Traffic pumping, also known as access stimulation,[1] is a controversial practice by which some local exchange telephone carriers in rural areas of the United States inflate the volume of incoming calls to their networks, and profit from the greatly increased intercarrier compensation fees to which they are entitled by the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
[2] Payment for inbound long-distance calls to small rural telephone companies is normally handled through a shared pool, the National Exchange Carrier Association ("NECA").
[7] A sudden increase in inbound calling volume at about the same time as a telephone company leaves the NECA pool therefore can represent profitable two years for that firm.
[16] AT&T and other long-distance carriers have in some cases attempted to avoid these costs by blocking their customers from calling the phone numbers of traffic-pumping services.
[4] Google has responded[21][22] that its service, and those of VoIP providers such as Skype, is distinct from those of a traditional POTS common carrier, and that it should not be obligated to complete these calls.
[1] Google further charges that AT&T is trying to distract the FCC from concerns regarding network neutrality, and accuses AT&T of conducting regulatory capitalism, in which businesses exploit laws and regulations to stifle competition and slow innovation.
Finally, Google urged the FCC to revise "outdated carrier compensation rules" to end the practice of traffic pumping.
[1] AT&T has written to the FCC, saying that Google's blocking of calls to traffic pumping numbers gives it a substantial cost advantage over traditional carriers.
Representatives has joined in AT&T's complaint, urging the FCC to investigate Google Voice's practice of blocking calls to high-fee rural local exchange carriers.
[6] In 1996, AT&T filed a Section 208 complaint with the FCC against Jefferson Telephone Company, a rural incumbent local exchange carrier (ILEC) based in Iowa, which entered into a commercial agreement with a chat line provider.
[28] AT&T's complaint alleged that Jefferson violated Section 201(b) of the Communications Act of 1934 because it "acquired a direct interest in promoting the delivery of calls to specific telephone numbers."
AT&T also argued that the access revenue-sharing arrangement with the chat-line provider was unreasonably discriminatory in violation of Section 202(a) of the Act, because Jefferson did not share revenues with all its customers.