Source: http://docplayer.net/17166007-Before-the-federal-communications-commission-washington-d-c-20554.html
Timestamp: 2018-05-23 12:06:51
Document Index: 511684205

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 36', 'art 36', 'art 36', 'art 36', 'art 36', 'art 36']

1 Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C XO Communication Services, Inc. ) Request for Review of Decision of the ) WC Docket No Universal Service Administrator ) COMMENTS OF LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC AND PAETEC HOLDING CORP. Tamar E. Finn Jeffrey R. Strenkowski Bingham McCutchen LLP 2020 K Street, NW Washington, DC Tel Fax Dated: February 7, 2011
2 Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C XO Communication Services, Inc. ) Request for Review of Decision of the ) WC Docket No Universal Service Administrator ) COMMENTS OF LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC AND PAETEC HOLDING CORP. Level 3 Communications, LLC ( Level 3 ) and PAETEC Holding Corp. (on behalf of its operating subsidiaries, PAETEC Communications, Inc., US LEC entities, McLeodUSA Telecommunications Services, L.L.C., and Cavalier entities) ( PAETEC ) (Level 3 and PAETEC, Commenters ) submit these comments in response to the January 6, 2011 Public Notice in the above-referenced proceeding 1 concerning a request by XO Communications, Inc. ( XO ) for Commission review of a decision by the Universal Service Administrative Company ( USAC ). 2 I. Introduction and Summary XO seeks Commission review of a USAC contributor audit decision that reclassified certain XO revenues as assessable for purposes of universal service contribution requirements. These comments address three issues. First, with respect to private lines, FCC rules require USAC to treat such services as intrastate when the end points of the private line are within one 1 See Wireline Competition Bureau Seeks Comment on XO Communication Services, Inc. Request for Review of a Decision by the Universal Service Administrative Company, Public Notice, WC Docket No , DA (rel. Jan. 6, 2011) ( Public Notice ). 2 See XO Communication Services, Inc. Request for Review of Decision of the Universal Service Administrator, WC Docket No (filed Dec. 29, 2010) ( XO Petition )
3 state unless a customer has certified greater than 10% interstate usage. Second, USAC cannot impose USF assessments on revenue based on a service s name or underlying transport. As the Bureau held in the TelePacific Order, 3 a service is not classified as telecommunications based on the fact that it incorporates a traditional transmission medium, such as a T-1, in its name or as the underlying transport method. Rather, Commission rules require USAC to impose USF assessments on telecommunications and telecommunications services, but not information services. Finally, where the Commission has not evaluated a service that a contributor has classified as information, the Commission, not USAC, should determine whether such service should be reclassified as telecommunications and make such determinations in a transparent and timely manner. Based on the limited public information provided in the appeal, it appears that XO s MTNS service satisfies the Commission s current test because it always offers Internet access. The Commenters incorporate by reference the comments filed jointly by Level 3 and PAETEC in 2008 concerning the request by Madison River Communications, LLC for review of a decision of USAC, 4 and the comments filed jointly by Level 3, PAETEC and U.S. TelePacific Corp. in 2009 concerning a request by USAC for guidance by the FCC on certain contribution 3 Universal Service Contribution Methodology, Request for Review of the Decision of the Universal Service Administrator and Emergency Petition for Stay by U.S. TelePacific Corp. d/b/a TelePacific Communications, Order, WC Docket No (rel. Apr. 30, 2010) ( TelePacific Order ). 4 Request for Review by Madison River Communications, LLC of Decision of Universal Service Administrator, Comments of Level 3 Communications and PAETEC Communications, Inc., WC Docket No (filed Jan. 29, 2009) ( Madison River Proceeding Comments )
4 issues related to the Universal Service Fund ( USF ). 5 For the Commission s convenience, copies of these prior comments are appended hereto. II. Private Line Revenues Are Deemed Intrastate if the Endpoints Are Within a State Unless a Customer Certifies Otherwise Contrary to Commission rules, USAC concluded that XO had an obligation either to perform traffic studies or to obtain other evidence that the traffic on each Dedicated Transport Services circuit is intrastate in order to report the revenue as intrastate. In short, USAC adopted a presumption that all Dedicated Transport Services are interstate. 6 This issue is identical to that raised by Madison River. In 2008, USAC asserted that some or all of Madison River s T-1 retail private line revenues should have been reported as interstate revenues and subject to USF contribution because Madison River could not prove that such services were intrastate in nature. As the Commenters showed in their comments in January 2009, and as XO showed in its appeal, since 1989 the Commission has held again and again that intrastate facilities are jurisdictionally interstate only if the customer certifies that more than ten percent of the traffic on that line is interstate in nature. 7 USAC s finding contradicts Commission precedent and, if adopted, would 5 See Request for Universal Service Fund Policy Guidance Requested by the Universal Service Administrative Company, Comments of Level 3 Communications, LLC, PAETEC Communications LLC, and U.S. TelePacific Corp., WC Docket Nos & , CC Docket No (filed Oct. 28, 2009). ( USAC Guidance Proceeding Comments ). 6 7 See XO Petition, at MTS and WATS Market Structure, Amendment of Part 36 of the Commission s Rules and Establishment of a Joint Board, CC Dockets Nos and , Recommended Decision and Order, 4 FCC Rcd 1352 (1989), at 1 (such lines should be allocated to the interstate jurisdiction only through customer certification that each special access line carries more than a de minimis amount of interstate traffic. ); MTS and WATS Market Structure, Amendment of Part 36 of the Commission s Rules and Establishment of a Joint Board, CC Dockets Nos and , Decision and Order, 4 FCC Rcd 5660 (1989); Petition for an Expedited Declaratory Ruling filed by National Association for Information Services, Audio Communications, Inc., and Ryder Communications, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 10 FCC Rcd 4153, 4161 (1995), at 17 ( a subscriber line is deemed to be interstate if the customer certifies that ten percent or more of the calling on that line is interstate. ); GTE Telephone - 3 -
5 be an unprecedented land grab of state regulatory authority that would have severe consequences for states, the industry, and consumers. 8 USAC s position with XO recreates the problem that the Commission solved in 1989 and creates new problems for state regulators, the industry, and consumers. If USAC s decision is not overruled, private lines that in all respects appear intrastate would now be allocated by default to the interstate jurisdiction absent customer confirmation otherwise. States would thus cede regulatory authority over all private lines sold within their boundaries, which would in turn result in a drop in reporting of--and corresponding regulatory payments based on--intrastate revenues associated with these private lines. Even if the Commission were to agree with USAC s position, it must change its rules and find that such less than certification (i.e., a circuit will be intrastate only if the customer certifies that there is 10% or less interstate usage) will be required only on a going-forward basis. Given the Commission s reference to customer certifications indicating more than 10 percent interstate usage in all prior orders, it was not foreseeable that the certification rule could apply in the less than manner now advocated by USAC. If the Commission wishes to protect the Fund by assuming interstate jurisdiction, it must change its rules to do so. Moreover, it must direct USAC to apply a rule of reasonableness and accept one-time customer certifications or product (intrastate or interstate) elections. Obtaining jurisdictional use certifications from Operating Cos., GTOC Tariff No. 1, GTOC Transmittal No. 1148, CC Docket No , Memorandum Opinion and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 22466, (1998), at n. 95 ( GTE will ask every ADSL customer to certify that ten percent or more of its traffic is interstate. ); MTS and WATS Market Structure, Amendment of Part 36 of the Commission s Rules and Establishment of a Joint Board, CC Dockets Nos and , Order, 16 FCC Rcd 11167, at 2 (2001) ( mixed-use lines would be treated as interstate if the customer certifies that more than ten percent of the traffic on those lines consists of interstate calls. ). 8 See generally Level 3 Madison River Proceeding Comments
6 customers is administratively burdensome. While a carrier may be able to alter its ordering process to incorporate such certifications going forward, the number of customers purchasing private lines is typically much greater than the number of reseller customers, and an annual certification process would be unwieldy. III. USAC Must Examine and Classify the Services Delivered to the Customer Rather Than Imply Classification by the Name or Underlying Transport According to the XO Petition, in its audit finding USAC reclassified MTNS-derived revenue as interstate telecommunications revenue based on XO marketing materials. 9 USAC s auditors failed to inquire whether MTNS possesses any of the attributes of an information service; examine whether there is protocol processing, access to stored information, wireline broadband Internet access, or any of the many other features that qualify any particular offering as an information service; or determine whether MTNS transmission is inextricably intertwined with enhanced components of the service. Instead USAC reviewed marketing materials on XO's website and presumably based its classification decision on those materials and the fact that the service uses MPLS which, like T-1s, are included in the worksheet instructions as an example of a telecommunications service. As the Commenters discussed in their prior comments in this docket, 10 USAC is using the wrong method for classifying services as either information or interstate telecommunications. The 2005 Wireline Broadband Order affirmed and explained the test that the FCC applies to classify services as information or telecommunications: 9 10 See XO Petition, at See generally Level 3 USAC Guidance Proceeding Comments
7 The capabilities of wireline broadband Internet access service demonstrate that this service, like cable modem service, provides end users more than pure transmission, between or among points selected by the user, of information of the user s choosing, without change in the form or content of the information as sent and received. Because wireline broadband Internet access service inextricably combines the offering of powerful computer capabilities with telecommunications, we conclude that it falls within the class of services identified in the Act as information services. The information service classification applies regardless of whether subscribers use all of the functions and capabilities provided as part of the service (e.g., or web-hosting), and whether every wireline broadband Internet access service provider offers each function and capability that could be included in that service. Indeed, as with cable modem service, an end user of wireline broadband Internet access service cannot reach a third party s web site without access to the Domain Naming Service (DNS) capability which (among other things) matches the Web site address the end user types into his browser (or clicks on with his mouse) with the IP address of the Web page s host server. The end user therefore receives more than transparent transmission whenever he or she accesses the Internet. 11 There is no reason to classify wireline broadband Internet access services differently depending on who owns the transmission facilities. From the end user s perspective, an information service is being offered regardless of whether a wireline broadband Internet access service provider self-provides the transmission component or provides the service over transmission facilities that it does not own. As the Commission indicated in its Report to Congress, what matters is the finished product made available through a service rather than the facilities used to provide it. [citing paragraph 59 of the Report to Congress] The end user of wireline broadband Internet access service receives an integrated package of transmission and information processing capabilities from the provider, and the identity of the owner of the transmission facilities does not affect the nature of the service to the end user. Thus, in addition to affirming our tentative conclusion above that wireline broadband Internet access service provided over a provider s own facilities is an information service, we also make clear that wireline broadband Internet access service is an information service when the provider of the retail service does not provide the service over its own transmission facilities. 12 After adding MPLS to the list of telecommunications services in the worksheet, the Bureau confirmed that USAC must follow FCC rules to determine whether a particular service is Wireline Broadband Order at 15 (citations omitted) (emphasis added). Id. at 16 (citations omitted) (emphasis added)
8 telecommunications or information. 13 In sum, USAC may not classify a service as telecommunications based on the wireline transmission facilities (T-1 or MPLS) used to provide the service or the names used to market it. It must evaluate the service provided, from the perspective of the end user, to determine whether it qualifies as information or interstate telecommunications. Because USAC failed to perform the proper analysis in the XO audit, the Commission must review this issue de novo. Based on the limited public information provided in the appeal, it appears that XO s MTNS service satisfies the Commission s current test because it always offers Internet access. 14 To the extent the Commission wishes to change its test and classify a service as information based on whether each consumer uses the information components of the service, the Commenters agree that any such change must be applied prospectively. IV. The FCC Must Reassert its Authority to Set Policy and Resolve Ambiguities The fact that two contributors have raised the same issue on appeal two years apart shows that the current contribution system is in dire need of an overhaul. USAC should not be resolving ambiguous classification questions through contribution audits and the industry should not have to wait multiple years for the FCC to determine whether a USAC determination is consistent with FCC rules. Moreover, USAC needs to seek the FCC s guidance where an issue is ambiguous rather than taking the conservative position that protects the Fund. As the omission of stand-alone from, and the addition of MPLS to, the worksheet instructions shows, 13 See Letter from Jennifer K. McKee, Acting Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, FCC, to Michelle Tilton, Director of Financial Operations, Universal Service Administrative Company, DA (Apr. 1, 2009). 14 Because XO s declarations describing the MTNS service are not publicly available, the Commission is in the best position to evaluate the service and classify it
9 changing the worksheet instructions without notice and comment can result not only in substantial confusion but also in USAC resolving ambiguities by reading the worksheet instructions literally and without regard for FCC rules and precedent. The FCC should use its upcoming contribution reform notice to steer a better course. The Commission should make all service classifications in the context of a rulemaking, declaratory ruling or USAC request for guidance to give parties notice and the opportunity to comment on the issue and appeal any FCC determination. USAC s 2009 Request for Guidance was faithful to the rule that requires the FCC, rather than USAC to resolve ambiguities. 15 Yet that request is still pending, just as the Madison River and numerous other contribution appeals are. The FCC needs to provide USAC and the industry timely guidance on USF contribution questions and base that guidance on relevant data and legal arguments from all interested parties. It should also put all proposed changes in the Form 499 instructions out for public comment. By providing USAC and the industry with clear, timely guidance, the FCC can improve the stability of the USF contribution base and ensure all providers compete on a level playing field. V. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, the Commenters request that the Commission overturn USAC s findings with respect to interstate classification of XO s Dedicated Transport services, evaluate and classify XO s MPLS-based service, and reassert its authority to resolve ambiguities regarding USF contribution issues in a transparent, timely manner. 15 See 47 C.F.R (c) ( The Administrator may not make policy, interpret unclear provisions of the statute or rules, or interpret the intent of Congress. Where the Act or the Commission s rules are unclear, or do not address a particular situation, the Administrator shall seek guidance from the Commission. )
10 Respectfully submitted, _/s/ Tamar Finn Tamar E. Finn Jeffrey R. Strenkowski Bingham McCutchen LLP 2020 K Street, NW Washington, DC Tel Fax Dated: February 7, 2011 Attachments - 9 -
12 Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C In the Matter of ) ) Request for Review by Madison River ) WC Docket No Communications, LLC of Decision of ) Universal Service Administrator ) COMMENTS OF LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC AND PAETEC COMMUNICATIONS, INC. Level 3 Communications, LLC and PAETEC Communications, Inc. (collectively, the Joint Commenters ) submit their Comments in response to the December 30, 2008 Public Notice released by the Federal Communications Commission (the Commission ). These comments support the request by Madison River Communications, LLC ( Madison River ) for review of a decision by the Universal Service Administrative Company ( USAC ). The Joint Commenters agree with Madison River that the USAC decisions are inconsistent with longstanding Commission precedent and must be overruled as a matter of law. I. THERE WAS NO REQUIREMENT IN 2005 TO CONTRIBUTE TO UNIVERSAL SERVICE BASED UPON REVENUES DERIVED FROM THE TRANSMISSION PORTION OF INTERNET ACCESS SERVICES. USAC has determined that revenues associated with the transmission component of [Madison River s] Internet access services should have been reported as assessable for purposes of the federal universal service fund ( USF ). 1 USAC s determination ignores the integrated nature of Internet access services. In September 2005, the Commission confirmed that wireline 1 Request for Review at 5.
13 broadband Internet access services are information services. 2 Prior to that, however, the Commission never required providers of Internet access to contribute to universal service on the transmission component of such a service offering. With respect to non-facilities-based providers, the Commission held that offerings by such providers combining communications and computing components should always be deemed enhanced. 3 Under this contamination approach employed since the Computer Inquiry decisions of the 1980s, the fact that an enhanced service might use regulated transmission paths did not convert it into a basic or adjunct-to-basic service. 4 Rather, the enhanced component of a non-facilities-based offering contaminated the basic component, resulting in the entire offering being enhanced. 5 Thus, to the extent that Madison River is not a facilities-based provider, the transmission components of its Internet access services were not subject to USF assessment in It is true that the contamination analysis is more complicated when it comes to offerings by facilities-based providers, because the issue is whether, functionally, the 2 Appropriate Framework for Broadband Access to the Internet over Wireline Facilities Universal Service Obligations of Broadband Providers, CC Docket No , Review of Regulatory Requirements for Incumbent LEC Broadband Telecommunications Services, CC Docket No , Computer III Further Remand Proceedings: Bell Operating Company Provision of Enhanced Services; 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review Review of Computer III and ONA Safeguards and Requirements, CC Docket Nos , 98-10, Conditional Petition of the Verizon Telephone Companies for Forbearance Under 47 USC 160(c) with Regard to Broadband Services Provided Via Fiber to the Premises; Petition of the Verizon Telephone Companies for Declaratory Ruling or, Alternatively, for Interim Waiver with Regard to Broadband Services Provided Via Fiber to the Premises, WC Docket No , Consumer Protection in the Broadband Era, WC Docket No , Report and Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 20 FCC Rcd ( Wireline Broadband Order ). 3 See, e.g., Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, CC Docket No , Report to Congress, 13 FCC Rcd 11501, (1998) ( Report to Congress ), at 60 (emphasis added). 4 See id. at 11529, 58 ( An offering that constitutes a single service from the end user s standpoint is not subject to common carrier regulation simply by virtue of the fact that it involves telecommunications components. ) (citing Amendment of Section of the Commission s Rules and Regulations (Second Computer Inquiry), Final Decision, 77 FCC 2d 384, (1980), at ). 5 See Report to Congress, 13 FCC Rcd at ,
14 consumer is receiving separate and distinct services. 6 Madison River claims, however, that a provider should not be deemed facilities-based if it relies upon leased last-mile facilities to deliver Internet access services. 7 The Joint Commenters cannot speak to the facts underlying Madison River s service delivery but Madison River s legal argument is correct -- the mere fact that a provider might combine its facilities with leased local access facilities does not mean that the provider should be considered facilities-based for purposes of the contamination rules arising out of the Commission s Computer Inquiry decisions. In those decisions, the fundamental concern was not mere ownership of facilities, but precluding the anticompetitive exercise of substantial market power in providing network access by those firms that control bottleneck facilities. 8 A provider that relies upon others for last-mile network access does not control bottleneck facilities and such a provider should not be considered facilities-based for purposes of a Computer Inquiry contamination assessment. Finally, even if Madison River, a non-dominant carrier, were deemed facilities-based notwithstanding its reliance upon leased facilities, that is not the end of the inquiry. In the Report to Congress, the Commission recognized that its rules do not require USF contribution in cases where an Internet Service Provider owns transmission facilities, and engages in data transport over those facilities in order to provide an information service. 9 Moreover, as the 6 Id. at 11530, 60 (quoting Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, CC Docket No , Access Charge Reform, Price Cap Performance Review for Local Exchange Carriers, Transport Rate Structure and Pricing, End User Common Line Charge, CC Docket Nos , 94-1, , and 95-72, Fourth Order on Reconsideration and Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 5318 (1997), at 282). 7 8 Request for Review at 7. Amendment of Section of the Commission s Rules and Regulations (Third Computer Inquiry), Report and Order, 104 FCC 2d 958 (1986), at (emphasis added). 9 Report to Congress, 13 FCC Rcd at 11528,
15 Commission observed in 2002, facilities-based carriers are subject to USF requirements only to the extent they provide broadband transmission services or other telecommunications services on a stand-alone basis to affiliated or unaffiliated Internet service providers (ISPs) or to endusers. 10 Commission rules have never required facilities-based providers to segregate the telecommunications portion of wireline broadband Internet access for USF reporting, because such transmission services are not provided on a stand-alone basis. The Commission found that when bundled with an information service, the underlying telecommunications service is contaminated and the entire service becomes an information service. 11 By contrast, the Commission never applied its USF safe harbor for bundled services to a transmission service that had been contaminated by bundling it with Internet access. Rather, the bundled safe harbor rules applied only to combinations of stand-alone services that were marketed and sold together as a package at a total price less than the sum of the stand-alone prices. 12 In other words, the combination referred to in the bundled safe harbor is a single package at a single price for multiple services, not components linked to form a single service. Although some confusion may exist because the term bundle has been used by some to refer to either situation, 10 Appropriate Framework for Broadband Access to the Internet Over Wireline Facilities, Universal Service Obligations of Broadband Providers, CC Docket No , Computer III Further Remand Proceedings: Bell Operating Company Provision of Enhanced Services; 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review - Review of Computer III and ONA Safeguards and Requirements, CC Docket Nos , 98-10, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 17 FCC Rcd 3019, 3051 (2002), at 72 (emphasis added). 11 Report to Congress, 11 FCC Rcd at 11529, Policy and Rules Concerning the Interstate, Interexchange Marketplace, CC Docket No , Implementation of Section 254(g) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, CC Docket No , 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review -- Review of Customer Premises Equipment and Enhanced Services Bundling Rules in the Interexchange, Exchange Access, and Local Exchange Markets, Report and Order, 16 FCC Rcd 7418, and (2001) at and
16 the circumstances are different -- in the one case, there is a telecommunications service sold alongside an information service in a one-price package, while with respect to wireline broadband Internet access the customer receives a single and inseparable contaminated service that relies upon telecommunications and information service components. Commission precedent makes clear that USF contribution and the bundled safe harbor were never applicable to wireline broadband Internet access, even as offered by a facilities-based provider. Indeed, the Commission acknowledged this in its Wireline Broadband Order: Under current law, the Commission has permissive authority to require [a]ny other provider of interstate telecommunications to contribute to universal service if required by the public interest. The question of whether and under what circumstances the public interest would require us to exercise our permissive authority over wireline broadband Internet access providers is pending before the Commission in this docket. In addition, the question of whether other facilities-based providers of broadband Internet access services may, as a legal matter, or should as a policy matter, be required to contribute is also pending before us. We expect to address these issues in a comprehensive fashion either in this docket or in the Universal Service Contribution Methodology proceeding now pending in Docket No By referring to its permissive authority and policy questions regarding whether to expand the scope of USF obligations to other types of providers, the Commission recognized that certain Internet service providers were not required to report, or to contribute to USF based on, the contaminated broadband transmission service. The Commission acknowledged that the issue of whether facilities-based providers should contribute would be addressed in a subsequent proceeding. Accordingly, wireline broadband Internet services that are single, integrated service 13 Wireline Broadband Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 14915, 112 (citations omitted)
17 offerings -- as compared to bundled packages of stand-alone telecommunications and information services -- have never been subject to USF assessment. II. USAC S DETERMINATION THAT PRIVATE LINES ARE INTERSTATE UNLESS PROVEN TO BE INTRASTATE CONTRADICTS WELL- ESTABLISHED COMMISSION PRECEDENT AND WOULD RESULT IN AN UNPRECEDENTED INTRUSION UPON STATE REGULATORY MATTERS. USAC has asserted that some or all of Madison River s T-1 retail private line revenues should have been reported as interstate revenues and subject to USF contribution because Madison River cannot prove that such services were intrastate in nature. 14 USAC s view contradicts Commission precedent, and if adopted, represents an unprecedented land grab of state regulatory authority that would have severe consequences for states, the industry, and consumers. A review of the historic jurisdictional treatment of private lines confirms the error of USAC s position. Prior to 1989, the cost of special access lines carrying both state and interstate traffic [was] generally assigned to the interstate jurisdiction. 15 The problem with this approach, according to a Joint Board appointed to study the issue, was that it tended to deprive state regulators of authority over largely intrastate private line systems carrying only small amounts of interstate traffic. 16 The Joint Board recommended that the Commission adopt separations procedures for private lines -- specifically that such lines be allocated to the interstate jurisdiction only through customer certification that each special access line carries more than a 14 Request for Review at MTS and WATS Market Structure, Amendment of Part 36 of the Commission s Rules and Establishment of a Joint Board, CC Dockets Nos and , Recommended Decision and Order, 4 FCC Rcd 1352 (1989), at 1 (emphasis added). 16 Id
18 de minimis amount of interstate traffic. 17 Since the only certification mentioned by the Joint Board was to validate whether the line carried more than a certain amount of interstate traffic, and since the problem the Joint Board sought to solve was excessive interstate allocation, it stood that absent certification of interstate use, the line should be considered intrastate when the A and Z locations are in the same state. The Commission adopted the Joint Board s recommendations without modification a few months later. 18 In doing so, the Commission took express note of the administrative benefits of a rule that required certification by customers where each of their special access lines carries more than a de minimis amount of interstate traffic. 19 Since then, the Commission has reaffirmed that certification is required to establish the interstate jurisdiction of a dedicated circuit that would otherwise appear to be intrastate in nature. For example, in 1995 the Commission summarized its rule regarding the jurisdiction of mixed-use private lines as follows: a subscriber line is deemed to be interstate if the customer certifies that ten percent or more of the calling on that line is interstate. 20 In 1998, the Commission relied upon the 10% rule to conclude that GTE s DSL services were interstate, since GTE will ask every ADSL customer to certify that ten percent or more of its traffic is interstate. 21 Finally, in 2001, the Commission 17 Id. at 1357, 32 (emphasis added). 18 MTS and WATS Market Structure, Amendment of Part 36 of the Commission s Rules and Establishment of a Joint Board, CC Dockets Nos and , Decision and Order, 4 FCC Rcd 5660 (1989). 19 Id. at 5660, 3 (emphasis added). 20 Petition for an Expedited Declaratory Ruling filed by National Association for Information Services, Audio Communications, Inc., and Ryder Communications, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 10 FCC Rcd 4153, 4161 (1995), at 17 (emphasis added). 21 GTE Telephone Operating Cos., GTOC Tariff No. 1, GTOC Transmittal No. 1148, CC Docket No , Memorandum Opinion and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 22466, (1998), at n
19 upheld continued use of the 10% rule, noting that under this rule, mixed-use lines would be treated as interstate if the customer certifies that more than ten percent of the traffic on those lines consists of interstate calls. 22 Thus, the Commission has not waivered in its interpretation that interstate treatment of a geographically intrastate private line is conditional and that such a line should be considered jurisdictionally interstate only if the customer certifies that more than ten percent of the traffic on that line is interstate in nature. Since 1989, the more than 10% certification has been necessary only to convert what appears to be an intrastate line into an interstate line. By contrast, the Commission has never indicated that this rule (or certification thereunder) was meant to achieve the opposite -- to confirm that an intrastate line really was intrastate. Indeed, if USAC s position on the 10% rule were correct, GTE would never have needed to collect customer certifications in 1998 regarding the interstate use of DSL; by USAC s view, those lines would already have been considered interstate unless GTE or its customer could prove that they were being used for intrastate purposes. USAC s position turns the 10% rule on its head and erroneously shifts the presumptive jurisdiction of private lines contrary to Commission precedent. 23 USAC s position recreates the problem that the Joint Board and the Commission sought to solve in 1989 and creates new problems for state regulators, the industry, and consumers. 22 MTS and WATS Market Structure, Amendment of Part 36 of the Commission s Rules and Establishment of a Joint Board, CC Dockets Nos and , Order, 16 FCC Rcd (2001), at 2 (emphasis added). 23 A simple example may help to demonstrate the error in this logic. Take again the Commission s 1995 statement that, under the 10% rule, a subscriber line is deemed to be interstate if the customer certifies that ten percent or more of the calling on that line is interstate. Replace interstate with red, and further assume that intrastate is blue. With such a substitution, the Commission s rule can be summarized as follows: If customer certifies red, then red. USAC, however, would extrapolate from this simple rule to conclude: Unless customer certifies blue, then red. But the original rule made the state of being red conditional upon certification by the customer, and the latter conclusion is an impermissible and unsupported leap in logic
20 Private lines that in all respects appear intrastate would now be allocated by default to the interstate jurisdiction absent customer confirmation. States would be forced to cede regulatory authority over all private lines sold within their boundaries, which would in turn result in a drop in reporting of -- and regulatory payments -- intrastate revenues associated with these private lines. And the implications from a historical perspective could be even more severe: those carriers who have reasonably relied for years on a more than 10% interstate certification could face the prospect of having many (if not all) of their intrastate private lines suddenly reclassified retroactively as interstate and subject to USF assessment. The consequences of such a finding would have implications throughout the telecommunications industry. For example, if Madison River were liable for USF contribution for years past because such private lines are now deemed interstate, it would be entitled to refunds from state authorities for prior state universal service contributions and other state regulatory fees and surcharges paid with respect to the affected private lines (since the revenues from those lines turned out not to be intrastate after all). Thus, not only would USAC s position usurp jurisdiction over services that have been subject to state regulatory authority for at least two decades, but it could also result in significant sums being transferred -- both retroactively and on a going-forward basis -- from state to federal coffers at a time when states can least afford the loss of those funds. Finally, even if the Commission were to agree with USAC s position regarding private line certification, it should find that such less than certification (i.e., a circuit will be intrastate only if the customer certifies that there is 10% or less interstate usage) will govern and be required only on a going-forward basis. Given the Commission s reference only to customer certifications indicating more than 10 percent interstate usage in all prior orders, it was not foreseeable that the certification rule could possibly apply in the less than manner now - 9 -
21 advocated by USAC, and applying liability retroactively based upon such a new interpretation would be both inequitable and unlawful. 24 Because USAC implements this new interpretation in USF audits, it is by definition arbitrary and inequitable. Only carriers subjected to audit are forced to comply with USAC s reclassification of private lines, usually retroactively. The private line sector of the industry is highly competitive. USAC s piecemeal approach to implementing this unlawful reclassification and resulting USF assessment means that USAC, and not the market, determines which members of the industry are the most competitive and whether certain limited groups of private line customers are being required to fund a greater portion of the federal interstate programs supported by the USF assessments. III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Joint Commenters request that the Commission overturn USAC s findings with respect to the two issues on which Madison River seeks review. Dated: January 29, 2009 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Tamar E. Finn Tamar E. Finn Douglas O. Orvis Michael R. Romano Bingham McCutchen LLP 2020 K Street, N.W. Washington, D.C (202) (Tel) (202) (Fax) 24 See, e.g., Retail, Wholesale & Dep't Store Union, 466 F.2d 380, 390 (DC Cir. 1980); see also Request for Review by Intercall, Inc. of Decision of Universal Service Administrator, CC Docket No , Order, 23 FCC Rcd (2008), at 24 (finding that prospective application of a decision requiring USF contribution was appropriate because of the lack of clarity in prior decisions and industry practice)
22 Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C REQUEST FOR UNIVERSAL ) SERVICE FUND POLICY ) WC Docket No GUIDANCE REQUESTED BY THE ) WC Docket No UNIVERSAL SERVICE ADMINISTRATIVE ) CC Docket No COMPANY ) COMMENTS Tamar E. Finn Danielle Burt Bingham McCutchen LLP 2020 K Street, NW Washington, DC Dated: October 28, 2009
23 SUMMARY USAC requested that the FCC provide it guidance on three USF contribution issues that arose during USAC audits of carrier-filed FCC Forms 499. While the Commenters applaud USAC s and the FCC s efforts to make the guidance process more transparent, they are concerned that the request and Public Notice do not ask the right questions and, with respect to the questions that have been asked, unfairly prejudge the outcome. Whether or not intended to prejudge the outcome, the USAC request refers to VPN and Dedicated IP as telecommunications services. The Public Notice repeats this reference. Commenters explain why certain Dedicated IP and VPN services qualify as information services. Commenters also apply the FCC s 2005 Wireline Broadband Order to show why any wireline Internet access product delivered at a speed of 200 kbps or higher, regardless of local loop or transport protocol, qualifies as an information service. Commenters use this example to show that an information service does not contain separate telecommunications and information components and that providers are not required to unbundle or allocate revenue to the transmission component of a functionally integrated, finished information service. USAC cannot rely on the bundled safe harbor or any other theory to require a carrier to assign a portion of the information service revenue to the transmission used to deliver the information whether DSL, T-1, ATM, Frame Relay, or dedicated IP. There is no reason to treat Internet access services sold to enterprise customers, or sold on a dedicated basis, differently from the shared infrastructure consumer Internet access service sold by cable ISPs and ILECs. This is precisely what USAC proposes. i
24 The same argument applies to any information service. Under current law, USAC may not require a contributor to allocate revenue from a functionally integrated information service between information and telecommunications components. Commenters also describe the inconsistency between the FCC s determination that a wireline broadband Internet access service is a functionally integrated information service not subject to USF contribution and USAC s position that the classification question is irrelevant, but only for wireline transmission technologies. USAC derives a local loop telecommunications service only from wireline information services, not from competing non-wireline information services. Commenters believe that USAC takes this position, at least in part, based on the 499-A worksheet instructions, which copied paragraph nine of the 2005 Wireline Broadband Order almost verbatim, with the exception that the instructions omit the key term stand-alone when discussing traditional PSTN technologies such as T-1s, ATM, and Frame Relay. USAC s inconsistent position puts facilities-based wireline broadband Internet access providers at a disadvantage vis-à-vis providers using non-wireline technologies. The FCC should make clear that USAC must classify services based on the service the carrier provides to the end user, not the names of the accounts in which the company records the revenue. To ensure that services appropriately are classified and that revenues are subject to contribution on a competitively-neutral and nondiscriminatory basis, the FCC should establish an expedited process to provide guidance to the industry and USAC, not just on referred issues, but also on common mistakes that USAC finds and corrects during 499 Audits. ii
25 The FCC needs to provide USAC and the industry timely guidance on USF contribution questions and base that guidance on relevant data and legal arguments from all interested parties. The FCC should make all service classifications in the context of a rulemaking, declaratory ruling or USAC appeal to give parties notice and the opportunity to comment on the issue and appeal any FCC determination. It should also put all proposed changes in the Form 499 instructions out for public comment. By providing USAC and the industry with clear, timely guidance, the FCC can improve the stability of the USF contribution base and ensure all providers compete on a level playing field. iii
26 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction and Context...1 II. III. IV. Certain Dedicated IP services qualify as information services...6 Certain VPNs are information services...10 The 2005 Wireline Broadband Order reaffirms and explains the test USAC must apply when classifying services, and the associated revenue accounts, as information or telecommunications...11 A. Any Internet Access Product delivered at a speed of 200 kbps or above qualifies as wireline broadband Internet access service B. Wireline broadband Internet access service is an information service and is not subject to universal service assessments...13 C. Whether provided by a facilities-based or non-facilities-based carrier, wireline broadband Internet access service is not subject to universal service assessments D. Wireline broadband Internet access service is classified based on the service provided to the end user; it does not contain separate telecommunications service and information service components...20 E. Providers of wireline broadband Internet access service are not required to unbundle or allocate revenue to the transmission component of a functionally integrated, finished wireline broadband Internet access service offering...21 F. The Form 499-A instructions do not require providers of wireline broadband Internet access service to report end user revenue for such service on Line V. To prevent a competitive disadvantage, the FCC must find that universal service obligations do not apply to providers of wireline information services VI. Conclusion...29 iv
27 Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C REQUEST FOR UNIVERSAL ) SERVICE FUND POLICY ) WC Docket No GUIDANCE REQUESTED BY THE ) WC Docket No UNIVERSAL SERVICE ADMINISTRATIVE ) CC Docket No COMPANY ) Level 3 Communications, LLC ( Level 3 ), PAETEC Communications, Inc. and U.S. TelePacific Corp. ( TelePacific ) (collectively, Commenters ) submit these comments in response to the September 28, 2009 Public Notice in the above-referenced proceeding. 1 I. Introduction and Context The Universal Service Administrative Company ( USAC ) requested that the Federal Communications Commission ( FCC or Commission ) provide it guidance on three Universal Service Fund ( USF ) contribution issues that arose during USAC audits of carrier-filed FCC Forms 499. While the Commenters applaud USAC s and the FCC s efforts to make the guidance process more transparent, they are concerned that the request and Public Notice do not ask the right questions and, with respect to the questions that have been asked, unfairly prejudge the outcome. Although written as three requests about services and products, the USAC request effectively asks two questions about services (prepaid calling cards and Virtual 1 See Comment Sought on Request for Universal Service Fund Policy Guidance Requested by the Universal Service Administration Company, Public Notice, WC Docket Nos and and CC Docket No , DA (rel. Sept. 28, 2009) ( 2009 Public Notice ). 1
28 Private Networks ( VPNs )) and three questions about transmission technologies (ATM, Frame Relay, and Dedicated IP). Whether or not intended to prejudge the outcome, the USAC request refers to VPN and Dedicated IP as telecommunications services. 2 The Public Notice repeats this reference. 3 Commenters are concerned that USAC s request for guidance about the classification of ATM, Frame Relay, and Dedicated IP services perpetuates classification problems because USAC does not start with the relevant question whether a service is an information service. The following excerpt from a USAC audit report shows that USAC believes the classification question is irrelevant, but only for wireline transmission technologies: USAC management disagrees with [REDACTED] s argument that when local loops are combined with internet access services the result is a contaminated information service that is not subject to the bundled safe harbor rule. USAC agrees with [REDACTED] s point about the contamination of transmission and internet access as it pertains to cable modem service offerings and more recently wireless broadband and the FCC has declared that transmission component of these services are not telecommunications service under section 3 of the act. USAC is not reclassifying any such services. The products being reclassified by IAS in finding #4 are plain local loops (and PRI circuits associated with [REDACTED] s local service) that run through the Public Switch Telephone Network ( PSTN ). These local loops are traditional private line (T1, T3, Gigabit Ethernet) services that FCC has stated are not inextricably intertwined with the information processing capabilities of internet access. Due to the type of local loop products being reclassified and the FCC order Financial 2 See Letter from Richard A. Belden, Chief Operating Officer, Universal Service Administrative Company, to Julie Veach, Acting Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, p. 3 (filed Aug. 19, 2009) ( USAC Letter ) Public Notice at 2. 2
29 Operations agree with IAD that [REDACTED] s local loop revenues should be reclassified from non-telecommunications reported on line 418 to private line revenues reportable on lines 305, 312, 406, and 415 on the FCC A form. 4 [citations omitted] This excerpt shows that USAC derives a local loop telecommunications service only from wireline information services, not from competing non-wireline information services. This position violates the FCC s policy of leveling the playing field for all forms of broadband Internet access services. 5 Commenters believe that USAC takes this position, at least in part, based on the 499-A worksheet instructions, which copied paragraph nine of the 2005 Wireline Broadband Order almost verbatim, with the exception that the instructions omit the key term stand-alone when discussing traditional Public Switched Telephone Network ( PSTN ) technologies such as T-1s, ATM, and Frame Relay. As shown herein, this USAC position is inconsistent with the FCC s determination that a wireline broadband Internet access service is a functionally integrated information service not subject to USF contribution. There is no reason to treat Internet access services sold to enterprise customers, or sold on a dedicated basis, differently from the shared infrastructure consumer Internet access service sold by cable ISPs and ILECs. This is precisely what USAC proposes. The 2005 Wireline Broadband Order holds that if a service is enhanced, it does not matter whether the provider uses ATM, Frame Relay, or Internet Protocol to deliver 4 USAC Audit No. CR2006CP Appropriate Framework for Broadband Access to the Internet over Wireline Facilities; Universal Service Obligations of Broadband Providers; Review of Regulatory Requirements for Incumbent LEC Broadband Telecommunications Services; Computer III Further Demand Proceedings, Report and Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 20 FCC Rcd 14853, 17 (2005) ( 2005 Wireline Broadband Order ). 3
Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ORDER AND NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING
Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of AT&T Corp. Petition for Declaratory Ruling Regarding Enhanced Prepaid Calling Card Services Regulation of Prepaid Calling