Contact:  Chris Lehner, clehner@jsitel.com, 301-459-7590

Greenbelt, MD, June 16, 2008 - Calling attention to the findings of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Enforcement Bureau in a recent proceeding, John Staurulakis, Inc. (JSI) filed reply comments with the FCC on Vermont Telephone Company's (VTEL's) petition seeking clarification whether VoIP providers are entitled to the interconnection rights of telecom carriers. Citing the Enforcement Bureau at length, JSI urged the FCC to clear up the many ambiguities characterizing the current regulatory treatment of VoIP providers and suggested that if it opts to grant VoIP providers the rights of telecom carriers, it should impose on them the concomitant obligations and responsibilities as well.

VTEL filed for a declaratory ruling with the FCC in April after receiving an interconnect request from Comcast Phone for its affiliated VoIP provider in Vermont, Comcast Digital Voice. In its comments, Comcast acknowledged that Comcast Phone provides wholesale service to only one customer, Comcast Digital Voice. Nevertheless, Comcast asserted that this does not disqualify Comcast Phone from being granted telecom carrier status. In its comments, JSI noted that Comcast's reasoning illustrates the "great need" for the FCC to clarify the broad regulatory framework governing VoIP services provisioned by cable companies that offer both telecom and VoIP services through "affiliated entities." As demonstrated by VTEL and many of the commenting parties, the lack of clarity in this regard "has resulted in confusion among telecom carriers, federal and state regulatory bodies, and most importantly, consumers."

Responding to cable industry claims of interconnection rights for VoIP providers, as decided in the FCC's Time Warner decision, JSI agreed that the FCC did rule that entities satisfying all the requirements of telecommunications carriers may provide wholesale services to VoIP providers. However, JSI went on, it is "not clear as to what extent that ruling applies when an entity that calls itself a telecommunications carrier provides wholesale service only to VoIP providers which may or may not be affiliated with the entity." JSI pointed out the Enforcement Bureau's assessment in a similar proceeding stands in "stark contrast" to any assertion that such an "apparent sham affiliate" is guaranteed the interconnection rights of a telecom carrier:

The record contains no evidence that the Competitive Carriers affiliated with Bright House and Comcast have ever provided the telecommunications at issue to any entity other than Bright House and Comcast, respectively. The record also lacks any evidence that the Competitive Carriers affiliated with Bright House and Comcast have ever offered the telecommunications at issue in any public written or oral communication, such as a tariff, an advertisement, a brochure, a hand-out, a press release, an industry trade-show presentation, or a website posting. This absence of any public written or oral offering, coupled with the absence of any non-affiliated customers, is dispositive ... Bright House and Comcast rely heavily on the facts that their affiliated Competitive Carriers have obtained state certificates and interconnection agreements .... Their arguments overlook the black-letter proposition that an entity may be a common carrier (i.e., an entity that provides ‘telecommunications service') with respect to some forms of telecommunications and not others ... but there is no evidence in the record that those documents constitute a public offering of the particular telecommunications provided by the Competitive Carriers to Bright House and Comcast ... Thus, in sum, we recommend that the Commission conclude that the record fails to demonstrate that, with respect to the telecommunications provided to Bright House and Comcast, the Competitive Carriers affiliated with Bright House and Comcast provide ‘telecommunications service' under the Act.

In addition, JSI echoed concerns raised by several state commissions warning that VoIP providers are using regulatory uncertainty to advance their own agendas. The issues raised by these state commissions that VoIP providers are taking advantage of the lack of clarity in FCC policies are based in strong public interest concerns. When cable companies obtain state certification to provide telecom services and then discontinue the provision of local exchange and exchange access services so that they can provide VoIP services under a separate unregulated entity, customers can become exceedingly confused. For example, VTEL included in its petition sample notices sent to customers by Comcast which fail to identify that the state-certified Comcast entity, Comcast Phone, is no longer providing voice service and that a new entity, Comcast Digital Voice, will now provide the service. Instead, the notice merely states that one entity, Comcast, "is changing its telephone service offerings" and does not provide any information to consumers that the switch is among separate companies. FCC clarification on this matter, JSI asserted, would benefit carriers and consumers throughout the nation.

Finally, JSI noted, most of the pro-cable comments sought to discount the Enforcement Bureau's recommendation despite the fact that it was cited by most participants in the VTEL proceeding. Ironically, perhaps, it was cited specifically by the Vermont PSC, which stated that the Enforcement Bureau's action "being contained only in a recommended decision, as opposed to an order, does not have the effect of law."

###

JSI provides a full array of financial, management, regulatory, business development, marketing/public relations and strategic services, as well as education and training. Established in 1962, JSI today provides these services, and more, to hundreds of companies across the nation. JSI also offers analysis and review of such competitive-focused issues as pricing and bundling, VoIP and IPTV assessment, CLEC and video/cable operations, strategic partnerships, image and identity, and mergers/acquisitions. With more than 95 professionals on staff, JSI remains a leader in offering business solutions to independent providers. In addition to its Greenbelt, Md., headquarters, JSI has regional offices in Atlanta, Minneapolis, Austin, and Salt Lake City.