********************************************************    
                         NOTICE
********************************************************

This document was converted from
WordPerfect or Word to ASCII Text format.

Content from the original version of the document such as
headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers
will not show up in this text version.

All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the
original document will not show up in this text version.

Features of the original document layout such as
columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins
will not be preserved in the text version.

If you need the complete document, download the
WordPerfect version or Adobe Acrobat version, if available.

*****************************************************************
Before the
               Federal Communications Commission
                     Washington, D.C. 20554

In the Matter of                   )
                              )
Cellular Telecommunications Industry    )    WT Docket No. 98-229
Association's Petition for Forbearance  )
From Commercial Mobile Radio Services   )
Number Portability Obligations          )
                              )
and                           )
                              )
Telephone Number Portability       )    CC Docket No. 95-116

                    ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION

Adopted:  February 9, 2000                                         Released: February 23, 2000

By the Commission: Commissioner Furchtgott-Roth issuing a statement.

                      I.INTRODUCTION 
1.     On May 27, 1999, four parties filed petitions for reconsideration or clarification of the
Commission's Order forbearing from imposing service provider local number portability (LNP)
requirements on commercial mobile radio service providers (CMRS providers) until November
24, 2002.  We deny these petitions for the reasons discussed below.
                       II.background
3.     Under the Commission's prior LNP decisions, CMRS providers were required to
implement LNP in the top 100 Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) and to support nationwide
roaming by March 31, 2000.  Implementation of LNP by CMRS providers would enable wireless
customers to "port" their telephone numbers in the event that they switch from one wireless
carrier to another, or from a wireless to a wireline carrier.
4.     In the CMRS LNP Forbearance Order, we granted a petition filed by the Cellular
Telecommunications Industry Association (CTIA) requesting forbearance from the Commission's
service provider LNP requirements for CMRS providers until the expiration of the five-year
buildout period for broadband PCS carriers.  We found that the limited forbearance granted in
the CMRS LNP Forbearance Order satisfied the three-prong test for granting forbearance set
forth in section 10 of the Communications Act.  Accordingly, we extended the deadline for
CMRS providers to support service provider LNP in the top 100 MSAs until November 24,
2002.  We also stated our intention to promptly initiate a rulemaking proposing certain non-LNP
based numbering optimization techniques applicable to all telecommunications carriers and to
develop standards for other number conservation methods, possibly including one or more
pooling methods.  On June 2, 1999, we released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on numbering
resource optimization, and we are currently considering the record developed in response to that
Notice.
5.     In their petitions for reconsideration of the CMRS LNP Forbearance Order, MCI
WorldCom, the Pennsylvania Commission, and TRA argue that the Commission should not have
forborne from imposing these requirements on CMRS providers for any length of time.  GTE's
petition for reconsideration of the CMRS LNP Forbearance Order, on the other hand, contends
that the Commission should have forborne indefinitely from imposing service provider LNP
requirements on CMRS providers.  Four parties submitted comments or oppositions to these
petitions, three parties submitted replies, and three parties submitted ex parte filings.
                       VI.discussion
7.     As discussed below, we find that none of the petitions raises arguments that warrant
reconsideration of our decision in the CMRS LNP Forbearance Order to forbear from imposing
service provider LNP requirements on CMRS providers until November 24, 2002.  Generally,
the petitioners raise four challenges to our CMRS LNP Forbearance Order:  (1) it did not
properly consider the effect of LNP forbearance on number conservation; (2) it did not properly
consider the effect of LNP forbearance on competition in the wireless industry; (3) it failed to
evaluate TRA's alternate LNP proposal; and (4) it failed to properly apply section 10 of the
Communications Act.  We address these challenges in turn.
8.     Number Conservation.  MCI WorldCom, TRA, and the Pennsylvania Commission
argue that the Commission's decision to extend the CMRS LNP deadline until November 24,
2002 will hamper the implementation of number optimization solutions that require LNP
technology, such as thousands-block number pooling.  We disagree.  In the CMRS LNP
Forbearance Order, we reserved the authority to require wireless participation in pooling at an
earlier date if we decide in a future rulemaking proceeding that number pooling requirements
should be adopted and that wireless participation in pooling is necessary to address specific
number exhaust problems.  We also stated that our decision to grant forbearance similarly does
not limit our ability to invoke number exhaust remedies that may provide relief only for carriers
that are LNP-capable.  In the Numbering Resource Optimization Notice, we sought comment on
these issues and will resolve them in the context of that rulemaking. 
9.     In GTE's petition for reconsideration, GTE argues that the Commission's
consideration of number conservation issues as a basis for limiting forbearance was impermissible
speculation.  In particular, GTE contends that the Commission failed to raise number
conservation as one of the rationales to support its original decision to impose LNP obligations on
CMRS carriers and that, accordingly, the Commission lacked an adequate record in this
proceeding to evaluate the effect of wireless LNP capability on number conservation efforts. 
Moreover, GTE argues that it was improper for the Commission to limit forbearance on the basis
of a link between CMRS LNP implementation and number pooling because the Commission has
not yet determined that number pooling generally, or CMRS participation in number pooling
specifically, is necessary to address number exhaust problems.
10.    We disagree that GTE's contentions require reconsideration.  The third prong of the
section 10 forbearance test requires that we consider whether forbearance from applying a
Commission rule is consistent with the public interest.  As explained in the CMRS LNP
Forbearance Order, there is a strong public interest in addressing number exhaust problems, and
certain important number optimization strategies, including number pooling, are based on existing
LNP architecture.  We do not believe that the public interest analysis required by section 10 is
necessarily limited to issues we raised in the proceeding in which the rule at issue was adopted. 
Nonetheless, in this case, we expressly raised number conservation issues in the LNP rulemaking. 
We also do not believe that it was necessary to conclude definitively that CMRS LNP
implementation is necessary to address number conservation issues before considering the
potential impact of CMRS LNP implementation on number conservation as part of the public
interest analysis required by section 10.  As discussed more fully below, we find that the record in
this proceeding contained sufficient evidence of a link among LNP, number pooling, and number
conservation to warrant our consideration of this relationship as part of our section 10 public
interest analysis.
11.    GTE also contends that, even if it were permissible for the Commission to consider
number conservation issues as a basis for limiting the forbearance granted, the Commission
incorrectly determined that continued LNP implementation by CMRS carriers is a necessary
precondition for CMRS providers to participate in number conservation efforts generally.  We
disagree.  We did not find in the CMRS LNP Forbearance Order that continued implementation
of service provider LNP by CMRS carriers is necessary for such carriers to participate in number
conservation efforts generally.  In fact, we recognized that there are many number conservation
methods that are not based on LNP architecture, and we subsequently sought comment on these
methods in the Numbering Resource Optimization Notice. 
12.    In addition, GTE contends that the Commission incorrectly determined that continued
LNP implementation by CMRS carriers is a necessary precondition for CMRS providers to
participate in thousands-block pooling specifically.  In particular, GTE argues that the only part
of LNP infrastructure that is necessary for CMRS participation in thousands-block pooling has
already been implemented by CMRS providers in Phase I of LNP deployment.   Moreover, GTE
argues that further implementation of LNP infrastructure by CMRS providers under Phase II,
which involves the separation of the Mobile Directory Number (MDN) from the Mobile
Identification Number (MIN), is an inefficient mechanism for CMRS providers to develop the
capability to participate in thousands-block number pooling.  
13.    We disagree with these contentions.  GTE has not demonstrated that CMRS providers
could develop the capability to participate fully in thousands-block number pooling without
continued Phase II LNP implementation through the separation of the MDN from the MIN, a
process which the CMRS industry has yet to complete.  The record developed in response to
CTIA's petition amply supported our conclusion in the CMRS LNP Forbearance Order that
continued LNP implementation by CMRS providers is a necessary precondition for CMRS
participation in number pooling techniques.  Moreover, in July, the NANC's Wireless Number
Portability Subcommittee identified significant limitations on the ability of CMRS providers to
participate in thousands-block number pooling absent the separation of the MDN from the MIN. 
For instance, the Subcommittee concluded that, absent the separation of the MDN from the MIN,
CMRS participation in pooling would permit only one CMRS provider per pooled NPA-NXX to
receive numbers in thousands-blocks.  The record and the NANC's findings support our view
that continued Phase II LNP implementation by CMRS providers is necessary to ensure that all
CMRS providers are capable of participating in thousands-block number pooling.
14.    Finally, and perhaps most importantly, regardless of number conservation issues, we
found, and reaffirm our finding, that granting forbearance from applying LNP requirements to
CMRS carriers until November 24, 2002, but not beyond that date, was independently justified on
competitive grounds.  Specifically, we found that, separate and apart from number conservation
concerns, the competitive reasons that led us to mandate wireless LNP remained fundamentally
valid.  We observed that the wireless LNP requirement had been imposed to promote both
wireless-to-wireless and wireless-to-wireline competition for the benefit of consumers.  However,
we rejected the view of some commenters that if consumer demand for wireless LNP were to
develop, market forces alone would be sufficient to ensure its development and implementation. 
We found that in the absence of a regulatory requirement, carriers who feared losing customers
might not have a market-based incentive to develop LNP.  We also determined that a regulatory
requirement was necessary to ensure that wireless networks would support nationwide roaming
by wireless customers with ported numbers.  Finally, we concluded that retaining a uniform
regulatory deadline for wireless LNP implementation would provide the wireless industry with
needed certainty and would promote steady progress in the development of standards, testing
hardware and software, and deployment.  
15.    In its petition for reconsideration, the Pennsylvania Commission requests clarification
on how the forbearance granted in the CMRS LNP Forbearance Order will affect the authority of
state commissions to implement number conservation measures for telecommunications carriers
generally and wireless carriers specifically.  The Pennsylvania Commission also requests
clarification that states can implement number conservation methods which may provide relief
only for LNP-capable carriers.  As an initial matter, we note that whether, and the extent to
which, we should delegate additional authority to states to implement various numbering
optimization measures is the subject of the Numbering Resource Optimization proceeding.  We
emphasize that our decision to grant forbearance in the CMRS LNP Forbearance Order does not
preclude our ability to delegate additional authority to implement various optimization measures,
including measures thay may provide relief only for carriers that are LNP-capable.  We also note
that we recently granted in part five state petitions for additional delegated authority to implement
various optimization measures, such as thousand-block pooling trials on an interim basis, subject
to the national guidelines, standards, and procedures for numbering optimization that the
Commission will adopt in the Numbering Resource Optimization proceeding.  
16.    The Pennsylvania Commission also requests that the Commission clarify that states
have authority to develop "default systems, procedures and determinations" for the
implementation of wireless LNP, such as a standard for the separation of the MIN from the MDN,
if the wireless industry is not able to reach consensus on these standards.  Moreover, the
Pennsylvania Commission requests that the Commission agree to be an "arbiter of those measures
developed by the [wireless] industry," as well as "an arbiter of any action the state commissions
opt to take if the industry fails to internally develop such measures."   In addition, MCI
WorldCom recommends that we require the top ten wireless carriers to report quarterly to the
Commission on their individual progress in implementing LNP.
17.    We believe it is premature to consider mandating specific wireless LNP
implementation measures or reporting requirements at this time before the wireless industry has
had an opportunity to develop and implement such measures.  We note that the Pennsylvania
Commission recognizes that the wireless industry has the expertise to decide technical issues with
respect to implementation of wireless LNP.  The wireless industry submits monthly reports to the
NANC on the status of the industry's number portability efforts.  In addition, under section
52.31(e) of the Commission's rules, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (Bureau) has the
authority to establish direct reporting requirements if the Bureau considers such requirements
necessary to monitor the progress of CMRS providers in implementing number portability. 
Moreover, under section 52.31(e), the Bureau may direct carriers to take any actions necessary to
ensure compliance with the deployment schedule.  Accordingly, we believe that the existing
NANC reporting mechanism, as well as the authority of the Bureau to address any wireless LNP
implementation problems that may arise, are sufficient to address the LNP implementation
concerns raised by MCI WorldCom and the Pennsylvania Commission.  
18.    Competition.  TRA disagrees with our conclusion in the CMRS LNP Forbearance
Order that an extension of the CMRS LNP deadline until November 24, 2002 would not harm
competition in the CMRS market in that timeframe and would likely promote competition in that
timeframe by giving CMRS carriers greater flexibility to complete network buildout, technical
upgrades, and other improvements.  GTE, on the other hand, disagrees with our affirmation in
the CMRS LNP Forbearance Order that, in the long term, CMRS LNP implementation will
promote competition in the CMRS market and competition between wireless and wireline
carriers.   We find that petitioners failed to raise arguments or facts not already considered in the
CMRS LNP Forbearance Order.  In the Order, we carefully considered the effect of forbearance
from the CMRS LNP requirements on wireless-to-wireless and wireless-to-wireline competition
and found that extending the wireless LNP deadline until November 24, 2002, but not beyond that
date, would promote competition in the short term and in the long term. 
19.    TRA's Alternate LNP Proposal.  TRA argues that the Commission failed to
adequately consider the alternative approach for implementing LNP that was proposed by TRA in
ex parte filings in the CMRS LNP Forbearance proceeding.  In TRA's ex parte filings in this
proceeding, it argued that the wireless industry does not require any additional time beyond
March 2000 to implement LNP because there is an alternative approach, known as "LRN relay,"
that would enable the industry to support LNP more quickly and less expensively than the
industry-proposed MIN/MDN separation process. TRA also requested that we place the TRA
proposal on public notice.  
20.    We find that we adequately considered TRA's proposal in the CMRS LNP
Forbearance Order.  First, we concluded that, given the extensive comment that TRA's proposal
has generated in this proceeding and a related proceeding on wireless-wireline integration, and
the fact that the wireless industry had previously considered proposals similar to TRA's in the
standards development process, it was not necessary to seek further public comment on TRA's
proposal.  Second, we questioned whether the LRN relay approach could realistically be
submitted to the relevant industry standards bodies, developed, and fully implemented by March
2000, as TRA asserted.   Third, we concluded that we did not need to resolve the debate about
the technical feasibility of TRA's proposed alternative or its relative technical merits as compared
with the MIN/MDN approach in addressing CTIA's forbearance petition.  We stated that, even if
TRA's proposal is technically viable, there was no reason to compel the wireless industry at this
stage in the LNP development process to abandon its substantial efforts to date in favor of a
different methodology.  We also stated that, even assuming that TRA's proposal would be less
costly than MIN/MDN separation, on balance our view remains that maintaining the March 2000
CMRS LNP schedule would impose additional costs and technical burdens on the wireless
industry that, given the current market conditions in the industry, are not necessary to protect
consumers, promote the public interest, and ensure just, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory rates
and practices.
21.    Application of Section 10.  TRA argues that we did not apply the appropriate standard
under section 10(a)(2) as part of our analysis of the effect of the requested forbearance on
consumers.  Section 10(a)(2) requires the Commission to determine whether "enforcement of [a]
regulation or provision is not necessary for the protection of consumers."  We find that we
correctly applied this standard.  In the CMRS LNP Forbearance Order, we concluded that
extending the implementation deadline until November 2002 would not harm consumers; in other
words, we concluded that maintaining the March 31, 2000 deadline was not necessary to protect
consumers.  In making our determination under section 10(a)(2), we evaluated a number of
competitive factors in the CMRS market and did not, as TRA contends, rely solely on evidence of
the lack of current consumer demand for number portability.
22.    In its petition for reconsideration, GTE argues that once the Commission found in the
CMRS LNP Forbearance Order that the three prongs of the section 10 forbearance standard were
met, section 10 requires the Commission to forbear indefinitely from imposing service provider
LNP requirements on CMRS carriers.  We disagree.
23.    CTIA's forbearance petition sought forbearance from the Commission's service
provider LNP requirements imposed on CMRS providers at least until the expiration of the five-
year buildout period for broadband PCS carriers.  CTIA's forbearance request reasonably can be
construed to encompass three alternative forms of relief: (1) forbearance from imposing service
provider LNP requirements on CMRS carriers until the end of the five-year buildout period
(November 24, 2002); (2) forbearance from imposing these requirements until a date after the
five-year buildout period; or (3) forbearance from these requirements indefinitely.  We considered
each of these alternatives under section 10 and concluded in the CMRS LNP Forbearance Order
that forbearance from imposing service provider LNP requirements on CMRS providers until the
expiration of the five-year buildout period for PCS providers (November 24, 2002) satisfied the
statutory standards for forbearance,  whereas forbearance beyond the expiration of the buildout
period would not satisfy the section 10 statutory standard. 
24.    Section 10(c) provides that the Commission may grant or deny a forbearance petition
"in whole or in part."  We find, first, that section 10(c) expressly permits the Commission to
grant one of the three alternative forms of relief sought by CTIA, even if the relief granted results
in forbearance for a shorter period of time than would have occurred if the Commission had
granted one of the other alternative forms of relief requested by CTIA.  We find, second, that
section 10(c), by permitting the Commission to grant a forbearance petition "in part," gives us the
authority to forbear from our CMRS LNP requirements until November 24, 2002, even if CTIA
had not requested that alternative form of relief. 
25.    Moreover, accepting GTE's argument that we are not permitted to forbear from our
CMRS LNP requirements until November 24, 2002 would lead to an anomalous result in this
case. Under GTE's argument, we would not have the option of granting forbearance until the
expiration of the buildout period, even though that was a form of forbearance relief actually
requested by the petitioner and that relief satisfied the section 10 statutory standard.  Therefore,
having concluded that the alternative forms of relief requested by the petitioner did not satisfy the
section 10 statutory standard, we would be required to reject CTIA's forbearance petition in its
entirety.  We believe that this result is inconsistent with the deregulatory mandate of section 10.
26.    We note that, even if we had been required to reject CTIA's forbearance petition in its
entirety because we lacked the authority to extend the CMRS LNP implementation deadline to
November 24, 2002 under a section 10 forbearance analysis, we could have accomplished the
same result by granting a waiver of the CMRS service provider LNP requirement in section
52.31(a) until November 24, 2002.  The record for the CMRS LNP Forbearance Order contained
sufficient evidence to satisfy the "good cause" waiver standard of section 1.3 of the Commission's
rules.  Specifically, the record demonstrated that the wireless industry needs additional time
beyond the March 31, 2000 implementation deadline to finalize standards, produce software, and
deploy number portability in their networks. The record also established that extending the
deadline until November 24, 2002 will give CMRS carriers greater flexibility in that time-frame to
complete network buildout, technical upgrades, and other improvements that are likely to have a
more immediate impact on enhancing service to the public and promoting competition in the
telecommunications marketplace.  In addition, the record demonstrated that the public interest in
efficient use of numbering resources would not be harmed by the limited extension of the LNP
deadline.  Thus, the relief sought by CTIA could have been granted by waiver. 
27.    Conclusion.  As discussed above, we conclude that none of the petitions raises
arguments that warrant reconsideration of our decision in the CMRS LNP Forbearance Order to
forbear from imposing service provider LNP requirements on CMRS providers until November
24, 2002.  We find that we adequately considered issues related to number conservation,
competition in the wireless industry, and TRA's alternate LNP proposal.  We also find that our
analysis of CTIA's petition for forbearance was consistent with the standard set forth in section
10 of the Communications Act.
                  XXVIII.Ordering clause
29.    Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 1.106 of the Commission's rules,
47 C.F.R.  1.106, that the petitions for reconsideration of the CMRS LNP Forbearance Order
filed by GTE Service Corporation, MCI WorldCom Inc., the Pennsylvania Public Utility
Commission, and the Telecommunications Resellers Association ARE DENIED. 
                              FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

                         
                          Magalie Roman Salas
                          Secretary
                         
   SEPARATE STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER HAROLD FURCHTGOTT-ROTH
          
Re: Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association's Petition for Forbearance from
Commercial Mobile Radio Services Number Portability Obligations and Telephone Number
Portability, WT Docket No. 98-229, CC Docket No. 95-116 (February 9, 2000)

While I have no qualms with today's decision to deny these petitions for reconsideration, I
write separately to express my concern about the Commission's jurisdiction to order number
portability for CMRS providers in the first instance.  The Commission has grounded its authority
in sections 1, 2, 4(i), and 332, of the Communications Act.  I have long voiced concern about this
agency's efforts to impose costly and far-reaching regulatory obligations based on authority
cobbled together from various general and ancillary provisions of the Act.  Such assertions of
jurisdiction are particularly troubling here in light of Section 251's statutory provision specifically
mandating number portability solely for local exchange carriers.  Moreover, elsewhere we have
concluded that CMRS providers are not subject to these LEC obligations.  In the highly
competitive CMRS arena, it is the market, not government, that should generate new service
opportunities and technological innovation.  To take a government-first, mandate-driven approach
in the face of meager statutory authority strikes me as unnecessary and unproductive.     

                           -- FCC --