Carrier NDAs Threaten TEM Providers

With telecom expense management providers uncovering millions of dollars in billing errors, overcharges and redundancies, it was only a matter of time before carriers would try to shut them out of the mix. Although carrier contractual language has been making stipulations about third-party involvement for years, TEM providers are reporting an increase in restrictions made by carriers, therefore incapacitating them and stifling their customer relationships.

The matter might be exacerbated by heightened customer proprietary network information (CPNI) rules that took effect December 2007. The new CPNI rules require providers to:

• authenticate a caller before releasing information
• immediately notify subscribers of certain account changes
• have new customers create passwords when they sign up for services
• contact law enforcement officials if a customer’s CPNI is given to a third party.

Information protected by these rules includes anything related to the type, quantity or configuration of the telecommunications service subscribed to along with any information contained in the bills for these services. It’s no wonder that carriers are being overprotective of this information in light of CPNI rules since they are set to face minimum fines of $100,000 for non-compliance.

Michael Shonholz, director of channel sales for TEM provider iTEMize Technologies, said while his company appreciates why the FCC has definitive rules surrounding CPNI, it believes “certain carriers may now be using the new regulations to deploy monopolistic actions. ...A client should always be entitled to avail itself of professional assistance and secure the requisite help to ensure that they receive the best value for their telecom dollar,” he explained.

TEMIA (Telecom Expense Management Industry Association) secretary and Asentinel CEO, David Perdue, said the uptick in carrier contract restrictions is not related to CPNI rules, but Timothy C. Colwell, vice president of knowledge operations for AOTMP, said the they are “directly tied.”

Neil Ende, attorney with the Washington, D.C.-based Technology Law Group LLC, said despite any similarities between the NDAs and CPNI rules, he does not believe that the FCC’s “tightening” of CPNI rules has or will cause an increase in the use of restrictive contractual language. He added, “like many NDAs, the FCC’s CPNI rules are very difficult to enforce both because of problems in proving the alleged violation and because of the specific limitations found in the governing documents themselves.”