re ] Court Says VoIP traffic doesn't pay access charges...

[Dave Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

> From: "Savage, Christopher" <ChrisSavage () dwt com>
> Date: February 22, 2010 9:44:32 AM EST
> To: dave () farber net
> Subject: RE: [IP] Court Says VoIP traffic doesn't pay access  
> charges...

> Dave,
>
>
>
> This is an interesting case on many levels. I think it reflects  
> frustration with courts (as opposed to state PUCs) with the FCC’s fa 
> ilure to fish or cut bait on intercarrier compensation for VoIP.
>
>
>
> But the potentially most important aspect of the ruling isn’t its Vo 
> IP-specific aspects.  It is the fact that the court held that recipr 
> ocal compensation (low rates) is the “default” for local-carrier- 
> to-local-carrier traffic exchange, with access charges (high rates)  
> only for traditional traffic of the sort that existed prior to the 1 
> 996 Act.  This is exactly the opposite position that incumbents typi 
> cally take: access charges (high rates) apply unless reciprocal comp 
> ensation is specifically in place.
>
>
>
> The court’s ruling in this regard is, of course, completely consiste 
> nt with what the FCC said about this in its latest order (November 2 
> 008), but carries a bit more panache because, unlike the FCC or stat 
> e PSCs, one cannot “lobby” federal judges to get things “fixed 
> .”
>
>
>
> Chris S.
>
> From: Dave Farber [mailto:dave () farber net]
> Sent: Friday, February 19, 2010 5:51 PM
> To: ip
> Subject: [IP] Court Says VoIP traffic doesn't pay access charges...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> > From: Stan Hanks <stan () colventures com>
> > Date: February 19, 2010 5:32:08 PM EST
> > To: dave () farber net
> > Subject: Court Says VoIP traffic doesn't pay access charges...
>
> > From the Telecom Law Monitor, http://feeds.lexblog.com/TelecomLawMonitor
> >
> >
> >
> > Federal Court Rules that VoIP Need Not Pay Access Charges
> >
> > Today, February 19, 2010, 10 hours ago | Danny Adams
> >
> > The U.S. District Court in D.C. ruled today that IP-originated  
> > calls are "information services" that are subject to the local  
> > reciprocal compensation scheme - and not access charges - for  
> > intercarrier compensation.  The ruling came in Paetec  
> > Communications v. CommPartners, LLC, U.S. Dist Ct for DC, Civ.  
> > Action No. 08-0397.   Paetec filed the case against CommPartners  
> > seeking to collect access charges for all calls, both TDM and VoIP  
> > originated.  CommPartners conceded that it owed access fees on the  
> > TDM calls, but argued that VoIP calls are information services  
> > exempt from access under the FCC's longstanding access charge  
> > exemption for such calls.  The Court agreed.  In reaching its  
> > opinion...
> >
> > the Court came to some noteworthy conclusions.  First, it found  
> > that IP-originated calls that terminate in TDM format are  
> > "information services" because they meet the "net protocol  
> > conversion" test.  The Court stated that the FCC "has had the  
> > controversy on its docket for a decade, [but] has been unable to  
> > decide it."  But citing other court decisions on net protocol  
> > conversion, the court ruled that IP-to-TDM qualifies as an  
> > information service.
> >
> > Next, the court concluded that reciprocal compensation applies, not  
> > Paetec's access tariff.  In reaching this conclusion, the court  
> > found that the "filed rate doctrine" did not overrule the statutory  
> > scheme that would apply reciprocal compensation rather than access  
> > to VoIP traffic.  "A tariff cannot be inconsistent with the  
> > statutory framework", the court said.  Since the Court concluded  
> > that only one compensation scheme could apply under the statute -  
> > either access charges or reciprocal compensation - the law dictates  
> > that recip comp should apply to VoIP notwithstanding the filed  
> > tariff doctrine.  Finally, the court rejected Paetec's unjust  
> > enrichment and quantum meruit arguments because it found them  
> > inconsistent with the Communications Act's "exclusive methods of  
> > intercarrier compensation", a finding which the court said made  
> > those claims "statutorily barred."
> Archives



-------------------------------------------
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com