Letter to congress regarding VoIP LNP
Another topic near and dear to me is regulation with regard to telecommunications and VoIP LNP as this is a pillar of Convertec's business.
Below is a letter to representatives of congress and various communications and utilities sub-committees outlining my thoughts and perceptions about Local Number Portability or LNP and how the process is not applied fairly and more unilaterally applied to the "big guys".
Having over 100 DIDs (Phone numbers) in my pipeline waiting to be ported and an average wait of 30 days (plus) I felt the need to at least make my thoughts known!
Dear Sir,
I am writing you as the not only the Chief Executive Officer of Convertec Corporation, an Idaho headquartered company, but as a concerned citizen.One of the lines of business that we offer is Voice over IP (VoIP) communications service to not only the household user, but for companies of all shapes and sizes on a national basis. An important element of our business is the ability to port a customer's number from their existing carrier(s) to our service.
I am deeply concerned about not only the inconsistency of the carriers timeframes in completing local number ports, but most importantly, the shear time it takes them to complete a seemingly simple transaction that has been regulated with regards to wireless providers and requires compliance with established timeframes. In many cases we are interconnected with the same carrier that the customer is already with, and only need the routing of the number to be changed, however we typically see ports that take 20, 30 and even 60 days or longer to complete.
This is blasphemy and a blatantly obvious attempt by the larger carriers to thwart consumer choice, competition, and to "milk" every last possible penny out of departing customers. These unnecessary delays lead to customer frustration, and in some cases cancellation of the process due to the perception that we are responsible for the delay, when in fact, we have little to no control after we have sent the existing carrier the request for porting. It is disturbing that recent legislation required interconnected VoIP carriers to comply with FCC regulations with regards to TAP, USF, etc, but we are not extended the ability to hold carriers accountable for delays in local number portability rights that are extended to nearly every other telecom service.
In summation, voice over IP (VoIP) LNP makes it easy for customers to take their business elsewhere when they are dissatisfied with the quality of the service offered. The end result is increased competition and greater customer satisfaction.The American public strongly supports VoIP LNP and projections show that VoIP service will soon be the standard. I urge you to be proactive and not allow the incumbent and large competitive local exchange carriers to once again thwart consumer choice and competition in order to protect profits by keeping customers captive and disallowing freedom of choice with regards to their communications provider.Regards,
Adam M. Johnson
Chief Executive Officer
Convertec Corporation
Below is a letter to representatives of congress and various communications and utilities sub-committees outlining my thoughts and perceptions about Local Number Portability or LNP and how the process is not applied fairly and more unilaterally applied to the "big guys".
Having over 100 DIDs (Phone numbers) in my pipeline waiting to be ported and an average wait of 30 days (plus) I felt the need to at least make my thoughts known!
Dear Sir,
I am writing you as the not only the Chief Executive Officer of Convertec Corporation, an Idaho headquartered company, but as a concerned citizen.One of the lines of business that we offer is Voice over IP (VoIP) communications service to not only the household user, but for companies of all shapes and sizes on a national basis. An important element of our business is the ability to port a customer's number from their existing carrier(s) to our service.
I am deeply concerned about not only the inconsistency of the carriers timeframes in completing local number ports, but most importantly, the shear time it takes them to complete a seemingly simple transaction that has been regulated with regards to wireless providers and requires compliance with established timeframes. In many cases we are interconnected with the same carrier that the customer is already with, and only need the routing of the number to be changed, however we typically see ports that take 20, 30 and even 60 days or longer to complete.
This is blasphemy and a blatantly obvious attempt by the larger carriers to thwart consumer choice, competition, and to "milk" every last possible penny out of departing customers. These unnecessary delays lead to customer frustration, and in some cases cancellation of the process due to the perception that we are responsible for the delay, when in fact, we have little to no control after we have sent the existing carrier the request for porting. It is disturbing that recent legislation required interconnected VoIP carriers to comply with FCC regulations with regards to TAP, USF, etc, but we are not extended the ability to hold carriers accountable for delays in local number portability rights that are extended to nearly every other telecom service.
In summation, voice over IP (VoIP) LNP makes it easy for customers to take their business elsewhere when they are dissatisfied with the quality of the service offered. The end result is increased competition and greater customer satisfaction.The American public strongly supports VoIP LNP and projections show that VoIP service will soon be the standard. I urge you to be proactive and not allow the incumbent and large competitive local exchange carriers to once again thwart consumer choice and competition in order to protect profits by keeping customers captive and disallowing freedom of choice with regards to their communications provider.Regards,
Adam M. Johnson
Chief Executive Officer
Convertec Corporation
Comments