FCC To Review SBC’s TIPToP Tariff
The FCC will review SBC’s new interstate connectivity service known as True IP to PSTN (TIPToP) as part of “a standard process for a tariff to go through,” a spokesman said Fri. SBC filed a one-day notice with the FCC late Wed., saying it would offer a new VoIP access tariff, giving VoIP providers a voluntary access method priced between traditional access charges and lower-cost reciprocal compensation. The FCC spokesman said the tariff took effect the day after it was filed “to the extent that somebody subscribes to it.” He said there was no deadline for the Commission to complete its review: “We can’t say how long it will take to decide whether we'll investigate the [tariff] or not.”
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Communications Daily is required reading for senior executives at top telecom corporations, law firms, lobbying organizations, associations and government agencies (including the FCC). Join them today!
FCC Chmn. Powell issued a statement Fri.: “Should we conclude that this tariff is being used to justify the imposition of traditional tariffed access charges on VoIP providers or to discriminate against SBC’s competitors, the Commission will take appropriate action including, but not limited to, initiating an investigation of SBC’s interstate tariff and any other tariff that proposes similar terms. Nothing in this tariff should be interpreted to force a set of compensation relationships on VoIP providers and their connecting carriers either at this Commission or in other venues.” He said the SBC tariff made it “clear that TIPToP is not a mandatory offering and VoIP providers may continue to utilize alternatives to exchange their traffic.”
The FCC spokesman said “Powell is not making any judgment on this [tariff] at this time.” He said VoIP was one of Powell’s top priorities and the Commission would look at the tariff “very carefully… If the concerns are significant, we could launch an investigation.” Powell said the tariff came as the Commission was working on 3 proceedings that raised “issues related to the charges applicable to VoIP services,” including: (1) A Level 3 forbearance petition that has a statutory deadline of Dec. 27, which the Commission can extend 3 months. (2) The FCC intercarrier compensation proceeding. (3) The IP-Enabled Services rulemaking. “I am committed to ensuring that this Commission avoids any action that might slow the IP services revolution,” Powell said.
SBC Vp-James Smith said his company shares Powell’s “enthusiasm for the consumer benefits of IP.” He said it Powell’s statement highlighted what SBC has been saying about TIPToP, that “it is a voluntary offering that VoIP providers can purchase or not purchase, and would in no way prejudge or prejudice the FCC’s resolution of its pending intercarrier payment proceedings.” Smith said he was “confident that VoIP providers will find TIPToP an attractive product and recognize the benefits it offers to its customers.”
TIPToP has raised concerns among some VoIP providers who fear the new tariff could raise the cost of completing calls on SBC’s network. But SBC said TIPToP was “a more efficient form of connectivity… designed from the ground up for the unique needs of VoIP providers and has different features and functions than other options in the marketplace.”
SBC filed multiple tariffs for its territory that offer rates, terms and conditions for an access product between VoIP and circuit-switched traffic. For example, the tariff offers per min. charges for Mich. of $.0022, Ill. $.0024 and Ind. $.0025. SBC said TIPToP provides 2 one and two-way switched circuit port interfaces that incorporate transport, SS7 connectivity, choke trunks and call-related database query capability to the tandem or end office switch in which those interfaces were installed. The company said it wouldn’t offer E911 service with the TIPToP service offered under the tariff. “[SBC] expects TIPToP customers to meet all applicable 911 emergency service requirements as may be imposed from time to time under applicable law,” it said, noting that it would accept “no liability” for any failure to do so.