...Some Advocate Independent Administration

A main source of contention with maintaining the status quo--letting Bellcore administrate the NANP--is that it would not solve the conflict-of-interest concerns, said Telocator in its comments. "A structural separation, while possibly assuaging concerns about the potential for improper information flow, would not change the perception of many industry participants that the NANPA's ability to reach independent policy positions might be compromised by its ownership by users of numbering resources," Telocator continued.

Telocator proposed structural NANP changes, which include consolidating numbering policy issues into a NANP Policy Forum to be self-funded and operated with FCC-imposed deadlines. The Policy Forum would select a new NANP administrator to assign NXX codes and other NANP resources, compile and disseminate Central Office Code Utilization Survey, and administer local exchange routing guide and other numbering-related data bases.

...Short Term Number Plan Changes

Last February, the NANP Administration issued the second edition of its suggested long-range allocation scheme for the creation of 640 new area codes and addressing number portability issues. The proposal was distributed to and comments requested from more than 3,000 telephone companies; manufacturers; regulatory bodies; and other U.S., Canadian and 16 Caribbean telecommunication industry players, known as World Zone 1.