Transcript OBF Presentation for Telestrategies Billing 2000 Conference

Service Provider/Account Owner
Identification
in a
Competitive Environment
Ron Havens
OBF Moderator
June 29, 2000
Presentation Contents
Problem Identification
 Industry Actions
 Vendor Response
 Next Steps

Slide 2
Problem Identification
Billing Types
 Contribution Factors

Slide 3
Basic Problems (Review)
•
•
•
•
Telephone Numbers No Longer Are Carrier
Specific
Telephone Numbers Are Losing Geographic
Significance
Numbering Information is Needed, Near-Real
Time, at the Individual Telephone Number Level
Existing Industry Databases Do Not Completely
Support These Needs
Slide 4
End-User Billing
Billing of business and residence customers
 Local Exchange Carrier Billing

–
–
–

Third Number
Calling Card
Collect
Interexchange Carrier Billing
–
–
101-XXXX
Long Distance Charges on Local Phone Bill
Slide 5
Access Billing
Telephone Companies Bill Each Other for
Use of Facilities
 Long Distance Carriers Use Facilities of
Local Companies
 Local Companies Partner to Complete
Local and intraLATA calls

Slide 6
Contributing Factors

Telecommunications Act of 1996
–

Basic Competition
Local Number Portability (LNP)
 Within
the Rate Center
 Portability Outside the Rate Center (PORC)
 Service Type Portability

Resale
 Local
 Long
Distance
Slide 7
Contributing Factors

Unbundled Network Elements (UNE)

Numbering Issues
–
–
–
Pooling
Splits/Overlays
Alpha-Numeric Company Identifiers
Slide 8
CLC Forum Industry Actions
NIIF/NIAC
 INC
 TFPC
 OBF

Slide 9
NIIF/NIAC Issues

#131 - Identification of Service Providers
for Circuit Switched Calls
–
–
Issue Statement - In a multi-service provider
environment (e.g. resale, unbundling,
interconnection) there is a need for a defined
architecture(s) to identify entities (companies)
that are involved in circuit-switched calls to
facilitate billing and auditing.
Status
Slide 10
INC
Local Number Portability
 Number Pooling

Slide 11
Toll Fraud Prevention Committee
Due to the sensitive nature of topics
discussed by this committee, the TFPC
works under mandatory non-disclosure
agreements.
 TFPC Activities

–
–
Issue 057 - LNP Fraud
Issue 058 - Fraud Prevention for Local Resale
Slide 12
OBF

Billing Committee
–
–

Issue 1182 - Unique Identifier for Each
Industry Segment Representative
Issue 1783 - National Repository for
Notification Information
Message Processing Committee
–
Issue 1496 - Line Level Database
Slide 13
Analyses
Information is Required at a 10 Digit, Line
Level Degree of Detail
 Network Signaled vs Database Lookup
Approaches were Studied
 Pros and Cons were Highlighted and
Debated

Slide 14
Network Pros

Information is available real time
–
Branding
–
Call blocking

Information is available from all network elements
that are capable

Internal ordering processes can be used

Information remains proprietary
Slide 15
Network Cons

Cost to implement may be prohibitive

All network providers must participate

All signaling is not technically capable

One weak link destroys the integrity

Increases call setup/response times

T1S1 did not approve the LSPI signaling
standard
Slide 16
Network Cons (cont.)

Facility providers would have to bear the costs &
maintenance efforts without cost recovery
potential

If not available from the network, the information
is not available at all
–
Signal/Recording failures
–
Only recording company has the information, all other
carriers are dependent
–
No historical data is available to anyone else
Slide 17
Network Cons (cont.)

Requires full forward and backward signaling on
every call; on every “leg”

Requires compatible interaction with other
network dB’s (i.e.:BVDB’s) that may not be UNE
or Resale compliant

Requires all/multiple carrier values to be signaled
and recorded by the network (switch owner,
account owner, billing provider)
Slide 18
Database Pros

Several models already exist and could be
enhanced
–
–
–

LNP dB’s
Telcordia Traffic Routing Admin Products
Billing Validation dB’s
More timely to implement short and long
term solutions
Slide 19
Database Pros (cont.)

Call processing (routing) not impacted

Implementation timeline and the exact
solution is not Carrier specific

No network impact
–
–
cost to load
call setup degradation
Slide 20
Database Pros (cont.)

Real time update is not required

Information is available to all providers

Solution is effective for non-network issues
–
–
–
Other information services
Directory Listings
Carrier PIC Issues
Slide 21
Database Pros (cont.)

Historical is available for
–
–
–
Delayed implementation
Fraud investigation
Recovery purposes
Slide 22
Database Cons

Funding for development and maintenance

To be thoroughly effective all code owners
must participate

Data update and maintenance
–
–
–
Who
How
Cost recovery
Slide 23
Database Cons (cont)

May not be viable “real-time”

Internal lookups required to acquire data
for:
–
Message processing
–
Call Blocking
Slide 24
Vendor Responses
Slide 25
OBF RFI Response Summary
Overall Interest/Feasibility

8 Vendor teams attended the RFI SME Q&A conference
–




(CCMI, GEIS, NECA, Telcordia, LIDB, REVCOMM, NeuStar,
NCS, TEOCO)
10 RFI Responses Received by January 28
Responses indicate an overall interest from the vendor
community
Responses available on the ATIS Web at
http://www.atis.org/atis/clc/obf/rfi.htm
Some responses contained detailed feasibility while others
simply indicated an interest in pursuing a solution.
Slide 26
All-Inclusive / Exception




No Vendors ruled out an all-inclusive database.
Responses indicated a tendency towards the exception
databases being a subset of an all-inclusive database and
not a separate database.
Some vendors indicated a tendency towards creating an
exception database first, or as a first phase, and moving to
an all-inclusive at a later phase.
Other vendors offered an all-inclusive database as part of
the initial phase. However, the different database levels
(e.g. TN-level, Company level, Switch level, NPA-NXX
level) were not specifically addressed.
Slide 27
Design (Alternative Solutions / Phases)

Five responses addressed Database Design
–
Different phased approaches were suggested:
 Phasing
of Exception vs. All-Inclusive database
 Phasing of TN-level vs. other levels of detail. The
Switch-level, Company-level, and NPANXX-levels
would be later phases.
–
Detailed responses also indicated the database
could be scaled to the upper-limits of the
required size.
Slide 28
Population Mechanism / Source

Although new fields may need to be added, suggested data
sources included the following:
–
–
–
–



Service Orders
CARE process
Existing Industry Databases (e.g. NPAC, TRA, LIDB, NECA, etc.)
Direct Company Input
While no concrete methods were recommended to
integrate the information from various sources into the
database, some responses contained initial data source
diagrams.
The OBF and other industry sources will need to cooperate
in order to obtain all of the necessary data elements (e.g.,
obtaining the RAO resulting from O&P issue 1825).
Online, Internet, Batch, Direct Input, etc. were all
suggested as viable input mechanisms.
Slide 29
Access to Database

Vendor responses addressed a wide range of access methods, including:
–
–
–
–
–

A variety of output formats were also supported in the vendor
responses, including:
–
–
–
–

Online, Real-Time
Internet-Based
Batch Download
Batch Query
Real-Time Query
Initial database loads
Transactional updates
Historical information
Adhoc Queries & Reports
Responses also indicated a wide variety of output media
Slide 30
Maintenance/Administration

The following requirements were addressed by the various
responses, some in greater detail than others:
–
Availability

–
Security

–
–

Both update and access security concerns were discussed. More
detailed security requirements are needed from OBF.
SLA/Recovery
Historical Data

–
Query estimates were requested
Size issues were raised with the RFI’s historical data requirements.
Training & Documentation
Overall, there were no feasibility concerns. However,
additional information was requested from the OBF.
Slide 31
Funding

Responses suggested several cost recovery
mechanisms for both startup and ongoing
operational costs. A sample of what was received
included:
–
–
–
–
–
–

Membership Fees
Contractual Fees
Transactional or Usage-Sensitive fees
Flat-Rate fees
Input Cost Recovery
View-Only fees
Market-Driven vs. Industry Mandated approaches
were discussed.
Slide 32
Implementation Timeframes



Although more information was required for
detailed responses, illustrative timelines ranged
from a 6-month timeframe (2Q2000), to a 3-Year
timeframe (1Q2003), depending on the phased
approach selected.
Some of the required data elements appear to be
available in the near future.
The full set of refined OBF requirements will
determine the availability of all or phased data
elements, download options, etc.
Slide 33
Vendor Questions and Comments

Will everyone participate?
–

Mandatory industry participation, voluntary private agreement, or
process-based requirement?
Sizing
–
–
How many database entries
Query and Transaction volumes

–
–
–

Input & Output
Historical data requirements
Volume of users
Number of companies utilizing the database
Funding Mechanisms
–
Initial & Ongoing
Slide 34
Conclusions
The National Repository Database is
technically viable
 Vendors are interested in providing a
solution
 Requirements need refinement &
clarification
 The SME group is recommending to the
committee that we move forward with the
next steps towards a RFP

Slide 35
Next Steps
Slide 36
Next Steps / Action Plan



OBF Task Force recommends a series of interim SME
group meetings to further refine the requirements.
RFI-SME Group will draft letter to external entities
advising them of the issue status. (To be approved by the
full committees). This would be sent to NIAC, TFPC, as
well as Industry Organizations (USTA, ALTS, COMPTel,
WIF, CTIA, APPC, Telecom Resellers Assn.)
Internal Company Meetings with PCC, CLC member,
ATIS board member, Funding entities, Decision Makers,
and other interested parties.
Slide 37
Committee/Company Questions








What is the cost of creating an RFP? (ATIS and Company)
What funding cost elements need to be determined in order to
issue an RFP?
Will companies continue to fund their RFI-SME group member
activities?
Quantification of cost/benefit models within companies. What is
your company’s $ exposure.
Coordination with company PCC, CLC, ATIS Member, NIAC
members, funding entities, and other interested parties.
Is FCC involvement needed? Company-initiated or ATISinitiated?
Does OBF or do member companies want to continue to pursue
a network-based solution?
Company legal considerations, review, etc.
Slide 38