TORONTO and VANCOUVER — Hundreds of phone calls to northern Canada are failing to get through, and Iristel and Telus have their own theories as to why, each accusing the other company of engaging in suspect telecom practices that it claims are the underlying cause.
Iristel is claiming Telus in late May intentionally reduced its network capacity on certain toll transit circuits that carry Telus traffic to Iristel numbers in the 867 numbering plan area (NPA) in northern Canada, causing congestion in the network that has in turn caused hundreds of phone calls from Telus customers to certain Iristel end users to fail.
For its part, Telus says it has evidence that Iristel or other telecom service providers that use Iristel’s numbers in the 867 NPA are engaging in traffic stimulation-related activities that have caused a noticeable spike in traffic from Telus’s network to Iristel’s 867 NPA numbers. Telus says the jump in traffic was first detected in April, with traffic levels rising to four or five times normal levels by May. Its possible explanation for why phone calls are failing between Telus customers and Iristel phone numbers is not straightforward, though.
Both companies have documented their evidence and outlined their complaints in separate Part 1 applications submitted to the CRTC earlier this month. Telus filed its Part 1 application on August 3, while Iristel made its submission on August 7.
This isn’t the first time Iristel has been accused of being engaged in activities that artificially stimulated traffic toward 867 NPA numbers. In December 2017, the CRTC ruled in favour of a Rogers complaint against Iristel, finding that a volume-based revenue-sharing arrangement with one of its customers, Free Conference Call Global (FCCG), had acted as an incentive to stimulate traffic to high-cost serving areas (HCSAs), such as the 867 NPA in Canada’s north. Rogers had argued that Iristel was conferring an undue preference on itself by using traffic stimulation to generate excessive toll termination traffic in the 867 NPA and subjecting Rogers and its customers to a corresponding undue disadvantage as a result of the higher call termination charges.
Telus is now claiming that traffic stimulation activities have been resumed, either by Iristel or other telecom service providers, and are causing an escalation in toll termination traffic in the North again.
Iristel denies that it is engaged in traffic stimulation activities and says Telus is taking a heavy-handed approach to save money, which is resulting in failed calls between Telus customers and customers served by Iristel or its Ice Wireless subsidiary in the North.
“They’re accusing us of what they call traffic stimulation, which we are not doing. But what they’ve decided to do is basically have Canadians held hostage in the crossfire, by choking the telecommunication pipes between the two networks and basically hindering communications between anybody on the Telus network trying to reach an Iristel or Ice Wireless customer in northern Canada,” said Samer Bishay, president and CEO of Iristel, in a telephone interview with Cartt.ca on Friday.
“This is their way, I guess, their heavy-handed approach of trying to save some money,” – Samer Bishay, Iristel
“This is their way, I guess, their heavy-handed approach of trying to save some money,” Bishay added. “By choking those pipes, they’re reducing the costs that they have to pay to Iristel. But effectively what they’re doing is, when they claim that they have an unlimited long-distance plan, and an innocent Canadian goes and buys their plan, with this plan they expect it to perform. Well, it’s not performing because the message they’re getting is ‘All networks are busy’ and ‘Please try your call again later’.”
In its Part 1 application to the CRTC, Iristel indicated that the problem of calls not being connected and instead redirected to an automated recording was unique to Telus’s network. Iristel claimed that the problem did not occur with calls originating from other Canadian or foreign carriers, unless roaming on Telus’s wireless network.
“This is affecting not only customers in the south reaching the north but any customer on the Telus network irrelevant of where they are geographically speaking,” Bishay said. “It could be a Telus customer in Whitehorse trying to reach an Iristel or Ice customer in Whitehorse or in Yellowknife, or that Telus customer could be in Toronto, for example. It doesn’t really matter.”
Bishay said Iristel is tracking hundreds of trouble tickets regarding failed phone calls, and those are just the customers that Iristel knows about.
In its Part 1 application, Iristel alleged that Telus was effectively blocking calls to Iristel’s network by reducing Telus’s capacity in the network trunks that deliver traffic to customers in the 867 NPA. Iristel argued that this action by Telus was a violation of Section 36 of the Telecommunications Act, which prohibits carriers from controlling content of telecommunications carried by it for the public, without consent from the CRTC. In addition, Iristel said Telus’s conduct discriminates against not only Iristel but also the end users of both Iristel and Telus, which is a violation of Section 27(2) of the Act.
“The game they play is, if you have four or six channels, your call might go through one out of five times. You’ve just got to keep trying. But it’s manipulation of real-time communications, which is a blatant disregard for any type of telecom law,” Bishay said. “It seems like it’s something within the organization, a level of arrogance that they feel they’re above the regulatory environment here.”
While Iristel’s Part 1 application characterizes Telus’s actions as being akin to call blocking, Bishay said it could be described as “call throttling” instead, similar to Internet throttling — which is also illegal, he pointed out.
“I guess throttling is a good word, because they’re not really 100% blocking. It’s more like throttling at 1%,” Bishay added.
Iristel is asking the CRTC to grant interim relief by ordering Telus to relieve the congestion affecting the trunk groups in Telus’s network, identified by Iristel in its Part 1 application. Furthermore, Iristel is requesting final relief in the form of a CRTC order compelling Telus to maintain adequate network capacity to properly terminate calls originating from its end users, or transiting through its network, and terminating on Iristel’s network.
While the Commission reviews Iristel’s complaints against Telus, it will also have Telus’s Part 1 application to consider as well. Telus is asking the CRTC for relief regarding what it alleges is renewed traffic stimulation involving the telephone numbers of Iristel in the North and regarding what it calls an unjust and unreasonable long-distance call termination rate in Iristel’s tariff.
When contacted by Cartt.ca, Telus spokespersons declined to make any official comments about the company’s Part 1 application to the CRTC or about Iristel’s complaints against Telus.
In its Part 1 application to the CRTC, Telus said the recurrence of what it believes to be traffic stimulation toward Iristel’s phone numbers in the North is an indication that these activities will continue as long as the parties involved have the incentive of being able to charge excessive rates for the artificially stimulated traffic. Therefore, Telus is requesting that the CRTC initiate a full public proceeding to review the alleged traffic stimulation activities, to determine which telecom service providers are involved, and to consider whether or not general rules are required to prevent future occurrences.
In addition, Telus said it wants the CRTC to direct Iristel to file a tariff notice to establish a new rate for long-distance call termination to its customers in the North, and to make Iristel’s current tariffed rate for long-distance call termination in the North an interim rate, allowing for the possibility of retroactive applicability of final rates.
“The requested relief is aimed at protecting Telus from upwardly spiraling costs associated with stimulated traffic until Iristel’s long distance terminating rate is revised.” – Telus
In its application, Telus argued that Iristel’s tariffed rate for long-distance termination in the North is significantly higher than Iristel’s cost of call termination, which creates an incentive for engaging in traffic stimulation activities. “By reducing these rates to the true incremental cost (plus the normal mark-up for mandated interconnection services), the incentive will be eliminated,” Telus wrote in its Part 1 application.
Telus went on to write: “[T]he requested relief is aimed at protecting Telus from upwardly spiraling costs associated with stimulated traffic until Iristel’s long distance terminating rate is revised. Because the Commission determined in Decision 2017-456 that it would not direct Iristel to provide rebates for charges associated with stimulated traffic when the traffic is terminated pursuant to a forborne wholesale toll agreement, Telus plans to migrate traffic to Iristel’s NPA 867 numbers to tariffed interconnections. Accordingly, Iristel’s tariffed rate is relevant to the cessation of traffic stimulation.
“Furthermore, Iristel’s current rate should be made interim because it significantly exceeds Iristel’s cost of termination. Iristel should not continue to benefit from an excessive rate while a new rate is set. An excessive rate for Iristel’s mandated interconnection service increases costs (directly or indirectly) to other TSPs and creates upward pressure on retail prices,” Telus added in its application.
In outlining its evidence leading to its conclusion that traffic stimulation has resumed in the North, Telus pointed out a number of similar services and calling patterns that have emerged since the CRTC’s ruling against Iristel in December 2017. In particular, Telus said its investigations of frequently called phone numbers or numbers with unusually long hold times revealed many of these numbers connected to conference bridges and listen-only services, the same types of services identified by Rogers and other service providers who submitted interventions during the CRTC’s previous proceeding involving Iristel.
Some examples cited by Telus in its Part 1 application include an Iqaluit phone number being assigned as a Canadian dial-in number for FreeConference.com, and phone numbers in Iqaluit and Whitehorse being used to connect callers to listen-only radio services offered by Punjabi Radio USA and Zeno Media, respectively.
According to Telus, its evidence suggests the parties who may be involved in traffic stimulation toward phone numbers in the North may be using screening mechanisms, ostensibly to allow only designated subscribers to connect to the services in question. During its investigations, Telus said it found that calls to many of the phone numbers in question were met with the announcement: “We’re sorry, the subscriber you are calling is currently not reachable. Please try again later.”
However, Telus said it determined that callers from certain numbers do not receive this message and are instead connected to the desired service — Punjabi Radio USA’s listen-only radio program being one such service. Telus said it has concluded that either the end customer or one of the service providers involved in completing the phone call is screening calls on the basis of calling numbers.
“There could be a legitimate reason to do such screening, but one effect of the screening is that it becomes more difficult to establish whether it supports a traffic-stimulating service. The possibility that its purpose is to deter investigations into regulatory arbitrage of high-cost NPA 867 numbers cannot be dismissed,” Telus wrote in its Part 1 application to the CRTC.
Telus said this screening practice that it suspects is being employed is part of the reason the company has requested the CRTC investigate the services that Telus alleges are artificially stimulating traffic toward phone numbers in the 867 NPA.
For now, both Iristel and Telus will need to wait until the CRTC considers each of their Part 1 applications and makes its determinations, which is unlikely to happen for several months.
