home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!agate!dog.ee.lbl.gov!overload.lbl.gov!lll-winken!telecom-request
- From: varney@ihlpf.att.com (Alan L Varney)
- Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
- Subject: Re: Why Four-Digit Carrier Identification Codes?
- Message-ID: <telecom12.707.1@eecs.nwu.edu>
- Date: 13 Sep 92 00:00:00 GMT
- Sender: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
- Organization: AT&T Network Systems, Lisle, IL
- Lines: 114
- Approved: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
- X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
- X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
- X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 707, Message 1 of 7
-
- In article <telecom12.699.10@eecs.nwu.edu> sequent!islabs!fasttech!
- zeke@uunet.UU.NET (Bohdan Tashchuk) writes:
-
- > Several recent messages have mentioned there will soon be a change
- > from three-digit to four-digit long distance carrier identification
- > codes. Why is this change necessary?
-
- > I've only ever had a use for three different codes: 10222, 10288, and
- > 10333. I'm sure that sophisticated users need many more than this,
- > but are four digits really necessary? Is there a reluctance to re-use
- > old codes freed up because of mergers, bankruptcy, etc?
-
- Well, I only use a hand full of NPAs, but that doesn't mean we
- aren't running out of them :-) The change is needed for the obvious
- reason: Most XXX codes are already assigned, and (unlike
- electromagnetic spectrum) the FCC doesn't want to limit the number of
- competitors in "telecom" by limiting a resource (the XXX codes).
-
- Prior to divestiture, the original Carrier Interconnect
- requirements specified provisions for 100 ICs (00 to 99) -- no one
- really thought there would be more companies than this actually
- running cable/fiber and buying switches, etc. Late in the
- requirements phase, the Carrier Access Code went to three digits.
- There was an explicit binding of 950-WXXX and 10XXX numbers to the
- same carrier.
-
- So what happened? Are we lousy planners? Well, maybe. Several
- factors have emerged to change the "IC" marketplace, and "use up" the
- XXX codes -- (I'm sure Bellcore (as the NANP Administrator) could give
- you even more reasons!):
-
- 1) An IC doesn't have to own switches or networks or anything other
- than an XXX code, some billing system and (maybe) some trunks -- they
- can get an XXX code, contract with a "real" IC for service, and hope
- to profit from the IC's "bulk" rates or other discount arrangements.
- While this was mentioned as a possibility in discussions, I (and
- others) didn't believe there would ever be enough economic leverage to
- make this a "common" practice.
-
- 2) It was imagined that regional carriers could exist and that XXX
- codes could be assigned on a regional basis -- 10999 could be New
- England Oil and Telephone Co. in one area and Southern Beer and Telco
- in another. The reality was that no carrier would ever want to
- restrict itself to one region -- what if it were wildly successful
- (wants to grow) or not (junk bond candidate for non-regional
- takeover). No one wants to share what might be a valuable asset (an
- XXX code).
-
- 3) The "interim-only" access via 950-WXXX was tariffed in a way that
- attracted non-ICs (other Service Providers, etc.). This used up a lot
- of XXX values. Those XXX values couldn't be shared with a 10XXX-only
- carrier, because the 950 customer didn't want to share either.
-
- 4) Several ICs have requested multiple XXX codes, to allow service
- identification based on the code. This was partly the result of a
- failure to develop another means of service identification and the
- means to assign "generic" service codes and simultaneously allow
- carriers to invent new services without negotiating service codes in a
- public arena (and thus divulging the service to the competition
- early). Bellcore's position is that neither NPAs nor XXXs should be
- used for identification of services or facilities -- but the
- alternative mechanisms appear to be either inadequate or inconvenient.
-
- 5) Mergers/buy-outs don't result in freeing up of XXX codes -- the
- customer base doesn't want to change their dialing habits or PICs, the
- rates might vary by XXX code (even though a single IC carries the
- traffic), and again -- why give up an asset? Use it or LOSE it!
-
- > How soon will this change occur? Will it be in an upward-compatible
- > fashion? Will I still be able to dial 10ATT when I need to avoid AOS
- > scum?
-
- Short answers: 1995, of course, sure -- but maybe not forever.
-
- If you're really interested in the details (as in willing to part
- with $35), Bellcore's TR-NWT-001050 has specifics on the transition
- capabilities to be supported by switches. The Carrier Liason
- Committee and it's sub-committees (NOF, ICCF, etc.) have planned a
- mid-1995 deadline for deployment of the expanded "capability" in
- RBOC/GTE switches. That's early enough to meet the worst-case needs
- for accessing the first XXXX carrier. When customers will actually be
- able to "dial" that carrier will depend on the actual need. The TR
- supports a phased approach in XXXX assignment that allows for growth
- to 2970 XXXX codes, and later (if needed) to 10,000 codes.
-
- Note that prior to this capability, TR-TSY-000698 had already been
- updated to allow FG-B signaling and 950-access to support 10,000
- FG-B-only carriers -- that is, 950-XXXX was supported with only the
- original 950-0XXX and 950-1XXX ranges having a "transition to FG-D
- signaling" capability. This was in place around mid-1991.
-
- Briefly, for FG-D signaling and 10XXX access, the phases are:
-
- 1) Deploy switches, databases, operations systems, billing systems,
- etc. the support XXXX codes in all the internal communication paths
- (switch output messages, AMA records, SMDR, SCPs, etc.)
-
- 2) Convert inter-switch trunks (EO to AT, EO/AT to IC for
- International) to signal four-digit XXXX codes where-ever three was
- used before.
-
- 3) Enter the "permissive" dialing phase, where 10XXX still works for
- XXX values other than 1XX. For other codes, 101XXXX becomes the
- Carrier Access Code. This period may last for a LONG time (my
- opinion). 1010XXX also works to reach the old three-digit carriers.
-
- 4) Enter the "post-permissive" dialing phase, where 101XXXX must be
- used to access all FG-D carriers. Carriers with old XXX codes will
- automatically receive 0XXX codes. Only at this point will Bohdan and
- others be required to dial "1010288" in place of "10288".
-
-
- Al Varney -- this is my opinion today -- I might change it tomorrow!
-