IP-Enabled Services Comment Summaries
283 Pages
English
Downloading requires you to have access to the YouScribe library
Learn all about the services we offer

IP-Enabled Services Comment Summaries

-

Downloading requires you to have access to the YouScribe library
Learn all about the services we offer
283 Pages
English

Description

IP-ENABLED SERVICES COMMENT SUMMARIES WC Docket No. 04-36 JUNE 16, 2004 WILEY REIN & FIELDING LLP 1776 K Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 719-7000 © ♦ ♦ ♦2004 Wiley Rein & Fielding LLP Washington, DC Northern Virginia www.wrf.com TABLE OF CONTENTS 8x8, Inc.......................................................................................................................................... 1 911 Communications, Spokane Washington ............................................................................. 4 AARP ............. 5 ACN Communications Services, Inc. ......................................................................................... 6 Ad Hoc Telecommunications Users Committee........................................................................ 8 Alcatel North America............................................................................................................... 10 The Alliance for Public Technology (“APT”) ......................................................................... 12 American Foundation for the Blind (“AFB”) 14 American Public Communications Council (“APCC”).......................................................... 15 America’s Rural Consortium (ARC) ....................................................................................... 16 Amherst, Massachusetts Cable Advisory Committee...................................................... ...

Subjects

Informations

Published by
Reads 12
Language English

Exrait







IP-ENABLED SERVICES COMMENT SUMMARIES
WC Docket No. 04-36





JUNE 16, 2004









WILEY REIN & FIELDING LLP
1776 K Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20006
(202) 719-7000
© ♦ ♦ ♦2004 Wiley Rein & Fielding LLP Washington, DC Northern Virginia www.wrf.com

TABLE OF CONTENTS
8x8, Inc.......................................................................................................................................... 1
911 Communications, Spokane Washington ............................................................................. 4
AARP ............. 5
ACN Communications Services, Inc. ......................................................................................... 6
Ad Hoc Telecommunications Users Committee........................................................................ 8
Alcatel North America............................................................................................................... 10
The Alliance for Public Technology (“APT”) ......................................................................... 12
American Foundation for the Blind (“AFB”) 14
American Public Communications Council (“APCC”).......................................................... 15
America’s Rural Consortium (ARC) ....................................................................................... 16
Amherst, Massachusetts Cable Advisory Committee............................................................. 17
Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC)............................................................................... 18
ACUTA ....................................................................................................................................... 22
Association for Local Telecommunications Services (ALTS)................................................ 24 of Public-Safety Communications Officials-International, Inc. (APCO)......... 26
AT&T Corp. 28
Avaya Inc..... 33
Boulder Regional Emergency Telephone Service Authority ................................................. 39
BT Americas Inc. ....................................................................................................................... 40
Cablevision Systems Corp......................................................................................................... 42
California Public Utilities Commission.................................................................................... 44
Callipso Corporation ................................................................................................................. 47
Carolyn McLaughlin 48
CBeyond, GlobalCom, and Mpower ........................................................................................ 49
CenturyTel.................................................................................................................................. 50
Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe Telephone Authority ................................................................ 52
Cisco Systems ............................................................................................................................. 54
Citizens Utility Board, Illinois .................................................................................................. 56
Comcast Corp............................................................................................................................. 59
Communication Service for the Deaf, Inc................................................................................ 61
Communications Workers of America .................................................................................... 63
-ii-
© ♦ ♦ ♦2004 Wiley Rein & Fielding LLP Washington, DC Northern Virginia www.wrf.com

Consumer Electronics Assoc..................................................................................................... 65
CompTel/Ascent......................................................................................................................... 67
CompTIA.................................................................................................................................... 70
Computer and Communications Industry Association.......................................................... 72
Covad Communications ............................................................................................................ 74
Cox Communications, Inc......................................................................................................... 76
CTIA ........... 78
David E. Magnenat Jr................................................................................................................ 80
Deborah Taylor Tate ................................................................................................................. 81
Department of Homeland Security (DHS)............................................................................... 83
Dialpad, ICG, Qovia, and Voicepulse ...................................................................................... 85
Donald Clark Jackson 87
Earthlink, Inc. ............................................................................................................................ 89
Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF)..................................................................................... 91
Federation for Economically Rational Utility Policy (FERUP)............................................. 93
Frontier and Citizens Telephone Companies.......................................................................... 96
General Communications, Inc. (GCI)...................................................................................... 98
Glenn Gleixner ......................................................................................................................... 100
Global Crossing North America, Inc. .................................................................................... 101
GVNW Consulting, Inc. .......................................................................................................... 103
Harry Sherman ........................................................................................................................ 104
High Tech Broadband Coalition............................................................................................. 105
ICORE, Inc............................................................................................................................... 106
IEEE-USA................................................................................................................................. 108
Illinois Commerce Commission (“ICC”)............................................................................... 109
Inclusive Technologies............................................................................................................. 111
Information Technology Association of America (ITAA).................................................... 112
Information Technology Industry Council (ITI) .................................................................. 114
Interstate Telcom Consulting (ITCI) ..................................................................................... 115
Ionary Consulting .................................................................................................................... 116
Iowa Utilities Board ................................................................................................................. 118
John H. West ............................................................................................................................ 119
-iii-
© ♦ ♦ ♦2004 Wiley Rein & Fielding LLP Washington, DC Northern Virginia www.wrf.com

King County E911 Program ................................................................................................... 120
Level 3 Communications LLC................................................................................................ 121
Lucent Technologies Inc.......................................................................................................... 125
Maine Public Utilities Commissioners ................................................................................... 126
Marvin Nicholson III ............................................................................................................... 128
MCI ........................................................................................................................................ 129
Microsoft Corp......................................................................................................................... 133
Minnesota Public Utilities Commission ................................................................................. 135
Public Service Commission of the State of Missouri ............................................................ 137
Montana Public Service Commission..................................................................................... 141
Motorola, Inc............................................................................................................................ 143
NARUC: National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners................................ 145
National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates ................................................. 146
National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors ................................. 150
National Consumers League ................................................................................................... 152
National Exchange Carrier Association, Inc......................................................................... 154
National Governors Association ............................................................................................. 156
National Grange....................................................................................................................... 158
National Taxpayers Union ...................................................................................................... 159
NCTA ........................................................................................................................................ 160
National Telecommunications Cooperative Association ...................................................... 164
Nebraska Public Service Commission.................................................................................... 166
Nebraska Rural Independent Companies ............................................................................. 168
NENA.......... 170
Net2Phone, Inc. ........................................................................................................................ 171
New Jersey Board of Public Utilities...................................................................................... 174
New Jersey Ratepayer Advocate ............................................................................................ 175
Attorney General of New York............................................................................................... 178
City of New York ..................................................................................................................... 180
New York Public Service Commission................................................................................... 181
nexVortex, Inc. ......................................................................................................................... 182
Nortel Networks ....................................................................................................................... 184
-iv-
© ♦ ♦ ♦2004 Wiley Rein & Fielding LLP Washington, DC Northern Virginia www.wrf.com

Nuvio ........................................................................................................................................ 186
Office of Advocacy, U.S. Small Business Administration .................................................... 188
Public Utilities Commission of Ohio ...................................................................................... 189
Omnitor..................................................................................................................................... 192
OPASTCO. 193
Pac-West Telecomm................................................................................................................. 194
People’s Counsel for the District of Columbia (OPC-DC)................................................... 197
PointOne.... 198
pulver.com ................................................................................................................................ 200
Qwest ........................................................................................................................................ 202
Rebecca Ladew......................................................................................................................... 204
Rehabilitation Engineering Research Center on Telecommunications Access.................. 205
Rural Carriers.......................................................................................................................... 207
Rural Independent Competitive Alliance .............................................................................. 208
City and County of San Francisco.......................................................................................... 209
SBC Communications.............................................................................................................. 211
Self Help for Hard of Hearing People (SHHH)..................................................................... 214
Skype, Inc.................................................................................................................................. 215
Sonic.net..... 216
SPI Solutions, Inc..................................................................................................................... 217
Sprint ........................................................................................................................................ 218
Starchild..... 220
TelCom Consulting Associates (TCA) ................................................................................... 221
Telecommunications for the Deaf, Inc. .................................................................................. 223
Telecommunications Industry Association............................................................................ 224
Tellme Networks, Inc............................................................................................................... 226
Texas Attorney General .......................................................................................................... 228
Texas Coalition of Cities for Utility Issues 230
Texas Commission on State Emergency Communications .................................................. 232
Texas Department of Information Resources ....................................................................... 233
Time Warner Inc...................................................................................................................... 234 er Telecom............................................................................................................. 237
-v-
© ♦ ♦ ♦2004 Wiley Rein & Fielding LLP Washington, DC Northern Virginia www.wrf.com

TracFone Wireless ................................................................................................................... 240
USA Datanet Corporation....................................................................................................... 241
U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops...................................................................................... 242
U.S. Department of Justice...................................................................................................... 244
USTA ........................................................................................................................................ 246
United Telecom Council & United Power Line Council ...................................................... 249
Utah Division of Public Utilities.............................................................................................. 250
Valor Communications and Iowa Telecommunications Services ....................................... 252
VeriSign, Inc............................................................................................................................. 254
Verizon...................................................................................................................................... 256
Vermont Public Service Board ............................................................................................... 260
Virgin Mobile USA, LLC ........................................................................................................ 263
Virginia State Corporation Commission ............................................................................... 264
Voice on the Net (VON)........................................................................................................... 266
Vonage Holdings Corp. 268
The Western Telecommunications Alliance .......................................................................... 270
Wiltel Communications, LLC................................................................................................. 272
Wisconsin Electric Power Company and Wisconsin Gas Company................................... 273
The Yellow Pages Integrated Media Association.................................................................. 275
Z-Tel Communications, Inc. ................................................................................................... 276

-vi-
© ♦ ♦ ♦2004 Wiley Rein & Fielding LLP Washington, DC Northern Virginia www.wrf.com

8x8, Inc.
(32 pages)
Background of Commenter/Interest in Proceeding – VoIP and IP video provider.
Classification of IP-enabled Services
Telecommunications Service v. Information Service
8x8’s Packet8 and similar IP-enabled services share many of the attributes that convinced
the Commission to consider Free World Dialup an information service including: 1)
relying on users to provide their own broadband access, 2) providing enhanced services
not available in voice only protocols such as voicemail and email notification, and 3)
facing the same challenges in determining geographic location of users making it
impracticable to distinguish between intrastate and interstate traffic. Therefore, 8x8’s
VoIP offerings are information services. They are neither “telecommunications” nor a
“telecommunications service” and the provider of VOIP is not a telecommunications
carrier or common carrier subject to Title II of the Act. (15-18)
Interstate v. Intrastate
Since IP packets are not routed based upon geographic location, it not possible to
distinguish between intrastate and worldwide traffic on the Internet. Therefore, IP-
enabled services are inherently interstate in nature and thus the Commission should
preempt state regulation of these services. Failure to do so will result in multiple
regulatory schemes that will produce uncertainty, inefficiency, and a glacial regulatory
system that will stifle the fast-paced Internet industry. (12-15)
Differentiating Among IP-Enabled Services
An analytical framework based on the MCI Layers Model is best suited to determine
when, if ever, regulation is appropriate. Specifically, upper application and content
layers should not be regulated while lower logical and physical layers should be
regulated only to the extent necessary to address undue market power. (8-10) In
contrast, a functional equivalence or substitutability approach as they give rise to
substantial risk that significant and unjustifiable monopoly-based regulation will be
imposed on nascent VoIP offerings, squelching innovation in this vibrant sector.
Furthermore, imposing regulations based on interconnection/NANP or Peer-to-
Peer/Network formulations is harmful to consumers since IP-enabled service providers
will be forced to choose either subjecting themselves to burdensome regulation or else
not offering interconnection. (7-8)



1
© ♦ ♦ ♦2004 Wiley Rein & Fielding LLP Washington, DC Northern Virginia www.wrf.com

Application of Specific Regulatory Requirements and Benefits to IP-Enabled Services
Economic Regulation
Economic regulation of VoIP is unnecessary particularly at the “application layer.”
Because of the intense competition in the VoIP marketplace and because VoIP providers
don’t control the underlying telecommunications infrastructure, economic regulation is
unnecessary. (31)
Competition. Since VoIP application providers do not control any of the
telecommunications network, they lack public negotiating power and are subject
to intense competition, which prevents unjust or unreasonable rates and terms of
service. (31)
Intercarrier Compensation
When using the PSTN, 8x8 and providers of other similar VoIP services should be
treated as end user customers of their carrier partners instead of as carriers themselves.
To the extent the facilities of carriers are being used to complete calls, appropriate
compensation should be provided. However, the Commission must ensure that providers
of IP-enabled services pay only once for use of such facilities. In addition, reform is
needed so that compensation is based on costs, not on where the call originated or which
boundaries it crossed. (8x8 23-25)
Access Charges. LECs providing PSTN origination and termination services for
Packet8 traffic are currently receiving compensation from 8x8 indirectly, through
payments to CLECs for the minutes of traffic originating and terminating on the
PSTN. Therefore, additional intercarrier compensation in the form of access
charges would mean paying twice for the same service and would unjustifiably
increase costs to consumers. (23)
Universal Service
Since 8x8’s IP terminal adapters and videophones can be used anywhere a broadband
connection exists, it would be near impossible to identify the jurisdictional nature of
traffic for purposes of contributing to federal and state universal service funds. While
concern exists that migration to VoIP services may dramatically erode funding for
universal service providers, independent forecasts of the residential VoIP market do not
support some of this concern as the industry is still in its infancy. (27-28)
Public Safety and Disability Access
If allowed to develop, IP-enabled services could exceed current standards by offering
enhanced communications options like automatic email or voice alerts to relevant parties
in emergency situations, or enhanced communication options for the disabled such as
video communication and automated voice to text transcription. (22)
2
© ♦ ♦ ♦2004 Wiley Rein & Fielding LLP Washington, DC Northern Virginia www.wrf.com

911 and E911. Competitive forces in the IP-enabled services market are already
driving a concerted effort to provide E911 service to VoIP subscribers. Given the
rapid deployment of interim solutions and the accelerated progress toward an all-
IP solution that will have capabilities far superior to the legacy E911 network,
regulatory mandates are unnecessary. (20-22)
Disability Access. IP-enabled services are particularly well-equipped to handle
access to communications services by the disabled and innovative applications for
the disabled have already been created. Thus, the needs of the disabled can be
met without regulation, which would be counter-productive to the development of
these services. (22)
CALEA. Granting the petition to extend CALEA to information services would
be inappropriate. However, 8x8 is willing and able to comply with lawful
intercept requests. (28)
Consumer Protection
Given the large degree of choice customers have in selecting a VoIP provider, consumer
protection regulations are unnecessary. (29)
CPNI. Since the many competitive options for VoIP service allow consumers to
choose a provider that meets their privacy needs, CPNI requirements are not
necessary in the VoIP and IP-enabled services industry. Even though no current
restrictions exist, 8x8 has voluntarily adopted a strict privacy policy that legally
binds it to maintain personal information in confidence. (29)
Other Protections. Many of the deceptive practices in the telecommunications
industry that have required regulatory solutions are not present in the VoIP
market. Some, like slamming, are not technically possible since services like
Packet8 are only usable through specialized CPE’s. Deceptive billing is less
prevalent in the VoIP market because 1) customers can choose between multiple
providers, 2) many VoIP providers offer flat monthly rates, and 3) VoIP
subscribers often pay via credit card and can thus resolve billing issues more
easily. These factors combined with existing consumer protection laws provide
enough protection to consumers without the need for additional regulations. (30-
31)
Rural Considerations
It is noteworthy that VoIP is already competing with incumbent LECs even in relatively sparsely
populated areas. As broadband becomes more widely available, VoIP will be able to offer
superior and lower cost services to customers in rural and traditionally high-cost areas. (25-28)


3
© ♦ ♦ ♦2004 Wiley Rein & Fielding LLP Washington, DC Northern Virginia www.wrf.com

911 Communications, Spokane Washington
(3 Pages)
Background of Commenter/Interest in Proceeding – 911 emergency service provider.
Application of Specific Regulatory Requirements and Benefits to IP-Enabled Services
Public Safety and Disability Access
911 and E911. Universal access to emergency services should require regulation
both to ensure an appropriate level of service and to provide a funding mechanism
to achieve the necessary 911 networks and PSAP operations. The Washington
State legislature finds that enhancement of the statewide emergency
communications network allowing immediate display of a caller’s identification
and location would save lives, is feasible, and should be accomplished as soon as
possible. (1) These services should be available for all users, regardless of the
technology used to make the call. Currently, VOIP callers must use a 10-digit
emergency number to connect to a PSAP. This method does not provide
Enhanced 911 information; callers must tell the receiver where to send help and
what their call back number is. It is unacceptable for vendors to use wireless
boundaries as the basis for directing calls; instead they should have to use specific
subscriber addresses for call routing. There also should be a regulatory
mechanism in place to fund 911 networks and PSAP operations. Currently, there
is no funding mechanism for wholesale 911 network changes. Moreover, the
ability to fund 911 services/PSAP operations will likely decrease since specific
tax revenue received from wireline and wireless phones is likely to decrease. (2)



4
© ♦ ♦ ♦2004 Wiley Rein & Fielding LLP Washington, DC Northern Virginia www.wrf.com