NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad
[ NNSquad ] Court Says VoIP traffic doesn't pay access charges...
----- Forwarded message from Dave Farber <dave@farber.net> ----- Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2010 17:51:01 -0500 From: Dave Farber <dave@farber.net> Subject: [IP] Court Says VoIP traffic doesn't pay access charges... Reply-To: dave@farber.net To: ip <ip@v2.listbox.com> 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: 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 ----- End forwarded message -----