Number Resource Optimization Working Group - PowerPoint

Document Sample
Number Resource Optimization Working Group - PowerPoint Powered By Docstoc
					     Number Resource
Optimization Working Group
          Report to NANC
          July 18-19, 2000
                   Brian Baldwin, SBC
         Beth O’Donnell, Cox Communications
    Eleanor Willis-Camara, Winstar Communications
        Fees for Extensions of Reserved
                 Numbers ¶ 25
• The fee will always be applied at the end-user level.
    Thus far, in addressing the issue of reservations and
    fees for reservations, the NRO-WG has only
    addressed the end-user case. Reservations for
    carriers or non-carrier entities have not yet been
• Fees will only be applied to end users that receive a
  direct benefit from the reservation extension.

July, 2000                                                  2
       Fees for Extensions of Reserved
          Numbers 25(continued)
NRO-WG Points of Discussion, Cont’d
• The extension will continue as long as the criteria
    used for extending the reservation is met.
• Carriers may choose not to offer a reservation or a
  reservation extension, but perhaps there could be a
  recommendation that reserved number extensions
  not be tariffed.

July, 2000                                              3
       Fees for Extensions of Reserved
          Numbers 25(continued)
• There was debate that the group should
  consider in its proposal that if there is a
  fee for a reservation extension, then
  those numbers would then be credited
  towards the carrier’s utilization rate.

July, 2000                                  4
       Fees for Extensions of Reserved
          Numbers 25(continued)
• Reserved number extension charges shall be uniform
  and established on a national basis. Such charges
  shall be sufficient to ensure cost recovery by each
  service provider, subject to regulatory oversight.
  Revenues collected in excess of service provider costs
  shall be reported and forwarded on a yearly basis to,
  for example, the NBANC and used for number
  administration purposes (e.g., NANPA contract,
  Pooling Administrator contract, Audit contract, etc.,).

July, 2000                                              5
     COCUS (NRUF) Requirements
• Status of Document
     – Document being prepared as a standalone
     – Work continues, but document is not ready
       for distribution wider than NRO-WG
• Section to be added to synchronize
  NRO-WG work to INC work on NRUF

July, 2000                                     6
  Status of UNP Impact ( 231)

• What work does NANC expect from
• Ad Hoc group and INC are both working
  this issue.
• Deadline is November, 2000

July, 2000                            7
             Pooling Update
• States with current Federal authority to
  implement pooling: CA*, CT, FL, IL*,
  ME, MA*, NH*, NY*, OH* (pooling
  implementation delayed), WI, TX.
  (* - states with authorized utilization rates in
  connection with pooling)
• States that have requested authority: AZ,
  CO, GA, IA, IN, KY, MO, NC, NE, NJ, OR, PA,
  TN, VA, WA,
July, 2000                                           8
             NRO-WG 2000 MEETING SCHEDULE

       Conference call times are Eastern; face-to-face meetings are local time.
Aug 10 Face-to-face meeting              8:30am-4pm         Chicago or Kansas City
Aug 25 Conference Call                   1pm-4pm TBD
Sep 14 Face-to-face meeting              8:30am-rpm Atlanta (Young/BSCC host)
Sep 28 Conference call                   1pm-4pm TBD
Oct 11-12 Face-to-face meeting           8:30-4pm Seattle (Brooks/MCI host)
Oct 26    Conference call                1pm-4pm TBD
Nov 9     Face-to-face meeting           8:30am-4pm         Washington, DC
                                                  (Willis-Camara/Winstar host)
Nov 16       Conference call             1pm-4pm TBD

July, 2000                                                                        9

Shared By: