Traffic pumping , also known as access stimulation , is a controversial practice in which some local exchange telephone operators in rural areas of the United States increase the volume of incoming calls to their networks, and benefit from increase in compensation costs among operators entitled by the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
Beginning in March 2010, traffic pumping is the subject of ongoing legal and regulatory disputes involving AT & amp; T, Google Voice, rural phone operators, and the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC).
Video Traffic pumping
Definisi
Under the mechanism of arranging the 1996 Telecommunications Law, wireless, and remote operators, such as AT & amp; T, Sprint, T-Mobile AS, and Verizon, pay access fees to local exchange operators (LECs) for calls to these carriers' customers. The FCC allows rural operators to charge much higher access fees than operators in urban areas, on the grounds that they have to pay for large fixed infrastructure costs while handling lower call volumes.
To increase the volume of incoming calls to rural areas, and thus the costs obtained, rural operators partner with certain phone service providers to route their calls through rural operators. These services typically include sex and conference call phone providers, who expect a high volume of incoming calls. Specifically, these service providers do not need to establish a physical, local presence for this call routing. As a consequence of these arrangements, rural operators can receive millions of dollars in fees, which they share with service providers.
Payments for long distance calls to small rural phone companies are typically handled through a joint pool, the National Exchange Carrier Association ("NECA"). Individual telecommunication companies are free to opt out of this process. During the first two years, they can charge direct interexchange transport at the rural level initially high five to thirteen cents per minute. After two years, the operator rejoined the NECA pool, providing evidence to support continuing to fill a high rural level or reduce tariffs to a supportable level. A sudden increase in the volume of incoming calls at the same time as the phone company left the NECA pool therefore could represent a two-year favorable for that company.
The numbers used for this service are owned by competitive local exchange operators or independent telephone companies and may be located in rural numbering areas in sparsely populated countries, such as area code 218 in northern Minnesota or area code 712 in western Iowa.
Voice over IP
In 2006, startup companies began offering voice over IP or Internet fax services that were supposedly "free"; this is operated from Iowa or uses local Iowa numbers. One such service, callchinaforfree.com , invites the user to dial a number in the Iowa 641 area code to reach the voice-over-Internet gateway from which calls can be made to China (country code 86) at no charge additional. Others, talkdigits.com , are operated under several names (FreeDigits, TalkDigits, OfficeDigits, FaxDigits, ClickDigits, and SIPnumber) to offer "free US phone numbers" to receive "free incoming calls" and voice messages or "free fax service" with "unlimited incoming fax" which will then be sent out of the region via broadband Internet.
In 2007, calls to China for the price call to rural Iowa no more as AT & amp; T debated millions of dollars in calls. In 2008, a free Iowa bid number for voice calls and incoming Internet fax has also been withdrawn. In 2014, IPKall offers "free" Washington (state) numbers to voice IP customers anywhere on the Internet, but chooses to discontinue service after May 1, 2016.
Maps Traffic pumping
Consequences
End users of traffic-pumped telephone services often do not pay directly for the high costs collected by local operators and rural service providers. Many wireless and landline subscribers now have unlimited long distance plans, and therefore all fees charged for using these services are borne by their remote carriers. Channel-driven vocational conferencing service providers affirm that these long distance carriers are still lucky when their customers are using a service that is being pumped by traffic.
In 2007, AT & T estimates that it will spend an additional $ 250 million to connect the call, and has warned that it may have to raise the price of its subscriber call plan unless the regulator is coping with traffic pumping problems. However, the traffic-pumped conferencing provider claims that AT & amp; T has refused to provide proof of this fee, and that is a way by AT & T to harness its market power to make conference call providers compete out of business.
AT & T and other remote operators in some cases seek to avoid these charges by blocking their customers from calling phone numbers from traffic pumping services. However, the FCC has banned public carriers of this type of selective blocking, and therefore remote operators are essentially obliged to complete this call.
Based on independent studies of 50% of long distance calls originating from wireless networks in the US, calls terminated by operators that meet the traffic pumping profile are estimated to cost $ 95 million annually, representing 11% of all long-distance costs in the study. Expanding to all wireless service providers, the cost is estimated at more than $ 190 million per year.
Role in dispute between AT & amp; T and Google
Google Voice telecommunication services offer services similar to long distance phone calls at no cost, using VoIP to connect users to their calling objectives. To avoid high payment of connection fees to a traffic-pumping operator, Google Voice blocks calls to some of these operators. In 2014, Google Voice no longer blocks calls to these operators, but charges users to reach them (while charging no fee for other calls to US phone numbers).
AT & amp; T has filed an appeal to the FCC to intervene, claiming that Google Voice should be required to connect this call as an ordinary telephone carrier (POTS) is required to do so. Google has responded that its services, and services from VoIP providers such as Skype, differ from traditional POTS traditional operators, and may not be obliged to complete these calls. Google further alleges that AT & T is trying to divert the FCC's attention from concerns about network neutrality, and accuses AT & T of regulating capitalism, in which businesses exploit laws and regulations to withstand competition and slow innovation. Finally, Google urged the FCC to revise the "outdated operator compensation rules" to end the traffic pumping practice.
AT & amp; T wrote to the FCC, stating that blocking Google calls against traffic pumping numbers provides a large cost advantage over traditional carriers. AT & T further states that network neutrality issues are highly relevant, as Google violates its own statement of the principle of non-discrimination, that "providers" can not block fair access' to other providers. "AT & T agrees with Google that the FCC should act to ban traffic pumping schemes in the first place, calling them" blatantly breaking the law ", but requesting that Google be asked to accept the same general operator terms even if they are not closed.
Bipartisan Group US representatives have joined in AT & amp; T, urged the FCC to investigate the practice of Google Voice blocking calls to high-cost local rural exchange operators. Some of these legislators have received significant campaign contributions from AT & P, and represent districts where rural operators benefit from pumping traffic. Sam Gustin of DailyFinance points out that there may be a conflict of interest and political issues of the pork stake involved in the efforts of these legislators.
Legal rule
Country administrative commission rules
The Iowa Utilities Board issued a final order in 2009 in a complaint process brought by Qwest and intervened by AT & amp; T and Sprint Nextel against eight rural phone companies in Iowa. Except for one invention of blocking calls to Sprint, the decision was unfavorable for rural operators, who may have to refund the fees they receive for calls directed to services that are being pumped by traffic by Iowa residents. However, the damage has not been assessed and the Iowa Utilities Board has no jurisdiction over most of the disputed calls - those who are directed to Iowa from callers in other countries - so that the reach of the decision is limited. In addition, the Council has indicated that it is reconsidering its decision and some appeals have been raised challenging the legitimacy of the Council's order, so it has not been final.
The FCC then issued a ruling in 2009 on this case.
Administrative decisions of the Federal Communications Commission
In 1996, AT & amp; T filed a complaint with Section 208 with the FCC against Jefferson Telephone Company, a local local exchange operator (ILEC) based in Iowa, which entered into commercial agreements with a chat-line provider. AT & amp; T alleges that Jefferson violated Article 201 (b) of the Communications Act of 1934 for "gaining direct interest in promoting the sending of calls to certain telephone numbers." AT & T also believes that sharing arrangements with chat providers constitute unreasonable discrimination in violation of Section 202 (a) of the Act, as Jefferson does not share revenues with all of its customers. The FCC rejects both of these arguments and rejects AT & amp; T.
In 2002, the FCC issued two more orders, dismissing similar complaints by AT & T directed at LECs that share access revenues with chat-line providers. In AT & amp; T v. Frontier Communications, the Commission denies allegations by AT & T that "revenue-sharing arrangements" constitute unreasonable discrimination in violation of Article 202 (a) or violation of the obligations of ILECs common operators under Section 201 (b). In AT & amp; T v. Beehive Telephone, FCC once again rejected AT & amp; T against LEC engaged in commercial relationships with online chat providers for the same reason.
The FCC has more recently issued an order in cases involving Iowa operators relating to interstate calls (calls made from countries other than Iowa to Iowa phone numbers). In that order, the FCC stipulates that the Iowa air carrier is not entitled to collect all amounts billed to a long-distance carrier, but it remains eligible for compensation. The exact amount of the payment has not been set by the FCC.
Court decision
Cases are pending in several courts across the country, including federal courts in Iowa, South Dakota, Minnesota, Michigan, Kentucky, and New York. Several courts have recently asked the FCC for additional guidance in determining the exact rate a remote operator must pay for calls directed to traffic-pumped services, calling it a "dynamic flux" regulatory area.
Country law
Some long-distance carriers lobbied South Dakota's legislature to propose laws banning rural phone operators from entering into revenue-sharing agreements with traffic-pumped services. However, the law was defeated.
See also
- Deregulation
- Search for rent
References
External links
- The article contains AT & amp; T to FCC about Google Voice
- Articles containing FCC questions regarding AT & amp; complaints T
- Google's Redacted response to the FCC about AT & amp; complaints T, with some technical details
- The definition of Traffic Pumping on the Federal Communications Commission website
- Iowa Utilities Board Docket Summary FCU-2007-0002
- "# 104 Phantom Caller Case - Reply All by Media Gimlet". gimletmedia.com . Retrieved 2017-09-19 .
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments