Traffic stimulation in front of CRTC again with Iristel, Telus fight

Iristel Inc. and Telus Corp. are sparring in a pair of Part 1 applications this week, stemming from new allegations by Telus that Iristel resumed traffic stimulation activities shortly after a previous CRTC decision on the issue. Telus told the regulator in a Part 1 application that its previous decision on traffic stimulation didn’t go far enough to stamp out the practice, and called for a public proceeding. Iristel, meanwhile, also filed a Part 1 application a few days later, alleging that Telus is deliberately causing some calls from Telus users to Iristel end users to fail. Telus said in a Part 1 filing submitted last week and posted Tuesday that the artificially stimulated traffic “stopped only briefly” before escalating again, after the CRTC’s December decision on similar accusations against Iristel by Rogers Communications Inc. “The letter of the Commission’s directive was very narrow,” Telus said in the application posted to the CRTC’s website Tuesday. It noted the regulator ordered the termination of a specific agreement but “did not make a general statement against traffic stimulation that would prevent the resumption of traffic stimulation through alternative financial arrangements with the same parties, or through the same financial arrangements with different parties.” That December decision arose from an application filed by Rogers in 2016, accusing Iristel of deliberately driving up the volume of phone calls to the Northwest Territories to benefit from the area’s high traffic termination rates. 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. The CRTC ordered Iristel to stop the use of 867 area code numbers to connect callers to a Toronto-area radio station audio stream, but declined to implement new regulations on traffic stimulation. Telus said in its application that Iristel claimed it was complying with that decision, “yet the traffic stimulation has resumed, and Iristel is once again the direct beneficiary of the resulting increased flow of charges from other .” It said it looked into the frequently-called numbers and numbers with unusually long hold times and found many of those connected to listen-only or phone conference services, “the same type of services and calling patterns as in the last episode of traffic stimulation.” However, it said it appears that a screening mechanism has been put into place, with only some calls being connected and others receiving a recorded message that the subscriber is not reachable. Telus said that “one effect of the screening is that it becomes more difficult to establish whether it supports a traffic-stimulating service.” Iristel CEO Samer Bishay said in an email Wednesday that Telus is using Iristel as a scapegoat to further its agenda of driving down rates for termination at the 867 area code. He also said the traffic in question is a small fraction of what it used to be in 2017 and 2016. The deadline for Iristel to respond formally is Sept. 6. Iristel filed a Part 1 application of its own over Telus’ move to cause some calls from its customers to Iristel end users to fail, which Iristel said is intentional and began in late May. “Following complaints from Iristel customers, it was determined that calls originating from Telus’ network to certain Iristel terminating numbers are being redirected to an automated recording and not being connected,” Iristel said. It said Telus reduced capacity on some toll transit circuits and that has caused “an overwhelming amount of congestion that causes the majority of calls from all Telus end users to certain Iristel end users to fail.” It asked the CRTC to order Telus to restore capacity to its previous state. It said that while it believes that the motive for Telus to reduce capacity may be its allegation about traffic stimulation, the two Part 1 applications should be treated separately. Interventions in Iristel's Part 1 are due Sept. 10. In its filing, Telus argued a full public proceeding is necessary to determine which telecoms are involved and the nature of their involvement, and whether “general rules are required to prevent further occurrences.” It also asked the regulator to establish a new rate for long distance call termination to northern customers, and make Iristel’s current rate interim, which would mean the final rates could be applied retroactively. “Iristel should not continue to benefit from an excessive rate while a new rate is set,” it added. Telus said the current high tariffed rate creates an incentive to stimulate traffic. “By reducing these rates to the true incremental cost (plus the normal mark-up for mandated interconnection services), the incentive will be eliminated,” it said. — With reporting by Anja Karadeglija at akarad@thewirereport.ca and editing by Ahmad Hathout at ahathout@thewirereport.ca

Traffic stimulation in front of CRTC again with Iristel, Telus fight

News | August 8, 2018

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

Traffic stimulation in front of CRTC again with Iristel, Telus fight

News | August 8, 2018

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

FREE TRIAL

SUBSCRIBE

Related Stories

Quebecor seeks to review and vary Bell MVNO decision

Northwestel announces completion of backup fibre loop; acquisition to close in 2025

Union concerned over Bell expansion into United States

Bell sees revenue decline, reports loss for Q3 2024

Reuse & Permissions

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us