The National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates questioned the legality...

compensation order. The FCC offered 29,000 words on its changes but never addressed the “legal authority” of the ARC, “in stark contrast” to the rest of the order, NASUCA said Tuesday. “The FCC cites no authority that would allow it to directly impose a new charge on end users to recover ILECs’ lost revenues caused by the FCC’s decision to move to a bill-and-keep (zero rate) ICC [intercarrier compensation] regime,” NASUCA said. “This is particularly true because a significant part of those lost revenues are intrastate revenues -- derived from calls that begin and end within a single state.” The charge is “particularly unreasonable” because it affects companies and not states, the association said. FCC action represents a “usurpation of state authority over ICC” and the charge is “unlawful” and totals millions, it added. Consequently, FCC adoption of the charge “must be reversed,” NASUCA said. “We are confident that the Commission’s Order is legally sound and look forward to defending it in court,” an FCC spokesman responded by email. He emphasized the potential benefits of the order: “Intercarrier compensation reform will unleash over $1.5 billion in annual benefits to consumers by eliminating hidden calling costs while removing major barriers to deployment of advanced IP-based broadband networks."