Only audio bridging service providers supported two petitions to ...

the FCC to declare audio conferencing an information service. Multi-Point Communications, another audio-conferencing provider, termed the FCC order “procedurally defective,” because it didn’t give “appropriate notice and comment to the teleconferencing industry.” The FCC provided 11 days to comment, and Multi- Point “was given only last-minute notice that it must adopt and implement procedures to fulfill its new [USF] obligations,” it said. Meanwhile, Verizon demanded that the petition be rejected outright. “There are no grounds for reconsideration,” the carrier said. The petitioners didn’t participate in the initial proceeding, they raise no new questions of law or fact and their arguments lack merit, it said. Others asked the FCC to clarify that the Intercall order changed no rules. Cisco said it believes the Intercall order confirmed existing FCC rules, but could be misread as rewriting them. It urged the FCC to make clear that the former -- and not the latter -- is true. The FCC “should confirm that this decision applied existing precedent, and did not adopt a new test for what constitutes an integrated information service,” said the VON Coalition. Also, the FCC should clarify the decision’s scope and say that it doesn’t cover information services including a functionally integrated voice communications function, the Coalition said.