Local Number Portability: Implementation Planning

Local number portability (LNP) is the most significant network wide capability ever introduced into the telephone network. It will force the mass deployment of advanced intelligent network (AIN) infrastructure, and it will affect every call made after it is implemented. The telephone companies, both incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs) and competitive local exchange carriers (CLECs), are facing a major dilemma: How do they manage the implementation of LNP without totally disrupting their quality of service?

AIN implementation has been a major challenge to the very large operating companies that have begun to deliver AIN-based services. The major companies, with some experience in the implementation of AIN-based services, have enough information to predict the impact of LNP on their network infrastructure. The small companies don't even know where to begin.

Implementation of LNP for one line in a central office has the following impact on the telco owning that central office:

1. All calls in that central office will be forced to become AIN calls and will require a data base dip to determine the routing of this call.
2. If it is an LNP call, the service control point (SCP) provides routing (and billing?) information for that call.
3. The telcos will need to establish methodologies to determine routing of calls that originate from non-LNP ready switches and terminate to portable numbers.
4. The telcos will need to establish cost allocation routines regarding the charges to be transferred between affected telco.
5. To support AIN, the switch must have the proper software load and software feature set, as well as the required processor and memory.
6. A SCP must be available to handle the increased signaling traffic for data base dips (on the order of magnitude of 100 times current transaction rates).
7. The switch must have the signaling capacity to support this additional traffic.
8. AIN call timings are approximately three times as long as non-AIN call timings, so the capacity of the switch require upgrading (any switch currently operating at more than 25 percent of capacity is at risk). This may entail costly processor upgrades and associated memory additions.
9. E-911 information must be modified for LNP calls because the physical location of the residence may not be consistent with the automatic number identification (ANI) of the call.
10. Provisioning routines in the switch may require changes.
11. Repair routines may require changes.
12. Network management routines may require changes.
13. Ordering processes may require changes.
14. Billing systems will require changes. Billing changes include: new record types, more records, larger records, larger billing pipelines and more storage media.
15. The network may require additional signaling capacity to support LNP (STPs and the SS7 network).
16. Search routines will need to be developed to find the appropriate SCP that a customer's number resides in.
17. SCP ownership and management will also be an issue because of the number of SCPs required, the cost of implementation and the entry/management of the data that will be stored.

The scope of the implications identified above is massive for both small and large telcos. A telco can be forced into implementation just because a customer that chose LNP has moved into its service area. Reactive provisioning will spell disaster for telcos whether they are small or large. The rollout begins in late 1997, with everyone in the wireline network impacted by the year 2000. Cellular and wireless are also impacted, but they are later in the process.

In addition to the pieces of the network and its support infrastructure that can possibly be affected, the ability to implement required changes can potentially be a major problem. Equipment and software may not be available in the required time frames, especially if the service provider is using customized products.

The following areas can potentially cause problems in the implementation of LNP:

1. Software availability--central offices. Not all of the vendors of central offices can currently provide the AIN features that are required to implement LNP. This could force either a delay in implementation while the vendor develops the features, an overlay network to address the requirements or a network replacement strategy to upgrade the network.
2. Customized software upgrades. Software in customized systems may require upgrading. If it does, the availability of experienced programmers may be a major issue in the implementation of LNP. This may be especially true if a large number of similar systems require updating at the same time.
3. Planning resource availability. With the recent downsizing in virtually all of the telcos, the experience base to plan the implementation of LNP does not exist within the telcos. In addition, the manufacturers have decimated their resource bases and are in no position to offer more than superficial levels of planning support. Planning resources will quickly become a premium priced item.
4. Implementation resources. As in the item above, the resource base to implement end to end network revolution (as compared to network evolution) does not exist within either the telcos or the manufacturers.

LNP clearly presents a major challenge to the industry. It creates major business opportunities for the suppliers and major challenges to the implementers. The regulators have issued the challenge, now its up to the network operators to perform.

Michael Ewasyshyn is a senior consultant with The Management Network Group (TMNG). TMNG specializes in providing consulting services to all segments of the telecommunications industry. TMNG's corporate offices are located in Leawood, Kan.
Questions regarding this article or TMNG can be directed to Richard P. Nespola at (913) 345-9315, or e-mail at TMNGRPN@aol.com.