Telecom Industry Urges FCC to Act on Phantom Traffic
The telecom industry’s campaign for an FCC crackdown on phantom traffic appears to be growing, but the agency remains mum on whether it plans to take action. The Commission is wrestling with whether the issue should be split from the broader intercarrier compensation (ICC) proceeding, said FCC and industry sources. Two industry groups are pushing proposals at the agency -- USTelecom, which has gained a number of supporters, and the Midsized Carrier Coalition, which includes companies such as CenturyTel and Consolidated Communications.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
No FCC-written proposal has surfaced yet in the Wireline Bureau, though industry sources say they've seen a lot of interest there. Telecom companies have been meeting throughout Feb. with both bureau and 8th-floor staff to push for action. It’s “very likely” the FCC will handle this issue separately before completing the ICC reform, an industry source predicted.
Phantom traffic is the industry’s name for telephone calls that can’t be billed properly because they're transmitted without identifying the originating carriers. As a result, terminating carriers can’t levy access charges -- particularly troublesome for rural carriers that depend on access charges for much of their revenue. But it affects other carriers as well, from large Bells to wireless companies.
There’s “growing industry consensus” behind USTelecom’s proposal for FCC rules governing call routing and signaling, said an FCC source, noting CTIA’s recent endorsement of the plan. Though some organizations want action now, others have said they prefer keeping as much on the table as possible during industry negotiations on ICC rules, the source said.
CTIA Asst. Vp Paul Garnett said his group takes a middle-ground approach. CTIA doesn’t view the USTelecom plan as a “silver bullet” that will solve everything but thinks it would bring interim improvements while broader ICC reform is pending, he said: “Phantom traffic is unresolvable under the current intercarrier compensation regime,” but CTIA is being “realistic about what can be done now.” CTIA became involved, he said, because “wireless carriers are also victims of phantom traffic in terms of the traffic we receive.”
USTelcom’s plan was endorsed by both its rural telephone and Bell members, plus Qwest, which isn’t a USTelecom member. AT&T -- a major participant in the Intercarrier Compensation Forum, the industry group trying to reach agreement on an ICC plan -- supports the USTelecom plan, though it would like to see the entire ICC reform happen at the same time, said a spokesman. It would be fine to have the whole ICC issue settled at one time but realistically that probably won’t happen soon, said another industry representative.
The USTelecom and Midsized Carrier Coalition plans appear similar. Both require carriers to accompany phone calls with signaling information that indicates where the calls came from. The plans also target how calls are routed because phantom traffic often avoids detection by being sent to a tandem that isn’t intended to handle the call under industry routing practices, a process that USTelecom Gen. Counsel James Olson said can be an innocent error or intentional “call laundering.” Both plans would detect such routing through a fairly complex process, requiring, for example, the use of the Local Exchange Routing Guide (LERG). The USTelecom plan appears more forgiving, saying both signaling and routing requirements should depend on whether a carrier’s network technology can handle them.
The 2 plans also appear to differ on the feasibility of the midsized coalition’s proposed requirement that originating carriers transmit Jurisdictional Information Parameter (JIP) technology to let terminating carriers know where the calls came from. There are also differences about when it’s necessary or feasible for carriers to transmit Calling Party Number or Charge Number information. The plans also differ on enforcement, with the midsized coalition proposing a new complaint procedure that USTelecom supporters say might not be within the FCC’s authority. The USTelecom plan also would give telephone companies the right to make agreements with CLECs governing the carriage of traffic.
The midsized coalition told FCC staff in a meeting last week that its plan proposed “simple, clear and non- controversial rules.” There is “much common ground” between the 2 plans “despite differences of opinion on how to resolve the issue,” the group said in a handout presented at the Feb. 14 meeting. “The common message is clear -- we need the FCC to move quickly to enact clear and enforceable labeling and routing rules,” the coalition said.
Phantom traffic often is passed through intermediate carriers, which has put carriers such as XO on guard. XO has told the FCC it doesn’t think the agency can write phantom traffic rules without inviting comments. The proposals under consideration arose out of ex parte meetings with the FCC without public comment, said Brad Mutschelknaus, outside counsel for XO. Mutschelknaus said XO believes phantom traffic concerns are better handled in negotiated interconnection agreements among carriers because they're very technical. Questions of what signaling should accompany calls and what “trunk groups” should be used aren’t easily handled in rules, he said. An intermediate carrier can pass through only what it receives from originating carriers, Mutschelknaus said. He said XO believes it shouldn’t be required to strip certain traffic or otherwise decide whether traffic is okay.