dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
3987
share rss forum feed

PX Eliezer70
Premium
join:2008-08-09
Hutt River
kudos:13

3 edits

FCC makes major changes to USF and to VoIP carrier payments

Today the FCC made major changes to the USF, pushing it towards Broadband service.

As part of this, new rules for call transmission and intercarrier compensation will also be coming.

Some excerpts:

Intercarrier Compensation Reform

17. Immediate ICC Reforms. We take immediate action to curtail wasteful arbitrage practices, which cost carriers and ultimately consumers hundreds of millions of dollars annually:

§ Access Stimulation. We adopt rules to address the practice of access stimulation, in which carriers artificially inflate their traffic volumes to increase ICC payments. Our revised interstate access rules generally require competitive carriers and rate-of-
return incumbent local exchange carriers (LECs) to refile their interstate switched access tariffs at lower rates if the following two conditions are met: (1) a LEC has a revenue sharing agreement and (2) the LEC either has (a) a three-to-one ratio of
terminating-to-originating traffic in any month or (b) experiences more than a 100 percent increase in traffic volume in any month measured against the same month during the previous year. These new rules are narrowly tailored to address harmful
practices while avoiding burdens on entities not engaging in access stimulation.

§ Phantom Traffic. We adopt rules to address “phantom traffic,” i.e., calls for which identifying information is missing or masked in ways that frustrate intercarrier billing. Specifically, we require telecommunications carriers and providers of interconnected VoIP service to include the calling party’s telephone number in all
call signaling, and we require intermediate carriers to pass this signaling information, unaltered, to the next provider in a call path.

18. Comprehensive ICC Reform.

We adopt a uniform national bill-and-keep framework
as the ultimate end state for all telecommunications traffic exchanged with a LEC. Under bill-and-keep, carriers look first to their subscribers to cover the costs of the network, then to explicit universal service support where necessary. Bill-and-keep has worked well as a model for the wireless industry; is consistent with and promotes deployment of IP networks; will eliminate competitive distortions between wireline and wireless services; and best promotes our overall goals of modernizing our rules and facilitating the transition to IP. Moreover, we reject the
notion that only the calling party benefits from a call and therefore should bear the entire cost of originating, transporting, and terminating a call. As a result, we now abandon the calling-party-network-pays model that dominated ICC regimes of the last century. Although we adopt bill-and-keep as a national framework, governing both inter- and intrastate traffic, states will have a key role in determining the scope of each carrier’s financial responsibility for purposes of bill-and-keep, and in evaluating interconnection agreements negotiated or arbitrated under the framework in sections 251 and 252 of the Communications Act. We also address concerns expressed by some commenters about potential fears of traffic “dumping” and seek comment in the FNPRM on whether any additional measures are necessary in this regard.

24. Treatment of VoIP Traffic.

We make clear the prospective payment obligations for VoIP traffic exchanged in TDM between a LEC and another carrier, and adopt a transitional framework for VoIP intercarrier compensation. We establish that default charges for “toll” VoIP-
PSTN traffic will be equal to interstate rates applicable to non-VoIP traffic, and default charges for other VoIP-PSTN traffic will be the applicable reciprocal compensation rates. Under this
framework, all carriers originating and terminating VoIP calls will be on equal footing in their ability to obtain compensation for this traffic.

2-page PDF available at:
»hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/a ··· 95A1.pdf

7-page more detailed PDF at:
»transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Release ··· 92A1.pdf


scott2020

join:2008-07-20
MO
I guess that means no more free conference calling services...

hszeto

join:2002-06-05
reply to PX Eliezer70
"Phantom Traffic" rule will take care of IPKall not getting correct CID concern. For example: »Anybody is using ipcomms.net

PX Eliezer70
Premium
join:2008-08-09
Hutt River
kudos:13
reply to scott2020
said by scott2020:

I guess that means no more free conference calling services...

"One thing's for sure: We're all going to be a lot thinner."

— Han Solo, Star Wars, in the garbage smasher.

PX Eliezer70
Premium
join:2008-08-09
Hutt River
kudos:13
reply to hszeto
said by hszeto:

"Phantom Traffic" rule will take care of IPKall not getting correct CID concern.

Right.

But they may not survive at all, with the push to rationalize and standardize the intercarrier compensation.


ArgMeMatey

join:2001-08-09
Milwaukee, WI
kudos:2
Reviews:
·voip.ms
·AT&T Midwest
·Time Warner Cable
reply to PX Eliezer70
said by PX Eliezer70:

Some excerpts:

Phantom Traffic. We adopt rules to address “phantom traffic,” i.e., calls for which identifying information is missing or masked in ways that frustrate intercarrier billing. Specifically, we require telecommunications carriers and providers of interconnected VoIP service to include the calling party’s telephone number in all call signaling, and we require intermediate carriers to pass this signaling information, unaltered, to the next provider in a call path.

What about MF? Are there still MF trunks being used for PSTN traffic? If so will they finally be truly obsolete?
--
USNG:
16TDN2870
Find your USNG coordinates:
USNGWeb

hszeto

join:2002-06-05
reply to PX Eliezer70
i beg to differ as IPKall will actually receive more ICC, and "Access Stimulation" is not likely applicable to International Telcom Ltd. as they should have at least 25% originating traffic as CLEC in Seattle, WA.

Furthermore, Google Voice has opened to everyone for more than a year, users want to use IPKall for Google Voice would have already signed up.

hszeto

join:2002-06-05
reply to ArgMeMatey
I am not sure there is still Multi-Frequency (MF) trunk in used or not, but there were specially formatted MF trunks that pass the calling party's number (ANI) only.

Livadia

join:2007-12-18
Canada
reply to PX Eliezer70
What I find debatable is the following excerpt:

"...Moreover, we reject the notion that only the calling party benefits from a call and therefore should bear the entire cost of originating, transporting, and terminating a call. As a result, we now abandon the calling-party-network-pays model..."

If I receive a call from a friend, it is very likely that I will reciprocate, so that charges to the calling party only will more-or-less balance out. Why should I pay for the unsolicited calls I receive every day? Today I worked from home and I received more that 7-8 calls from telemarketers. Perhaps, that number would have been much lower if the telemarketers were charged per minute/call, something like what they have in Europe. Same applies to the cell phones. One's mis-dial my result in another being charged 35 cents.

Yes, I am in the 'No-Call' list, but there are always loopholes or unscrupulous telemarketers.

nitzan
Premium,VIP
join:2008-02-27
kudos:8
reply to PX Eliezer70
I'm not quite sure these changes are for the better. If they drive rates down- great. But depending on how exactly it is done I can totally see this driving costs UP for small providers and reducing it drastically for large ones. We'll see soon, I guess.

tom thomas

join:2010-11-04
reply to PX Eliezer70
what about outbound only VOIP service? what would be the correct CID?

if i read this correctly it also seems that for example using google voice as a calling card(dialing out from voicemail) under the new rules would require the original number to be the caller ID and not the GV number.

androidfan

join:2011-09-15
said by tom thomas:

if i read this correctly it also seems that for example using google voice as a calling card(dialing out from voicemail) under the new rules would require the original number to be the caller ID and not the GV number.

Your google voice number is the "calling party’s telephone number". If you don't want the number to remain at Google, you can even port it.

tom thomas

join:2010-11-04
said by androidfan:

said by tom thomas:

if i read this correctly it also seems that for example using google voice as a calling card(dialing out from voicemail) under the new rules would require the original number to be the caller ID and not the GV number.

Your google voice number is the "calling party’s telephone number". If you don't want the number to remain at Google, you can even port it.

but the FCC states that 'we require intermediate carriers to pass this signaling information, unaltered, to the next provider in a call path.' certainly if used as a calling card GV would be an 'intermediate' carrier and required to pass on the original number of the cell phone(or other phone) unaltered.

it seems to me that this clearly bans anything that spoofs a caller ID unless perhaps if it is done at the endpoint being used to make the call.

PX Eliezer70
Premium
join:2008-08-09
Hutt River
kudos:13
It's a good point, but there is going to be a LOT of confusion on the ground that will have to be resolved.

androidfan

join:2011-09-15
reply to tom thomas
said by tom thomas:

said by androidfan:

Your google voice number is the "calling party’s telephone number". If you don't want the number to remain at Google, you can even port it.

but the FCC states that 'we require intermediate carriers to pass this signaling information, unaltered, to the next provider in a call path.' certainly if used as a calling card GV would be an 'intermediate' carrier and required to pass on the original number of the cell phone(or other phone) unaltered.

it seems to me that this clearly bans anything that spoofs a caller ID unless perhaps if it is done at the endpoint being used to make the call.

When you make a phone call, isn't the "calling party" you? And isn't the google voice number your number? Then isn't gv showing the "calling party's telephone number" because the you are the calling party, and it's showing your (google voice) phone number?

PX Eliezer70
Premium
join:2008-08-09
Hutt River
kudos:13
Not if it's a forwarded call.

Sam uses his Verizon Wireless cellphone to call Jamal's GoogleVoice number.

Jamal has his GV account set to forward the call to his cousin Pedro's Comcast phone.

In the end, which phone number should display at Pedro's end?

Sam's VZW cellphone number or Jamal's GV number?

At present, it could be EITHER, depending upon a setting in GoogleVoice.

It's not so simple. In fact, there are situations more complex than this.

Modern Family, Modern Foning....

gbh2o

join:2000-12-18
Longs, SC
Reviews:
·Future Nine Corp..
·VOIPO
·callwithus
Gee, does that mean that if my daughter's car were to break down in the middle of rural Iowa, and she had to call AAA from a nearby farmhouse, the "calling party’s telephone number" might have to be _her_ number, not that of the farmer? Or, did I just successfully (?) misinterpret the clear language of the FCC...

It sounds like they really are desperately trying to impose the clunking, old PSTN system on VOIP while incorporating a way to grab the cell phone improvement of charging users at both ends for a call.

Ahhh, the fresh coffee is done, maybe I can de-fog my brain now.

hszeto

join:2002-06-05
"calling party's telephone number" is the telephone number your daughter used in nearby farmhouse in this case.

hszeto

join:2002-06-05
reply to PX Eliezer70
In compliance with this new FCC rule, Google Voice no longer can offer option of sending Google Voice number as CID when forwarding call.

androidfan

join:2011-09-15
reply to hszeto
said by hszeto:

"calling party's telephone number" is the telephone number your daughter used in nearby farmhouse in this case.

According to wikipedia, "calling party" can mean either the person or the device:

"The calling party (also called caller, call originator or A-party) is a person who (or device that) initiates a telephone call"

PX Eliezer70
Premium
join:2008-08-09
Hutt River
kudos:13
said by androidfan:

According to wikipedia, "calling party" can mean either the person or the device...

Yes---for example, a burglar alarm system can initiate a phone call to the alarm center. Or a telemarketer could use an autodialer.

But how does that help us out with the question at hand---such as the example I cited with Sam, Jamal, and Pedro.

hszeto

join:2002-06-05
reply to androidfan
One understands the intention of FCC to address concern from abuse of ICC would understand FCC meant the originating calling device as calling party, not the person making the call.

If FCC makes rule the calling party is a person, then people have no personal telephone number cannot make call!

mazilo
From Mazilo
Premium
join:2002-05-30
Lilburn, GA
kudos:4
reply to androidfan
said by androidfan:

said by hszeto:

"calling party's telephone number" is the telephone number your daughter used in nearby farmhouse in this case.

According to wikipedia, "calling party" can mean either the person or the device:

"The calling party (also called caller, call originator or A-party) is a person who (or device that) initiates a telephone call"

AFAICT, anything on wikipedia is NOT official, but just for informative purposes.
--
don't and stop are the ONLY two 4-letter words considered offensive to men, but not when used together.

gbh2o

join:2000-12-18
Longs, SC
Reviews:
·Future Nine Corp..
·VOIPO
·callwithus
reply to PX Eliezer70
This is fun today...

I just read the front page link to:

»www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/1 ··· +2%29%29

which seems to raise the issue of whether the FCC really can legally do this with VoIP.

Great coffee.

PX Eliezer70
Premium
join:2008-08-09
Hutt River
kudos:13
said by gbh2o:

This is fun today...

I just read the front page link to...

....which seems to raise the issue of whether the FCC really can legally do this with VoIP.

Great coffee.

Interesting, although the reporter seems confused on some points.

In any event----

Fine!

It might be that the FCC cannot say a word if Comcast and MagicJack (both of which have their own CLEC's) exchange their calls.

But ANY call that touches the PSTN is going to be fair game for the FCC, without the slightest doubt.

And even calls that don't touch the PSTN may be fair game if they involve a 3rd-party CLEC.

Yes, it will probably end up in the federal courts.

But even old judges will just take one look at Vonage advertisements, and will laugh away the notion that Vonage isn't a phone provider.


Arne Bolen
Happy Anveo customer
Premium
join:2009-06-21
Cyberspace
kudos:4
Reviews:
·Anveo
·voip.ms
reply to tom thomas
said by tom thomas:

what about outbound only VOIP service? what would be the correct CID?

This will be a problem for VoIP.ms and other providers. Currently it's possible to have a Voip.ms account without any DID.

You can also have a Callcentric account without a DID. On outbound calls the 1777XXXXXXX account number is used as CID, but that number is not a real phone number. Will FCC accept non-real numbers as CID?

This FCC ruling may force providers to require customers purchasing at least one DID.

Also, when a customer have several DIDs, which CID should be used?
--
Tel: iNum +883 5100 XXXX XXXX - Main provider: Anveo - Secondary providers: VoIP.ms, Callcentric, Localphone and Rebtel - PBX: PBXes.org - Hardware: Gigaset S685IP

macman4hire

join:2009-03-30
Port Saint Lucie, FL
reply to PX Eliezer70
Maybe this will boost the adoption rate of iNum users.

josephf

join:2009-04-26
reply to Arne Bolen
I don't see outbound-only service as a problem. There are many such services that work off a website. I doubt they will all shut down.

hszeto

join:2002-06-05
reply to Arne Bolen
Principal of rule, if the rule does not specify for it, there is no rule for it.

PX Eliezer70
Premium
join:2008-08-09
Hutt River
kudos:13
reply to Arne Bolen
said by Arne Bolen:

This will be a problem for VoIP.ms and other providers. Currently it's possible to have a Voip.ms account without any DID.

You can also have a Callcentric account without a DID. On outbound calls the 1777XXXXXXX account number is used as CID....

It turns out that if you have a CallCentric outbound service without a DID, the CID displayed is 1-626-771-0198, a trunk number.

AFAIK, if you do the same with Voip.MS, something similar occurs, such as showing a 720 Denver-type trunk number.

Arne, what occurs with Anveo in such cases?