Neustar, Telcordia Trade Shots Again at End of LNPA Comment Period
Neustar capped the contentious back and forth with Telcordia, its rival that seeks the Local Number Portability Administrator (LNPA) contract Neustar now has, saying in a filing posted Monday that the FCC cannot legally grant the contract to Telcordia. The agency needs to issue a rulemaking notice before acting, Neustar said in the filing submitted Friday, at the end of the comment period on the North American Numbering Council’s recommendation to give Telcordia the contract. Neustar questioned the request for proposal process as “procedurally flawed,” in docket 09-109 (http://bit.ly/1kjyDyu).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
A Neustar spokesman wouldn’t rule out a court challenge if the FCC proceeds with awarding the contract, saying Neustar would “consider all options” to bring the issue to a “lawful conclusion.” Ericsson subsidiary Telcordia, doing business as iconectiv, is confident its selection will be upheld in court, the company said in a statement to us Monday. The FCC should end the four-year process to select the new LNPA, Telcordia CEO Richard Jacowleff said in a separate statement, despite Neustar’s “scare tactics to delay the process in a desperate attempt to bail out its bad business decisions and failed bidding strategy.” The company also called Neustar’s comments “fearmongering,” in its comments. Replies are due Aug. 8.
Large providers were split from medium and small providers. CTIA and USTelecom backed Telcordia’s selection, saying (http://bit.ly/1nA5Ghf) that the current LNPA contract has meant “dramatic increases” in costs for the industry and public. The LNP Alliance, a consortium of small- and medium-sized providers, said (http://bit.ly/1rLnPvg) neither Neustar’s nor Telcordia’s bid is “adequate,” particularly in addressing future needs, including the IP transition. The alliance recommended Neustar’s current contract be extended two years. The alliance, like Neustar, said it’s concerned that Telcordia’s parent Ericsson “is a telecommunications equipment manufacturer that is very closely aligned with the wireless telecommunications industry.” That violates FCC rules requiring neutrality to avoid the LNPA showing favoritism, and as a result, Neustar would likely contest awarding the bid to Telcordia, the alliance said. A lawsuit “would lead to future uncertainty,” it said. The alliance consists of Comspan Communications, TelNet Worldwide, the Northwest Telecommunications Association, and Michigan Internet & Telecommunications Alliance.
Neustar’s and Telcordia’s comments continued the sometimes strongly worded complaints and counter-complaints that prompted Wireline Bureau Chief Julie Veach to write (http://bit.ly/1rTnKnL) NAMC Chairwoman Betty Ann Kane Feb. 11, saying the complaints “raise concerns over the fairness of this process thus far.” Telcordia had protested (http://bit.ly/1evla2k) Neustar’s request for a second round of bids, complaining in a letter to Veach Feb. 6 that the timing of Neustar’s “sudden request” for a new bid “strongly” suggests it had gotten “confidential” information about where its first bid stood. More than one round of bids is common, a Neustar spokesman told us. It has been “a significant competition,” the spokesman said. Neustar’s request was denied.
The bids are confidential, according to the filings. But in its latest comment, Telcordia described the difference between its bid and Neustar’s as “astounding.” Every “month of delay will cost the industry tens of millions of dollars, an expense that will be passed along to consumers,” Jacowleff’s statement said. “Only the incumbent benefits from a delay."
An NPRM “is required by law,” Neustar said in the latest filing. Following a Supreme Court ruling that the designation of a number administrator is an exercise of rulemaking authority, the FCC issued an NPRM in 1997 when it first designated Neustar as the LNPA. It should follow the same procedure, the company said. The commission at the same time “barred telecommunication network equipment manufacturers like Ericsson and their affiliates from serving as an LNPA,” Neustar said. It said the commission can’t change the ban without an NPRM. Telcordia argued it doesn’t violate the neutrality ban and that it was never passed as a rule.
Neustar also has called the RFP process “procedurally flawed in critical respects,” because the NANC failed to recognize “the costs or risks” involved in changing LNPAs in comparing the two bids. Neustar pushed that point in two webinars, including one last week (CD July 25 p15), in which it said the transition from one company to another could cause problems for carriers.
"We are confident that we meet the FCC’s neutrality requirements, and that we have offered a strong proposal on all dimensions, including technical and managerial merit and price,” Telcordia said in a statement. “Neustar’s procedural arguments are not just wrong, but are also full of contradictions. They endorsed the procurement process just 18 months ago, and changed their minds only after they realized they might lose.” (kmurakami@warren-news.com)