Telcordia Says Concerns Can Be Dealt With After LNPA Contract Decision Is Made

Looking forward to what industry observers expect to be intense lobbying of the FCC by both companies before a final decision, Telcordia and Neustar quarreled over what should happen next. Neustar in its reply (http://bit.ly/1olLf3g) argued Telcordia should be disqualified, or the bidding process reopened, positions Telcordia opposed as it urged the agency to go ahead and award it the contract.

To some extent, issues like how it would deal with the IP transition need to be solved in the future in the form of further contract conditions, because “the industry has not yet reached a consensus as to how IP routing should be structured,” Telcordia said. Unresolved security concerns that federal agencies and the White House may have “can and should be addressed through post-selection mitigation discussions with those agencies, with selection conditioned upon providing adequate assurances,” Telcordia said. That view was shared in a reply (http://bit.ly/1BW9cbD) filed by the North American Portability Management, which created the bid process. The bidders were told that “national security and law enforcement requirements also would be imposed following selection of a winning bidder through the contract negotiation process,” said NAPM’s filing, also posted Monday. NAPM also urged the FCC to proceed with accepting the North American Numbering Council’s (NANC) recommendation of Telcordia.

Neustar said the agency should reopen the bidding process after the security and law enforcement requirements are figured out, to allow the companies to compete further. Neustar also reiterated some protests about the process, saying Telcordia and parent company Ericsson’s business interests raise questions about whether Telcordia can be neutral. Neustar also argued that adopting NANC’s recommendation requires a formal rulemaking, that “there was no factual or legal justification for the refusal” by the FCC to allow Neustar to submit a revised bid, and that the recommendation “does not provide a sufficient basis for the Commission to conclude that Ericsson’s proposal matches Neustar’s on technical and management criteria.” Neustar was not available for comment Monday, but a Neustar official had told us (CD July 20 p6) the company would “consider all options” to bring the issue to a “lawful conclusion.”

In its filing, Telcordia said it would be “arbitrary and capricious" for the FCC to not give substantial weight to NANC’s recommendation. Telcordia declined to say if it would go to court if it doesn’t get the contract, saying only: “We hope that the FCC will support the recommendation of the NANC, its balanced, expert advisory committee with representatives of a broad range of telecommunications service providers, consumers and law enforcement and public safety advocates.” On the potential for a legal challenge by Neustar if that company doesn’t win the contract, Telcordia said in a statement, “any further attempts by the incumbent to cause delays in the transition to the next LNPA benefit no one except the incumbent.” Industry lawyers said they expect the losing side to appeal in court.

The filings came as the end of the reply period Friday night moves LNPA selection to a new stage that one industry observer termed “intense,” with both sides not only lobbying the FCC but also Congress and other players the sides believe could be influential with the agency. A Neustar ad campaign like one the company launched prior to the NANC decision could also come, one attorney said. “I would expect that both Neustar and Telcordia will make a full court press at the FCC to reinforce the points they've been making in their comments and reply comments,” said Jim Falvey, attorney for the LNPA Alliance, a group of small and mid-sized carriers. Falvey also predicted that on the heels of comments filed by agencies like the FBI as well as members of Congress in recent weeks, other federal agencies could weigh in. “It has become increasingly clear that there is a broader interest in this docket, which is no longer just about two companies fighting over a contract, but engenders important consumer and competitive concerns, and has critical law enforcement and national security implications,” he said.

The task for the FCC is dealing with the highly complex issues involving the LNPA and the wide gulf in the arguments placed on record between those who believe Telcordia is well able to handle the job and the transition to being the new administrator, and those who say that Neustar has performed the work and transitioning to another company would raise questions about what would be involved. Whether the FCC has the time or expertise to examine the myriad issues to protect consumers at the same time it’s dealing with other major policy issues is yet to be seen, the former official said.

The National Emergency Number Association (NENA) and TeleCommunication Systems (http://bit.ly/1qcEFjM) also filed replies at the end of the period. Stopping short of endorsing either company, both raised concerns that the new LNPA not cause problems for 911 operations. Tools and applications for the management of 911 data currently in use should timely “remain available to 9-1-1 providers at no cost,” and “any transition to a new LNPA must not be allowed to adversely affect 9-1-1 data management,” NENA said in its filing (http://bit.ly/1pYZy2Q). The extent to which those issues have already been examined is “unclear” because the request for proposals did not seem to mention them, NENA CEO Brian Fontes told us. The organization’s comments were meant only to ask the FCC to address the issue, he said. Fontes did not know if that would require a new NPRM, or if the contract should be reopened as Neustar wants, or if they could be handled through contract negotiations as Telcordia and NAPM said.

Telcordia, which declined last week to comment in detail about questions raised about its neutrality or impact on law enforcement, responded in depth in its filing. NANC and several industry working groups “expended enormous time and resources, to evaluate the bids.” They conducted “hundreds of meetings and thousands of hours of review, analysis, evaluation and consultation,” Telcordia said. “The NANC and NAPM did not take their advisory roles lightly,” Telcordia said. Based on that, the groups concluded that “Telcordia could do the job from a technical and managerial perspective."

Despite saying some details can be cemented later, the company also said the RFP dealt with ensuring law enforcement would not be harmed. The RFP ultimately requires the LNPA to provide “law enforcement support and access,” Telcordia said. Responding to concerns about ensuring the system’s security, Telcordia said it “proposed robust security protections, consistent with its extensive experience in the U.S. operating sensitive and critical systems, as well as its experience operating in other countries.” NAPM said both companies were judged to be generally even in their abilities, but Telcordia got the nod because of price.

On neutrality, Telcordia said Neustar and the LNPA Alliance were the only ones that expressed concerns in comments or replies about Telcordia’s or Ericsson’s neutrality. Had there been more concern, others would have raised the issue, Telcordia said. “The NANC is comprised of large and small incumbent LECs, mobile wireless carriers, cable companies, CLECs, over-the-top VoIP providers, state regulators and state consumer advocates. None of those entities has commented that [they] do not believe that Telcordia would be an impartial administrator,” Telcordia said. Neustar’s contention that Ericsson’s manufacturing of wireless equipment could give it a bias toward wireless partners “makes no sense,” Telcordia said. “Ericsson provides equipment and services to a wide variety of different providers -- many of which are competitors -- across telecommunications industry segments,” Telcordia said, adding that discriminating in favor of one customer would damage Ericsson’s business relationships with other customers.

In response to Neustar’s arguments that as a subsidiary of foreign-owned Ericsson Telcordia would bring security concerns, Telcordia responded that it would not be reusing foreign code but creating entirely new code for the LNPA operation. Telcordia is not contracting with non-U.S. sources for developing the code, and data will be stored in the U.S., the company said.