LNPA Neutrality Remains in Dispute

Telcordia is not even eligible to be the LNPA, because it and its parent company, Ericsson, have business interests that raise the potential for Telcordia to play favorites, said officials from Neustar and the carriers’ LNPA Alliance in interviews. The alliance in its reply filed Thursday parted ways with Neustar, calling for a re-bid instead of granting Neustar the contract because of the neutrality concerns about Telcordia.

Telcordia, plus USTelecom and CTIA, insist the company does meet the neutrality requirements, according to filings and interviews. Telcordia said in a statement Friday, “The North American Numbering Council (NANC), the FCC’s expert and balanced numbering advisory committee including providers, consumers and state public utility commissioners, unanimously recommended” the company as the next LNPA. “Telcordia has demonstrated that it meets or exceeds the criteria set out by the industry, including neutrality, and that it offers a compelling price, which ultimately benefits consumers and carriers."

Telcordia’s reply comments were also not available before our deadline. In its July 25 comments (http://bit.ly/1mvdwEK), the company argued it meets the neutrality requirements because it’s not a telecommunications service provider, and is not owned by nor owns a telecommunications service provider. It’s also not subject to any undue influence from a party with an interest in numbering administration, Telcordia said. Ericsson also meets the neutrality requirements, Telcordia’s filing said. To “minimize any perception that Ericsson could exert any undue influence,” Telcordia said it has taken steps including creating financial and accounting systems separate from Ericsson and prohibiting employees from participating in Ericsson’s stock plan. USTelecom and CCIA in joint Aug. 8 reply comments (http://bit.ly/1njb4RU) also pointed to the steps Telcordia outlined to ensure it is not subject to outside influence.

Because of a change made in the RFP process two years ago, the answer to the neutrality question was not determined but ultimately left for the commission to decide at the end of the process, said Steve Edwards, Neustar senior vice president-data solutions, and LNPA Alliance attorney James Falvey in separate interviews.

Under the final RFP, supplied to us by Neustar, a company is barred from consideration if it’s a telecommunications service provider, is owned by or owns one, is the affiliate of a telecommunications service provider, or would be “subject to undue influence by parties with a vested interest in the outcome of numbering administration."

In its draft 2012 RFP, the North American Portability Management (NAPM), which issued the RFP, required each bidder in its submission to show it’s a neutral third party that would not show favoritism to companies or sectors, Edwards said. Changes were made after Telcordia protested the draft RFP, Edwards said. Telcordia, in comments Sept. 13, 2012 (http://bit.ly/1toMYLu), agreed the LNPA should be neutral, but said the “'undue influence'” standard provided “no guidance as to how it will be applied.” That and other provisions of the draft RFP “will likely reduce participation in the procurement process, and could preclude more cost-effective approaches from being proposed,” the filing said. An FCC spokesman declined comment, but Falvey as well as an industry source said the changes as described by Neustar were accurate.

The NAPM, under the final RFP, was given the task to “initially decide whether a bidder satisfies the Neutrality criteria,” Neustar said, but Falvey said there was no “meaningful review of neutrality.” The RFP was changed so that under the final version, as long as a company supplied a legal opinion to back up its claim of neutrality, the application will be “considered on the merits ... and may not be disqualified on neutrality,” Neustar said. The RFP leaves the final decision to the FCC to “verify neutrality compliance,” according to the comparison of documents.

Falvey said of the bidders, “The only way they could screw it up is if they failed to file a legal opinion.” Commissioners were going to be the final arbiter anyway, said Jonathan Banks, USTelecom senior vice president-law and policy, and the process change allows companies time to take steps to meet neutrality standards before the contract takes effect. Neutrality is not a question the commission should delegate to others, Falvey said.

Questions remain

Neustar’s final reply comments were not available by our deadline Friday afternoon, but in an interview, Edwards said, the idea of neutrality “is not just a requirement or a desire, it really is at the foundation of the LNPA and the service provided. ... Think about all the people who rely on an efficient, fair level playing field. There are 4,700 entities, all sorts of service providers, wireline, wireless, large and small service providers, national service providers. There’s a fundamental need to ensure a far, consistent, high-performance environment in which no one has a bias against any of the constituents.” He said Ericsson’s ties with wireless companies could result in favoritism.

The LNPA Alliance, made up of ComSpan Communications, the Michigan Internet and Telecommunications Alliance, the Northwest Telecommunications Association, and TelNet Worldwide, said in its reply posted Thursday (http://bit.ly/1vrS4pD), Telcordia is a “dominant presence in the market” for Local Service Management System [LSMS] and Service Order Administration [SOA] software, both of which are used with the Number Portability Administration Center. “Telcordia is likely to unduly favor one telecommunications technology over another, by favoring its own LSMS/SOA interfaces, outputs, and inputs” and would face “internal pressures to expand its LSMS/SOA market share,” the alliance said in its comments. The alliance, like Neustar, said it’s concerned Ericsson “is a telecommunications equipment manufacturer that is very closely aligned with the wireless telecommunications industry.”