Federal Communications Commission FCC 15-35 Before the Federal
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Federal Communications Commission FCC 15-35 Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matters of ) ) Telcordia Technologies, Inc. Petition to Reform ) WC Docket No. 07-149 Amendment 57 and to Order a Competitive ) Bidding Process for Number Portability ) Administration ) ) Petition of Telcordia Technologies, Inc. to Reform ) WC Docket No. 09-109 or Strike Amendment 70, to Institute Competitive ) Bidding for Number Portability ) Administration, and to End the NAPM LLC’s ) Interim Role in Number Portability ) Administration Contract Management ) ) Telephone Number Portability ) CC Docket No. 95-116 ) ORDER Adopted: March 26, 2015 Released: March 27, 2015 By the Commission: Chairman Wheeler and Commissioners Clyburn and Pai issuing separate statements; Commissioner O’Rielly approving in part, concurring in part, and issuing a statement. TABLE OF CONTENTS Heading Paragraph # I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................. 1 II. BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................................... 4 A. First LNPA Selection ....................................................................................................................... 5 B. Current LNPA Selection .................................................................................................................. 8 III. DISCUSSION ...................................................................................................................................... 14 A. Process and Procedural Issues ....................................................................................................... 14 1. The LNPA Selection Does Not Require Notice and Comment Rulemaking .......................... 15 2. The LNPA Selection Process Involves No Unlawful Delegation of FCC Authority .............. 31 3. The Decisions to Extend the Bid Submission Deadline and to Decline to Request a Second “Best and Final Offer” Were Proper ........................................................................... 35 4. Neustar’s Claims Regarding the Bid Document Development and Process Are Untimely and Barred by Principles of Waiver and Estoppel ................................................... 47 5. The Role Played By the SWG in the LNPA Selection Process Is Consistent With the Federal Advisory Committee Act ............................................................................................ 55 B. Bidders’ Technical and Management Qualifications ..................................................................... 65 1. Bid Review Methodology ....................................................................................................... 66 2. NANC and NAPM Review Process ........................................................................................ 70 3. Evaluation of Bidders’ Technical and Management Qualifications ........................................ 72 a. Evaluation of Technical and Management Qualifications Generally ............................... 73 b. Evaluation of Security and Reliability .............................................................................. 82 (i) Business Continuity .................................................................................................... 87 Federal Communications Commission FCC 15-35 (ii) Enhanced Law Enforcement Platform........................................................................ 95 (iii) Cybersecurity Requirements .................................................................................... 101 (iv) Public Safety ............................................................................................................ 118 (v) Other Comments and Concerns ................................................................................ 119 C. Cost Aspects of Bids .................................................................................................................... 134 D. Transition Risks and Costs........................................................................................................... 146 E. Neutrality Considerations ............................................................................................................ 160 F. IP Transition Issues ...................................................................................................................... 189 G. Contract Negotiation and Ongoing Oversight of the LNPA ........................................................ 193 H. Pending Telcordia Petitions ......................................................................................................... 197 IV. ORDERING CLAUSES ..................................................................................................................... 199 APPENDIX: CONDITIONS ON IMPARTILTY/NEUTRALITY I. INTRODUCTION 1. Today, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) approves the recommendation of the North American Numbering Council (NANC) that Telcordia Technologies, Inc. d/b/a iconectiv (Telcordia) serve as the next local number portability administrator (LNPA).1 As administrator of the system that allows consumers to keep their phone numbers when they switch service providers, the LNPA plays a crucial role in promoting consumer choice and competition among communications service providers. After a rigorous process—one that involved extensive input from the industry, government entities, and consumer groups, and was overseen by the Commission—we approve the recommendation of an experienced and qualified company to administer and keep secure this vital system. We recognize that since the inception of LNP service, law enforcement, public safety, and consumer protection capabilities have been built around the LNP service, and while some of these are not governed under the LNPA contract, each will be affected. In this Order, the Commission establishes a transparent process and schedule to ensure the effective, seamless, and timely transition of the LNPA. 2. This Order represents an important milestone, but not the final one. We establish a process for negotiating a contract with Telcordia, which will include close coordination with other governmental entities dedicated to ensuring a secure and reliable database that is vital to the functioning of the nation’s critical communications infrastructure, public safety, and the national security. We will ensure that parties that use the LNP database have an opportunity to conduct advance testing of the new system. And we will ensure that the transition to a new LNPA does not disrupt service to public safety, industry, the law enforcement community, or the public. 3. The LNPA contract2 is currently managed by a consortium of industry participants called the North American Portability Management, LLC (NAPM). In this Order, we authorize the NAPM to negotiate a proposed contract with the next LNPA, which the Commission will review for consistency with this Order. II. BACKGROUND 4. The Commission is responsible for the administration of telephone numbers, pursuant to section 251(e)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Act).3 Congress directed the Commission to “create or designate one or more impartial entities to administer telecommunications 1 Number portability is “the ability of users of telecommunications services to retain, at the same location, existing telecommunications numbers without impairment of quality, reliability, or convenience when switching from one telecommunications carrier to another.” 47 U.S.C. § 153(37). 2 The LNPA contract will consist of seven substantially similar contracts, each dealing with a separate region of the country. 3 47 U.S.C. § 251(e)(1). 2 Federal Communications Commission FCC 15-35 numbering and to make such numbers available on an equitable basis.”4 In 1996, the Commission established rules to enable a customer to keep the same telephone number even when the customer switches service providers.5 The Commission concluded that the ability to port telephone numbers would be instrumental in encouraging competition among telephone providers.6 In fact, the ability to port telephone numbers has become an integral part of our lives: on average, more than 100,000 telephone numbers are ported each day.7 The Commission has established rules to govern porting, such as how long a provider may take to port numbers and what information must be provided to the porting service provider.8 In addition, as discussed below, the Commission designated a third party, the LNPA, to administer the database used to ensure that number porting occurs in accordance with Commission rules. The LNPA administers number porting and also maintains additional systems and services based on the information it has about the assignment of numbers: the Interactive Voice Response (IVR) System,9 the Enhanced Law Enforcement Platform (ELEP) Service,10 and the Intermodal Ported Telephone Number Identification Service, also known as “Wireless Do Not Call.” ELEP and IVR services are used by U.S. law enforcement agencies and public safety answering points to identify the current facilities-based service provider of ported and pooled telephone numbers. ELEP is a subscription-based, online batch service with more functionality and capabilities than the free, phone-based interactive IVR service. Wireless Do Not Call is used by U.S. telemarketers to identify telephone