(b) Positions of the Parties Core submits that it has continually advocated a definition of Section 251(b)(5) traffic which includes telecommunications traffic exchanged between a LEC and a CMRS provider that originates and terminates in the same MTA. In its provision of wholesale services to VoIP carriers, Core envisions scenarios in which a VoIP provider may contract with it to transmit traffic originating with CMRS providers to and from the PSTN. Under such scenarios, Core argues that bill and keep compensation should apply when such VoIP-CMRS traffic is intraMTA in nature. Core asserts that the classification of VoIP-CMRS traffic as local, and therefore subject to bill and keep compensation under Section 251(b)(5), should be based upon whether a VoIP-CMRS call originates and terminates within the broader MTA, and not the narrower wireline local calling area advocated by CTL. Core 2014 M.B. at 6-9. Core points out that Section 1.74 of the proposed ICA VoIP-PSTN as Parties’ defines “Local Traffic” “VoIP-PSTN traffic that physically originates and terminates within the CenturyLink local calling In view, adoption of position, and use of the term area.” Core’s CTL’s “Local in its proposed definition, would greatly, and wrongly, restrict the scope Traffic” of the bill and keep compensation regime to VoIP-CMRS traffic that is local by wireline standards. at 9-11 Id. Core argues that its own position is consistent with the USF/ICC because it differentiates between local calling for VoIP-CMRS Transformation Order traffic and for wireline VoIP traffic. Core submits that CMRS traffic is codified in the under the definition of Non-Access USF/ICC Transformation Order FCC’s Telecommunications Traffic at 47 C.F.R § 51.701(b). Specifically, Core notes that under 47 C.F.R. § 51.701(b)(2), Non-Access Telecommunications Traffic is defined to include traffic exchanged between a LEC and a CMRS provider that, at “[t]elecommunications the beginning of the call, originates and terminates within the same Major Trading Area.”
(b) Positions of the Parties Core submits that it has continually advocated a definition of Section 251(b)(5) traffic which includes telecommunications traffic exchanged between a LEC and a CMRS provider that originates and terminates in the same MTA. In its provision of wholesale services to VoIP carriers, Core envisions scenarios in which a VoIP provider may contract with it to transmit traffic originating with CMRS providers to and from the PSTN. Under such scenarios, Core argues that bill and keep compensation should apply when such VoIP-CMRS traffic is intraMTA in nature. Core asserts that the classification of VoIP-CMRS traffic as local, and therefore subject to bill and keep compensation under Section 251(b)(5), should be based upon whether a VoIP-CMRS call originates and terminates within the broader MTA, and not the narrower wireline local calling area advocated by CTL. Core 2014 M.B. at 6-9. Core points out that Section 1.74 of the Parties’ proposed ICA defines “Local VoIP-PSTN Traffic” as “VoIP-PSTN traffic that physically originates and terminates within the CenturyLink local calling area.” In Core’s view, adoption of CTL’s position, and use of the term “Local Traffic” in its proposed definition, would greatly, and wrongly, restrict the scope of the bill and keep compensation regime to VoIP-CMRS traffic that is local by wireline standards. Id. at 9-11 Core argues that its own position is consistent with the USF/ICC Transformation Order because it differentiates between local calling for VoIP-CMRS traffic and for wireline VoIP traffic. Core submits that CMRS traffic is codified in the USF/ICC Transformation Order under the FCC’s definition of Non-Access Telecommunications Traffic at 47 C.F.R § 51.701(b). Specifically, Core notes that under 47 C.F.R. § 51.701(b)(2), Non-Access Telecommunications Traffic is defined to include “[t]elecommunications traffic exchanged between a LEC and a CMRS provider that, at the beginning of the call, originates and terminates within the same Major Trading Area.”
1296764.docx