**Before the**

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

**In the Matter of )**

**)**

**Implementation of Section 255 and 251(a)(2) )**

**of the Communications Act of 1934, as )**

**Enacted by the Telecommunications Act of 1996; ) WT 96-198**

**Access to Telecommunications Services, )**

**Telecommunications Equipment and Customer )**

**Premises Equipment by Persons with Disabilities )**

**Disabilities)**

**MCI WORLDCOM, INC.**

**REPLY COMMENTS**

**Introduction**

**In the Notice of Inquiry in the above-captioned proceeding ("255
NOI"), the Commission asked parties to comment on a variety of issues
related to the ability of persons with disabilities to obtain access to
communications services in light of the development of internet
telephony and computer-based equipment that replicates communications
functionality.**[^1] **Eighteen parties filed comments: eleven service
providers and seven representing persons with disabilities. In its
initial comments, MCI WorldCOM, Inc., ("MCI WorldCom") responded to two
broad policy questions posed by the Commission: 1) the extent to which
the transition to internet telephony (IP telephony) will adversely
affect persons with disabilities and, if so, what actions the Commission
should take to address those adverse impacts; and 2) the appropriate
role for the Commission in guaranteeing access to IP telephony and the
statutory basis for that role.**[^2]

**The Commission Should Refrain from Mandating a Specific Technical
Solution to Achieve Section 255 Compliance**

**Service providers showed that there are no technical reasons why IP
telephony will be incompatible with existing TTY devices. The standards
bodies responsible for ensuring quality of service (Qos) for IP
telephony and other IP-based services have been aware of the need to
ensure backwards compatibility with all existing telecommunications and
information services and devices for some time. The protocols that are
being developed will be fully compatible with existing TTY devices. Once
service providers adopt these protocols, IP telephony will be backward
compatible with all existing text-based services and TTY devices.**[^3]

**Commenters representing persons with disabilities do not dispute the
ability of these protocols to make IP telephony compatible with existing
TTY devices. Rather, they question**

**whether service providers will adopt these standards in ways that are
fully compatible with existing TTY devices at the same time they roll
out IP telephone services to persons without disabilities.**[^4] **This
is a legitimate concern. However, some, such as Self Help for Hard of
Hearing People ("SHHH") and Telecommunications for the Deaf, Inc
("TDI"), are already convinced that service providers will fail to
incorporate these standards into their equipment and service offerings.
For this reason they ask the Commission to require companies to adopt
one particular technical standard.**[^5]

**The Commission should reject this recommendation because it asks the
Commission to mandate carriers adopt a particular protocol, v.18, in
order to ensure accessibility. As VON points out, Session Initiation
Protocol ("SIP"), the protocol MCI WorldCom is implementing throughout
its IP network, requires no further standardization for text
transmissions.**[^6] **Having the Commission mandate a particular
protocol to achieve access to IP telephony for persons with disabilities
does not mesh with the approach the Commission adopted in its 255 Order
it relied on each service provider to be aware of its obligations, and
take the steps each believed would be most appropriate to fulfill
them.**[^7] **In the event of a complaint, the Commission** required
service providers to be able to show they seriously considered the needs
of persons with disabilities over the life cycle of each new service in
the case of Section 255, or seriously considered the impact of network
changes on existing devices and services in the case of a network
change.[^8] Consideration of a variety of protocol options, costs of
implementation, prior investments to comply with Sections 251 and 255,
etc., are all factors the Commission will take into account when it
evaluates the seriousness of a company's efforts in the event a Section
255 complaint is filed. **Mandating a particular solution to an
accessibility issue before a new service is even rolled out removes
discretion from companies and will result in the imposition of
inefficient solutions on many companies.**

**The Commission Should Rely on its Section 251(a)(2) Authority in the
Near Term**

**In the 255 NOI, the Commission asked parties to make suggestions on
how it may ensure that "\...phone-to-phone IP telephony services \[do
not adversely\] \... impact the disability community, and the steps, we
should take to address any adverse impacts in order to fulfill the goals
of section 255\...."**[^9] **As discussed above, the record clearly
shows that there are no technical reasons why the upgrades carriers are
making to provide IP capability for a broad array of services would have
adverse impacts on existing TTY devices. However, just as the Commission
should not presume that service providers will fail to implement the
necessary technical measures, as suggested by TDI; neither should it
presume that every service provider will automatically take the
necessary technical steps to ensure timely backward compatibility, as
suggested by Microsoft.**[^10]

**The record shows that phone-to-phone IP telephony is not yet a
widespread service,**[^11] **but that some carriers have already
upgraded their networks to provide end-to-end IP capability, and others
are doing so rapidly, in order to provide a broad range of services,
including telecommunications services and information services.**[^12]
**Service providers such as Microsoft rightly argue that a party seeking
to have a service or investment covered as ancillary to
telecommunications would need to show that the service is in widespread
use and is an essential component of telecommunications.**[^13] **They
are also correct that no one has demonstrated the widespread use of IP
telephony. Thus, the Commission should not use its ancillary authority
to cover IP telephony.**

**Microsoft and others however, fail to provide the Commission with any
near term authority to enforce possible Section 255 complaints. But
since the Commission has exclusive jurisdiction over the enforcement of
Section 255 complaints, and since it cannot presume that every service
provider will implement the necessary technical solutions in a timely
fashion as networks are upgraded to provide end-to-end IP capability, it
is obligated to identify a statutory basis that is appropriate for
network upgrades. The appropriate authority is Section 251(a)(2). By
asserting its Section 251(a)(2) authority, the Commission would not
establish *de facto* conclusions whether IP telephony is a
telecommunications or an information service, since 251(a)(2) does not
speak to new services. Rather, it speaks to the backward compatibility
of network improvements on existing services and telecommunications
devices.**[^14]

**The Commission Should Quickly Initiate a Rulemaking to Determine the
Status of IP Telephony**

**Level 3 and others rightly contend that this NOI is not the proper
forum to determine whether IP telephony is a telecommunications service
or an information service, since this decision would possibly require
companies providing IP telephony to make universal service
contributions. And they rightly contend that the Commission confined
requests for comments in the NOI to access issues and did not
contemplate the impact of covering IP telephony on other policy issues,
and has stated that it will determine the status of IP telephony in
another proceeding.**[^15] **It is obvious that a rulemaking would be
required to determine the regulatory status of IP telephony.**

**The time has come to open that rulemaking. Service providers and
groups representing persons with disabilities need to know which
services are covered in order to prioritize their accessibility efforts
over the next few years. In addition, carriers are rapidly converting
their networks to provide end-to-end IP capability. Level 3, Qwest and
others already have this capability. MCI WorldCom expects to have the
same capability shortly. No doubt AT&T will also be providing local and
long distance services over an IP-capable network in the same time
frame. In light of the recent 5^th^ Circuit decision requiring the
Commission to rely solely on interstate telecommunications revenues to
fund all federal subsidy programs, the revenue base for these programs
may begin to decline unless the Commission concludes that
telecommunications offered over IP networks is a telecommunications
service. Moreover, failing to do so could give carriers such as Level 3
and Qwest an unfair competitive advantage in the market for IP-based
services. There are other policy concerns, such as international
settlements however, that may require the Commission to arrive at
another solution to this problem. Either way, the Commission should
quickly initiate a rulemaking looking into all aspects of the regulatory
status of IP telephony quickly, before events overtake its current
silence.**

**Conclusion**

For the above‑mentioned reasons, MCI WorldCom encourages the Commission
to assert its Section 251(a)(2) authority to ensure backward
compatibility of network upgrades and quickly open a rulemaking to
develop a complete record on the implications of considering
phone-to-phone IP telephony as a telecommunications service.

Respectfully submitted,

MCI WORLDCOM, INC.

Lawrence Fenster

Lawrence Fenster

MCI WorldCom, Inc.

1801 Pennsylvania Ave., NW

Washington, DC 20006

\(202\) 887‑2180

**Statement of Verification**

I have read the foregoing and, to the best of my knowledge, information
and belief, there is good ground to support it, and it is not interposed
for delay. I verify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true
and correct.

Executed on February 14, 2000

Lawrence Fenster

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Lawrence Fenster 1801 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20006

202-887-2180

**Service List**

I, Barbara Nowlin, do hereby certify that a copy of MCI's Comments has
been sent by United States first class mail, postage prepaid, hand
delivery, to the following parties on this 14^th^ February, 2000.

Bruce Jacobs

VON Coalition

Fisher Wayland Cooper Leader & Zaragoza

2001 Pennsylvania Ave., NW

Suite 400

Washington, DC 20006

Russell Blau

Attorney for Level 3 Communications

Sidler Berlin Shereff Friedman

3000 K St., NW, Suite 300

Washington, DC 20007

Mark Rosenblum

AT&T

295 N. Maple Ave

Basking Ridge NJ 07920

Albert Kramer

Attorney for Multimedia Telecom Assoc.

Dickstein Shapiro Morin & Ohshinksy

2101 L St., NW

Washington, DC 20037

John Raposa

GTE

600 Hidden Ridge, HQE03J27

PO Box 152092

Irving, TX 75015-2092

Lawrence Katz

Bell Atlantic

1320 N. Court House Rd

8^th^ Fl

Arlington, VA 22201

Barbara Dooley

Commercial Internet eXchange Assoc

PO Box 1726

Herndon, Va 20172-1726

Andrew Lipman

Attorney for IBasis, Inc

Swidler Berlin Shereff Friedman

3000 K St., NW, Suite 300

Washington, DC 20007

Cheryl Tritt

Attorney for Teleglobe

Morrison & Foerster

2000 Pennsylvania, NW

Washington, DC 20006

Marc Berejka

Microsoft

21 Dupont Circle, Suite 510

Washington, DC 20036

Roy Russo

Attorney for american Foundation for the Blind

1920 N St., NW, Suite 300

Washington, DC 20036

Gregg Vanderheiden

Trace R&D Center

Uinversity of Wisconsin Madison

5901 Research park Blvd

Madison, WI 53719

Lee Petro

Attorney for Telecommunications for the Dean and Consumer Action Network

Gardner, Carton & Douglas

1301 K St, NW

Suite 900, East Tower

Washington, DC 20005-3317

Jeneba Ghatt

Attorney for National Association of the Deaf

Citizens Communications Center

Georgetown University Law Center

600 NJ Av., NW Suite 312

Washington, DC 20001

John Jaco

SHHH

7910 Woodmont Av., Suite 1200

Bethesda, MD 20814

Ronald Vickery

404 Benton Dr

Rome, GA 30165

Dana Mulvany

350 Budd Ave., Apt. A1

Campbell, CA 95008-4021

**International Transcription Service\***

**2100 M Street, NW**

**Suite 140**

**Washington, DC 20037**

Barbara Nowlin

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Barbara B. Nowlin

\*HAND DELIVERED\*

[^1]: ^?^Implementation of Section 255 and 251(a)(2) of the
    Communications Act of 1934, as Enacted by the Telecommunications Act
    of 1996; Access to Telecommunications Services, Telecommunications
    Equipment and Customer Premises Equipment by Persons with
    Disabilities, ("255 NOI"), WT Docket No. 96-198, released September
    19, 1999.

[^2]: ^?^255 NOI at ¶ 179.

[^3]: ^?^See comments of: MCI WorldCom at 4; VON Coalition at 7-12;
    Level 3 at 2; Ibasis at 3; AT&T at 3; Teleglobe at 3.

[^4]: ^?^See Comments of: Trace/Gallaudet at 12; TDI at 6; NAD at 17.
    SHHH at 4.

[^5]: ^?^SHHH at 4; TDI at 6.

[^6]: ^?^VON at 11.

[^7]: ^?^Implementation of Sections 255 and 251(a)(2) of the
    Communications Act of 1934, as Enacted by the Telecommunications Act
    of 1996, Access to Telecommunications Equipment and Customer
    Premises Equipment by Persons with Disabilities, Disabilities Access
    Order, WT Docket No. 96-198, Report and Order and Further Notice of
    Inquiry, ("255 Order"), September 29, 1999.

[^8]: ^?^Section 251(a)(2)**.**

[^9]: ^?^255 NOI at ¶ 179.

[^10]: ^?^TDI at 6; Microsoft at 11.

[^11]: ^?^VON Coalition at 13.

[^12]: ^?^Level 3 at 2; MCI WorldCom at 3.

[^13]: ^?^Microsoft at 11; Teleglobe at 7; VON Coalition at 13.

[^14]: ^?^Asserting Section 251(a)(2) would also require software
    providers and manufacturers of customer premise equipment to ensure
    their products are backward compatible with existing networks and
    devices.

[^15]: ^?^Level 3 at 7; IBasis at 5; AT&T at 2. See also **FCC Universal
    Service Report to Congress, Released: April 10, 1998.**