Regulatory Watch : CALEA Questions; VoIP Panel; E-911 and Section 271

As another deadline approaches for Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) compliance, carriers say standards for creating intercept systems still aren’t finalized and that other unanswered questions—such as what constitutes CALEA-compliant software—make meeting those deadlines difficult.

The FBI is apparently tired of the delays. Its Flexible Deployment Program, which allowed the agency to help carriers achieve specific implementation schedules in return for FBI support for carrier deadline extensions, has ended. The bureau pulled out of the program and let it lapse.

In 2001, more than a thousand carriers applied for two-year packet mode extensions under act. That extension ran out Nov. 29, and the FCC again extended the carriers’ deadline to exhibit the ability to intercept packet mode communications to Jan. 30.

Few carriers are ready to meet that deadline either, because their networks aren’t ready, and some question which standards will be used. Then there are the business rules surrounding those systems. “Carriers have to come up with their own procedures; there’s very little guidance, and it’s very expensive,” said Raj Puri, vice president of VeriSign’s NetDiscovery Services, at a recent USTA webinar on CALEA compliance.

But standards do exist, Puri says, though they might not answer every eventuality surrounding call interception. “Every time a new service comes along, there’s a new change to the interface. One can’t wait for standards to meet every possibility; standards will constantly change.”

The FCC has determined that broadband, and by extension VoIP traffic, is an information service, but a court ruled in early fall that the FCC erred in its definition, calling VoIP a telecommunications service. Carriers have to be very careful when navigating this narrow channel. “One of the issues facing carriers is that if they use the statutes to request more time, they have to admit they are carriers under the Telecom Act,” said Michael McMenamin, associate counsel for USTA. “Most VoIP carriers feel that by admitting they are carriers for the purpose of CALEA could bring on universal service, access fees and other responsibilities.”

VoIP Panel to Look at Regulatory Possibilities

It seems the FCC, after years of requests from the nation’s carriers and ISPs, took a decisive step toward defining the nature of, and the regulatory regime for, VoIP. Following a VoIP forum at the FCC on Dec. 1, the commission announced that its Internet Policy Working Group will start looking at the regulatory future of IP-based voice communications in January. The working group’s job won’t be easy—VoIP is a politically charged segment of the telecom industry, and no matter what the FCC decides, someone is going to lose.

For that reason, lawmakers on the Hill are keeping an eye on the panel and its actions. “As you examine these important issues, it is my hope that the [FCC] will do so in a competitively neutral manner,” Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., wrote FCC Chairman Michael Powell in a Dec. 1 letter. “It is important that we move away from the government’s picking of winners and losers and instead look to market-based solutions to provide the best services at the best prices for consumers.”

The FCC has a rare opportunity to create a tax and regulatory regime from the ground up for a relatively new mode of communication. VoIP does not have the dramatic regulatory history of wireline service, which has evolved through decades of public utility commission intervention, countless court rulings and acts of Congress. If VoIP is to be a telecom service, for instance, other carriers can charge VoIP providers for access, adding to the money that flows between carriers. If VoIP is to be little more than a wireline call using IP for transport, then the carriers and the cable providers will have to continue to invest heavily in back office and billing systems to account for VoIP calls in a common carrier environment—no small investment. The big players in the industry—cable providers such as Cox, Comcast, Time Warner, and wireline carriers such as AT&T—have invested many millions in their networks in the belief that traditional regulatory requirements such as phone surcharges, taxes and “other credits and charges” will eventually be attached to VoIP calls.

Powell doesn’t want to saddle VoIP with too many regulations. He gave a hint of this view on VoIP regulation during a speech at the Technology Advisory Council in October. The industry must decide whether it will “tailor a set of regulatory clothing uniquely for [VoIP], or whether we will make it wear Ma Bell’s hand-me-downs,” Powell told the council.

Sen. John Sununu, R-N.H., warned Powell to control the states’ ability to regulate VoIP. He wrote, “It is apparent that regulators in certain states have begun to review their regulatory approach to VoIP to consider imposing regulations similar to those in place for the public switched telephone network. “There is concern that if states approach VoIP in the same manner they regulate the current local phone systems, the external benefits of the technology—including increased levels of connectivity and network efficiencies—could be lost …which would hurt consumers.”

Wireless E-911 Implementation Patchy

The manner in which wireless E-911 is being implemented will result in spotty service for wireless subscribers who call for an ambulance or police protection, the Government Accounting Office (GAO) says in a November report titled “Telecommunications: Uneven Implementation of Wireless E-911 Raises Prospect of Piecemeal Availability for Years to Come.”

The GAO compared the answers from wireless E-911 program coordinators in all states with a Department of Transportation database that the DOT and the FCC have used to monitor progress. According to the DOT database, as of October, nearly 65 percent of the nation’s 6,000 public safety answering points (PSAP) had Phase I wireless E-911 implemented. Phase I requires that emergency dispatchers can determine the approximate location of a wireless user. The DOT database indicated that at least 18 percent of the nation’s PSAPs had reached Phase II status—which gives dispatchers a more precise location of the wireless subscriber.

The DOT database’s usefulness is questionable, the GAO says, because it doesn’t differentiate between dispatch centers that need equipment upgrades and those that don’t. That information would give the FCC a more accurate picture of where states stand.

What are the reasons for the uneven implementation? The GAO blamed poor coordination between wireless carriers, local wireline carriers and staff at the local PSAPs.

Section 271 Qualifying Ends

It’s the end of an era. On Dec. 3,when the FCC gave Qwest permission to provide interLATA long distance service in Arizona, the Section 271 process came to an end.

As part of the Telecom Act of 1996, ILECs could apply to provide long distance service within the states in their coverage areas. Carriers had to prove that they could automate the interfaces between themselves and the CLECs, so that the CLECs could sign up customers for service through the ILEC’s OSS interfaces. Once the carrier met that requirement and could convince the FCC that competition existed in that state, the carrier could declare itself an IXC and provide long distance service in that state.

The FCC approved the first Section 271 long-distance application—for Verizon in New York—on Dec. 22, 1999. When announcing the final Section 271 application, the FCC says Qwest is still subject to fines if it performs anti-competitive behavior, and in fact, the approval can still be rescinded.