State Commissions Weigh VoIP Powers

Sprint no longer offers services under the state’s jurisdiction, said Pennsylvania PUC Vice Chairman John Coleman, proposing a motion to conditionally approve Sprint’s application. Coleman cited Pennsylvania’s VoIP Freedom Act, a 2008 law prohibiting VoIP and other IP-based service regulation. The PUC “retains limited jurisdiction” over VoIP including for state USF, so as a condition Sprint will be required to continue reporting intrastate revenue for USF assessment, he said. The company will be assigned a new utility code so it can participate, he said.

Dutrieuille wanted to collect more comments on VoIP jurisdictional questions she said weren’t fully considered, before recommending approval of Sprint’s application. “Important issues of first impression include certification, assessments and the commission’s authority on intercarrier compensation” and 911, she said. The chairman asked how the PUC can enforce requirements it still retains under the VoIP Freedom Act. She asked if a fixed VoIP provider without a PUC certificate can obtain interconnection agreements with traditional LECs so its customers can complete calls to the public switched telephone network. She asked what parts of the public utility code and statute preclude treating voice provided under a commercial agreement as a protected service provided under tariff.

Dutrieuille wondered how Sprint’s assertion that the PUC lacks VoIP authority can be “reconciled with the language preserving commission authority in the VoIP Freedom Act to sustain a grant of abandonment.” Also, certificates include zoning exemptions, access to rights of way, interconnection, pole attachment rights, a sales tax exemption and access to the PUC to resolve disputes between carriers and with consumers, she noted. “Following abandonment of the [certificate], what vehicle would the applicant have available to obtain these benefits, to serve 5G and consumers served under commercial agreements?” T-Mobile didn’t comment.

Pennsylvania commissioners voted 3-0 to dismiss a formal complaint claiming that Verizon violated public utility code Chapter 30 by not providing broadband with 1.5 Mbps download and 128 kbps upload speeds within 10 days of a consumer’s request (docket C-2020-3022369). The complainant didn’t carry “her burden of proving that Verizon is responsible for a problem under a statute we have jurisdiction to administer,” said the PUC’s order, which reversed an administrative law judge’s initial decision. Verizon argued the PUC lacks broadband jurisdiction, but the PUC spent years educating the public about the mandate, said Dutrieuille, concurring in part and dissenting in part. “Capacity constraints must be addressed whenever they interfere with meeting the Chapter 30 speed mandates,” she said.

Later Thursday in California, CPUC commissioners cleared the way for a VoIP rulemaking through a 5-0 vote on the agency’s consent agenda. The Voice on the Net Coalition raised concerns last week about state regulators possibly considering rules that might inhibit market entry and be federally preempted. However, consumer advocates supported the CPUC looking into an issue that affects USF support. Also at the CPUC meeting, commissioners unanimously supported extending until March 31 a statutory deadline for a proceeding to update state USF contribution (docket 21-03-002).