Adopting USTelecom-proposed phantom traffic rules won’t impose ‘u...

NuVox opposed a passage that would make CLECs answer ILEC requests to negotiate and arbitrate agreements. CLECs can compel ILECs to negotiate, but ILECs can’t compel CLECs. The FCC must make those “rights and obligations reciprocal so as to ensure a level playing field,” USTelecom said. That would fit with an order involving T-Mobile creating a reciprocal relationship between ILECs and mobile carriers. “The same policy and legal grounds support extending this decision to ILEC-CLEC negotiations,” USTelecom said. USTelecom addressed NCTA questions on the proposal’s technical exceptions. The proposed “signaling rules recognize that there are limited instances where calling party number information is not passed in the network either because existing network equipment does not provide for this or because industry standards or guidelines dictate that it not be passed,” USTelecom said. Limited instances include VoIP networks that don’t use phone numbers, law enforcement mandates and calls from 8YY telephone numbers, it said. NCTA also sought clarification on how USTelecom’s phantom traffic rule would define an unreasonable practice. The proposed rule “does not expressly define the prohibited content,” but “enforcement of the provision is no different than the existing prohibitions on ‘unreasonable practices’ or ‘unfair and deceptive practices’ which the Commission has a long history of interpreting and enforcing,” USTelecom said. Burden would be on the alleging party in a complaint proceeding, it said.