SmartEdgeNet Dismisses Concerns About VoIP Access to Numbering

SmartEdgeNet said Bandwidth offered vague warnings of risks and uncertainties: "It does not, however, connect its worries to any actual, real-world problems that might arise when numbers are directly assigned to interconnected VoIP providers. As SEN and others demonstrated in their comments, vague worries of this sort are baseless." SmartEdgeNet said interconnected VoIP providers will be able to use numbering data bases to ensure calls to their subscribers are properly routed, an arrangement that will be "less costly and more flexible than the current system" requiring VoIP providers to rely on local carriers as middlemen. The VoIP providers will have every incentive to use direct numbering access to ensure their customers' calls are routed correctly, SmartEdgeNet said.

SmartEdgeNet rejected Bandwidth.com's suggestion that VoIP providers be subjected to a "robust application and approval process" to demonstrate their "technical, financial, and managerial ability" to meet existing regulatory duties on 911, the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, customer proprietary network information and other matters. SmartEdgeNet said that would be "essentially, the federal equivalent of a traditional state-level certification process," an idea it called "preposterous." SmartEdgeNet said: "Interconnected VoIP providers are already required to meet the obligations that Bandwidth.com references, and already do meet them, despite having entered the market without being subject to a certification process -- 'robust' or otherwise. Bandwidth.com provides nothing that suggests that giving interconnected VoIP providers direct access to numbers would either interfere with their ability to meet their regulatory obligations, or create some new (and perverse) incentive to ignore those obligations."

Public Knowledge's comments were similarly "long on vague worries and short on any plausible problematic scenarios -- much less any evidence that problems would actually occur," SmartEdgeNet said. SmartEdgeNet disputed PK's concerns that the FCC could lack clear-cut authority to enforce its mandates if VoIP providers gain direct access to phone numbers without being regulated under Title II of the Communications Act. The FCC has plenary authority under Section 251(e)(1) over all aspects of number administration, SmartEdgeNet said.

SmartEdgeNet also disputed PK's concerns that the VoIP numbering change would jeopardize FCC ability to fulfill its international duties. "Aside from free-floating xenophobia, it is difficult to understand Public Knowledge’s concern about 'hand[ing] authorized phone number blocks to entities outside the jurisdiction of United States law enforcement,'" SmartEdgeNet said. "Today, neither local exchange carriers, nor interexchange carriers, nor VoIP providers, have any obligation to locate their switching equipment in the United States." To the extent carriers have certain obligations under CALEA, they "are not conditioned on the geographic location of the relevant entity's switching or routing equipment," SmartEdgeNet said.

PK repeated its concerns at the FCC this week, this time noting ways to address its concerns. "Traditionally, VoIP has been addressed using the Commission’s ancillary authority [under Title I]. While concern has been raised by recent cases with regard to the breadth of the FCC’s ancillary authority, ancillary authority in the instant case appears well grounded," PK said in an ex parte filing. "The Commission has responsibility for the execution of the North American Numbering Plan under both Section 251(e) and Section 303(r). The Commission cannot delegate numbers to non-Title II entities without retaining sufficient authority to ensure that those delegated numbering blocks do not jeopardize these responsibilities. As a consequence, certification requirements, or other steps taken necessary to prevent entities delegated phone numbers from destabilizing the phone numbering system (either by accident or design), fall well within the well established zone of ancillary authority."

"Public Knowledge cautioned, however, that authority under Section 251(e) is significantly limited as a source of direct authority and that the power to administer the NANP in the United States (and thus to determine who is eligible for phone numbers and matters related to their method of allocation) cannot substitute for the Commission’s general power under either Title II or Title III licensing power to regulate broadly in the public interest," the filing said. "Further, while the Commission can impose neutrality requirements on the administration of numbers, it is doubtful that the Commission could impose full common carrier obligations on VoIP providers as a condition of receiving phone numbers" because it "would violate the common carrier prohibition."

Vonage lauded the FCC draft order to give interconnected VoIP direct numbering access. "This is an important step that will enable IP interconnection, increase transparency and parity in the telecommunications industry, improve call quality, reduce cost, and allow deployment of new and innovative services," Vonage said in an ex parte filing. "Over the course of the last two years, the Commission has developed an extensive record of the benefits of direct access to numbering, including concrete data from the recent numbering trial. Vonage urges the Commission to adopt its rules expeditiously and remove any barriers that would further delay qualified interconnected VoIP providers’ direct access to numbers."