Previous Table of Contents Next


Number Portability

As noted in Chapter 6, the PSTN relies on a standard logical addressing scheme known as a numbering plan. Based on the U.S. numbering scheme (the first, if not the best approach), it includes country codes, area codes, central office prefixes and extensions. Various combinations of 1s and 0s are thrown in to advise the network of things like a request for operator assistance, or the crossing of an area code boundary or national border. These logical addresses always were oriented geographically in the voice world, and oriented by customer and carrier in the data world; further, those numbers were not portable.

The only true exceptions to this rule are relatively recent. In-WATS (800 and 888) numbers have been portable in the United States. for several years. In-WATS primarily serves voice applications, but also can suit data applications well, particularly with the advent of Digital 800 (Chapter 8). In the data world, IP addresses (data and Internet telephony) are specific to a device, rather than a physical location. Internet addresses are a curious mixture of fixed domains and logical extensions. Depending on your approach, you may be independent or you may be wed to an information service provider as we noted in Chapter 13.

The voice world is the real problem, as it is absolutely fundamental and as the traditional addressing scheme verges on exhaustion. First, and as we discussed in Chapter 6, the worldwide numbering scheme had to be expanded to relieve the pressure from the incredible growth of cellular phones, pagers and facsimile machines. Second, wireless PCS networks are sure to add greatly to that pressure. Finally, and as The Act opens the floodgates to competition, additional numbers will be required.

Contributing to the problem is the fact that the North American Numbering Plan (NANP) has been under the control of Bellcore since its inception in 1984, with the implementation responsibility, state-by-state, being in the hands of the largest carrier (read RBOC). As a result, there existed a strong disinclination toward flexibility (read portability). For example, customers choosing to do local service business with CAPs/AAVs rather than LECs (in the few states which permitted such an option) were required to change telephone numbers. While such an approach may seem unfair, the demand clearly was not great—certainly not to the extent that the significant investment in network intelligence would have been prudent. In a deregulated environment, competition would be hampered severely by such limitation, and the weight of demand clearly would warrant the associated investment.

In any event, the FCC has determined that Bellcore no longer can be considered as an impartial administrator of the NANP. As Bellcore is owned by the RBOCs, in consortium, it is assumed that Bellcore is biased or, at least, the specter of bias colors the organization’s perception. (This is particularly interesting at the moment, as Bellcore is in the process of being privatized. The interests of the RBOCs no longer are common, given the free-for-all landscape established by virtue of The Act.) As a result, the FCC will appoint a neutral North American Numbering Council (NANC) comprised of independent industry representatives and overseen by government observers; NXX code assignments and area code relief planning will be centralized in that impartial council. The North American Numbering Plan Administrator (NANPA) that will replace Bellcore in this capacity will be an independent commercial entity.

Further, the FCC is investigating long-term approaches to number portability to include portability by service provider, service type and location. Service provider portability will allow the customer to retain the same number if he changes providers. Service type portability will allow retention of the number should service type change. For instance, from analog POTS to ISDN to DID. Geographic portability is the ultimate, allowing retention of the same 10-digit number literally anywhere, much as one can roam with anywhere with a cellular phone. This last alternative is, by far, the most difficult to effect [16-23] and [16-24].

Re-Landscaping: Reorganizations and Mergers

The mergers and reorganizations stimulated by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 will have dramatic impact on employees. In addition to the breakup of AT&T, SCB, and Pacific Telesis have proposed to merge, as have Bell Atlantic and NYNEX. Whether breaking up, merging or just getting fit for battle, many companies are planning to downsize their staffs. AT&T, the RBOCs, GTE and others already have been through several rounds of downsizing and rightsizing. In some cases, this has led to the loss of critical human resources, giving rise to the term “dumbsizing.” (The next wave of activity undoubtedly will be to put another 50,000 consultants on the street, for which the author is not grateful.) Aside from the effect on company employees, the general landscape of communications will be affected.

The risks of downsizing can be illustrated by the experience of BellSouth. The company began a master plan in 1992 to control costs. That plan later was reversed to focus on a strategy to please its customers, regardless of cost. In other news, Ameritech reportedly is being sued by the Wisconsin PUC because of poor service allegedly resulting from its 1995 downsizing. Apparently, 11,500 people accepted the company’s early retirement, rather than the 5,000 expected to do so. Shortly thereafter, Ameritech hired 4,000 replacement workers to fill the gap [16-25]. All in all, Business Week reports that AT&T and the RBOCs have slashed 250,000 jobs since the MFJ took effect in 1984. On the bright side, however, total telecommunications jobs reportedly have grown by 54,000, thanks to cellular and other new services and products. Further, and if one considers telecommunications, computers, entertainment, and related manufacturing and service industries as a whole, the sector has generated 400,000 new jobs during the past year [16-26].


Previous Table of Contents Next