Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Www.interconnectionservices.com SBT Spring 2003 March 11, 2003 Page 1.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Www.interconnectionservices.com SBT Spring 2003 March 11, 2003 Page 1."— Presentation transcript:

1 SBT Spring 2003 March 11, 2003 Page 1

2 SBT Spring 2003 March 11, 2003 Page 2 Presented by Vic Jackson Update on the Battle for Interconnection Mountain Comm vs the FCC

3 SBT Spring 2003 March 11, 2003 Page 3 Background Mountain Communications vs the FCC  Mountain filed a Petition for Review  Petition filed at US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, 8/12/02  FCC Decision was Arbitrary and Capricious, FCC Order was unlawful Petitioner: Mountain Communications, Inc., Pueblo, Colorado Business: Paging Carrier interconnected with Qwest (formerly US West) Additional Locations: Colorado Springs, Walsenburg, Colorado Type 1 Interconnection.

4 SBT Spring 2003 March 11, 2003 Page 4 The Issues Qwest has billed Mountain for:  “Dedicated Toll Facilities”  “Transit” facilities The “Dedicated Toll Facilities” connect number blocks in one city to Mountain’s paging switch in another city.  Mountain contends this is a single point of interconnection in a LATA not a “Wide Area Calling Service”. The “Transit” charges are for the facilities used to deliver non-local calls from carriers other than Qwest.  Mountain contends Qwest is paid by the originating carriers for the facilities used by Qwest to deliver calls to Mountain.

5 SBT Spring 2003 March 11, 2003 Page 5 History of FCC Complaint Mountain filed a Complaint at the FCC. Mountain and Qwest presented Briefs on the Issues. FCC issued an Order  Qwest transit charges were valid per prior Texcom Order  Qwest could charge for “dedicated toll facilities” Mountain asked for a Review of the Order FCC issued an Order on Review  The FCC re-affirmed their first Order

6 SBT Spring 2003 March 11, 2003 Page 6 Court of Appeals Arguments A Federal District Court in Montana ruled that LATA calls are local. The Iowa Utilities Board ruled that LATA calls are local. The FCC themselves said carriers are entitled to a single point of Interconnection in a LATA. (8 days prior to Mountain Order on Review) FCC rules do not distinguish between Type 1 or Type 2 interconnection or between one way paging and two way cellular, except for compensation due for terminating calls.

7 SBT Spring 2003 March 11, 2003 Page 7 Court of Appeals Arguments (Continued) The FCC’s citation to its own Local Competition Order is not a valid citation. i.e. the citation makes no mention of land to mobile calling or “transit” traffic. The FCC’ Orders instruct paging carriers to recover costs of terminating calls from unknown carriers without specifying a means to do it.

8 SBT Spring 2003 March 11, 2003 Page 8 Current Court of Appeals Status Initial Briefs are due April 18. Mountain and the FCC will make their arguments on the legal issues to the Court of Appeals. The Court will then either make a decision to remand the issues back to the FCC or take other action as appropriate.

9 SBT Spring 2003 March 11, 2003 Page 9 Implications For All Wireless Carriers The FCC’s Mountain Orders are affecting all CMRS carriers. The LEC’s are changing their interconnection agreements to reflect:  Charges for Facilities used to deliver call traffic outside the LEC’s state authorized local calling area.  Charges for transit traffic facilities.  Anything else they think they can get away with!!

10 SBT Spring 2003 March 11, 2003 Page 10 Other Issues of Interest to CMRS Carriers Including Paging JSM Tele-Page Complaint in Wisconsin: Can a Paging carrier use a cellular interconnection agreement? Can a CMRS carrier adopt an agreement from another state? Proposed 252(i) changes. Adoption of Agreements or provisions.  FCC Order on UNE pricing mentioned changes to Adoption rules. Number Portability (11/24/2003 for wireless carriers)  Rate Center issue with CMRS to Landline Porting Thousands Block Number Pooling (Now in effect) Bill and Keep (no compensation for termination of calls). Elimination of Line Sharing requirement by ILEC’s.

11 SBT Spring 2003 March 11, 2003 Page 11 JSM Complaint Status JSM Tele-Page Complaint in Wisconsin: Can a Paging carrier use a cellular interconnection agreement? Can a CMRS carrier adopt an agreement from another state? Answer: Apparently yes. Currently, JSM is “negotiating” with SBC to “adopt” a Cellular agreement in Wisconsin.

12 SBT Spring 2003 March 11, 2003 Page 12 Last Words Mountain Communications needs your help in its fight with the FCC.  Money Support Whatever! The Bells are trying to eliminate their competition in the local markets. The FCC is on a deregulation path that will allow the Bells to squash the competition including Small Telecommunications companies. Beware or Rejoice: A New Era in Telecommunications is Evolving. And YOU are there!.

13 SBT Spring 2003 March 11, 2003 Page 13 Presented by Vic Jackson


Download ppt "Www.interconnectionservices.com SBT Spring 2003 March 11, 2003 Page 1."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google