FLA. REGULATOR, AT&T APPLAUD STATES BACKING OFF VOIP
SANTA CLARA, Cal. -- State regulators are generally backing off VoIP, awaiting direction from the FCC after making a charge last year toward setting rules, an AT&T lobbyist said Mon. at the Voice on the Net Conference in Santa Clara, Cal. “Will cooler heads prevail in the states?” asked AT&T State Regulatory Dir. Wayne Fonteix. “I think there are indications that is beginning to happen.” In Wash., for example, regulators didn’t want to take a complaint by mostly rural independent carriers to impose access charges for terminating IP calls, but were forced to, Fonteix said. Ala. and Ore. regulators, facing similar petitions, also seek a national policy to follow, he said. Policy makers are largely “beginning to take a more reserved approach, realizing Voice over IP is in its infancy and needs to be handled carefully,” he said. Fonteix said his bottom line was that VoIP should be treated as an information service, with some regulation for social goals delegated to the states.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
Fla. Public Service Comr. Charles Davidson said he agreed “with probably 100% of what Wayne said.” He said his state, which has a hands-off broadband and information services statute covering VoIP, is taking “the right approach,” as are other states that are eschewing regulation. He urged those in VoIP businesses to “educate regulators” against imposing requirements. Telecom was regulated because it was a monopoly, Davidson said; no rationale exists on VoIP, which is nascent, borderless, not dominated by any players and poised to spur price competition and new offerings.
The guiding principles are that regulation threatens choice by deterring the investment needed for innovation, and competition benefits customers “much more than a regulatory tweaking of the model,” so the trend should be to “regulate down” on incumbents rather than “regulate up” by sweeping in upstarts, Davidson said. A full regulatory regime isn’t justified by social aims, such as universal service or emergency services access, and established carriers’ VoIP should be regulated the same as others’, he said. “We need a level playing field.”
But Cal. Public Utility Comr. Carl Wood offered a stark contrast. “There is a range of views in the regulatory world, but there is a center of gravity,” he said, referring to NARUC’s position that “Congress and the FCC should proceed carefully before preventing regulation by the federal or state governments.” He rejected Davidson’s view that telecom regulation had no rationale other than restraining monopoly. All but the most extreme libertarians support some regulation even of highly competitive industries, such as groceries, Wood said. The 1934 Communications Act also promoted universal service, and highly successfully, he said. He said extending universal service to broadband deserved consideration; there’s no consensus for that, he acknowledged, but he said the climate was turning that way. As for level playing fields, he said companies always demand them when the argument is convenient but nobody really wants them -- they want competitive advantages. Wood noted what he called a particular danger: Creating regulatory arbitrage opportunities by excluding VoIP providers from requirements on telcos, notably openings for Bells’ unregulated affiliates. He also demurred on an idea advanced by various speakers, namely making the use of phone numbers the criterion for application of regulation. This would be regressive, insofar as a lifeline number would count the same as an all-you-can-eat line, and only encourage providers to offer service that didn’t use phone numbers.