BOSTON -- In the midst of debates over VoIP jurisdiction, a more important issue of access by VoIP providers to broadband networks was “perhaps misplaced in the hierarchy of priorities for the independent VoIP companies out there,” said Rep. Markey, ranking Democrat on the House Subcommittee on Telecom & Internet. “The issues of state preemption or taxes or fees or regulatory requirements pale in comparison to the issue of whether VoIP providers have equal, nondiscriminatory access to consumers,” he told the VON’s Telecom Policy Summit here.
It might make sense to have a separate universal service regime to encourage the buildout of broadband, but there would be litigation risk without congressional action, Mathew Brill, FCC Comr. Abernathy’s aide, said Sun. Speaking at the USTA conference, Brill said the Telecom Act’s Sec. 254 doesn’t target broadband services for universal service support. Sec. 706 of the Telecom Act encourages advanced services such as broadband, but if the FCC initiated a universal service regime under that section, the courts might view the action as setting up a “parallel universal service regime,” he said. A court could say the authority is in Sec. 254, so a parallel regime under Sec. 706 would create risk and uncertainty, Brill said. “We need to think not about universal service but universal access to networks,” said MCI Vp Richard Whitt. “We need to build out broadband platforms,” he said. “We need a separate fund to support broadband providers.” Trying to give Skye a universal service bill probably is impossible, so rather than concentrate on universal service, “the real issue is building actual networks,” he said. The industry needs to be more creative about how to support broadband, a task that perhaps could be dealt with in the Telecom Act rewrite, he said. Ken Pfister, vp of rural telco Great Plains Communications, said he agreed: “USF in an IP world needs to look entirely different.” Mont. PSC Chmn. Bob Rowe said regulators “have to figure out how to support networks” and not concentrate just on services, because without a network there can be no services. The problem is that the Telecom Act talks about supporting services not networks, said Brill. “It’s almost backward.” However, “any major shift in universal service will probably need Congress” to act, Brill said. Meanwhile, Mont. PSC Chmn. Bob Rowe asked whether providing universal service support to wireless companies based on their own costs -- rather than on the costs of the incumbent rural telco -- might be worth considering. Of all the carriers receiving some sort of universal service support, “wireless is the only one with no cost model, he said. Western Wireless Vp Gene DeJordy said it would be “misguided,” adding that depending on how you measure it, wireless carriers might have higher costs. At the very least, it would “be difficult from a practical standpoint” because it’s hard to measure those costs, Brill said. Pfister of Great Plains said a separate universal service fund for wireless makes sense. It would be better than “being at each others’ throats,” he said. Wireless carriers often are cited as responsible for the growth in the universal service fund, but payments to all segments have increased over the past 3 years, DeJordy said. The overall fund has increased $1.8 billion, with rural ILECs responsible for $650 million of the increase, the Schools & Libraries Fund growing by $780 million, Lifeline growing $180 million and competitive carriers such as rural wireless companies getting $225 million more, he said. Nonetheless, Brill said, a recent study showed “astronomical” growth in competitive carriers: “The amount of support appears to be doubling every 6 months or so.”