What's a "Phone"? (was: Re: [asterisk-biz] Nufone appears to be on the rebound)

[Matthew Rubenstein]

	The FCC has used the "reasonable service expectation" policy as a
criterion for VOIP 911 service support:
http://www.technewsworld.com/story/43229.html .

	The New York City Council (legislature), among other jurisdictions uses
that expectation policy to inform its lawmaking and oversight as well:
http://www.nyccouncil.info/issues/report_act.cfm?mtfile=T2004-1426 .

	Those expectations transcend the "info service" vs "info network" false
dichtomy confounding so much governance of modern telecom. 911 forces
the issue, because people's reasonable expectations can't be changed to
meet lower vendor standards, and lives are at stake all day long.
Whether those policies govern the rest of "telephony", or remain limited
by the traditional image of "telephony" as people can begin to expect an
"Internet dialtone" for more varied services, will be played out over
the next few years.


On Fri, 2006-05-19 at 11:39 -0400, Greg Boehnlein wrote:
> On Thu, 18 May 2006, Paul wrote:
> 
> > Bret,
> > 
> > I was strictly referring to protection of the numbers. I think the state
> > and federal regulators need to require that portable numbers be offered
> > in more cases(although reasonable fees may be charged). This requirement
> > could be based on total subscribers, total DID count or some formula
> > using such stats. My point is that I think it absolutely wrong right now
> > that companies like vonage can port in a Maine number originally issued
> > to me by Verizon but they won't assign me a new number that is equally
> > portable. I think it would be fair if the regulators required you, me,
> > vonage or nufone to do that once we grow to a certain size.
> 
> Question: Does Vonage billing have a Local Number Portability charge on 
> their bill? Is Vonage an RBOC/I/CLEC? If so, they are legally required to 
> provide number portability such that if you they assign you a number, you 
> legally have the right to port it to whatever carrier you choose. However, 
> if Vonage is claiming they are NOT a 'Telephone Company', then I think it 
> is less clear as to what you may legally compell them to do.
> 
> IANAL, but it seems clear to me that VoIP companies are trying to say 
> "We're NOT a telephone company", but customers are expecting to have all 
> the same rights that they would under Telco Regulation.
> 
> > I don't think DID's should be used as hostages when there is a billing
> > dispute. All providers, regardless of whether they are a "real phone
> > company" or not have to make the right decisions about extending credit.
> > I say make them release the numbers and later they can ask a court to
> > add those costs to the damage award.
> 
> I agree with this, but at the same time, the regulation related to Number 
> Portability defines specific maximum timeframes under which a carrier MUST 
> respond to a number port. In my experiences with SBC/AT&T and other larger 
> carriers, the RBOCS generally sit on stuff until the last possible moment, 
> then kick it back if their is a single issue with it, rather than handling 
> the ports in a timely, efficient manner. I.E. Number Ports are the lowest 
> priority item on the totem pole.
> 
-- 

(C) Matthew Rubenstein