Powell Circulates Intercarrier Compensation Orders

The wireless-rural order could be delayed if it proves controversial, but expectations are that both will get a vote at the Feb. agenda meeting. The notice wraps together several proposals, including the plan devised by the ICF, a NARUC Task Force compromise (CD Dec 29 p1), and a proposal by wireless carriers led by T-Mobile, and seeks comments on all of them.

Sources said 8th-floor advisors were just starting to comb through both items. The further notice is expected to provide few surprises since it seeks comment on some already well established arguments. A main vehicle will be the ICF proposal, which was released last summer after more than a year of closed-door meetings, with other proposals woven in. Sources said they will watch most closely to see what if any tentative conclusions the Commission draws in the proposed rulemaking.

“Instead of having each proposal [sent out for comment] the FCC is going to have a common proceeding so that all of the comments and all of the parties and all of the 5 million ex partes can be bundled into one proceeding,” said a regulatory attorney who has closely followed the issue.

The report and order addresses a number of discrete issues raised in ongoing disputes between rural ILECs and wireless carriers. A critical filing before the FCC in the area is a T-Mobile-Nextel-Western Wireless petition seeking clarification that wireless termination tariffs unilaterally imposed by ILECs on wireless carriers are unlawful.

CTIA argued in a Dec. ex parte that fairness, as well as federal law, dictate that the FCC clarify ILECs cannot unilaterally impose termination tariffs on wireless carriers. “Tariffs bypass federally prescribed interconnection requirements, thwart Congressional intent, are anti-competitive, and adversely affect consumers,” CTIA argued. “Tariffs thwart federal process by (1) removing incentives for rural LECs to negotiate in good faith and (2) permitting multiple state proceedings not subject to federal review.”

The order takes on 2 other related issues. First is a filing made by Sprint on the issue of who should pay the transport costs on the link between the wireless carrier and the rural LEC. Sprint sought clarification that wireless carriers can designate separate “rating and routing points” for the exchange of local traffic under existing numbering and interconnection rules.

The 2nd related issue is whether ILECs can block wireless carriers from making use of blocks of numbers on the grounds that it constitutes the use of “virtual NXX codes.” One source described this dispute as the ultimate in “inside baseball.” A carrier source explained: “You want the land to mobile call to be local. I don’t want my wife having to pay 12 cents a minute to call me on my phone. Unless it’s happening in their rate center their attitude is anything that leaves my rate center I want access charges.”

T-Mobile argued in a filing at the Pa. PUC that while routing and rating points may differ for wireless carriers, that doesn’t mean they use virtual NXX codes in a manner sometimes employed by CLECs. “T-Mobile obtains NXX codes only in areas where it has facilities (e.g., cell sites) and provides services to customers in conformity with industry numbering resource assignment guidelines,” the carrier said. “There is nothing ‘virtual’ about T-Mobile’s use of NXX codes, because consistent with all FCC rules, it obtains and uses numbering resources only in areas where it provides services to customers.”