California Bill to Ban VoIP Regulation Spurs Concerns over Consumer Protection of Basic Services
Some state legislators and foes of a California bill to ban state regulation over VoIP worried the proposal would strip away consumer protection of basic services, they said during a hearing Tuesday. SB-1611 sponsor Sen. Alex Padilla (D) emphasized that the bill wouldn’t change existing consumer protection regulation. The bill passed the Senate Energy, Utilities and Communications Committee, which Padilla chairs, and is heading to the Senate Appropriations Committee.
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 bill would reaffirm California’s current policy of not regulating VoIP in an effort to foster continued investment, innovation and expand consumer choice, said Padilla. Some opponents misinterpreted the intent of the bill, and the bill wouldn’t deregulate the telecom industry in the state, he said. The legislation won’t eliminate existing state regulation of traditional phone services and makes no change to current USF and carrier-of-last-resort designation requirements, he said. Nothing in the bill would change consumer protection of landline services, he said. “We won’t take any steps backwards on consumer protections.” Padilla noted the FCC has declined to regulate VoIP but applied specific policies of VoIP in areas like public safety.
The bill’s not specific enough to clearly state that consumer protection law would stay, said several committee members, including Sen. Christine Kehoe (D). They're concerned the language might be too broad. The bill would weaken consumer protection in the state, said Mark Toney, executive director of the Utility Reform Network. The FCC hasn’t preempted states from regulating VoIP, he said. The FCC’s USF order states the agency hasn’t decided whether VoIP is a telecom or information service or whether states are preempted, he said. VoIP services have increasingly become the only service option for many people in the state, he said. No consumer protection means that service maintenance and reliable calls would vanish, he said. Other consumer groups like the AARP, Communications Workers of America and Center for Media Justice also opposed the bill.
At least 22 other states have already provided similar regulatory oversight and certainty over VoIP, said VON Coalition Executive Director Glenn Richards. Market entry rules and rate regulation could hurt innovation, investment and job creation, he said. The bill would create regulatory certainty in the Internet market, said Jeff Campbell, senior director of government affairs at Cisco. Companies like Qualcomm, Time Warner Cable, Verizon and Google support the bill.