West Virginia Lawmakers Restrict State Regulation of VoIP, IP Services
More states are giving up regulation of internet-based communications. West Virginia lawmakers Tuesday voted to prohibit the Public Service Commission from regulating interconnected VoIP or IP-based services. The House passed SB-180 65-35, sending the measure to Gov. Jim Justice (D). A similar measure at the Minnesota legislature, preventing the state Public Utilities Commission from regulating VoIP, is nearing the finish line as part of the state’s omnibus jobs bill. The Minnesota bill would hurt the PUC’s legal argument for regulating Charter’s VoIP service, now before the U.S. District Court in St. Paul, said National Regulatory Research Institute Principal Sherry Lichtenberg.
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!
Enactment of the West Virginia and Minnesota bills would increase the total number of states banning oversight of IP-enabled services to at least 33, though the exact count is unclear and some estimate more, state and industry officials said. Such state laws generally don’t affect oversight of 911, Lichtenberg noted. “I expect that we will see more bills like this going forward,” she emailed Tuesday. In the long term, policymakers must decide how to ensure IP services “provide adequate support to consumers, including service quality, outside of the classic regulatory paradigm,” she said. “That is probably something that will come out of the overall movement to retire copper and move to an IP network.”
“The commission shall not have jurisdiction of Internet protocol-enabled service or voice-over Internet protocol-enabled service,” said the West Virginia legislation, which modifies the state code establishing the PSC. It would define an IP service as “any service, capability, functionality or application provided using Internet protocol, or any successor protocol, that enables an end user to send or receive a communication in Internet protocol format, or any successor format, regardless of whether the communication is voice, data or video.” It would deem a VoIP service as any service enabling two-way voice communications originating or terminating from the user’s location using IP or a successor protocol, and which uses a broadband connection from the user’s location. It would include any service allowing users to receive calls that originate and terminate on the public-switched telephone network.
The Voice on the Net Coalition thinks passage “will encourage the availability and deployment of cutting edge internet communications services throughout the state,” emailed VON Coalition Executive Director Glenn Richards. The state commission hasn’t taken a position on SB-180, a West Virginia PSC spokeswoman said.
Meanwhile, Minnesota’s omnibus jobs bill now includes a VoIP regulation ban from a stalled stand-alone bill. “Regulation prohibited,” states SF-1937. “Except as provided in this section, no state agency, including the commission and the Department of Commerce, or political subdivision of this state shall by rule, order, or other means directly or indirectly regulate the entry, rates, terms, quality of service, availability, classification, or any other aspect of VoIP service or IP-enabled service.” The bill still would require VoIP providers to contribute to state 911, Telephone Assistance Plan and Telecommunications Access Minnesota programs.
The omnibus is likely headed next to a conference committee where the state House and Senate will negotiate a final bill, said an aide to Sen. Carrie Ruud (R), sponsor of the VoIP language. The Minnesota Commerce Department previously opposed the VoIP legislation because it said consumers all should have the same protections for phone service regardless of technology (see 1703010063). Minnesota has become a center of activity on the VoIP regulation issue, with states and industry awaiting the St. Paul district court’s decision on VoIP authority. The court heard argument Jan. 9 on Charter’s challenge against the PUC regulating the cable operator’s VoIP service.
A Minnesota law banning VoIP regulation could be a big blow to the state’s defense in court, said Lichtenberg. “If the state says ‘hands off VoIP,’ I think the case would be mooted.”
Resolving the Charter case isn’t the legislation's purpose, said Ruud. “The Charter case is not about establishing statewide policy” but rather “about making technological distinctions between different ‘flavors’ of VoIP service to determine whether they fit into the existing regulatory framework,” Ruud emailed. “The VoIP legislation is about establishing a new statewide policy about how VoIP services should and should not be regulated.”