Hi Bernard, Mike et al.
This issue has rec'd attention in California as the result of a CPUC ruling in 1998 that addressed the issue of interconnect agreement, their reciprocity, and focused on the issue of whether a dial-up call to an modem situated in state, yet routed out of state was considered an intrastate call, and therefore within the jurisdiction of the CPUC rather than the FCC.
See nic.cpuc.ca.gov for the ruling on this issue.
In short, the CPUC determined that a dial-up call to a modem fell within the Federal definition of a "telecom" service, and therefore if in-state, within their jurisdiction to issue a ruling on the issue of reciprocal interconnection agreements. The routing of the call from the modem to the POP was determined to fall within the Federal definition of a "information" service, and therefore its interstate nature was distinct from the "telecom" portion of the call. The 9th Circuit in a separate matter affirmed that the CPUC had jurisdiction over intrastate dialup calls to modems.
In its ruling, concluding it had jurisdiction, the CPUC upheld the reciprocal nature of the interconnect agreements impacting intrastate dialup calls. It is not clear how this Congressional bill will impact an earlier CPUC decision. Notwithstanding the decision by the CPUC is limited to California intrastate dialup calls to modems, and I am not familiar with how these agreements are treated in other jurisdictions.
Nevertheless, should this bill become law, and inconsistent with the CPUC ruling upholding payments to the CLECs under these agreement, it is possible for Federal law to supercede State law, as this is the nature of the Supremacy Clause when it comes to interstate commerce and the Commerce Clause. Typically, if the Federal gov't has legislated a regulatory scheme intended to be uniform throughout the States, the State cannot regulate. Presently, the Ninth Cir. has ruled that the Federal Gov't has not regulated so strongly with respect to intrastate agreements (likely based upon the definition of "telecom services") that it determined that the CPUC did have jurisdiction over intrastate calling. But this bill may indicate otherwise, which I'm sure the ILECs would bring to bear in a subsequent CPUC preceding following passage of this law.
My only other comment is given that the above-cited ruling was issued in 1998, but first filed in 1995, I find suspect the hypothesis that the ILECs were oblivious to the Internet when the 1996 Telecom Act was legislated. This ruling evidences that these issues were being debated as early as 1995. JMO. |
