North American Portability Management selected PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) to manage oversight of the planned transition of local number portability (LNP) administration from incumbent Neustar to a Telcordia entity. In a letter to the FCC posted Monday in docket 95-116, the NAPM said it chose PwC as the transition oversight manager from among six bids that were submitted, and it expected a "letter of engagement" for PwC's services (subject to FCC oversight) to be fully executed this week. The NAPM also said negotiations with Telcordia's iconectiv on the next LNP administrator contract are "going well" and should result in an agreement in principle on "the most complex terms and conditions" by the end of the week before moving on to "more standard contractual issues." The NAPM said it was on schedule to present a final agreement to the FCC by the end of August, but if necessary, the negotiations could extend into September, which the group said shouldn't materially affect the transition's schedule. The LNP administrator transition could take up to two years, an industry representative told us in June (see 1506020041). The NAPM also said it intends to begin negotiating a transition services agreement with Neustar to cover additional services -- above and beyond standard LNP administrator services -- needed to complete the transition. Neustar is mounting a court challenge to the FCC order that conditionally gave Telcordia the next contract (see 1507210039). Local number portability allows consumers to keep their phone numbers when switching service providers.

The briefing schedule for Tennessee v. FCC and North Carolina v. FCC in the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati was reset, said a notice from the court in case No. 15-3291/15-3555. The petitioner's brief and appendix are due Sept. 18, as are those from intervenors in support of petitioners. Respondent's brief appendix must be filed by Nov. 5 and petitioner's reply briefs must be filed 17 days after the respondent's brief. A party desiring oral argument must include a statement in the brief setting forth the reasons oral argument should be heard, the 6th Circuit said.

The FCC should impose broadband expansion requirements on Frontier if its proposed buy of Verizon's wireline services in California, Florida and Texas (see 1502050059) is approved, the California Emerging Technology Fund (CETF) said in a filing posted Thursday in docket 15-44. In its comment, CETF -- a nonprofit established by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) -- suggests public benefit requirements be placed on Frontier's transaction with Verizon to ensure rural broadband expansion to unserved and underserved areas, plus broadband adoption. CETF said in the filing it doesn't have an opinion on whether the transaction should be approved, but urged the commission to "put teeth into vague promises by [Frontier] as to public interest benefits from this transaction." CETF proposed several transaction conditions, including a stand-alone wireline broadband offer to eligible low-income households in Frontier's coverage area at "about $10 per month," a low-income broadband adoption performance goal spanning three years, immediate and periodic network upgrades, and submission to monitoring by a national oversight committee. CETF also suggested a commitment be required of Frontier to ensure broadband adoption until 80 percent of eligible, low-income households in targeted communities are connected. "CETF is participating in the review process at the California PUC and filed substantially the same document with the CPUC," a Frontier spokesperson told us Friday. "Frontier will respond to the CETF filing in the course of the regulatory approval process."

The FCC proposed a $2.4 million fine for Long Distance Consolidated Billing Co. for allegedly switching consumers' phone service to other carriers without their authorization (slamming) and adding unauthorized charges to their bills (cramming). A notice of apparent liability released Thursday said LDCB, a reseller, also deceptively marketed its services to consumers in carrying out its alleged slamming and cramming scheme. "It is unacceptable for any company to pad unauthorized charges on bills or trick consumers into changing their preferred phone company,” said Travis LeBlanc, chief of the FCC Enforcement Bureau, in a news release. The FCC said it reviewed more than 70 complaints against LDCB in which consumers charged the company switched their toll service provider without their authorization, with LDCB's telemarketer sometimes pretending to work for the consumers' own carrier. The FCC noted the investigation also found that LDCB placed unauthorized charges on local phone bills. An LDCB representative said the company had no comment.

An FCC request to refresh the record on eligible telecom carrier (ETC) designations and duties in areas served by price-cap telcos is to be published on Monday in the Federal Register, according to a notice posted Friday. FR publication of an FCC public notice would set due dates for initial comments on Sept. 2 and replies on Sept. 17. The PN noted an updated list of census blocks where price-cap carriers continue to have ETC obligations to provide voice service after some census blocks were removed under a December partial forbearance order. The list includes census blocks that the USF Connect America Cost Model identifies to be in high-cost and extremely high-cost areas and unserved by an unsubsidized broadband/voice competitor. Price-cap carriers that decline to accept new broadband-oriented Connect America Fund subsidies in these census blocks (decisions are due by Aug. 27) will be required to continue to provide voice service there until replaced by another ETC offering voice and broadband service or unless and until the FCC gives them relief. The public notice seeks further comment on issues unresolved by the December order and pending in related proceedings, including requests by USTelecom and AT&T for greater relief from state ETC designations and associated voice duties in states where carriers decline CAF support. AT&T challenged the December order in court as not providing sufficient relief, but the FCC said the case should be held in abeyance while it resolves related issues in various proceedings (see 1507270038).

IDT Telecom asked the full FCC to review a Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau telecom relay service fund order setting the 2015-16 budget and industry contribution factor (see 1506300063). In a petition for review, IDT, which pays into the fund, said it opposed approval of a proposed budget and contribution factor because both were partially based on funding IP-based relay services "from the interstate and international jurisdictions and not from the intrastate jurisdiction." IDT also opposed the proposed "funding of domestic relay services from the international jurisdiction." In approving the proposed budget and contribution factor in a June 30 order, the bureau rejected IDT's complaints because they challenged commission determinations that the bureau said it had no basis for departing from, IDT said. The full commission should review the bureau order because it conflicts with the Communications Act and "involves a question of policy which has not previously been resolved by the commission," and "involves the application of a policy which should be overturned," IDT said.

In addition to its July 17 response to FCC questions about its proposed buy of Verizon's wireline services in California, Texas and Florida (see 1506180038), Frontier filed additional comment with the FCC Tuesday touting its previous rural broadband expansion efforts. The letter is the third in a series of responses by Frontier meant to address questions raised by the commission on Frontier's ability to take over and improve on Verizon's current wireline services in the three states. Tuesday's submission gave examples of Frontier's previous broadband expansion efforts after purchases in 2010 and 2014 of Verizon wireline exchanges in several states, citing specific areas in both California and Connecticut in which Frontier says it significantly increased broadband availability.

Former Qwest Communications International CEO Joseph Nacchio will address shortcomings in the USA Freedom Act Wednesday at 10 a.m. in the Zenger Room of the National Press Club, a news release said. USA Freedom provides “inadequate protection” against the NSA’s bulk data collection of the public’s electronic communications, Nacchio contends, the release said. One of the biggest threats to freedom comes from the U.S. government, Nacchio will argue, the release said. “Government surveillance that violates the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment ‘chills’ free speech under the First Amendment,” he said.

FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai backed opening a proceeding to revise rules against "slamming," which is when telecom carriers make unauthorized changes to consumer service. Pai made the comment in a statement attached to an FCC order Thursday imposing a $9 million fine on GPSPS, Inc. "for changing the carriers of 65 consumers without their authorization" and "placing unauthorized or 'crammed' charges" for its long distance service on 41 consumers' telephone bills. Pai's statement, which his office flagged Monday, said the FCC's slamming rules "weren't enough to protect GPSPS's victims," and said "this isn't the first time our rules have failed." He said the FCC had "seen a raft of consumer complaints about slamming in recent years, ranging from the egregious ... to the outrageous ... to the fraudulent." Pai said "fly-by-night operators have figured out how to profit from skirting our rules rather than complying with them." Enforcement actions such as the one against GPSPS were a "good step, but more is needed," he said. "Our rules already offer one avenue for relief: the preferred carrier freeze, which lets consumers opt out of these deceptive marketing practices," he said. "But consumers shouldn’t have to opt out of a market for fraud. My proposal: Let’s open a proceeding and change this rule to make consumer protection not an option, but the default."

The FCC urged a federal court to put off consideration of an AT&T challenge to a December commission order on price-cap telco USF obligations, pending further regulatory action on related issues in other proceedings. Granting an FCC motion to hold the case in abeyance will allow regulators to address the issues raised by AT&T, which could obviate the need for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to adjudicate the case, or at least may alter its review, the agency said in a reply to the court on its motion in AT&T v. FCC, No. 15-1038. AT&T opposed the motion and said there was no reason for delay. The D.C. Circuit recently suspended its briefing schedule in the case while it considers the FCC motion (see 1507160032). AT&T is challenging the December order because, among other things, it relieved price-cap carriers of only some statewide USF obligations -- not all, as AT&T requested -- to provide voice support in high-cost areas where they would no longer be subsidized under the FCC's broadband-oriented Connect America Fund Phase II overhaul. The FCC said it had made "unequivocal statements that it has yet to decide any of the issues" underlying AT&T's challenge. "The FCC has not yet taken any final, reviewable action relevant to this case," the agency said. The commission noted its Wireline Bureau issued a public notice Thursday listing census blocks where price-cap telcos still have federal high-cost voice duties and seeking comment on related pending issues in various proceedings. The FCC also noted it has a Jan. 4 statutory deadline to finish a proceeding in which it is "actively considering the arguments at issue here." The D.C. Circuit should reject AT&T's attempt to "bypass ordinary administrative procedures and involve the Court in agency decisionmaking that is not yet complete," the agency said.