Impact of IP Telephony on Access Charges: Access charge payments represent 30 percent to 50 percent of intrastate revenue for small, rural local exchange carriers in California. Further, access charge payments represent about 30 percent of revenues of large telephone companies in California, which are used to offset a portion of the cost of basic telephone services offered by those companies. Revenue from access charges helps maintain affordable rates for telephone service in high-cost rural areas of the state. Because VoIP providers do not currently contribute to the payment of access charges, and if the current regulatory access charge scheme remains unchanged, sharp increases in VoIP growth could result in:
1. an accelerated consumer transition from services subject to access charges, such as toll services, to VoIP services.
2. a diminution of access and toll revenues, thereby reducing regulated revenues.
3. increases in regulated service prices, such as basic service, to offset regulated revenue reductions.
4. steep increases in public program surcharges to ensure basic telephone service is affordable in rural, high-cost areas of the state, because these customers cannot afford broadband connectivity or are currently beyond the reach of broadband networks.
-- Order instituting investigation on the Commission's own motion to determine the extent to which the public utility telephone service known as Voice over Internet Protocol should be exempted from regulatory requirements, CA PUC February 11, 2004 http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/published/agenda_decision/33960.htm
10. One final word on this subject: now that this commission has backed off on regulating VoIP - at least until the FCC acts - VoIP providers should seek free market solutions to intercarrier compensation and 911 service issues. When a VoIP call touches the Publicly Switched Telephone Network, there should be compensation to the network owner - at a rate agreed to by willing market participants. Resolving the 911-service issue is even more important. VoIP providers should not have to worry that agreeing to contract with a Basic Emergency Service Provider (in Colorado, Qwest) to offer customary 911 services will somehow suck it into regulation, at least in this state. I strongly encourage VoIP providers to work out 911-service and intercarrier compensation agreements, to show that they are good corporate citizens. And to show that traditional regulation is not necessary.
--In The Matter Of The Investigation Into Voice Over Internet Protocol (Voip) Services, Docket No. 03M-220T, Order Closing Docket ¶ 8 ( Colorado PUC Dec. 17, 2003) (Chairman Gregory E. Sopkin Specially Concurring)
In order to formulate an informed, consistent regulatory policy, the Commission would like to obtain information about VOIP activity in Michigan . The Commission, therefore, requests comments on VOIP activity in Michigan on the following topics that may be affected by both state and federal law:
...
f. VOIP services' effect on the current access charge structure.
-- -- U-14073 - Commission's Own Motion (investigation of VOIP) - (MI PUC 3/16/2004 ) HTML | PDF
"Our approval of Time Warner's application to provide interexchange service in Maine is conditioned on the payment of access charges to local exchange carriers (LECs) who have on file with the Commission approved access charge rate schedules.
"Time Warner states that at present it will be offering service as a switchless reseller.[1] If Time Warner provides facilities-based interexchange service in the future, it must pay access charges directly to local exchange carriers. However, switchless resellers do not pay access charges to local exchange carriers. Instead, access charges are paid by an underlying facilities-based interexchange carrier. As a condition of granting authority to a switchless reseller to provide intrastate service in Maine, its underlying facilities-based carrier must also have authority to provide intrastate service in Maine. Time Warner has stated that MCI will be the underlying carrier from which it purchases interexchange services that it resells. MCI is authorized by the Commission to provide intrastate interexchange service and does pay access charges for the intrastate interexchange services it sells to switchless resellers providing interexchange service in Maine. If Time Warner begins to use another authorized underlying carrier, it shall notify the Commission as required by the ordering paragraphs."
--- Time Warner Cable Information Services Maine, Petition for Finding of Public Convenience and Necessity to Provide Resold Interexchange and Facilities Based Local Exchange Telecommunication Service, Docket No. 2002-792, Order Granting Authority to Provide Facilities Based Local Exchange Service and Competitive Interexchange Service and Approving Schedule of Rates and Terms and Conditions (Maine PUC February 11, 2003)
Proceedings
| WC Dckt No. 07-256 |
Feature Group Ip Petition For Forbearance From Section 251(G) Of The Communications Act And Sections 51.701(B)(1) And 69.5(B) Of The Commission's Rules |
Comments Due Feb. 19, 2008
Replies Due Mar. 14, 2008 |
How to file comments :: File Comments with FCC Electronic Comment File System |
WC Docket No. 07-256 DA 07-5029 Released: December 18, 2007: By this Public Notice, we seek comment on a petition filed October 23, 2007 by Feature Group IP West LLC, Feature Group IP Southwest LLC, UTEX Communications Corp., Feature Group IP North LLC, and Feature Group IP Southeast LLC (Feature Group IP) asking the Commission to forbear pursuant to section 160(c) of the Communications Act (Act), as amended, from applying access charges to voice-embedded Internet communications pursuant to section 251(g) of the Act. Specifically, Feature Group IP requests that the Commission forbear from section 251(g) "insofar as it applies to the receipt of compensation for switched 'exchange access, information access, and exchange services for such access to interexchange carriers and information service providers' pursuant to state and federal access charge rules." In addition, Feature Group IP seeks forbearance from "the clause of rule 51.701(b)(1) that excludes from the definition of telecommunications traffic subject to subpart H of Part 51 of the Commission's rules 'telecommunications traffic that is interstate or intrastate exchange access, information access, or exchange services for such access . . .' ." Feature Group IP also seeks forbearance from rule 69.5(b) "to the extent applicable" and from any numbering representation rule or signaling standard as applicable.
Released: 12/18/2007. PLEADING CYCLE ESTABLISHED FOR FEATURE GROUP IP PETITION FOR FORBEARANCE FROM SECTION 251(G) OF THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT AND SECTIONS 51.701(B)(1) AND 69.5(B) OF THE COMMISSION'S RULES. (DA No. 07-5029). (Dkt No 07-256). Comments Due: 01/17/2008. Reply Comments Due: 02/06/2008. WCB. Contact: Lynne Hewitt Engledow at (202) 418-1520, email: Lynne.Engledow@fcc.gov DA-07-5029A1.doc DA-07-5029A1.pdf DA-07-5029A1.txt
FEATURE GROUP IP PETITION FOR FORBEARANCE FROM SECTION 251(G) OF THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT AND SECTIONS 51.701(B)(1) AND 69.5(B) OF THE COMMISSION'S RULES. Revised the Comment Date and Reply Comment Date in this proceeding. (Dkt No. 07-256). Action by: Associate Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau. Comments Due: 02/19/2008. Reply Comments Due: 03/14/2008. Adopted: 01/14/2008 by ORDER. (DA No. 08-93). WCB
< http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-93A1.doc >
< http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-93A1.pdf >
< http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-93A1.txt >
| WC Dkt No. 08-08 |
Petition Of The Embarq Local Operating Companies For Forbearance From Enforcement Of Section 69.5(A) Of The Commission's Rules, Section 251(B) Of The Communications Act And Commission Orders On The Esp Exemptioneeding |
Comments Due Feb 19 2008
Replies Due Mar 14 2008 |
How to file comments :: File Comments with FCC Electronic Comment File System |
DA 08-94 Released: January 14, 2008 By this Public Notice, we seek comment on a petition filed January 11, 2008 by the Embarq Local Operating Companies (Embarq) asking the Commission to forbear pursuant to section 160(c) of the Communications Act (Act), as amended, from "enforcing the ESP exemption , as adopted by Commission orders" and from "applying section 69.5(a) of its rules to IP-originated voice traffic that terminates on the PSTN." In addition, Embarq requests that the Commission "forbear from enforcing 47 U.S.C. section 251(b)(5) of the Act" on "non-local traffic terminated as voice traffic on the PSTN."
Petition of the Embarq Local Operating Companies for Limited Forbearance Under 47 U.S.C. § 160(c) from Enforcement of Rule 69.5(a), 47 U.S.C. § 251(b), and Commission Orders on the ESP Exemption at 17 (filed Jan. 11, 2008) (Embarq Forbearance Petition); see also 47 U.S.C. § 160(c).
Released: 01/14/2008. PLEADING CYCLE ESTABLISHED FOR PETITION OF THE EMBARQ LOCAL OPERATING COMPANIES FOR FORBEARANCE FROM ENFORCEMENT OF SECTION 69.5(A) OF THE COMMISION'S RULES, SECTION 251(B) OF THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT AND COMMISSION ORDERS ON THE ESP EXEMPTION. (DA No. 08-94). (Dkt No 08-08). Comments Due: 02/19/2008. Reply Comments Due: 03/14/2008. WCB. Contact: Lynne Hewitt Engledow at (202) 418-1520 , email: Lynne.Engledow@fcc.gov
< http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-94A1.doc >
< http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-94A1.pdf >
< http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-94A1.txt >
|
