Panelists Debate Regulation of IP-Based Services
Govt. has a responsibility to regulate new IP-based services, not just to protect consumers but also to make sure new Internet-based services grow competitively, panelists said Thurs. at the Broadband Policy Summit sponsored by Pike & Fischer. Panelists differed on how much regulation would be right. But they agreed the trick will be deciding who does the regulating and how much oversight to apply without harming new services’ growth.
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.
Regulation of IP-enabled telephony and video services has sparked jurisdiction battles. VoIP’s entry into the telephony market has pitted the federal govt. against state regulators. On the video side, the Bells have lobbied state and federal policy-makers to preempt application of local govt. franchising requirements for the Bells’ cable-like TV services.
Despite growing sentiment for national regulation of IP services, “there is a meaningful role for the states that hopefully the FCC, courts and Congress will endorse,” said Md. PSC Comr. Allen Freifeld. He said he sees “the future role of the states” as not applying “traditional economic regulation and difficult certification procedures.” Instead it would aim to assure new entrants have access to network facilities they need to compete, a role for which states are “well suited,” he said. For example, Freifeld said, new entrants need: (1) Interconnection through “reasonable” procedures. (2) Last mile connections. (3) Bars on incumbents discriminating in favor of their affiliated service providers. (4) Number portability. (5) Interoperability. (6) Access to telephone numbers. States also provide good adjudicatory procedures and fact-finding, he said.
Video competition’s advent raises questions for the local franchising process, including how competition affects traditional universal video service or PEG requirements, said Bruce Regal, senior counsel of the N.Y.C. law dept. Regal said many franchising requirements were developed for monopoly cable providers. When video providers come with “infinite Internet capacity,” what is PEG channels’ role? he asked. Even in consumer protection, local govts. are getting new types of complaints from customers “like ‘My DVR didn’t record the last program,'” Regal said.
Franchising requirements for IP video is a “tough issue” but one thing is certain: “The end result should not be a tax, should not collect new revenue” for govts., said Ex-Fla. PSC Comr. Charles Davidson. There’s a role for “a unified national regime” to meet social goals, such as a recent FCC order that VoIP providers offer customers E-911 access, Davidson said. However, he said, the “guiding principle” should be: “As new platforms emerge, [govts.] should regulate down and not automatically impose existing rules on new technologies.” Regal agreed that markets can be “effective regulators” but markets sometimes fail, so govts. still have a role in determining when to step in, he said.
SBC Senior Vp Dorothy Attwood, addressing the summit Wed., said her company plans to offer “an integrated next- generation” video service to all customers in its territory within 5 years through various technologies. The company earlier said its Lightspeed IP-based TV service would reach 18 million households in 3 years. SBC also has a DSL-Satellite video product. Verizon Senior Vp Kathryn Brown told attendees in a speech that it would be wrong to “lock the future of broadband in the regulatory shackles of the past.” She said the franchising process can take 12 months, slowing Verizon’s rollout of video services to consumers. Brown said the company’s Fios network has enough capacity for PEG use and the company is willing to meet must-carry requirements or pay fees to municipalities. Nonetheless, it must get a franchise to offer video “on a network we already have authority to operate.”