Wireline Bureau at Work on ICC Reform, E-rate Enforcement
FCC Wireline Bureau Chief Jeffrey Carlisle told reporters Wed. the bureau expects to get an intercarrier compensation item to FCC Chmn. Powell in a month or 2, making it possible to see action by the middle of next year. In a press briefing, he said the bureau is “on track” in developing final TRO rules by the Dec. target and also considers VoIP jurisdiction, e-rate enforcement and the universal service contributions system as top priorities.
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.
Carlisle said the intercarrier compensation project is tough because the bureau has received 5 or 6 industry proposals, not just one industry plan as was the case when the agency acted on the CALLS plan for access charges and universal service reform. The long-awaited Intercarrier Compensation Forum’s plan “is not like CALLS, not the only game in town,” he said. In answer to a question, he said the bureau plans to develop a further notice of proposed rulemaking (FNPRM) that would seek comment on changing the intercarrier compensation regime. Carlisle said he'd prefer that those comments offered broad analysis of how to improve intercarrier compensation rather than comparing the plans point by point.
He said an item on e-rate enforcement could reach the 8th floor in the next couple of weeks. Among other things, it would look at whether to lower the top 90% discount rate for the poorest schools, he said. The 90% scale has drawn attacks from Congress and critics who say it doesn’t require schools to put enough of their own money in the program to discourage fraud and waste, he said.
Carlisle said the deadline is Fri. for the FCC to act on Verizon’s Sec. 251-271 petition unless the agency decides before then to extend the deadline for 3 months. The petition asked the FCC to rule that if the Bells are freed of treating a network element as a TELRIC-priced UNE under Sec. 251, regulators can’t turn that decision around and require competitive access under Sec. 271. Carlisle said the Commission is considering the petition, which he said raises interesting questions of treatment under 2 somewhat similar sections of the Telecom Act: “Sec. 251 posits there is a possibility you're going to take certain elements off the list, but what happens if the elements also are on this specific Sec. 271 list? It’s like one of those Russian dolls that you open up and there’s a smaller one and a smaller one.” It wouldn’t be so hard if it was a “straight legal issue” for the FCC but the states also have authority and the industry “is intensely interested,” he said.
He confirmed that Vonage’s petition seeking a ruling that VoIP is jurisdictionally interstate is on the 8th floor for a Commission vote (CD Oct 20 p6). Action on VoIP jurisdiction is “particularly important” to avoid a “patchwork of multiple state and federal court decisions” requiring the FCC “to make policy on top of that.” For example, the 8th U.S. Appeals Court, St. Louis, has scheduled a Nov. 17 oral argument on VoIP action by Minn. regulators.
Carlisle said there are different ways to approach the jurisdictional issue. The simplest is to act on whether a service is interstate or not, he said. More complicated is to get into classification of a service, for example as an information service. In addition, determining jurisdiction through Vonage’s petition is simpler than through the pending IP-enabled services rulemaking, he said. And, determining jurisdiction for VoIP only is easier than looking at all IP-based services, he said. The broader issues in the IP-enabled rulemaking, such as what regulatory regimes apply, won’t be acted on until first quarter next year at the earliest, so the Vonage petition would provide action sooner, he said. He said his choice would be to deal with jurisdiction solely, rather than also tackling “the knottier classification decision.”
Asked about complaints by some VoIP providers that network operators sometimes discriminate against them, Carlisle said he’s heard the comments but until the VoIP providers offer proof that there’s a problem, the bureau wouldn’t take action. “We've heard speculation… that last mile providers have incentives to degrade or block [VoIP providers’ services], but we haven’t had someone say it’s happening with a negative affect on our business,” Carlisle said.
On universal service contributions, Carlisle said he has asked his staff to begin moving on proposed changes in the contributions methodology, an issue that has been dormant since it was first brought up more than a year ago. “The issue there is do we give up the revenue-based system and move to a numbers or connections-based requirement,” he said.