|
|
 |
Summary of Current PSC Cases and Rulemakings
Compiled by the law firm of Brydon, Swearengen & England, P.C., Jefferson City, Missouri. For further information, contact Trip England or Brian T. McCartney at 573-635-7166. |
| 1. DO-2011-0251
In the Matter of the Application of the Registration, Reporting and Contribution Requirements of All Interconnected Voice over Internet Protocol (IVoIP) Providers
|
On February 8, 2011, the PSC Staff filed a motion expressing Staff’s opinion that the Commission should exert jurisdiction over nomadic IVoIP providers. Staff’s motion stated that Missouri law does not distinguish between fixed or nomadic VoIP providers and cited §392.550 RSMo. Staff’s motion also cited the FCC’s declaratory ruling in WC Docket No. 06-122 determining that states may assess universal service contributions against nomadic IVoIP providers under certain circumstances.
Staff’s motion observed that exerting jurisdiction over nomadic IVoIP providers would require a rulemaking. Staff requested an indication from the Commission as to whether it agreed with Staff’s position and, if so, authority from the Commission to submit a proposed rule as soon as possible.
The Commission discussed the case during its February 23, 2011 agenda meeting. At that time, the Commissioners expressed some practical concerns about moving forward as requested by Staff, along with questions about the Commission’s actual authority. Before moving any further, the Commissioners requested additional information from Staff about: (a) the nature and number nomadic VoIP providers operating in the state; (2) what other states are asserting jurisdiction over nomadic VoIP providers; (3) how those other states are asserting jurisdiction; and (4) if, and if so, how the Missouri PSC could assert and enforce such jurisdiction.
|
| 2. TX-2011-0071
Missouri Caller ID Blocking Rule Revision
|
On December 15, 2011, the Secretary of State published the PSC’s proposed revision to remove restrictions on per line blocking of Caller Identification in 4 CSR 240-32.190. The existing rule restricted Caller ID blocking to law enforcement and domestic violence shelters. PSC Staff believed that this policy was outdated because many other interconnected VoIP and wireless carriers allow per-line blocking. The proposed rule revision will allow companies the choice to offer per-line blocking to their customers. However, the rulemaking did not remove the similar restriction on per-line Caller ID blocking in the Enhanced Record Exchange (ERE) Rule 4 CSR 240-29.060(2). Accordingly, Staff commented that this rule will need to be amended in a separate rulemaking and anticipated that companies seeking to offer per-line blocking would need to seek waivers of this rule in the interim.
On February 23, 2011, the Commission issued its final order of rulemaking to remove the restriction on per-line Caller ID blocking in 4 CSR 240-32.190. The final rule is expected to be published in the April 1, 2011 Missouri register and effective 30 days later on May 1. However, a company seeking to offer per-line blocking will still need to request a waiver of the restriction on per-line Caller ID blocking 4 CSR 240-29.060(2).
|
| 3. TO-2011-0047
Investigation into the Quality of Wireline Telecommunications Services in the State of Missouri
|
On August 24, 2010, the PSC Staff filed a motion to open an investigation into the quality of wireline telecommunications service in the state of Missouri. Staff’s motion expressed concern that Missouri’s telecommunications system had degraded in recent years. Staff requested authority to investigate and require Missouri’s wireline telecommunications companies to respond to set of data requests regarding the companies’ maintenance efforts and procedures.
On January 31, 2011, Staff filed its report detailing the results of its investigation and stating that the telecommunications companies it surveyed continue to track the quality of service they provide to their customers. Staff reported that companies are generally installing and repairing telephone service in a timely manner, and the companies have preventative maintenance procedures in place. Staff’s report concluded that Missouri companies are continuing to monitor the quality of service provided to customers, and Staff recommended that the case be closed.
On February 23, 2011, the Commission issued an order that accepted Staff’s report and closed the case.
|
|
