The liberation of wireless local number portability is scheduled to sweep across the nation May 24 as carriers serving markets outside of the already WLNP-enabled top 100 markets will be required to allow wireless consumers to keep their phone numbers when switching carriers. While many hope the smaller carriers that were not involved in the original Nov. 24 deadline have learned from the well-publicized phase-one mistakes, some predict the process could be similarly stifled by lack of preparation.
“We feel very prepared for the May 24 deadline and feel we have learned a lot from the original phase-one date,” noted Perry Satterlee, chief operating officer for Nextel Partners Inc. “But the challenge for phase two will be the steep learning curve for smaller carriers that may not have the resources to invest in their operations. When they run into issues, how will they resolve them and how quickly?”
Satterlee pointed out that while phase one of WLNP involved mostly larger carriers with large budgets and staff dedicated to implementing WLNP, there were still glitches that took several months to iron out. A large portion of those problems were attributed to carriers not cooperating fully in the process with AT&T Wireless Services Inc., which used a different clearinghouse than its nationwide competitors, resulting in a large number of consumer complaints to the Federal Communications Commission.
“AT&T Wireless took a lot of public-relations bullets for the industry,” Satterlee said.
Comfort levels for carriers that have yet to implement WLNP are mixed as many smaller tier-two operators said they are prepared for the May 24 date, while a number of tier-three players are still in the planning stages.
“We’ve had the benefit of six months to get ready for LNP and have used that time to address issues from the initial deployment,” said Scott Bergs, vice president of regulatory affairs for Midwest Wireless, which serves more than 300,000 subscribers in Minnesota, Iowa and Wisconsin.
Bergs noted Midwest Wireless has been working with its WLNP systems provider Verisign Telecommunication Systems on readying itself for May 24, and plans to implement an automated porting system that most agree will smooth the porting process. In addition, Bergs said Midwest has refined the porting process by reducing the amount of information that was originally required to authenticate a porting request. The original process resulted in a number of ports “falling out” of the automated process and into more time-consuming, manual intervention.
“Originally there were 13 fields that needed to be filled out for consumers seeking to port that resulted in a greater chance for wrong information to be entered and a greater chance of a number falling out,” Bergs explained. “We have since tailored that back to five fields, and in some cases, only two fields are required to authenticate a porting request.”
Regional carriers also noted they don’t expect to sign a rush of service-level agreements prior to the May 24 date similar to those the nationwide carriers announced in an attempt to smooth the porting process, noting those agreements were just guidelines, and most carriers should be well aware of what is needed to implement WLNP.
“SLAs are more about legal responsibility,” Bergs explained. “That is not what we are trying to do. We want to ensure that porting customers have a good experience, and that at the end of the process, they are happy.”
Nextel Partners’ Satterlee agreed, adding “SLAs are good in concept, but they don’t really help the process.”
While a number of carriers have used the past several months to solidify their WLNP plans, there is concern that smaller carriers are still dragging their feet hoping for last-minute government intervention to delay the federal mandate. Those carriers looking for possible government intervention found sympathy last month when the Nebraska Public Service Commission gave an intermodal waiver to a local wireline provider, citing the FCC’s mandate as being too burdensome.
“Many of the smaller carriers are just beginning to ask questions about it and have not begun to implement any of the processes,” said Maggie Lee, senior technical solutions manager for Verisign. “Some didn’t think it would happen, while others are also expecting to receive some form of exemption.”
The FCC is looking into the rights of states to issue waivers to wireline providers, though industry observers doubt such waivers will be extended to wireless carriers.
“If the big guys could not challenge it, there is little reason to expect the smaller carriers can put up a fight,” said Mike O’Brien, vice president of marketing for Syniverse, which is working with more than 50 carriers on implementing WLNP services ahead of the May 24 deadline.
Lee, who had just returned from a meeting with telecommunications providers regarding WLNP, added she doubted carriers that have not yet begun preparing for the May 24 date would be able to meet the deadline, and even if they do eventually comply, could see little return on their investments.
“Some of these carriers could spend the money required to comply with the mandate and not have anyone request a port,” Lee said.
