How is a Local Calling Area (LCA) determined?

[TheHardy]

I am wondering, in a general sense, how a Local Calling Area (LCA) is determined? And by that I mean the actual LOCAL calling area, not the 'free calling area' that we most often talk about concerning FPL.

I know that "back in the day" the ILEC's determined what was a toll and what was a free call. Now I live in the Metro Vancouver area, and several years ago, Telus, the ILEC, had an up and down vote on expanding the local calling area for several of the metro suburbs (it passed, BTW). Since competition has begun, I know that there are SOME CLEC's that have offered "extended area calling". Not the same as ON-NET calling, which most CLEC's have had for almost their whole existence (ie: being able to call other customers of the same CLEC, no matter where they are).

I also know that arrangements such as this existed for quite a while back east in Ontario, I remember back in the early 2000's visiting a close friend in Newmarket, who as a customer of a CLEC, had Toronto as a local all (even though it is outside the LCA for Newmarket).

This is also the case for a few CLECs in the Metro Vancouver area, which offer Abbotsford, Mission, Chilliwack, Yarrow, Rosedale, Sardis as "local" calls to their customers, regardless of whether the destination number is also a customer of that CLEC or not.

That also brings up the question of wireless providers, which generally have a lot larger local calling area than traditional wireline service. In the Metro Vancouver area, for example, on Telus Mobility, in addition to the traditional local calling area associated with Vancouver, customers can also call: Abbotsford, Mission, Ganges (one of the Gulf Islands), Sechelt, Gibsons. In the not to distant past, one could also call Chilliwack, Rosedale, Sardis, Nanaimo, Saltspring Island, Yarrow.

So my question is, what are the determining factors for a CLEC to select which rate centres will encompass their LCA? Is there a formula that must be followed? Must it be the the same as the ILEC's LCA?

Just thought I would pose this question, as I have been starting to wonder lately! Thanks for any insight!

[FONGO_kris]

If you've ever driven a boat down unknown shallow waters you'll know that no one likes to navigate through unless someone else goes first. The short answer is yes, we prefer to follow the ILEC's LCA saving ourselves the headache with saying "Okay, Bell, Rogers, and TELUS have this LCA; but we have this one.".

I will certainly get an answer to you that consists of more than a simple yes or no, give me some time to speak with whomever I must. I would definitely appreciate your patience as my inquiry will be low on their to-do list.

[TheHardy]

I will certainly get an answer to you that consists of more than a simple yes or no, give me some time to speak with whomever I must. I would definitely appreciate your patience as my inquiry will be low on their to-do list.

Hey Kris. I didn't really expect a detailed answer, but certainly appreciate the effort. I had just thought that I would ask the question on a "high-level" for an overview kind of answer, insofar as I really have/had no idea how a CLEC would go about defining what their LCA would be. The "follow the leader" approach makes sense for what it is, however, I can also see how an aggressive CLEC would go about adding nearby ratecentres to perhaps chip away at the ILEC.

On a grander scale, for a VOIP provider, where physical distance between ratecentres is irrelevant, it is even more interesting.

That all said, seeing that FPL would terminate on foreign numbers a lot of the time, how go the existing tariffs play into it? Without getting into the whole question of how FPL makes money or is charged money, there must be an underlying structure there which determines which ratecentres are included as LCA to a given location, and which ones are then long distance....

[FONGO_kris]

That all said, seeing that FPL would terminate on foreign numbers a lot of the time, how go the existing tariffs play into it? Without getting into the whole question of how FPL makes money or is charged money, there must be an underlying structure there which determines which ratecentres are included as LCA to a given location, and which ones are then long distance....

To be quite frank, it is as simple as what is free for us to terminate to based on our existing and expanding infrastructure, and what is not free (not free mainly being areas where we have to use other carriers trunks or facilities). There is a certain level of cost absorption which is used, however if I might speak candidly here, I have no idea where it is used specifically.

[TheHardy]

Thanks for being frank and candid. It is always refreshing to see/hear that. Thanks also for the insight which you have shared into this. I guess to me it is always one of those things that I have been curious about, and this just seemed to be the correct time and place to pose the question!

[TheHardy]

Slightly off topic from my original post, but along the same vein, so I really did not feel it required a new thread...

This is probably aimed squarely at Kris for whenever he 'monitors' next ...

How does a CLEC like Fibernetics go about applying for an NXX code assignment? Is it just a matter of "Oh, we need another prefix in the Vancouver ratecentre" and then an application to .... CNAC? Or would the CLEC (Fibernetics in this case) say "We would like to have 604-958 assigned as a Vancouver ratecentre". I suppose what I am getting at is, do you just request the new/additional numbering resource in general, or do you get to specify/request a preference for a specific numeric assignment?

If there are multiple NPAs (area codes) available, are you allowed to specify from which one the NXX is assigned, or is it random, or even defaulted to the one with the most available NXX's? Out west here in BC, I know that the 604 NPA is rapidly running out of available space and that you seem to have the majority of your NXX's assigned from 778 ... if there is a plan to expand and have additional coverage in ratecentres around Vancouver, would trying to get some more 'readily identifiable' (aka old school) 604 NXX's be preferable to getting the newer 778 ones? This is assuming that the requesting CLEC has some say in it, which is what I am really wondering.

Thanks for any insight into this.

[FONGO_kris]

How does a CLEC like Fibernetics go about applying for an NXX code assignment? Is it just a matter of "Oh, we need another prefix in the Vancouver ratecentre" and then an application to .... CNAC? Or would the CLEC (Fibernetics in this case) say "We would like to have 604-958 assigned as a Vancouver ratecentre". I suppose what I am getting at is, do you just request the new/additional numbering resource in general, or do you get to specify/request a preference for a specific numeric assignment?

Fibernetics, and most carriers (not resellers) rely on the NANPA to attain their numbers. The North American Numbering Plan Administration assigns telephone numbers to any certified LEC. If you'd like to be the life of the party this weekend, they usually assign them in blocks of 1,000. They used to assign them in blocks of 10,000 but since once a block is purchased / alloted it cannot be reassigned, there was a huge number (20-35% of numbers which were not being used by smaller carrers, thus having the NANPA change how they pool numbers.

If there are multiple NPAs (area codes) available, are you allowed to specify from which one the NXX is assigned, or is it random, or even defaulted to the one with the most available NXX's? Out west here in BC, I know that the 604 NPA is rapidly running out of available space and that you seem to have the majority of your NXX's assigned from 778 ... if there is a plan to expand and have additional coverage in ratecentres around Vancouver, would trying to get some more 'readily identifiable' (aka old school) 604 NXX's be preferable to getting the newer 778 ones? This is assuming that the requesting CLEC has some say in it, which is what I am really wondering.

In short, we request numbers and they give them to us with little to no decision to what we actually get besides the NPA (as well as city...).

[TheHardy]

Thanks for the detailed answer Kris. I was aware that in the USA, that it was all "t-blocked" out; I was under the impression that within Canada that larger metro areas were still assigned ENTIRE NXX's, and only the lower population/lower demand areas were under thousands-pooling. I suppose that this change was inevitable though -- you correctly pointed out that there are a lot of "un-assigned" numbers that are stranded in certain NXX's because of the regulatory framework that assigned entire NXX's without a mechanism to make use of them should the registering *LEC fail to do so.

"With little to no decision" -- I assume that means that you "can" express a preference for an assignment, but that final decision is completely out of your hands. This makes sense, because when looking at the CNAC website and new NXX assignments, they are frequently in "blocks", either to the same *LEC or clustered around the same ratecentre.

You have basically confirmed my understanding of the procedure. To wit...

"We would like to request a new NPA-NXX assignment for the ratecentre of WHALLEY, BC; our preference would be for NPA 604; we would also like to request NXX of either 494 or 498."

(Whalley happens to be my home area, and 495,6,7 are all in that ratecentre).

Is this about accurate as to how things would go, or am I off base?

Again, thanks for taking the time to give me a detailed answer. And no, I won't be the belle of any ball, but you have satisfied my deep down curiosity in any case!

[TheHardy]

Okay, maybe I push my luck sometimes... Kris - let me know if I am taking up too much of your time with these questions....

I know that ratecentre consolidation was something that the regulators toyed with back in the early 90's, but since then I have not heard too much more about it. I use Vancouver as an example again, as there are at least 17 ratecentres that have EXACTLY the same local calling area (Aldergrove and Whonnock are the odd ones, FYI).

Would this not resolve some of the issues with needing additional NXX assignments? It would also make number portability easier when moving within that metro area as well, although as I detailed in one of my previous posts (I will figure out how to link to that later...) I am aware of several first hand instances in which cross-ratecentre moves have taken place in the metro Vancouver calling area.

Any info/thoughts on this that you have time/inclination to share?

[TheHardy]

Kris (or anyone else 'in the know'):

Does Fibernetics currently have any assigned NPA-NXXs (exchanges) where they are NOT listed as the operating *LEC due to having been assigned a thousand-block from another primary *LEC?? AFAIK, CNAC only lists by the whole NXX, not any subdivisions, and I have also made an inquery to find out, but I don't think that the NNAG for Canada contains any subdivisions below NXX level either!

Thanks in advance!