NASUCA Kicks Off Mid-Year Meeting with Three New Resolutions
NASUCA passed resolutions Monday addressing the need for telecom regulation at a time when many states throughout the last year have embraced the industry-backed trend of deregulation. At its mid-year meeting in Charleston, S.C. the organization adopted firm stances on such controversial topics as VoIP regulatory oversight.
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.
NASUCA doesn’t want states to lose control of VoIP and encourages the “retention of traditional regulatory oversight and associated public interest obligations with respect to all voice telephone service, including VoIP, regardless of the technology used to provide the service” said Resolution 2012-01 which notes “telephone and cable corporations are incorrectly claiming that the evolutionary transition to VoIP constitutes the end” of the public switched telephone network (PSTN). “We all know these networks are evolving to VoIP,” said NASUCA telecom committee member Chris White. “The transition to VoIP is the next step in the evolution of the PSTN, and the regulatory oversight and associated public interest obligations traditionally applied to the PSTN should apply to voice telephone service,” NASUCA declares in its resolution. Regina Costa, acting telecom chair of NASUCA, was responsible for drafting these resolutions and spoke adamantly against the trend of deregulating VoIP around the country. Such deregulation is currently being considered in her state of California with SB-1161 (CD June 25 p6). NARUC general counsel Brad Ramsay said regulators “should not selectively deregulate functionally equivalent services based on the technology a particular carrier uses,” as Vonage, Verizon and other VoIP service providers are all providing competing phone services. From a market perspective, NASUCA’s endorsement of technology-neutral regulations is correct, and NARUC’s position is ultimately “letting individual states decide,” Ramsay said.
Industry voices have questioned the need for imposing such “traditional regulatory oversight” on VoIP. This is reflected in lobbying and deregulation bills throughout the country. The Voice on the Net Coalition, which includes AT&T, Google, Microsoft, Skype, Vonage and Yahoo, testified in favor of the California deregulation bill in progress, in which Executive Director Glenn Richards said VoIP has “flourished” in recent years, with some FCC oversight but not any from state PUCs. “The VON Coalition believes that the federal framework for IP communications first articulated by the FCC in the Pulver and Vonage orders, issued in 2004, have led to the dramatic growth and expansion of these services,” Richards said when presented with NASUCA’s VoIP resolution. “The FCC, where appropriate, has imposed consumer protection and public safety requirements on interconnected VoIP. At least 24 states have passed legislation that confirms that federal framework and it would be unfortunate if the other states attempted to impose unnecessary utility-like regulation on VoIP or other broadband applications at this time."
NASUCA’s other resolutions cover carrier of last resort (COLR), eligible telecom carrier (ETC), and USF funding. The FCC should “retain ‘legacy’ regulations and affirm state authority to enact and enforce COLR and ETC obligations,” NASUCA states in Resolution 2012-02. The organization resolves that COLR and ETC are “essential to the continued pursuit of the universal service objectives set forth in federal statutes.” NARUC “certainly agrees” that these COLR and ETC obligations “should be state policy questions,” said Ramsay. The third resolution, 2012-03, centers on USF funding. NASUCA supports “the adoption of federal universal service support contribution mechanisms that ensure all carriers and services that benefit from high cost universal service funding contribute to the program’s funding base.” The FCC should, NASUCA resolves, “adopt a contribution mechanism requiring carriers and services that benefit from high cost universal service funding to contribute to federal universal service funds.” NARUC lacks a formal position on this resolution, but Ramsay said he sees “a certain logic to that” line of thinking.
Not all states weighed in on the three resolutions. Indiana abstained from voting on two of the three resolutions, for instance, only supporting 2012-03, and Michigan abstained on all three votes. NASUCA’s meeting is scheduled to last through Tuesday.