The FCC should reject a proposal by Alaska’s General Communications Inc. (GCI) for a Tribal and Native Alaskan carve-out from any cap on high cost Universal Service Fund support for competitive eligible telecommunications carriers (CETCs), the Rural Telecommunications Group said. “The GCI carve-out exempts the entire state of Alaska from any CETC cap since the total state is considered Tribal land,” RTG said: “Even urban Anchorage would be covered by the exemption… GCI’s supposedly ‘limited, competitively neutral exclusion’ is anything but… and would harm small, rural carriers that provide universal service in some of the most high cost areas of the Nation, including Alaska.”

Nebraska isn’t trying to place common-carrier controls on VoIP providers by demanding they pay into the state universal service program, a Public Service Commission representative said Wednesday on an FCBA-sponsored panel. “This is not about regulation; it’s about contributions,” said Jeff Pursley, director of the PSC Telecommunications Infrastructure and Public Safety Department. Vonage has sued the PSC for requiring it to pay into the state fund, citing an FCC order that put VoIP under federal regulation. The suit focuses on a potentially serious problem, said Jim Kohlenberger, executive director of the Voice on the Net Coalition. To put Vonage under a payment requirement, the state had to classify it a telecom carrier, a description that could open the door to “a panoply” of common-carrier regulations, Kohlenberger said. The FCC could help by answering lingering questions about the extent of federal jurisdiction over VoIP, he said. Verizon last year asked the FCC to clarify that federal jurisdiction applies to all VoIP services, Kohlenberger said. “The debate should be how to grow [new technology] rather than put it in boxes,” he said. Pursley said he agreed with Kohlenberger’s call for clarification. The state doesn’t want to “do anything to derail” the FCC’s national regulatory scheme,” he said. The event was held during the NARUC meeting.

Nebraska isn’t trying to place common-carrier controls on VoIP providers by demanding they pay into the state universal service program, a Public Service Commission representative said Wednesday on an FCBA-sponsored panel. “This is not about regulation; it’s about contributions,” said Jeff Pursley, director of the PSC Telecommunications Infrastructure and Public Safety Department. Vonage has sued the PSC for requiring it to pay into the state fund, citing an FCC order that put VoIP under federal regulation. The suit focuses on a potentially serious problem, said Jim Kohlenberger, executive director of the Voice on the Net Coalition. To put Vonage under a payment requirement, the state had to classify it a telecom carrier, a description that could open the door to “a panoply” of common-carrier regulations, Kohlenberger said. The FCC could help by answering lingering questions about the extent of federal jurisdiction over VoIP, he said. Verizon last year asked the FCC to clarify that federal jurisdiction applies to all VoIP services, Kohlenberger said. “The debate should be how to grow [new technology] rather than put it in boxes,” he said. Pursley said he agreed with Kohlenberger’s call for clarification. The state doesn’t want to “do anything to derail” the FCC’s national regulatory scheme,” he said.

The NARUC board Wednesday refused to approve a Telecom Committee resolution calling for national wireless consumer protection standards to be enforced by states. The board at the group’s winter meeting in Washington instead voted 16-9 to send it back to the committee with instructions to work with the Consumer Affairs Committee on the main question that has dogged the resolution since its introduction: Should a national wireless consumer standard set the ceiling on states’ jurisdiction as well as the floor? As written, the resolution would have had the national standards “constitute both the ‘floor and ceiling'” for state authority.

In an age where scores of information sources are at every citizen’s fingertips, public officials’ policymaking processes need to be fully transparent because “bad news can’t hide anymore, it will always get out,” said Victoria Clarke. The Comcast senior advisor and national news analyst made the comments in a keynote to state regulators at their winter meeting in Washington. Meanwhile, NARUC committees adopted four telecom policy resolutions including a controversial proposal for unifying federal and state oversight of wireless consumer protection. The resolutions must still be adopted by the NARUC board, which meets Wednesday, before becoming official policy.

Federal agencies are beefing up IPv6 transition efforts to meet a June Office of Management and Budget deadline, but other nations still run far ahead, and vendors are following the money, an E-Gov Institute IPv6 forum heard Wednesday. “This is an international competition,” and the U.S. must “win this battle,” said Gerald Lepisko, information technology specialist with the IRS planning and policy division. But to get agencies to respond at all vendors must tailor their approaches with care, he said.

Federal agencies are beefing up IPv6 transition efforts to meet a June Office of Management and Budget deadline (WID Nov 30 p3), but other nations still run far ahead, and vendors are following the money, an E-Gov Institute IPv6 forum heard Wednesday. “This is an international competition,” and the U.S. must “win this battle,” said Gerald Lepisko, information technology specialist with the IRS planning and policy division. But to get agencies to respond at all, vendors must tailor their approaches with care, he said.

The Florida Public Service Commission stripped competitive landline reseller Vilaire Communications of its state operating authority, saying it filed false claims for universal service subsidies. Vilaire was an AT&T reseller specializing in service to low-income customers who qualified for Lifeline and Link Up service. The PSC said it acted because routine audits discovered the Washington-based company"falsely obtained” $1.3 million in federal Lifeline and Link Up subsidies since August 2006 through double- dipping in the federal universal service fund, and was charging customers an E-911 fee 50 percent higher than state law allowed. The PSC said Vilaire would receive resale universal service credit from AT&T for each Lifeline and Link Up customer. The PSC said Vilaire then submitted claims directly to the federal USF for those same customers, in effect getting paid twice for each customer. The PSC said Vilaire also filed subsidy claims for access lines that didn’t exist, and charged a 75 cent E-911 fee when state law caps such fees at 50 cents. The PSC assigned Vilaire’s customers to AT&T until they choose another local provider and said it would refer its universal service findings to federal authorities.

Consumers Union, the Consumer Federation of America and other public interest groups opposed Verizon Wireless’s proposed acquisition of Rural Cellular Corp. Their biggest objection was that RCC’s customers, now on a GSM-based network, would be shifted to Verizon’s CDMA network. The change would mean reduced choice for consumers, the groups said in a petition to deny filed with the FCC.

The Kansas Court of Appeals reversed lower state courts and ruled rural local exchange carriers aren’t entitled to two years’ interest on restored support payments initially lost from the state universal service fund in a subsidy formula adjustment. The case goes back to 2003, when state courts struck down the adjusted state formula for calculating per-line support to rural rate-of-return companies serving sparsely-populated areas. That decision stood in an April 2005 appeals court ruling and the matter was remanded to the Corporation Commission to revise the formula. The commission ended up returning to the original unadjusted formula, restoring the prior support levels in 2006 and releasing $3.5 million in restoration payments to affected telcos. The companies sued, saying they were entitled to two years’ interest on the restored amounts, and won at the trial court level. The commission appealed. The appeals court (Case 98- 705) said the telcos weren’t entitled to interest because the matter wasn’t finally decided until the commission fulfilled the remand and set the restoration payment amount. The appeals court said there was no way to determine what interest would be until the commission acted on the remand. Interest would be owed from the date the commission finally acted, but not for the two years while the matter was in flux, the court said.