Service Provider/Account Owner Identification

in a

Competitive Environment

Ron HavensOBF Moderator

June 29, 2000

Slide 2

Presentation Contents

Problem Identification Industry Actions Vendor Response Next Steps

Slide 3

Problem Identification

Billing Types Contribution Factors

Slide 4

Basic Problems (Review)

• Telephone Numbers No Longer Are Carrier Specific

• Telephone Numbers Are Losing Geographic Significance

• Numbering Information is Needed, Near-Real Time, at the Individual Telephone Number Level

• Existing Industry Databases Do Not Completely Support These Needs

Slide 5

End-User Billing

Billing of business and residence customers Local Exchange Carrier Billing

– Third Number– Calling Card– Collect

Interexchange Carrier Billing– 101-XXXX– Long Distance Charges on Local Phone Bill

Slide 6

Access Billing

Telephone Companies Bill Each Other for Use of Facilities

Long Distance Carriers Use Facilities of Local Companies

Local Companies Partner to Complete Local and intraLATA calls

Slide 7

Contributing Factors

Telecommunications Act of 1996– Basic Competition

Local Number Portability (LNP) Within the Rate Center Portability Outside the Rate Center (PORC) Service Type Portability

Resale Local Long Distance

Slide 8

Contributing Factors

Unbundled Network Elements (UNE)

Numbering Issues– Pooling– Splits/Overlays– Alpha-Numeric Company Identifiers

Slide 9

CLC Forum Industry Actions

NIIF/NIAC INC TFPC OBF

Slide 10

NIIF/NIAC Issues

#131 - Identification of Service Providers for Circuit Switched Calls– Issue Statement - In a multi-service provider

environment (e.g. resale, unbundling, interconnection) there is a need for a defined architecture(s) to identify entities (companies) that are involved in circuit-switched calls to facilitate billing and auditing.

– Status

Slide 11

INC

Local Number Portability Number Pooling

Slide 12

Toll Fraud Prevention Committee

Due to the sensitive nature of topics discussed by this committee, the TFPC works under mandatory non-disclosure agreements.

TFPC Activities– Issue 057 - LNP Fraud– Issue 058 - Fraud Prevention for Local Resale

Slide 13

OBF

Billing Committee– Issue 1182 - Unique Identifier for Each

Industry Segment Representative– Issue 1783 - National Repository for

Notification Information Message Processing Committee

– Issue 1496 - Line Level Database

Slide 14

Analyses

Information is Required at a 10 Digit, Line Level Degree of Detail

Network Signaled vs Database Lookup Approaches were Studied

Pros and Cons were Highlighted and Debated

Slide 15

Network Pros

Information is available real time– Branding

– Call blocking

Information is available from all network elements that are capable

Internal ordering processes can be used

Information remains proprietary

Slide 16

Network Cons

Cost to implement may be prohibitive

All network providers must participate

All signaling is not technically capable

One weak link destroys the integrity

Increases call setup/response times

T1S1 did not approve the LSPI signaling standard

Slide 17

Network Cons (cont.)

Facility providers would have to bear the costs & maintenance efforts without cost recovery potential

If not available from the network, the information is not available at all

– Signal/Recording failures

– Only recording company has the information, all other carriers are dependent

– No historical data is available to anyone else

Slide 18

Network Cons (cont.)

Requires full forward and backward signaling on every call; on every “leg”

Requires compatible interaction with other network dB’s (i.e.:BVDB’s) that may not be UNE or Resale compliant

Requires all/multiple carrier values to be signaled and recorded by the network (switch owner, account owner, billing provider)

Slide 19

Database Pros

Several models already exist and could be enhanced– LNP dB’s– Telcordia Traffic Routing Admin Products– Billing Validation dB’s

More timely to implement short and long term solutions

Slide 20

Database Pros (cont.)

Call processing (routing) not impacted

Implementation timeline and the exact solution is not Carrier specific

No network impact– cost to load– call setup degradation

Slide 21

Database Pros (cont.)

Real time update is not required

Information is available to all providers

Solution is effective for non-network issues– Other information services– Directory Listings– Carrier PIC Issues

Slide 22

Database Pros (cont.)

Historical is available for – Delayed implementation– Fraud investigation– Recovery purposes

Slide 23

Database Cons

Funding for development and maintenance

To be thoroughly effective all code owners must participate

Data update and maintenance– Who– How– Cost recovery

Slide 24

Database Cons (cont)

May not be viable “real-time”

Internal lookups required to acquire data for:– Message processing

– Call Blocking

Slide 25

Vendor Responses

Slide 26

OBF RFI Response Summary Overall Interest/Feasibility

8 Vendor teams attended the RFI SME Q&A conference– (CCMI, GEIS, NECA, Telcordia, LIDB, REVCOMM, NeuStar,

NCS, TEOCO)

10 RFI Responses Received by January 28 Responses indicate an overall interest from the vendor

community Responses available on the ATIS Web at

http://www.atis.org/atis/clc/obf/rfi.htm Some responses contained detailed feasibility while others

simply indicated an interest in pursuing a solution.

Slide 27

All-Inclusive / Exception

No Vendors ruled out an all-inclusive database. Responses indicated a tendency towards the exception

databases being a subset of an all-inclusive database and not a separate database.

Some vendors indicated a tendency towards creating an exception database first, or as a first phase, and moving to an all-inclusive at a later phase.

Other vendors offered an all-inclusive database as part of the initial phase. However, the different database levels (e.g. TN-level, Company level, Switch level, NPA-NXX level) were not specifically addressed.

Slide 28

Design (Alternative Solutions / Phases)

Five responses addressed Database Design– Different phased approaches were suggested:

Phasing of Exception vs. All-Inclusive database Phasing of TN-level vs. other levels of detail. The

Switch-level, Company-level, and NPANXX-levels would be later phases.

– Detailed responses also indicated the database could be scaled to the upper-limits of the required size.

Slide 29

Population Mechanism / Source

Although new fields may need to be added, suggested data sources included the following:

– Service Orders– CARE process– Existing Industry Databases (e.g. NPAC, TRA, LIDB, NECA,

etc.)– Direct Company Input

While no concrete methods were recommended to integrate the information from various sources into the database, some responses contained initial data source diagrams.

The OBF and other industry sources will need to cooperate in order to obtain all of the necessary data elements (e.g., obtaining the RAO resulting from O&P issue 1825).

Online, Internet, Batch, Direct Input, etc. were all suggested as viable input mechanisms.

Slide 30

Access to Database

Vendor responses addressed a wide range of access methods, including:

– Online, Real-Time– Internet-Based – Batch Download– Batch Query– Real-Time Query

A variety of output formats were also supported in the vendor responses, including:

– Initial database loads– Transactional updates– Historical information– Adhoc Queries & Reports

Responses also indicated a wide variety of output media

Slide 31

Maintenance/Administration

The following requirements were addressed by the various responses, some in greater detail than others:

– Availability Query estimates were requested

– Security Both update and access security concerns were discussed. More

detailed security requirements are needed from OBF.– SLA/Recovery– Historical Data

Size issues were raised with the RFI’s historical data requirements.– Training & Documentation

Overall, there were no feasibility concerns. However, additional information was requested from the OBF.

Slide 32

Funding

Responses suggested several cost recovery mechanisms for both startup and ongoing operational costs. A sample of what was received included:– Membership Fees– Contractual Fees– Transactional or Usage-Sensitive fees– Flat-Rate fees– Input Cost Recovery– View-Only fees

Market-Driven vs. Industry Mandated approaches were discussed.

Slide 33

Implementation Timeframes

Although more information was required for detailed responses, illustrative timelines ranged from a 6-month timeframe (2Q2000), to a 3-Year timeframe (1Q2003), depending on the phased approach selected.

Some of the required data elements appear to be available in the near future.

The full set of refined OBF requirements will determine the availability of all or phased data elements, download options, etc.

Slide 34

Vendor Questions and Comments Will everyone participate?

– Mandatory industry participation, voluntary private agreement, or process-based requirement?

Sizing– How many database entries– Query and Transaction volumes

Input & Output– Historical data requirements– Volume of users– Number of companies utilizing the database

Funding Mechanisms– Initial & Ongoing

Slide 35

Conclusions

The National Repository Database is technically viable

Vendors are interested in providing a solution

Requirements need refinement & clarification

The SME group is recommending to the committee that we move forward with the next steps towards a RFP

Slide 36

Next Steps

Slide 37

Next Steps / Action Plan

OBF Task Force recommends a series of interim SME group meetings to further refine the requirements.

RFI-SME Group will draft letter to external entities advising them of the issue status. (To be approved by the full committees). This would be sent to NIAC, TFPC, as well as Industry Organizations (USTA, ALTS, COMPTel, WIF, CTIA, APPC, Telecom Resellers Assn.)

Internal Company Meetings with PCC, CLC member, ATIS board member, Funding entities, Decision Makers, and other interested parties.

Slide 38

Committee/Company Questions What is the cost of creating an RFP? (ATIS and Company) What funding cost elements need to be determined in order to

issue an RFP? Will companies continue to fund their RFI-SME group member

activities? Quantification of cost/benefit models within companies. What is

your company’s $ exposure. Coordination with company PCC, CLC, ATIS Member, NIAC

members, funding entities, and other interested parties. Is FCC involvement needed? Company-initiated or ATIS-

initiated? Does OBF or do member companies want to continue to pursue

a network-based solution? Company legal considerations, review, etc.