NARUC Task Force Draft Provokes IP Transition Debate

The draft is “a compromise” that improves on the earlier version but still prompts concerns, said NCTA. It welcomed the task force’s emphasis on collaboration and its broader definition of what state involvement and state entities might mean. NCTA objected to the task force draft’s openness to differing state standards for protecting consumer data. “A patchwork of state (and possibly local) regulations would be counterproductive and have unintended effects on privacy protections and consumer interests,” NCTA said (http://bit.ly/11n3XCI). The association urged instead “national consistency.”

USTelecom objected to two points of definition that are controversial amid Internet Protocol transition talk. The task force shouldn’t say that Communications Act sections 251 and 252 are technology neutral because that “will be interpreted to mean that the Whitepaper is endorsing the view that IP interconnection should be subject” to those requirements, said Vice President-Industry & State Affairs Robert Mayer (http://bit.ly/14XIMDT). USTelecom also criticized the draft defining communications as “both traditional voice communications and communications over broadband facilities (VoIP or similar IP-enabled services), and new services such as texting, instant messaging, and similar means of sharing information among multiple parties.” It’s a definition Mayer called “overly broad.” State and federal authorities have not shared jurisdiction for some of these services, and including the definition may create the impression the group “is advocating for an expansion of regulation over historically unregulated services that have prospered and for which no carrier exercises market power,” USTelecom said.

The New York Law School’s Advanced Communications Law and Policy Institute echoed these two points (http://bit.ly/17Y0OfB). It criticized the communications definition for broadness and lobbied against technology-neutral regulation. It warned of “possible harmful effects,” emphasizing VoIP calls differ from landline ones. The institute requested the task force narrow its terms when discussing interconnection, given “specific role of the states vis-à-vis IP interconnection remains unspecified at this point in time.” It slammed what it interpreted as the group’s endorsement of patchwork regulation: “Calling for the creation of 50 different regulatory regimes risks enormous consumer welfare losses in the form of higher prices and fewer competitive choices.”

But the IP transition poses issues that may threaten competition, CompTel said. “It is imperative that state commissions continue to arbitrate interconnection agreements and resolve disputes as specified in the Act, regardless of whether the interconnection involves TDM or IP facilities,” CompTel told the task force (http://bit.ly/12Lke2p). “Indeed, the future of competition depends on competitors’ ability to interconnect with the ILECs on an IP-to-IP basis for voice traffic that” traverses the public switched telephone network, said the association. CompTel noted that the task force draft suggests wholesale arbitration may be restricted depending on state law but encourages it to recognize the requirements of federal law. The association also wants the task force to call for the “preservation of competitors’ last mile access rights as the industry continues moving from circuit-switched to packet-based services,” with a suggestion that the group add a section on states evaluating copper retirement. It cautioned the task force against describing IP-enabled services as largely unregulated for now, calling that a more open question.

NASUCA spent much of its comments affirming the goals the task force laid out. Technology changes don’t “change the need for reliable, robust, and ubiquitous communications services that are universally available, reasonably-priced, and reasonably comparable,” the consumer advocates said (http://bit.ly/19YZruf). “Although competition provides a key means for disciplining the market, where competition is not sufficient to offer users adequate, reasonably-priced, high quality service choices, regulation may be needed as a backstop.” It praised states as “vital partners” to help serve consumers throughout these technological changes and advocated the FCC make use of the Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service and the Federal-State Joint Board on Jurisdictional Separations to receive state input.

Some stakeholders encouraged explicit discussion of broadband and next-generation 911. “We suggest that the final report examine the changing broadband landscape and delineate the questions that should be considered concerning whether any regulation over broadband is necessary and if so, what authority should be exercised by the FCC and what authority should be reserved to the states,” wrote Keith Oliver, senior vice president of Home Telecom (http://bit.ly/16TcOu9). He called the white paper “a seminal event in the development of appropriate broadband policy” and said it should serve as a clarion call for consumer interests. He lamented the “regulatory vacuum” on the federal level that prompted the need for such a federalism task force. The states should have a more active role in broadband, Home said. Texas 911 entities, a group comprising the Texas 911 Alliance, Texas Commission on State Emergency Communications and Municipal Emergency Communication Districts Association, urged the task force to include language from the FCC’s recommendations to Congress about Congress “creating a federal regulatory ‘backstop’ to ensure that there is no gap between federal and state authority (or the exercise thereof) over NG911” (http://bit.ly/1a76gxw).

State regulators have vital roles difficult to assume, said Vickie Nardello, former Connecticut state representative (D) who chaired the technology and energy committee (http://bit.ly/12Luvra). Privacy standards should be a cooperative effort between state and federal officials and are vital consumer protections, she said. Regulators also must set standards for storm response and find ways to get better data about company deployments and the true level of competition out there, she said. “The claim of competition should not be enough for regulators unless it is backed up by hard data.” She questioned the impact of reducing state regulation, especially when premised on competition claims. The FCC should consult with the joint boards, she added, citing concerns over its more informal processes that may shut states out.

"Bad things can happen in state capitol buildings -- poorly conceived, heavily lobbied legislation can yank the regulatory rug out from beneath state regulators,” said Susan Baldwin, a Massachusetts consultant who once directed telecom for what was then the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities (http://bit.ly/1bcjcQH). The paper should encourage PUCs to work with legislatures, she said. Baldwin cited recent work with AARP to defeat what she called “two bad bills” in Connecticut, one focused on telecom deregulation broadly and the other on preempting state IP regulation. States should retain jurisdiction over new technologies, she said. She described the importance of both state and federal oversight of Verizon’s fixed-wireless Voice Link, a copper alternative now being deployed on Fire Island.