As most of you know, it is against federal regulations to sell a toll-free number.  But, as we also know, it is done all the time.  The North American Numbering Committee (NANC) reviewed a white paper last year which suggested that the industry and the government should look at the marketability of toll-free numbers and develop a model similar the “Australian model”.  In Australia, “good” numbers are auctioned by the government in a process somewhat like the U.S. auction of spectrum.

Last week I met with Congressman Greg Walden (R-Ore.) in his DC office.  Congressman Walden is the chairman of the Communications and Technology Subcommittee of the Energy and Commerce Committee, co-sponsor of the FCC Process Reform Act of 2011 and my Congressman.  We were joined Ray Baum, a Senior Policy Advisor to the Congressman and David Redl and Nick Degani, staff to the Communications and Technology committee.  I had gone to the meeting hoping, at most, to come away with the Congressman understanding what I was talking about.  Instead, I was delighted to have a lively discussion about the advantages that the Australian model would allow.   

My major point in the discussion was that in the last year the FCC Enforcement Bureau has spent taxpayer time and money trying to go after the companies that buy and sell toll-free numbers.  Selling these numbers is against the Federal Regulations but you can still go on e-bay and buy a number.  For companies like ATL, companies that follow the rules, this presents a distinct competitive disadvantage.  We follow the rules while others are allowed to disobey them openly and with no negative impact.  It is time to recognize that toll-free numbers have a market value and that the current regulations drive a black market. 

The current regulations exist because in the late 1980’s, when toll-free portability was being designed, the industry was very different.  We (I was one of that team) were in a world where no toll-free number had ever been ported, competition in long distance was brand new and local competition was not even imagined.  We were envisioning just a handful of RespOrgs.  The world is different now.  The regulators need to catch up with all that has dramatically changed our industry.  And, we need to help them bring all the governing rules and regulations up to date.

I am hoping to have some equally lively discussions with NANC and the industry.  And, I will be talking more with the Congressman and his staff.  Let me know if you would like to be part of the discussion.

Since the beginning, I have been on the fence regarding the merger of AT&T and T-Mobile. Having gone through divestiture and the breakup of the Bell System, because it was a monopoly and prevented other companies from competing in the telecommunications industry, it appeared to me at every merger juncture that the FCC was giving the go-ahead to “put Humpty Dumpty back together again!” Then it seemed finally push back in the industry, the legislative issues involved and the many lawsuits, AT&T withdrew from the deal. I guess drawing the line somewhere was necessary, even if it seemed too little too late. From my perspective, the whole thing was a colossal waste of time and energy for government resources and a HUGE ($4B) moneymaker for Deutsche Telecom and their attorneys!

Does anyone have experience with the IQPC Call Center Conference.  I have never been to one and was considering going to the one In January in Orlando, but wanted to find out if anyone knows anything about it.  ATL has Call Center customers for our multi-carrier disaster recovery, but I am surprised how many times when I bring up the subject with a prospect they are totally unaware of it.  I made a request last year to speak at the IQPC Conference, but I am not sure they understood what ATL does.

All RespOrgs protect errors in porting using reject codes.  But some, and yes they are the usual suspects, use them to slow valid rejects.  Many years ago the Toll-Free Guidelines put out a set of reject codes that were allowed by industry agreement.  The Guidelines are managed by a national industry group called the SMS Number Administration Committee (SANC), an ATIS Committee.  I am a member of that committee and soon we will be releasing a new version of the Guidelines.  In these new guidelines, two reject codes will be deleted and others will be better defined.

It is very unfortunate that the deletions are needed due to abuse by a few.  “Other” is being deleted because, instead of it being used for very unusual circumstances, it has become the answer for RespOrgs who want to use rejects like, “Need Bill Copy.”  “Need Bill Copy” is NOT a reject code.  It is each RespOrg’s responsibility to manage both its internal information and its agents to be able to verify by toll-free number.  However, requiring bill copies has become a way to shirk that responsibility and delay valid ports.  The tariff allows two days to respond to a port, so if it is a name/number mismatch or address mismatch, the reject should happen within that two-day timeframe.

The other code being deleted is “Unsatisfactory Business Relationship.”  This was not a reject code in the original Guidelines, but sometime before 1997 when the last Guidelines were released, Allnet, who became Global Crossing, convinced the SNAC to add it.  I personally thought it was great.  It was a way to alert another RespOrg that they were porting in a customer that hadn’t paid their last carrier.  The number still could be ported without the consent of the existing RespOrg, but it was at their risk.  ATL has not seen this abused much, but apparently other companies have seen it used as a delaying tactic, so it is going.

I have said this before and will be frustrated about it until I leave the industry to hang out on a sun-filled beach:  If the industry would just police the bad apples, the rest of us could continue using the tools we have.  Lack of policing means we all end up operating under rules that are less than perfect and it shouldn’t have to be that way.

In case you missed it, here is there latest update from the Transition Committee. We are almost done with the plans for the election and will meeting with the FCC in early November to present the plan to them. It is hoped the nomination process for the new SMS/800, Inc. board will happen in early January.

SMS/800 Transition Committee Update

To all Resp Orgs and SCP Owner/Operators:

The SMS/800 Transition Committee continues to work toward the transition of responsibility for the SMS/800 Tariff from the Bell Operating Companies to SMS/800, Inc. under an industry-elected Board of Directors. We believe we have defined a path for this transition, and will be scheduling an industry-wide call for all Resp Orgs and SCP Owner/Operators, to review our recommendations. In short, the path is as follows:

1) Create rules and requirements for nominating and electing a Board of Directors that represents the toll-free number industry;
2) Provide materials related to the election of the industry-lead Board of Director to all Resp Orgs and SCP Owner/Operators;
3) Seek feedback and guidance from all Resp Orgs and SCP Owner/Operators;
4) Seek feedback and guidance from the FCC;
5) Hold fair and open nominations, and elections, to elect a Board that represents the toll-free number industry; and
6) Work with the exiting SMS/800, Inc. Board to transition responsibility of the tariff.

The SMS/800 Transition Committee is working diligently to define the rules for electing a Board of Directors that represents the toll-free number industry, and oversee the creation of such a Board. Once elected, the Board members, as representatives of the toll-free industry, will work together to create and implement the rules related to the transition of the SMS/800 tariff. As such, this Board will act as an Advisory Board to the existing SMS/800, Inc. Board, until the responsibility of the SMS/800 tariff can be transitioned. Upon final approval of the FCC for the change in control, this elected Advisory Board will become the new Board of Directors for SMS/800, Inc. With this objective in mind, the SMS/800 Transition Committee:

• Has developed a Conflict of Interest policy and is preparing a draft Nomination process packet (to be complete before an industry wide call);
• Has requested a meeting with the FCC to provide information and solicit feedback and guidance;
• Is planning to host an industry wide call, including all Resp Orgs and SCP Owner/Operators, prior to the FCC meeting to share our findings and seek feedback and guidance;
• Is planning a target of Q1 2012 for holding our first election of an Advisory Board/Board of Directors (pending FCC buy-in); and
• Is planning to host a follow-up call with all Resp Orgs and SCP Owner/Operators after the FCC meeting, to more formally define the transition process.

Please review all emails coming from SMS/800, Inc or SMS/800 Transition Committee, and please watch for updates in the “Transition Documents” section of www.sms800.com.

SMS/800 Transition Committee.

“Net Neutrality” has long been an interest of mine and, in the past, I have written several blogs on the subject. I believe that the recent decision on this issue will have a huge impact on our industry in the future.

On September 22, 2011, the FCC received approval from Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to adopt “net neutrality” rules based on the Commission’s Open Internet Order. These new rules go into effect on November 30, 2011. The rules are intended to “to preserve the Internet as an open platform for innovation, investment, job creation, economic growth, competition, and free expression.”

Under these new rules, fixed and mobile broadband providers must disclose their network management practices, performance characteristics, and the terms and conditions of their broadband services. Broadband providers are precluded from blocking lawful content, applications, and services. This goes to the heart of last year’s Comcast lawsuit. Comcast’s suit contended that the content being blocked was for network utilization protections only.

There is no doubt that these new rules will set off a number of new lawsuits from companies that have opposed “net neutrality” rules.

Thanks to Miller Isar Inc’s Regulatory Review for this information. If you want to be added to their list contact Andrew Isar at 253-851-6700.

For years ATL Communications has been involved in quick recovery of toll-free traffic from localized network outages. Recently I was in a meeting talking about the issues around local-number porting in emergencies. I was surprised to see how many outages of this type there really are and how many lines are affected. The list below includes outages that affected local and long distance, including toll free.

All of us hear about the 250,000 lines out for more than 40 days after 9/11 or the 1.4 million after Hurricane Katrina. In disasters, such as those, we anticipate a large volume of lines will be affected and for a substantial period of time. But, there are a number of lesser occurrences happening every day. The chart below shows the number of occurrences and the time to repair for just two months of this year. This was compiled from trouble reports from several companies.

There are cost-effective ways to protect your toll-free traffic from the affects of these localized outages. We at ATL Communications can help devise a plan that works for you. Our next challenge is to develop a means of protecting the networks against outages of local traffic.

Do you want a particular toll free number? Unfortunately, it looks like it is becoming common practice that, if you do, all you need to do is put in a port request and hope the other RespOrg with the number isn’t paying attention and will release it to you. In fact, another RespOrg not long ago, NASC’d a number from ATL because they just wanted it. They felt justified in doing so because the SMS Help Desk “told them that is how it is done!” We know that is not what the Help Desk told them and when challenged they gave the number back.

When you sign a Letter of Authorization (LOA), you are certifying that you are the current end user or the end users agent. If you sign an LOA and you are not the current end user or their agent, then that is fraud. As far as I can tell SMS/800 Inc. (the keepers of the tariff), nor the FCC have pursued any actions regarding fraudulent LOA’s. They have left that up to civil courts. Of course, the plaintiff has to prove damages to gain anything in civil court, so if the number is not released or is returned in a timely manner when discovered, damages are probably minimal and it may not be worth the legal expense. But then, what are the legal damages when someone takes a number that has no usage?

If you read my last blog and found it unbearably boring, don’t read this one since it is the “ … to be continued.” For those of you that are still with me, for toll-free services the FCC can enforce what is in the Code of Federal Regulations, Subpart D: Sections 52.101 through 52.111.

These sections refer to issues of hoarding, warehousing, and selling toll-free numbers. It’s a really short little part of The Code of Federal Regulations, but it is huge to the toll-free industry. The FCC Enforcement Bureau launched an investigation in 2010 which is focused on this little section. And, the truth of the matter is, most RespOrgs are guilty of violations to some extent. When I completed ATL’s response, I found six numbers (from the days when I owned a CLEC) that customers didn’t take with them when I sold the CLEC. We didn’t have an internal mechanism in place to alert us that we had a few numbers that had been turned off but not released back as “spare” in the national database. These weren’t numbers that spelled anything so no one ever asked us about them.

In reality, as was pointed out to me by the FCC in our meeting, ATL was guilty of hoarding because we had numbers with no usage and no customer. Will we get thousands of dollars in fines for these six numbers? I don’t know. 660 other companies probably didn’t think they would get fined $20,000 each for being late on one filing, but the FCC did just that.

In the meeting, I gained a real appreciation for how difficult it is for the FCC to determine who is wearing a Black Hat and who has on a White One. It will be interesting to see how this plays out, but I have great concern that the companies who really went out of their way to be white hat types will get treated just like the ones who the industry identified as black hats years ago.

Thursday I met with the FCC Enforcement Bureau and learned something I never previously understood. If all the rest of you understood this, please don’t hurt my feelings by telling me – there are people out there who consider me one of the experts.

For a long time many of us have complained that the FCC won’t enforce the tariff. “Why don’t they prevent companies from using fraudulent LOAs to NASC numbers when they are about to go spare? Or, why don’t they enforce porting rules?” we’d ask. Well, today Richard Hindman, the FCC Division Chief, Telecommunications, explained why. The responsibility to police the tariff lies with the entity that files the tariff; in this case SMS/800, Inc, the board that consists of the three Bell Operating Companies (BOCs). It appears that all these years the way to manage these issues was for the BOCs to take away the RespOrg’s access to SMS.

I know there are gray areas that are difficult to handle and maybe fear of lawsuits was why they didn’t enforce what they could have, but our $.0966 per number per month pays for their lawyer! Maybe some of you would have balked with paying $.0976 but think of the savings to be had if some ports didn’t take days of calling, faxing and re-faxing to finally succeed in getting the number to where the customer wanted it. For eighteen years I have been paying a staff member to come in every day to contact every RespOrg with a late port, followed by paying a management person to follow up when that doesn’t get results. All this time and money down the drain when there was a fix to this. That doesn’t even touch the amount of money that has been lost by the companies that should have had the revenue from these numbers that got stuck in porting!

Now I’m not proposing that every time a RespOrg releases a number a day late their SMS access should be removed forever, but for the ones, and we all know who you are, that never seem to get the fax or never respond to escalation requests, maybe discovering their SMS access has been denied would get their attention.

So what can the FCC enforce? …to be continued.