California Regulators Back Off on VoIP Regulation After Last Year’s IP Law
Verizon and AT&T are happy that California state regulators are backing off on talk of instituting VoIP provider requirements, they told the regulators this week, while objecting to concerns of consumer advocates. President Michael Peevey of the California Public Utilities Commission filed a proposed draft decision on Jan. 28 that would potentially close one of the CPUC’s dockets on VoIP regulation. That docket focused on a potential rulemaking on how interconnected VoIP providers would contribute to the support of California’s public purpose programs, including the state’s LifeLine program, high-cost funds, its Advanced Services Fund, Teleconnect Fund and the Deaf and Disabled Telecom Program. The proposed decision is part of a two-year proceeding in the state, begun in January 2011. But a California law, SB 1161, passed last fall (CD Oct 2 p7) would restrict state regulation of IP services for the next several years and should kill the proceeding, Peevey argued.
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.
"Since both the initial intended scope of this proceeding and the request for an augmented scope have been rendered moot by the passage of legislation that specifically addressed all of the issues involved, there is no further need for this proceeding to remain open,” Peevey wrote in his proposed order (http://bit.ly/Y8dS9N). “If and when there is a need to consider further the status of VoIP service providers, other or new proceedings will be utilized."
Consumer advocates don’t want two years of dialogue wasted. The Utility Reform Network (TURN) and the Center for Accessible Technology expressed reservations about Peevey’s proposed order. To close the docket may be “sending a misleading message to carriers and consumers,” they said in joint comments (http://bit.ly/ZMvFHB). “The overall issue of whether a VoIP carrier should be considered a ’telephone corporation’ is not moot. Even more, recent legislation designed to comprehensively address VoIP carrier regulation by state agencies, SB 1161, arguably does not make a finding on this issue.” The docket had raised important questions about VoIP provider certification, among other issues, that shouldn’t be abandoned, they said. The joint comments recommended the CPUC signal to people that the dialogue hasn’t been lost. The CPUC should “create a proper paper trail” signifying the talk continues in other dockets if this one closes, they added. They're fine with closing the docket, they said.
No more dockets are required to consider many of these issues, AT&T countered (http://bit.ly/15lL4hm). The telco doesn’t object to Peevey’s proposal and in its own reply comment calls the TURN comments “without merit.” “Categorizing VoIP service providers as ’telephone corporations’ would plainly have the effect of subjecting them to regulation, and thus is prohibited by SB 1161,” AT&T said.
There’s no need for the CPUC to open any other dockets to continue its current VoIP complaint process, allowed under the California IP law, it added. The process, as has happened before and mentioned in the law, is informal, the telco said. “AT&T has worked informally with the Commission regarding VoIP complaints for the past few years, and has continued this same working relationship after the passage of SB 1161,” it said. And any other regulations that the consumer advocates mention, such as on certification and explicit line items for public purpose surcharges, aren’t legally allowed under the recent state law, it said.
Verizon supports Peevey’s proposed decision and agrees the law renders the docket considerations moot. It also slammed the consumer advocates’ suggestions this week in reply comments. “The Commission should reject TURN’s request as it is unnecessary, speculative and beyond the scope of this proceeding,” Verizon told California regulators (http://bit.ly/XFHo7X). “TURN alleges no factual, legal or technical error warranting modification” of Peevey’s proposed decision.