ATTACHMENT 8: NUMBER PORTABILITY

Transcription

1 Attachment: 8 Number Portability Pa2e I ATTACHMENT 8: NUMBER PORTABILITY 1.0 Service Provider Number Portabilitv ("SPNP") 1.1 The parties acknowledge that ILEC has implemented number portability throughout its service areas. Upon receipt of a Bona Fide Request for SPNP from the other Party, each Party shall implement number portability without delay and as required by Applicable Law. 2.0 Local Number Portabilitv 2.1 LNP means the ability of users of Telecommunications Services to retain, at the same location, existing telephone numbers without impairment of quality, reliability or convenience when switching from one Telecommunications Carrier to another. Under this arrangement, the new Teloco innuinications Carrier must directly provide Telephone Exchange Service to the End User porting the telephone number. In order for a port request to be valid under this Agreement, the End User must retain the original number at the same location and be served directly by CLEC or ILEC requesting the port. 2.2 The Parties shall provide LNP query, routing, and transport services in accordance with rules and regulations as prescribed by the FCC and the guidelines set forth by the North American Numbering Council ("NANC"). The applicable charges for LNP query, routing, and transport services shall be billed in accordance with each Patty's applicable tariff. 2.3 The Parties will mutually provide LNP services from properly equipped central offices. LNP applies only when a Customer with an active account wishes to change local carriers while retaining the telephone number or numbers associated with the account. 2.4 Both Parties will perform testing as specified in industry guidelines and cooperate in conducting any additional testing to ensure interoperability between networks and systems. Each Party shall inform the other Party of any system updates that may affect the other Party's network and each Party shall, at the other Party's request, perform tests to validate the operation of the network. 2.5 ILEC and CLEC shall each be entitled to collect a non-recurring service order charge of $15.03 for each telephone number ported out as listed on the Local Service Request ("LSR"). The Parties may mutually agree in writing to a different rate. 3.0 Coordination of Transfer of Service 3.1 The Parties agree to establish mutually acceptable, reasonable, and efficient transfer of service procedures that utilize the industry standard LSR format for the exchange of necessary information for coordination of service transfers between the Parties. In addition, the Parties agree to follow the LNP ordering procedures established at the Ordering and Billing Forum. The Parties shall provide LNP on a reciprocal basis. 3.2 Each Party is responsible for following FCC rules for obtaining Customer authorization from each End User initiating transfer of service from one Party to the other Party. 3.3 Each Party will accept local number portability requests from the other Party for a Customer which could include multiple telephone numbers so long as fhe request has one terminating address. The service order charge set forth at Att. 8, Section 2.5 shall apply to each telephone number. 3.4 The Party porting a number to the other Party will not disconnect service to the applicable Customers transferring service ""tit at least twenty-four hours after the numbers have been ported. 50 ATTACHMENT 1 t Do.'F /) S;'A CC TX / SuddenL.in'r.

2 Attachment: 8 Number Portability Page Obli2ations Of Both Parties 4.1 Each Party will be certified with the applicable regional Number Portability Administration Center ("NPAC") prior to requesting SPNP from the other Party. 3.2 Each Party must advise the NPAC of telephone numbers that it imports and the associated data identified in industry forums as is required for SPNP, 3.3 Each Party shall conform to NANC guidelines and LERG administration rules in its request for opening an NPA-NXX for portability. 3.4 When a ported telephone number becomes vacant, e.g., the telephone number is no longer in service by the original End User, the ported telephone number shall be released back to the LSP owning the switch in which the telephone number's NXX is native. 3.5 The Parties sliall conform to industry guidelines referenced herein in preparing their networks for SPNP and in porting numbers from one network to another. 4.6 The Parties shall perform all standard SPNP intra-company testing prior to scheduling intercompany testing between the Parties' interconnected networks. 4.7 Each Party shall designate a single point of contact to schedule and perform required test. These tests shall be performed during a mutually agreed time frame and must conform to industry portability testing and implementation criteria in force in the NPAC re;ion. 5.0 Limitations Of Service 5.1 There shall be no locational porting of numbers. Telephone numbers shall be ported only within PUC approved ILEC rate centers, 5.2 ILEC and CLEC porting rate center areas must comprise identical geographic locations and boundaries. 5.3 Telephone numbers associated with ILEC Official Communications Set-vices NXXs shall not be ported. 5.4 Telephone numbers in NXX dedicated to choke networks shall not be ported 51 ATTACHMENT I t Do,Ci: /) IC.; CCTX / SttddenLini;

3 Attachment: 9 Number Portability Pau I ATTACHMENT 9: ENHANCED SERVICE Rules l.l CLEC shall adhere to the rules applicable to the provisioning of emergency services as defined by the Commission on State EmerJency Communications (CSEC) Flour Contact Information 2.1 CLEC shall contact each Public Safety Answering Point in the respective exchanges or communities where CLEC will be providing local service in order to provide 24 hour contact information and NENA company ID Surcharge 3.1 CLEC shall coordinate with system management surcharge end-user billing and remittance to system management. 52 ATTACHMENT 1 t o25u7r:s30. D 'JC% / i ICA CCU / SuddenI,.inl:

4 DOCKET NO. JOINT APPLICATION OF CONSOLIDATED COMMUNICATIONS OF TEXAS COMPANY AND CEBRIDGE TELECOM TX, LP D/B/A SUDDENLINK COMMUNICATIONS FOR APPROVAL OF AN INTERCONNECTION AGREEMENT UNDER THE FEDERAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1996 AND THE PUBLIC UTILITY REGULATORY ACT ^ PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION OF TEXAS AFFIDAVIT OF REPRESENTATIVE FOR CEBRIDGE TELECOM TX LP D/B/A SUDDENLINK COMMUNICATIONS BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, on this 22nd_ day of August, 2013, personally appeared Tim Thompson on behalf of Cebridge Telecom TX, LP d/b/a SuddenLink Communications ("SuddenLink"), who being by me duly sworn, on her oath deposed and said: "My name is Tim Thompson, I am over the age of 21 years of age, of sound mind, and competent to testify as to the matters stated herein. I have personal knowledge of the facts stated herein. Such facts are true and correct. 2. "I am employed by SuddenLink in the position of Vice President of Telephony & Security. I am authorized to make the statements herein, and was an authorized representative of SuddenLink in its interconnection negotiations leading to the signing of the Interconnection Agreement (the "Agreement") between Consolidated Communications of Texas Company and SuddenLink. 3. "The parties have negotiated diligently, in good faith, under the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 ("FTA 96"). These negotiations culminated in the signing of the ( )oC i } Page I of 2 53 ATTACHMENT 2

5 Agreement. Furthermore, the parties to the Agreement have resolved all outstanding issues that require mediation or arbitration. issues and there are no '^ "The A greement is consistent with the public interest; conveilience, and necessity and does not discriminate against any telecommunications ca>tier. The terms of the Agreement are Y similarly-situated provider negotiating a similar a. 5. agreement. "Further, consistent with thepolicy Act ("PURA»), provisions of the Texas Public I believe that this Agreement fosters Utility Regulatory > development of a com encourages, and accelerates the petitive, advanced telecommunications continuing therefore, is in the public interest. environment and infi astructure and and, 6. "The Agreement is othe ^ conftict with Se consistent with the applicable provisions of, and the competitive not in e safeguards contained in, PU the Public Utilit y Co ^' FTA 96 and the Substantive mmission of Texas." Rules of FURTHER AFFIANT SAyETH NOT. 4;dayofAu,^Jb SUBSCRIBED gust, ANDSWO^TOBEFOREMEb 20I3, to certify which witness my hand and se 1 of ofc on this GAt.EA.VOSS *."NOFAtY S^t : :'^'! t ^vfy CanqssPon sv'res ;.. February 1, 2016 o a Pub17 in and for ^ ^ st. ctra,res r,anty the State of1^}^' P^ Comm ss>an D2 \-e { DOC! } page 2 of 2 54 ATTAC1i1tqENT z

6 DOCKET NO. JOINT APPLICATION OF CONSOLIDATED COMMUNICATIONS OF TEXAS COMPANY AND CEBRIDGE TELECOM TX, LP D/BIA SUDDENLINK COMMUNICATIONS FOR APPROVAL OF AN INTERCONNECTION AGREEMENT UNDER THE FEDERAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1996 AND THE PUBLIC UTILITY REGULATORY ACT PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION OF TEXAS AFFIDAVIT OF REPRESENTATIVE FOR CONSOLIDATED COMMUNICATIONS OF TEXAS COMPANY BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, on this 5+^` day of September, 2013, personally appeared Michael Shultz on behalf of Consolidated Communications of Texas Company ("Consolidated Communications"), who being by me duly sworn, on his oath deposed and said: 1. "My name is Michael Shultz, I am over the age of 21 years of age, of sound mind, and competent to testify as to the matters stated herein. I have personal knowledge of the facts stated herein. Such facts are true and correct. 2. "1 am employed by Consolidated Communications in the position of Vice President, Regulatory and Public Policy. I am authorized to make the statements herein, and was an authorized representative of Consolidated Communications in its interconnection negotiations leading to the signing of the Interconnection Agreement (the "Agreement") between Consolidated Communications and Cebridge Telecom TX, LP dlb/a SuddenLink Communications ("SuddenLink"). 3. "The parties have negotiated diligently, in good faith, under the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 ("FTA 96{'). These negotiations culminated in the signing of the ( DOC / } Page 1 of 2 ATTACHMENT 3 55

7 Agreement. Furthermore, the parties to the Agreement have resolved all issues and there are no outstanding issues that require mediation or arbitration. 4. "The Agreement is consistent with the public interest, convenience, and necessity and does not discriminate against any telecommunications carrier. The terms of the Agreement are available to any similarly-situated provider negotiating a similar agreement. The Agreement does not impose an undue financial burden on Consolidated Communications, and is consistent with Consolidated Communications' status as a Rural Telephone Company under Section 251(f) of FTA 96. "Further, consistent with the policy provisions of the Texas Public Utility Regulatory Act {"PURA"j, I believe that this Agreement fosters, encourages, and accelerates the continuing development of a competitive, advanced telecommunications environment, infrastructure and is in the public interest. 6. "The Agreement is otherwise consistent with the applicable provisions of, and not in conflict with the competitive safeguards contained in, PURA, FTA 96 and the Substantive Rules of the Public Utility Commission of Texas," FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NOT. SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME Q,,^ 4 1EtkW on this,,5 day of September 2013, to certify which witness my hand and seal of office.,l^qf},t'fp^^4s GLORIA EAKER -+ :cf Notary Public, State of Texas my Commission Expires ^v.,t,'p ;^; Match ^^ Notary Public in and for the State of Texas ( Docr ) Page 2 of 2 ATTACHMENT 3 56