NAPM Says Neustar Refusing LNPA Rollback Plan, Sowing Confusion; Incumbent Disagrees
North American Portability Management said Neustar is resisting a "rollback" to the incumbent local number portability administrator if the new systems of incoming LNPA iconectiv aren't ready for an April 8 regional cutover. Neustar disputed that. NAPM said transition oversight…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Communications Daily is required reading for senior executives at top telecom corporations, law firms, lobbying organizations, associations and government agencies (including the FCC). Join them today!
manager (TOM) PwC "established industry-led rollback" as the contingency plan under FCC authority. Neustar "is refusing to support the defined rollback approach and is further sowing confusion among transition stakeholders regarding the history, current state, and next steps for contingency rollback," NAPM filed Monday in docket 09-109. Neustar labeled as "counterfactual" a Jan. 16 Neustar filing blaming the TOM for the lack of a viable rollback plan (see 1801170045). It's "critical" stakeholders "have accurate information regarding transition plans and status," NAPM said. "The TOM has prepared this summary of the history, current state, and required next steps regarding contingency rollback, which would be implemented only in case of a catastrophic, non-recoverable failure after the LNPA transition." The filing detailed TOM rollback plan efforts, including "a pattern of shifting positions and escalating demands by Neustar." The incumbent replied it "cannot be complicit in creating a false sense of security" about the TOM's proposed solution. "The so-called industry-led rollback ignores the question of whether these procedures can be supported by all service providers, and fails to acknowledge the fact that these procedures have never been exercised simultaneously by the entire industry, nor tested when the matter causing the fallout is the NPAC itself," Neustar emailed. "Despite more than two years of effort and with only 10 weeks to go before the southeast region goes live, the TOM has failed to account for the probability that iconectiv’s replacement system will falter." Neustar said its efforts were "mischaracterized" by PwC, and urged stakeholders to focus on "testing and validating" new systems, while "planning for the probability of consumer disruption, and insisting on far greater transparency from iconectiv and the TOM.” Neustar Monday responded to Neustar's Jan. 24 filing (see 1801250037): "Although Neustar unequivocally denies the NAPM's baseless allegations and reserves all its legal rights to respond in the appropriate fora, the Commission should refrain from interceding in contract negotiations between two private parties." It cited an arbitration provision as controlling.