International Prepaid Card Providers Petition FCC to File USF Form 499As

A group of international prepaid card companies have petitioned the FCC for a rule change that will allow them to file their own FCC Form 499As to cover the universal service fund assessments on their traffic.  The companies contend that the current rule unfairly punishes them and causes them to overpay into the USF by millions of dollars.  Because they have virtually no U.S. domestic calling, the companies qualify for the FCC's "88-12" rule treatment; that rule instructs carriers with more than 88% of their traffic being international to pay USF only on their domestic U.S. revenues. But another FCC rule tells carriers with "de minimis" amounts of U.S. domestic traffic not to file the Form 499A at all, instead being treated as "end users" whose traffic is lumped into that of their underlying carrier and paid for by that carrier. A carrier is de minimis when its contribution to the USF would be less than $10,000.  The combination of these rules causes many international carriers to lack the ability to file their own Form 499A because they are de minimis, but when their traffic is lumped in with another carrier that does not qualify for 88-12 treatment, the international carrier is then charged USF on its full volume of traffic.  For example, a carrier with $9,920,000 in international revenue and $80,000 in domestic U.S. revenue would have a USF assessment of about $9,600 ($80,000 x 12% = $9,600).  That would make the carrier de minimis and require it to report its revenue to its underlying carrier rather than file its own Form 499A.  But in many cases that underlying carrier does not itself qualify for 88-12 treatment and thus must pay $1,200,000 on the $10,000,000 of revenue realized by its international wholesale customer.  This amount is then passed through to the wholesale customer.  As a result, the international company must pay $1.2 million to its vendor rather than $9,600 to the USF.  The Petition to the FCC asks the agency to allow international carriers in such circumstances to file an FCC Form 499A of their own and pay directly rather than through their underlying carrier.  The Petition has gone on public notice and comments may be found here.

 

VoIP Gets More Duck-Like: FCC Extends Discontinuance of Service Rules to Interconnected VoIP Providers

In a move that surprised almost no one, the FCC extended its discontinuance of service rules to providers of interconnected VoIP services.  When this latest action becomes effective, interconnected VoIP providers will be required to give customers advance notice of plans to discontinue service and will have to file for FCC approval of such actions.  FCC approval is automatic 30 days after the Commission issues public notice, unless it issues an order denying the discontinuance within that time.  Curiously, although the Vonage order preempts state regulation of interconnected VoIP entry or exit, the discontinuance rules require interconnected VoIP providers to notify the relevant state commissions in addition to the FCC.  

More broadly, as it has before, the FCC refused to classify interconnected VoIP service as either a telecommunications service or an information service.  So, while we still don't know what it is, exactly, interconnected VoIP has yet another of the obligations traditionally associated with POTS service.  


Kelley Drye Client Advisory - FCC Releases Order Extending Discontinuance of Service
Requirements to Providers of Interconnected VoIP Service 

 

 

Preview of FCC Open Meeting: VoIP, Number Porting Items are on the Agenda

Late last night, the FCC announced its agenda for its May 13 Open Meeting. Highlighting the agenda are items relating to VoIP provider discontinuance obligations and LNP deadlines.

VoIP

The FCC announced that it plans to “consider a Report and Order concerning the requirements of interconnected VoIP providers when discontinuing service.”  This is sort of a stealth item on the agenda, as there has been virtually no discussion in the docket on this issue in the most recent months.

We hear that the FCC is likely to impose notice requirements similar to those that apply for traditional telecommunications carriers. This will continue a trend for interconnected VoIP where the FCC has imposed, one-by-one, obligations traditionally held by telecommunications carriers while steadfastly refusing to classify interconnected VoIP services. In today’s state of affairs, interconnected VoIP has nearly all of the burdens of regulation but few of the benefits. The most significant outstanding issue continues to be the application of access charges to interconnected VoIP. This topic has been a subject of litigation for some time.

Number Porting

The FCC will address porting intervals and related standards for the transfer of telephone numbers between carriers when a customer switches service providers. Cable providers in particular are pushing for a maximum interval of one-day for simple wireline to wireline and intermodal porting requests. The Order could also further address the information that carriers may require in order to implement a porting request, response intervals for customer service requests (CSRs) and other concerns raised regarding fair competition among providers.
 

Appeals Court Rejects State Regulation of Nomadic VoIP, Again

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has ruled in favor of Vonage and rejected an attempt by the Nebraska PSC to claim regulatory authority over VoIP.  Vonage v. Nebraska PSC, 564 F. 3d 900 (8th Cir. 2009).  Specifically, Nebraska argued that the FCC's original ruling that VoIP is subject to exclusive federal jurisdiction was effectively modified by the FCC's subsequent creation of a "safe harbor" for payment of federal universal service payments by VoIP providers.  Nebraska argued that when the FCC created a presumption that VoIP calls are 64.5% interstate, and directed VoIP providers to make USF contributions on that basis, the inevitable corollary is that 35.5% of VoIP calls are intrastate.  On that basis, the Nebraska PSC sought to levy state universal service fees on 35.5% of Vonage's Nebraska calling.  The Court of Appeals rejected the Nebraska argument, finding that the FCC's preemption of all state regulation of nomadic VoIP was not modified or inconsistent with the FCC's creation of a 64.5% safe harbor for USF purposes.  It is noteworthy, however, that the court focused expressly on "nomadic" VoIP, leaving open the possibility of a different outcome for fixed VoIP services because the FCC's earlier preemption order is based on the nomadic nature of the service being considered in that instance. Nebraska has now petitioned the FCC to modify its order to allow for state assessment of USF on VoIP providers.

Click here to read the Kelley Drye Client Advisory.