Neustar, NAPM War of Words Escalates Over LNP Administrator 'Cutover' Risks, Blame

NAPM isn't surprised the LNPA incumbent "is seeking to undermine confidence in the transition" because "each day of delay would add approximately $1M to Neustar's bottom line at the ultimate expense" of consumers. NAPM "is dismayed, however, that Neustar is now making threats that likely constitute an anticipatory breach of the relevant Master Service Agreements ('MSAs)," said its filing Wednesday in docket 09-109 responding to previous Neustar criticism of a NAPM monthly report (see 1801170045 and 1801020042). The FCC directed NAPM to oversee the transition.

The FCC should publicly disclose MSA provisions and other information the LNPA incumbent believes will help it refute allegations it would be to blame for a delay, said a Neustar filing. The FCC, NAPM and iconectiv didn't comment Thursday. The LNPA operates systems that allow consumers to keep their phone numbers when changing carriers.

Neustar said its U.S. phone number routing and addressing registry "will shut down all system and service elements for states in the Southeast region" April 8. The same day, the "communications industry will flash cut to iconectiv, a new vendor, launching its service with a new platform, a new data center, and new support personnel," the incumbent's presentation said. "There is no agreement, plan, or technical capability for service providers to rollback to Neustar services in the Southeast region following iconectiv launch." Saying the TOM rejected several industry-standard rollback options, Neustar doesn't "accept or endorse" the TOM's "manual rollback procedures, and will not restart its platform in the event of an iconectiv failure." Stakeholders should do "proper testing" and develop "their own back-up plans," the incumbent said.

NAPM urged Neustar to focus on mitigating transition risks, "rather than exacerbating risks through its own actions and failures to act, and then complaining publicly" that the FCC, TOM, NAPM and iconectiv "failed to mitigate those risks." The incumbent's "explicit threat to leave the industry with no contingency support should any problems arise during the transition is unconscionable," NAPM's filing said. "Neustar’s failures to act in good faith violate the FCC orders and Neustar's contractual obligations, and put at risk the ability of service providers to fulfill the wishes of consumers." NAPM said Neustar's actions also raise questions about its fitness to be chosen for future contracts.

Neustar fired back Thursday. “Having flawlessly administered the NPAC system for more than two decades, we have expressed concerns about the lack of transparency and inadequacy of the cutover process," it emailed. "With time running out on the cutover schedule, the NAPM appears intent on shortcutting its negotiations for necessary services. ... Neustar proposed a workable, automated rollback solution more than a year ago, but the TOM chose a short-cut, manual solution over Neustar’s objections." Neustar "remains willing to build the workable rollback solution we proposed more than a year ago ... but such a solution cannot be completed by the time of the launch in the Southeast. We do not want to be complicit in creating a false sense of security by supporting an unworkable rollback that was developed without our input.”

Neustar asked the FCC to "fully disclose Article 19" of Telcordia's MSA with NAPM, along with a "Transition and Implementation Plan with iconectiv's response" to a 2015 LNPA request for proposal, both of which have been kept confidential. Its filing said the FCC argued that revealing MSA contents while Neustar was litigating the iconectiv LNPA selection would give the incumbent a competitive advantage if it won the case and forced the contract to be re-bid. But it said the "danger foreseen by the Commission has now" ended because a court sided with the commission in May (see 1705260021).

"Many portions of the MSA relevant to this cut over remain unnecessarily withheld from public inspection," Neustar said. "Neustar cannot make a full public explanation of its position because it cannot reveal the contents of Article 19 -- in particular the provisions of the Article that create a financial incentive for iconectiv and the NAPM to falsely blame Neustar for any delay," it said. "The lack of transparency concerning the Transition and Implementation Plan is also troubling." The "continued secrecy harms 'the right of the public to participate in this proceeding in a meaningful way,'" it said, citing an FCC protective order language.