Inteliquent urges FCC to adapt access stimulation prevention rules

Inteliquent filed an ex parte presentation with the FCC recently in which they proposed rule changes to prevent access stimulation, e.g., domestic traffic pumping. Their suggestions address a new form of access arbitrage that’s been growing lately.

The latest scheme

Inteliquent described an access stimulation scheme in which “access stimulating LECs and high-volume calling platforms are rigging traffic flows in an attempt to divert traffic to the calling platforms’ affiliated private networks.”

Inteliquent recounted a scenario, initially reported by AT&T, where an access-stimulating CLEC increased its traffic by 20 million minutes of use per month—“the equivalent traffic of all of New York City.”

This flood of traffic exceeded trunk capacity. When AT&T asked about these calls, the access-stimulating CLEC suggested that “AT&T should use a higher cost, non-carrier provider of termination service (HD Tandem) to route the traffic to the CLEC.”

What’s the catch? The “non-carrier provider of termination service” is unregulated and therefore not subject to FCC access stimulation rules.

The proposed remedies

To disarm this access stimulation scheme, Inteliquent proposed three remedies:

  1. The FCC should declare that a covered provider has met its call completion obligation when it has delivered the call to the tandem designated by the LEC in the LERG.
  2. The Commission should modify the definition of access stimulation by adding a mileage trigger. If the mileage from the tandem to the end office to the remote terminal is less than ten miles, then the routing isn’t considered access stimulation. If that distance is greater than ten miles, then the current triggers using revenue sharing, 3:1 ratio or 100% growth would be assessed.
  3. If the carrier is engaged in access stimulation per the revised criteria, then the FCC’s proposed options for the access stimulating LEC either to bear the cost of delivery to their end office or accept direct connection from either the IXC or an intermediate access provider of the IXC’s choice. However, Inteliquent proposes that the choice of options should be left to the IXC, not the access stimulating LEC.

Inteliquent wrapped up its proposal with this:

“For efforts to combat access arbitrage to succeed, it is critical that the Commission include in its ruling that a call is deemed complete when it is delivered to the tandem designated by the LEC in the LERG. With that clarification and a minor update to the definition of access stimulation, Inteliquent agrees that implementing the FCC’s two-pronged proposal will go a long way toward combatting harmful access arbitrage.”

Inteliquent proposes 3 ways to combat access stimulation