Voice over Internet Protocol and its implications in Oregon SOMMER TEMPLET STAFF ATTORNEY JUNE 10, 2013.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
CANADIAN TELECOMMUNICATIONS IN TRANSITION Ariane Siegel.
Advertisements

Presented By:- Yash Jariwala Paras Patel Deep Amrutiya.
Natural Gas Consumers Relief Act (HB 1568). The Bill Sponsored by Governor Roy Barnes. Was signed into law on April 25, Passed by the Georgia Legislature.
Telecommunications Law CLE State Deregulation at the PUC December 2014 Pete Kirchhof Colorado Telecommunications Association.
Earl Comstock President and CEO COMPTEL. The World Has Changed FCC adopts Cable Modem Order and Supreme Court upholds FCC in Brand X FCC adopts Wireline.
WHAT THE IP TRANSITION MEANS FOR CONSUMERS AND A UBIQUITOUS, AFFORDABLE, RELIABLE NATIONAL COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM David C. Bergmann Telecom Policy Consulting.
NARUC/NIGERIA REGULATORY PARTNERSHIP Peer Review Presented by Elijah Abinah Assistant Director Public Utilities Division Arizona Corporation Commission.
Regulatory-Utility Dispute Settlement Process Dennis J. Buckley Office of Administrative Law Judge Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission.
Red Flags Rule & Municipal Utilities
Federal Communications Commission Intergovernmental Advisory Committee
Does owning a solar array make you a utility?...and other questions A presentation to the Kentucky Environmental Quality Commission Andrew Melnykovych.
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.
MOSS ADAMS LLP | 1 © Moss Adams LLP | April 2012 V2 Rural Telecom Revenues FCC Reform Spring 2012 Presented to ABC Communications.
1 End of Regulation? Jerry Hausman Professor of Economics MIT July 2005
Position Paper: The Case For Universal Broadband Access By James Kim.
Disability Rights Advocates (DisabRA) is a non-profit law firm dedicated to protecting and advancing the civil rights of people with disabilities. DisabRA.
Business Local (Wireline) and Long Distance Up To Five Voice Lines Competitive Rates No Need To Switch Out Equipment Can be bundled with High Speed Internet.
VoIP Voice over Internet Protocol or “It is not Voice over IP; it is Everything over IP…” Bob Pepper, FCC.
Network neutrality is the idea that all internet traffic should be treated equally. It does not matter who is downloading and what is being downloaded.
CONSUMER PROTECTIONS AND SERVICE QUALITY March 14, 2011.
A Consumer Action Training Connect to Lifeline and Save! Discounted Lifeline Telephone Service Helps Low-Income Californians.
Hot issues in private insurance advocacy Enrollment/navigators Premium rates Health insurance literacy Network adequacy Drug coverage Out of pocket costs.
VoIP State Regulatory Update Is “Past Prologue?” Andrew O. Isar President Miller Isar, Inc
Carriers of Last Resort – An Evolving Concept Presented to NARUC Telecommunications Committee, February 20, 2008 Peter Bluhm, National Regulatory Research.
The Evolving Roles and Responsibilities of Gas Utilities In Today’s Markets Presented by: Hank Linginfelter Executive Vice President, Utility Operations.
Carriers Carriers carry traffic for a fee Must have rights of way to lay wire Given some monopoly protection Regulated but being deregulated.
Brant Wolf, EVP Oregon Telecommunications Association.
Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The FCC is a United States government agency and was established by the Communications Act of The FCC is.
Robert A. Sherry, ENP Systems Architect direct line: Warrenville Rd, 4 th Floor Lisle, IL phone:
Federal Rural Wireless Outreach Initiative July 2, 2003 Washington, D.C. Building Lines of Communication: The Role of the Consumer & Governmental Affairs.
ITS 302 Purposes of the course –Review the history of US telecommunications as a case study –Examine the basics of regulation, especially as they apply.
Communication & Information Technology Telecommunications Policy.
Low Income Programs and Consumer Protections Energy Regulatory Partnership Program Abuja, Nigeria July 14-18, 2008 Presented by Robert W. Kehres.
Adult Care Services / Hertfordshire Care Providers Association- December 2010 “Reporting Compliments Complaints and information”
Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman Provides free, independent, just, informal and speedy resolution of complaints about telephone and Internet access.
Next Gen Funding Dick Dickinson Senior Director, Public Safety TCS Inc October 13, 2009.
FROM TRADITIONAL LANDLINE TO IP TELEPHONY: A POSSIBLE ANOTHER WAY Bill Levis Colorado Consumer Counsel June 10, 2013.
Communication & Information Technology Telecommunications Policy.
FAQs about the new regulatory framework Lucy Rhodes
Consumer perspectives on the introduction of ENUM in Australia Teresa Corbin Acting Executive Officer Consumers’ Telecommunications Network.
NASUCA June TELCO COMPETITION: THE LACK OF ESSENTIAL CONSUMER PROTECTIONS Barbara R. Alexander Consumer Affairs Consultant 83 Wedgewood Dr. Winthrop,
The Texas Universal Service Fund: in Transition Kathy Grant NASUCA Summer Meeting San Antonio June 28, 2011.
Implications of VoIP TC 310 May 28, Questions from Reviews Duty to Interconnect Reciprocal compensation Line of business v statutory line of business.
 Introduction – Consumer Market  Benefits – Operational Cost & Flexibility  Challenges – Quality of Service & Securing VOIP  Legal Issuers  Risk.
Florida’s Electric Capacity and Fuel Needs Presentation by: James Dean Florida Public Service Commission to the: House Utilities and Telecommunications.
VoIP Regulation: State and Federal Developments LAMPERT & O’CONNOR, P.C K Street NW, Suite 700 Washington, DC (202)
©2003 By THELEN REID & PRIEST LLP 1 NRECA/NRTC Joint Conference July James A. Stenger Regulatory Impacts on BPL What ’s Happening at the FCC.
The Utility Consumer Bill of Rights Information About the Rights and Responsibilities of Utility Consumers in the District of Columbia DC Office of the.
Wireline Competition Bureau 2006 Annual Report January 17, 2007.
The Three Rs: The Need for Reliable, Redundant and Resilient Telecommunications in the New Age Presentation for the National Association of State Utility.
1 1084_06F9_c3 © 1999, Cisco Systems, Inc. The Current State Of Telecommunications Dan Barker TNT Consulting Group.
CALIFORNIA LIFELINE PROGRAM Consumer Education Workshop January 7, 2011 By California Public Utilities Commission’s Communications Division.
Network Neutrality: An Internet operating principle which ensures that all online users are entitled to access Internet content of their choice; run online.
79 th Texas Legislative Session 2005 – Summary of ERCOT Impacts ERCOT Board of Directors June 21, 2005 Mark Walker.
Comparative Telecommunications Law Spring, 2007 Prof. Karl Manheim 10: Universal Service Copyright © 2007.
© 2010 AT&T Intellectual Property. All rights reserved. AT&T and the AT&T logo are trademarks of AT&T Intellectual Property. Intercarrier Compensation.
Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010 (CVAA) Public Law and Public Law Wireless RERC and CTIA Accessibility.
ITS 602 Purposes of the course
Prepared by Kris Twomey Law Office of Kristopher E. Twomey, P.C.
Marsha Spellman, JD Regulatory Director, WST October 17, 2016
The End of the World For Telephones Part 2 Stephen Tondini & James Quisenberry University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
AFTER 20 YEARS, IT’S TIME TO UPDATE THE TELEPHONE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT (TCPA). Howard Waltzman Partner
BEGINNERS: INTRODUCTION TO THE E-RATE PROGRAM
Broadband public policy
IntradoTM Robert A. Sherry, ENP Systems Architect
Wireline Post 1996 TC 310 May 20, 2008.
The New Mexico Rural Universal Service Fund
Beginner Overview 2019 Applicant Training.
Toolkit #4: Legislative Process
Presentation transcript:

Voice over Internet Protocol and its implications in Oregon SOMMER TEMPLET STAFF ATTORNEY JUNE 10, 2013

Outline Oregon by the Numbers Is VoIP regulated in Oregon? What would VoIP deregulation mean in Oregon?

Oregon by the Numbers As of December 2011, there were 25 CLECs providing VoIP service in Oregon. In 2010, Oregon’s total number of CLEC-provided VoIP lines was 52,185. In 2011, Oregon’s total number of CLEC-provided VoIP lines was 69,909. In just one year (2010 to 2011), the number of VoIP lines in Oregon increased by 34%.

Is VoIP regulated in Oregon? The short answer is “we don’t know yet.” Oregon HB 2621  In Oregon’s 2007 legislative session, the Oregon PUC and Qwest supported HB 2621, a bill that would end rate regulation of all telephone rates except basic service but would provide increased consumer protection, allowing the PUC to investigate and address complaints having to do with all voice telephone services, including VoIP.  The proposed bill was in committee upon adjournment.

Is VoIP regulated in Oregon? Oregon HB 2405:  In Oregon’s 2009 legislative session, Verizon heavily supported HB 2405, a bill that would have preemptively deregulated VoIP in Oregon:  Intended to prevent all state regulation of VoIP technology including rates, terms and conditions, and entry into market  Also intended to prevent regulation of any service provided over Internet-enabled protocol or any “successor technology”  The proposed bill made it to a vote on the House floor with a “do pass” recommendation, but amidst opposition from CUB, the Oregon Public Utility Commission, the Attorney General and some local governments, the bill was re-referred back to committee, where it remained upon adjournment. No subsequent legislation has been introduced…yet?

Is VoIP regulated in Oregon? Oregon Public Utility Commission: The Oregon PUC has not made an affirmative determination about whether it will assert jurisdiction over VoIP providers within the state. Oregon Commission appears to be waiting for the outcome of FCC proceedings.

What would VoIP deregulation mean in Oregon? Access to Service Public Safety and Reliability Consumer Protection Funding Implications for Oregon Programs Problems in Rural Oregon

Concerns about unregulated VoIP Access to Service  657,905 Oregon residents still rely on landlines to connect with their neighbors, family, and emergency services.  The OPUC still regulates basic dial-tone telephone service, ensuring that the price charged is cost-based.  This service is typically chosen by senior citizens and others who don’t want or need a lot of extras (i.e. call waiting or caller ID), who don’t want a cell phone, or who simply cannot afford an option other than basic service.  Will elderly, low-income, and rural customers be able to afford basic phone service if they are being pushed to “upgrade” to new internet-based telephone services, or if their only option is to purchase phone service through unregulated VoIP?

Concerns about unregulated VoIP Public Safety and Reliability  Traditional phone service using copper wire can generally better withstand severe weather without interruption.  When there are outages for regulated services, or when individuals are having problems with their regulated services, Oregon’s administrative rules and statutes establish service quality standards and reporting requirements that ensure carriers will quickly get services back online after outages.  Service outages are more common in rural areas, where service may depend on only one or two providers, and networks may not be fully redundant with the extra connections that prevent network failures.  If VoIP were to be deregulated in Oregon, providers would not be subject to the same administrative rules and statutes for service quality and reporting.

Concerns about unregulated VoIP Consumer Protection  If VoIP is deregulated in Oregon, consumers will not be able to turn to the OPUC, as they currently can for traditional basic dial-tone service, for assistance.  There would also be no way for the state or OPUC to set standards for quality or for service in underserved regions of Oregon—meaning that customers could get stuck with exorbitantly high rates or be unable to obtain service at all.  In short, Oregon’s VoIP customers would lose an effective regulator that can enforce consumer rights.

Implications for Funding of Oregon’s RSPF and 911 Traditional telecommunications carriers (like ILECs and CLECs), pay into Oregon’s Residential Service Protection Fund (RSPF) and 911 program, which support access and safety for Oregonians. Currently in Oregon, it is a matter of debate whether VoIP providers are “required” to pay into the RSPF and 911 programs. Some carriers opt to pay into both the RSPF and 911 program, others pay into one but not both, and some carriers do not pay into either RSPF or 911. If VoIP were to be deregulated in the state, providers would not be required to pay into these funds.

Problems in Rural Oregon There are still rural Oregonians that do not have access to traditional wire line service within the state. With the FCC’s overhaul of the federal USF High- Cost program, shifting support from building out traditional landlines to building out the broadband network, some residents in rural Oregon may find that their only option for phone service is through VoIP. If VoIP is not regulated in Oregon, these customers may not have access to affordable phone service.