AT&T Proposal on IP Transition Divides Industry

USTelecom was blasé about AT&T’s proposal. Given that accelerating the IP transition is a primary goal of the FCC, and that Chairman Julius Genachowski created a task force to encourage the technological transition using a “data-driven” review, “this petition should hardly be controversial,” said the association of ILECs, of which AT&T is a member. “A test-bed approach to an issue as complex as the IP transition will provide the Commission with ‘high-quality data’ to inform its ultimate decisions on how best to promote the transition.” USTelecom also supported NTCA’s petition insofar as it would eliminate “vestiges of a bygone era” (http://xrl.us/boddvo). AT&T said the commission should reject proposals to “bog down” the transition with “interminable and abstract deliberations about the appropriate regulatory end-state at the conclusion of the transition.” NTCA’s IP interconnection requirements would be “needless, counterproductive, and beyond the Commission’s statutory authority,” the telco said (http://xrl.us/boddyt).

The commission should reject new regulation on broadband networks and services, said Verizon and Verizon Wireless. The IP transition is a “pro-consumer transition,” and either petition would present “a good opportunity” for the commission to further it, the companies said. They said the commission should declare all IP-enabled services to be “inherently interstate,” and remove eligible telecommunications carrier universal service requirements, service entry and exit approval requirements, equal access obligations and other such “underbrush” (http://xrl.us/boddky). CenturyLink, noting the increasing obsolescence of time division multiplex networks, said it’s “imperative” that the commission conduct a “rigorous analysis” that keeps three principles in mind: Apply regulatory obligations fairly to all providers of IP services; only keep legacy regulations if they are useful and necessary; and establish flexible guidelines for the transition that takes into account each carrier’s “unique circumstances and challenges.” CenturyLink opposed any proposal ruling that IP interconnection is subject to Section 251 of the Telecom Act (http://xrl.us/boddyp).

A “light regulatory touch” would eliminate the “disproportionate regulatory burdens” requiring ILECs to maintain two different network architectures, said the Independent Telephone & Telecommunications Alliance. Obligations relevant to TDM-based services, such as Section 214 and equal access obligations, “have no application to new services available on all-IP networks,” the association of ILECs said. “ILECs are no longer dominant providers of communications services and the Commission must not persist in treating ILECs as monopoly providers to the advantage of their cable and wireless rivals” (http://xrl.us/boddpm).

Interconnection Obligations ‘Critical,’ CLECs Say

CompTel warned that AT&T’s deregulatory wire center trials would not actually be a trial of the public switched telephone network’s evolution to IP technology, but rather an elimination of “obligations that protect consumers and competition.” It’s “critical” that interconnection and last-mile access be elements of any trial, and preserved for next generation facilities, the association said. Anything less would give large ILECs the ability to abuse their market power, CompTel said (http://xrl.us/boddmz).

The FCC must “not allow itself to be lured into AT&T’s trap,” said Cbeyond, EarthLink, Integra, Level 3 and tw telecom. The commission can best help consumers by adopting rules to “mitigate the harmful effects of ILECs’ exclusionary special access” pricing, and applying interconnection and last-mile access requirements regardless of technology used, the group of CLECs said. They also opposed NTCA’s petition for an omnibus proceeding, preferring instead to work within existing dockets (http://xrl.us/bodds3). XO was against both proposals, encouraging the commission to address the IP transition “using the technology neutral framework” in the Telecom Act, enforcing and modernizing existing rules in the various ongoing proceedings (http://xrl.us/boddkm). The Ad Hoc Telecommunications Users Committee, often aligned with CLECs, said it opposed AT&T’s “sledgehammer approach of unfettered de-regulation” (http://xrl.us/boddzy).

Wireless interests found problems with both proposals. T-Mobile said it generally supports reform and the FCC should adopt a more efficient network interconnection architecture with a reduced number of IP points of interconnection. But neither the AT&T nor the NTCA petition “presents an entirely accurate vision of the regulatory reform necessary to unleash the full benefits of IP networks for consumers and protect the benefits of competition against anti-competitive abuses during and beyond the transition,” T-Mobile said (http://xrl.us/boddx2). “Rather, they advance parochial incumbent local exchange carrier interests -- overbroad and dangerous deregulation in the case of the AT&T Petition and increased and unjustified high-cost support for IP deployment in the case of the NTCA Petition."

Sprint Nextel picked both proposals apart. AT&T’s should be rejected as premature, Sprint said (http://xrl.us/boddyg). “First, AT&T is already demonstrating that it is capable of implementing an IP deployment while concurrently operating its TDM network. Second, AT&T will continue to rely on its TDM network to provide voice service to the vast majority of its subscribers for the next several years. Third, it is largely the purview of State, rather than federal, regulators to determine the timing of the retirement of TDM networks.” NTCA’s proposal for incentive-based charges would “undermine, rather than promote, competition,” the carrier said.

The trial runs of the TDM-to-IP transition proposed by AT&T make sense, said the Competitive Carriers Association. But ILECs with IP-based networks shouldn’t be able to dodge “their core interconnection obligations under Sections 251 and 252 of the Communications Act,” CCA said. “The technology-neutral interconnection mandates in Section 251 apply to IP-based telecommunications networks just as they do to TDM-based networks.” The FCC also should not provide “additional and unwarranted subsidies” to rural LECs as proposed by NTCA, CCA said.

IP-based services should be subject to federal regulation subject to a light-touch regulatory regime, said CTIA. But the wireless association also said the commission should reject NTCA’s “invitation” to develop regulatory mandated rates, like access charges, for IP traffic. The FCC also shouldn’t direct additional USF monies to rural ILECs to support their IP networks, as also proposed by NTCA. “CTIA believes that consumer demand and marketplace developments warrant further changes to improve the efficiency and innovation inherent in federal universal service support mechanisms,” the group said (http://xrl.us/boddas). “As CTIA has observed, rural ILECs continue to receive the largest single share of high-cost support for their services, despite the fact that consumers are overwhelmingly shifting their usage to mobile and broadband services.”

View AT&T’s arguments with skepticism, said the Critical Messaging Association, which represents the paging industry. Paging companies have a 50-year battle with ILECs to establish interconnection rights and recognition as telecommunications carriers, CMA said. “Given this long and sometimes bitter history at the hands of AT&T and other ILECs, CMA believes the Commission should view with great concern AT&T’s conflated contention that the public interest is served by transitioning to an essentially deregulated world of IP net- work services” (http://xrl.us/bodc9z).

Cable companies worried about how the IP transition will affect interconnection. Keep IP retail voice regulation light but “oversee interconnection for the exchange of voice traffic,” said NCTA (http://xrl.us/boddtd). Cox Communications emphasized the significance Sections 251 and 252 of the Communications Act, important for interconnection purposes. Cox warned that AT&T’s petition may threaten competition and hurt CLECs “ability to rely on the mandates” (http://xrl.us/boddsv). The FCC should encourage AT&T’s efforts and proposed trials, said Comcast (http://xrl.us/bodds7), which criticized the NTCA petition’s efforts to “apply the legacy TDM regulatory regime” to IP. It discouraged the FCC from making IP-to-IP interconnection rules for voice providers, however. Cablevision supports AT&T’s petition as long as the FCC oversees interconnection with ILECs and “make clear that ILECs must comply with their legal obligation to provide interconnection for voice service in IP,” even in trials, it said (http://xrl.us/boddvb).

Minority Groups Support Deregulatory Trial Runs

Minority groups generally supported the AT&T petition. The Minority Media and Telecommunications Council and a coalition of African-American groups urged the commission to grant “rapid approval” of the petition because the geographically limited beta trials AT&T proposes are the best way to determine the fastest path to deploying IP technology that will benefit the nation as a whole “and the African American community in particular” (http://xrl.us/boddyk). The National Urban League and the National Action Network said they also support the AT&T petition, but urged the FCC to examine whether the petition poses “potential harm to consumers of color” and to ensure AT&T maintains “the necessary and practical regulations that benefit all consumers, especially minority customers” (http://xrl.us/boddxu).

The Asian American Federation and a coalition of other Asian American groups said they support the AT&T petition because it is “the quickest and most efficient means” to begin the IP transition, which “will benefit underserved Asian American communities who remain on the wrong side of the digital divide as well as Asian Americans who are enthusiastic users of IP-enabled services” (http://xrl.us/bodd2g). The National Hispanic Council on Aging and the National Hispanic Medical Association said they support the petition because the IP transition will revolutionize healthcare opportunities, “and in particular for the minority communities we serve,” such as with telehealth and telemedicine. Telehealth can help minorities “better detect and manage ... diseases disproportionately affecting them, too,” the two groups said (http://xrl.us/bodd4t).

Public interest groups were wary of the potential effects the changes the petitions seek would have on the existing regulatory framework. Free Press said it believes AT&T’s petition is an attempt “to push the Commission into a state of veritable regulatory limbo, by removing the last vestige of any federal or state authority to protect consumers in an increasingly consolidated communications market.” If the FCC grants the AT&T petition, the outcome “would be wholly inconsistent with the Commission’s purpose and ruinous to the public interest,” the nonprofit said (http://xrl.us/bodd9q). Public Knowledge said the FCC should “ensure that the post-transition PSTN will continue to serve the basic social needs of all Americans.” PK also criticized the FCC for failing “to resolve the numerous proceedings pending before it that would answer the fundamental questions of the IP transition,” such as determining whether VoIP service is a Title II telecom service (http://xrl.us/bodeac).

Telecommunications for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing and other advocacy groups for the deaf urged the FCC to avoid allowing the AT&T and NTCA petitions to institute changes “that fail to foster continuing and increasing accessibility for deaf and hard of hearing users and must ensure that all stakeholders are adequately represented” in the process. The FCC’s approach to addressing the AT&T and NTCA petitions must be consistent with the 21st Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act, the groups said (http://xrl.us/bodd67).

AT&T Plan ‘Flawed,’ State Regulators Say

NARUC found AT&T’s petition “deeply flawed,” preferring NTCA’s petition, which it said would provide a “better and more transparent analytical framework.” States will need to consent to any tests AT&T wishes to conduct since they retain intrastate control, the association said. (http://xrl.us/boddq5). It urged referral to the Federal State Joint Board on Universal Service more than anything. The board’s state members asked the FCC to decline both the AT&T and NTCA petitions. If the FCC wants to look into the IP transition, “make the appropriate referral” to the joint board, they said (http://xrl.us/boddok). The FCC shouldn’t open a new proceeding but continue examining issues in current ones, said NATOA, the National Association of Counties, National League of Cities, and U.S. Conference of Mayors (http://xrl.us/boddrb). The commission should adopt the recent Intergovernmental Advisory Committee policy recommendations, they said. The National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates called AT&T’s petition a “transparent attempt” to impose its own business plan on the entire nation (CD Jan 29 p7).

Individual state commissions emphasized their role. The California Public Utilities Commission said (http://xrl.us/boddo5) it supports both petitions in asking the FCC to open a rulemaking, and it hopes the FCC preserves states’ roles in consumer protections. If the FCC grants the petitions, it should include states as active partners in pilots and monitoring responsibilities, said the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (http://xrl.us/boddpu). The FCC should decline AT&T’s petition and, with its Technology Transition Task Force, examine the issue in broader reform context, said the Massachusetts Department of Telecommunications and Cable (http://xrl.us/boddot). Don’t let “individual industry participants” guide the transition, advised the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission (http://xrl.us/bodduv). It wants to ensure necessary service for Indiana and preserve stand-alone voice options, it said.

Any review should be guided by principles of encouraging investment in intelligent network infrastructure, fostering competition in the IP industry, and letting the market reflect consumer choice, the Telecommunications Industry Association said. TIA urged the commission to “avoid the reflexive adoption of legacy rules” (http://xrl.us/boddzb). Alcatel-Lucent said legacy regulations are “impeding progress,” and encouraged wire center trials (http://xrl.us/boddz6).

Harris Corp. urged the FCC not to alter any policy that would adversely impact the availability of TDM services used for critical air traffic operations. AT&T’s proposal of selecting TDM serving wire centers (SWC) for IP transition and TDM cessation “could cripple ongoing FAA NAS [national airspace system] telecommunications services vital to national air traffic security,” Harris said (http://xrl.us/boddoe). The commission must consider the proposal’s impact on the FAA’s effort to secure the nation’s air traffic, it said. The FAA’s Telecommunications Infrastructure Program uses TDM applications and services extensively to deliver those services, Harris said: If the FCC approves a plan to experiment with the cessation of TDM in targeted wiring centers, “it must avoid including the more than 3,300 SWCs that currently provide the FAA with TDM services.” Without such protection, the FAA’s operations will be put at risk, Harris said.