Charter, Minnesota PUC Skirmish in VoIP Classification Debate
Charter and the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission attempted to shoot down each other’s motions for summary judgment before Dec. 13 oral argument in federal court on whether the PUC may regulate Charter’s VoIP service as a telecom service (see 1611020037).…
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!
Charter’s complaint alleged the PUC overstepped its authority by imposing on VoIP services state regulations for traditional phone services. The case began in March 2013, when the company transferred 100,000 Minnesota customers to an affiliate that provided VoIP phone service that wasn't certified by the PUC. The agency said interconnected VoIP is a telecom service subject to state regulation, but the operator and the Voice on the Net Coalition said it’s an information service subject only to FCC regulation. The U.S. District Court in St. Paul should deny Charter’s motion “because it charts an incorrect legal course rife with genuine disputes of material fact,” the PUC said Wednesday (in Pacer). There’s not enough evidence to support Charter's claim that its VoIP service is an information service, the state commission said. Rather, the record "only supports classifying Charter Phone as a telecommunications service," it said. Charter gave an opposite assessment of the record as it sought denial of the Minnesota PUC’s motion. "While the MPUC's motion urges that Spectrum Voice should be classified as a telecommunications service, its motion fails to present any competent evidence -- much less undisputed evidence -- in support of that conclusion,” the cable company said (in Pacer).