In light of a Senate Commerce Committee markup on VoIP (S-2281) scheduled for today (Thurs.), Sen. Sununu (R-N.H.) said “the toughest parts of the discussions are the technical aspects of access charge and universal service.” Speaking at a Capitol Hill Policy Luncheon sponsored by Nortel in Washington Wed., he said: “We are not going to touch these access charges until there is a universal, comprehensive uniform system for access charges on terminations of voice, video and data on anyone’s network. I think that’s a reasonable way to approach it. That is, we want this treated equitably and uniformly; that says there is going to be some system of reciprocal compensation unless you get to a bill and keep system, which is… I am not naive enough to [believe] that is going to happen any time soon.” He said “the biggest obstacle” was crafting “the technical language on access charges and the technical language on universal service… so that we go forward, but not backwards.” Sununu stressed that with IP-enabled services, the goal was to “create a consistent, clear regulatory environment, so that all participants know that if they are risking capital, what the standards, what the impact of the universal service or access charges will or will not be.” He said “it’s important to underscore… we don’t yet know the ways in which this technology will provide new services to customers.” Sununu said “we are trying to create a level playing field… There is going to be a period of transition, but in the long run, we are trying to get to a place where all forms of broadband communication are treated equitably, so that broadband cable versus DSL versus wireless broadband are on a relatively equal playing field. I want to take us in that direction, and certainly not to take us back.” Meanwhile, Michelle Carey, FCC Wireline Bureau Competition Div. policy chief, said the FCC was working “very actively” on a CALEA NPRM and expected to release it “sometime next month.” She listed the most significant issues for the Commission to address short term, while moving forward with the IP-Enabled services NPRM: (1) “How to define the scope of IP services.” (2) “What the appropriate access obligations should be.” (3) What universal service obligations should be. The FCC’s “authority over information services” is such “that we can require them to contribute [to the Universal Service Fund] if we feel that’s in public interest,” she said.

SALT LAKE CITY -- Closing speakers at the NARUC summer meeting here said VoIP, broadband over power lines (BPL) and other promising new telecom technologies and applications will face major development hurdles until federal and state regulators sort out their oversight roles. All major telecom resolutions were unanimously approved by the NARUC board during the convention.

The FCC proposal that broadcasters retain recordings of their programs for 60-90 days (CD July 8 p4) drew mixed initial responses from public broadcasters. The Assn. of Public TV Stations (APTS), representing more than 350 stations, said it would oppose the proposal, while some public radio stations welcomed it as a good administrative procedure that would bail them out in the event of listener complaints. Public radio attorney and former NPR legal counsel Ernest Sanchez said what’s largely gone unnoticed is a U.S. Appeals Court, D.C., decision in 1978 striking down FCC requirements that noncommercial broadcast stations keep audio recordings of their programs for 60 days.

The NARUC Telecom Committee’s agenda at the group’s summer meeting that began yesterday (Sun.) in Salt Lake City is focused on billing, interconnection, competition and universal service issues. A proposed policy resolution on truth in billing has drawn early attention. The resolution would urge NARUC to support a petition at the FCC by the National Assn. of State Utility Consumer Advocates (NASUCA) for national billing guidelines and uniform labeling of charges, along with an FCC declaration that carriers who ignore the FCC rules are engaging in improper conduct. The petition reflects consumer concerns about the various surcharges and fees that carriers add to bills while rarely disclosing them to consumers who sign up for service, so they end up paying more than anticipated. The NARUC resolution would agree that NASUCA has raised substantive concerns and that NARUC supports the petition. NARUC last year and the year before adopted resolutions calling in various ways for billing reforms to make bills better serve consumer needs. Other NARUC resolutions would address federal appropriations to help cover the travel expenses of state members on federal-state joint boards, and wireless directory assistance services. Telecom Committee panels include Sun. panels on the new commercially negotiated interconnection arrangements and rural high-cost support and a Mon. panel on intercarrier compensation. Tues. panels will cover broadband over power lines, and local competition’s impacts on small business customers. Tues. also will see addresses by FCC Comr. Michael Copps and Cbeyond CEO Jim Geiger. Wed. will include 2 panels on universal service funding issues.

Congress faces a choice between acting quickly to preempt states from regulating VoIP or taking more time to tackle the Internet service in a broader rewrite of the Telecom Act, House Telecom Subcommittee members said Wed. At a hearing on VoIP, industry witnesses disagreed. The preference seemed to be what some committee members considered impossible: A more comprehensive Telecom Act rewrite done quickly. House Commerce Subcommittee on Commerce Chmn. Stearns (R-Fla.) told us after the hearing, however, that the debate is more complicated than that. “Some of them [Commerce Committee members] don’t want to do anything at all,” he said. Full Committee Chmn. Barton (R- Tex.) didn’t take a position on the best approach, but he did predict “VoIP is going to be huge. I think it’s going to make cell phone expansion look like wagon trains.” Barton told the witnesses Congress will preempt states on VoIP regulation: “There should be only one, federal set of rules that apply to VoIP.”

In a move to promote reduction of access deficit charges (ADC), Indian telecom regulator TRAI suggested switching to a regime based on a percentage of revenue. It said while in most countries, the funding of access deficit had been merged with the Universal Service Obligation program, “in India too, the aim… is to transition towards such a situation, while maintaining an [ADC] regime in the interim period.” The ADC regime, which was first implemented by TRAI in Jan. 2003 and revised later that year, has raised serious concerns among many U.S. providers of international long distance. CompTel/Ascent has said while the revised regulation “offers some limited structural improvements on the ADC component, [it] still relies on an imprecise calculation of the access deficit to be recovered and continues to place a heavy recovery burden on international service providers and their customers.” TRAI asked for comments on the proposal by July 15.

VoIP would be an interstate service not classified as a telecom or information service under a new bill, the Advanced Internet Communications Services Act (AICS) to be introduced by House Commerce Subcommittee on Commerce Chmn. Stearns (R- Fla.) and House Internet Caucus Co-Chmn. Boucher (D-Va.). They announced the bill Tues. on the eve of a hearing today (Wed.) on VoIP in the House Telecom Subcommittee. The bill would make VoIP solely a federal issue, and would avoid both Title I (information service) and Title II (telecom) of the Communications Act. The FCC and federal courts have wrestled with the issue of where broadband services should be classified, including with cable in Title VI. The bill, promoted by Stearns and Boucher at a Hill news conference, would extend federal jurisdiction to all IP services, including video.

A federal appeals court ruled the Tex. PUC can’t include proceeds from interstate and international calling in the revenue base on which a telecom carrier’s state universal service fund assessment is figured. The U.S. Appeals Court, Dallas, was ruling on an Oct. 2002 AT&T suit against the PUC, in which AT&T argued it shouldn’t have to pay the 3.6% state universal service assessment on interstate and international calling revenues because that money already is subject to FCC assessment for the federal universal service fund. AT&T won in lower court March 2003, but the PUC appealed. AT&T continued to recover its universal service assessments from its customers but put the disputed portion into escrow while the PUC’s appeal was being considered. If the appeals court’s decision stands, AT&T said it will refund the money to customers. The decision will cost the state fund about 18.5% of its annual revenues, or about $100 million yearly -- and possibly more because the state may have to reimburse other telecom carriers for unlawful assessments. The state has until July 15 to seek reconsideration by the 5th Circuit or until the end of Sept. to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. The PUC said it will meet to discuss funding options, including raising the state telecom excise tax on local and intrastate calling.

The U.S. Appeals Court, D.C., affirmed the FCC’s June 2002 decision to allow increases in the cap on ILEC subscriber line charges (SLCs) to take effect as scheduled in the Commission’s CALLS order. Acting on the National Assn. of State Utility Consumer Advocates (NASUCA) v. FCC case (02- 1261) Tues., the D.C. Circuit denied NASUCA’s petition for review and held “the Commission acted reasonably and in conformity with the 1996 Act.”

The FCC asked the Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service to review the FCC’s high-cost universal service support mechanisms for rural carriers and recommend whether changes are needed. The FCC in an order released Mon. said it sought recommendations on development of a plan “that ensures that support is specific, predictable and sufficient to preserve and advance universal service.” The agency said it also sought recommendations on how to target that support to rural telephone companies serving high-cost areas “while protecting against excessive fund growth.” Though the vote was 5-0, Comrs. Martin and Adelstein said they were concerned about part of the order that asked the Joint Board to consider whether regulators should move to a forward-looking economic cost model for calculating high-cost support for some rural companies. “I questioned the Commission’s use of forward-looking costs as the basis for distributing universal service support for non-rural telephone companies and would have even greater concerns if such an approach would be used to distribute support to rural companies,” Martin said. Adelstein said the FCC in its Rural Task Force Order 3 years ago had determined “one size does ,not fit all” when considering universal service support mechanisms “so it gives me great pause that this… order asks the Joint Board to consider the use of forward-looking cost models to calculate support for rural telephone companies.”