SUNUNU, PICKERING INTRODUCE VoIP BILLS
A “call for clarity” is the motivation behind VoIP legislation introduced Fri., Sen. Sununu (R-N.H.) said. Sununu announced targeted legislation designed to free VoIP from much of the regulation now applied to the legacy phone networks. House Commerce Committee Vice Chmn. Pickering (R- Miss.) said he would introduce similar -- but not identical -- legislation on the House side. Pickering said it was important to free VoIP from over-regulation because the technology would be a driver for broadband deployment.
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!
The main thrust of both bills is to prevent state regulation of VoIP. The bills would also prevent the FCC or other federal authorities from delegating VoIP to states or localities. Sununu said his bill would designate VoIP to be an “information service,” which is free from many of the regulations of telephony. However, the legislation would prevent VoIP from being classified by the FCC as a Title 1 service, which is the FCC’s classification for information service.
Sununu’s bill would outline 4 main areas of VoIP responsibility for the FCC: (1) Universal service. (2) Selection of private sector industry body. (3) Imposition of obligations for access by law enforcement entities. (4) Issuing implementing regulations. Sununu’s bill would exclude universal service requirements for VoIP applications that don’t use the public switched telecom network, or other VoIP applications that the FCC deems appropriate to exempt from USF.
Other components to the bill include: (1) A requirement for the FCC to select a proper industry consensus organization to develop guidelines for 911 and disability access. (2) A biennial review by the FCC to evaluate state regulations of VoIP, which would include recommendations to Congress for changes. (3) Prevention of state and local VoIP taxation. (4) Preservation of FTC authority for enforcement against fraudulent practices.
Pickering’s bill will differ from Sununu’s in regulating access charges and law enforcement access. Sununu proposed exempting VoIP from all access charges and any future successor to the access charge regime. Pickering said his bill wouldn’t address this issue and mainly leave it up to the FCC. Pickering’s bill will also differ from Sununu’s on law enforcement access. Pickering’s would allow CALEA to apply to VoIP if the FCC can determine if it’s feasible. Pickering emphasized that members of the House Commerce Committee would be adamant in requiring appropriate law enforcement access. Sununu’s law enforcement provision would require a level of access similar to CALEA, but not necessarily keep all of the requirements.
While both said they were aiming for passage this year, Pickering said it was a good “starting point” and that the goal would be to have it passed in the first session next year. Both expressed the desire to keep VoIP out of the realm of the “network issues” currently debated in the courts and FCC -- such as UNE-P. “We're not getting into old battles,” Pickering said. And Pickering said it was important to send the message early that states wouldn’t play a role in taxing VoIP.
The USTA expressed some skepticism about the bill. “With so many evolving issues, lawmakers have to take a comprehensive approach for developing a new industry framework that recognizes today’s highly competitive communications market. It’s also critical to remember that everyone using the public-switched network must pay to support it,” said Ed Merlis, USTA senior vp-govt. & regulatory affairs. NARUC also said it has concerns. “The premise of these bills is that the states have their knives out for VoIP -- and we fundamentally disagree with the premise,” NARUC said. NARUC Pres. Stan Wise said: “Instead of introducing legislation that would have broad sweeping implications for the telecommunications industry, a more constructive approach would be a dialogue involving all affected parties about the kind of technology-appropriate consumer protections, emergency dialing and competition we want for the telephone system of the future.”
CompTel/ASCENT said it supported the bills. “Any legal or regulatory structure should foster -- not constrain -- the adoption of innovative applications, such as VoIP, and the regulations should be clearly understood by network service providers and capable of implementation across all network architectures,” said Robert McDowell, CompTel/ASCENT senior vp. AT&T also praised the bill. These bills provide an excellent place for the Congress to join the discussion on VoIP,” said Peter Jacoby, AT&T vp-congressional affairs. “They have presented a deregulatory approach that both acknowledges the need to reform the current subsidy system and allows this nascent service to flourish and bring the benefits of competition and innovation to the telecommunications marketplace.” The NCTA also supports the bill.