CARRIERS, STATES URGE FCC NOT TO DECIDE VOIP NUMBERING ISSUE IN VACUUM

SBC IP had asked the FCC to allow it to obtain numbering resources directly from the N. American Numbering Plan Administration (NANPA) or the Pooling Administration (PA) to provide IP-enabled services including VoIP, pending Commission action in the IP-Enabled Services rulemaking. VoIP customers must have a NANP telephone number to receive calls from PSTN customers -- but because SBC IP hasn’t sought state certification, it can’t obtain numbering resources directly. It asked the Commission to waive Sec. 51.15(g)(2)(i) of the Commission rules -- which requires state certification as a prerequisite to number assignment -- to obtain numbering resources itself, directly from the NANPA or PA, rather than through a CLEC partner, which it said could limit its ability to provide services. SBC stated, however, it would comply with all the Commission’s numbering resource requirements, including 1,000-block number pooling, reporting, local number portability and contribution to administration costs.

BellSouth said the Commission should address all issues identified in the IP-Enabled Services proceeding “in an integrated fashion for all industry participants,” rather than grant a waiver on one issue to one carrier. It said direct access to telephone numbers by VoIP providers was “merely one of a vast number of complex and critical issues surrounding the regulatory treatment of IP-enabled services. This one issue cannot and should not be decided in a vacuum.” BellSouth said the public interest required that “the Commission consider a broader implications and recognize that a grant of waiver in advance of the Commission’s ruling in the IP-Enabled Services proceeding will establish a precedent that others are likely to follow in the interim.” It said the Commission should examine how SBC IP would address issues such as: (1) Compliance with additional numbering requirements. (2) The provision of emergency 911 services to its end users. (3) Interconnection for traffic exchange. (4) Contribution to the Universal Service Fund. (5) Payment of applicable access charges.

AT&T and Time Warner Telecom filed oppositions, saying the Commission should promptly address the issues addressed in the IP-Enabled Services NPRM. AT&T urged the FCC to deny the petition, saying Sec. 52.15 should remain in effect until the Commission adopts final numbering rules. It said SBC IP had “no trouble obtaining numbers by partnering with LECs” connected to the PSTN. It said the rule limiting the availability of numbers to certified telecom carriers played “an important role in ensuring that finite numbering resources are used efficiently,” and SBC didn’t show there was “a good cause” for the waiver. Time Warner Telecom said: “At the very least, the Commission should release a separate order in the IP-Enabled Services proceeding in which it comprehensively addresses VoIP providers’ direct access to numbering resources.”

Vonage said the FCC can’t grant the petition as drafted, but instead should “cautiously consider the merits of the SBC IP petition.” It said the Commission should evaluate whether it’s possible to adopt “a generic framework that would permit an RBOC-affiliated company like SBC IP to receive a direct assignment of numbers on the condition that SBC Communications also offers unaffiliated VoIP providers non- discriminatory tandem interconnection agreements.”

But Sprint and PointOne suggested that the FCC extend the waiver of Sec. 52.15(g)(2)(i) to all non-certificated providers of VoIP services and/or their CLEC partners, rather than limiting the waiver to SBC IP. Sprint said while it didn’t support SBC IP’s argument that VoIP should be classified as an information service, “we do agree that VoIP providers should be allowed to obtain numbering resources directly from the NANPA or the PA.” PointOne said the Commission “must ensure that its actions do not permit inadvertently one VoIP provider, SBC IP, to gain an unfair advantage over all other VoIP providers.” It said permitting unregulated VoIP providers to apply for numbering resources without obtaining carrier certification was “a critical step to establishing more efficient interconnection agreements between VoIP providers and incumbent LECs, leading to more rapid availability of innovative and cost-efficient IP enabled services.” Sprint said in its broader proceeding on IP-Enabled services, the FCC should treat VoIP as a telecom rather than an enhanced or information service. That way, it said VoIP providers would have direct access to numbering resources.

State commissions asked the FCC to ensure that SBC IP and other IP-enabled providers should, at a minimum, recognize the significant role states play in numbering issues and be responsive to state concerns and inquiries. While not opposing SBC IP being allowed to get numbers directly from the NANPA, the Ohio PUC said “we firmly believe that state certification should be a prerequisite to obtaining numbers from the NANPA.” It said it was “concerned that if IP-enabled companies offering telecommunications services are not certified, this lack of certification will frustrate the ability of the Ohio Commission to enforce number conservation requirements directly on such carriers.”

The Ohio PUC recommended that all IP-enabled telecom service providers should, at a minimum, comply with all existing FCC numbering resource requirements, as well as the ones with regard to the nongeographic assignment of telephone numbers. It said to the extent IP-enabled providers engage in the assignment and porting of telephone numbers, the FCC should apply its current rate center designation requirements to those providers. “If IP-enabled carrier providing telecommunications services are permitted to… assign numbers without regard to customer location or to allow porting outside of the original rate center boundaries, certain areas of the country with ‘desirable’ area codes such as Los Angeles, New York City or even Cleveland may experience an accelerated exhaust situation.” For example, it said Vonage was advertising the ability of customers to be assigned the number of their choice regardless of geographic location. “Such practice is in direct violation of current FCC service provider number portability rules,” it said, urging the FCC to “immediately put an end to such practice.”

The Iowa Utilities Board said the FCC should deny the petition and focus its efforts on final rules. It opposed granting an expedited waiver, because “a waiver is not necessary to bring [VoIP] services to market and current regulation… is not a barrier to entry.” It said VoIP providers already had access to telephone numbers through partnering with a CLEC or by obtaining their own state certificate of public convenience and necessity.

The Iowa Utilities Board said there were “at least 3 problems” with SBC IP’s claims that it would fully comply with all existing Commission numbering resource requirements. It said 1,000-block number pooling, which SBC IP assumed was generally available, was “not available in large parts of Iowa and other states with a substantial number of independent rural ILECs. Every time a VoIP carrier enters one of those rural exchanges, it would need a 10,000 block.” But it said it would be “wasteful” to assign 10,000 blocks to VoIP carriers in small exchanges so “the carriers can serve only a handful of customers.” The Board also expressed concern that SBC IP was “merely agreeing to comply with some, but not all, of the Commission’s existing regulations. SBC IP should not be given credit for saying it will comply with the law.”

The Pa. PUC said the FCC should deny SBC IP’s request for several reasons: (1) “SBC IP’s undocumented allegations have not met the ‘good cause’ standard for the granting of a waiver of the Commission’s rules regarding accessing numbers.” (2) “This very issue is currently pending before the Commission in the IP services proceeding… and SBC IP has not shown any compelling need to address the issue at this time.” (3) Granting the waiver would have “major implications to state authority.” (4) Granting the waiver could “lock-in IP services customers in SBC’s service territory because different obligations may be imposed on other IP services providers in SBC’s service territory as they would be prohibited from obtaining direct access to numbering resources for their VoIP services offerings.” (5) A waiver could trigger “a flood of similar waiver requests.”

The N.Y. Dept. of Public Service (NYDPS) said it did “not oppose a grant of the limited waiver, pending future determination of SBC IP’s obligations with respect to state certification requirements.” But it said the limited waiver should “not extend to a waiver of the existing state facilities readiness requirements, nor alter in any way the Commission’s delegation of authority to states to define facilities readiness criteria… In this way, SBC IP will not need state certification in the interim but would be required to meet local readiness criteria as a condition for obtaining telephone numbers.” It said SBC IP’s “short list of self- created” criteria was “insufficient for determining whether a carrier is prepared to provide service prior to receiving initial numbering resources… The states are in a better position to judge whether appropriate facilities are in place to ensure proper utilization of numbering resources.”