VoIP Regulation: State and Federal Developments LAMPERT & O’CONNOR, P.C. 1776 K Street NW, Suite 700 Washington, DC 20006 (202) 887-6230 www.l-olaw.com.

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

Status of broadband in the US High speed lines as of December 2008: –102 million total high speed connections 84% were faster than 200 kbps in both directions.

Advertisements

VoIP - Australian Regulatory Practice and Directions Duncan MacAuslan Task Coordinator - VoIP ITP Training September 2006.

IETF ECRIT SDO Emergency Services Coordination Workshop 5 & 6 Oct 2006 – New York Alain Van Gaever DG Information Society & Media European Commission.

Telecommunications Law CLE State Deregulation at the PUC December 2014 Pete Kirchhof Colorado Telecommunications Association.

The status of broadband FCC defines –High-speed lines that deliver services at speeds in excess of 200 kbps in at least one direction –Advanced services.

Wireline Competition Bureau 2004 Promoting Real Consumer Choice and Investment in Broadband Facilities.

10/14/08NRRI1 Traditional Regulatory Models and a VOIP World Presented to NARUC Staff Subcommittee on Accounting and Finance October 14, 2008 Peter Bluhm.

Federal Communications Commission Intergovernmental Advisory Committee

Fiducianet, inc. tm 1 Presented by H. Michael Warren, President fiducianet, inc. VoIP Technology Perspectives Law Enforcement Concerns & CALEA Compliance.

John Windhausen, Telepoly Consulting Cathy Sloan, Computer and Communications Industry Association May 19, 2010.

Head in the Sand? Regulatory Requirements and Pitfalls for VoIP Providers in the U.S. Prepared by Kris Twomey Law Office of Kristopher E. Twomey, P.C.

Upcoming Regulatory Filing Obligations for VoIP Providers Presented by Kris Twomey Law Office of Kristopher E. Twomey, P.C. FISPA-Sponsored Webinar January.

Presentation by Tony Perez to Seattle Citizens Technology and Telecommunications Advisory Board March 11, 2014.

Broadband’s Triple Play The National Broadband Plan, the Comcast Decision, and the Google/Verizon Proposal Jim Chen Dean and Professor of Law University.

February 19, 2008 How Should We Think About IP-PSTN Interconnection? NARUC Committee on Telecommunications.

Measuring Internet Access Substitutes and Service Gaps By: Catherine J.K. Sandoval Assistant Professor Santa Clara University School of Law Presentation.

Latham & Watkins operates as a limited liability partnership worldwide with an affiliate in the United Kingdom and Italy, where the practice is conducted.

Continuing Uncertainty Under FCC Network Neutrality Rules Prof. Barbara A. Cherry Indiana University Presented at EDUCAUSE Live! Webcast January 26, 2011.

Federal Communications Commission Policy Statement Adopted Aug. 5, 2005Released: Sept. 25, 2005.

Net Neutrality Questions. What if? Customer Lamps for Less Luxurious Lumination Telephone Company Welcome to lamps [click] [dial tone] Welcome to Luxurious.

Net Neutrality. Tussle Who’s battling? What’s at issue? Is it contained?

VoIP Regulatory Update Ronald W. Del Sesto, Jr. Senior Associate Swidler Berlin LLP (202)

VoIP Voice over Internet Protocol or “It is not Voice over IP; it is Everything over IP…” Bob Pepper, FCC.

Web Accessibility Case Law Examples ADA Trainer Network Module 7i

How Recent Government Initiatives Will Impact IT on Your Campus, October 10, 2000 Preconference Seminar 13P - How Recent Government Initiatives Will Impact.

1 TEXAS STATEWIDE TELEPHONE COOPERATIVE, INC. Accounting and Customer Service Conference Regulation and Accounting for VoIP Presented by: Matt Snowden,

Latham & Watkins operates as a limited liability partnership worldwide with an affiliate in the United Kingdom and Italy, where the practice is conducted.

VoIP State Regulatory Update Is “Past Prologue?” Andrew O. Isar President Miller Isar, Inc

© x8 Inc. (Nasdaq: EGHT) 1 The Next Generation of IP Communication Applications Bryan R. Martin January 24, 2007 Internet Telephony Conference &

Questions about broadband What do we do about broadband services? –Why didn’t the ILECs deploy DSL faster? Could regulation be to blame? –How do we get.

Agenda Welcome – Don Welch Introduction to CALEA – Mary McLaughlin Non-CALEA Assistance Obligations – Beth Cate CALEA Update – Matt Brill Making the Compliance.

OTT and the future of the PSTN Henning Schulzrinne FCC.

CALEA Discussion Internet2 Joint Techs July 19, 2006 Doug Carlson Executive Director, Communications & Computing Services New York University

Testimony before the Florida House Committee on Utilities and Telecommunications Thomas M. Koutsky Co-Founder and Resident Scholar Phoenix Center March.

By: Matt Klena Nathan Crapis. The principle that Internet service providers (ISP’s) should enable access to all content and applications regardless of.

Changes in State and Federal Telecommunications Policies: How Do They Affect US All? SCAN NATOA 16 th Annual Spring Conference and Star Awards Long Beach,

Neither Fish Nor Fowl: New Strategies for Selective Regulation of Information Services A Presentation at the 35 th Annual Telecommunications Policy Research.

Wireline Competition Bureau State of the Bureau Presentation January 20, 2006.

VON Coalition 2002 Michael S. Jablon Director, Membership Development Advocate and Educate.

1 Managing the Transition to IP-Based Public Phone Networks in the United States Joe Gillan CRNI November 22, 2013 Gillan Associates.

December 16, FCC Treatment of VoIP Russ Hanser Special Counsel to the Chief Competition Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Federal Communications.

FCC IMPLEMENTATION OF THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY COMMUNICATIONS AND VIDEO ACCESSIBILITY ACT Pub. L FCC Agenda Meeting November 30, 2010.

CALEA Discussion Institute for Computer Policy and Law June 28, 2006 Doug Carlson Executive Director, Communications & Computing Services New York University.

Legal & Regulatory Classification of Broadband Demystifying Title II.

VoIP and its Impact on Competition in the Telecommunications Sector Monika Podpłońska V-ce Director of Retail Electronic Communications Market Department/UKE.

Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act & Higher Education: or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Wiretaps Terry Hartle American Council.

Implications of VoIP TC 310 May 28, Questions from Reviews Duty to Interconnect Reciprocal compensation Line of business v statutory line of business.

VoIP Regulation: State and Federal Developments MARK J. O’CONNOR Lampert, O’Connor & Johnston, P.C. Session EI-05 January 23, :30 – 2:15 pm.

GSC Global Standards Collaboration GSC August – 2 September 2005 Sophia Antipolis, France August 28 – September 2, ISACC Opening Plenary Presentation.

The Utility Consumer Bill of Rights Information About the Rights and Responsibilities of Utility Consumers in the District of Columbia DC Office of the.

John Morris 1 Hot Topic - IP Services Wiretapping the Internet EDUCAUSE Policy Conference May 20, 2004 John Morris, Center for Democracy and Technology.

Wireline Competition Bureau 2006 Annual Report January 17, 2007.

Spectrum and the Concept of Net Neutrality Todd D. Daubert Partner Kelley, Drye & Warren, LLP.

Net Neutrality Update Presentation to Montana Telecommunications Association Aug. 5, 2014 John Windhausen Telepoly Consulting

VoIP Regulation Klaus Nieminen TKK Table of Contents Background EU Regulatory Framework Objectives, PATS and ECS definitions VoIP Classification.

Overview Present the past, present & future of VoIP. Focus: –Technology –Cultural Factors –Economic Factors –Regulatory Factors.

IEEE & Expansion of 1994's Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) & Security Services Information Technology Department 2 December.

VON.ORG For more information, please visit Numbering Optimization and IP-Enabled Services The VON Coalition Todd D. Daubert FCC Numbering Symposium.

Center for Information and Communication Technologies Technical University of Denmark IP migration’s implication for the concept of Universal Service and.

Federal Communications Commission TC 310 May 14, 2008.

Indiana’s Public Access Laws Heather Willis Neal Indiana Public Access Counselor Indiana Association of Cities and Towns Red Flag and Sunshine Workshop.

Interconnection and Access Presentation by Dale N. Hatfield Chief, Office of Engineering and Technology Federal Communications Commission June 6, 2000.

t What is VoIP? t How this technology is changing business model in telecom industry?  How this theme has been discussed in the world ? t What are the.

Regulatory Reporting and Compliance & VoIP Regulation Jonathan E. Allen Kristopher E. Twomey Rini Coran, PC Law Office of Kristopher E. Twomey, P.C

Regulatory Creep Stephen E. Coran Kristopher E. Twomey Rini Coran, PC Law Office of Kristopher E. Twomey, P.C th Street, NW, Suite I Street,

Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010 (CVAA) Public Law and Public Law Wireless RERC and CTIA Accessibility.

Legal Framework for Broadband Internet Access Notice of Inquiry June 17, 2010.

Getting Your House In Order: The FCC`s Filing Requirements and Enforcement Process Jonathan E. Allen Kristopher E. Twomey Rini O’Neill, PC Law Office of.

Regulatory Creep Jonathan E. Allen Kristopher E. Twomey

Enhanced 911 for VoIP Standards and Regulatory

Presentation transcript:

VoIP Regulation: State and Federal Developments LAMPERT & O’CONNOR, P.C K Street NW, Suite 700 Washington, DC (202) MARK J. O’CONNOR Session EI-04 September 12, :45 – 1:30 pm

MARK J. O’CONNOR  Lampert & O’Connor, P.C.  1776 K Street NW, Suite 700  Washington, DC  (202) tel  Introduction  Where is Internet telephony regulation going?  Is the cost of regulation impacting the VoIP bottom-line?  How much more regulation can the industry expect?

MARK J. O’CONNOR  Lampert & O’Connor, P.C.  1776 K Street NW, Suite 700  Washington, DC  (202) tel  FCC Obligations Imposed on Interconnected VoIP Providers  Title II Regulatory Obligations Imposed on Interconnected VoIP Providers  Supply 911 emergency calling capabilities to customers for services that utilize the PSTN  Contribute to the Universal Service Fund (“USF”)  Comply with the FCC’s customer proprietary network information (“CPNI”) rules  Comply with the FCC’s disability access requirements, including Telecommunications Relay Services (“TRS”) requirements and certain obligations  Contribute to the TRS fund  Comply with the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (“CALEA”)  FCC Regulatory Classification of VoIP Services  The FCC has not decided the IP-enabled services NPRM, whether IP-enabled services should be classified as information services or telecommunications services. Does this matter?

MARK J. O’CONNOR  Lampert & O’Connor, P.C.  1776 K Street NW, Suite 700  Washington, DC  (202) tel  States That Tax or Regulate VoIP Service 23 states currently tax or regulate VoIP service

MARK J. O’CONNOR  Lampert & O’Connor, P.C.  1776 K Street NW, Suite 700  Washington, DC  (202) tel  States That Impose 911 Fees on VoIP Service 13 states currently impose 911 fees on VoIP service Note: Pending legislation could impose 911 fees on VoIP service in California and Pennsylvania

MARK J. O’CONNOR  Lampert & O’Connor, P.C.  1776 K Street NW, Suite 700  Washington, DC  (202) tel  States That Tax VoIP Service 13 states currently tax VoIP service; 18 states will tax VoIP service by Jan. 1, 2008 Note: Pending legislation could impose VoIP taxes in four additional states Effective Jan. 1, 2008 Effective Oct. 1, 2007 Effective Jan. 1, 2008 Effective Nov. 1, 2007 Effective Jan. 1, 2008

MARK J. O’CONNOR  Lampert & O’Connor, P.C.  1776 K Street NW, Suite 700  Washington, DC  (202) tel  States with VoIP Consumer Protection Laws Three states currently have VoIP consumer protection laws Effective Nov. 15, 2007 Effective Oct. 1, 2007

MARK J. O’CONNOR  Lampert & O’Connor, P.C.  1776 K Street NW, Suite 700  Washington, DC  (202) tel  States with Pending VoIP Legislation 14 states have proposed or pending VoIP legislation Effective Jan. 1, 2008 Not yet codified Effective Oct. 1, 2007 Tax Pending; Consumer Protection Effective Nov. 15, 2007 Effective Jan. 1, 2008 Effective Oct. 1, 2007 Effective Nov. 1, 2007 Green = 911 Fee Orange = Tax Purple = Consumer Protection

MARK J. O’CONNOR  Lampert & O’Connor, P.C.  1776 K Street NW, Suite 700  Washington, DC  (202) tel  FCC Vonage Decision  The FCC preempted state regulation of Vonage’s VoIP service.  The FCC’s decision was upheld by United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

MARK J. O’CONNOR  Lampert & O’Connor, P.C.  1776 K Street NW, Suite 700  Washington, DC  (202) tel  FCC Vonage Decision: Key Findings  Vonage’s service is geographically undeterminable.  Service is fully portable and numbers are not tied to user’s home or location.  Vonage’s service is integrated, making the FCC’s end-to-end analysis not readily applicable.  Service does not distinguish between local and long-distance minutes of use;  Service offers end users integrated capabilities and features.

MARK J. O’CONNOR  Lampert & O’Connor, P.C.  1776 K Street NW, Suite 700  Washington, DC  (202) tel  FCC Vonage Decision: Key Findings (cont.)  No practical means to carve out purely intrastate service.  Would require an extensive re-design of Vonage’s service at a substantial cost; and  Such a requirement would be solely for the purpose of enabling state regulation, because Vonage does not have a service-driven reason to make such changes.  Mandating Vonage to undertake changes to separate out intrastate traffic would conflict with the FCC’s policies of promoting innovative services and broadband development and deployment.

MARK J. O’CONNOR  Lampert & O’Connor, P.C.  1776 K Street NW, Suite 700  Washington, DC  (202) tel  Open Issues  Does FCC Vonage Order preempt current state VoIP laws vis-à-vis “Vonage-style” VoIP providers?  Preemption of state regulation of facilities-based VoIP services  The FCC has not directly addressed preemption of facilities-based VoIP services.  The Eighth Circuit avoided the question of whether the Vonage Order preempts facilities- based VoIP services.  Possible future preemption, litigation over state regulation of facilities-based VoIP services?

MARK J. O’CONNOR  Lampert & O’Connor, P.C.  1776 K Street NW, Suite 700  Washington, DC  (202) tel  Open Issues (cont.)  Preemption of state regulation of facilities-based VoIP services (cont.)  Not all facilities-based VoIP providers argue that the Vonage Order should be applied to facilities- based VoIP.  In Comcast IP Phone of Missouri v. the Missouri PSC, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3628 (D. Mo. 2007) the Court rejected Comcast’s argument that the Missouri PSC is without legal authority to classify Comcast’s VoIP service as a regulated telecommunications service before the FCC makes such a determination. Comcast did not ask the Court to compare Comcast’s VoIP service to the services at issue in the Vonage Order.

MARK J. O’CONNOR  Lampert & O’Connor, P.C.  1776 K Street NW, Suite 700  Washington, DC  (202) tel  Conclusion  Questions  Contact Information:  Phone: (202)   Website: