<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:x="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:excel" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoAcetate, li.MsoAcetate, div.MsoAcetate
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:8.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.BalloonTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Balloon Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text";
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>I know the capacity issue has been mentioned as a “reason” that IXCs haven’t been “able” to terminate calls, but from my (limited) knowledge that has not been the case in our state – it’s always been traced back to LCR issues or the carrier refusing to terminate an expensive call.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>In regards to GV, I suspect that Google will make the same argument that they are not a carrier but an application provider and aren’t held to the same standard (<a href="http://www.marketingpilgrim.com/2009/10/fcc-eyes-google-voices-rural-call-blocking.html">http://www.marketingpilgrim.com/2009/10/fcc-eyes-google-voices-rural-call-blocking.html</a>). <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Regards,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Frank<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> voiceops-bounces@voiceops.org [mailto:voiceops-bounces@voiceops.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Scott Berkman<br><b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, February 07, 2012 7:20 PM<br><b>To:</b> 'Carlos Alvarez'; VoiceOps@voiceops.org<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [VoiceOps] FCC issues Declaratory Ruling on Call Termination<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>+1 on Carlos’ note about the free services that are the underlying cause for this issue. They put the services in these locations on purpose knowing full well that the low costs they were paying for termination meant higher costs on the other side. As those services grew, there were obvious consequences to the capacity the IXC’s had into those areas.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>As I was once told by someone at a major carrier that may or may not have been mentioned by name in the OP, at some point when the call volumes to a certain area are exponentially larger than what they should be based on the actual population or even population growth expectations, it doesn’t make sense to build out the needed capacity to serve that growing volume of calls if there are no paying end users to help cover the costs.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>I find it “interesting” that not only did the FCC ignore the underlying cause of these issues in the ruling, but it seems they have basically now given the free conference and similar service providers the go ahead to keep doing what they are doing without consequence, knowing the FCC has their back.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>As far as GV, they are not a “carrier” in the traditional sense because they don’t operate as a CLEC or IXC in any way that I have seen yet. For inbound, all their TNs (at least the ones I have checked) are ported to either Level 3 or Bandwidth.com, which basically just makes them a big VoIP customer of the big carriers. Outbound is a little harder to trace, but in all likelihood they mainly use the same carriers, perhaps some others as well, so for their customers (or is it users for a free service?) to stop having issues the IXC’s they use will have to upgrade their trunking capacities into the affected “rural” areas.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'> -Scott<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> <a href="mailto:voiceops-bounces@voiceops.org">voiceops-bounces@voiceops.org</a> <a href="mailto:[mailto:voiceops-bounces@voiceops.org]">[mailto:voiceops-bounces@voiceops.org]</a> <b>On Behalf Of </b>Carlos Alvarez<br><b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, February 07, 2012 11:58 AM<br><b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:VoiceOps@voiceops.org">VoiceOps@voiceops.org</a><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [VoiceOps] FCC issues Declaratory Ruling on Call Termination<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>I'm optimistic about this, though not knowledgeable enough to know the full legal implications. But it does seem like GV/L3/others will be forced to change their ways. Though maybe not GV, are they even considered a "carrier?"<o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>I wonder what will happen to those "free" fax and conference call providers who caused the problem to start with? Can the locals refuse service to them? Will the FCC look at their practices independently?<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 9:13 PM, Frank Bulk <<a href="mailto:frnkblk@iname.com">frnkblk@iname.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'>The FCC issued a Declaratory Ruling today in regards to call termination. The ruling prevents originating carriers from passing the buck to LCR, puts responsibility on them if they are aware of degraded service, and attaches some stiff fines.<br><br>It would seem to me that this would prevent Google Voice and others, such as Level3, from not terminating to certain (more expensive) NPA/NXXes.<br><span style='color:#888888'><br>Frank<br></span><br>_______________________________________________<br>VoiceOps mailing list<br><a href="mailto:VoiceOps@voiceops.org">VoiceOps@voiceops.org</a><br><a href="https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops" target="_blank">https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops</a><o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><br><br clear=all><o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal>-- <o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>Carlos Alvarez<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>TelEvolve<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>602-889-3003<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></div></body></html>