NARUC Task Force Invites Industry, Ignites IP Interconnection Debate

"This is the steady culmination of a very long process,” said Orjiakor Isiogu on Wednesday. He chaired the group since its formation, but his term as a commissioner of the Michigan Public Service Commission ended this summer. NARUC Telecom Committee Chairman John Burke, member of the Vermont Public Service Board, has taken over. “Orji ran this show, and he did it in an exemplary way,” Burke said Tuesday. “All I'm going to do is park this bus.” Isiogu attended the NARUC meeting to moderate the Wednesday panels. Isiogu emphasized the inclusivity of the draft and attention to all stakeholders. Burke outlined the history of the task force’s formation, the need for a new model of federalism and the choice to pick members from a variety of states with different levels of regulation. The NARUC task force is revising a 2005 white paper and hopes to present a final product by the November meeting in Orlando.

FCC Wireline Bureau Chief Julie Veach applauded the task force. “It’s a tremendous effort,” she said Tuesday: “In reading the paper, what struck me was that we have a lot of commonality with what we consider to be important areas.” Both NARUC and the FCC value the way data can drive policy as well as share goals of universal service, consumer protection and public safety, among other priorities, said Veach. “It’s helpful we have these goals in common, so we can have a dialogue about what the best way to achieve them going forward.” The FCC “may be able to find an opportunity to discuss again” the nature of federalism, potentially between NARUC’s Denver meeting and its November one, Veach told the task force Wednesday.

Sprint supports the draft paper’s focus on technology-neutral interconnection obligations. “We have been faced with the response ‘Sorry, I don’t want to interconnect with you under [Communications Act] Section 251 and 252,'” Senior Counsel Ken Shifman told the task force, praising the paper for including sections on competition and interconnection next to each other. “We do believe that is one of the bedrock principles for state commissions.” Sprint believes in IP interconnection agreements due to their efficiencies and that the notion of IP interconnection “is not theoretical,” as the carrier goes around the country trying to form such agreements with incumbent telcos, he said. Shifman urged regulators to take this perspective before state legislators when considering IP oversight.

USTelecom Vice President-Industry and State Affairs Robert Mayer questioned applying traditional voice regulation to the IP environment and brought up the modern services he associates with IP. He pointed to “unresolved legal questions” about the status of certain services. “It would be inappropriate for states to take action predicated on the assumption” that certain sections of the Communications Act can be applied to IP agreements, he said. “When you're looking at the service, you need to look at the nature of the service,” countered CompTel Vice President-Regulatory Affairs Karen Reidy. “While IP can be used to provide a number of services, it is also used to provide traditional telecommunications services.” She emphasized that provisions of the act are technology-neutral and pointed to its significance in interconnection agreements. When arbitration agreements come before state regulators, they don’t have to wait for the FCC to act accordingly, Reidy said. Home Telecom Senior Vice President-Corporate Operations Keith Oliver pushed for clearer positions from the FCC on IP services, broadband and other elements he considers to have advanced in a messy fashion. “From a consumer standpoint, it’s critical they have some place to go,” whether the FCC or state regulators or the state attorney general, said the Colorado Office of the Consumer Counsel’s Bill Levis. That should be true whether the service is VoIP or traditional voice and “should be regulated regardless of technology,” Levis said.

"You can bounce it off the moon, and it’s still an intrastate call that begins and ends in the same jurisdiction,” said NARUC General Counsel Brad Ramsay from the audience during a panel of industry stakeholders. “I don’t think it adds anything to the debate to say, ‘Oh, we're going to route the call this way, so it’s no longer a local call.’ … I think it’s ridiculous.” He called the statutes “very specific” and said “it’s always been the case that you can route traffic around the world” without, from a jurisdictional perspective, changing the jurisdictional authority.

Some stakeholders expressed appreciation for how the task force’s views have evolved. “There is no sort of blind assertion of state jurisdiction as there was in the first principles,” said NCTA Vice President-State Government Affairs Rick Cimerman.

The task force wanted to dig into its principles “behind closed doors” before unveiling anything publicly, said Paul Kjellander, a member of the task force and the Idaho Public Utilities Commission. States are “very different” in their regulation of telecom, he said, pointing to the need for a document that captures that diversity. “Look at a way to restart, rebuild those relationships,” he said. “It’s a time for us to reboot, restart, to take advantage of the changes happening at the FCC. I think this document tries to strike that tone. … We are trying to look at a path forward.”

"We're not looking for one plan that suits everyone -- we're looking for collaboration, cooperation,” said Ryan Palmer, a member of the task force and the West Virginia Public Service Commission. He emphasized “that spirit of congeniality” required and of acknowledging “problems” of the last few years. The timing is “perfect” considering the problems following last year’s Superstorm Sandy and derecho, which left consumers without 911 service for “significant” periods of time, said Palmer. He’s emphasizing the principles when talking to his state legislators, he said.

The task force members came from “very different vantage points,” but arrived at the same concept that they all serve the same people, said Ronald Brisé, chairman of the Florida Public Service Commission. “Both the state and federal regulators have a role in this space, and can hopefully work together on that,” Nelson said. State roles may differ “and that’s the way it’s supposed to work,” Nelson said. He called these the “bedrock” and “non-negotiable” principles that can last for years. Commissioner Catherine Sandoval of the California Public Utilities Commission said she was impressed by how quickly the task force came together on principles and expressed hope that they “continue to be vibrant” and enduring for telecom consumers. “In some cases, competition doesn’t solve all the problems, and that’s why consumers need to know where to go, especially when you're talking about issues like slamming,” she said. Sandoval called the principles potential “guiding stars” to help stakeholders make decisions.