Iowa Telcos, Consumer Advocate Urge Regulators to Stop Aventure ‘Schemes’
Aventure Communications is an unlawful telecom scourge, telcos told Iowa state regulators this week in multiple filings. The company has faced scrutiny from the Iowa Utilities Board in the past, and now its opponents insist it’s violating past terms of the board’s orders and creating an ongoing problem. They point specifically to the need for appropriate intrastate high-volume access service rates and traffic pumping allegations, which Aventure attempted to downplay. Several stakeholders had failed to successfully negotiate a rate for what Aventure’s high-volume traffic should cost in 2011, prompting Aventure to initially complain to the board and inspiring several strong counterclaims. Stakeholders still debate what this rate should be. Aventure has operated since the fall of 2005 and is based in Sioux City, Iowa, according to its website.
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!
"The Board must crack down on Aventure, not only to protect and preserve the law and the force of Board orders, but to protect that small handful of unwitting customers who may find themselves suddenly without a service provider when Aventure’s financial house of cards inevitably tumbles,” Sprint Nextel told Iowa regulators (http://bit.ly/13GD6S4).
The Iowa Office of Consumer Advocate described at length the claims and counterclaims between Aventure and the region’s telcos over the past two years, culminating in a January hearing before the Iowa board. The Office of Consumer Advocate sided strongly against Aventure: “The record evidence in this docket conclusively shows that Aventure does not provide any local exchange service in many exchanges where it is authorized to do so and lacks the technical, managerial, and financial ability to provide reasonably adequate service,” the consumer advocate said (http://bit.ly/XWecGF). “The interests of Iowa consumers are not well-served by allowing Aventure to provide local exchange service and the Board should revoke Aventure’s certificate."
Aventure urged Iowa regulators to limit their findings to relevant issues and to allow it to retain its certificate. “Aventure has invested millions of dollars in its local exchange network and revocation of its certificate would directly impact this significant property interest,” it told the Iowa board in a March filing (http://bit.ly/VFLb5z). It alleged that the other companies are trying to sully its reputation, motivated by its ongoing interstate access charge litigation with AT&T, CenturyLink and Sprint, it said. “Under any measure, the Board must find that Aventure has sufficient local exchange customers to maintain its certificate as a competitive local exchange carrier,” Aventure said. These companies owe Aventure millions of dollars in unpaid charges, it added.
Companies strongly supported revoking Aventure’s certificate to operate and alleged a variety of failings from the Iowa company. “Aventure deliberately chose an inefficient and distant interconnection point in order to artificially inflate its interstate billings for Tandem Transport Facility charges -- by over 140 miles,” AT&T complained (http://bit.ly/VFzzjg). “Aventure continues to bill these inflated facility charges even though the FCC in its Alpine decision found the practice unreasonable.” Aventure “is in the business for traffic pumping -- a misuse of its CLEC certificate,” Sprint said. “Clearly, traffic pumping schemes that bank on regulatory arbitrage, like that engaged in by Aventure, are contrary to the public interest,” CenturyLink said (http://bit.ly/W5GTDv). Sprint pointed to a history of Aventure’s wrongs and described the board’s actions against the company back in 2009 for imposing “unlawful” access charges on Sprint and other telcos. The board ordered refunds but Aventure has acted in contempt of that board order, Sprint said. Aventure countered by saying the board established “no final refund liability” and questioned this extraneous issue’s inclusion. Sprint brought up the ability for children to access pornography on Aventure’s services, which had lacked parental restrictions. Sprint slammed the company’s “scams” and “malfeasance” and said it’s amazed that the company wants the regulators to wipe its slate clean and start “with a favorable rate for high-volume traffic as a reward,” which it judges unacceptable. It compared Aventure’s finances to those of a gambler and said Iowa consumers are the chips.
The telcos considered alternatives to revoking Aventure’s certificate, too. The board could “proceed to set an appropriate intrastate high volume access service ('HVAS') rate and follow the FCC approach as set forth in the November 2011 USF order regarding rating interstate HVAS traffic,” AT&T said, proposing potential intrastate rates for the company to follow. The board also needs to come out strongly against “mileage pumping” in the case, it said. Sprint also recommended, if the certificate isn’t revoked, a set HVAS rate for Aventure “to avoid a resurgence of traffic pumping."
CenturyLink had discussed a rate of $0.002991 per minute of use at one point, which Aventure accepted and advocates for now before the Iowa regulators. Aventure urged the board to adopt the rate and rejected Sprint’s suggested rate of $0.0007 per minute of use, a rate CenturyLink also proposed the board establish, if not bill and keep, in its filing this week. Aventure scoffed, saying the FCC rejected such a rate in the Connect America Fund order. “The Connect America Fund Order provides that the intrastate rate for access service shall mirror the interstate rate for access service by July 2013,” Aventure said. CenturyLink argued that the 0.0007 rate “reflects Aventure’s actual cost of terminating this HVAS traffic as supported by Sprint’s extensive and unrefuted cost study” as well as discourages “regulatory arbitrage opportunities” tied to the alleged traffic pumping. Aventure objected to questioning about its finances, pornography and the “potential refund obligation” of prior board activities, preferring, it said, to dwell on the heart of the matter.