Industry Welcomes Draft FCC FNPRM on Access Stimulation Rules

Industry groups and carriers welcomed a draft FCC Further NPRM that would propose ways to clarify commission rules on access stimulation. Some sought minor edits to the draft (see 2206230069). The item would seek comments on revisions to a 2019 order on access arbitrage to clarify "perceived ambiguities ... that some providers are exploiting," according to the draft. It would target carriers that may be evading the rules by including IP enabled services (IPES) into the call flow.

The draft item cites concerns by USTelecom and its members that "substantial and growing portion of traffic that previously terminated through access-stimulating LECs now terminates through IPES providers." The group told the FCC in 2020 that some IPES providers claimed the rules didn’t apply to “traffic terminating to ‘IPES numbers’” and “are not responsible for the costs of tandem switching and transport, ‘regardless that their traffic patterns qualify as access stimulation under the commission’s rules,’” the draft said.

USTelecom sought some changes to the draft, in meetings with aides to Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel, and Commissioners Brendan Carr, Geoffrey Starks and Nathan Simington. The group also met with Wireline Bureau and Office of Economics and Analytics staff. It asked the FCC to remove "two-way voice" from the definition of an IPES provider. "This is important for various reasons and perhaps the best example is foreign radio stations that can be reached by dialing a number but there is no one on the other end," said an ex parte filing in docket 18-155: "However, because many individuals listen to the foreign stations for several hours at a time, it drives up switched access charges."

USTelecom also asked that the definition be clarified to say an IPES provider "permits users to receive calls that originate on the public switched telephone network ... or that originate from an internet protocol service." The proposed definition as written in the draft "would be easy to evade," the group told aides. USTelecom Vice President-Policy and Advocacy Diana Eisner told us the group supports the item.

Lumen sought some changes to the draft in separate meetings with an aide to Rosenworcel, Carr, Simington, Starks, and staff of the Wireline Bureau and the Office of Economics and Analytics. It asked the FCC to clarify that current law precludes competitive LEC partners from "tariffing and billing access charges for functions performed by VoIP partners (IPES providers) unless the CLEC partner owns the calling or dialed telephone number,” per an ex parte filing. Lumen asked that "CLEC partners of IPES providers" be required to let interexchange carriers have "direct connection in terminating switched access routing." It also sought an additional question about the commission's CLEC benchmarking rule. Lumen declined to comment.

The draft item also cites concerns from AT&T and Verizon that some LECs have been attempting to evade the commission's rules by using IPES providers instead of the LEC to deliver calls to an end user. AT&T “commends the commission for advancing its [FNPRM], which seeks comment on how to rein in continued access stimulation schemes,” emailed a spokesperson: “We look forward to engaging as we work collaboratively to address this harmful, anti-consumer practice.” Verizon declined to comment.