905 NPA Relief Industry Meeting

December 16, 1999

Mississauga, Ontario

 Participants: Leo Mevel - CRTC
                        Parke Davis – Clearnet
                        David Farnes – CWTA
                        Leo Santoro – Bell Mobility
                        Ron Douglas – AT&T Canada
                        Wendy Potts – Bell Canada
                        Teresa Muir – Bell Canada
                        David Kidd – Bell Canada
                        John Baker – Bell Canada
                        Mike Ellison – Bell Canada
                        Doug Birdwise – Bell Canada
                        Paula Helby – Microcell
                        Bill Mason – Norigen
                        Norm Peacey - Optel
                        Jeff McDonald – Cantel
                        Joel Thorp – Cantel
                        Suresh Khare – SAIC Canada (CNA)
                        Glenn Pilley – SAIC Canada (CNA)
                        Fiona Clegg – SAIC Canada (CNA)

Agenda:          Welcome & Introduction
                        Approval of Agenda
                        CNA Role in NPA Relief Planning Process
                        CRTC Comments on NPA Relief Planning Process
                        CNA Review of Industry Guidelines
                        Review of Initial Planning Document
                        Round Table Discussion of Issues & Alternatives
                        Next Meeting

Welcome & Introduction:

Glenn Pilley welcomed the attendees to the initial NPA 905 Relief Planning Meeting, and each of the participants introduced themselves.  Glenn Pilley noted that the purpose of the CNA’s attendance at these meetings is to facilitate the NPA Relief Planning Meetings and that the NPA Relief Plan must be developed by the interested parties represented at the NPA Relief Planning Meetings.  Glenn Pilley stressed the importance of participation and contributions from participants in the NPA Relief Planning Meetings.

Glenn Pilley outlined his function as meeting moderator, Suresh Khare’s function as the NPA Relief Planner and Fiona Clegg’s function as the meeting secretary.

Approval of Agenda:

Two information items were added to the Agenda and were described by Glenn Pilley.

1.         Release of Telecom Public Notice CRTC 99-24, Establishment of CISC Ad Hoc Committees for NPA Relief Planning in Canada.  Glenn Pilley noted that participants at this meeting should register as Interested Parties in the PN 99-24 process.  Glenn Pilley also noted that the requirement to establish Task Forces to perform various NPA Relief Implementation functions is being contemplated in the NPA Relief Planning & Industry Notification Guidelines currently being revised by the Canadian Steering Committee on Numbering (CSCN).  It was also noted that the revised NPA Relief Planning & Industry Notification Guidelines mentioned in the Public Notice have not yet been approved by the CRTC, therefore there could be some confusion with respect to formation of such Task Forces.  CRTC staff noted that, provided consensus to form such Task Forces was obtained from the NPA 905 Relief Planning Working Group, it would be irrelevant whether the revised Guidelines have been approved by the CRTC or not.

2.         Release of Telecom Order CRTC 99-1141, SAIC Canada – Request for Approval of NPA 416 Relief Plan.  This topic was provided for information purposes only, although Glenn Pilley advised meeting participants that the timeframes for the activities imposed by this Order may have an effect on the activities of this Working Group.

CNA Role in NPA Relief Planning Process:

Glenn Pilley introduced the CNA presentation that accompanies these meeting minutes.  The presentation outlines the principals and considerations pivotal to the NPA Relief Planning process, the NPA Relief Planning Process itself, and the roles and responsibilities of the various participants in the NPA Relief Planning process (CNA, CISC, CRTC, representatives from the telecommunications industry and various interest groups).

The question was raised as to what differences adherence to the CISC process for NPA Relief Planning would create versus the process that had previously been observed by the industry.  Glenn Pilley described the process as it used to occur when Industry Canada had plenary authority over numbering resources in Canada.  He then contrasted the former process with the Public Notice process and the fact that the NPA 905 Relief Planning Working Group will be an Ad Hoc Committee of the CISC.  He noted that TIF Reports must be created and approved by the NPA Relief Planning Working Group at key points in the process, then submitted to the CISC Steering Committee to confirm the consensus/non-consensus and, finally, approved by the CRTC.

The discussion that occurred as a result of this information provided the opportunity for the CRTC Comments agenda item, and Leo Mevel expressed the CRTC’s expectations with respect to the NPA Relief Planning Process.

CRTC Staff Comments on NPA Relief Planning Process:

Leo Mevel provided a high level overview of the CISC process and noted that any NPA Relief Plan developed by the NPA 905 Relief Planning Working Group would be subject to a public process in order to involve as many interest groups as possible.

Leo Mevel stated that, in the CISC process, specific tasks are identified and contributions are developed to facilitate and resolve the issues raised by the various tasks.  He stressed the importance of attempting to reach consensus prior to developing any TIF Reports.  

David Farnes asked CRTC staff what the CRTC anticipated would be required to go to Public Notice for comment.  Leo Mevel stated that some of the detailed implementation plans do not require public comment.  He suggested that the NPA Relief Plan that identifies a method and tentative exhaust window would probably be sufficient information to initiate a request for public comment in the form of a Public Notice.

Doug Birdwise summarized the activities of the CSCN Issue 13 Working Group which is currently reviewing the NPA Relief Planning & Industry Notification Guidelines.  He noted that the CSCN is also struggling with the type of information that needs to be provided to the Commission for approval or release for public comment.  CRTC staff responded that, at a minimum, the Commission would expect a TIF Report or TIF Reports that identify the Relief Method, Approximate Exhaust Dates, and Preliminary Implementation Plans.  Leo Mevel noted that the explicit details of implementation would not be required for CRTC approval since implementation is specific to networks and service providers and public input would not be as necessary.  Once again, CRTC staff emphasized the fact that public input concerning the Relief Method and timing would be required.  He also mentioned that an education process concerning the Relief Method and its impacts may also need public comment.

Doug Birdwise described the activities of the CSCN Issue 13 Working Group with respect to the establishment of sub-committees that subtend the NPA Relief Planning Committee.  He also expressed support for Leo Mevel’s comment concerning the NPA 905 Relief Planning Working Group reaching consensus with respect to the formation of sub-committees with or without CISC and CRTC approval of the Guidelines being developed by the CSCN.

CNA Role in NPA Relief Planning Process (continued):

Glenn Pilley continued to review the CNA presentation that accompanies these meeting minutes. 

While reviewing the NPA Relief Planning Process Glenn Pilley noted that the Central Office Code Utlization Survey (COCUS), although one of the tools used by the CNA during the NPA Relief Planning Process, contains inaccuracies and highlighted the difficulties of relying on COCUS input by noting that COCUS results have provided two different indications as to the exhaust date for NPA 905 over a period of two years.

CNA Review of Industry Guidelines:

Glenn Pilley provided an overview of the industry numbering resource assignment guidelines that are currently in effect and briefly presented the committee structure that governs the development of numbering resource assignment guidelines in the NANPA.  He noted that the NPA Relief Planning & Industry Notification Guidelines currently in effect in Canada are attached to the IPD package.  The Guidelines are also available from the CNA website at www.cnac.ca.

Review of Initial Planning Document (IPD):

Suresh Khare reviewed the purpose of the IPD and stressed that this is a living document that will be updated to incorporate agreements reached and various modifications that result from the NPA 905 Relief Planning Working Group meetings.  He also emphasized that this version of the IPD is merely a baseline document and, in order to become an industry document, contributions and participation in the NPA Relief Planning process to develop a Final Planning Document are required from all Working Group members.

Round Table Discussion of Issues & Alternatives:

Suresh Khare outlined the NPA 905 Relief Presentation which is provided with these meeting minutes.

During the presentation of CO Code assignment data, the question was raised as to the identity and purpose of the two reserved codes identified in the presentation.  Suresh Khare responded that these are NXXs 610 and 810 which have been reserved to supplement NXX 310 which has been assigned on a non-geographic basis in Canada.  Doug Birdwise questioned whether these codes are reserved in all Canadian NPAs, to which Suresh Khare responded in the affirmative.  He also noted that the protected codes 912, 914, 915 have been created to prevent misdialing that results in erroneous 911 calls.

Suresh Khare explained what is meant by the categories:  Unassignable, Reserved, Restricted, and Protected that appear on the “CO Codes Available in Area Code 905” slide.  The number of CO Codes available for assignment as of today is 230, with an anticipated assignment rate of 42 CO Codes per year.

Suresh Khare will provide a list of the Reserved, Restricted and Protected Codes.  Glenn Pilley explained that the Unassignable CO Codes will not be provided since they are the same Codes as the NPAs reserved for future Canadian NPA Code Relief.  Traditionally, this type of information is not provided to the public since it is subject to change by the North American Numbering Plan Administration (NANPA).  In addition, releasing this information might make it possible to identify which NPA will be used as the relief code for NPA 905 and adjacent NPAs.  It was noted that, at this point, there are still enough NPAs reserved but not in use in Canada that it is doubtful the relief NPA could be identified.

Suresh Khare will raise the question of whether Unassignable CO Code information should be made available to the Working Group with CRTC staff and will provide the staff opinion to the participants of this meeting.

Suresh Khare noted that the results of the 1999 COCUS, modified by the CNA to incorporate certain trends and changes that have taken place since the COCUS, advances the exhaust date for NPA 905 by approximately a Quarter.  It was also noted that some of the numbers provided for this COCUS are questionable.  For example, it would appear that there is still a year’s worth of CO Codes left to assign between today and January 1, 2000 (i.e., 48 are left to be assigned prior to January 1, 2000 and the assignment rate averages 42 NXXs/year).  Glenn Pilley noted that the results of the COCUS have been skewed also by the increase in the number of NPAs that have been reserved for Canadian use, which has impacted the Miscellaneous category shown on the “Forecast NXX Demand (Special COCUS)” graph.

The concepts of the three major implementation Options were presented:

1.            Geographic Split
2.            Realignment of NPA Boundaries
3.            Distributed Overlay

It was noted that the Geographic Split Option contains three alternative approaches that are described in more detail in the IPD.  Suresh Khare reviewed the maps that appear in the IPD and in the CNA presentation on this topic.

The table shown below provides the impacts of the three Geographic Split alternatives, as well as the Distributed Overlay Option.  Suresh Khare noted that he had not evaluated the Boundary Realignment Option but that its exclusion from the IPD does not mean this Option cannot be considered by the members of this Working Group.

The question was raised as to whether the NPA 905 boundaries align with municipal boundaries.  It was noted that, for the most part, the boundaries do align with municipal boundaries with a small exception.  A few 7-digit number changes did occur during the introduction of NPA 905.

On review of the “Rings around Toronto” Split Option, the retention of NPA 905 by subscribers located in the outer ring was questioned.  It was explained that one of the principals to consider in NPA Relief Planning is to limit the impact to the smallest number of customers; more customers are located in the outer ring.

Suresh Khare presented the proposed schedule for the NPA 905 Relief Planning Process.

The requirement for a Special COCUS providing a 5-year forecast by exchange or by switch where there is more than one switch in an exchange by February 1, 2000 was clarified.  It was noted that the Actuals from January 1, 2000 must be provided in addition to forecasts for January 1, 2001-2006.  It was noted that the Special COCUS forms provided to potential and current Code Holders should specify that the dates are as of January 1 of each year in question in order to avoid receiving year end data.  Glenn Pilley informed the Working Group that the January 1 COCUS date is a NANPA requirement and is based on tradition.

Suresh Khare will create an Excel spreadsheet that lists all the exchanges in NPA 905, alphabetically.  The spreadsheet will also contain column headings that specify the January 1 dates.

Glenn Pilley noted that the NANPA will be requesting the year 2000 COCUS at any time and suggested that the COCUS and the Special COCUS be conducted simultaneously.

It was noted that last year when the NANPA released its request for the 1999 COCUS, it was decided by Canadian industry to provide slightly modified information to that requested by the NANPA.  It was suggested that a similar situation could occur again this year.  It was further suggested that the CNA should consult with the CRTC with respect to the COCUS information that would be required from the Canadian telecommunications service providers.

Agreement was reached that when NANPA issues the 2000 COCUS, the CSCN will review the COCUS requirements and provide direction to the CNA.  This agreement reached was reinforced by CRTC staff, who expressed their expectation that the CSCN would be involved.

Doug Birdwise questioned the April 2000 date for providing the Special COCUS results to the NPA 905 Relief Planning Working Group.  Suresh Khare responded that this date is flexible and that the NPA 905 Relief Planning Working Group would receive the results in time for the next meeting.  Suresh Khare agreed to send any documentation associated with the next meeting to participants at least 5 days in advance of the meeting, in accordance with CISC procedures.

In response to questions concerning the CISC process, Leo Mevel offered to send a copy of the most recent version of the CISC Administrative Guidelines to anyone that e‑mails him with such a request.

Bell Canada suggested that the results of Special COCUS be due by February 15 as opposed to February 1.

Agreement was reached that the Special COCUS results will be provided to the CNA by February 15, 2000.

AT&T Canada mentioned that there are a number of key dates related to various activities taking place in the telecommunications sector.  It was requested that the CNA provide a schedule of all key dates related to these activities (e.g., COCUS, Special COCUS, 416 Special COCUS, TN Utilization Report, potential 604 Special COCUS).

On further discussion, Suresh Khare agreed to release the aggregate Special COCUS results on April 7, 2000.  Bell Canada requested that companies be given three weeks in order to analyze the Special COCUS results and formulate plans for discussion at the next meeting.

Agreement was reached that the next NPA 905 Relief Planning Working Group meeting will be held on Friday, April 28, 2000.

Agreement was reached that the dates up to September 2000 in the Proposed Schedule are accurate, with the modifications noted in the preceding Agreements Reached.

Agreement was reached that the activity corresponding to October 2000 should be changed to read “Develop Consensus Report and Submit to CISC”.

Suresh Khare provided the Working Group with an example of the appearance of the aggregate results of the Special COCUS that participants can expect to receive on April 7, 2000.

Suresh Khare conducted a poll of the companies represented by the participants at this meeting to establish their preliminary position with respect to the NPA Relief Options/Alternatives that were presented during today’s meeting.  The results are provided below:

X = primary preference
* = secondary preference

Suresh Khare also polled the participants to establish which participants would be submitting contributions for discussion at future meetings.  Bell Canada confirmed that a contribution would be submitted, probably in support of one of the alternatives that has been proposed in the IPD.  It was noted that Bell Canada is unlikely to support a Boundary Realignment NPA Relief Method.

It was noted that there is no significant geographic landmark that would provide a recognizable boundary for implementation of an NPA Split in NPA 905.

Bill Mason requested clarification concerning the process for circulating contributions.  It was noted that under the CISC process, the Chair of a Working Group is responsible for circulating contributions.  The CNA is the Chair of this Working Group and presently maintains a list for NPA 905 participants.  After January 3, 2000 the CRTC will be producing an Interested Parties list as a result of PN 99-24.  It was also noted that, under the CISC process, contributions must be circulated among Interested Parties 5 days prior to their presentation at a Working Group.

Agreement was reached that contributions will be forwarded to all three CNA representatives (Glenn Pilley, Suresh Khare, Fiona Clegg), and the CNA will ensure that the contribution is distributed to all Interested Parties at least 5 days prior to its presentation to the Working Group (assuming that the contributor provides the contribution to the CNA within the corresponding timeframe).

Next Meeting:

The next meeting will be held on Friday, April 28, 2000, in Mississauga, Ontario.  The CNA will provide additional details closer to the meeting date.

Summary of Agreements Reached:

1.         Agreement was reached that when NANPA issues the 2000 COCUS, the CSCN will review the COCUS requirements and provide direction to the CNA.  This agreement reached was reinforced by CRTC staff, who expressed their expectation that the CSCN would be involved.

2.         Agreement was reached that the Special COCUS results for NPA 905 will be provided to the CNA by February 15, 2000.

3.         Agreement was reached that the next NPA 905 Relief Planning Working Group meeting will be held on Friday, April 28, 2000.

4.         Agreement was reached that the dates up to September 2000 in the Proposed Schedule are accurate, with the modifications noted in the preceding Agreements Reached.

5.         Agreement was reached that the activity corresponding to October 2000 in the Proposed Schedule should be changed to read “Develop Consensus Report and Submit to CISC”.

6.         Agreement was reached that contributions will be forwarded to all three CNA representatives (Glenn Pilley, Suresh Khare, Fiona Clegg), and the CNA will ensure that the contribution is distributed to all Interested Parties at least 5 days prior to its presentation to the Working Group (assuming that the contributor provides the contribution to the CNA within the corresponding timeframe). 

Summary of Action Items:

1.          Participants at this NPA 905 Relief Planning meeting should register as Interested Parties in the PN 99-24 process. 

2.         Suresh Khare will provide a list of the Reserved, Restricted and Protected Codes.

3.         Suresh Khare will raise the question of whether Unassignable CO Code information should be made available to the Working Group with CRTC staff and will provide the staff opinion to the participants of this meeting.

4.         Suresh Khare will create an Excel spreadsheet that lists all the exchanges in NPA 905, alphabetically.  The spreadsheet will also contain column headings that specify the January 1 dates.

5.         When NANPA issues the 2000 COCUS, the CSCN will review the COCUS requirements and provide direction to the CNA.

6.         Leo Mevel offered to send a copy of the most recent version of the CISC Administrative Guidelines to anyone that e‑mails him with such a request.

7.         Special COCUS results for NPA 905 will be provided to the CNA by February 15, 2000.

8.         The CNA will provide a schedule of all key dates related to the various activities taking place in the telecommunications sector (e.g., COCUS, Special COCUS, 416 Special COCUS, TN Utilization Report, potential 604 Special COCUS).

9.         Suresh Khare will release the aggregate Special COCUS results on April 7, 2000.

10.       Suresh Khare will modify the IPD to incorporate the Agreements Reached during discussion of the Proposed Schedule.

11.       Contributions developed by Working Group participants will be forwarded to all three CNA representatives (Glenn Pilley, Suresh Khare, Fiona Clegg), and the CNA will ensure that the contribution is distributed to all Interested Parties at least 5 days prior to its presentation to the Working Group (assuming that the contributor provides the contribution to the CNA within the corresponding timeframe).