Federal/State Relationship over Broadband Debated; Mix & Match Models Proposed
Panelists differed on regulatory models for the future federal/state relationship over broadband and, during a conference call by the National Regulatory Research Institute Thursday, saw difficulties for federal regulators in classifying VoIP as a telecom service.
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.
There might be no exclusive models for allocation of federal/state regulation in a broadband world, said Tillman Lay of Spiegel & McDiarmid. Potential regulatory models could be mixed and matched regarding different regulatory obligations, Lay said. Entry and corporate structure requirements, as well as perhaps Universal Service Fund, could be under the FCC’s jurisdiction with input from federal/state joint boards, he said. Non-discrimination and service obligations could be subject to the delegation of enforcement authority model, under which the FCC makes all of the rules concerning broadband but delegates authority to enforce some or all of those rules to the state commissions, he said. Customer service could be subject to reverse preemption or even exclusive state regulation, he said. Under the reverse preemption model, the FCC regulates unless or until the state certifies that it regulates in a manner consistent with federal framework. Lay cited additional models including the historical common carrier model with interstate and intrastate jurisdiction, the joint board model under which the board (with both federal and state regulators) makes recommendations to the FCC but the FCC makes the ultimate decision, the wireless model under which states may regulate non-entry and non-rate terms and conditions, and the exclusive federal model.
Rick Cimerman, NCTA state government affairs vice president, said he leans towards a federal model but sees some role for state commissions in wholesale services. But states should have a role in IP-to-IP interconnection issues, he said. Hank Hultquist, AT&T federal regulatory affairs vice president, noted that whether there should be sector specific regulation is an issue. The current statutory framework under the Telecom Act might not be the best framework in a broadband world, he said. Everyone should think about what a better statutory framework should be, he said. Although change of statutory framework might happen, there’s no immediate need for change, Cimerman said.
Meanwhile, though the current law is sufficient for the FCC to act on classification of VoIP, it’s “politically difficult” for the agency to do so, said Joseph Witmer, assistant counsel at the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission. Sometimes the statute is up against market interests, he said. Classifying VoIP as a telecom service is not only unpopular among the carriers, regulators might not like it either, Hultquist said. It’s likely that the FCC would continue not to classify VoIP, he said.