The FCC should crack down on access charge ‘avoidance schemes’ by...
The FCC should crack down on access charge “avoidance schemes” by acting on pending petitions in 2 dockets, said USTelecom and 211 of its small and midsized members in a letter sent Wed. to the Commission. Such schemes “are…
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.
frustrating comprehensive intercarrier compensation reform and threatening local exchange carriers’ ability to maintain existing networks as they invest in broadband deployment, particularly in rural areas,” the letter said: “Conduct at issue in these two dockets is taking investment funds away from the LECs building the broadband networks on which VoIP and other Internet services ride and giving it to companies that are merely seeking to arbitrage regulatory asymmetries rather than deploy better networks.” USTelecom asked the FCC to: (1) Grant AT&T’s petition in WC Doc. 05-276 for a ruling letting it recover access charge revenue on calls that originate and terminate on the PSTN but “traverse an IP-based network at some intermediate part of the call flow.” (2) Grant Frontier’s petition in the same docket seeking payment for Feature Group A call services it provides for origination of long distance voice communications. (3) Deny VarTec’s petition in that docket seeking FCC “assistance in its effort to escape liability for knowingly routing voice communications access traffic through third-party providers that refuse to pay for the terminating access services on that traffic.” (4) Deny Grande Communications’ petition in WC Doc. 05-283 “seeking Commission blessing for a proposed call laundering scheme that would re-label traffic to, in effect, unlawfully obtain and resell terminating access services at reciprocal compensation rates.” USTelecom said its members “face nonpayment and underpayment for terminating access services they are obliged to provide… and they are not obtaining relief through litigation… which would be costly and time-consuming in any event.”