STATE REGULATORS EXPRESS CONCERNS OVER FCC CABLE, DSL ACTIONS
NEW ORLEANS -- Some state regulators said Wed. they were concerned about FCC’s tentative conclusion that cable modem and DSL were “information services,” specifically that doing so would open door for offerings such as cable IP telephony to get off scot-free in terms of regulation. Speaking at NCTA convention here, Peter Bluhm, dir.-regulatory policy, Vt. Public Service Board, laid out several hypothetical scenarios in which illegal activities, including fraud, were taking place. He then questioned whether any of those things would be prosecutable or whether consumers would be afforded protections if those calls took place over cable line, rather than phone line. Several members of audience said FTC and other agencies had jurisdiction and authority to prosecute such offenses and that new regulations weren’t necessary. But regulators on panel generally disagreed, saying FCC needed to either preserve current regulatory regimes or create new “bucket” in which to place broadband services. “Are any of those consumer protections we can do without if the wire moves over to cable?” Bluhm asked: “I don’t really know that a telephone call made over a cable system has those protections.”
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
If your job depends on informed compliance, you need International Trade Today. Delivered every business day and available any time online, only International Trade Today helps you stay current on the increasingly complex international trade regulatory environment.
Bluhm said he worried that companies with control over Internet pipes would have undue control over content. “We're really concerned about the right of the citizenry to communicate as they wish without interference in the middle,” he said. Joseph Cusic of telecom section of Idaho PUC called it “a stretch” for FCC to have tentatively concluded that cable modem was “information service,” saying it really didn’t appear to fall in any of regulatory classifications currently available. “I would rather the FCC say: ‘We don’t know what it is’… and maybe put it into another bucket.” Bluhm agreed it “doesn’t fit into any category.” Jessica Zufolo, legislative dir.-telecom, consumer protection and water for NARUC, criticized several bills circulating on Capitol Hill, including Tauzin-Dingell and legislation recently introduced by Sen. Breaux (D-La.) that she said would deregulate and essentially be “picking winners and losers” among telecom sectors and companies. She, Bluhm and moderator Bradford Ramsay, NARUC gen. counsel, also criticized legislation for its inability to distinguish between voice, Internet and other communications since all packets of data in packet-delivered system look alike. Zufolo said consumers would have no recourse for protection against slamming or cramming practices or other service- related disputes.
Asked by member of audience about need for uniformity in treating those different technology issues, all panelists agreed some sort of parity was necessary but differed on means. “While we would all like consistency and one-size- fits-all, I'm not sure we're going to get there,” said Gregory Shafer, senior analyst with Fla. PSC. No matter what happens, they all agreed, litigation surely would follow. Ramsay said FCC’s decision to classify cable modem service as information service already was being appealed.