Comwave contests Rogers Telecom’s number porting activities

The head of Comwave Telecom Inc. says Rogers Telecom Inc. is breaking CRTC rules by cherry picking customers for which it will provide local number portability. But more importantly, Rogers refuses outright to transfer its own customers to Comwave, even if the client requests a move, says Yuval Barzakay, Comwave’s president and CEO. Rogers Telecom says, however, it has a right to refuse to port numbers to a Voice over IP reseller like Comwave, and only does so under a contract it has with Comwave. "The CRTC has ruled on several occasions that resellers, including VoIP resellers, are not entitled to the privileges and rights of a LEC since they are not subject to the obligations of a LEC," Rogers Telecom states in a November 29, 2005 letter to Comwave. "Specifically, the obligations to implement local number portability (LNP) is a LEC-to-LEC obligation and so is the privilege to obtain LNP." Barzakay doesn’t dispute this. "We’re not arguing to the commission on whether or not they have to provide the service, we’re arguing to the commission…that their process is discriminatory in their favour," he tells Network Letter. "Why isn’t a Rogers customer given the same right as a Bell customer to choose Comwave? So it’s really not about whether they want to process LNP ." Comwave alleges that Rogers Telecom will process LNP requests from other carriers, but refuses to port numbers belonging to its own customers to Comwave. This has resulted in Comwave having to secure a wholesale network agreement with Telus Corp. to process LNP requests. As a reseller Comwave requires a wholesale network provider to process LNP requests on its behalf because it doesn’t own network facilities. Barzakay notes the company’s problems with Rogers Telecom began after Rogers Commun-ications Inc. purchased Call-Net Enterprises Inc. last year. Comwave had an LNP agreement with Call-Net. "We didn’t have a problem with Call-Net, but when it became Rogers, that’s when they imposed new restrictions," he says. Comwave’s Part VII alleges that Rogers Telecom imposed new provisions on the agreement between the two companies: Rogers would process no more than 10 LNP requests per day and there would be no porting of direct inward dialing services that are bundled with Rogers’ local, VoIP, DSL or wireless services. Comwave considered terminating its agreement with Rogers Telecom, but that would have left Comwave in the difficult position of dealing with service interruption, which would have hurt its business. In the end, Comwave had no choice but to accept the new terms. The VoIP reseller is looking to recoup damages associated with what it considers "unduly restrictive conditions" in the agreement and Comwave has taken Rogers Telecom to court. On March 3, 2006, Comwave filed a claim for damages against Rogers Telecom for breach of the agreement. Comwave also alleges that Rogers Telecom is conferring advantage upon itself at the expense of Comwave with respect to other activities. "In particular, when Rogers receives a winback request from another service provider, Rogers releases the telephone number to the other service provider as soon as it determines that the winback requirements are met. In the case of a Comwave customer, Rogers neither advises nor consults in a timely manner with Comwave when an existing Comwave customer has sought to switch to a new service provider," reads the May 5 application. "Nor does Rogers attempt to verify with Comwave the factual accuracy of the customer information contained in the LNP request. Indeed, it is Rogers’ current practice to notify Comwave of any LNP transfers of Comwave customers’ telephone number away from Comwave only once per month. As a result, it is conceivable that a full month could pass before Comwave is even aware that a customer’s number has been ported away," the Part VII continues. The situation in which Comwave has found itself arises out of the CRTC’s ruling on VoIP services last May 12 (Telecom Decision, 2005-28). In the controversial ruling, which said voice is voice at least for incumbent telephone companies, regardless of the network over which they run, the CRTC mandated VoIP resellers to provide number portability along with a number of other things. But the commission didn’t order LECs to process resellers’ requests for LNP. "In the decision on VoIP last year, the commission saw all resellers of VoIP services as virtual CLECs and said that we must provide LNP," Barzakay explains. But "the commission didn’t…compel the CLECs to work with us on LNP because we, as resellers, don’t have the right to LNP. So we have to work on contractual ." The industry could find itself at the top of a slippery slope if the CRTC decides that Rogers Telecom doesn’t have to provide LNP services to Comwave. "We believe it’s a dangerous precedent because although we have a great relationship with Telus, if the commission comes back and tells Rogers ‘No, you’re okay; you don’t have to process for your own customer base,’ then what kind of message is that sending to Telus or Bell?" Barzakay asks. "Are VoIP carriers going to have to build redundant networks for each carrier?" The hope was that CLECs were going to play fair, he says, adding that "this is the strike by a major CLEC" to guard its customer base from VoIP resellers. "They can’t do that. You can’t tell customers that they can’t port their number. It’s illegal," Barzakay states.

Comwave contests Rogers Telecom’s number porting activities

News | 05/11/2006 4:00 am EDT

To keep reading, get a free trial.

Already a Subscriber?

Reuse & Permissions

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us