Federal Jursdiction over IP Services Sought by TechAmerica
4 12 2009Folks..
This is an interesting letter as VRS Industry as well as a number of shakers and movers of deaf/hoh communities share the same vein of philosophy as this Tech America. Letter of Tech America were signed by:
A T&T, Google, Microsoft, National Association of Manufacturers, TechAmerica,
Telecommunications Industry Association, T-Mobile, Verizon, and VON Coalition.
Clearly powerful group of companies. I have quoted what I feel to be quotable quotes below the link.
LETTER
Exactly what is this vein of thinking? That federal have full jursdiction over IP Services, and not allow states to have any jursdiction over IP Relay. Sound familar? I have said that in quite a few vlogs/blogs on this.
"..we write to encourage Congress to pass legislation affirming that all Internet Protocol (“IP”)-based services are subject to exclusive federal jurisdiction.."
The following quote is what many deaf/hoh have expressed as well for VRS and IP Relay..
"These revolutionary IP services, including Voice-over-IP (“VoIP”), upend traditional concepts of location and/or device based services, enabling customers to have a single number that reaches them no matter where they are and what device (phone or computer) they are using."
"These IP services are designed and built over wide geographic areas without regard to state boundaries." and "IP services will be subject to a patchwork of 50-plus different regulatory regimes, stifling innovation and the industry’s ability to take full advantage of available cost savings."
The last quote above is something I have said over and over as to reason why VRS and IP Relay should not go to state jursdiciton – remember I have been saying that when I was with Texas PUC.
"The continuing evolution of IP-based services will create a more competitive environment and will bring new and innovative services to consumers in all areas of the country. For this trend to continue, Congress must ensure that these inherently interstate services are regulated exclusively at the federal level, to the extent these services need to be regulated at all, and reject efforts to apply legacy state telecommunication regulation to the IP world."
I agree.
Your thoughts, gentle readers?
eyes open & thumbs up,
Ed Bosson
Ed, thanks for sharing this letter. Interesting indeed. The only problem with “competitive environment” is that the playing field was never leveled in the first place. Enforcement of existing regulations hasn’t happened. So to designate VRS with that of the competitive market of IP services for hearing people is a misnomer at best.
Ed: great article. I completely agree with this. IP telephony takes on different levels and it would make no sense to have 50 separate jurisdictions.
Re: the comment about the playing field not being leveled, that’s an interesting thought. By the way, I understand your business is doing great. Congratulations and best wishes with your company’s future.
Ed,
I think this is dangerous territory. I am inclined to agree with Sherri that the existing model of Federal involvement has a mixed bag of positives and negatives. Had the IP world been originally assigned to state jurisdictions, we might not have what we have so far as IP-enabled communications goes. But I dread the idea of quality assurance being governed exclusively at the Federal level…also, there probably are numerous states rights issues that will be needed to be addressed if the PSTN goes federal.
Bob
Question: Is there a difference between the IP “network” and the services delivered over that network?
Before IP Relay, we had Telecommunication Relay Services delivered over a national network of telephone lines but the Relay Services were regulated state by state because the location of the originating and terminating phone numbers was known.
When IP relay (and later VRS) came into existence, the location of one end of the call (usually the point of origin) could not be determined. The decision was made by the FCC to regulate IP relay (and later VRS) at the federal level as an experimental service.
Now that we have Real Local Numbers, once again the location of the origin and termination point of all calls is known. While the “network” is now international, the Service can be identified as “local”.
What if the Legislature in California or Hawaii wants to provide Relay Services in excess of what the Legislature in Montana or Alabama is willing to pay for? Suppose California decides that it is in their interest to pay for Conference Calls over VRS because it increases employment opportunities for Deaf residents, and Montana decides they cannot afford it? What if Hawaii wants to require VRS interpreters to hold RID NIC Master certification or HQAS 5 +H; Alabama decides that a degree in interpreting from a two year community college is “good enough”?
If the US Congress passes Legislation that preempts state regulation of Relay Services, we all get the minimum level of Service and no state has the opportunity to “do better”.
I agree that the IP network (the “Utility”) ought to be regulated at the Federal level (for example, an ISP ought to be prevented from blocking or slowing specific types of traffic).
I believe that Access SERVICES (ie: Telecommunication Relay Services over Internet Protocol) ought to be regulated by the states.
My three cents ..
Here’s my perspective:
When I was with DDTP of California, we’d have this RFP outlining the basic requirements for vendors to comply. During the duration of this contract, the vendors were not willing to spend $$ to gain a small share of the market within the state.
Innovation for the TRS contracts within the state level was stifled.
We’re at a point where we’re willing to put the profit back into the technology development and see if it’s going to have an effect on a national level (which will then allow us to at least break even if we get new X customers).
On a state level, it just becomes harder for us to be innovative.
Robin
Thanks folks for ur well-thought out comments. 19 years in PUC has taught me one thing; RFP and competitive environment are not the same thing no matter how some people try to show that. One recurring pattern is that innovations are better in competitive environment. RFP strategy typically means innovations only happen when proposals are made to RFP as opposed to competitive environment where new features/innovations constantly are presented to the public when they become available. VRS – let’s put the bad part aside – certainly has shown that and we want that.
I have often wondered if TTY Relay Service were put in a competitive environment, would we have the improved and highly innovative TTY relay service? We’ll never know cuz TTY relay has been in state control.
eyes open & thumbs up
It is never too late and should still be done. I have long taken the position that it is an unnecessary expense and duplication of effort to have collection, disbursement and oversight in each of the 50 states. TRS can and should be lumped in with the current NECA projects and funded the same way as IP services are funded. Not only would all present duplication expenses be eliminated but the dubious practice by some states of taking and using TRS funds for other than intended purpose would go bye bye.
Charles,
That’s good point about TRS Funds being raided by states. When I was with TPUC, there were in fact a couple representatives from Texas Legislature that first approached PUC commissioners, and ultimately referred to me. I had a good talk with them. I basically encouraged them to create a new bill to help out blind people secure reader feature that is subsidized by state. Fortunately they followed that advice and in fact passed a bill. So that worked out even better for blind advocates as now they can focus on that particular bill and improve on it.
eyes open & thumbs up…
I agree with those who want VRS etc. to remain under FCC control. We have a similar problem with Speech-to-Speech. If Speech-to-Speech were a national service instead of a state managed service, many more people would be using it. There are not enough advocates in each state to make it effectively run. Many states do not have potential users or current users capable of advocating for STS or STS outreach, so in most states it gets lost in the state bureaucracy. We do have enough advocates to make STS effective if it were a national service.
Bob,
Hey that is another good reason. The smaller the specified disability is, the better it is to offer nationwide service as opposed to states. Thanks, Bob, for bringing this up.
eyes open & thumbs up…