More on the Time Warner Wholesale Interconnection Decision
March 6, 2007
Greg Galitzine just blogged about the recent FCC order “reaffirming” that wholesale providers of telecommunications services are entitled to interconnection and related items under sections 251(a) and (b) of the Communications Act.
As Greg reports, this order means that carriers that sell wholesale VoIP and other services are entitled to interconnect and exchange traffic with local exchange carriers (“LECs”).
However, according to leading telecom law firm Womble Carlyle, there are a number of areas and unanswered questions that leave the door wide open for confusion and potential abuse.
Namely:
1. Asymmetrical Intercarrier Compensation. Wholesale carriers (and not their customers) are obligated to pay intercarrier compensation to incumbent LECs. The FCC makes no mention of any incumbent LEC obligation to compensate wholesale carriers for traffic termination. The FCC expressly punted on addressing intercarrier compensation for VoIP traffic under
section 251(b)(5).
2. Limited Interconnection Rights. Although the order establishes an interconnection requirement under section 251(a), no interconnection finding is made under section 251(c). Under 251(c), competitors are entitled to interconnection: (i) at any technically feasible point; (ii) on terms and conditions that are just, reasonable and nondiscriminatory; and (iii) at cost-based rates. 251(a) interconnection – provided for in the order – contains none of these safeguards. Expect special access pricing and terms.
3. Broad Definition of Wholesale. The FCC clarified that the statutory classification of a wholesaler’s customer – as either an “information service” or “telecommunication service” – is irrelevant to a wholesaler’s ability to interconnect with a LEC under sections 251(a) and (b).
4. Action on Delegated Authority. Because the Bureau acted on delegated authority, parties may not appeal any aspect of the order directly to circuit court. Rather, parties must file either (but not both) an “application for review” or a “petition for reconsideration.” An application for review would put matters before the full Commission. A petition for reconsideration would go to the Bureau, which may refer such a petition to the full Commission.
Tags: FCC, Marc Robins, RCG, Robins Consulting Group, Time Warner Wholesale Interconnection decision, Womble Carlyle
Search Technorati: FCC, Marc Robins, RCG, Robins Consulting Group, Time Warner Wholesale Interconnection decision, Womble Carlyle
- Related Entries
- Cisco on the Hunt for VoIP Marketing Experts - Apr 05, 2007
- Off to VON Tomorrow - Mar 19, 2007
- GotVoice Helps Usher In A New Era for Voice Mail - Mar 19, 2007
- It's "Prime" Time for Skype - Mar 11, 2007
- Radio 2.0 Under Assault - Mar 07, 2007
- My Vista Experience, Part Two - Mar 05, 2007
- Second Life Trials Voice Chat - Feb 28, 2007
- Costco Amends TV Return Policy - Feb 27, 2007
- Where Art Thou, Cheap Compact Candelabra Base Fluorescent Bulbs? - Feb 26, 2007
- Skype Spam - Feb 16, 2007
- Related Entries
- Cisco on the Hunt for VoIP Marketing Experts - Apr 05, 2007
- Off to VON Tomorrow - Mar 19, 2007
- GotVoice Helps Usher In A New Era for Voice Mail - Mar 19, 2007
- It's "Prime" Time for Skype - Mar 11, 2007
- Radio 2.0 Under Assault - Mar 07, 2007
- My Vista Experience, Part Two - Mar 05, 2007
- Second Life Trials Voice Chat - Feb 28, 2007
- Costco Amends TV Return Policy - Feb 27, 2007
- Where Art Thou, Cheap Compact Candelabra Base Fluorescent Bulbs? - Feb 26, 2007
- Skype Spam - Feb 16, 2007
Listed below are links to sites that reference More on the Time Warner Wholesale Interconnection Decision:
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for More on the Time Warner Wholesale Interconnection Decision:
http://blog.tmcnet.com/mt3/t.fcgi/32005