TRAK Blog

Group Seeks to Stop Network Overbuilds via Rule Changes

July 15, 2019

“E-Rate”, which is the Schools and Libraries Fund of the Federal Universal Service Program, is a program that promotes digital learning by giving discounts to schools and libraries so that they have affordable access to high-speed broadband and telecommunications.

The E-Rate annual budget is about $4.06 billion and the program rarely stirs much controversy. However, Andrew Regitsky of CCMIHub.com reports that a group of Texas ILECs brought controversy this past May, 2019, when they filed a Petition for Rulemaking with the FCC. These rural Texas ILECs want the FCC to change E-Rates rules. They claim that, without changes, fiber networks will be overbuilt.

The petitioning party was the Central Texas Telephone Cooperative, Inc., Peoples Telephone Cooperative, Inc., and Totelcom Communications, LLC. They identify themselves collectively as the “Texas Carriers”. Their petition seeks an amendment to Part 54 of the FCC rules so that schools and libraries cannot overbuild fiber networks from E-Rate funds through the competitive bid process.

The Texas Carriers claim that a rural school or library could build more networks than necessary since they draw from multiple funding sources. The Texas Carriers see this as a potentially wasteful and redundant. They point out that overbuilding may limit available funds for other networks in other areas where new systems are of great need. As would be expected, other rural carriers supported the filing as did USTelecom which is the ILEC association.

USTelecom provided support, stating that “overbuilding is not only wasteful and an inefficient use of governmental program funds, but it also reduces the pool of funds available to rural schools and libraries that actually need fiber broadband connection.” However, the association also made the point that the Petition ignores the issues of competitive providers who are many times overbuilt with E-rate funding. Overbuilding changes cost structures for network investors and keeps the funds away from areas with deficient levels of service.

Regitsky points out that there is some inherent logic to the Petition, but that the CLEC association, known as “INCOMPAS”, thinks otherwise, and takes the position that the changes would only provide advantages to “incumbent carriers”, that is, ILECs.

INCOMPAS offers a number of arguments against the Petition. The group states that the Petition should be rejected on procedural grounds because it lacks the factual detail necessary for rulemaking. Furthermore, the Petition is unnecessary because the E-Rate program is best served by continuing to give actual competitive providers access to the bidding process. Most importantly, INCOMPAS are against the proposed change to E-Rate rules that would require E-Rate applicants to post projects on a website to be followed by a process of notifications and negotiation of fiber lease agreements with the incumbents. The group states that this would favor incumbents and would allow them to profit from E-rate without incurring expenses or making efforts to take place in such tenders.

The FCC will face the challenge of determining if overbuilding is a serious problem as the Texas Carriers have suggested, and, if it is indeed a problem: What changes would be appropriate so that schools and libraries utilize the most cost-effective networks?

For more on the subject and to read Registky’s conclusion, visit here

How to Lower Your Current Telecom Bill

July 11, 2019

Telecom is a vital service in today’s business world. The many communication services provided by Telecom carriers allow us fast and easy access to information, collaboration, and clients across the Globe. Today, the world of Telecom has grown to be something much more advanced and complex than the simple hardwired phone lines that were our main source of connecting not so long ago; but with all of the advances in Telecom, it still has its downside; the EXPENSE. For most businesses, Telecom has become a major expense, and the Telecom billing systems are difficult to decipher.

If your business is looking to cut expenses – and what business isn’t? – then the Telecom bill is a great place to start. About 80% of all Telecom invoices contain errors, so chances are, simply eliminating any billing errors will reduce your Telecom spending. How can you go about lowering your Telecom bill? Here are 4 steps to help you get started:

Review Your Telecom Service Contract

A careful reading of your service contract will help you gain a firm understanding of what services you currently have. It will help you understand your pricing, as well as the renewal status of your current contract. Knowing what you are paying for is the vital first step.

Do Some Research With Other Telecom Providers

Once you determine the services that you already have and the prices you are paying, shop these telecommunications services with several providers to determine what discounts or promotions they are willing to offer. A comparison will let you know if you are overpaying, or if there are better options.

Consider Consolidation and Updating Technology

In many cases, consolidating services to one vendor will provide you with better pricing options. In addition, technology updates may be a better fit for your business needs. Antiquated services often lead to inefficiencies and over-charges.

Stay Proactive with Your Telecom Provider

Once you take the time to review, research, and consolidate your Telecom to get the best service plan and pricing, keep in mind that this job is never done! Technology and Telecom change at a rapid pace, and you need to stay persistent and consistent in your efforts. Scheduling periodic Telecom reviews will ensure that your plan continues to be the best service plan for the best price.

For a busy company that does not have an employee whose job description includes Telecom review, these steps can be both difficult and time consuming. Consider handing this task over to the experts, and allowing TRAK to perform a Telecom audit on your behalf. You will find that when you hire TRAK, they will help you lower your Telecom expenses and the contingency-based billing is painless. It will also allow you to spend your valuable time running your business. Contact TRAK today for more information about how we can help you lower your Telecom bill.

The Hidden Benefits of a Telecom Audit

July 9, 2019

The benefits of a telecom audit are endless, and while many businesses understand that audits can save them money, they may not truly grasp the significance of those hidden savings and how they can be repurposed to serve other business needs. So what are some of the ways that audit results can help businesses? We’ll explore them below.

Repurpose Saved Money
Performing an audit in your business will likely result in surprise savings and leave you feeling some sense of shock at seeing how much you had been overspending. But did you know that the hidden benefits of an audit are far more than just finding some savings? Businesses who perform audits can use the money in various ways, including:

Offset budgets
Increase bandwidth
Network expansion
Technology purchase
Technology upgrades
Increase staff

Equipment refresh and/or upgrade
One of the ways businesses can benefit greatly from an audit is by using the extra money for budget shortfalls. If your company is falling behind on its budget or is over the budget, you have the option to repurpose the money found in an audit to help finance projects or equipment you couldn’t afford in the past. More recently, businesses have begun to expand or improve their service delivery or network quality with the savings discovered in an audit.

Additional Benefits of a Telecom Audit
While it can be safe to assume that audits are simply financial benefits, audits can also come with non-financial benefits that include:

• Cleanup of invoicing: Frees up internal staff from having to track down line items.
• Bill consolidation: Results in less work for the A/P department as well as the IT department.
• What’s more, choosing the right partner to perform an audit can help your business get the support it needs when it comes to your existing vendors and contracts. The right telecom advisor will ensure that your business has the right clauses in its agreement so issues such as incurring additional costs in case of early termination can be avoided. With the help of an expert, businesses can ensure the playing field is leveled and that everything works in their favor, not the vendors’.
• Creating an extensive inventory of every service billed for more efficient on-going management

At TRAK, we are not affiliated with any carriers and our recommendations are 100% unbiased. We are a woman owned, privately held firm that integrates our expert staff with your internal resources to deliver savings and provide you with a clean inventory of your services. As a boutique firm, we adapt easily and our turn-around time rivals that of larger providers.

If you’d like to take the next step, click here and know more about our services here

Source: https://profitadvisorygroup.com/the-hidden-benefits-of-an-audit/

TAGS: audit, cost savings, telecom audit

Hackers hit Global Telecom companies in an espionage campaign, cyber research firm says

June 25, 2019

Researchers from a cybersecurity company said Tuesday that hackers have broken into the systems of more than a dozen Global telecom companies and taken large amounts of personal and corporate data while identifying links to previous Chinese cyber-espionage campaigns.

Investigators at U.S.-Israeli cybersecurity firm Cybereason said the attackers compromised companies in more than 30 countries and aimed to gather information on individuals in government, law-enforcement, and politics.

The hackers also used tools linked to other attacks attributed to Beijing by the United States and its Western allies, said Lior Div, Chief Executive of Cybereason.

“For this level of sophistication it’s not a criminal group. It is a government that has capabilities that can do this kind of attack,” he told Reuters.

A spokesman for China’s Foreign Ministry said he was not aware of the report, but added “we would never allow anyone to engage in such activities on Chinese soil or using Chinese infrastructure.”

Cybereason declined to name the companies affected or the countries they operate in, but people familiar with Chinese hacking operations said Beijing was increasingly targeting telcos in Western Europe.

Western countries have moved to call out Beijing for its actions in cyberspace, warning that Chinese hackers have compromised companies and government agencies around the World to steal valuable commercial secrets and personal data for espionage purposes.

See full article here

Source: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/25/hackers-hit-global-telecom-companies-in-an-espionage-campaign-cyber-research-firm-says.html

One Way or Another, Sprint Needs Out of Purgatory

June 20, 2019

The long-running soap opera that is T-Mobile’s proposed acquisition of Sprint took yet another bizarre turn last week when the Attorneys General of 10 states, led by New York and California (no surprise there), filed a suit to block the acquisition on grounds of potential consumer harm, as was reported by The Wall Street Journal.

The bizarre part of this twist is that responsibility for judging the potential consumer harm from such a combination is primarily the realm of the Federal Government, and, in particular, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). The FCC has already given its blessing to the deal with the stipulation that Sprint divest its prepaid division, Boost Mobile, as Bloomberg reported. This makes the move by the State Attorneys General appear to be a preemptive strike to force the DOJ’s hand and spur it to block the deal on the grounds that they intend to continue the battle regardless of what the Agency decides. (Nevertheless, CNN Business yesterday reported that it has learned that the DOJ is “prepared to approve the deal within days.”

The Political Class has come to the dubious conclusion that a larger number of competitors is by definition always more advantageous than a smaller number. While I would agree that a number greater than one (i.e., a monopoly) is indeed preferred, as it allows the magical workings of Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” of competition, the number four holds no particular value.

The Number of the Day Is Four!

It’s important to remember that the U.S. cellular industry began as a government-mandated duopoly; by region, the FCC granted one frequency license to the local phone company and another to one competitive carrier. Through a process that involved more mergers, acquisitions, asset sales, and name changes than anyone can remember, that original structure eventually devolved to the four-carrier situation we have today. “Four carriers” wasn’t some divine fiat.

Economists refer to a market with a few competitors as an oligopoly, a situation you’d expect to evolve here given the capital-intensive nature of the cellular business, particularly as related to its need to invest in spectrum (i.e., radio licenses). I’ve yet to see any compelling formula that would compute an optimal number of competitors in an oligopoly, but it seems that three would suffice for what essentially amounts to a utility market. Prices have been declining in the cellular market, and there’s no reason to think that competition will abate if the number of providers drops from four to three. See full article here

Source: https://www.nojitter.com/industry-news/one-way-or-another-sprint-needs-out-purgatory%20

FCC Declares Providers Can Adopt Default Call-Blocking Programs

June 18, 2019

Give the FCC credit. It is working hard (if ineffectually) to rid the nation of unwanted robocalls. In its latest action, the Commission released a Declaratory Ruling (Ruling) on June 7, 2019 in Docket 17-59 that will permit voice providers to block unwanted calls as a default condition for their customers. Providers will be permitted to launch this program if they use reasonable call analytics, inform their customers in advance, and allow them to opt out of the automatic call blocking.

According to the Commission: This action empowers providers to protect their customers from unwanted robocalls before those calls even reach the customers’ phones. While many phone companies now offer their customers call blocking tools on an opt-in basis, the Declaratory Ruling clarifies that they can provide them as the default, thus allowing them to protect more consumers from unwanted robocalls and making it more cost-effective to implement call blocking programs. (FCC June 6, 2019 News Release.)

The Ruling will also permit customers to provide lists (called “white lists”) of phone numbers they do not want blocked. Numbers which are not on the customer’s approved list would be automatically blocked by the provider. The Commission believes “[t]his option would allow consumers to decide directly whose calls they are willing to receive.” Customer white lists could be updated automatically as consumers add and remove contacts from their smartphones.

The Commission offers providers some examples of the types of call analytics they could use to lawfully block unwanted calls and adds that other methodologies would be acceptable if used in a non-discriminatory competitively neutral manner.

For example, a call-blocking program might block calls based on a combination of factors such as: large bursts of calls in a short timeframe; low average call duration; low call completion ratios; invalid numbers placing a large volume of calls; common Caller ID Name (CNAM) values across voice service providers; a large volume of complaints related to a suspect line; sequential dialing patterns; neighbor spoofing patterns; patterns that indicate TCPA or other contract violations; correlation of network data with data from regulators, consumers, and other carriers; and comparison of dialed numbers to the National Do Not Call Registry. Similarly, a call-blocking program might be designed to block callers engaged in war dialing, unlawful foreign-based spoofing, or one-ring scams. (Ruling, para. 35.)
The agency cautions that providers must make all feasible efforts to ensure that their call blocking programs do not block emergency calls to 911 centers or law enforcement agencies. It also reminds providers that their call blocking programs should not impact rural calls. However, this may be a superfluous warning since rural call completion rules target terminating carriers rather than the originating carriers involved in blocking unwanted calls.

The Commission expects that voice providers conducting a call-blocking program by default would establish a point of contact for legitimate callers to report what they believe to be erroneous blocking as well as a mechanism for such complaints to be resolved.

Unfortunately, like virtually all FCC orders, this one is not free from controversy. The issue here is whether customers will have to pay for these new default call blocking programs. The Commission expects them to be free but does not make this a requirement. In its opinion, the Commission states that it understands the cost of handling customer service calls from consumers annoyed by illegal robocalls can be more than ten dollars per consumer call. It anticipates that the opt-out blocking authorization would impose no mandatory costs on voice service providers because implementation is voluntary, not required. As such, we would expect voice service providers to offer an opt-out service for free, as many already do, with no line-item charge. (Id., at para. 42).

This led to FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel to dissent from this portion of the ruling:

As far as this new blocking technology goes, so far, so good. But there is one devastating problem with our approach. There is nothing in our decision today that prevents carriers from charging consumers for this blocking technology to stop robocalls. I think robocall solutions should be free to consumers. Full stop. I do not think that this agency should pat itself on the back for its efforts to reduce robocalls and then tell consumers to pay up. They are already paying the price—in scams flooding our phone lines; wasted time responding to false and fraudulent calls offering us what we did not ask for, do not want, and do not need; and a growing distrust in our most basic communications. I like hope. But I am not interested in pinky promises. I think we should be up front and clear with consumers that today’s decision offers no more than an “expectation” that phone companies installing this technology will not charge consumers a premium for its use. But every one of us knows there is nothing enforceable about an expectation. There is nothing here that prevents companies from charging each of us whatever additional fees they want to put this call blocking technology on our line. (State from Jessica Rosenworcel approving in part, dissenting in part.)

Democratic Commissioner Geoffery Starks followed up last Monday with a letter to 14 voice providers seeking details on their “free” default call-blocking services. The companies must reply by July 10. 2019, and must respond to the following questions:

• Indicate whether they will offer customers default call blocking services on an informed opt-out basis and, if so, provide details of plans to deploy these services, including a timeline for implementation.
• Describe how they intend to inform consumers about the service.
• Indicate whether they expect to act contrary to the Commission’s clear expectations and nevertheless charge customers for these services.
• If they do not currently plan to offer customers default call blocking services on an informed opt-out basis, they are asked to explain why.

It will be interesting to see how the Commission responds if a voice provider decides to charge customers for its new default call blocking program.

Along with its Declaratory Ruling, the Commission adopted a Third Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that would require voice providers to implement the SHAKEN/STIR caller ID authentication framework by the end of 2019, if they fail to do so on their own.

The SHAKEN/STIR protocol where SHAKEN is short for Signature-based Handling of Asserted information using toKENs and STIR is short for Secure Telephone Identity Revisited, provides a digital signature for every call so an illegitimate call is identified and blocked. The technology utilizes digital certificates, based on common public key cryptography techniques, to ensure the calling number of a telephone call is secure.

Source: https://www.ccmihub.com/blog/fcc-declares-providers-can-adopt-default-call-blocking-programs?spMailingID=15809953&spUserID=Mzk4NDM3NDY0NDAzS0&spJobID=1660870162&spReportId=MTY2MDg3MDE2MgS2

The Telecom Money Pit

June 14, 2019

The Telecom Money Pit: A third-party audit offers a no-risk opportunity to drive savings and put money back into your budget to help fund telecom projects.

What Are the Biggest Telecommunications Problems for Businesses Today?

Analysts estimate that 10% to 20% of Telecom charges are billed in error. Depending on the size of your business, the financial impact can range from a few dollars to tens of thousands of dollars per month.

The overbilling of monthly services can truly run the gamut. Some of the common areas include charges for non-working or underutilized circuits, billing disputes, contractual issues, fraudulent charges, one-time charges and the application of improper rates, taxes and surcharges. These charges can appear on the invoice but more often, they are buried within the “bundled” services that comprise your monthly recurring charges, which you do not see on a monthly basis.

To a large extent, over-charges reflect the ambiguous complexity of Telecom agreements. While carriers don’t intentionally mismanage their invoices, they’ve done little to improve their billing and invoicing processes nor do they facilitate a customers’ ability to identify and recover costs. Indeed, customers who attempt to recover credits from overbillings and resolve billing anomalies face huge challenges.

At the same time, carriers have experienced significant turnover, and today lack account reps who have the expertise to navigate the vagaries of invoices and billing platforms. This has led to a buyer beware mentality, where customers increasingly bear the onus for ensuring that statements are accurate and that negotiated discounts and rates are actually applied.

Indeed, the combination of organizational and technological change within the industry along with carrier intransigence has wreaked havoc with Telecom charges. In this climate, customers are recognizing the need for vigilance and turning to thorough and systematic audits of Telecom statements to manage costs and support their network strategies.

How to use audits to find significant discrepancies and big savings?

Telecommunications audit work is often undervalued or ignored, but the fact is that the decision not to audit may be costing you or your business a lot of money. And the drip-drip-drip of an unaudited system will be felt more within large organizations than small ones. Telecommunication costs are fast becoming one of the largest expenses and most complex areas to challenge management for companies today. It’s no longer just a matter of adding more telephones and trying to get the lowest rate on minutes or data. If the telecommunications infrastructure is not adequate to meet the escalating demand placed on it, it will be an inhibitor of a company’s growth. A lack of control of the escalating costs can also negatively impact the yearly telecom budget. Conducting a telecommunications audit is necessary to ensure cost efficiency.

Extensive professional analysis by TRAK Communications helps any firm demystify Telecom and reduce unused services through several standard practices including:

1. Telecom Audit: includes contract compliance, tariff review, physical validation, network optimization and more.

2. Cost Savings Analysis: Services include contract negotiation, network optimization, and rate optimization.

3. Physical Validation: an on-site investigation to make sure you are only paying for services that are in place. TRAK is UNIQUE in that we send technicians to your site(s) and perform a physical inspection of your demarc (point of termination for your carriers):

After conducting a non-invasive test of every line and circuit on site, we then compare these findings against your billing inventory that we compiled.
Any lines or services that are found to be inoperable are issued as a dispute to the appropriate billing carrier and a refund is negotiated when possible.
Lines or services that are found working but not used (no cross connects to equipment) are cost savings opportunities.
The physical validation & inventory services result in 50% of the overall savings to TRAK clients. Developing an accurate inventory is integral to receiving the cost savings for your audit.
At the end of the audit TRAK provides you with a complete inventory of your services at no extra cost – for you to manage going forward.

An audit can ensure that services being paid for are being utilized. It typically delivers refunds for over-billing situations and serves to optimize the billing environment to the best pricing options with current providers. Importantly, by providing visibility into overall telecom spending and contractual portfolios across the enterprise, an audit can support an improved overall network strategy regarding growth and transition to new technologies. For more information please click here