Advocates Disagree on California PUC's Proposed VoIP Rules
Debate is intensifying at the California Public Utilities Commission over how to define “facilities-based” VoIP providers, which could expand regulatory obligations (see 2410160044), according to reply comments posted Thursday (No. 22-08-008).
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!
Several groups backed a broad, function-based definition that includes virtual infrastructure. The Small Business Utility Advocates (SBUA) wrote that a “data center or software routing system should be deemed ‘facilities’ if its failure would result in a loss of voice service.” In joint comments, The Utility Reform Network (TURN) and Center for Accessible Technology argued that the definition should “focus on how interconnected VoIP service is delivered -- not how the underlying infrastructure is owned or whether it is physical or virtual.” The California Broadband & Video Association added that “interconnected VoIP providers that use any infrastructure to deliver service should be considered facilities-based, even if they do not own that infrastructure.”
Meanwhile, the Voice on the Net Coalition warned that a broader scope would unfairly burden nomadic VoIP providers, saying that TURN and SBUA "go too far in urging the commission to redefine facilities-based status so broadly that it could sweep in providers that have no facilities at all.” The coalition urged the commission to maintain distinctions between fixed and nomadic services to avoid licensing and reporting mandates on providers not designed for them.