VARIETY OF TELCOS WEIGH IN AT FCC ON INTERCARRIER COMPENSATION

OPASTCO urged Commission to declare wireless termination tariffs to be lawful absent negotiated or arbitrated agreements and to turn down large wireless carriers’ request that FCC declare wireless termination tariffs unlawful in absence of such pacts. Nextel, T-Mobile USA and Western Wireless argued in petition that some rural carriers had filed wireless termination tariffs to bypass negotiating process and would prefer bill-&-keep arrangement. USTA recommended FCC fold those issues into broader intercarrier compensation proceeding now pending at Commission.

FCC sought comments on 2 petitions: (1) T-Mobile, Western Wireless and Nextel asked agency to “reaffirm” that wireless termination tariffs weren’t proper tool for creating reciprocal compensation arrangements for transport and termination of traffic. Commercial mobile radio service (CMRS) providers usually interconnect indirectly with rural ILEC by exchanging traffic via intermediate carrier. Companies handling such indirect interconnections often hand off traffic under bill-&-keep arrangements, not interconnection pacts, for mobile-to-land traffic, petition said. Issue came to fore recently when some rural LECs filed state tariffs to collect reciprocal compensation for certain wireless traffic. (2) US LEC sought declaratory ruling that LECs were entitled to recover access charges from IXCs for providing access service on interexchange calls originating from or terminating on wireless networks. Company said industry practice was for IXCs to pay access charges to LECs for such traffic but that one IXC had refused to pay.

WorldCom vehemently opposed US LEC petition, saying it described 4-carrier “routing scheme” that was designed to “gin up access charges for US LEC to bill to IXCs.” Rather than seeking approval of its right to offer tandem transit services in competition with incumbents, WorldCom said US LEC wanted FCC “to sanction a practice whereby a CMRS provider and US LEC conspire to route toll-free calls that originate on the CMRS provider’s network, through a US LEC Class 5 switch, then to the incumbent LEC’s tandem, before finally reaching the IXC network for which the calls are destined.” Problem, WorldCom said, is that IXCs can’t expect that calls originating on wireless networks will be routed so efficiently. It argued that US LEC’s access bills didn’t provide information that would allow IXCs to link those calls with wireless networks on which they originated.

BellSouth (BS) said if FCC issued declaratory ruling to resolve compensation disputes between wireline carrier and wireless operator, it should address transit traffic. BS said that in scenario involving indirect interconnections outlined by T-Mobile and other carriers, BellSouth could act as transit carrier and carry wireless carrier’s traffic to independent phone company. “Clearly, if a carrier such as BellSouth acts as a transit carrier, it is entitled to compensation for carrying the transit traffic,” it said. “It is vitally important that the Commission recognize this compensation right.”

SBC told FCC it should conclude that neither Telecom Act nor its own rules required 3rd-party carriers to provide indirect interconnections or transit services. As result, FCC should affirm that if carrier did offer to provide transit services, it wasn’t required to price those services at forward-looking TELRIC (Total Element Long-Run Incremental Cost) prices, SBC said. It asked Commission to find transit providers didn’t have intercarrier compensation liability for termination charges for traffic originated and terminated by other carriers. It said FCC should affirm that under existing intercarrier compensation regime LECs could recover access charges from IXCs for providing access service on interexchange calls originating from or terminating on wireless networks.

Qwest said filings pointed to “continuing need” for FCC to adopt wide-ranging, unified scheme for intercarrier compensation to replace what it said was current “hodgepodge” of rules in that area. It reiterated that it backed comprehensive bill-&-keep system. In meantime, it said FCC should clarify 2 issues on compensation for exchange of traffic with wireless carriers: (1) That it wasn’t appropriate for rural LECs or any other carriers to establish “unilateral reciprocal compensation rates” for terminating CMRS traffic via state tariffs. Intercarrier compensation for exchange of local traffic should be governed by contract, not tariff, “and efforts by ILECs to bypass the contracting provisions of Sections 251 and 252 of the Communications Act by ’tariffing’ functions that should be dealt with via reciprocal compensation arrangements should be declared to be unlawful.” (2) That Commission should confirm rights and duties of LECs transporting traffic between wireless providers and long distance carriers. LECs generally are entitled to access charges from IXCs for carrying interexchange traffic between wireless carriers and IXCs. “Multiple LECs cannot insert themselves in the access paths and automatically declare themselves entitled to compensation over the objection of an IXC,” Qwest said.

OPASTCO urged FCC to turn down mobile carriers’ request that agency declare wireless termination tariffs unlawful and affirm they were lawful absent negotiated or arbitrated agreements. “They are nothing more than a means to allow rural ILECs to obtain the just and reasonable rates for interconnection called for by” Telecom Act, group said. Telecom Act established voluntary negotiations as preferred means for creating reciprocal compensation arrangements between carriers, OPASTCO said. “But the Act is clear that the responsibility for initiating such negotiations lies with the requesting carrier, not the ILEC as the petitioners suggest,” it said. OPASTCO said Mo. PSC had recognized that tariffs weren’t unlawful without reciprocal compensation arrangements. It countered suggestion by some wireless carriers that rural carriers were filing termination tariffs to bypass negotiating process. “To the contrary, tariffs are filed to encourage negotiation,” group said. “It is quite telling that the CMRS petitioners assert that it is often not worth the time and expense for them to negotiate reciprocal compensation arrangements with rural ILECs.”

On issue of LEC-wireless carrier interconnection, CTIA said FCC had spelled out clearly that LECs must negotiate in good faith with mobile operators and couldn’t file interconnection tariffs unilaterally. Telecom Act didn’t change that, it said, and requirements now were even more important as wireless providers continued to compete with incumbents. “The Commission should therefore act swiftly to once again prohibit LECs from acting in a manner which is aimed solely at stifling the competitive development of CMRS,” CTIA said. Group said T-Mobile’s petition was about neither bill-&-keep nor indirect interconnection. Those carriers have made clear that they are willing to negotiate interconnection agreements with ILECs, “but they cannot do so if the incumbents are permitted to simply file tariffs instead,” CTIA said.