Sprint Seeks High Court Review of 8th Circuit VoIP Ruling for Windstream on Iowa Access Fees
Sprint asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review a lower court ruling that federal law doesn't pre-empt state authority to regulate non-nomadic, intrastate long-distance VoIP calls (see 1706230047). Sprint said under FCC precedent the VoIP traffic "is an 'information service'…
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!
exempt from traditional common carrier regulation," whether state or federal. The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in June -- agreeing with a 1990 9th Circuit California v. FCC ruling -- contradicted "clear FCC policy," said a Sprint cert petition this week in Sprint Communications v. Richard W. Lozier, Jr., et al. "The court below thereby both broadened and deepened the conflict, breathing new life into what had been an outlying and outdated Ninth Circuit decision." The 8th Circuit affirmed a U.S. district court ruling siding with an Iowa Utilities Board decision requiring Sprint to pay intrastate access fees to Windstream for VoIP service. Sprint said the 8th Circuit said Windstream's state tariffs apply to the VoIP calls, even if they are an information service because an enhanced service provider exemption doesn't apply. "That holding conflicts with decades of FCC decisions establishing federal policy to the contrary," said Sprint, citing actions going back to a 1980 Computer II finding by the FCC that enhanced services weren't subject to common-carrier regulation. NARUC General Counsel Brad Ramsay said the Sprint petition was wrong on the facts and the law. "The FCC in order after order for 13 years has been adamant that it has not classified VoIP as either an information service or a telecommunications service," he said. "So of course this entire petition is based on the 'fact' that facilities based VoIP service is an information service -- the one legal issue the FCC insists it has not decided." He said "states, both with and without FCC concurrence, regulate some aspects of VoIP services -- imposing USF and emergency calling fees and requirements that Congress specified (and the DC Circuit confirmed in the Verizon case) can only apply to the extent a carrier is providing a 'telecommunications service.'" The FCC didn't comment Thursday. “Windstream is not surprised by Sprint’s cert filing with the US Supreme Court since Sprint appears to be intent on endless litigation in this matter,” said Deputy General Counsel Carol Keith via statement.