COMMENTERS MULL FUTURE OF VoIP REGULATIONS

IP-enabled services, such as VoIP should be “minimally regulated, with parity in regulation applied to all providers of IP-enabled services, including meeting social obligations,” USTA said. “Commissioners must ensure that all platforms have an equal opportunity to invest, to innovate and compete,” said USTA Pres. Walter McCormick: “In today’s competitive environment, that can best be accomplished by allowing market forces and consumer choices to drive the future, while requiring all players to do their part to uphold vital social objectives that remain critically important to the nation.”

USTA said the Commission should base its decisions on core principles, such as: (1) “Companies must be free to operate under market rules, not hindered by economic regulation.” (2) “To the extent IP-enabled services are regulated, similar services must be treated similarly.” (3) “All IP-enabled service providers should help meet important social goals such as in maintaining universal service, ensuring that law enforcement authorities can meet public safety needs, providing all Americans with access to 911 services, facilitating for disabled citizens the opportunity to use communications networks, and complying with other consumer protection measures.”

USTA said the FCC can reach those goals by exercising its authority under Title I and Title II, because “some services using IP technology may be information services, while others are definitively telecommunications services.” It said for IP-enabled services classified as telecom under Title II, “the Commission should forbear from economic regulation, including finding that ILEC provided [VoIP] services are non-dominant.” For IP services classified as information services under Title I, it said the Commissions should: (1) Deregulate and waive the Computer Inquiry requirements. (2) Allow ILECs to continue operations under a regulatory environment to remain in NECA pools. (3) Require all IP-enabled service providers to pay access charges when they use local public switched telephone networks (PSTN). (4) Require IP service providers competing with telecom service providers to contribute to universal service and comply with other social obligations.

Parties disagreed on whether the FCC should allow states to get involved in regulating VoIP. USTA and at least 2 Bells said the Commission should conclude the VoIP market was interstate in nature and not subject to state regulation. Echoing USTA’s concerns, Verizon said “a finding that IP- enabled services are jurisdictionally interstate will spur deployment of these services by preventing the development of a patchwork of inconsistent and potentially burdensome state regulations.”

But NARUC argued the Telecom Act did “not permit and an appropriate policy approach would not countenance” preemption of state oversight. “Cooperative state and federal action moving forward is required for this new technology to flourish without jeopardizing the interests of the consumers we represent,” said NARUC Telecom Committee Chmn. Robert Nelson.

The National Assn. of State Utility Consumer Advocates (NASUCA) said the Commission shouldn’t preclude state jurisdiction over VoIP, especially in the areas of service quality and consumer protection. “State public utility commissions have a responsibility to ensure that consumers in their states receive quality telecommunications services and are protected from providers’ misconduct,” it said. It said the agency should recognize state regulators have “jurisdictional responsibility over calls that begin and end in their state. The Commission must not prevent state regulators from fulfilling this responsibility.” NTCA urged the FCC to “refrain from making a blanket ruling that it has exclusive federal jurisdiction over all VoIP… services and to allow for the possibility that some VoIP and IP-enabled services may fall under exclusive state jurisdiction or shared state and federal jurisdiction.”

To protect consumers, NASUCA said the Commission should subject VoIP to Title II regulation. “The FCC and state regulators [should] ensure that all consumers are protected against poor service,” said NASUCA Pres. Timothy Hay. NASUCA said: “Based on the experience of previous application of Title II regulation to other services, Title II regulation would not necessarily impede the development of VoIP.” It said instead of “risking important public policy objectives by classifying VoIP under Title I,” the FCC may exempt VoIP services from unnecessary Title II regulations, such as economic ones. But Qwest urged the FCC to recognize VoIP as an information service that shouldn’t be regulated.

NASUCA said the FCC should subject VoIP to local number portability requirements. It said the Commission should also allow VoIP providers to buy UNEs to help promote competition. VoIP providers using the PSTN should have the same obligations as other telecom carriers, including a requirement to pay intercarrier compensation, it said.

Many agreed VoIP should be subject to social policy obligations. “VoIP consumers deserve the same protections that other voice carriers are forced to provide,” NTCA said. NASUCA said the FCC should extend Enhanced 911 (E911) requirements to VoIP services. “Protecting the lives, health and property of VoIP users outweighs any potential risk to the rapid deployment of VoIP providers that might occur by requiring E911 capability,” it said. But Verizon said while all VoIP customers should have access to basic 911 services, “access to [E911] services should await the industry’s development of standards and solutions for VoIP E911 functionality.” VoIP E911 should conform with 911 network systems already in place, rather than vice versa, NASUCA said: “State and local authorities should not have to bear additional financial burdens to adapt the existing 911 systems to a new and untested IP technology for delivering 911 calls with callback and location information… VoIP providers must collect and remit local 911 surcharges to ensure continued funding for 911.” NASUCA also said standards for VoIP access to people with disabilities should be developed through FCC working groups.

Verizon said to “realize certain policy goals,” all VoIP providers, including network and non-network providers, should comply with CALEA requirements: “Any other framework would allow users to avoid surveillance simply by switching to VoIP services.”

Many said VoIP providers should contribute to the Universal Service Fund (USF). “The [USF] should be adequately supported through contributions from all providers of voice communications, including VoIP providers,” Verizon said. NASUCA said VoIP providers should also be able to apply for certification as eligible telecom carrier (ETC) to receive USF funding. NTCA said all carriers, regardless of their regulatory classification, should be required to contribute to the USF. “Even if all VoIP and IP-enabled services were accommodated on broadband-only facilities, the costs of these facilities are still higher in rural areas,” it said. It said some form of access and universal service would be required to ensure rural consumers have access to advanced telecom services. NTCA also asked the Commission to expand the list of USF contributors to include cable, wireless and satellite broadband Internet access service providers and facilities-based and non-facilities based VoIP and IP-enabled service providers.

Many said providers of IP-enabled services should pay access charges whenever they use the PSTN to originate or terminate a call. “No carrier should receive a free pass on access charges,” NTCA said: “Simply because VoIP providers use an IP-network platform to provide voice communications, the Commission should not grant [them] with most favored nation status… This will only create an unfair competitive advantage in favor of VoIP and IP-enabled service providers in the highly competitive voice communications market.” NTCA said given that the “vast majority” of U.S. consumers were still using PSTN telephone service and about 75% of U.S. households didn’t have access to broadband, there would be a “significant number” of VoIP calls terminating on the PSTN “for many years to come… It may take a decade or more before 90% of all American households have access and subscribe to broadband, therefore the interaction between VoIP services and the PSTN will continue well into the future.” Pulver.com urged the FCC to “resolve the lingering intercarrier compensation and universal service proceedings, particularly to ensure that IP-based communications providers are not dragged into existing regulatory schemes that so desperately need to be reformed.”