Skip Navigation

Federal Communications Commission

English Display Options

Commission Document

WCB Addresses Interconnected VoIP Number Trial Proposals

Download Options

Released: June 17, 2013

Federal Communications Commission

DA 13-1397

Before the

Federal Communications Commission

Washington, D.C. 20554

In the Matter of
)
)

Numbering Policies for Modern Communications
)
WC Docket No. 13-97
)
IP-Enabled Services
)
WC Docket No. 04-36
)
Telephone Number Requirements for IP-Enabled
)
WC Docket No. 07-243
Services Providers
)
)

Telephone Number Portability
)
CC Docket No. 95-116
)
Developing a Unified Intercarrier Compensation
)
CC Docket No. 01-92
Regime
)
)

Connect America Fund
)
WC Docket No. 10-90
)
Numbering Resource Optimization
)
CC Docket No. 99-200
)
Petition of Vonage Holdings Corp. for Limited
)
Waiver of Section 52.15(g)(2)(i) of the
)
Commission's Rules Regarding Access to
)
Numbering Resources
)

ORDER

Adopted: June 17, 2013

Released: June 17, 2013

By the Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau:

I.

INTRODUCTION

1.
In this order, the Wireline Competition Bureau (Bureau) addresses proposals to
participate in a limited technical trial for certain interconnected VoIP providers to obtain direct access to
telephone numbers for their customers. We conclude that the proposals submitted by Vonage Holdings
Corp. (Vonage), SmartEdgeNet, LLC (SmartEdgeNet), WilTel Communications, LLC (WilTel),
IntelePeer, Inc. (IntelePeer), and Millicorp meet the Commission's requirements to participate in a limited
direct access to numbers trial. We conclude that Fractel, LLC (Fractel) failed to demonstrate that it is
entitled to participate in the trial because it does not meet the eligibility requirements set forth in the
Commission's Order. Finally, we decline to extend the start date for the trial as requested by
Bandwidth.com, Inc. (Bandwidth.com).

II.

BACKGROUND

2.
On April 18, 2013, the Commission released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Order
and Notice of Inquiry which, inter alia, established a six-month technical trial of direct access to
telephone numbers by granting a conditional waiver to Vonage and other interconnected VoIP providers

Federal Communications Commission

DA 13-1397

that have pending petitions for waiver of section 52.15(g)(2)(i) of the Commission's rules1 and that meet
the terms and conditions outlined in the Direct Access Order.2 The Commission explained that it would
use this trial to test whether giving interconnected VoIP providers direct access to numbers would raise
issues relating to, for example, number exhaust, number porting, VoIP interconnection, or intercarrier
compensation, and if so, how those issues might be efficiently addressed.3 The Order requires trial
participants to file regular reports throughout the six-month trial, and state commissions and other
interested parties will have an opportunity to comment on these reports throughout the trial as they are
filed.4 The information gathered from the technical trial will inform the Commission's broader
rulemaking on direct access to numbering by entities that have not been classified as telecommunications
carriers.
3.
The Direct Access Order specified that entities eligible to participate in the trial had to
submit to the Wireline Competition Bureau and each relevant state commission a detailed numbering
proposal within 30 days of the release of the Order.5 These proposals must (1) include a certification that
the trial participant will comply with the terms and conditions of the waiver, (2) identify the rate centers
or LATAs in which the participant wishes to have numbers directly assigned to it, noting how many
numbers in each rate center or LATA it proposes to receive as new numbers and how many it proposes to
port in from existing or new customers, and (3) describe the phase-in process to implement the trial.6 The
Bureau must approve proposals 30 days after filing unless the Bureau finds that the proposal does not
comply with the requirements of the Direct Access Order.7 A participant may not request or obtain direct
access to numbers until its proposal is approved.8
4.
The deadline to submit proposals for the trial was May 20, 2013. On May 17, 2013,
Vonage and SmartEdgeNet submitted their proposals to participate in the trial,9 and WilTel and
IntelePeer submitted their proposals on May 20, 2013.10 After the deadline, on May 22, 2013, the
Commission received a proposal from Millicorp to participate in the trial.11 In addition, on May 20, 2013,

1 47 C.F.R. 52.15(g)(2)(i).
2 See Numbering Policies for Modern Communications et al., WC Docket No. 13-97 et al., Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, Order, and Notice of Inquiry, 28 FCC Rcd 5842 (2013) (Direct Access Order).
3 Id. at 5844, para. 2.
4 Id.
5 Id. at 5882, para. 101. The Order was released on April 18, 2013.
6 Id.
7 Id.
8 Id.
9 Letter from Brita D. Strandberg, Counsel to Vonage Holdings Corp., to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal
Communications Commission, WC Docket No. 13-97 et al. (filed May 17, 2013) (Vonage Trial Proposal); Letter
from Randall B. Lowe, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications
Commission, WC Docket No. 13-97 et al. (filed May 17, 2013) (submitting Numbering Plan Proposal of
SmartEdgeNet, LLC) (SmartEdgeNet Trial Proposal).
10 WilTel Trial Proposal, WC Docket No. 13-97 et al. (filed May 20, 2013) (WilTel Trial Proposal); Letter from
Kristin Manwarren, Corporate Counsel, IntelePeer, Inc., to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications
Commission, WC Docket No. 13-97 et al. (filed May 20, 2013) (IntelePeer Trial Proposal).
11 See Letter from Duane Dyar, Vice President/Operations, Millicorp, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal
Communications Commission, WC Docket No. 13-97 et al. (filed May 22, 2013) (Millicorp Trial Proposal). In its
letter, Millicorp requests leave to file its proposal out of time and for the Commission to accept its filing as if it had
been timely.
2

Federal Communications Commission

DA 13-1397

Fractel filed a petition for reconsideration of the Direct Access Order, which includes a proposal for it to
participate in the trial.12
5.
On May 21, 2013, Bandwidth.com, Inc. filed an opposition to the request for confidential
treatment of the Vonage and IntelePeer proposals and asked the Commission to clarify that the 30-day
period for Bureau approval does not begin until participants file their plans publicly.13 On May 24 and
May 30, 2013, Vonage and IntelePeer, respectively, withdrew their requests for confidential treatment
and publicly filed their plans in unredacted form.14

III.

DISCUSSION

6.
We conclude that the trial proposals submitted by Vonage, SmartEdgeNet, IntelePeer,
WilTel and Millicorp should be approved. First, each proposal was submitted by an interconnected VoIP
provider that has a pending petition for waiver of section 52.15(g)(2)(i) of the Commission's Rules.15
Second, the proposals satisfy the substantive requirements of the Direct Access Order. Each proposal: (1)
includes a certification that the participant will comply with the terms and conditions of the waiver; and
(2) identifies the rate centers or LATAs in which the participant wishes to obtain numbers directly,
noting how many numbers it proposes to receive as new and how many it proposes to port in from
existing or new customers. Specifically, Vonage identifies 3 LATAs Atlanta, Georgia; Eastern
Massachusetts; and Phoenix, Arizona in which it proposes to obtain a total of 9 blocks of numbers for
new customers and port 120,000 numbers of existing customers.16 SmartEdgeNet identifies 3 LATAs
Celebration, Florida; Keys, Florida; and Dallas, Texas and proposes to obtain 1 block in each LATA
and port up to 450 numbers of existing customers.17 WilTel identifies 7 Rate Centers Eastern
Massachusetts; Charlotte, North Carolina; Concord, North Carolina; Dallas, Texas; Denver, Colorado;
Los Angeles, California; Rochester, New York and proposes to obtain a total of 25 blocks for new
customers and port 200,000 numbers of existing customers.18 IntelePeer identifies 1 LATA in Los
Angeles, California (or alternatively, Miami, Florida) in which it proposes to obtain 1 block of numbers.19
Millicorp identifies 3 LATAs Fort Myers, Florida; Fort Lauderdale, Florida; and Southwest Georgia
and proposes to obtain 1 block in each LATA and port up to 7,500 numbers of existing customers.20
Finally, each proposal describes the phase-in process to implement the trial.

12 See Fractel, LLC Petition for Reconsideration, WC Docket No. 13-97 et al. (filed May 20, 2013) (Fractel Petition
for Reconsideration).
13 Letter from James C. Falvey, Counsel for Bandwidth.com, Inc. to Ms. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal
Communications Commission, CC Docket No. 99-200 (filed May 21, 2013) (Bandwidth.com Opposition).
14 Letter from Brita D. Strandberg, Counsel to Vonage Holdings Corp. to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal
Communications, WC Docket No. 13-97 et al. (filed May 24, 2013); Letter from Kristin Manwarren, Corporate
Counsel, IntelePeer, Inc. to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, WC Docket No.
13-97 et al. (filed May 30, 2013).
15 Direct Access Order, 28 FCC Rcd at 5849 n.35.
16 Vonage Trial Proposal at 2-3.
17 SmartEdgeNet Trial Proposal at 1.
18 WilTel Trial Proposal at Attachment 2. WilTel indicates that it intends to include both wholesale and enterprise
lines in the trial. See Letter from Joseph C. Cavender, Vice President, Federal Regulatory Affairs, Level 3 to Ms.
Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, WC Docket No. 13-97 et al. (filed May 28,
2013).
19 IntelePeer Trial Proposal at 4.
20 Millicorp Trial Proposal at 4.
3

Federal Communications Commission

DA 13-1397

7.
Millicorp's proposal was submitted two days after the 30-day deadline established in the
Direct Access Order with a request to accept it as timely filed. Millicorp indicates that it has limited
experience with numbering matters and was unable to complete certain research in a timely manner.
Although we note that the most appropriate action would have been to contact the Commission and
request an extension of the time in which to file,21 we agree with Millicorp that its participation will
increase the diversity of trial participants. Of the 15 participants that potentially were eligible to
participate in the trial, only four others applied to participate. Millicorp's participation will increase the
number of participants. Moreover, Millicorp proposes to test direct access to numbers in less populous
areas, relative to other trial participants. That may provide the Commission unique information from the
trial. Moreover, the brief delay in filing does not have any impact on the Commission's ability to conduct
the limited trial, nor does it force the Commission to modify the time frames set forth in the Direct Access
Order.
We also conclude that no party will be adversely affected by the acceptance of Millicorp's
proposal. We also note that no other party meeting all the other criteria submitted a late proposal. We
find that special circumstances exist for waiving the 30-day deadline as it applies to Millicorp and that the
public interest would be better served by a waiver than by strict adherence to the deadline. Thus, we
construe Millicorp's request to accept its proposal as timely filed and waive the requirement that its
proposal be submitted by May 20.
8.
Fractel Proposal. In the Direct Access Order, the Commission limited participation in
the trial to those entities with pending petitions for waiver of the Commission's rules regarding access to
numbers.22 Fractel did not have such a petition pending. Rather, Fractel filed a petition for
reconsideration of the Commission's decision to permit only those entities with pending petitions for
waiver to apply to participate in the trial, and also filed a proposal to participate.
9.
We do not accept Fractel's proposal to participate in the trial.23 The Commission
determined only to accept proposals from entities with pending petitions on file at the time of the Direct
Access Order
.24 Fractel did not have a pending petition for waiver on file at the time the Direct Access
Order
was adopted and, therefore, does not meet this basic eligibility requirement of the waiver granted in
the Direct Access Order.
10.
Bandwidth.com Opposition. Bandwidth.com argued that participants should be required
to file their plans publicly. It further asserted that the Commission should clarify that the 30-day period
for Bureau approval would not begin until the participants make public filings.25 Vonage and IntelePeer
promptly withdrew their requests for confidential treatment and filed unredacted copies of their proposals.
We thus find that there has been sufficient opportunity for public inspection of all of the proposals.26 We
further find that it is in the public interest and provides for better administration to begin the trials of all
participants at the same time, as the trial is likely to provide useful input for the important issues in the
Direct Access to Numbers rulemaking. Thus, the trial for all participants will commence on June 17,
2013. We therefore dismiss as moot Bandwidth's request to require public filings of the proposals, and
deny its request to delay the start of the trial until such public filings are made.

21 47 C.F.R. 1.46.
22 Direct Access Order, 28 FCC Rcd at 5878, para. 87.
23 We will address Fractel's Petition for Reconsideration in a separate order.
24 Direct Access Order, 28 FCC Rcd at 5878, para. 89.
25 Bandwidth.com Opposition at 3.
26 Direct Access Order, 28 FCC Rcd at 5882, para. 101. We note that Bandwidth has signed a protective order in
this docket and thus there is no reason to believe that it experienced any significant delay in access to unredacted
proposals prior to the prompt withdrawal of requests for confidentiality. See Letter from Justin L. Faulb, Counsel to
Level 3 Communications, LLC and Bandwidth.com, Inc. to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications
(continued....)
4

Federal Communications Commission

DA 13-1397

11.
Finally, we remind any participant that requires additional resources as the trial proceeds
that it must comply with the requirement set forth in the SBCIS Waiver Order 27 to file requests for
numbers with the Commission and the relevant state commissions at least 30 days prior to requesting
numbers from the number administrators.28

IV.

ORDERING CLAUSES

12.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 1, 3, 4, 201-205, 251, and
303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 153, 154, 201-205, 251,
303(r), and Sections 0.91 and 0.291 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.91, 0.291, the proposals to
participate in the Direct Access to Numbers Trial submitted by Vonage Holdings Corp., SmartEdgeNet,
LLC, WilTel Communications, LLC, IntelePeer, Inc. and Millicorp ARE HEREBY APPROVED.
13.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 1, 3, 4, 201-205, 251, and 303(r)
of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 153, 154, 201-205, 251, 303(r), and
Sections 0.91, 0.291 and 1.3 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, Millicorp's request
for a waiver of the filing deadline IS HEREBY GRANTED.
14.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 1, 3, 4, 201-205, 251, and 303(r)
of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 153, 154, 201-205, 251, 303(r), and
Sections 0.91 and 0.291of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.91, 0.291, the proposal to participate in
the Direct Access to Numbers Trial submitted by Fractel, LLC IS DISMISSED.
15.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant Sections 4(i)-(j) and 251of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i)-(j), 251, and Sections 0.91 and 0.291 of
the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.91, 0.291, the Opposition to the Request for Confidential
Treatment filed by Bandwidth.com IS DISMISSED IN PART and otherwise IS DENIED.
16.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the authority delegated under sections 0.91,
0.291 and 1.102 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.91, 0.291, 1.102, that this Order IS
EFFECTIVE upon release.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Julie A. Veach
Chief
Wireline Competition Bureau

(...continued from previous page)
Commission, CC Docket No. 99-200 (filed Oct. 19, 2012) (providing signed acknowledgements of confidentiality
forms for two attorneys representing Bandwidth in the proceeding).
27 Administration of the North American Numbering Plan, CC Docket No. 99-200, Order, 20 FCC Rcd 2957 (2005)
(SBCIS Waiver Order).
28 Direct Access Order, 28 FCC Rcd at 5883 n.256.
5

Note: We are currently transitioning our documents into web compatible formats for easier reading. We have done our best to supply this content to you in a presentable form, but there may be some formatting issues while we improve the technology. The original version of the document is available as a PDF, Word Document, or as plain text.

close
FCC

You are leaving the FCC website

You are about to leave the FCC website and visit a third-party, non-governmental website that the FCC does not maintain or control. The FCC does not endorse any product or service, and is not responsible for, nor can it guarantee the validity or timeliness of the content on the page you are about to visit. Additionally, the privacy policies of this third-party page may differ from those of the FCC.