State Involvement In VoIP Seen As Limited But Important

Covad doesn’t support complete federal preemption, Weber said: “We think that there is a role for both federal and state regulators to play, and this gets into the fact that we do own a nationwide network that allows us to provide access services.” He said there was also “some role for the states to play in [the] arena” of “social goods of the telephone network,” such as E911. But he said “we do think that as a general proposition, when we get into a broad classification of [interstate vs. intrastate or information vs. telecom] service, it is appropriate for those type of regulations to take place at the federal level.”

Cindy Schonhaut, dir.-federal regulatory affairs at Level 3, said she generally agreed with that, but added, “I am in favor of a broader federal preemption.” She said there was “a role for 911 obviously at the state level, where PSAPs, cities and counties are very much involved and they should be. But for state regulators to step in and pose requirements for 911 compliance… I think would be problematic… I think consumer protection, fraud, disclosure issues… etc. would be sufficient role for the states.”

Paul Kouroupas, Global Crossing Vp-Regulatory Affairs, said the question was whether VoIP is an information or telecom service. “I can see VoIP as nothing more than an Internet application, and of all applications out there, VoIP is the one that needs least regulation,” he said: “Consumers are pretty sophisticated about voice services… There are other Internet applications that are brand new to consumers that they probably could use protection from as opposed to voice.” PointOne Vp-Govt. & Regulatory Affairs Staci Pies agreed there were “certain roles for the states,” but she said: “I think the most important thing to keep in mind [about] IP services [is] the way packets are transmitted over packet networks… Technically, it doesn’t really make sense. The service doesn’t stay in one state, we may not know where our packets may go and we don’t know where our customer may take this service. So, it’s almost illogical and even more extreme [for states to regulate VoIP] than with wireless service.”

The industry should be allowed to come up with its own solutions for 911 without a govt. mandate, panelists said. Pies said there had been “a great deal of success” in developing solutions for access to emergency services and CALEA compliance, but the industry’s work “is not very well advertised. When the Commission first held its forum on VoIP last December, a lot of people participating in that forum weren’t even aware of the work industry has been doing.”

Lack of funding to upgrade PSAPs facilities is one of the significant hurdles to realizing VoIP’s E-911 potential, Pies said. “Despite the fact that most of the focus is on the industry, there is a huge problem with the PSAPs funding,” she said: “The way that VoIP can provide the best and most robust emergency services is for the PSAPs to have IP interfaces and they don’t have money to do that. The industry is doing its part.. and what we hope to see is more awareness both by state legislatures and Congress about the funding problems for the PSAPs.” Weber agreed: “The industry is serving itself very well and is doing an excellent job stepping up to the responsibility. The question is whether the PSAPs and local or federal governments are going to step up to their potential for really enhancing the nation’s emergency system.”

Weber said 911 implementation should be left to the market. “If your service can provide [911] and somebody else’s service can’t, that’s something that can be very significant to consumers,” he said. Schonhaut said E-911, which reports location, “starts running into privacy issues [and] may come down to the market place… As long consumers have full disclosure” about availability of 911 service on their phones, “they may prefer the privacy over the access to emergency services.” Weber added that the U.K. was looking at “the exact same issue, and they are leaning towards concluding that in fact it is a marketplace decision and as long as consumers are informed upfront about whether 911 is available or not, they may be okay with that. That’s probably a prudent approach.”

Weber said it was “a myth” that VoIP providers don’t contribute to E9-11 infrastructure costs. “We use carriers [such as] Focal who terminate calls on the PSTN for us and we use their access to databases necessary to provide E-911 service, so our carriers actually contribute and that’s a contractual relationship with us and the prices that we pay are all tied up in that,” he said: “So, to the extent that VoIP carriers do begin to provide traditional E911 functionality, they are going to be contributing via whatever basis they use to access those databases.”

With respect to CALEA compliance, Kouroupas said “cost recovery and who is going to pay for whatever is necessary to become CALEA-compliant” should be addressed before any mandates are imposed. This is “not a trivial issue,” he said: “It should not be assumed that the carriers will just absorb it.” Pies said CALEA was written to apply to circuit-switched providers. “Most providers want to cooperate with law enforcement… but we need to be able to work within a law that actually makes sense for the technology and the networks that we have,” she said. Kouroupas said the govt. should address CALEA carefully. “Should the government expect too much in this area, many carriers will comply, but others will offshore,” he said: “And that’s something that the government has to be mindful not only with respect to CALEA but other aspects of VoIP regulation as well.” - Susan Polyakova