Cybertelecom Federal Internet Law & Policy An Educational Project

VoIP: States

Alabama

• Alabama PSC Docket 29016: 8/29/03 Order Establishing Proceeding re: IP Telephony PDF
• Docket page with comments
• "In order to aid the investigative process, the Commission herein seeks comments from interested parties concerning the various forms of IP Telephony Service and the jurisdictional issues related thereto. The Commission further seeks comments specifically addressing the matters raised in the ILEC Petition attached hereto as Appendix A. Initial comments will be considered by the Commission if received on, or before, October 31, 2003. Reply comments will be considered by the Commission if filed on, or before, December 2, 2003."
• Reportedly the PSC on Aug 12, 2003 initiated a declaratory ruling proceeding concering VoIP in response to 31 ILECs (But note Bell South) demands. Time to Rewrite the Rules of Telecom, BWO Sept 8, 2003 ("On Aug. 12, Alabama ordered a "declaratory ruling" on whether VOIP will be subject to so-called access and interconnection charges that apply to traditional phone calls.")

Alaska

Trials and Market Deployments

GCI is deploying a VoIP Switched Circuit hybrid service in Anchorage. Balancing Responsibilities and Rights: A Regulatory Model for Facilities-Based VoIP Competition An NCTA Policy Paper February 2004

Arizona

"Time Warner Cable Information Services (California), LLC (Applicant) seeks a certificate of public convenience and necessity (CPCN) under Pub. Util. Code § 1001 for authority to provide limited facilities-based and resold local exchange and interexchange telecommunications services. By this decision, we grant the requested authority subject to the terms and conditions set forth below." (approved without reference to VoIP technology)

Time Warner OK with VoIP regulation CNET Nov 13, 2003

Connecticut

• Letter from Level3 to Departmetn of Public Utility Control, Informational Filing Regarding the Provision of 911 Services by Level 3 Communications, LLC  January 21, 2004
• Evidence of VoIP Competition October 29, 2002

Trials and Market Deployments

• Hartford Comcast Launch 2004 Merrill Lynch, Everything Over IP (March 12, 2004)
• Cablevision Optimum Voice Cablecos Set Sights on VoIP, Xchange February 1, 2004

Guam

 

[41] ISPs offer access to the internet. Internet access allows the user to transmit data in several ways, including web searches and electronic mail. We recognize that internet access can be used to communicate with others in a manner similar to that of traditional telephone services, such as a new technology called IP telephony or Voice over IP (VoIP) which allows two people to talk using internet lines. (5) See Roberts, supra, at 156-57. However, the question before us is not whether IP telephony is a telephone service; but rather, whether internet access service is a telephone service. (6) The access ISPs provide can be used to make voice or telephonic calls if the individual either procures IP telephony software or connects with companies that offer gateways which transmit the call. The fact that the special software or gateway companies exist and can be utilized does not render internet access service a "telephone service." To use internet access for voice transmission, the subscriber must take an additional, completely voluntary step. Because ISPs offer internet access and its concomitant data transmission capability, without necessarily providing the technology necessary to place an IP telephony call, ISPs do not provide a "telephone service." The access provided by the ISP and the platform for placing a voice call are too independent to render the former the equivalent of the latter.
    [42]     Internet access service is more properly regarded as a data-transmission service. As such, it is not a "telephone service" under 12 GCA § 7104(a) as defined previously. The issue, therefore, is whether internet access service is a supplement to telephone service.
    [43]     Certain types of data transmission services have been characterized as supplementing telephone service, such as one-way paging systems. See Minn. Microwave, 190 N.W.2d at 666-67. The nexus between these types of services and ordinary telephone service is readily apparent. By contrast, internet access and internet use is not logically or inherently seen as supplementing ordinary telephone service. While it cannot be doubted that internet access allows for communication which conveniently substitutes or replaces telephonic communication (such as electronic mail), this is distinct from a service which supplements or works in conjunction with telephone service. Internet access service allows for a type of transmission of data and information that is by-and-large unrelated to ordinary telephone service, and therefore does not supplement such service.
    [44]     Thus, as internet access service is neither a telephonic communication service, nor is it readily viewed as supplementing telephonic communication, internet access service does not fall under the definition of "telephone services" under 12 GCA § 7104(a).

• Guamtel Injunction http://www.guamtel.net/injunction.html (“Although disappointed with the ruling, GTA will abide by the Court’s order.”)

Idaho

• Idaho Telecommunications Tariff: WorldTeq Corporation Jan 30, 2003
• 3.5.4 VoIP Service

WorldTeq VoIP Service is a Voice over Internet Protocol service offered to both residential and business customers. Customers using the Carrier's VoIP service dial a local access number (or toll free number if no local access is unavailable in their area). The Carrier authenticates the originating number (and PIN number if a toll free access number is used), and uses the Internet network to transfer the call to the central office nearest the destination number. The call is then routed to the destination number. No fax or mechanized dialing is allowed on this service.
• 3.5.5 VoIP/1+ Bundling Service

WorldTeq VoIP/1+ Bundling Service is a service combining the economical advantages of VoIP Service and standard 1+ Long Distance service. This service allows for faxing and mechanized dialing as well as the added stability of standard 1+ Long Distance service
• 4.4 WorldTeq VoIP Service

Rate per minute: 0.0155 to 0.300 (depending on plan chosen)
Plan is billed in full minute increments
One-time set up fee
Monthly recurring fee applies

Kansas

• Kansas told to back off VoIP phone fees, Topix 2/15/2005

Trials and Market Deployments

• Time Warner Cable Information Service Digital Phone.  Launched 1Q 2004. Merrill Lynch, Everything Over IP (March 12, 2003).  Trial to "Friendly Customers" Kansas City Cablecos Set Sights on VoIP, Xchange February 1, 2004

Kentucky

Maine

• Interconnection Agreement Between MCI and Verizon (Dec. 1, 2003)
• 2. VoIP Traffic: Notwithstanding any other provision in the Interconnection Agreements, in any tariff or SGAT, or under Applicable Law (including, without limitation, except as set forth in the last sentence of this section, any change to Applicable Law effected after the Effective Date), the Parties agree that, for purposes of this Amendment only: (i) VOIP Traffic shall be considered to be Telecommunications Traffic, and not Information Services Traffic; (ii) VOIP Traffic that is delivered to the Receiving Party with a CPN (or other accurate Call Record information) that is associated with an exchange outside the Verizon local calling area in which the Customer of the Receiving Party is physically located (“Type 2 VOIP Traffic”) shall not be subject to the Unitary Rates set forth in Section 1 above, but shall instead be subject to the Receiving Party’s applicable switched access rates; (iii) VOIP Traffic that is delivered to the Receiving Party with a CPN (or other accurate Call Record information) that is associated with the same local calling area (or the same LATA, in the case of the state of New York, so long as LATA-wide reciprocal compensation is required by the New York Public Service Commission) in which the Customer of the Receiving Party is physically located (“Type 1 VOIP Traffic”) shall be subject to the Unitary Rates set forth in Section 1 above; and (iv) VOIP Traffic that is delivered to the Receiving Party without CPN (or other accurate Call Record information) shall be subject to the provisions of Sections 1(f)-1(j). Notwithstanding anything in this Section 2, if, after the Effective Date, the FCC or Congress promulgates an effective and unstayed law, rule or regulation, or a court of competent jurisdiction issues an effective and unstayed nationally-effective order, decision, ruling, or the like regarding VOIP Traffic, the Parties will adhere to the relevant portions (i.e., those relating to the regulatory classification of or, compensation for, VOIP Traffic generally or any category of VOIP Traffic) of such legally effective and unstayed rule, regulation, order, decision, ruling or the like as soon as it becomes legally effective.
• Time Warner Cable Information Service
• TW Cable Digital Phone Maine
• TW VoiP Rollout: TW Cable Rolling Out VoIP Internet News Dec 2003; Cablecos Set Sights on VoIP, Xchange February 1, 2004; Balancing Responsibilities and Rights: A Regulatory Model for Facilities-Based VoIP Competition An NCTA Policy Paper February 2004
• 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)
• "In this Order, the Commission grants Time Warner Cable Information Services Maine, LLC (Time Warner or Company) the authority to provide facilities-based competitive local exchange service and resold intrastate interexchange service in the State of Maine, and approves the Company's Terms and Conditions and Rate Schedules.  We also exempt Time Warner from the requirements of Chapter 210, Uniform System of Accounts, and of 35-A M.R.S.A. §§ 707 and 708, subject to the conditions described below.

"Background
"The Commission granted Time Warner permission to conduct a pilot program providing telephone services to its customers on April 7, 2000 in Docket No. 2000-285.  On March 7, 2001, by advisory rule, the pilot program was extended to June 30, 2002, and Time Warner was required to report to the Commission on its plans for the pilot program by March 31, 2002.  On May 3, 2002 Time Warner filed an application for authority to provide service as a Local Exchange Carrier and Interexchange Carrier; it was docketed as 2002-241.  On June 3, 2002, Time Warner filed for an extension of the June 30 deadline set in Docket No. 2002-285.    On June 11, 2002, the Commission granted the extension to allow Staff and interested parties more time to review the application.   On July 3, 2002, Time Warner filed for an eight-month extension of the pilot program to allow for more time to workout some technical and operational issues.  On July 25, 2002 the Commission granted the exemption and dismissed the application filed in 2002-241 without prejudice."
...
    "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 Service (Maine) Petition For Finding of Public Convenience & Necessity to Provide Local and Interexchange Telecommunications Service, Docket 2000-285, Petition (MA PUC Dec. 19, 2002)
• Note Page 5: "Nothing in these submissions should be construed as a concession or agreement by Applicant that the services at issue in this Application constitute telecommunications services, local exchange services, common carrier offerings, or services that are otherwise subject to federal or state regulation, nor that the entity or entities providing them constitute telecommunications carriers, telecommunications providers, local exchange carriers, common carriers, or other regulated entities."
• Maine PUC Special Deliberations July 25, 2002
• In Re Time Warner Cable Information Service (Maine) Petition For Finding of Public Convenience & Necessity to Provide Local and Interexchange Telecommunications Service, Docket 2000-285, Order Extending Deadline (MA PUC July 25, 2002)
• On June 11, 2002, the Commission granted the request of Time Warner Cable Information Service (Maine), LLC (Time Warner) for an extension of the deadline set in Docket No. 2000-285 for Time Warner's pilot telephone service project to terminate.  Previously, on May 3, 2002, Time Warner filed its application to become certified as a competitive local exchange carrier (CLEC) and as an interexchange carrier.  After the June 11th extension was granted, a meeting was held with Commission staff, Time Warner and the Office of the Public Advocate (OPA) to discuss the Time Warner CLEC application.

      At the meeting, Time Warner indicated that it had filed its CLEC application in May to meet the Commission's June 30th deadline for termination of the pilot project.  In fact, Time Warner was not ready to terminate the pilot because it had not yet fully developed its permanent offering.  Specifically, Time Warner indicated that it was in the process of securing a new arrangement for local connectivity and resolving technical and operational issues necessary to meet Maine statutes and Commission rules.
     On July 3, 2002, Time Warner filed a request that the Commission grant an 8-month extension of the Pilot Program and hold its CLEC application in abeyance.  Time Warner stated in its request that it would use the extension period to complete its connectivity arrangements and ensure that they complied with E911 requirements.  Time Warner indicated that it would continue to adhere to the 1,000-customer limit governing the Pilot Program.
II.         DECISION
            We grant Time Warner's request for an 8-month extension of the Pilot Program and at the same time dismiss the CLEC application without prejudice to re-file.  We accept Time Warner's assertions that it has been working diligently to address all of the issues necessary to turn the Pilot Program offering into a permanent offering that meets state statutes and Commission rules.  We find it a more efficient use of our resources to wait until Time Warner's permanent offering is filed before we reach detailed findings regarding a Time Warner CLEC application.  Finally, because the original terms of the Pilot Program will continue, we find that the public interest is not adversely affected by granting the extension.
            With regard to the CLEC application, we find it more efficient to dismiss the current application without prejudice and have Time Warner file a new application with all of the updated information at the end of the Pilot rather than try to update the existing filing.
• In Re Time Warner Cable Information Service (Maine) Petition For Finding of Public Convenience & Necessity to Provide Local and Interexchange Telecommunications Service, Docket 2000-285, Order Extending Deadline (MA PUC June 11, 2002)
• In re Time Warner Cable Information Service (Maine), Docket 2000-285 Request for Advisory Ruling, Order (MA PUC April 7, 2000) (emphasis added)
"On March 24, 2000, Time Warner Cable (TWC) filed a Request for an Advisory Ruling. The request described proposed telecommunications activities by TWC and sought a ruling that TWC, if it undertook those activities, would not be a telephone utility under Maine law. For the reasons described below, we agree that TWC will not be a public utility if it undertakes the limited activities as described.
. . . . .
           TWC provides cable television service to various communities in southern and northern Maine. For the past several years, TWC has also been offering a cable-modem-based Internet service, which is sold in Maine under the brand name "Road RunnerT." Subscribers to Road Runner Service obtain local content, such as weather forecasts and shopping service, plus high-speed access to the Internet. This service is provided by means of TWC's hybrid fiber coaxial ("HFC") plant. TWC has been working to develop, as an additional feature to its existing cable modem service, a non-powered Internet-based two-way voice service using its HFC plant. TWC expects that this feature of TWC's cable modem service will be offered under the name "Line RunnerT." TWC has decided to offer a pilot program, limited in duration, geographical area, and number of subscribers, to its existing Road Runner subscribers (The "Pilot Program"). This service would not be a substitute for regular telephone service, since it is a non-powered service and therefore will not operate whenever the subscriber loses service from its electric utility.
 .....
         The issue before the Commission is whether TWC, if it offers telephone service as described in its Request, is a public utility subject to the Commission's jurisdiction pursuant to Title 35-A. TWC is providing a telecommunications service. 35-A M.R.S.A. § 8301 makes clear that cable television companies may be telephone utilities:
Cable television companies, to the extent they offer services like those of telephone utilities subject to regulation by the commission, shall be subject to the commission's jurisdiction over rates, charges and practices, as provided in this Title.
TWC is using equipment that constitutes a "telephone line" as defined in 35-A M.R.S.A. § 102 (20).  A "telephone utility" is defined in 35-A M.R.S.A. § 102(19) as an entity "owning, controlling, operating or managing any telephone line for compensation within this state." Under our decisions and those of the Law Court, however, merely offering and providing telephone service over a "telephone line" does not by itself make an entity a public utility.To be considered a public utility, the entity must offer a service for "public use." Dickenson v. Maine Public Service Company, 223 A.2d 435, 438 (Me. 1968); Gilman v. Somerset Farmers Cooperative Telephone Co., 129 Me. 243, 247; 151 A. 440 (1930).  In Small Point Water Co., Request for Determination of Public Utility Status, Docket No. 88-183, Order (Jan. 3, 1989) at 4, we stated: If these statutory definitions [defining "water works" and "water utility" in a manner parallel to the definitions of "telephone line" and "telephone utility"] were all that governed a determination of public utility status, then the SPWC would be a public utility subject to Commission jurisdiction. The Law Court and the Commission, in past decisions, however, have made it clear that before an entity will be regulated as a public utility it must, in addition to the statutory definitions, satisfy the so-called "public use" test. A utility must be devoted to a public use before it will be subject to regulation. Gilman v. Somerset Farmers Co-operative Telephone Company, 129 Me. 243, 151 A. 440 (1930); Public Utilities Commission v. A.R. Wright Co., 36 P.U.R. NS 336 (Me. P.U.C. 1940).
. . . . .
          TWC is not using a new technology (cable modem service), but it is deploying a relatively new technology in a new manner. Our conclusion that the limited offering of this service does not make TWC a telephone utility at this time is consistent with the legislative mandate that regulation should encourage the development and deployment of new technologies.
• Order Requiring Reclamation Of NXX Codes And Special ISP Rates By ILEC's, Investigation Into Use Of Central Office  Codes (Nxxs) By New England Fiber  Communications, Llc D/B/A Brooks Fiber, Docket No. 98-758 (Order No. 4) State Of Maine Public Utilities Commission  (June 30, 2000)
A. Service Description and Requirement; Rates

In the June 22 Order, we proposed that Bell Atlantic and all other ILECs (the independent telephone companies or ITCs), in their roles as providers of interexchange service in Maine, offer a special service and retail rate for ISPs that would represent a substantial discount from existing retail toll rates. The service would also provide Bell Atlantic and the other ILECs with a more appropriate level of revenue than the amounts BA-ME has “received” as “local” reciprocal compensation (which actually are payments by BA to Brooks) under Brooks’s interpretation of the interconnection agreement between Brooks and Bell Atlantic. We also proposed that the service be available on a wholesale basis to other IXCs.

. . .

In its comments of July 14, 1999, Bell Atlantic proposed a service (labeled Single Number Service/Hubbed Primary Rate ISDN, or SNS/PRI) essentially identical to that proposed by the Commission, except for price.17 As under the Commission’s proposal, the SNS/PRI service would use numbers that would be toll-free to end-user 17The SNS/PRI service configuration uses advanced intelligent network (AIN) database capability and is therefore technically superior to circuit-switched 800 service customers. Each ISP could be assigned one (or more) 7-digit number within the “500” prefix.18 There would be no need to use any NXX codes within the 207 area code.19 The SNS/PRI service is an interexchange service, and the rate is an interexchange rate, for traffic that the Commission has found is interexchange. It is also a retail service offered to ISPs. The rate to ISPs will be flat. There will be no usage component (per-minute or otherwise). The subscribers to the rate will be ISPs, not individual customers of ISPs. The service is an inward (called party pays) service; ISP customers would be able to call the “500” numbers without paying toll charges.

. . .
TAMs [Telephone Association of Maine] exceptions also note that the June 22, 1999 Order stated that “the rate would not be available to ISPs that offer voice services over the Internet.” TAM states that it:

believes this to mean that no customer subscribing to the service may do so for the purpose of carrying voice traffic. TAM is not aware of anything in the proposal that would prevent a company other than an ISP from subscribing to this service.

TAM then asks whether the Commission intends that the service should only be used by ISPs.

We do intend that the service be available only to ISPs. That limitation should appear in Bell Atlantic’s terms and conditions. 35-A M.R.S.A. § 7101(4) justifies a special rate for connecting to the Internet. It does not justify a similar special rate for ordinary toll traffic.

TAM then raises questions about the enforceability of the limitation. We agree that enforceability may be a difficult problem, and we expect the parties to address this in the collaborative process that also will address compensation.

 We believe that a reasonable policy as a starting point is that ISPs that offer Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) should not be permitted to subscribe to the SNS/PRI service and rate. By "offering," we mean marketing and/or providing software for VoIP. If it is feasible to segregate VoIP traffic, we could alter that policy. We doubt if it is possible to enforce such a policy against end users who, on their own, obtain and use VoIP software.

6. ORDER New England Telephone and Telegraph Company d/b/a Bell Atlantic-Maine, the independent incumbent local exchange carriers of Maine IXCs that are parties to the case that intend to offer SNS/PRI or similar service, and the Commission Advisory Staff assigned to this case to engage in a collaborative process for resolution of questions having to do with compensation between Bell Atlantic and the independent ILECs, the question of whether there are technical problems in offering the service at some independent ILEC switches, and the question of restricting such service to uses other than Voice over Internet Protocol. For the latter purpose, the Advisors may request information from other parties in this case and from outside persons. The Hearing Examiner shall establish a schedule for the collaborative process, which shall not exceed six months.

Trials and Deployments
• Portland.  Time Warner Cable Information Service Light Runner.  Launched May 2003.  Merrill Lynch, Everything Over IP (March 12, 2003).  TWCIS has received state certification to operate this service as a LEC.

New Hampshire

• New Hampshire Senator Readies "Hands-Off VoIP" Bill Techweb Jan 2004
• Sen John Sununu, VOIP of the People WSJ Feb 24, 2004

New Jersey

Trials and Market Deployments

Comcast VoIP Trial Union, NJ. Putting VoIP to the Crash Test, CED May 2002

Cablevision market deployment Cablecos Set Sights on VoIP, Xchange February 1, 2004

North Carolina

• Battle lines shaping up as Internet telephone firms move into the state, Triangle Business Journal August 18, 2003 (state officials saying that they want VoIP providers to register with state before providing service)
• BellSouth reportedly sought a generic proceeding on VoIP but the PUC turned them down. Balancing Responsibilities and Rights: A Regulatory Model for Facilities-Based VoIP Competition An NCTA Policy Paper February 2004
• Trials and Market Deployments
• Time Warner Cable Information Service Digital Phone. Launched 1Q 2004.
• Time Warner Preps For VoIP Rollouts In NC And NY This Fall, CableDataCom News Sept 1, 2003
• NC PUC granted TWCIS application for certification as a LEC and declined requests to conduct a general VoIP proceeding. Merrill Lynch, Everything Over IP (March 12, 2004)
• Merrill Lynch, Everything Over IP (March 12, 2003)
• Time Warner Preps For VoIP Rollouts In NC And NY This Fall Cable Datacom News Sept 2003
• Terms And Conditions Of Intrastate Long Distance Services Provided By Time Warner Telecom Of North Carolina, L.P Sept 18, 2003
•  Trial to "Friendly Customers" Charollette and Ralliegh Cablecos Set Sights on VoIP, Xchange February 1, 2004; Balancing Responsibilities and Rights: A Regulatory Model for Facilities-Based VoIP Competition An NCTA Policy Paper February 2004
• TW Cable Digital Phone Website Raliegh

North Dakota

• "Case No. PU-2967-03-666: On November 25, 2003, BEK Communications Cooperative, Consolidated Telecom, Dakota Central Telecommunications Cooperative, Dickey Rural Telephone Cooperative, Griggs County Telephone Company, Inter-Community Telephone Company, LLC, Missouri Valley Communications, Inc., Moore and Liberty Telephone Company, Nemont Telephone Cooperative, Inc., North Dakota Telephone Company, Northwest Communications Cooperative, Polar Communications Mutual Aid Corporation, and Reservation Telephone Cooperative (complainants) filed a complaint alleging that SmartNET, Inc. (respondent) [note the WHOIS record for GetCallSmart indicates that it is registered by SmartNet, Inc.] (1) operates as an intrastate long distance telecommunications provider without authority from the Commission in violation of North Dakota law including North Dakota Century Code Chapter 49-21, Chapter 49-02, and Chapter 49-03.1 and lawful regulations and orders of the Commission and (2) operates as an intrastate long distance telecommunications provider without paying the Complainants for access fees for the use of their local switched network facilities in accordance with North Dakota law and prior Commission rules and orders. Case No. PU-2967-03-666 Notice of Hearing (16 kb pdf)"
• Notice of Rescheduled Hearing, Case No. PU-2967-03-666 (Apr. 14, 2004) (rescheduling the hearing for May 25 without explanation) http://www.psc.state.nd.us/psc/jurisdiction/pud/telecom/notices/03-666b.pdf
• About GetSmartCall: "CallSmart is a North Dakota company providing long distance* service to the Bismarck, Fargo, Dickinson and surrounding areas. CallSmart is proud to offer an alternative to traditional long distance* services.  We are taking advantage of the latest Voice over Internet (VoIP) technology to deliver long distance* to anywhere in the USA and Canada (excluding Alaska & Hawaii)."

Oklahoma

Trials and Market Deployment

• Cox Launched 2002.  Merrill Lynch, Everything Over IP (March 12, 2003); VoIP Trial in Oklahoma City, OKPutting VoIP to the Crash Test, CED May 2002

Vermont

• Vermont Telecommunications Plan, Sept 2004
• "part of "Regulatory Policy" the plan: ... Favors continued forbearance in state regulation of wireless and voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP), with certain specifi c limited exceptions; ... Calls for steps to prepare Vermont's E 9-1-1 system for VoIP and increased competition, and better educate Vermont's consumers who rely more heavily on wireless telephone E 9-1-1 service;" p. xx-xxi
• "Competition for voice services from wireless providers and Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) is nascent." p. 2-4.
• "Voice and data services are converging with the growth in Voice over IP (VoIP) services. Broadband services used for Internet access have not been subject to the charge, but now there are "broadband phone companies." The PSB has not formally addressed whether various cable, telephone, and wireless broadband services that combine Internet access with a communications facility should be subject to Vermont USF surcharges. To sustain the programs funded by the Vermont USF, state policy must provide for a stable base on which it can impose the charge. If consumers migrate their spending to services on which the charge is not imposed, then the goals of the program will suffer without some other funding source. At the same time, equitable treatment of similar services is desirable, and the fund should not be applied unnecessarily to new services." p. 5-9
• "[New York City's Department of Information Technology and Telecommunications] also relied heavily on Internet telephony to provide voice communications. Internet telephony allowed users of specific phone lines to move from location to location as needed, without changing phone numbers. City Hall's phone service was provided through the Internet for weeks after the attacks; workers simply plugged their phones into any available Internet jack. "DoITT also used high-speed wireless transmitters to connect various other local government buildings to the City's network. At a cost of approximately $38,000 each, City Hall, the Municipal Building, and the City Council at 250 Broadway, were all reconnected to the Internet by wireless transmitters quickly plunked on top of their respective buildings."-Homeland Defense Journal July 2003, p.37. VoIP and Wireless Internet: New York's 9/11 Experience" p. 7-6.
• VOICE OVER INTERNET PROTOCOL Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) presents an exciting opportunity to lower the price of voice service, offer new features, and bring new competition. It also presents challenges to legacy regulatory models. There are different types of VoIP. A more complete discussion about these types is found in Section 1, "Telecommunications Trends." The discussion here will deal primarily with two types of voice-over-IP that use telephone numbers and interact with the Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN). For convenience, these are referred to herein as "type 1" and "type 2" VoIP...." P. 8-18
• Workshop held on July 22, 2004, Re: Draft Proposed Rules for Nondominant Telecommunications Carriers   MemoDraft Rule RevisionsDraft Rule 7.500Draft Rule 7.600
• (S) "VOIP carrier" means a carrier that offers Vermont customers a service the provides both of the following:

(1) the opportunity to originate communications, on facilities using the Internet Protocol or similar digital packet protocols, when those communications may be terminated on the public switched network; and
 (2) the opportunity to terminate calls that were originated on the public switched network, using a telephone number with an "802" area code or any other area code that may in the future be assigned to Vermont.
• 7.505
• (A)2. The following shall obtain certificates of public good:

a. Local exchange carriers.
b. Interexchange carriers.
c. Two-way paging carriers.
d. COCOT owners
e. VOIP carriers.
f. Other carriers as defined by Board order.
• (B)The following are not required to obtain advance approval for abandonment of service, but must notify customers at least fifteen (15) days in advance:

e. VOIP carriers.
• (C) The following carriers, if not ETCs, are not subject to corporate organization and financial reviews:

8. VOIP carriers.
• (C) The following are not subject to rate reviews and tariffing, but must file uniform rate plan labels for service offerings, to the extent required by Board Rule 7.600, with the Board for informational purposes.  The uniform rate plan label will provide the Board with the information regarding a provider's service offerings previously provided by tariff and tariff revision filings.  The uniform rate plan label shall be filed with the Board at the same time or prior to the offering of service in Vermont:

11. VOIP carriers.

West Virginia

• Trials and Market Deployments
• Armstrong Cable Services field trial Putting VoIP to the Crash Test, CED May 2002; Armstrong Cable in partnership with Vonage offering Zoom Phone Service. Balancing Responsibilities and Rights: A Regulatory Model for Facilities-Based VoIP Competition An NCTA Policy Paper February 2004; Vonage Cables in Armstrong VoIP Deal,  Internet News (June 10, 2003)

Links

• Federation for Economically Rational Utility Policy
• Mintz Levin, Are VoIP Services Telecommunications Services? Business and Regulatory Considerations for VoIP Service Providers and Connecting Carrier Oct 2003
• NARUC
• Pulver's State Action Webpage