CRTC calls out Iristel, but says no new regs in traffic stimulation case

In separate decisions on Wednesday, the CRTC ordered Iristel Inc. to cease the use of 867 area code numbers to connect callers to a Toronto-area radio station audio stream, but deemed BCE Inc.’s request for new regulations covering the practice of traffic stimulation unnecessary. In a Part 1 application filed last November, Rogers Communications Inc. said Iristel was engaging in “traffic stimulation,” which it defined as “a mechanism for local exchange carriers to profit from increasing the volume of incoming traffic for termination of their local exchange network.” Using a service from Alpine Audio Now LLC, a Toronto-area radio station pointed people toward 867 area code numbers (in use in the three Northern territories) owned by Iristel to connect them to an audio feed of the station, according to the original application. In its filing, Rogers claimed that people used its unlimited Canada-wide calling to rack up a ton of connected minutes to the service. Rogers said that “it had a customer that spent 37,212 minutes on the telephone out of a possible 43,200 minutes in January 2017. The company also noted apparent simultaneous calling to more than one AudioNow number; for example, one customer generated 1,288 minutes of calling time during a period of 840 minutes.” Iristel, in previous filings, said accusations of traffic stimulation were “false speculation.” Various telecoms submitted interventions that supported Rogers’ case against Iristel. Under CRTC rules, companies must compensate each other if incoming phone traffic to one company from a second company is higher than its outgoing traffic to the second company. The amount of compensation is determined in part by the regulator’s traffic termination rates. Rogers noted in its application that the Northwest Territories has some of the highest traffic termination rates in the country. While Iristel did not directly benefit when someone called the AudioNow lines, they had a corporate customer called Free Conference Call Global LLC (FCCG), which had a customer in another company, Yakfree LLC, according to the decision. Yakree provided the 867 numbers, through FCCG, to AudioNow to use as the call-in number for its service. Iristel has a revenue-sharing agreement with FCCG based on the number of calls sent through the service, the decision said. Iristel CEO Samer Bishay said it’s evident that revenue-sharing could be considered a problem by the CRTC and cautions this might not be the last time the issue crops up due to agnostic nature of managing telephony infrastructure. “ as a conduit, we're just supplying a pipe,” said Bishay in a phone call. “What happens on that pipe after is impossible to anticipate.” Iristel now must “terminate any agreement that assigns FCCG any 867 NPA numbers that are ultimately used by AudioNow, and not re-enter into provisions of such agreement with FCCG or any of its affiliates,” according to the decision. It has 30 days to provide evidence those steps have been taken. Despite being told to stop the practise, Iristel was not found to be “necessarily aware of the situation when it entered into the applicable revenue-sharing arrangement” with FCCG, the CRTC said. The CRTC deemed there was no reason for Iristel to repay Rogers the costs of the calls or face any administrative monetary penalties. Though, it cautioned that could change should Iristel not follow the above order. Nor did the commission choose to modify Iristel’s termination rate for accepting calls in its supported areas. The regulator also reiterated its position forbearing regulating toll connections so competition would be the determining factor for rates. In a separate decision, it chose not proceed with any further regulation covering the practice of traffic stimulation, as requested by Bell. Bishay told the Wire Report that Iristel supported the idea of a framework to remove the case-by-case ambiguity from future revenue-sharing situations like these. In giving its reasoning, the CRTC indicated it stood by a 2010 decision which created a system that would adapt payments during traffic imbalances. As well, it pointed to the fact that no other evidence was presented by interveners beyond the case involving Iristel. The CRTC concluded that “there is nothing to suggest that traffic stimulation is affecting local network interconnection and traffic imbalance compensation payments such that additional regulation related to the local network interconnection regime is needed.” Bell, while hoping for a more comprehensive solution to the issue of traffic stimulation, was “pleased that the CRTC did take action on the specific behaviour of Iristel in ordering them to end their activities,” said Bell spokesman Marc Choma in an email. — With reporting by Bryson Masse at bmasse@thewirereport.ca and editing by Anja Karadeglija at akarad@thewirereport.ca

CRTC calls out Iristel, but says no new regs in traffic stimulation case

News | December 20, 2017

Unlock all the Canadian telecom, broadcasting and digital media news you need.

FREE TRIAL

SUBSCRIBE

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us

CRTC calls out Iristel, but says no new regs in traffic stimulation case

News | December 20, 2017

Unlock all the Canadian telecom, broadcasting and digital media news you need.

FREE TRIAL

SUBSCRIBE

Related Stories

Telus’ arguments for incumbent access to wholesale regime not supported by competitors

CRTC finalizes terms of Uvagut TV distribution

Bell won’t participate in subsidized broadband projects if wholesale access for Big Three continues, signs agreement with CNOC

CRTC announces changes to Broadband Fund

Reuse & Permissions

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us