April 10, 2014 VIA ELECTRONIC FILING

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "April 10, 2014 VIA ELECTRONIC FILING"

Horace Carpenter
5 years ago
Views:

1 Zsuzsanna E. Benedek Associate General Counsel 240 North Third Street, Suite 300 Harrisburg, PA Telephone: Fax: VIA ELECTRONIC FILING April 10, 2014 Rosemary Chiavetta, Secretary Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission Commonwealth Keystone Building 400 North Street, 2 nd Floor Harrisburg, PA Re: Petition of Core Communications, Inc. for an Arbitration of Interconnection Rates, Terms and Conditions with The United Telephone Company of Pennsylvania LLC d/b/a CenturyLink Pennsylvania Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 252(b) Docket No. A F7002 Dear Secretary Chiavetta: The United Telephone Company of Pennsylvania LLC d/b/a CenturyLink ( CenturyLink ) and Core Communications, Inc. ( Core ) have steadfastly worked to develop a conforming interconnection agreement ( ICA ) as a result of the Commission s December 19, 2013 Opinion and Order in the above-referenced matter. Unfortunately, the parties have reached an impasse on three (3) discrete issues and are unable to finalize a conforming ICA. With the joint concurrence of Core, parties hereby request a Commission determination concerning the three unresolved ICA issues. A matrix identifying the unresolved ICA issues is attached hereto, containing summary position statements for each party on each unresolved issue. The three unresolved ICA issues are separate from and in addition to the TELRIC pricing issue which was raised by Core in its January 3, 2014 Petition for Clarification and which is still awaiting Commission resolution. The Parties respectfully propose the following schedule for submission of additional pleadings regarding the three unresolved ICA issues: 4/22/14 - CenturyLink and Core file Briefs on Unresolved ICA Issues 4/30/14 - CenturyLink and Core file Reply Briefs on Unresolved ICA Issues

4 Core/CenturyLink Arbitration Docket No. A F70002 Unresolved Conforming ICA Issues Matrix (Dated April 10, 2014) Issue No. 1 Definition Of Section 251(b)(5) Traffic: Scope Of VNXX Traffic To Be Included. CenturyLink s proposed language: Section 251(b)(5) Traffic, for purposes of this agreement, means telecommunications traffic which falls within the scope of 47 CFR (b)(1) or (b)(3), and is subject to a reciprocal compensation arrangement under 47 CFR (e), including Local Traffic, Local VoIP PSTN Traffic, and ISP Bound Traffic, which also for purposes of this Agreement shall include ISP Bound Traffic which is VNXX Traffic, as such types of traffic are defined herein. CenturyLink s Position: The PUC only addressed VNXX enabled ISP Bound Traffic in its Order, and the definition of Section 251(b)(5) Traffic should similarly only refer to VNXX Traffic in the context of ISP Bound Traffic. The Commission s Order is consistent with the arguments of both Parties in the arbitration which were fundamentally concerned with such VNXX enabled ISP Bound Traffic. The PUC did not order that VNXX Traffic (other than VNXX enabled ISP Bound Traffic) must be exchanged on a Bill and Keep basis, and there was no determination by the PUC that it would have authority to make such a determination. It would be erroneous, along with arbitrary and capricious, for the PUC at this juncture to find that it had the jurisdiction to require Bill and Keep for VNXX Traffic that is not ISP Bound Traffic. Such traffic is generally 1 Core s proposed language: Section 251(b)(5) Traffic, for purposes of this agreement, means telecommunications traffic which falls within the scope of 47 CFR (b)(1) or (b)(3), and is subject to a reciprocal compensation arrangement under 47 CFR (e), including Local Traffic, Local VoIP PSTN Traffic, and ISP Bound Traffic, and VNXX Traffic. which also for purposes of this Agreement shall include ISP Bound Traffic which is VNXX Traffic, as such types of traffic are defined herein. Core s Position: The parties agree that all Section 251(b)(5) Traffic should be subject to bill and keep. However, the parties disagree as to the appropriate definition of Section 251(b)(5) Traffic which will determine the scope of traffic that is subject to bill and keep. Core s position is that CenturyLink s proposal would create an unwarranted distinction between ISP Bound VNXX Traffic and other, unidentified but presumably voice, VNXX traffic. The issue of VNXX traffic generally (not limited to ISP bound) was raised in the course of the proceedings before the Commission, the Commission understood that it was raised (see, e.gs. Commission s December 19, 2013 Order, at 63 4), and the Commission s order that VNXX traffic be included within the definition of Section 251(b)(5) Traffic and subject to a bill and keep reciprocal compensation arrangement, Order, at 72 77, should and does apply to VNXX traffic generally. Nor is there any policy basis for

5 2 Definition Of Section 251(b)(5) Traffic: Scope Of VoIP PSTN CMRS Traffic To Be Included. locally dialed voice traffic which is interstate or international nature (e.g. LECs utilizing their local NPA NXXs to facilitate locally dialed calling card platform traffic, which the FCC has already ruled is interexchange traffic and subject to switched access charges). The characteristics of a VNXX arrangement for purposes other than VNXX enabled ISP Bound Traffic, including the physical end points of the traffic and whether it was a voice call or some other type of service, would have to be examined to determine the jurisdiction and intercarrier compensation applicable to such traffic (e.g., as in the case of calling card platform traffic or ISP bound traffic). CenturyLink s proposed language continuation of the definition of Section 251(b)(5) Traffic: Section 251(b)(5) Traffic also includes traffic that would otherwise fall within the scope of 47 CFR (b)(2) but which is Local VoIP PSTN Traffic. CenturyLink Position: Issue #2 pertains to the second sentence of the definition of Section 251(b)(5) Traffic, which involves traffic originated from a CMRS handset. The Parties both agree that some traffic which is originated from a CMRS handset may be VoIP PSTN Traffic, but the Parties disagree on whether the definition of Section 251(b)(5) Traffic should include both Local VoIP PSTN Traffic and Toll VoIP PSTN Traffic which originates from a CMRS handset. Section 251(b)(5)Traffic is subject to a Bill and Keep arrangement under the ICA, and consequently it is important for the definition of Section 251(b)(5) Traffic to include only traffic that is appropriate to exchange under such a Bill &Keep compensation arrangement. The terms of the ICA which address VoIP PSTN Traffic that were approved in the PUC s Order distinguish between Local VoIP PSTN Traffic 2 the Commission to come to a different conclusion for voice VNXX traffic than it did with respect to ISP bound VNXX traffic, given that the FCC s 2011 CAF Order puts all terminating traffic on a path to bill and keep by Anticipating renewed cries of regulatory arbitrage, Core states that there can be no terminating arbitrage when the terminating carrier collects nothing for terminating functions. Core states that the adoption of its position on this issue would expand the class of traffic subject to bill and keep. Core s proposed language continuation of the definition of Section 251(b)(5) Traffic: Section 251(b)(5) Traffic also includes traffic that would otherwise fall within the scope of 47 CFR (b)(2) but which is Local VoIP PSTN Traffic. Core s Position: As reflected in the redlined ICA Core submitted to the Commission with its 2006 Petition in this case and subsequent filings, which the Commission considered and ruled upon, Core proposed a definition of Section 251(b)(5) Traffic which includes telecommunications traffic exchanged by a LEC and a CMRS provider that originates and terminates within the same Major Trading Area i.e., intra MTA CMRS traffic. Core s current proposal incorporates intra MTA CMRS traffic by reference to the current version of the applicable FCC rule definition (post CAF Order), codified at 47 C.F.R (b)(2). As a wholesale VOIP traffic carrier, Core anticipates that there may be some VOIP PSTN traffic that originates on CMRS handsets, and which a VOIP provider may contract with Core to transmit to and from the PSTN. Given the FCC s and the Commission s approval of CLECs offering wholesale VOIP termination and origination, it seems reasonable

6 and Toll VoIP PSTN Traffic. The Parties have agreed that the first sentence of the definition of Section 251(b)(5) Traffic should include Local VoIP PSTN Traffic, but the definition does not include Toll VoIP PSTN Traffic, which is subject to switched access charges. Core s proposal to use the term VoIP PSTN Traffic in this second sentence of the definition, instead of the term Local VoIP PSTN Traffic, would make this second part of the definition much broader for traffic originated from a CMRS handset than for traffic originated by a wireline end user. This is because the term VoIP PSTN Traffic is itself a defined term which encompasses both Local VoIP PSTN Traffic and Toll VoIP PSTN Traffic. As a result, Core s proposed language would result in different treatment for Toll VoIP PSTN Traffic originated by a wireline end user which is covered by the first sentence of the definition of Section 251(b)(5) Traffic (the text of this first sentence of the definition can be seen in Issue #1 above) and the treatment of Toll VoIP PSTN Traffic which is originated by a CMRS handset (which is the subject of this Issue #2 involving the second sentence of the definition of Section 251(b)(5) Traffic). that such traffic may be delivered over the interconnection arrangements contemplated in the ICA. And when it is, Core s position is the intra MTA local calling rule for CMRS traffic, and not the more restrictive wireline local calling areas, should apply. CenturyLink s proposal would limit the scope of billand keep to VOIP CMRS traffic that is local by wireline standards. This greatly restricts the scope of the bill and keep regime. Core states that the adoption of its position on this issue would expand the class of traffic subject to bill and keep. Anticipating technical concerns with identifying and rating CMRS traffic as distinct from wireline traffic, Core s position is that such concerns can be overcome by use of special trunking arrangements and optional SS7 signaling parameters, such as the Jurisdiction Information Parameter, or JIP. As noted above, Core s proposed inclusion of Toll VoIP PSTN Traffic within the second sentence of the definition of Section 251(b)(5) Traffic (i.e., by virtue of using the broader term VoIP PSTN Traffic ) would result in Bill and Keep treatment for all of such Toll VoIP PSTN Traffic which is originated from a CMRS handset and it also IntraMTA. Core s proposed language also fails to take into account the differences between CMRS traffic and wireline traffic that have historically necessitated the use of entirely separate ICAs for such different types of traffic. Because CLEC and CMRS traffic have different boundaries for determining the jurisdiction of the calls (i.e. local calling areas versus MTAs), and 3

7 3 Pricing Of Facilities Used In Transmission Of Toll VoIP PSTN Traffic. since CMRS traffic is mobile and consists, in part, of InterMTA traffic that has roamed outside of the MTA (which can only be determined by the CMRS providers), such traffic has been handled under separate ICAs that address such issues, and the trunking requirements for exchanging such traffic. The PUC s Order did not substantively or explicitly address CMRS traffic (including both IntraMTA and InterMTA traffic) and the Order did not make any determination that Toll VoIP PSTN Traffic, which is originated from a CMRS handset, must be exchanged on a Bill and Keep basis, whether using the local calling area or using MTA boundaries to define what is local (or disregarding both boundaries as Core s proposed language would do). CenturyLink s proposed language: 55.9.b.2 The facilities, or portion thereof, leased by CLEC from CenturyLink which are used to exchange Toll VoIP PSTN Traffic shall be subject to access tariff rates. The Parties agree to implement a factor to represent such Toll VoIP PSTN Traffic usage, if needed b.3 Any factors established by the Parties under Section 59.9(b)(2) shall be based on the particular characteristics of the traffic exchanged within the State between CLEC and CenturyLink and shall not be subject to adoption by anyone not a Party to this Agreement, or apply to any other service areas. CenturyLink s Position: Section 55.9.b.2 consists of language included in the VoIP PSTN Traffic provisions that were proposed by CenturyLink, which is the language that was adopted by the Order. 4 Core s proposed language: 55.9.b.2 The facilities, or portion thereof, leased by CLEC from CenturyLink which are used to exchange Toll VoIP PSTN Traffic shall be subject to access tariff rates. The Parties agree to implement a factor to represent such Toll VoIP PSTN Traffic usage, if needed b.3 Any factors established by the Parties under Section 59.9(b)(2) shall be based on the particular characteristics of the traffic exchanged within the State between CLEC and CenturyLink and shall not be subject to adoption by anyone not a Party to this Agreement, or apply to any other service areas. Core s Position: Core s position is that cost based TELRIC rates apply to all CenturyLink Section 251(c)(2) Interconnection Facilities that carry some percentage of Toll VOIP PSTN Traffic, consistent with the FCC s ruling that a carrier that otherwise has a section 251(c)(2) interconnection

8 The language of 55.9.b.2 is based upon and supported by the FCC in its clarification of the Connect America Fund order that was issued on February 3, 2013 at 22 which states the following (footnotes omitted): 22. Prospective Treatment of VoIP Traffic. In the USF/ICC Transformation Order, the Commission addressed the prospective treatment of VoIP PSTN traffic by adopting a transitional compensation framework for such traffic. [FN omitted.] In so doing, the Commission adopted the transitional rules specifying the default compensation for VoIP PSTNtraffic. [FN omitted.] With regard to toll traffic (interstate and intrastate calls), the Commission adopted rules specifying that the default charges for toll VoIP PSTN traffic will be equal to interstate access rates applicable to non VoIP traffic, both in terms of the rate level and rate structure. We clarify that the prospective VoIP PSTN framework applies to the interstate rate as well as the interstate structure, including both per minute (usage sensitive) and flatrated (dedicated) charges. Core has not claimed to be exchanging any Toll VoIP PSTN Traffic at this time, and CenturyLink offered to use a Percent VoIP Factor ( PVU ) of zero to reflect this fact, which could only be changed in the future by mutual negotiation. The Parties also exchanged some redlines to 55.9.b.2 in an effort to find a compromise, but Core would not agree to inclusion of the PVU language in the ICA or a PVU factor of zero in Table 1. Accordingly, CenturyLink has offered, and continues to offer, the original language at Section 55.9.b.2 and 55.9.b.3 that was adopted by the Order. arrangement with an incumbent LEC is free to deliver toll VoIP PSTN traffic through that arrangement with the caveat that section 251(c)(2) interconnection arrangements may not be used solely for the transmission of interexchange traffic because such arrangements are for the exchange of telephone exchange service or exchange access traffic and interexchange traffic is neither CAF Order, at 972. The FCC clarified that, as long as an interconnecting carrier is using the section 251(c)(2) interconnection arrangement to exchange some telephone exchange service and/or exchange access traffic, section 251(c)(2) does not preclude that carrier from relying on that same functionality to exchange other traffic with the incumbent LEC, as well. Id. Accordingly, Core opposes CenturyLink s proposal to identify some portion of the Section 251(c)(2) Interconnection Facilities which is used for Toll VOIP PSTN Traffic, and subject that portion to CenturyLink s interstate access dedicated facility rates, generally much higher than TELRIC. Anticipating argument based on language from the FCC s February 3, 2012 Reconsideration Order [w]e clarify that the prospective VoIP PSTN framework applies to the interstate rate as well as the interstate structure, including both per minute (usage sensitive) and flatrated (dedicated) charges Core s position is that this clarification applies to 944 of the CAF Order, which has nothing to do with the use of Section 251(c)(2) Interconnection Facilities to deliver Toll VOIP PSTN Traffic. 5

May 17, Vikie Bailey-Goggins Oregon Public Utility Commission 550 Capitol St., NE Suite 215 Salem, OR Re: IC. Dear Ms.

May 17, Vikie Bailey-Goggins Oregon Public Utility Commission 550 Capitol St., NE Suite 215 Salem, OR Re: IC. Dear Ms. Qwest 421 Southwest Oak Street Suite 810 Portland, Oregon 97204 Telephone: 503-242-5420 Facsimile: 503-242-8589 e-mail: carla.butler@qwest.com Carla M. Butler Lead Paralegal May 17, 2010 Vikie Bailey-Goggins