Telecommunications Numbering Plan 2015Response to submissionsMARCH 2015

CanberraRed Building Benjamin OfficesChan Street Belconnen ACT

PO Box 78Belconnen ACT 2616

T +61 2 6219 5555F +61 2 6219 5353

MelbourneLevel 32 Melbourne Central Tower360 Elizabeth Street Melbourne VIC

PO Box 13112Law Courts Melbourne VIC 8010

T +61 3 9963 6800F +61 3 9963 6899

SydneyLevel 5 The Bay Centre65 Pirrama Road Pyrmont NSW

PO Box Q500Queen Victoria Building NSW 1230

T +61 2 9334 7700 1800 226 667F +61 2 9334 7799

Copyright notice

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/

With the exception of coats of arms, logos, emblems, images, other third-party material or devices protected by a trademark, this content is licensed under the Creative Commons Australia Attribution 3.0 Licence.

We request attribution as: © Commonwealth of Australia (Australian Communications and Media Authority) 2015.

All other rights are reserved.

The Australian Communications and Media Authority has undertaken reasonable enquiries to identify material owned by third parties and secure permission for its reproduction. Permission may need to be obtained from third parties to re-use their material.

Written enquiries may be sent to:

Manager, Editorial and DesignPO Box 13112Law CourtsMelbourne VIC 8010Tel: 03 9963 6968Email: candinfo@acma.gov.au

acma | iii

Overview 1

BackgroundThe ACMA’s role in numbering regulation 2Background to the public consultation 2Submissions 3

Appendix A—Response to submissions

Appendix B—the ACMA’s managed evolutionary approach to numbering arrangements

acma | iv

OverviewOn 10 March 2015, the Australian Communications and Media Authority (the ACMA) made the Telecommunications Numbering Plan 2015 (the Numbering Plan). A new Numbering Plan was needed because:> the existing Numbering Plan was due to sunset1 in 2015> new arrangements for the allocation and administration of numbers are to

commence in August 2015.

The ACMA released a draft Numbering Plan for public comment for a period of 90 days and received eight submissions. The issues raised in submissions and the ACMA’s response to these issues can be found at Appendix A to this paper.

The making of the Numbering Plan is an important milestone in the ACMA’s work program to continuously improve the regulatory framework for numbering, and to enable flexible, efficient and effective numbering arrangements for the future communications environment.

A diagram showing the outcomes of the ACMA’s Numbering Work Program can be found at Attachment B.

1 Under Part 6 of the Legislative Instruments Act 2003, most legislative instruments ‘sunset’ (that is, they are automatically repealed) on the 1 April or 1 October that first occurs 10 years after they are registered on the Federal Register of Legislative Instruments (FRLI). The ACMA is required to address the impending sunsetting of key numbering instruments, including the Numbering Plan, before the first sunset date of 1 April 2015.

acma | 1

BackgroundThe ACMA’s role in numbering regulationUnder the Telecommunications Act 1997, the ACMA must make a plan for the numbering of carriage services in Australia and the use of numbers in connection with the supply of such services.

Background to the public consultationUnder Part 6 of the Legislative Instruments Act 2003, most legislative instruments ‘sunset’ (that is, they are automatically repealed) on the 1 April or 1 October that first occurs 10 years after they are registered on the Federal Register of Legislative Instruments. This is an automatic process applying to most legislative instruments regardless of their particular content.

The Telecommunications Numbering Plan 1997 was made under section 455 of the Act. The Numbering Plan 1997 and three associated instruments are due to sunset in 2015.

The ACMA is required to address the impending sunsetting of key numbering instruments, including the Numbering Plan, before the first sunset date of 1 April 2015.

The Numbering Plan is being remade because, consistent with advice from its Numbering Advisory Committee (NAC), the ACMA formed the preliminary view that the sunsetting numbering instruments were operating efficiently and effectively.

Two key changes were proposed to the Numbering Plan:> where possible, removing most of the discretionary decision-making relating to the

allocation, transfer and surrender of most number types to enable automation of these processes

> moving from an auction to an over-the-counter allocation process for smartnumbers®.

Between 2010 and 2012, the ACMA examined a wide range of issues related to the regulatory framework for telephone numbers that emerged as a result of deep changes in industry structures, service offers and consumer behaviour. This work is known as the Numbering Work Program. The aim of the Numbering Work Program was to identify what, if any, changes were needed to enable flexible, efficient and effective numbering arrangements for the future communications environment.

One outcome of the Numbering Work Program was that the ACMA examined alternatives for the sustainable provision of numbering services in the long term. The ACMA found it would be timely to test the market for the provision of a system dealing with an expanded range of numbering services than that currently provided under delegation by an external provider.

The Numbering Work Program also set out some long-term directions for numbering policy, which has informed the ACMA’s current thinking about some of the issues raised during consultation on the Numbering Plan (see Appendix B).

The ACMA conducted a Request for Tender to identify a provider and, on 12 September 2014, awarded ZOAK Solutions Pty Ltd the contract to provide allocation and administrative services for most of Australia’s telephone numbers from August 2015.

2 | acma

Section 460 of the Act requires that, before making a numbering plan, the ACMA invites interested persons to give written comments about the draft to the ACMA within 90 days of publishing a notice in a newspaper circulating in each state and territory.

On 31 October 2014, the ACMA published a notice in The Australian newspaper. A consultation paper and draft instrument were made available to the general public on the ACMA website. The ACMA alerted members of its NAC and other key stakeholders to the consultation process by email.

Subsection 461(1) of the Act requires the ACMA to consult with the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) before making or varying the Numbering Plan. The ACCC advised that the draft Numbering Plan 2015 did not raise any competition or consumer issues.

SubmissionsEight submissions were made to the ACMA in response to the public consultation process.

All submitters welcomed the ACMA’s approach of streamlining the Numbering Plan to clarify obligations for carriers and carriage service providers. The ACMA’s key policy objectives of moving from an auction system to an over-the-counter- allocations for smartnumbers and automating numbering transactions were also supported by all submitters.

The issues raised in submissions and the ACMA’s consideration of these issues is at Appendix A.

acma | 3

Appendix A—Response to submissionsLEGEND:AGREE Adopted suggestion or close to suggestion.AGREE IN PRINCIPLE Broadly agree with suggestion but implemented differently.REQUIRES FURTHER CONSIDERATION The issue raises deeper policy/legislative questions.DISAGREE The ACMA has significant concerns with the suggestion.

1 MAIN ISSUES ACMA RESPONSE1.1 Digital mobile numbers should be separately specified

Digital mobile numbers should not be ‘hidden’ within the category of ‘special services numbers’. Section 57 should also include digital mobile numbers as a separate category. Arrangements for the use of the most prevalent numbers in use by the community should be more clearly specified.

The failure of the draft Numbering Plan (NP) to recognise digital mobile numbers adequately results in a number of issues associated with their use (section 102 (section 100 of the draft NP)) and particularly in relation to portability obligations (section114 (section112 of the draft NP)). Obligations regarding number use and arrangements for ported digital numbers is at odds with industry practice since 25 September 2001 and this should have been recognised by the ACMA in the drafting.

AGREE IN PRINCIPLEThe ACMA acknowledges that the use of mobile numbers has become mainstream but does not support the separate specification of digital mobile numbers in the Numbering Plan 2015. Such an approach would be contrary to the ACMA’s long-term objective of consolidating the rules in the Numbering Plan. It would be more appropriate for digital mobile numbers to remain a subset of special services numbers as there are no specific rules which apply only to digital mobile numbers.

The ACMA has increased the visibility of digital mobile numbers by reframing section 16 to clearly identify these numbers for use in connection with the supply of services to the public.

However, the ACMA considers that the use of numbers under section 102 adequately covers mobile numbers as it is intentionally broad to apply to all number types. In relation to porting provisions under section 114, the draft NP has been drafted to be consistent with the ACCC directions to the ACMA on number portability and with porting provisions in the Numbering Plan 1997. These provisions contain the minimum obligations that apply. The ACMA’s view is that inter-operator processes, timing and other operational procedures are more appropriately dealt with by industry and should remain in the relevant industry code.

1.2 A CSP’s right to use numbers has been lost in relation to FLRPRNs, and the draft Numbering Plan 2015 fails to recognise wholesale supplier arrangementsCurrent industry arrangements for the supply of services are critically dependent on section 3.37 of current Numbering Plan. It is expected that these principles will form part of an industry code in the future but should be retained in the meantime.

DISAGREEThe ACMA acknowledges that wholesale/resale arrangements for FLRNs are complex but it does not consider that the removal of section 3.37 reduces CSP’s rights to use and issue FLRNs allocated to them. Section 102 protects these rights and extends the rights to all numbers. It is not clear what additional protection section 3.37 gave CSPs. The ACMA has not included the previous section 3.37 as it was considered inconsistent with the portability of FLRNs. The ACMA agrees that these matters can be considered more appropriately by industry for inclusion in a future industry code.

There is nothing in the Numbering Plan 2015 preventing a CSP who holds a number arranging with another CSP for the supply of a service on that number. This includes issuing the number and any other practical steps to facilitate provision of a service on that number. Any further clarification around how industry on-sells and uses these numbers could be included in industry codes.

4 | acma

1.3 Registration of CSPs – unnecessary regulatory burdenThis requirement currently only applies to FLRPRNs. Industry is questioning whether the obligation to register is consistent with government thinking on regulation: it appears to be introducing new regulation and cost rather than removing it. CSP registration has not been required by the ACMA and the Numbering Plan should not establish a de facto registration scheme. This requirement is better placed in another instrument.

DISAGREEThe ACMA understands industry’s concerns but the Numbering Plan 2015 is not establishing a scheme of regulatory oversight of CSPs. Registration under the new arrangements will not be an additional requirement for CSPs that are currently registered users of the existing systems. There will be no additional administrative or cost burden for these CSPs.

Registration will only apply for new CSPs (and existing CSPs who are not currently using NUMB/INMS/smartnumbers systems) who wish to interact with the ZOAK system. Registration will be quick and, subject to future consultation on the charges to be imposed, will likely be inexpensive.

Requiring registration for the new online system is consistent with the way the smartnumbers online system requires client registration. It also serve as a risk management tool for the ACMA by holding records of CSPs involved in numbering transactions and acts as a deterrent to malicious use of the system.

Registration is being required purely for the purpose of making the allocation of numbers and other numbering transactions more efficient and transparent, and the collection of charges more easily enforced. Registration is not required in order to be a CSP.

1.4 Number use and interconnect chargingIntended use of different numbers needs to be clarified, including service characteristics and how impacts on both retail and interconnect pricing arrangements. Recent activity to use FLRNs to claim interconnect payments for similar services (telecom arbitrage) but with substantially different underlying cost structure point to ambiguity arising from the NP’s definitions.

Telecom arbitrage is a term used by industry to describe the practice of telecommunications companies that enables their mobile customers to make international calls without paying long-distance charges by dialling certain access numbers. The companies engaged in this arbitrage are paid an interconnect fee by the mobile networks, and they use part or most of this fee to buy international calling routes at low prices.

Related to telecom arbitrage issue - Chapter 3, Part 2, Division 1 & 2 - Insert new definitions to replace freephone and local rate numbers to avoid customer confusion about pricing arrangements.

REQUIRES FURTHER CONSIDERATIONThe ACMA agrees that the growing incidence of telecom arbitrage in connection with 1300 numbers requires further discussion but it is not clear whether regulatory change under the Numbering Plan 2015 is the appropriate response. In the first instance, telecom arbitrage could be considered by industry for inclusion in an industry code. If there is sufficient evidence that the problem is becoming more prevalent and cannot be adequately addressed by an industry code, the ACMA may address the issue through its future work on the principles-based numbering plan. Also, telecom arbitrage raises competition issues and would therefore need to be considered in consultation with the ACCC.

PART TWO - OBJECTS2 Proposed additional objects of the Numbering Plan 2015:

recognition of international standards; support competition in service provision and encourage investment; promote end-user access to services and carriers/CSPs; equal treatment of all carriers and CSPs; and recognition of the telecommunication industry’s contribution to numbering arrangements.

AGREEThe ACMA agrees with the inclusion of ‘regard to be given to recognised international standards’ and has expanded paragraph 7(a) to reflect this object. The ACMA notes that the other suggested objects do not need to be added as they already form part of the objects of the Numbering Plan 2015; they are not appropriate or necessary to explicitly state in the Numbering Plan 2015; or are covered by the objects in the Act.

acma | 5

PART THREE - DICTIONARYP3.1 Business day

The definition should be changed to refer to ‘national public holiday’ rather than a public holiday in Victoria.

AGREEThe ACMA agrees that the interpretation of ‘public holiday’ in the term ‘business days’ should include public holidays in all areas of Australia. Accordingly, the definition of ‘business day’ has been deleted. The interpretation of public holiday will default to the meaning provided for in the Acts Interpretation Act 1901; that is, ‘a public holiday in the place concerned’. This is consistent with the Telecommunications Numbering Plan 1997.

P3.2 Definitions that should be deleted from the Numbering Plan: incoming international assistance operator service; incoming international delay operator service, incoming international directory enquiries service, internal network service, internal number, signalling point, signalling point operator.

AGREEDefinition and references throughout the Numbering Plan 2015 to internal number will be removed as these numbers no longer used. However, references to the other definitions will be retained because the ACMA considers that they are used in relation to the definition of numbers that are used in connection with the supply of carriage services to the public.

P3.3 CSPID codesCSPID codes are now mainly used for interconnect routing. Industry recommends a change to the name of the service for which these numbers can be used (but not the meaning) to more accurately reflect how these numbers are currently used in practice. CSPID codes are now primarily used for ‘interconnect and routing’ purposes, with pre-selection being one of their potential uses.

AGREEThe ACMA agrees and has changed the definition of CSPID and consequential changes to Schedule 5 so that the service type specified for use with CSPID codes is named ‘interconnect and routing services’ rather than ‘pre-selection verification services’, with the meaning of the service to remain the same.

P3.4 Freephone serviceSuggested removal of the exemption for calls made from a public mobile telecommunications service.

DISAGREEA regulatory solution has not been imposed as the industry proposal was preferable if it were to be implemented successfully. In mid-2014, the ACMA accepted proposals from individual mobile operators to implement zero-rated calls from mobile phones to 1800 numbers. At that stage, changes to the Numbering Plan were not considered necessary.

P3.5 Freephone number and serviceRecommended that these terms are replaced with ‘national inbound’ number and service to better describe the numbers and services.

Portable serviceA consequential change to this definition to reflect that freephone service changed to national inbound service.

REQUIRES FURTHER CONSIDERATIONThe ACMA acknowledges industry’s preference for different terminology to describe freephone numbers and services. However, the recommended changes may have greater policy and regulatory impact and would need to be considered further between the ACMA, ACCC and industry.

The ACMA notes, however, that the expression ‘free’ provides important information to consumers. As the freephone number and service definitions have not been changed, consequential changes to the ‘portable service’ definition have not been made.

6 | acma

P3.6 Local rate number and serviceIndustry recommends that these terms are replaced with ‘national access number and service to better describe the numbers and services.

REQUIRES FURTHER CONSIDERATIONThe ACMA acknowledges industry’s preference for different terminology to describe local rate numbers and services. However, the recommended changes may have greater policy and regulatory impact and would need to be considered further between the ACMA, ACCC and industry.

The ACMA considers that the ‘local rate’ terms could be explored with industry as part of the ACMA’s future work on a principles-based numbering plan.

P3.7 Local numberThis definition is signposted to section 18 ‘geographic number’ (section 19 in the draft NP). Industry is concerned that this definition is confusing and recommended that it revert back to definition in current NP.

DISAGREEThe ACMA considers that the wording in section 18 of the Numbering Plan 2015 is appropriate, clear and consistent with how such numbers are recognised by networks.

P3.8 Low charge amount The reference to universal service provider should be deleted and recommended that the definition states that it is a charge that is untimed and low cost.

REQUIRES FURTHER CONSIDERATIONThe ACMA agrees that the current definition is unnecessarily complex for operational and legislative purposes. However, the definition of ‘low charge amount’ is a critical building block of the current legislative framework and the ACMA’s ability to make significant changes in the Numbering Plan 2015 at this point in time is limited. This issue requires consideration in the long term.

P3.9 Location independent communications serviceRecommended that a note should be added explaining that these numbers are no longer allocated.

AGREE IN PRINCIPLEThe ACMA considers that the note under paragraph 57(5) (b), advising that LICS are being phased out, sufficiently explains that these numbers will no longer be allocated.

P3.10 Standard unit Recommended the definition is changed to explicitly state the composition of blocks of numbers. For example, a ‘block of numbers has as the starting number, a number comprised of two zeros for a block of 100 numbers, three zeros for a block of 1000 numbers’.

Industry would welcome a process for managing new allocations of less than standard size as this has an effect on upon network conditioning. The ACMA has issued less than standard unit sizes in the past.

AGREE IN PRINCIPLEThe Numbering Plan 2015 (Part 3 of Chapter 6) deals with applications for an allocation of numbers that are not multiples of the standard unit size. The new numbering system will include Business Rules to manage allocations.

CHAPTER 3 - SPECIFICATION OF TELEPHONE NUMBERS3.1 Chapter 3 – section 20 (section 21 of the draft NP) obligations on CSPs in

relation to out-of-area geographic numbersThese obligations should be deleted and set out in an industry code.

AGREE IN PRINCIPLEThe ACMA will consider this as part of the move to evolve the numbering plan to a principles-based document. It should be noted that the Numbering Plan 1997 and the Numbering Plan 2015 both provide that these obligations will cease to apply if industry codes are registered (see paragraph 20(1)(c).

3.2 Section 21 (section 22 in the draft NP) – use of local numbersIndustry is concerned that this definition is confusing. The purpose of this section is unclear and technically incorrect for ‘out-of-area’ geographic numbers. Suggested to revert back to subsection 3.8(1) of current Numbering Plan.

DISAGREEThe ACMA considers that the wording of this provision is clear as it describes the use of numbers based on how networks work to accurately route calls to geographic numbers dialled without area codes. It supports the untimed local call obligation.

acma | 7

3.3 Division 3 – premium rate numberIndustry recommends that the restrictions on providing age-restricted services should be in an industry code.

REQUIRES FURTHER CONSIDERATIONThe provisions relating to age-restricted services are designed to support consumer protections that are regulated under a separate content regime under the Broadcasting Services Act 1992. Further policy consideration of the implications of removal would be required before we can consider removal at this time. The ACMA considers that this work would be more appropriately done as part of the future work on a principles-based numbering plan.

3.4 Part 3 - Emergency service numbersRemove subsection 30(2) (subsection 31(2) in the draft NP)

This provision makes it illegal for some handsets that are already programmed to translate and trigger a local emergency call service using many international emergency service numbers (e.g., 911) so it is inconsistent with the operational nature of most mobile handsets.

AGREEThis subsection has been removed to enable certain international handsets to access 000 via another number; e.g., 911. These handsets have the capability to automatically flag that an emergency call is being made and send the call to the emergency call person. This does not mean that any CSP is required to provide access to emergency services through those numbers, only that they can if they choose to.

Subsection 30(1) (subsection 31(1) in the draft NP)Reword this subsection to identify 000 as the primary emergency service number, 106 as the secondary emergency service number.

Remove 112 as an emergency service numberReference to 112 could be removed from the NP as it is an internationally recognised emergency number for use only on mobile networks.

DISAGREEThe ACMA does not believe that it is meaningful to identify each of the emergency service numbers as primary, secondary etc. The current wording of the provision is correct. All three numbers are specified as emergency service numbers. Note 1 explains the different uses of each of the numbers.

The Numbering Plan 2015 merely establishes the availability of emergency services numbers and the purpose for which they are to be used. However, the way in which they are publicly presented can be more appropriately taken up elsewhere.

3.5 Part 4 - Special services numbersIndustry suggested that, as there are too many different types of special services numbers, they should be identified separately.

REQUIRES FURTHER CONSIDERATIONThe ACMA will consider this as part of the future work on the principles-based numbering plan.

3.6 Special services numberThe Numbering Plan 2015 should only list special services numbers used to supply services to the public e.g., geographic, FLRN, premium rate. Non-public numbers should be in a separate section or removed and put in an industry code.

DISAGREEThe list of numbers in the Numbering Plan 2015 is consistent with what is in the Numbering Plan 1997: some special service numbers and access codes are shared numbers (that is, they are not allocated to individual CSPs) are still used in connection with the supply of carriage services to the public. These numbers are required to be specified in the Numbering Plan. The list of numbers specified has not changed from the previous version of the Numbering Plan.

3.7 Subsection 32(3) (subsection 33(3) in the draft NP)Recommended remove ISPC reference as there is no relationship between access codes and ISPCs.

AGREEThis has been removed from the Numbering Plan 2015.

3.8 Sections 33-37 (sections 34-38 in the draft NP) - use of operator servicesThese provisions should be deleted from NP and place elsewhere.

DISAGREEThe requirements relating to Implementation Operation Plans should remain. However, the use of operator services could be considered as part of the work on the principles-based numbering plan.

8 | acma

3.9 Section 40 (section 41 in the draft NP) – charge for calls to international freephone numbers 0011 800 should be zeroThis has been established by ITU to be free. CSPs handling these calls collect charges from their international correspondents to these calls.

REQUIRES FURTHER CONSIDERATIONHowever, this recommendation is not consistent with the basis upon which we have consulted on remaking the numbering plan. The ACMA considers that this issued should be part of the future work on the principles-based numbering plan.

3.10 Part 6 - Shared numbersThe Numbering Plan 2015 fails to address the expected use of shared numbers. The expected use of each shared number should be stated in an industry code.

REQUIRES FURTHER CONSIDERATIONThe ACMA considers that this work would be better addressed by industry in an industry code. Shared numbers are not allocated by the ACMA and their use should be a matter for industry.

CHAPTER 4 – PRIVATE NUMBERING SCHEMES4.1 Private network numbers and internal network services are not allocated or

managed by the ACMA. Private numbers should not be listed in Schedules. Industry preference is that private numbers be removed from the Numbering Plan 2015 only if they do not cause difficulty with interconnection with numbers used by the public and that they do not impact on the supply of Centrex services.

AGREEThe ACMA has retained private numbering schemes in the NP on the advice by industry that there are still services; e.g., Centrex services being provided using these numbers and schemes. Relevant CSPs who use such services have indicated that they consider that the rules in Chapter 4 are consistent with their use of private numbering schemes.

4.2 Private numbering schemes without an escape codeThe rules in section 45 (section 46 in the draft NP) relating to private numbering schemes without an escape should be in industry code.

REQUIRES FURTHER CONSIDERATIONThis issue can be considered as part of the future work on a principles-based numbering plan.

CHAPTER 5 – INTERNATIONAL SIGNALLING POINT CODES AND MOBILE NETWORK CODES5.1 Part 2 – definition of Mobile Network Code (MNC)

This definition should be in the Dictionary.AGREEThe definition is signposted in the Dictionary.

5.2 International signalling point codes (ISPCs) and mobile network codes (MNCs)These numbers should be removed from the Numbering Plan 2015 and managed by industry as they not used by the public.

DISAGREEThe ACMA does not support removal of ISPCs and MNCs from the Numbering Plan 2015. These numbers are not used by the public but they are used in connection with the supply of carriage services to the public. The ACMA is responsible for assigning these numbers on behalf of the ITU.

CHAPTER 6 – ALLOCATION OF NUMBERS

acma | 9

6 Paragraph 57(5)(b) (paragraph 58(5)(b) in the draft NP) Recommended removal of LICS from Schedule 5 to ensure consistency with the note under 57(5)(b) advising that LICS is being phased out.

Note after subsection 59(2) (subsection 60(2) in the draft NP)The definition of SZU in the note is inconsistent with the definition in the Dictionary. The definitions should be aligned or this note should refer to the Dictionary definition.

Section 62 and section 69 (section 63 and section 70 in the draft NP)Recommended that the number types are included in the title and the reference to days be specified in ‘business’ days in relation to the freephone, local rate and premium rate numbers that are allocated subject to the condition that they must be in use or issued to a customer within 5 days.

Section 65 (section 66 in the draft NP) – matters to take into accountRecommended that that this section include a requirement on the ACMA to consult with CSPs on the application so that the impact on network costs and analysis capabilities are properly considered.

Subsection 68(2) should reference subsection 68(3) (subsections 69(2) and (3) in the draft NP)

AGREE IN PRINICPLEThe ACMA agrees that it is important to signpost the future of LICS. However, we believe the note under paragraph 57(5)(b) is sufficient to explain that LICS are being phased out.

AGREEThe note has been changed to match the definition in Dictionary.

AGREEThe title of section will be changed to include ‘freephone, local rate and premium rate numbers’. The reference to days in paragraph 62(3)(b) will be changed to ‘business days’.

AGREE IN PRINCIPLEHowever, the ACMA considers that this would be covered by subsection 65(2) under ‘any other matter’. We note that it would be inconsistent with streamlining the processes and ensuring decisions are turned around quickly if the ACMA were required to consult with all CSPS before making any allocation under Part 3 of Chapter 6.

AGREEThis change has been made and the order of the subsection reversed for consistency.

CHAPTER 8 – TRANSFER SURRENDER AND WITHDRAWAL 8 Number quarantine should be dealt with in the NP rather than through other

mechanisms. DISAGREEThe ACMA’s approach to number quarantine issues has not changed in the Numbering Plan 2015. The only rules in the Numbering Plan about ‘quarantine’ are in section 100 (section 98 in the draft NP) and these are consistent with the rules in the Numbering Plan 1997. The ACMA considers that any detailed operational matters regarding industry’s internal processes when transferring or porting numbers are more appropriately dealt with in industry codes.

CHAPTER 9 – OBLIGATIONS OF CSPS 9.1 Change title chapter to ‘General obligations of CSPs to Customers’

Recommended change of the Chapter title to better reflect the content of the chapter.

AGREEChapter 9 has been renamed ‘Obligations of CSPs’.

9.2 Principles that apply to the relationship between a CSP and a customerIndustry suggested the principles in the current Numbering Plan that apply to the relationship between a CSP and a customer should be included before section 101 (section 99 in the draft NP).

DISAGREEThe ACMA has considered the suggested principles but has not included them in the Numbering Plan 2015 as it would not be consistent with best drafting practice.

10 | acma

9.3 Section 105 (section 103 in the draft NP) – replacement of provisions by industry codeSuggested that the ACMA should start coordination now with a view to removing operational matters from Numbering Plan 2015.

REQUIRES FURTHER CONSIDERATIONSection 105 recognises the ability of CSPs to submit codes for registration to cover the matters listed. If industry identifies other matters for inclusion in industry codes, the ACMA would be happy to discuss them. The ACMA considers this work to be part of the longer term work for the move to a principles-based numbering plan.

CHAPTER 10 – NUMBER PORTABILITY 10 Chapter 10 – Parts 1, 2 and 3

Number portability arrangements should not be in the Numbering Plan as they are an unnecessary administrative burden. The ACMA’s administrative procedures relating to number portability could be included in a separate instrument if required.

AGREE IN PRINCIPLEThe ACMA agrees that procedures for number portability should be set out in the relevant industry codes. The ACMA is required to include rules about portability in the Numbering Plan in accordance with the directions made by the ACCC (see subsection 458(4) of the Act).

CHAPTER 11 – GENERAL MATTERS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION REVIEW AND REPORTING11 Part 3 Review of decisions

Concerned that there are too many (25) reviewable decisions in the draft NP. This does not simplify the decision-making process.

DISAGREEThe purpose of having reviewable decisions is to provide CSPs with the right to appeal decisions that the ACMA has made. Having more decisions captured under this section provides a higher level of protection to industry and does not slow down decision-making as the review process is only triggered if the CSP affected by a decision seeks reconsideration. The decisions have been reduced to 22 since in the Numbering Plan 2015.

OTHER MATTERS 12 Decision times relating to sections 64, 91, 104, 107 and 129 (sections 65,

89, 102, 105 and 127 in the draft NP)Recommended the timeframes provided for making these decisions are too long. The removal of discretionary decision-making in the Numbering Plan 2015 should lead to a reduction in time for the ACMA to consider requests under these provisions.

DISAGREEAlthough discretionary decision-making has been removed for most numbering processes, there are decisions that require the ACMA to apply discretion. The ACMA does not consider that it would be appropriate to reduce decision times for these matters. They are generally more complex and require detailed consideration by the ACMA. These decision are consistent with those in the NP 1997 and it is expected that these decisions will not arise often. The ACMA’s current approval process is much faster than what is provided for in the Numbering Plan.

13 Schedule 5, clause 1, item 13 of clause 1 – the exception of ‘055’ numbers should be removedIt sets up the expectation will be that it will LICS with mobile services. ACMA should be proactively working with LICS providers to clear customers from ‘055’ range.

AGREE IN PRINCIPLEHowever, the ACMA considers the note under paragraph 57(5)(b) advising that these numbers will be phased out is sufficient. Once LICS are phased out, this change can be reflected in the NP.

acma | 11

14 Number quarantine is not identified adequately in the draft Numbering Plan 2015For example in section 102 and section 114 (section 100 and section 112 in the draft NP), there is a conflict with day to day operational activities. This stems from the fact that the Numbering Plan 2015 does not recognise that the return of cancelled ported numbers is different for geographic and mobile numbers. The Numbering Plan 2015 should only include the principles and the operational arrangements should be in set out in a code. Industry proposed some wording for the principles.

AGREE IN PRINCIPLEThe ACMA agrees that the operational procedures for industry’s processes regarding the quarantine of numbers after a returned port should stay in industry codes. The approach the ACMA has taken to porting arrangements in the NP is to retain the existing obligations. These provisions are consistent with ACCC directions on number portability.

If the ACMA were to directly reference code obligations in the Numbering Plan 2015, compliance with these provisions would be required under the legislation. This would result in a higher level of enforcement action such as civil penalties. The ACMA is required to include rules about portability in the Numbering Plan in accordance with the directions made by the ACCC (see subsection 458(4) of the Act).

15 The Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (TIO) commented on number quarantine and release issues based on its complaints data. The TIO noted that these matters were outside the scope of the Numbering Plan 2015 consultation processNumber quarantine and releaseCurrent quarantine provisions focus on numbers entering quarantine because CSP had to recover number or consumer willingly surrendered number. Suggest improvement to administration of number quarantine to address situations where consumer who was using the number previously would like the number back.

TIO cites various reasons for numbers being disconnected and quarantined identified by its complaints data.

Industry application of quarantine processFramework for quarantine process is not clear, leading to inconsistent application by industry. Different rules for different number types e.g. geographic and mobile. Guidance required in the NP.

AGREE IN PRINCIPLEHowever, it should be noted that the rules in the Numbering Plan allow a CSP to reissue a recalled number without any period of ‘quarantine’ if the customer agrees to the reissue of the number (see subsection 100(2) (subsection 98(2) in the draft NP), so there is nothing in the Numbering Plan to prevent a CSP from issuing the number to the customer in circumstances where the customer’s service with the CSP was cancelled in error.

This appears to raise concerns that are more accurately described as concerns that the some CSP internal ‘quarantine’ business processes potentially operate in a manner that is inconsistent with CSP obligations under the portability codes.

16 Additional issues ACMA sought specific comment on in Consultation PaperThe following were supported:

proposed definitions in the draft NP for: data network access service, internal network service and virtual private network service.

removal of internal numbers from the NP. international access codes should not be used as a prefix to private

numbers. retention of ability to allocate numbers subject to ‘special conditions’.

E.g., NEWS Retain private numbering schemes in NP.

AGREEBased on feedback on these matters, the only change made to the Numbering Plan 2015 is the removal of internal numbers. This is discussed at 3.2 above.

12 | acma

Appendix B—the ACMA’s managed evolutionary approach to numbering arrangements

acma | 13