Telarus, Inc., premier telecom master agent and patent holder of real-time carrier quotes, announced the launch of “GeoScan“. The new carrier research tool enables agents to instantly identify the best candidates for their client based on locations, pricing, contract terms, and product needs. The technology has been made available to all participating Telarus agents in their Telarus back office.

According to Andrew Morgan, VP of Web Development for Telarus, Inc., “GeoScan will revolutionize the way agents sell large telecom opportunities just as GeoQuote has transformed the industry for transactional carrier opportunities. With the click of a button, agents can specify the max MRC per location, product type, and even the maximum term for each circuit, making it easier than ever to know which carriers are the best fit for the client.”

“Most agents have a pretty good idea of where carriers have a presence,” added Lance Akins, VP of Sales for Telarus, “but when you begin to deal with hundreds or even thousands of locations, it’s very difficult to know who has the most resource and the best presence for all of the locations. GeoScan will allow agents to instantly know which carriers they should take the opportunity to without having to quote each individual carrier, or in the worst case scenario, losing the deal because they didn’t take it to the right carrier. GeoScan will not only make the agent’s life much easier, but it will also help them win more deals.”

The GeoScan technology has been coupled with Telarus’ proprietary manual quoting system which enables agents to engage Carrier channel managers and engineers directly on any given opportunity with the click of a button. The details surrounding the opportunity are then sent to the various carriers using a closed-circuit communication tool, enabling agents to communicate more efficiently and effectively with their carriers of choice. After the carrier completes the quote, it is then pushed back via the Telarus MQR system instantly appearing in the proposal ready to be sent to the customer.

Adam Edwards, President & Co-Founder of Telarus, Inc.

If you like this post please support us by liking us or bookmarking us

Get the latest Telecom News at http://vartips.com

brought to you by PBX Phone Systems

• telecom var news
• //connect facebook net/en_us/all js#appid=209587469105838&xfbml=1
• asterisk lrn billing platform
• connect facebook net/en_us/all js#appid=209587469105838&xfbml=1
• ftc telecom
• geo scan tool
• geoscan sacn tool

One issue facing a lot of SIP providers today is over the last month an increasing number of carriers now bill for calls based on LRN (Local Routing Number) where they were previously billing based on DNIS digits (Dialed Number Identification Service).

The move from DNIS-based billing to LRN-based billing creates multiple issues for the SIP provider, but there are a couple that we encounter most frequently.

The first issue is that many SIP providers don’t have a billing system that is either capable of or has been provisioned for LRN-based billing. Billing is demanding enough on a day to day basis and most SIP providers don’t need the added burden of either transforming or upgrading a billing system from DNIS-based billing to LRN-based billing.

The second issue is the underlying cost for services on routes that bill based on LRN vs routes that bill based on DNIS digits. LRN-based billing will typically increase a SIP provider’s per minute cost between 15 to 25%. If a SIP provider can’t bill their end user accordingly, profit margins either become squeezed, or they aren’t there at all.

Wholesale SIP Termination provider siptrunks.org today announced that they are fortunate enough to be able to offer a Verizon direct SIP route that bills based on DNIS digits and not LRN. The rates are extremely competitive, and when the 15 – 25% cost savings for DNIS-based billing is factored in, it becomes extremely compelling. We are also able to offer SIP providers LRN based billing for their customers while we bill our route based on this DNIS.

We have had this route in service for a little over a year now, and the performance is what is expected of a direct Verizon route and customer satisfaction remains very high,. Please contact dnis@siptrunks.org if you would like to discuss this route in detail.

If you like this post please support us by liking us or bookmarking us

Get the latest Telecom News at http://vartips.com

brought to you by PBX Phone Systems

• lrn billing
• telecom LRN
• lrn in telecom
• LRN telecom
• SIP LRN
• lrn deck
• dnis in telecom
• calls billed on lrn
• asterisk lrn
• what are lrn digits

When you are evaluating different SIP termination providers you need to make sure that you are comparing apples to apples. Because the rates the different SIP termination providers are quoting you may not be the real rates – what you will pay may actually differ once you start adding special surcharges, fees and penalties. They may give you a great rate deck, but be sure to check the fine print so that you are comparing real rates and not fake rates.
So what are some things you should look out for?

First of all you really need to know the statistics for the traffic you have. If your business is using a PBX or an automated telemarketing solution chances are high that you are able to pull a so called CDR file from your equipment which often summarizes the most important statistics.

Many SIP providers do not like short calls and calls that do not complete like dialing non existing numbers. These types of calls cost them the same resources as long calls to set up, yet they do not yield to much revenue. In order to make these calls profitable they often charge additional fees if the percentage of calls that fall into the undesired categories.

Some of the most important surcharges to watch out for are:

• Surcharge for not meeting the average desired minimum ACD/ALOC. ACD stands for Average Call Duration and ALOC means Average Length Of Call. These are both synonyms for the same thing. If your calls are too short they will cost you more. Many SIP termination providers require a minimum average duration of 30 seconds.
• Surcharge if you have too many calls that not connect. The ASR is the percentage of calls that do not complete. This is not an issue for most people unless you are using a automated dialer that dials sequential ranges of telephone numbers.
• Unfavorable traffic blend: some areas are more expensive to terminate calls to than others. Be sure that there are no restrictions as to having to send a certain percentage of calls to low cost areas.
  As with everything when selecting a SIP provider you need to make sure that you read the fine print and make sure that you are comparing the real rates including all surcharges rather than just the rate sheet that they sent you.

If you like this post please support us by liking us or bookmarking us

Get the latest Telecom News at http://vartips.com

brought to you by PBX Phone Systems

• sip termination rates
• sip termination provider
• sip termination pricing
• airespring aloc
• sip termination provider comparison
• sip2phone termination price
• termination provider call rates
• sip rate deck
• sip percentage
• sip aloc

All the editors at vartips.com want to wish you a great 2010!
Thank you for your support and we will continue to strive to provide you with the latest telecom news in 2010.

Have a great, healthy, happy and prosperous 2010

If you like this post please support us by liking us or bookmarking us

Get the latest Telecom News at http://vartips.com

brought to you by PBX Phone Systems

Join us on facebook, click below

If you like this post please support us by liking us or bookmarking us

Get the latest Telecom News at http://vartips.com

brought to you by PBX Phone Systems

In response to a request by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for comment, the Federal Trade Commission has urged adoption of policies to protect and empower consumers as they buy and use communications services, including telephone, cable, and Internet access services.

The FTC’s comment suggests that the FCC: adopt a policy requiring advertised prices of competing communications services to reflect the price the consumer actually pays, including all taxes, fees, and associated charges; consider whether certain standardized information disclosures would help consumers understand competing offers; and adopt measures to prevent the cramming of unauthorized charges onto consumers’ telephone bills.

The comment explains that the FTC received more than 37,000 consumer complaints regarding communications services during the past year. A significant number of complaints related to consumer confusion about the purchase and billing of communications services. Complaint data also indicate that consumers may fall prey to cramming. Based on complaints, the FTC’s law enforcement experience, and the agency’s economic and consumer disclosure research, the comment suggests policies that the FCC can adopt in three areas: advertised prices, information disclosures, and anti-cramming measures.

Advertising

FTC complaint data shows that consumers complained that providers had advertised an introductory or teaser price but did not indicate the price the consumer would pay once the introductory period ended. In other instances, associated charges or preconditions to obtain an advertised price were not specified. These types of complaints suggest that consumers believe that the advertised price is the actual price they will pay when the bill arrives.

In addition, the FTC’s comment explains that when price advertising fails to reveal what the consumer will actually pay, the likely effect is not only consumer confusion, but also a distortion of competition. This is especially true in situations where consumers are attempting to compare similar functional services, such as Internet service, based on whether they use wire or mobile technologies that are subject to varying levels of fees, taxes, and other charges.

The comment suggests that advertised prices should reflect how much consumers actually pay, including taxes, fees, and associated charges. If the advertised price does not include these costs the advertisement should allow consumers to obtain this information easily.

Information Disclosures

Consumers have found it increasingly hard to understand key features and costs of communications services options, often expressing surprise at charges on their bills and services they did not realize they were ordering. The FTC’s comment urges the FCC to seriously consider whether standardized information disclosures would facilitate consumer understanding of competing communications services offers. The comment also suggests that if uniform disclosures are considered, it may make sense to require them at the time an offer for services is made. Making disclosures at the time the consumer accepts the contract is too late to allow meaningful price comparisons.

Anti-Cramming Measures

The FTC has protected consumers against the cramming of unauthorized charges on their telephone bills by taking aggressive law enforcement actions. Based on these actions, the FTC’s comment suggests five policy changes that could eliminate cramming.

• Adopt stronger measures to block scammers’ access to the billing platform. The FTC encourages the FCC to explore ways to ensure that all providers and others that can place charges on consumers’ bills (i.e., billing aggregators) undertake due diligence of vendors before permitting them to place charges on consumers’ bills.
• Provide for greater coordination among law enforcement entities. The FTC’s consumer complaint system, Consumer Sentinel Network, provides a secure vehicle for sharing complaints among law enforcement officials.
• Provide consumers with information they need to detect cramming. Consumers should have easy-to-understand monthly bills and a reliable way to get more information about specific charges.
• Require providers and billing aggregators to investigate and detect cramming. The FCC should consider requiring providers, billing aggregators or vendors to take more steps to address the validity of charges challenged by consumers.
• Increase consumer control over billing through new technologies. The FTC encourages the development of, and spread of information about, technology that can give consumers more control of the charges on their bills.

The Commission vote to file the comment with the Federal Communications Commission was 4-0. The comment was filed on October 28, 2009, in response to the FCC’s Notice of Inquiry on how consumer-friendly information policies can protect and empower consumers as they purchase and use communications services.

If you like this post please support us by liking us or bookmarking us

Get the latest Telecom News at http://vartips.com

brought to you by PBX Phone Systems

• Telecom Disclosure Information
• telecom requirements to disclose fees

After all the new FTC regulations telemarketers are bound by, many have started to look for means to increase their campaigns effectiveness. One of the most powerful tools now turns out to be proper management of the callerid name.

(Media-Newswire.com) – After all the new FTC regulations telemarketers are bound by, many have started to look for means to increase their campaigns effectiveness. One of the most powerful tools now turns out to be proper management of the callerid name.

CNAM CallerID management company dipfees.com has seen an extreme increase in the numer of clients that want to manage their callerID name.

“If a man wearing a black mask would ring your doorbell, would you open?”, Mike Storm ( VP Sales at dipfees.com ) states. “Porbably not. But this is exactly what many contact centers are doing. By not properly using and managing their caller name, many people simply won’t answer their phone”.

The increase in contact centers using CNAM callerID management services is also stimulated by the higher taxes and surcharges these companies are facing. By using Dipfee’s services, these centers can actually make up for the increased telecom fees by participating in the CNAM dip fee revenue sharing program.

A “dip” is the process by which telecom companies exchange caller ID information. This process is completed on a call by call basis and provides calling name and number to valid caller ID subscribers.

The “dip” occurs each time the call recipient’s teleco gains access to the originating caller’s teleco database. Each of these “dip” transactions is fee based, so every time you “dip” into the database the originating teleco is compensated. By working with DipFees, a substantial portion of this compensation can be recouped by contact centers.

More information:
http://dipfees.com

If you like this post please support us by liking us or bookmarking us

Get the latest Telecom News at http://vartips.com

brought to you by PBX Phone Systems

• cnam on caller id
• cnam telemarketing
• cnam caller id
• cnam telecom
• cnam telemarketer
• telecom cnam
• cnam revenue robocalls
• cnam robocall
• cnam telemarking
• cnam telmarketing

FTC’s September 1^st 2009 new regulations with regards to Voice Broadcasting

As of September 1^st 2009, the FTC TSR (Telemarketing Sales Rule) has changed. There seem to be different and conflicting interpretations of these new rules, some of which due to misinterpretation from the media. We have even seen newspaper headlines talking about the end of automatic dialers. However, this is not what the FTC’s TSR changes are about. It prohibits most acts of voice broadcasting without written consent of the called party. The CallerID revenue sharing program at dipfees shared the following with us. Please be advised that this is not intended as legal advice and interested parties should visit the FTC website for complete details.

http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/business/marketing/bus27.shtm

“TSR prohibits telemarketing calls placed on and after September 1, 2009, that deliver prerecorded messages, whether answered in person by a consumer or by an answering machine or voicemail service, unless the seller has previously obtained the call recipient’s written and signed agreement (which may be obtained electronically under the E-Sign Act) to receive such calls.”

Though a lot of media like to suggest it, written consent does not imply people have to write and send in a letter. As the FTC states, the written and signed agreement can also be obtained electronically. For example at an electronic point of sale, a telephone key press or a voice recording.

“The Rule expressly permits sellers to use electronic records that comply with the Electronic Signatures In Global and National Commerce Act (“E-SIGN”). Therefore, a seller may use a written agreement that is both created and retained in electronic form, so long as the seller can demonstrate that the seller’s procedures comply with E-SIGN, and conform to the Rule’s written agreement requirements. Thus, consumers’ express agreements to receive prerecorded message calls could be obtained by means of email, a website form, a telephone keypress, or a voice recording.”

Additionally, calls that deliver a prerecorded message must allow the call recipient to be able to opt-out through an automated system, like a key press on an IVR (Interactive Voice Response) system.

Certain categories of prerecorded calls are exempt from the new TSR. For example purely informational calls that do not fall in the rule’s definition of telemarketing. Certain types of business entities are also exempt, because they fall outside the FTC’s jurisdiction:

• banks, federal credit unions, and federal savings and loans
• common carriers — such as long-distance telephone companies and airlines — when they are engaging in common carrier activity.
• non-profit organizations — those entities that are not organized to carry on business for their own, or their members’, profit.

That these entities can use voice broadcasting however they like, is another common misconception. These types of calls may perhaps not be governed by the FTC, often are regulated and fall under other legal jurisdictions. For example healthcare voice broadcasts are subject to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996. And even though non-profit organizations are exempt, charitable solicitations made by for-profit telemarketers do fall under the TSR provisions since the 2001 patriot act. These telemarketers are referred to as Tele-funders by the FTC.

Telefunders are required to:

• make certain prompt disclosures in every outbound call.
• get express verifiable authorization if accepting payment by methods other than credit or debit card.
• maintain records for 24 months.
• comply with the entity-specific Do Not Call requirements, but are exempt from the National Do Not Call Registry provision.
• include in any prerecorded message call on behalf of a non-profit organization to a member of, or previous donor to, the non-profit, a prompt keypress or voice-activated opt-out mechanism.

Telefunders are prohibited from:

• making a false or misleading statement to induce a charitable contribution.
• making any of several specific prohibited misrepresentations.
• engaging in credit card laundering.
• placing “cold” calls that deliver prerecorded messages.
• engaging in acts defined as abusive under the TSR, such as calling before 8 a.m. or after 9 p.m., disclosing or receiving consumers’ unencrypted account information, and denying or interfering with a consumer’s right to be placed on a Do Not Call list.

So the new regulations per September 1^st do not prohibit every automated or predictive dialers, and some forms of voice broadcasting are still allowed. Making calls on behalf of a legal entity which seems exempt does not mean it is “free game”, there are most likely subject to the jurisdiction of other entities and must follow their rules and acts.

If you use any form of dialer, visit cmancallerid.com to see if you qualify for CNAM CallerID Dip Renue.

If you like this post please support us by liking us or bookmarking us

Get the latest Telecom News at http://vartips.com

brought to you by PBX Phone Systems

• non profit robo calls
• autodailer ftc
• voice broadcasting businesses telemarketing sales rule
• voice broadcast regulations for auto dialers
• telecommunications auto dialer rules
• software robocall 3com sip
• FTC voice broadcasting regulations on September 2009
• ftc tsr insurance
• ftc rule auto dialers
• ftc automated dialers

From the LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS K. CROWE, P.C., full contact info below.

Last week, on July 1, 2009, the Rural Utilities Service (“RUS”) of the Department of Agriculture and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (“NTIA”) of the Department of Commerce released a Notice of Funds Availability (“NOFA”) announcing the policies and application procedures for the first round of funding for broadband initiatives established pursuant to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (“Recovery Act”).  Pursuant to the Recovery Act, the RUS has established the Broadband Initiatives Program (“BIP”), and the NTIA has established the Broadband Technology Opportunities Program (“BTOP”).

BIP & BTOP Program Summaries

BTOP will make grants available for deploying broadband infrastructure in unserved and underserved areas in the United States.  There will be three categories of projects funded by BTOP:
(a) broadband infrastructure – projects that deliver broadband service through last mile or middle mile facilities;
(b) public computer center – projects that expand publicly accessible computer centers, such as community centers, community colleges and public universities; and
(c) sustainable broadband adoption – projects that promote broadband demand, including broadband education, awareness, training, access, etc.

BIP will extend loans, grants, and loan/grant combinations to facilitate broadband deployment in rural areas.  Grants are to be used to fund applications proposing to exclusively serve remote, unserved, rural areas.  Applications which would serve non-remote or underserved areas would be funded by loans or loan/grant combinations.  RUS will favor applications that propose a higher percentage of loan funds, and applicants may request one-hundred percent (100%) loan funding if desired.

All applications to fund broadband infrastructure in service areas which are at least seventy-five (75) percent rural are required to be submitted under BIP.  However, applicants may also choose to be considered for BTOP funding, but must complete any additional elements required for BTOP applications.  NTIA may make choose to make awards to such programs under BTOP if RUS decides not to fund them under BIP.

BIP & BTOP Application Timeline and Process

Applications for funding under both BTOP and BIP will be accepted from July 14, 2009 until August 14, 2009.  Applicants may submit paper applications in limited circumstances (i.e., applicants with disabilities or if electronic filing would impose a hardship), but will generally be required to submit applications electronically.  Electronically filed applications are due by 5:00 pm Eastern time on August 14, 2009.

In order to submit an application, all applicants must have a Dun and Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering System (“DUNS”) number, and must also be registered with the Central Contractor Registration (“CCR”) database and have a current CCR (CAGE) number.  (A DUNS number is needed to register with CCR.)  Note that processing times may be associated with obtaining DUNS and CAGE numbers, so these should be obtained ahead of time.

There will be a two step review process for the applications.  Applicants that are considered the most highly qualified will advance to the second step of the review, during which additional information will be requested from the applicant.  The second step of the review for BTOP applications will, among other things, also allow for evaluation and recommendation by the Governors of each state which would be affected by the applications.  Awards will be made on a rolling basis, subject to funding availability, and RUS and NTIA intend to start announcing awards on or about November 7, 2009.

BIP & BTOP Eligibility and Evaluation Criteria

In order to qualify for funding, applicants (and applications) must meet minimum eligibility criteria including, for example, the following: applicants must be an eligible entity; applications must be fully completed and submitted timely; proposed services must meet the NOFA’s definition of broadband; proposed projects must be technically feasible; applicants must commit to non-discrimination and interconnection obligations, among other things.  A full list of eligibility criteria can be found in Section V of the NOFA.  These are the minimum requirements in order to qualify for funding

Applications for BIP and BTOP funding will then be scored and evaluated based upon objective criteria grouped into four general categories: (1) project purpose; (2) project benefits; (3) project viability; and (4) project budget and sustainability.

Each project category (projects under BIP and the three BTOP project categories discussed above) will have its own specific criteria for scoring and evaluation based upon these four general categories.  Each application will be scored against the objective criteria, and not against other applications.  All of the application review criteria can be found in Section VII of the NOFA.

BIP & BTOP Applications

Since there is likely to be potentially significant preparatory work involved, companies interested in applying for funds should commence work on applications immediately.  Applications and proposed projects should be reviewed carefully to ensure compliance with eligibility criteria and for maximum conformity with scoring and evaluation criteria.

Please let us know if you have any questions or would like our assistance with any part of the application process.

Thomas K. Crowe, Partner

Cheng Yi Liu, Partner

Law Offices of Thomas K. Crowe, P.C.
1250 24th Street, N.W.
Suite 300
Washington, D.C. 20037
(202) 263-3640 (voice)
(202) 263-3641 (fax)
firm@tkcrowe.com
www.tkcrowe.com

This Legal Alert is provided for informational purposes only, and is intended neither to provide nor to substitute for legal advice.  This Legal Alert may be forwarded or redistributed on the condition that complete attribution of authorship is included (covering author name(s), firm name and address and all included contact information).

If you like this post please support us by liking us or bookmarking us

Get the latest Telecom News at http://vartips.com

brought to you by PBX Phone Systems

• BIP grant
• bip grants
• broadband bip
• Define BTOP and BIP programs

Former CTO of AT&T speaks out to visionary leaders about the future of telecoms.

The future of Telecom – where are we headed next? That question has been asked by many. Where is the telecommunication market headed over the next decade? The subject was highlighted last week by visionary technology leader Dr Hossein Eslambolchi, Chairman & CEO of 2020 Ventures, who addressed over 50 telecom heads last week in California at the industry leading Next Generation Telecom Summit.

The former CTO of AT&T is well-known throughout the technology world for his bold and futurist ideas. His strategies and implementations during his time at AT&T undoubtedly changed the way the company operate, and by doing this, strategically transformed the future of the network. As the keynote speaker at the summit, his technical presentation focused on the future trends in services and applications that will be implemented over the next decade.

Eslambolchi’s insight into his futuristic world of communication sparked the tone for the rest of the week amongst the industry figureheads. A brutally honest debate lead by Courtney Munroe from IDC, touched on the concept of the ‘consumer’, their needs and what they are willing to pay for. Heated discussions and opposing views occurred between Neil Cox, Qwest, Ibrahim Gedeon from Telus, Christian Jorg from The Island Def Jam and Miriam Holzman from FOX mobile, on sharing out revenues created by content between telecom and media companies. It is not surprising that this debate will continue for some considerable time.

Dubbed ‘The Converged Services Summit’, technology leaders are recognising the need to interact with each other from every different field within the industry, as each service is inevitably affected by the other. Joining Eslambolchi in discussions were Dan Acton, Virgin Mobile, Paul Frizado, MTS Allstream, Marc Coleman, Comcast, and Matthew Ooman, Sprint Nextel. This esteemed group conversed with technology leaders from Oracle, Canoga Perkins, Brocade, Front Porch and Aricent, about the future of telecoms, and whether these industry moguls can work together to take technology further.

Platforms like the groundbreaking California summit need to become available to the industry’s figureheads for discussions to occur more frequently. Influential thinkers like Eslambolchi are stepping up to the challenge to develop telecommunication and take it to another level. Over the last few years, consumers have been bombarded with new technological ways to interact with each other. From the i-phone to Skype, global communication is becoming easier and cheaper, and has advanced dramatically in a short space of time.

The question is what could possibly be next? Please share your thoughts below.

If you like this post please support us by liking us or bookmarking us

Get the latest Telecom News at http://vartips.com

brought to you by PBX Phone Systems

• future of telecommunications
• Future of telecom
• future of telecommunication
• telecom future
• the future of telecommunications
• telecommunication future
• future telecommunication
• future of telecommunications industry
• the future of telecom
• telecommunications future trends

From the desk of the Law Offices of Thomas K. Crowe, P.C., full contact info below.

The recently enacted “stimulus” legislation, or American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (“Recovery Act”), has the potential to substantially upgrade and enhance the American nationwide broadband network. The Recovery Act does this principally by allocating an unprecedented $7.2 billion (to be awarded primarily through grants and loans) to promote high-speed Internet programs.

Entities eligible to apply for grants and loans under the lead National Telecommunications and Information Administration (“NTIA”) program stand to be direct beneficiaries. Such entities include service providers (where the NTIA finds their participation to be in the public interest—e.g., broadband and infrastructure providers). The Recovery Act does not appear to place restrictions on supported technologies, meaning that wireline, wireless and satellite technologies should all be covered. Also eligible are states, counties, municipalities and other government entities as well as the U.S. territories. Finally, nonprofit entities (including nonprofit corporations) are eligible to participate. In short, a wide range of eligible entities will compete for grants and loans through a bidding process managed by the Department of Commerce’s NTIA and the Rural Utilities Service (“RUS”) of the Department of Agriculture.

The Recovery Act charges the RUS and the NTIA with making grants and loans to expand broadband deployment and for other important broadband projects. Of the $7.2 billion allocated for this effort, the NTIA was allocated $4.7 billion in total grant funds and the RUS will administer $2.5 billion in grants and loans.
The Recovery Act also assigns to the FCC the overarching duty of creating a national broadband plan. By early next year, the FCC is required to deliver to Congress a national broadband plan that seeks to ensure that every American has access to broadband capability and establishes clear benchmarks for meeting that goal. While NTIA, RUS and the FCC have stated that they intend to work cooperatively in this effort, each has a distinct and separate role, and grant/loan applications will need to be submitted before the proper government authority.
Little is known about program details at this time. Application windows are expected to open in the near future but filing windows have not yet been established. It is expected that grant and loan processes will move swiftly, however. Applications will also need to be filed in conformity with specific rules and formats; however, much of this has yet to be established. NTIA and the RUS are discussing a common application form to make it easier for entities to file grant applications with both government entities. In short, while the programs have been launched by the Recovery Act, staffing and procedure implementation is presently ongoing at the NTIA and RUS.
While uncertainty looms, the program has the potential to greatly enhance the American high speed broadband infrastructure, leading to new technologies and services, new competitive opportunities, employment opportunities and access by all Americans to the same robust broadband services. In fact, the FCC goes even further when it states, “high-speed ubiquitous broadband can help to restore America’s economic well-being and open the doors of opportunity for more Americans, no matter who they are, where they live, or the particular circumstances of their lives. It is technology that intersects with just about every great challenge facing our nation.”
NTIA
The $4.7 billion available through the NTIA program (known as the “Broadband Technology Opportunities Program” or “BTOP”) is allocated for competitive grants for broadband deployment efforts. According to Section 6001 of the Recovery Act, the program is to be established and implemented “as expeditiously as possible” and grants must be awarded before the end of fiscal year 2010.
NTIA is currently contemplating three waves of funding to allow applicants who may not be ready at the beginning of the grant program to participate in later waves. The first awards are expected to be issued in early fall 2009, with the second wave of applications beginning thereafter. A third wave of applications could begin in the spring of 2010 in order to complete a final round of awards before the statutory deadline of September 30, 2010.
Eligible entities are summarized above. Which applications the NTIA will choose to fund is a key question. The Recovery Act specifies that NTIA consider whether an application will increase the subscribership and affordability of broadband service to the greatest population of users in an area; whether the application will enhance service for health care delivery, education, or children to the greatest population of users in an area; and whether it will not result in unjust enrichment as a result of support from another Federal program in the area. The Recovery Act also requires consideration of whether the applicant is a socially and economically disadvantaged small business concern.
Grants may be awarded to: a) acquire equipment, instrumentation, and networking capability, hardware and software, digital network technology, and infrastructure for broadband services; b) construct and deploy broadband infrastructure; c) ensure access to broadband service by community anchor institutions; d) facilitate access to broadband service by low income, unemployed, aged or vulnerable populations to provide educational and employment opportunities; and e) construct and deploy broadband facilities that improve public safety broadband communications services. The federal grant portion of any project may not exceed 80% (absent a waiver), which means generally that a 20% match is required. Not less than one grant in each state is to be awarded “to the extent practicable”. States may be consulted with respect to identifying unserved and underserved areas, and regarding “the allocation of grant funds within that state for projects in or affecting the state.”
Approved grants must comply with non discrimination and network interconnection obligations set by the RUS and FCC. Among other things, the NTIA is to develop and maintain a comprehensive nationwide inventory map of existing broadband service capability and availability in the United States showing the geographic extent to which broadband capability is available from a commercial provider or public provider throughout each state. This “broadband inventory map” shall be posted on the NTIA website in an interactive and searchable format.

RUS
The $2.5 billion available under the RUS Broadband Loan and Grant Authority program covers loans, grants and loan guarantees for open access broadband infrastructure projects that serve primarily rural areas. Under the Recovery Act, at least 75% of the area to be funded must be in a rural area that “lacks sufficient access to high speed broadband service to facilitate rural economic development”. The Broadband Loan and Grant Authority program will give priority to projects that will: a) give end the users a choice of Internet service providers; b) serve the highest proportion of rural residents that lack access to broadband service; and c) be fully funded and ready to start once they receive funding under the Recovery Act. Priority will also be given to projects that can commence quickly. Projects funded through this program may not also be funded through the BTOP.
FCC
The FCC does not have the authority to issue grants or loans. Instead, as indicated above, the Recovery Act charges the FCC with creating a national broadband plan. By February 17, 2010, the FCC must deliver to Congress a national broadband plan that seeks to ensure that every American has access to broadband capability and establishes clear benchmarks for meeting that goal. On April 8, 2009, the agency released a Notice of Inquiry to launch this effort by seeking comment from all interested parties on the elements that should go into a national broadband plan. According to the Notice, “[w]e recognize that achieving this goal requires the wholehearted effort of both the private and the public sector.”
The Notice further states that the FCC’s plan must reflect an understanding of the problem, clear goals for the future, a route to those goals, and benchmarks along the way. And the plan must also allow for modification as the agency learns from experience. According to the Notice, “our plan must reflect the input of all stakeholders—industry, American consumers; large and small businesses; federal, state, local, and tribal governments; non-profits; and disabilities communities”.
Entities interested in applying for grants or loans from the NTIA or RUS must be prepared to act swiftly as the awards process will proceed at a rapid pace. Interested parties should begin assembling applications now to meet upcoming filing windows. Moreover, the process will be governed by NTIA and RUS rules and regulations so applications must adhere to such requirements.
The BTOP and related RUS programs have the potential to change the U.S. broadband infrastructure, and would appear to present an unprecedented investment opportunity for certain service providers, nonprofits, as well as state and territorial government entities which qualify for grant or loan funds.
Please feel free to contact us if your organization is interested in participating in the NTIA BTOP or RUS grant and loan programs, or if you have questions about the programs:

Thomas K. Crowe, Partner
Law Offices of Thomas K. Crowe, P.C.
1250 24th Street, N.W.
Suite 300
Washington, D.C. 20037
(202) 263-3640 (voice)
(202) 263-3641 (fax)
firm@tkcrowe.com
www.tkcrowe.com

If you like this post please support us by liking us or bookmarking us

Get the latest Telecom News at http://vartips.com

brought to you by PBX Phone Systems

FROM THE LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS K. CROWE, P.C.
LEGAL ALERT
Clients and Interested Parties:

The information below represents a non-exhaustive list of FCC regulatory assessment and reporting requirements coming due May 1st through June 30th, 2009. The filing deadlines generally apply to diverse types of service providers, including interexchange or long distance telecommunications service providers, prepaid calling card providers, wireless providers and MVNOs, as well as other types of providers. If your company holds an FCC 214 authorization or files FCC Forms 499, chances are that one or more of the requirements covered in this Alert may apply to your company. Interest on late payments and/or other penalties may apply if filings or payments are not submitted on time.

• FCC Form 499-Q – Due May 1. The proposed contribution factor for USF for the second quarter 2009 is 0.113 or 11.3% of interstate and, in most cases, international end-user revenues.
• Rate Integration Certification – Due May 1.
• Prepaid Card Provider PIU Report – Due May 15.
• FCC Form 395 Annual Carrier Employment Report – Due May 31.
• Prepaid Card Provider FCC Certification – Due June 30.

If you need assistance in submitting any of these reports or filings, or would like to retain us to handle your FCC filing obligations, please do not hesitate to contact us:

Conor M. Hanlon, Legal Assistant
Law Offices of Thomas K. Crowe, P.C.
1250 24th Street, N.W.
Suite 300
Washington, D.C. 20037
(202) 263-3640 (voice)
(202) 263-3641 (fax)
firm@tkcrowe.com
www.tkcrowe.com
________________________________________
This Legal Alert is provided for informational purposes only, and is intended neither to provide nor to substitute for legal advice. This Legal Alert may be forwarded or redistributed on the condition that complete attribution of authorship is included (covering author name(s), firm name and address and all included contact information).

If you like this post please support us by liking us or bookmarking us

Get the latest Telecom News at http://vartips.com

brought to you by PBX Phone Systems

• 499 q deadlines

In this time of recession, businesses are actively looking for a way to cut down operational expense. With the speed that technology is advancing, Voice and Data networks are starting to make up for a larger portion of the operational expense each year, while at the same time these services are becomming a more critical part of business.

“Companies need a more carrier agnostic view of the telecom field. For years, the direct sales force of carriers has had one major objective in mind: increase revenue and meet their quotas” according to Mark Breeze, senior consultant at TelecomSupportdesk.com. “We are here to change the playing field; our mission is to take the burden of carrier services out of the hands of our customers. A customer centric approach is what the market is asking for nowadays. And the big carriers just can’t seem to grasp that. For us, no business is too small or large – and customers will find our honesty a refreshing breath of air.”

The Telecom SupportDesk is funded by the carriers and of no charge to the customer. They can be found online at TelecomSupportdesk.com

If you like this post please support us by liking us or bookmarking us

Get the latest Telecom News at http://vartips.com

brought to you by PBX Phone Systems

Telecom Master Agent  Telarus, inc.  announced that all 38 claims relating to the online generation of real-time commercial telecommunication service quotes have been formally accepted by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. The technology, which Telarus trademarked as “GeoQuote”, powers Telarus’ public facing lead generation sites as well as its password protected agent back office sites.

Using the technology agents can generate quotes from over 30 commercial telecom vendors in under 60 seconds. The official patent, which issued today, comes nearly six years to the day after the original GeoQuote patent application was submitted in 2003.

“This patent is indicative of our pioneering culture” commented Adam Edwards, president of Telarus, Inc. “GeoQuote has become a critical tool that all of our agents and partners utilize to conduct their daily sales activities. Since our original patent application in 2003 we have made significant investments in the technology to ensure the prices that agents see are accurate and reliable. Having the protection of a United States patent may give us new licensing opportunities that we plan to explore.”

United States Patent 7,496,184, entitled “System and Method to Determine and Deliver Quotes for Distance-Sensitive Communication Links From Multiple Service Providers” was originally filed in November 2003 by Cooley Godward and Kronish LLP on behalf of its inventors, Patrick Oborn and Aaron Jay Lieberman. The patent was amended in August 2008 to include all of the new innovations that occurred subsequent to the original application date. Patrick Oborn is now the VP of Marketing and Aaron Jay Lieberman continues as a software developer for Telarus, Inc.

“We knew back in 2003 that real-time quoting was the future of big-ticket communication shopping” added Lance Akins, VP of Sales for Telarus. “That explains why, in 2003 and 2004, we spent 25% and 15% respectively of our entire operating budget on legal fees relating to the drafting and submission of this patent. We sacrificed investing in our short term growth due to the strategic importance of acquiring this patent, and now that decision appears to have been the right one.”

GeoQuote technology enables the general public to dynamically view carrier service pricing and availability for their exact location in real-time. To determine exact price points, GeoQuote utilizes a combination of carrier XML API connections, geomapping, and database standardization techniques to calculate the exact distance from a user’s location to the location of the nearest vendor’s POP, or Point of Presence. GeoQuote has a resolution of one one-hundredth of a mile and an error rate of less than 1%.

Over 30 commercial telecom service providers have cooperated to make GeoQuote the industry standard for price quoting. Prices, fiber maps, and other important information required to perform telecom sales research has been provided by the nations’ top carriers.

“Telarus really is different,” added Patrick Oborn, VP of Marketing and and co-inventor of GeoQuote. “We hope that the USPTO’s acceptance of our patent application speaks to agents about the scope and sophistication of Telarus’ commitment to making their lives easier through technology. This accomplishment, in addition to building a $3 million dollar book of business, the recognition we’ve received from U.S. Business Review, Phone+ Magazine (top 50 Channel Program), CRN Magazine (Emerging Technology Channel), VARBusiness Magazine (5-Star Gold Partner Program), and from the members of the Telecom Association (Top Master Agent for 2008) – should convince agents that they should give Telarus a try. We really do have real-time quotes and fiber look-up tools, we really do deliver warm leads to our performing agents, we really do generate equipment leads for the VAR partners of our agent base, it’s all just too much for an elevator story. All we ask for is a chance to earn their business by making their telecom sales agency more streamlined with our technology and profitable through our lead programs.”

To try out the real time quoting engine Geoquote or to learn more about telarus, visit telarus.com

If you like this post please support us by liking us or bookmarking us

Get the latest Telecom News at http://vartips.com

brought to you by PBX Phone Systems

In today’s environment, a company’s telecom spending does not stop with a simple phone line and an email account. Take into consideration all the local and long-distance phone services, toll-free numbers, mobile and wireless services, internet, email, conference services, inter-office networks etc.

Telecom is an important part of any business nowadays. Both large and small companies typically use a wide variety of telecommunications-related services. All these different services combined add up to a significant portion of a business’ cost of operation.

Using this many network and telecom services invariably adds up to a substantial expense for most businesses. In fact, according to research conducted by the Aberdeen Group a few years back, average small to medium businesses spent about $26 million a year while an average Fortune 500 company spent about $116 million a year on telecommunications alone.

Read the 10 tips to reduce telecom expense here

If you like this post please support us by liking us or bookmarking us

Get the latest Telecom News at http://vartips.com

brought to you by PBX Phone Systems

• telecom spend for small to medium business

From the desk of the Law Offices of Thomas K. Crowe, P.C.

On June 30, 2008, the FCC released an order (“InterCall Order”) rejecting InterCall, Inc.’s (“InterCall’s”) appeal of a determination by the Universal Service Administrative Company (“USAC”) that the company’s voice conferencing services were “telecommunications services” subject to Universal Service Fund (“USF”) contributions. Last week, the FCC requested public comment on petitions for reconsideration of this determination filed by Global Conference Partners, A+ Conferencing Ltd., Free Conferencing Corporation, and the Conference Group. Comments are due by September 8, 2008 and reply comments are due by September 22, 2008.

Background:

InterCall is a provider of, among other things, conference calling services. These services allow conference participants to connect, via a toll-free number purchased by InterCall, to an audio bridge which connects the participant to others in the conference. Generally, charges for the toll-free calls were passed on to the customer. In its FCC Forms 499-A and 499-Q, the company treated this revenue as non-telecommunications revenue, arguing that conference calling providers were end users for the purposes of USF contributions, and therefore did not contribute directly to the fund. USAC, which audited the company in 2007, took the position that conference calling services were subject to USF contributions because the FCC Form 499-A instructions requires companies to report “toll teleconferencing services”. InterCall appealed USAC’s decision before the FCC arguing that, even if its products could be considered “toll teleconferencing services”, such requirement could only be imposed on conference calling service providers after full notice and comment proceedings.

FCC Order:

In its InterCall Order, the FCC rejected the appeal, finding that InterCall’s services were “telecommunications services” under the FCC’s rules and prior decisions. It rejected InterCall’s argument that it is an end user of telecommunications services because conference calling products allow customers to transmit voice communications between specified points, and therefore meet the definition of “telecommunications” under federal statutes. Therefore, the FCC reasoned, prior FCC rules and orders were sufficient to apply USF filing and assessment requirements to InterCall.

InterCall also argued that its services were “information services” because the company’s conference products allowed customers additional functionality such as muting participants, recording, and access to operator assistance. The FCC also rejected this argument because the services were not sufficiently integrated with the telecommunications portion of the products.

However, recognizing that underlying carriers have generally “treated these providers as end users and have assessed universal service contribution fees”, the FCC decided to enforce USF requirements on a prospective basis only. This means that conference calling providers, in general, will be required to file the FCC Forms 499 and contribute USF from the effective date of the InterCall order (July 30, 2008) forward.

Other Regulatory Implications: Because the InterCall Order classifies conference calling products as “telecommunications services”, conference calling providers may be subject not only to Universal Service regulatory obligations, but a whole host of other federal regulatory obligations as well. This includes, but is not limited to, obligations to safeguard Customer Proprietary Network Information (“CPNI”), Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (“CALEA”) obligations, payment of annual regulatory fees, and other reporting requirements. These additional requirements will increase the regulatory burden on conference calling providers, increasing the expense and creating several legal liabilities which were not present prior to this decision.

Because of this impact on conference calling businesses, four companies have filed petitions of reconsideration of the InterCall Order and the FCC, as indicated above, has requested public comment.

Please let the author of this alert know if you have any questions or are interested in participating in this proceeding. This is their contact information:

Thomas K. Crowe, Principal [firm@tkcrowe.com]
Law Offices of Thomas K. Crowe, P.C.
1250 24th Street, N.W.
Suite 300
Washington, D.C. 20037
(202) 263-3640 (voice)
(202) 263-3641 (fax)
www.tkcrowe.com

If you like this post please support us by liking us or bookmarking us

Get the latest Telecom News at http://vartips.com

brought to you by PBX Phone Systems

• intercall order
• intercall conference bridge
• intercall fcc
• telecom meeting number toll
• intercall usf fees
• Intercall USAC FCC decision
• intercall revenue 2011
• intercall order fcc
• alcatel-lucent intercall
• intercall news

CRN Labels Telarus Among 180 Young Lions In The High Tech Jungle That Are Eating The Lunch Of the Big Fat Cats

Telarus, Inc., premier telecom master agent and creator of ShopforT1.com, ShopforEthernet.net, and VARNetwork.com, today announced it has been selected by Everything Channel as a CRN Emerging Tech vendor. CRN’s Emerging Tech list captures companies that are delivering high margins for solution providers with innovative and easy-to-use technology that undercuts industry giants.

Telarus gives its agents a competitive advantage in the marketplace by providing its nationwide agent network with real-time quotes for One Communications business-class DSL, T1, bonded-T1, integrated T1, and Ethernet 10 MB services.

According to the CRN Emerging Tech Survey, the top reasons solution providers add emerging technologies include, the technology is superior to other products in the market segment; the technology compliments a solution providers’ existing practice areas; emerging vendors provide better services opportunities; emerging vendors pay better attention to partners; emerging vendors offer higher margins, customers want alternative product choices; and emerging vendors have better joint marketing programs. In addition, 61 percent of solutions providers surveyed plan to increase the number of emerging technology vendors they partner with in the next 12 months.

“New and innovative vendor partners can help spur profitable new ideas that Solution Providers can use to build revenue and customer loyalty, and the CRN Emerging Tech list is where Solution Providers go to find these vendors,” said Robert C. Demarzo, senior vice president and editorial director, Everything Channel editorial.

“Telarus is proud to be recognized by Everything Channel as a CRN Emerging Tech vendor. We strive to provide our agents with the best services and support in the industry. This includes leading edge technology to support their sales and marketing efforts. Our vendors are able to realize increased sales and higher profit margins as a result, stated Adam Edwards, CEO and co-founder of Telarus”

About CRN

CRN provides solution providers and technology integrators with the crucial information and analysis they need to drive their company’s sales. As an advocate for and voice of the IT channel, solution providers turn to CRN first for immediate information. Celebrating its 25th year, CRN is the most trusted source for channel professionals. CRN can be found on the web at www.channelweb.com.

Everything Channel (Everything Channel, formerly CMP Channel, is the global leader in technology sales and serves as the one stop shop for the sales channel that drives 75 percent of technology sales throughout the world. IT suppliers and Solution Providers turn to Everything Channel to manage and accelerate their business. Everything Channel provides the answer to strategy and branding, online marketing, research/market intelligence, lead generation, branded and custom events, education and workflow tools targeted to those who buy and sell through the Channel. Everything Channel is a subsidiary of United Business Media, a global provider of news distribution and specialist information services with a market capitalization of more than $2.5 billion.

About Telarus

Telarus is a premier master agency who’s goal is to make agents more successful than they can be on their own or with any other master agency. Telarus provides is agents tools, automation, superior support, all in an atmosphere of cooperation and ethical community. Telarus drives warm leads to its agents and VARs through its web marketing portals which include: ShopforT1.com, ShopforEthernet.com, VARNetwork.com, and VARPartner.com.

If you like this post please support us by liking us or bookmarking us

Get the latest Telecom News at http://vartips.com

brought to you by PBX Phone Systems

This video shows how to unmask a blocked caller id with an Asterisk PBX and a SIP trunk. Is the caller id and privacy flag used in this way with sip trunks in the us?

If you like this post please support us by liking us or bookmarking us

Get the latest Telecom News at http://vartips.com

brought to you by PBX Phone Systems

• caller id unmask asterisk
• unmask caller id
• Caller id unmask
• how to unmask caller id
• unmask callerid asterisk
• Unmask Caller-Id
• how to unmask caller-id
• unmasking id
• sip provider unmask caller id
• sip qwest trunk clid shoretel

When you sell a company something, will they still remember you 10 years from now? Is your contact still working there?

Chances are the answer is No.

Quick tip: when you sell any hardware, put a sticker with your company logo, address and a slogan on the back or bottom of the hardware. When someone picks up that old, broken phone a few years from now they will immediately see whom to contact for an upgrade or when requiring service.

If you like this post please support us by liking us or bookmarking us

Get the latest Telecom News at http://vartips.com

brought to you by PBX Phone Systems

Many solution providers like vars seem to struggle to keep up their revenue as their clients have less money to spend. This probably also goes for other types of business to business companies. What I hear often from vars is that their customers are postponing the so needed upgrade of their outdated phone system for example.

As revenue from the existing client base is going down, I see two obvious options:

1. Grow your client base
2. Find an alternative way to present your solution so that it makes financial sense to the current customer base

The first point, finding new clients, sounds pretty obvious but may be hard to accomplish as your fellow solution providers are trying to do the same. It is still very much worth the effort but you have to really come up with a unique selling point to distinct yourself from the competition.

The second point may seem even harder at first. When the capital expense of a new PBX phone system for example does not fit their budget, make it fit. Perhaps the customer is using an old technology and by presenting a phone system that can save them money on their telecom usage expense, it can suddenly start to make sense to upgrade. For example what if you present a VoIP based solution as SIP Trunking, if they had analogue phone lines until now this may be a significant cost saver. If they don’t have the capital, it may even still make financial sense to lease.

What does this have to do with Interdependence versus Independence?

It does not necessarily have anything to do with it but it may make things easier. Independence may be something that many business owners are actively perusing: becoming as independent as possible so that they have total control over their own business. They may fail to see the mutual benefit of interdependence.

Patrick Oborn, co-founder of Telarus, has written a great article about interdependence versus independence in regards to master agents. As we work with a lot of var partners, we found this to be an inspirational article and decided to show what interdependence can do for our var partners.

When a solution provider partners with a master agent, the relationship can only be truly successful if it is of mutual benefit. As with any relationship it is a two way street. Thus comes Interdependence, growing your business by growing each other’s business.

The relationship we are aiming for with our var partners is one of interdependense. We as carrier services consultants come across customers that have just ordered a new PRI circuit and they need a new PBX. Guess what, our var partner gets the opportunity. And that goes the other way as well: when our var partner has a client in need of a new T1 line, or any other carrier circuit – guess who he refers them to?

Besides sharing and referring leads between the interdependent companies (in this case the solution provider var and the carrier services consultant), the involved parties also grow their value proposition to the customer by offering a more complete solution. By partnering with a master agent, the var partner is able to offer carrier services without the hassle of dealing with all the carriers. The var partner grows their revenue this way, and he may be able to justify the new equipment purchase for his customer by comparing overall cost. The carrier consultant can even help by offering a circuit with a vendor that will amortize the equipment cost, so that there is less capital expense. And we as carrier services consultants are happy as well because this brings us more revenue.

 
True Interdependence is vital for a successful  business partnership, don’t shy away from it.

If you want to learn more about our carrier services or our var partner program, how to set up such an interdependent relationship etc. feel free to contact us.

If you like this post please support us by liking us or bookmarking us

Get the latest Telecom News at http://vartips.com

brought to you by PBX Phone Systems

• interdependent companies
• company interdependence
• companies and internal interdependence
• what are interdependent companies
• unique selling points telecom voip
• revenue interdependence
• Interdependent company
• interdependence tour operators
• interdependence of companies
• interdependence in clients