BEFORE THE
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of )
)
Connect America Fund ) WC Docket No. 10-90
)
A National Broadband Plan for Our Future ) GN Docket No. 09-51
)
Establishing Just and Reasonable Rates for Local ) WC Docket No. 07-135
Exchange Carriers )
)
High-Cost Universal Service Support ) WC Docket No. 05-337
)
Developing a Unified Intercarrier Compensation ) CC Docket No. 01-92
Regime )
)
Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service ) CC Docket No. 96-45
)
Lifeline and Link-Up ) WC Docket No. 03-109
COMMENTS OF NORTH COUNTY COMMUNICATIONS CORP. IN RESPONSE TO CENTURYLINK, INC. PETITION FOR LIMITED WAIVER
INTRODUCTION
Pursuant to Public Notice DA 12-104, North County Communications Corp. (“NCC”) submits its comments regarding the CenturyLink, Inc. (“CenturyLink,” f/k/a Qwest) petition for limited waiver of call signaling rules (“Petition”). CenturyLink has not demonstrated good cause for the requested waiver, and thus, the Commission should deny the Petition.
DISCUSSION
In its Petition, CenturyLink requests that it be exempt from transmitting charge number (“CN”) or calling party number (“CPN”) via MF signaling. Pet. at 6-8. CenturyLink’s Petition falls well short of demonstrating technical infeasibility. Instead, CenturyLink posits summarily
2
that the transmission of CN and CPN is technically infeasible where MF is utilized. Id.
CenturyLink provides no affidavits from its in-house switch experts to describe why compliance is technically infeasible. In addition, CenturyLink provides no documentation about its switches or what capabilities exist for complying with the new rules. Furthermore, CenturyLink provides no declarations from its switch manufacturers to support claims of technical infeasibility. In short, CenturyLink creates from whole cloth an excuse of technical infeasibility.
In a recent interconnection agreement arbitration, in which NCC sought delivery of ANI over its MF interconnection trunks, CenturyLink (then Qwest) claimed technical infeasibility but admitted that it never “discuss[ed] its switches’ capabilities with its switch manufacturers’ representatives.” See NCC Post-Hearing Exceptions Brief, In the Matter of Qwest Corporation’s Petition for Arbitration and Approval of Interconnection Agreement with North County
Communications Corporation of Arizona, Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, Docket Nos. T-01051B-09-0383 and T-03335A-09-0383, at 3, n.7 (citing Arbitration Transcript, 53:17-25, 54:1-9) (a copy of that page of the Exceptions Brief is attached hereto as Exhibit A). Exacerbating matters, Qwest refused to provide NCC with names and telephone numbers of its switch manufacturer technical representatives.
NCC knows that ANI can be transmitted over MF interconnection trunks because it has done so with another LEC that uses Northern Telecom DMS switches. In addition, NCC
contacted Lucent, which confirmed that ANI could be delivered over MF interconnection trunks with no switch modifications. See Lucent January 22, 2011 email to Todd Lesser (a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit B).
Although the Commission recognizes the validity of MF signaling and the importance of providing ANI, CenturyLink refuses to send or receive ANI over MF interconnection trunks,
3
despite the fact that CenturyLink provides ANI via MF signaling on long distance (e.g., FGD) trunks to IXCs and 911 trunks. Accordingly, it is inaccurate for CenturyLink to claim that it cannot transmit ANI, CN or CPN via MF signaling. Moreover, CenturyLink claims it cannot retransmit ANI, CN or CPN from MF carriers to carriers using SS7 signaling; however, that inability is CenturyLink’s responsibility because it refuses to accept ANI from MF carriers. NCC is flummoxed by CenturyLink’s continued efforts to bury its head in the sand where MF signaling and ANI are concerned.1
CONCLUSION
Without supporting documentation, CenturyLink has failed to demonstrate good cause. Accordingly, the Commission should deny the Petition. At the very least, the Commission should reject the Petition and require CenturyLink to refile with adequate supporting documentation so that interested parties can comment on substantive issues and not on theoretical, unsupported statements.
Respectfully submitted,
_/s/R. Dale Dixon, Jr. ________________ R. Dale Dixon, Jr.
Law Offices of Dale Dixon 7316 Esfera Street
Carlsbad, California 92009 (760) 452-6661
dale@daledixonlaw.com
Attorneys for North County Communications Corporation Dated: February 29, 2012
1 NCC even offered its switch experts to Qwest to configure the switches to send ANI over MF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DOCKET NOS. T-01051B-09-0383 AND T-03335A-09-0383 - 3 - NCC’S EXCEPTIONS TO FINAL RECOMMENDATION
to which the carrier provides interconnection….”4 Qwest currently offers IP interconnection on a wholesale basis to businesses and even to residential customers.5 Through VoIP, Qwest can offer up to 46 voice lines per T1, compared to only 24 voice lines per T1 if NCC interconnects with Qwest using SS7.6 That distinction shows that Qwest engages in discriminatory interconnection and forces competitors to take and provide services inferior to those offered by Qwest. The Final Recommendation ignores the clear discrimination and points only to the absence of competing contract language.
III. THE PROPOSED CAP ON BILLABLE MINUTES IS ARBITRARY, UNLAWFUL, PREJUDICIAL AND INCONSISTENT WITH PUBLIC POLICY.
The Final Recommendation adopts Qwest’s proposed cap of 400,000 compensable minutes of use that it will pay to NCC for terminating Qwest’s calls to NCC where such
termination employs MF signaling. Qwest asserts that the cap is due to its inability to verify calls and billing sent via MF signaling because Qwest verifies calls and billing using its SS7 records. That argument should fail because Qwest has not demonstrated that its switches cannot be programmed to obtain all necessary call information from NCC. For instance, Qwest has not discussed with its switch manufacturers how to effect a programming change. Instead, Qwest refused to comply with NCC’s discovery requests and limited its communications with its switch manufacturers to obtaining a list of the manufacturers’ legal representatives.7
In addition, the argument should fail because the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) recently recognized the widespread use of MF signaling and is in the process of
developing rules to would address Qwest’s concerns by requiring carriers that use MF signaling to transmit calling number information.8 The Commission should not take action in this
4 51 Comm. Reg. (P & F) 202 (Or. Dist. Ct. 2010). 5 Lesser Reply Testimony, Exhibit 6.
6 Id.
7 Arbitration Transcript (“Arb. Tr.”), 53:17-25; 54:1-9 (admitting that Qwest did not discuss its switches’
capabilities with its switch manufacturers’ representatives).
8 See In the Matter of Connect America Fund, A National Broadband Plan for Our Future, Establishing Just
and Reasonable Rates for Local Exchange Carriers, High-Cost Universal Service Support, Developing an Unified Intercarrier Compensation Regime, Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, Lifeline and
EXHIBIT A Page 1 of 1
From: Todd Lesser <1:odd@nccom.com> Subject: Fwd: switch question
Date: January 22, 20119:19:00 AM PST
To: Dale Dixon <dale@daledixonlaw.com>
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Navone, Thomas J (Thomas)" <1:homas.navone@alcatel-lucent.com> Date: January 22,201109:10:23 PST
To: Todd Lesser <1:odd@nccom.com>
Cc: "Williams, Timothy J (Tim)" <1:im.j.wil!iams@alcatel-lucent.com> Subject RE: switch question
Good Morning Todd
-My name is Tom Navone and as Tim mentioned below I will be supporting California from an Alcatel-Lucent Sales perspective. I'm based out of Irvine, California.
Tim received an answer from one of our Switch Engineers and the information is below:
The statements below are false pertaining to the 5ESS Switch. I can't speak to the 4ESS but I doubt it is true in that case either. LNP feature SFID 346 - NP-APPEND BAF MOD 164 W/CHARGEABLE ACCOUNT NUMBER TO CNA RECORD (99-5E-7304)
3.4.75 NP-APPEND BAF MOD 164 W/CHARGEABLE ACCOUNT NUMBER TO CNA RECORD (99-5E-7304) 3.4.7S.1 Description
The NP - Append Mod 164 with Chargeable Account Number to CNA AMA Record feature (99-SE-7304) was developed in two separate phases.
In phase 1, all CNA BAF AMA CC720 base records populate Table 13 and 14 of Structure Code 0625 using the following:
With OFID 719 inactive, the following will be recorded: "Record the SS7 CHG or MF ANI jf received.
"Record SS7 CPN if the SS7 CHG or MF ANI are not available and the SS7 CPN was received.
*Record the Trunk Group BN if the SS7 CHG or MF ANI and the SS7 CPN are not availab.!e and the Trunk Group BN was received. With OFID 719 active, the following will be recorded:
*Record Trunk Group BN populated.
In phase 2, the switch provides a recent changeable parameter on a trunk group basis, an option for recording of a Chargeable Account Number in an appended BAF Module 164 for CNA records. [f the CNA Module 164 Option is set to YES on a trunk group, and all other conditions for recording a CNA record are met, then EBAF Module 164 is appended and populated as follows:
*Record the SS7 RN if the call has been forwarded two or more times and the RN is received.
"Record the S87 OCN if the cal! has been forwarded once and the OCN is received and the RN is unavailable. *Record the SS7 CPN if received and the SS7 RN and SS7 OCN are unavailable.
*Record the SS7 CHG or MF ANI if received and the SS7 RN, SS7 OCN, and SS7 CPN are unavailable. If none of the SS7 parameters are received, then no module 164 will be appended to the CNA AMA SC 0625.
In phase 2, the base CNA BAF AMA CC720 base records wi!! populate tables 13 and 14 of Structure Code 0625 using the following: With OFID 719 inactive, the following wi!! be recorded:
'Record the SS7 CHG or MF ANI if received.
*Record the SS7 CPN if received and SS7 CHG or MF ANI are unavailable.
With OFID 719 active, the following wi!! be recorded:
"Record Trunk Group BN if populated.
[f you have any additional questions please contact me at any time. I look forward to working with you.
Thanks! TJN Tom Navone A!catel-Lucent Sales Representative Mobile -714-323-7771 EXHIBIT B Page 1 of 2
thomas.navone@alcateJ-lucent.com ---Original
Message---From: Wliliams, Timothy J (Tim)
Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2011 3:30 PM
To: Todd Lesser; Navone, Thomas J (Thomas)
Subject: RE: switch question Todd,
Good timing on your email. I actually do not have sales responsibility for California any longer. I have copied Tom Navone who is actually right up the street from you in Irvine.
I will shoot Tom an email and let him know about some of the emaHs that we have exchanged over the past couple of years and we'll get you the answers to your questions.
Thanks! Tim Williams Sr. Sales Executive Alcatel-Lucent 933 N. Anglin St. Cleburne, TX 76031 972523-5187 tim.j.wiJliams@Alcatel-Lucent.com ---Orlginal
Message---From: Todd Lesser [mailto:todd@nccom.com] Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2011 4:59 PM To: Williams, Timothy J (Tim)
Subject: Re: switch question
Our project is coming close to completion. Although,! had a question about the Lucent switches.
Someone at Owest recently told me that the Lucent #4ESS and #5ESS don't have the ability to provide CDR (Call Detail Recording) when trunks between two switches are configured as MF and not 3S7. They said they can only do peg counts on the number of calls. They can't tell how many minutes a cal! was or what number was dialed. I have never heard of a switch not having this basic capability.
Second, I was also told that two switches can't send ANI to each other if the switches are configured with MF trunks.
Are either of these things accurate?
Thank you Todd Lesser Voice: +1 6193644750 FaJc +1 6193644777 E-Mail: todd@nccom.com EXHIBIT B Page 2 of 2
