Wireline woes are wireless win
Schwaninger, MRT’s regulatory consultant, is the principal in the law firm of Schwaninger & Associates, Washington. He is general counsel to Small Business in Telecommunications and a member of the Radio Club of America.
For years, you on the wireless side of the house have begrudgingly paid for telco interconnection for one-way and two-way service. The cost for direct inward dialing (DID) trunks was “so much per month,” and you paid it. Numeric identification (NXX) codes were “so much per bushel,” and you paid it. When you stretched your needs beyond the local access and transport area (LATA) boundaries, you knew that the local exchange carrier (LEC) was going to stick it to you. Heck, some operators paid the freight to install microwave systems just to avoid toll charges.
Then, in November 1996, Congress decided that the world needed a little competition in the marketplace among local exchange carriers, and wouldn’t it be just nifty to revise the rights and duties of all carriers so that rates would be charged in a non-discriminatory manner? So, Sections 251 and 252 of the Communications Act were borne down like the twin barrels of a legislative shotgun, blowing away the old paradigm and leveling the field between wireless and wireline carriers.
In sum, the newer sections of the act said: 1. The wireline companies have to deal, not dictate. 2. The deal has to involve interconnection at terms and rates equivalent to the deal the LEC gives itself. 3. The LEC has to pay carriers for termination of the LEC’s traffic. 4. If the LEC doesn’t do what it is supposed to, it is subject to binding arbitration.
No longer are paging companies and other commercial mobile radio services (CMRSs) supposed to swallow whatever the wireline companies deign to give them. Instead, they get to engage in (ta-da!) an arms-length negotiation for what they will pay the wireline company and what the wireline company will pay them.
The fight from the LECs The LECs have not quietly accepted their new responsibilities. I estimate that at least 30 high-powered lobbyists have lost their jobs because they let this one get through Congress. Then, when the FCC adopted rules that confirmed the wireline companies’ duties, a second wave of lobbyists hit the unemployment line.
When you run out of lobbyists (and if the 7-Eleven is closed), you go down to the basement and unchain the lawyers. The LECs did just that, and then they proceeded to protest the new paradigm before federal judges throughout the land. Every one of the judges was thorough, polite and looked really dignified when they pronounced judgment on the LECs, which can be summed up as “Suck it up. You lose.”
Small Business in Telecommunications (SBT) and other trade associations filed comments with the FCC that said, in essence, “Tell the LECs to take a hike.” The FCC listened. The FCC stayed the course and told the wireline companies “The law is the law, and times have changed. Now, go engage in fair dealing.”
So, here we are. The wireline companies have run out of places to complain. Even the U.S. Supreme Court blew them away in a recent case. The legal table is set. Now it’s time for wireless service providers to cut a better deal with the wireline companies.
What’s in it for me? First, wireless providers can demand a refund of all charges, paid to the wireline companies, that should not have been levied or paid since the adoption of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Depending on the size of the business, and whether it offers paging, this amount could be substantial.
Second, wireless providers can get cost-free service in the future for many features of interconnection. DID trunks and other “facilities” that route traffic to their terminals are deemed to be the responsibility of the wireline company, in many cases.
Third, wireless providers can request compensation for termination of the LEC’s traffic into their system. How much compensation is subject to negotiation. Finally, if the LEC won’t deal in accordance with the law, Sections 251 and 252 of the Communications Act give wireless providers the right to seek arbitration, first before the state commission and then, if that isn’t working, before the FCC. Given the FCC’s well-articulated attitude about this subject, the deck appears to be stacked in the favor of wireless. That is, the FCC is willing to enforce equitable dealings among carriers.
How do I do this? Unless you’ve made the labyrinth of wireline interconnection and the vernacular associated with it a hobby (and if so, get a life!), then I suggest that you seek assistance from people with a strong background in this area. The subtleties of dealing with both federal law and wireline infrastructure can be quite daunting, even for the most conscientious person. By the time you figure out that “IXC status does not apply to receipt of DTMF (which may be converted to SS7 in the future) for the purpose of negotiating with the ILEC or the CLEC, regardless of whether virtual or true co-location will occur before or after the tandem switch,” your kids’ kids will be filing for Social Security.
A number of associated actions exist outside the negotiations that you will need to complete to cover your future interconnection issues, including interacting with really fun groups like the North American Numbering Plan (NANP) folks. My office is on the circulation list of this group, and the stuff that comes from them reads like the Japanese instructions for accessing the Universal Licensing System.
But, contact them you must. If not, you’re leaving bucks in the pocket of the wireline carrier and running your business as though Congress had not given you this wonderful edge in future relations with the LEC. Show your gratitude to Congress-make the deal.
For my part, I’ve hooked up with Vic Jackson of Vic Jackson Interconnection Services. Vic’s a great guy, and between us we’re having fun with the LECs on behalf of my clients. He’s even helped draft a Request for Declaratory Ruling that SBT has filed with the commission to assist in arriving at a better definition of “local calling area” for wireless carriers. We’ve become an “S.O.B.32” interconnection team that demands fairness from the LECs for wireless companies.
Every now and again, Congress and the FCC do the right thing. When they do, it is up to all of us to doff our collective hats and to congratulate government on its efforts.
Way to go, Chairman Kennard. If the playing field were always this level, the problems for many would be greatly reduced.
