Sprint acknowledged to the FCC it had moved more traffic to its I...
Sprint acknowledged to the FCC it had moved more traffic to its IP backbone to reduce access charge costs, but it took exception to SBC’s characterization of the amount of traffic moved. In a March 3 ex parte filing,…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Communications Daily is required reading for senior executives at top telecom corporations, law firms, lobbying organizations, associations and government agencies (including the FCC). Join them today!
Sprint said SBC claimed it had studied a sample and found 40% of Sprint’s traffic had been moved. Sprint said it “has indeed increased its use of such arrangements out of competitive necessity (and will continue to do so as long as such practice is legally permissible and financially rational) but hardly to the extent and at the speed posited by SBC.” Sprint told the agency: “Until the Commission issues an explicit finding that access charges do apply to this type of traffic, voice service providers will have an enormous economic incentive to greatly expand their use of alternative termination arrangements simply to remain competitive with one another in terms of access costs, and disputes regarding the applicability of access charges for VoIP traffic, and whether revenues associated with such traffic are subject to mandatory contributions to the USF, will continue to escalate.”