CABLE INDUSTRY SUGGESTS REGULATORY FRAMEWORK FOR VoIP
With the FCC preparing to conduct a comprehensive study of how the federal govt. should regulate VoIP, NCTA for the first time laid out what the cable industry saw as the regulatory regime it would like. In a white paper sent to FCC commissioners and Capitol Hill Mon., NCTA said federal and state policy-makers should be careful not to overregulate this new technology and service and, in fact, should impose minimal regulation. Such an approach to VoIP could have potential implications for the Universal Service Fund (USF) and the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) which are funded under traditional common carrier regulations.
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!
Saying the cable industry had been among the leaders in deploying VoIP for the residential market, the NCTA paper proposed that even the most vital public policy objectives should be secured through the “lightest possible regulation” of VoIP services. But the NCTA plan in many cases would abide by CALEA and USF contributions for cable.
Because VoIP is an Internet-based service with global reach, NCTA suggested that state regulation of VoIP service should be consistent with the approach adopted by the federal govt. “Facilities-based VoIP services can be the breakthrough that fulfills the vision of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 for vast numbers of residential consumers,” NCTA said: “This breakthrough will occur most rapidly and ubiquitously if federal and state policy-makers and regulators affirmatively promote VoIP services as an important policy objective and adopt a predominantly deregulatory approach to VoIP services.” NCTA said only a minimally regulatory framework could “create the right incentives and a favorable climate in which service providers can invest, innovate and deploy VoIP services.”
The paper proposed a 4-prong baseline test to determine whether a particular IP-based voice service should be subject to the regulatory framework proposal. The test is based on whether the service has certain characteristics: (1) It makes use of N. American Numbering Plan resources. (2) It receives calls from or terminates them to the public switched telephone network (PSTN) at one or both ends of the call. (3) It represents a possible replacement for “plain old telephone service.” (4) It uses IP transmission between the service provider and the end user customer, including use of an IP terminal adapter and/or IP-based telephone set.
If a service meets those qualifications, NCTA suggested that instead of assigning a specific regulatory classification to VoIP, policy-makers should focus on the responsibilities and rights appropriate for a facilities- based provider of such VoIP services. NCTA proposed a regulatory road map that would assign to VoIP service providers responsibilities, such as assistance to law enforcement and public health, including CALEA, the offering of 911/E911 services and access for the disabled; contributions as appropriate to USF; participation in intercarrier compensation; and general consumer protections.
NCTA also suggested certain responsibilities that VoIP providers could undertake on a voluntary basis but that it believed shouldn’t be imposed. A regulatory regime also would identify specific rights essential for successful deployment of VoIP services, including efficient exchange of traffic on public and private networks, number portability, access to 911/E911 resources, proper compensation for terminating calls, nondiscriminatory access to USF support and access to rights-of-way and other facilities without incremental fees.
NCTA said several proceedings now under way at the FCC, including deliberations on USF, a rulemaking on intercarrier compensation and the Commission’s announced intention to begin a rulemaking on VoIP regulation itself, might better define the elements of cable’s road map. The paper pointed out that, while the term VoIP had come to mean voice telephone service offered through IP technology, IP-based voice services varied widely and include many applications with multiple features that extended beyond simple voice conversation.
The paper also included examples of cable deployments of IP-based voice services, which include Cablevision’s Optimum Voice in late 2003 throughout its N.Y.C. service area of 4 million homes, making it the largest facilities-based VoIP deployment in the U.S. so far. Charter, which began commercial VoIP service in Sept. 2002 in Wausau, Wis., will start VoIP service in several other markets this year. Comcast, with 1.3 million circuit-switched telephone subscribers, is testing VoIP near Philadelphia and plans to do so in Indianapolis and Springfield, Mass., this year.
Cox, which has long provided circuit-switched telephony, introduced its first VoIP service in Dec. in Roanoke. GCI Cable has begun deployment of a hybrid VoIP/circuit switched service in Anchorage. The service will be packet based from the customer premises to a media gateway and then use GCI’s circuit-switched facilities. Time Warner Cable (TWC) offered Digital Phone, its VoIP service to subscribers in Portland, Me., in May and recently began the service to select customers in N.C. TWC plans to offer VoIP to most of its major markets by the end of 2004, a 27-state footprint that has 11 million subscribers and more than 18 million homes passed. NCTA said VoIP would further extend industry efforts to provide competitive facilities-based local phone service. MSOs including Cablevision, Comcast, Cox, GCI and Insight now provide competitive local phone service that’s predominantly circuit-switched to 2.5 million customers. Calls for comment to AT&T, USTA and Vonage weren’t returned by our deadline.