The Vt. Public Service Board (PSB) asked wireless operators in th...

for providing wireless LNP in the top 100 metro areas in the U.S. Earlier this month, the U.S. Appeals Court, D.C., turned down a wireless industry challenge to an FCC decision to not exercise forbearance on this LNP requirement. With the FCC making clear the agency had no plan to delay the date, attention has turned to possible relief on Capitol Hill. Sen. Schumer (D-N.Y.) warned last week that Senate Appropriations Committee Chmn. Stevens (R-Alaska) was particularly interested in attaching LNP relief to legislation such as the FCC reauthorization bill. Schumer also cited a NARUC projection that the wireless industry would collect $1.8 billion this year in LNP fees that carriers already were charging consumers. In a letter to carriers, PSB Regulatory Policy Dir. Peter Bluhm said the board wanted to collect preliminary information on: (1) Why LNP or pooling fees would be billed separately when carriers were subjected to other kinds of govt. mandates that weren’t treated similarly. (2) Why a wireless carrier might assess an LNP fee “at a time when the provider does not actually provide number portability” and “why a customer charge for number pooling would be imposed directly on retail customers and not on other carriers.” (3) What legal questions related to the right to recover the charge and consumer notice. While federal law preempts state authority over commercial mobile radio service (CMRS) entry and CMRS rates, “it preserves state authority over other terms and conditions of those services,” the letter said. The board also raised concern that LNP or pooling charges might “improperly suggest” to customers that the charge was a tax or govt. charge on the sales transaction, rather than a provider-imposed rate “to cover its own cost of operating its business.” The PSB asked for copies of sample bills for the 2 most popular rate plans that each carrier offered in the state. If customers must pay number portability or pooling charges, the PSB said, it wanted to know the rationale for the charge, how it was determined, whether it was meant to reimburse the company for costs imposed by a govt. mandate or whether it was part of a state or federal tariff. The deadline for replies is July 7.