THE REGULATORY MIX AND BLOG ARTICLES

Three months following the release of its September 18 Report and Order on the Dedicated Service/Special Access Data Collection requirements (see September 19 post, FCC Issues Final Order on Special Access Data Collection), the FCC has submitted the collection requirements to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval as required under the Paperwork Reduction Act. Comments are due by January 8, 2014, and OMB will have 30 days following that date to issue a decision. Sometime soon thereafter (assuming OMB approval), we expect the FCC to issue a Public Notice announcing the due date for responses to the extensive data request. We anticipate that responses will be due 90-120 days following OMB approval -- sometime in the May-June timeframe.  Considering the expansive nature of the data request, the dedicated service providers and purchases who are required to respond will need to begin work on this effort soon to ensure compliance--which is mandatory--by the deadline.

'Twas just weeks before New Year's

In our last episode of the VoIP Numbering Trial saga (November 13, 2013 post, Level 3 Reports Same Obstacles as Vonage in Numbering Trial), I reported that Level 3's VoIP affiliate, Level 3 ES, was unable to test call routing in the Denver market due to CenturyLink's refusal to allow its traffic to be routed via the existing Level 3 CLEC interconnection trunks. This was the same issue that Vonage raised with respect to its numbering trial in the Phoenix market, where CenturyLink is also the incumbent LEC  (November 6, 2013 post, VoIP Numbering Trial Off to a Slow Start).

On November 5, 2013, Level 3 Communications and its VoIP affiliate, Level 3 Enhanced Services (Level 3 ES), filed an ex parte with the FCC that largely mirrored the concerns previously raised by Vonage regarding CenturyLink's refusal to route traffic to telephone numbers assigned to the Level 3 ES OCN over existing Level 3 (the CLEC partner) interconnection trunks. (See November 6, 2013 post, VoIP Numbering Trial Off to a Slow Start). As a result, Level 3 has reported that it cannot initiate testing of call routing under the numbering trial in the Denver market. It also reports that this issue has created potential problems for other carriers who have requested telephone numbers in the A-block obtained by Level 3 ES in the Denver area, because it is unable to activate that block until it can successfully test routing for calls to telephone numbers in that block. Level 3 urged the FCC to "take action to clarify that carriers like CenturyLink may not refuse to route traffic under these circumstances."

In last week's post (VoIP Numbering Trial Off to a Slow Start, posted November 6, 2013), I referenced an October 29 ex parte filing by Vonage, in which it reported that AT&T and Verizon had negotiated interconnection agreement amendments with Vonage's CLEC partner in the Atlanta and Boston markets, respectively, while CenturyLink had refused to negotiate a similar amendment in the Phoenix market. The agreements with AT&T and Verizon allow the CLEC partner to deliver PSTN-originated traffic to Vonage's OCN over existing interconnection trunks.

Beginning in June 2013, the FCC authorized what is supposed to be a six-month trial during which five VoIP service providers are allowed direct access to telephone number resources. The five providers - Vonage, SmartEdgeNet (d/b/a Edge Communications), Wiltel Communications (an affiliate of Level 3), Millicorp, and IntelePeer - have begun filing the status reports required by the FCC. Initial reports were to be filed 60 days after each company requested direct access to numbers with monthly reports filed thereafter. So far, all five providers have filed at least their initial reports, but only Vonage has reported any ported - or new numbers in service - the other four carriers are still in the testing stages.

Last year, the Nevada PUC embarked on a "zero tolerance" policy for telecom carriers and other regulated utilities who filed late or incomplete annual reports, annual assessments, TDD surcharges, and CMRS (wireless) licensing fees. Based on a Staff Petition filed last August, the Commission issued an order to "show cause" why regulated companies who filed any of those reports/fees even a single day late or with just a small error or omission should not be fined or have their certificates revoked. Many companies filed comments in response to the show cause petition to plead their cases and demonstrate that they had come into compliance well prior to issuance of the petition. The comments had little to no effect and the Commission issued fines for all but a handful of the more than 100 companies on the show cause list.

It's a good time to start thinking about your 2014 FCC Form 499 revenue projections, particularly if you are an interconnected VoIP provider. Many VoIP providers have historically calculated their interstate revenues based on the FCC's VoIP "safe harbor" of 64.9%. Those revenues are subject to the Federal Universal Service Fund (FUSF) fee as well as other federally imposed fees. Combined, these fees currently amount to roughly 17% of a carrier's interstate revenues, so it makes sense to consider ways to minimize those revenues and the associated fees.