Incumbents, State Commissions Want Global NAPS VoIP Petition Denied

A Global NAPS petition for a declaratory ruling regarding tariff treatment of VoIP traffic drew comments mostly supporting denial, but others, like the Voice on the Net Coalition, want the petition granted. Global asked the FCC to clarify that state commissions can’t subject VoIP traffic to intrastate tariffs, and that if a carrier’s traffic is nomadic VoIP, the remainder of its traffic should be treated as interstate. Large and rural-size carriers and several telecom associations opposed Global’s claims that carriers forwarding VoIP traffic shouldn’t be subject to interstate or intrastate access charges.

Verizon said in comments that Global believes that because it carries both IP and time division multiplexed traffic, it believes it owes no intrastate access charges to carriers that terminate any of its traffic. “But even if some amount of the traffic it carries is VoIP, a sizable portion appears to be traditional TDM traffic or, at best, run-of-the-mill ‘IP-in-the-middle’ traffic. There is no question that traffic is subject to either intrastate or interstate access charges, depending on the locations of the parties to the call."

Global and its providers aren’t acting as enhanced service providers, Century Link, Frontier and Windstream said in a joint filing. In routing its traffic, “Global NAPS utilizes local exchange carrier networks in the very same way as other carriers do, for the very same purposes, and receives the same benefits.” The Enhanced Service Provider exemption has never properly applied to interconnected VoIP, and doesn’t apply “to the traffic of a carrier that is itself not providing an information service,” the telcos said.

In support of Global’s request, VON Coalition said the features and functions of VoIP are “inseparable from the voice application that may appear to be most similar to a telephone service” and therefore are not subject to intrastate access charges. “A finding that interconnected VoIP is an interstate information service will eliminate many of these disputes” surrounding VoIP traffic. It will also “encourage incumbent and competitive LECs to work towards the necessary reforms described in the National Broadband Plan that are needed to move them to all IP networks,” VON said.

A collaborative filing from several associations, including the National Exchange Carrier Association, the National Telecommunications Cooperative Association and several state rural telecom associations argues that Global’s services “look and feel like plain old telephone service.” Providers such as Global that seek exemption from intercarrier compensation obligations “also routinely fail to account for the fact that the services they provide depend on the existence of a reliable, ubiquitous public switched telephone network and the viable carriers that operate it."

Granting Global’s petition would undermine “our ability to develop fair and balanced telecommunications policies,” the New York Public Service Commission said. Other state commissions such as the California Public Utilities Commission and the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission also opposed the petition.

AT&T and USTelecom said Global’s petition is another reason the FCC must answer what type of intercarrier compensation applies to VoIP services. “The commission should take immediate action to clarify the proper application of its current intercarrier compensation rules to IP/PSTN traffic pending comprehensive reform of intercarrier compensation,” AT&T said.