FEDERAL, STATE PARTIES DEBATE WHETHER VoIP NEEDS SEPARATE REGULATIONS
A federal telecom regulator and state PUC representatives clashed over whether a separate regulatory regime should be created for VoIP. In an audio conference Thurs. sponsored by Communications Daily parent company Warren Communications News, Jeffrey Carlisle of the FCC VoIP working group said a minimum regulatory environment for the service wouldn’t necessarily amount to separate treatment for VoIP, which NARUC Gen. Counsel Brad Ramsay said might be illegal. Ramsay had questioned whether VoIP operators should get lighter regulatory treatment than CLECs. Peter Pitsch, of Intel and pres. of the Voice On the Net (VON) Coalition,, said regulation of VoIP could be light if regulators resolved other issues such as access charges and universal service (USF.)
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Communications Daily is required reading for senior executives at top telecom corporations, law firms, lobbying organizations, associations and government agencies (including the FCC). Join them today!
Ramsay questioned whether VoIP operators would get an advantage through a less stringent regulatory structure, asking: “Is it desirable to set up a separate regulatory regime? Is it legal? If it’s an equivalent service, why give a leg up to one provider over another?” He said such VoIP regulation could be “asymmetrical” and help choose winners and losers in the marketplace. He asked several times why Vonage, an upstart VoIP service, should be subject to lighter regulation than Z-Tel, an upstart CLEC. But Pitsch said the FCC could use market power as a gauge to determine how much regulation would be appropriate for competitive technologies. He acknowledged that there might be some asymmetrical regulation, but that could be “the best we can do” given the circumstances.
Ramsay said state regulators believed there was a necessary role at the state level since they were closer to the consumers. But Carlisle, senior deputy chief of the FCC Wireline Bureau and co-head of the agency’s VoIP group, said a patchwork of 50 state regulations could create confusion and stifle the technology. “I don’t know if that’s the kind of dynamic we want to create in this space,” he said. Carlisle also said the FCC had a history of creating special new regulatory regimes depending on the providers’ market power. He cited nondominant service regulations as an example.
Resolution of “arbitrage issues” such as intercarrier compensation and USF could make the question of VoIP regulation simpler, Pitsch said. He said VoIP carriers already were working to develop voluntary solutions to some issues, such as CALEA, E-911 and disability access. “Let’s try to move forward with voluntary regulations and then see if there’s some areas where reasonable regulation is needed,” Pitsch said. Ramsay said he worried about voluntary compliance, saying rogue actors could market services that didn’t comply and use telephony service that didn’t comply with CALEA or other law enforcement surveillance regulations.
Ramsay said he didn’t see what special services VoIP offered that would require it to be treated altogether differently from standard telephony, but Carlisle said VoIP would give users new ways to manage phone service, such as allowing them to have voice mails sent to their e-mail account as audio files. “But almost everything you've described isn’t regulated now,” Ramsay said. He questioned how VoIP would meet the federal govt. goal of developing facility-based competition. A caller said VoIP would further spur demand for broadband.
Efforts to address issues such as 911 also are driving the state PUCs to examine VoIP issues. The Minn. PUC determined VoIP to be a regulated phone service after it received 911 complaints. The courts are examining that ruling. The panelists said other similar issues were likely to arise and drive state PUCs to examine VoIP.