8th Circuit Rules VoIP an Information Service

            By a 2-1 vote, the 8^th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court’s determination that Voice over the Internet Protocol (“VoIP”) telephone service constitutes an information service subject to FCC preemption of state regulation. [1] The court decided to make an explicit determination considering the FCC’s decades long disinclination to do, because an explicit information service classification would jeopardize the Commission’s ability to regulate VoIP service and perhaps also the lawfulness of requiring subscribers to contribute to universal service funding.  On the other hand, the decision bolsters the FCC’s selective assertion of federal preemption to prevent inconsistent and “balkanized” policies when state establish their own regulations.

            The court determined that VoIP falls within the information service classification, because a protocol conversion occurs when calls originate, or terminate on the conventional public switched telephone network, but are transmitted via broadband networks:

            We conclude that the VoIP technology used by Charter Spectrum is an “information service” under the Act. As the district court put it, “the touchstone of the information services inquiry is whether Spectrum Voice acts on the consumer’s information—here a phone call—in such a way as to ‘transform’ that information.” 259 F.Supp.3d at 987; see 47 U.S.C. § 153(24). IP-TDM calls involve just such a transformation. For those calls, because information enters Charter’s network “in one format (either IP or TDM, depending on who originated the call) and leaves in another, its system offers ‘net’ protocol conversion, which the FCC has defined as occurring when ‘an end-user [can] send information into a network in one protocol and have it exit the network in a different protocol.’” [2]

            The court majority opted to consider the explicit language in the definitions of telecommunications service and information service rather than consider the functional equivalency of VoIP with earlier vintage circuit-switched telephony, even though they use different technical protocols.  The court considered the information service category as applicable because VoIP service providers must use software to convert the format of calls from and to legacy wired and wireless telephone networks even though both telecommunications services and information services use telecommunications networks to transmit and deliver traffic:

            Spectrum Voice’s service is an information service because it “mak[es] available information via telecommunications” by providing the capability to transform that information through net protocol conversion. Cf. Nat’l Cable & Telecommunications Ass’n v. Brand X Internet Servs., 545 U.S. 967, 988 (2005) (explaining that “all information-service providers . . . use ‘telecommunications’ to provide consumers with [their] service”). [3]

            The court did not consider VoIP protocol conversion as fitting within three categories where some processing takes place, but not in a significant way that fundamentally changes the nature and composition of the composite service. [4] This view parallels the analysis contained in the FCC’s Restoring Internet Freedom order which reclassified broadband access as an information service thereby removing common carrier regulatory oversight.

            The court quickly rejected as inapplicable each of the three carve-outs that the FCC uses to allow some degree of information processing without converting a basic telecommunications service into information service. The court rejected the first exception, because VoIP connects users of a service and not users with a network.  The second exception was considered inapplicable, because the court emphasized that protocol conversions are necessary for new equipment that VoIP subscribers must use even though more broadly the conversions also promote compatibility and interconnection between users of legacy voice telephone services and newer VoIP options.

            The third exception also was considered inapplicable, but some stakeholder may dispute the court’s rationale that emphasizes the need for protocol conversions to make the required new equipment function on customers’ premises.  The court briefly stated that the required customer premises equipment is not physically a part of the VoIP provider’s network, nor does its protocol conversion occur within a network. By emphasizing the location of the device performing the protocol conversion, the court could ignore that the device provides internetworking between two types of networks that consumers consider functionally equivalent.

            Judge Grasz, in dissent, rejected the majority’s rationale noting that the court overemphasized the location where protocol conversions take place and in so doing possibly provided a way for telecommunications service providers to evade most of the FCC’s regulatory oversight for any service where a device can be installed on consumer premises:

            If performing the conversion from TDM to IP inside a customer’s home is sufficient to convert a telecommunications service into an information service, then AT&T, or any similarly situated provider, could greatly reduce its regulatory burden simply by moving converter boxes inside customers’ homes. A simple change of physical location would transform what used to be telecommunications services to information services. This may explain why the FCC has yet to make categorical pronouncements on protocol conversions. An overarching category for all net protocol conversions would create a potential pathway for every company to escape the heavier telecommunications service regulations. [5]

            Judge Grasz also noted language in the definition of telecommunication service that deemphasizes the type and location of facilities used to provide a telecommunications service. [6] He even rejects the possibility that VoIP protocol conversions can trigger the information service classification, because the broadband service venture provides a telecommunication transmission link and the protocol conversion does not change the nature of voice communications between the caller and call recipient:

If we assume that interconnected VoIP services “provide” “telecommunications” as defined in statute, then we must presume that no “change” occurs between the two phone sets on either end of the interconnected VoIP line. . . . As a result, when addressing the question of whether Charter’s media gateway transforms information, in order to rule in favor of Charter, we would have to conclude that a device that does not change the form or content of information (because it is part of telecommunications) is also a device that transforms information (because it is an information service). See id. § 153(24), (50). The first conclusion forecloses the second one. In short, if Charter’s service provides telecommunications (as defined in statute), then its net protocol conversion cannot be part of an information service, but instead must be part of a telecommunications service. [7]

---

[1]           Charter Advanced Services(MN), LLC v. Lang, No. 17-2290, slip op. (8^th Cir. Sep. 7, 2018); available at: http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/18/09/172290P.pdf.

[2]              Id. at 6.

[3]              Id. at 7.

[4]              “The definition of ‘information service’ excludes services that comprise a ‘capability for the management, control, or operation of a telecommunications system or the management of a telecommunications service.’ 47 U.S.C. § 153(24). The FCC has further defined this exception to include ‘(1) services ‘involving communications between an end user and the network itself (e.g., for initiation, routing, and termination of calls) rather than between or among users;’ (2) protocol processing ‘in connection with the introduction of a new basic network technology (which requires protocol conversion to maintain compatibility with existing [CPE])’ and (3) services ‘involving internetworking (conversions taking place solely within the carrier’s network to facilitate provision of a basic network service, that result in no net conversion to the end user).’” Id. at 7-8.

[5]              Judge Grasz dissent at 11.

[6]           “The statute contemplates such transitions because it defines a telecommunications service as ‘offering [] telecommunications for a fee directly to the public . . . regardless of the facilities used.” Id. at 10 citing 47 U.S.C. § 153(53).

[7]              Id. at 12.

The Title II Reclassification Distraction

            By now even most of my undergraduate students at Penn State have heard about the FCC’s likely reclassification of broadband access from information service to telecommunications service. So much attention has focused on the reclassification and so little on the real problem: stimulating investment, market entry and facilities-based competition in broadband service.

            Show me a robustly competitive broadband marketplace and I will show you an ecosystem that has no network neutrality problem. 

            Regulating broadband access as common carriage offers no panacea.  Even with light handed regulation, the potential exists for extraordinary waste and distraction in litigation and a “regulatory practice” over what an Internet Service Provider can and cannot do.  I am concerned that the FCC and stakeholders will devote far too much time battling over minor points with little concern for the big picture.

            While I am not keen on Title II regulation, I have every confidence that ISPs can survive the burden and sustain capital investment levels.  The problem in Title II regulation lies in how it can distract the FCC from its core mission.  Bear in mind that wireless carriers have managed to thrive despite having the common carrier classification.  So even “public utility” Title II regulated markets can generate ample profits without apparent investment “disincentivization” resulting from government oversight.  Wireless competition forces carriers to enhance the value proposition.  No carrier would dare degrade its service and invite subscriber churn.

            Thankfully the FCC and Justice Department did not buy the bogus claim of sponsored researchers, AT&T and T-Mobile that reducing the number of facilities-based competitors would serve the national interest.  Once deprived of a big buyout payday, T-Mobile has innovated and sharpened its pricing pencil.  The other carriers have had to follow T-Mobile’s lead on pricing, roaming, bring your own device and the ability to rollover data capacity.

            A competitive wireless marketplace provides clear evidence that Title II can provide possibly unnecessary safeguards without imposing costly burdens.  The risk in Title II broadband regulation lies in its distraction coupled with less than optimal competition.

Telephone Pedestals and the Second Amendment

            Once upon a time when telephone companies provided service via wires these companies secured free rights of way to install equipment and lines.  In many locations the companies replaced telephone poles with underground conduits.  When telephone companies needed to splice a service line to a home or business they installed a pedestal above ground.  These metal or plastic pedestals do not have a pleasing appearance even with the use of forest green coloration.  They were necessary splice points where telephone company technicians connected and disconnected service.

            Now that telephone companies want to provide anything but wireline telephone service it strikes me that they should lose the rights of way granted to them by state public utility commissions.  If a company does not provide common carrier telecommunications services, then surely it has no public utility right to take a portion of my property for their use free of charge.  Right?

            I mean if a telephone company no longer wants to serve as the carrier of last resort—or first resort for that matter—then they in effect should be deemed to have abandoned their right to secure a property interest in my land.  As information service providers, like VoIP service providers, former telephone companies no longer should have the right of eminent domain granted by states to bona fide public utilities.   It seems straightforward to me: if a common carrier opts to abandon its common carrier duties, then it should lose its rights of way over private property for lines that no longer provide common carrier services, and possibly won’t provide anything at  all.

            So when my telephone company terminates PSTN service access on my property, they can pull out their copper and by the way be sure to pull out the pedestal while you’re at it.  Oh and by the way, I don’t want to ever see you again on my property.  Going forward you would become a trespasser and I reserve all my Second Amendment rights to brandish a weapon to encourage one of your few information service contractors or employees to leave.

             Gee . . maybe the Tea Party, the National Rifle Association and I have something in common.

Does Judicial Deference Cleve Along a Deregulation/Expanded Regulation Axis?

By all accounts it appeals that the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals expressed great skepticism with the FCC’s claimed ancillary jurisdiction to sanction Comcast for meddling with peer-to-peer traffic of its subscribers. I share that concern for two reasons: 1) on administrative law grounds, the FCC should have initiated a notice and comment rulemaking before applying what sure looks like enforced rules; and 2) the FCC stretches the concept of ancillary jurisdiction in Title I of the Communications Act and then justifies the stretch primarily on Title II common carrier regulatory sections that offer a general sense that the FCC should promote access to the Internet and “advanced telecommunications capability.”

The D.C. Circuit surely has ample grounds to reverse the FCC, but if it were to do so what does such action mean in the broader context of judicial deference to the expertise of a regulatory agency and the scope of statutory interpretation accorded these agencies? Bear in mind that a majority of the Supreme Court in the Brand X case (affirming the FCC’s decision to treat cable modem Internet access as an information service) was quite willing to defer to the FCC in terms of its technical expertise and also on so-called Chevron grounds that the FCC reasonably interpreted ambiguous legislation.

So if the D.C. Circuit does not defer, does that mean that at least as to this fact pattern the FCC was unreasonable in its statutory interpretation and no degree of technical expertise can provide a cure? It also just so happens that the Supreme Court deferred to the FCC on a decision that appeared to generate a deregulatory outcome, while the D.C. Circuit’s likely non-deference applies to an expansion of the FCC’s regulatory wingspan.

The Regulatory Arbitrage Lovefest

My day job, which includes finishing a book, updating a broadband law treatise, and trying to engage undergraduate students in the challenges of telecommunication and Internet policy, prevents me from weighing in each time I see yet another outrageous claim on such issues as network neutrality, broadband market penetration, and the competitiveness of U.S. telecoms markets. But I have to make time for this one.

As I understand from its letter to the FCC, AT&T objects to Google’s interpretation of law, regulation, and policy that qualifies Google Voice as an information service instead of lightly regulated long distance telephone service. This peach from AT&T—dare I say this—conflicts with the company’s previous claims that its wireless text messaging and wireline video services similarly qualify for limited regulation as information services.

So let me get this straight: in AT&T’s self-serving world (it is not a charity after all), the FCC should agree with it that text messaging is not a regulated common carrier, telecommunications service, akin to paging, and the company’s U-verse video program delivery is not a regulated cable service under Title VI of the Communications Act. Yet Google’s software-generated telephone calling service is a common carrier, telecommunications service even though it is not offered on a retail basis and rides on top of DSL, cable modem or other types of Internet access that the FCC and the Supreme Court already have deemed information services.

It is painfully clear to me that companies such as AT&T have a strategy of generating as much dissonance and nonsense as possible, regardless whether the positions pass a simple smell test. AT&T wants to ramp up the Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt level to prevent the FCC from making any definitive ruling on network neutrality.

AT&T has come up with an objection to an unregulated service that can provide something of a competitive alternative to its lightly regulated long distance telephone services. As consumers we want competitive alternatives and there are instances where inconsistent regulation may tilt the competitive playing filed in favor of an insurgent over an incumbent. But this regulatory arbitrage opportunity is both narrow, of limited value, and often short-lived. First AT&T overstates the degree of regulatory burdens it incurs in having to offer its long distance telephone service under regulation. The company does not have much paper work with the FCC and the Commission has forborne from regulating interexchange telephone services. So the scope of burden—financial and logistical-- is limited. Additionally AT&T conveniently forgets that it could have disputed the high call termination charges imposed by rural carriers. Neither AT&T nor Google want to pay extortionate access fees imposed by rural telephone companies when these companies exploit a regulatory arbitrage opportunity: the ability to generate lots of inbound traffic by offering free conference calling while paying carriers like AT&T much lower access charges when AT&T terminates calls originated by customers of the rural carriers.

The bottom line is that AT&T has had plenty of opportunities to avoid regulation based on the gigantic deregulatory safe harbor offered by the information service classification. Now AT&T has the nerve to object to Google’s use of the same opportunity. Now that's "the kettle calling the pot black."

Information Service Telecommunications Service Mutual Exclusivity

The FCC surely has a hard time dealing with convergence and in particular a firm that offers both telecommunications services and information services, e.g., wireline and wireless telephone companies. The Commission perceives the statutory duty to establish bright line, mutual exclusivity between the two categories:

The FCC interprets the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to create mutually exclusivity between telecommunications services, subject to Title II common carrier regulation, and information services, subject to limited regulation available under Title I. “Congress intended the categories of ‘telecommunications service’ and ‘information service’ to be mutually exclusive.” Federal-State Joint Board On Universal Service, CC Docket No. 96-45, Report to Congress, 13 FCC Rcd. 11501, 13 FCC Rcd. 11830, n. 79 (1998). “Based on our analysis of the statutory definitions, we conclude that an approach in which “telecommunications” and “information service” are mutually exclusive categories is most faithful to both the 1996 Act and the policy goals of competition, deregulation, and universal service.” Id. 13FCC Rcd. at 11530 (1998).

So does this mean that the FCC has no statutorily appropriate means to subject a single firm to two different regulatory regimes?