STATE REGULATORS URGE FCC TO PREEMPT THEM FROM VoIP OVERSIGHT
CHICAGO -- Two state regulators Tues. took the unusual stance of urging the FCC to assert federal jurisdiction over VoIP and preempt states from regulating the new service, a move that caused their panel’s moderator, FCC Chmn. Powell’s senior advisor Christopher Libertelli, to remark on the oddity of their positions. The 2 regulators -- Cal. PUC Comr. Susan Kennedy and Fla. PSC Comr. Charles Davidson -- have a reputation for being independent in their thinking about regulation. They spoke on a panel at Supercomm here.
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.
“What’s needed is a clear decision that IP is interstate,” said Kennedy. She said preemption “keeps us out of economic regulation,” but states still would have other regulatory authority, such as consumer protection and “terms and conditions” of providing service. “The hardest thing for regulators to do is step away. We desperately need the FCC to step in and take the bullet,” she said. Nothing could be worse than a “patchwork” of 50 different state regulations throughout the country, Kennedy said: “This is a global industry, we need a national policy.”
Davidson said states “should not be considering regulation of a company like Vonage… that doesn’t have market power.” Regulators shouldn’t apply “legacy” regulation to VoIP service, he said. If there are social goals that can’t be addressed by market forces, regulators could create a completely different kind of regime. Better forms of emergency response or disabled access might emerge through VoIP, he said. If the FCC doesn’t “assert jurisdiction, Vonage will suffer,” Davidson said.
VoIP is a target for regulation because “the most powerful emotion is fear and Internet telephony sets off fear,” said Kennedy. “Internet telephony scares everyone” because it’s different than anything else, she said. Regulators see convergence as the future but don’t know how to handle it, she said. She said if VoIP regulation is “taken away from the states,” they would have more time for significant policy decisions, such as how to handle “interstate access in an IP world.” Retaining authority over VoIP is important to states because they now have jurisdiction and it’s hard to let go, Kennedy said.
FCC Wireline Bureau Chief William Maher said he'd like to “recognize Comrs. Davidson and Kennedy as honorary members of the wireless staff” because they have views similar to the bureau’s. “Regulators should not touch the Internet” and in fact didn’t “touch” the Web, instant messaging or e-mail, Maher said. “Voice has been the great differentiator because of the legacy situation,” he said. “Historically it has been regulated.” He said VoIP faced an “old wine and new skins” situation: “VoIP is a new wine and regulators are trying to pour it into old skins.” Maher said the “hardest thing for regulators is to stay our hand or, as Susan said, get out of the way, to refrain from forcing on then regulations meant for the old network of the Bell System.”
Joe Waz, Comcast vp-public policy counsel, said cable companies are willing to meet public policy goals as they move into IP telephony. For example, CableLabs is working with the FBI to make sure such offerings are compliant with CALEA, Waz said. He urged regulators not to discriminate against facilities-based IP phone providers such as cable in comparison to those that are non-facilities based. What’s most needed he said is “regulatory certainty, regulatory clarity and a clear federal policy.”