Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) Implementation of Section 255 and 251(a)(2) ) of the Communications Act of 1934, as ) Enacted by the Telecommunications Act of 1996; ) WT 96-198 Access to Telecommunications Services, ) Telecommunications Equipment and Customer ) Premises Equipment by Persons with Disabilities ) Disabilities) MCI WORLDCOM, INC. REPLY COMMENTS Introduction In the Notice of Inquiry in the above-captioned proceeding ("255 NOI"), the Commission asked parties to comment on a variety of issues related to the ability of persons with disabilities to obtain access to communications services in light of the development of internet telephony and computer-based equipment that replicates communications functionality.1 Eighteen parties filed comments: eleven service providers and seven representing persons with disabilities. In its initial comments, MCI WorldCOM, Inc., ("MCI WorldCom") responded to two broad policy questions posed by the Commission: 1) the extent to which the transition to internet telephony (IP telephony) will adversely affect persons with disabilities and, if so, what actions the Commission should take to address those adverse impacts; and 2) the appropriate role for the Commission in guaranteeing access to IP telephony and the statutory basis for that role.2 The Commission Should Refrain from Mandating a Specific Technical Solution to Achieve Section 255 Compliance Service providers showed that there are no technical reasons why IP telephony will be incompatible with existing TTY devices. The standards bodies responsible for ensuring quality of service (Qos) for IP telephony and other IP-based services have been aware of the need to ensure backwards compatibility with all existing telecommunications and information services and devices for some time. The protocols that are being developed will be fully compatible with existing TTY devices. Once service providers adopt these protocols, IP telephony will be backward compatible with all existing text-based services and TTY devices.3 Commenters representing persons with disabilities do not dispute the ability of these protocols to make IP telephony compatible with existing TTY devices. Rather, they question whether service providers will adopt these standards in ways that are fully compatible with existing TTY devices at the same time they roll out IP telephone services to persons without disabilities.4 This is a legitimate concern. However, some, such as Self Help for Hard of Hearing People ("SHHH") and Telecommunications for the Deaf, Inc ("TDI"), are already convinced that service providers will fail to incorporate these standards into their equipment and service offerings. For this reason they ask the Commission to require companies to adopt one particular technical standard.5 The Commission should reject this recommendation because it asks the Commission to mandate carriers adopt a particular protocol, v.18, in order to ensure accessibility. As VON points out, Session Initiation Protocol ("SIP"), the protocol MCI WorldCom is implementing throughout its IP network, requires no further standardization for text transmissions.6 Having the Commission mandate a particular protocol to achieve access to IP telephony for persons with disabilities does not mesh with the approach the Commission adopted in its 255 Order it relied on each service provider to be aware of its obligations, and take the steps each believed would be most appropriate to fulfill them.7 In the event of a complaint, the Commission required service providers to be able to show they seriously considered the needs of persons with disabilities over the life cycle of each new service in the case of Section 255, or seriously considered the impact of network changes on existing devices and services in the case of a network change.8 Consideration of a variety of protocol options, costs of implementation, prior investments to comply with Sections 251 and 255, etc., are all factors the Commission will take into account when it evaluates the seriousness of a company's efforts in the event a Section 255 complaint is filed. Mandating a particular solution to an accessibility issue before a new service is even rolled out removes discretion from companies and will result in the imposition of inefficient solutions on many companies. The Commission Should Rely on its Section 251(a)(2) Authority in the Near Term In the 255 NOI, the Commission asked parties to make suggestions on how it may ensure that "...phone-to-phone IP telephony services [do not adversely] ... impact the disability community, and the steps, we should take to address any adverse impacts in order to fulfill the goals of section 255...."9 As discussed above, the record clearly shows that there are no technical reasons why the upgrades carriers are making to provide IP capability for a broad array of services would have adverse impacts on existing TTY devices. However, just as the Commission should not presume that service providers will fail to implement the necessary technical measures, as suggested by TDI; neither should it presume that every service provider will automatically take the necessary technical steps to ensure timely backward compatibility, as suggested by Microsoft.10 The record shows that phone-to-phone IP telephony is not yet a widespread service,11 but that some carriers have already upgraded their networks to provide end-to-end IP capability, and others are doing so rapidly, in order to provide a broad range of services, including telecommunications services and information services.12 Service providers such as Microsoft rightly argue that a party seeking to have a service or investment covered as ancillary to telecommunications would need to show that the service is in widespread use and is an essential component of telecommunications.13 They are also correct that no one has demonstrated the widespread use of IP telephony. Thus, the Commission should not use its ancillary authority to cover IP telephony. Microsoft and others however, fail to provide the Commission with any near term authority to enforce possible Section 255 complaints. But since the Commission has exclusive jurisdiction over the enforcement of Section 255 complaints, and since it cannot presume that every service provider will implement the necessary technical solutions in a timely fashion as networks are upgraded to provide end-to-end IP capability, it is obligated to identify a statutory basis that is appropriate for network upgrades. The appropriate authority is Section 251(a)(2). By asserting its Section 251(a)(2) authority, the Commission would not establish de facto conclusions whether IP telephony is a telecommunications or an information service, since 251(a)(2) does not speak to new services. Rather, it speaks to the backward compatibility of network improvements on existing services and telecommunications devices.14 The Commission Should Quickly Initiate a Rulemaking to Determine the Status of IP Telephony Level 3 and others rightly contend that this NOI is not the proper forum to determine whether IP telephony is a telecommunications service or an information service, since this decision would possibly require companies providing IP telephony to make universal service contributions. And they rightly contend that the Commission confined requests for comments in the NOI to access issues and did not contemplate the impact of covering IP telephony on other policy issues, and has stated that it will determine the status of IP telephony in another proceeding.15 It is obvious that a rulemaking would be required to determine the regulatory status of IP telephony. The time has come to open that rulemaking. Service providers and groups representing persons with disabilities need to know which services are covered in order to prioritize their accessibility efforts over the next few years. In addition, carriers are rapidly converting their networks to provide end-to-end IP capability. Level 3, Qwest and others already have this capability. MCI WorldCom expects to have the same capability shortly. No doubt AT&T will also be providing local and long distance services over an IP-capable network in the same time frame. In light of the recent 5th Circuit decision requiring the Commission to rely solely on interstate telecommunications revenues to fund all federal subsidy programs, the revenue base for these programs may begin to decline unless the Commission concludes that telecommunications offered over IP networks is a telecommunications service. Moreover, failing to do so could give carriers such as Level 3 and Qwest an unfair competitive advantage in the market for IP-based services. There are other policy concerns, such as international settlements however, that may require the Commission to arrive at another solution to this problem. Either way, the Commission should quickly initiate a rulemaking looking into all aspects of the regulatory status of IP telephony quickly, before events overtake its current silence. Conclusion For the above-mentioned reasons, MCI WorldCom encourages the Commission to assert its Section 251(a)(2) authority to ensure backward compatibility of network upgrades and quickly open a rulemaking to develop a complete record on the implications of considering phone-to-phone IP telephony as a telecommunications service. Respectfully submitted, MCI WORLDCOM, INC. Lawrence Fenster Lawrence Fenster MCI WorldCom, Inc. 1801 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, DC 20006 (202) 887-2180 Statement of Verification I have read the foregoing and, to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, there is good ground to support it, and it is not interposed for delay. I verify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on February 14, 2000 Lawrence Fenster ________________________ Lawrence Fenster 1801 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006 202-887-2180 Service List I, Barbara Nowlin, do hereby certify that a copy of MCI's Comments has been sent by United States first class mail, postage prepaid, hand delivery, to the following parties on this 14th February, 2000. Bruce Jacobs VON Coalition Fisher Wayland Cooper Leader & Zaragoza 2001 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Suite 400 Washington, DC 20006 Russell Blau Attorney for Level 3 Communications Sidler Berlin Shereff Friedman 3000 K St., NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20007 Mark Rosenblum AT&T 295 N. Maple Ave Basking Ridge NJ 07920 Albert Kramer Attorney for Multimedia Telecom Assoc. Dickstein Shapiro Morin & Ohshinksy 2101 L St., NW Washington, DC 20037 John Raposa GTE 600 Hidden Ridge, HQE03J27 PO Box 152092 Irving, TX 75015-2092 Lawrence Katz Bell Atlantic 1320 N. Court House Rd 8th Fl Arlington, VA 22201 Barbara Dooley Commercial Internet eXchange Assoc PO Box 1726 Herndon, Va 20172-1726 Andrew Lipman Attorney for IBasis, Inc Swidler Berlin Shereff Friedman 3000 K St., NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20007 Cheryl Tritt Attorney for Teleglobe Morrison & Foerster 2000 Pennsylvania, NW Washington, DC 20006 Marc Berejka Microsoft 21 Dupont Circle, Suite 510 Washington, DC 20036 Roy Russo Attorney for american Foundation for the Blind 1920 N St., NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20036 Gregg Vanderheiden Trace R&D Center Uinversity of Wisconsin Madison 5901 Research park Blvd Madison, WI 53719 Lee Petro Attorney for Telecommunications for the Dean and Consumer Action Network Gardner, Carton & Douglas 1301 K St, NW Suite 900, East Tower Washington, DC 20005-3317 Jeneba Ghatt Attorney for National Association of the Deaf Citizens Communications Center Georgetown University Law Center 600 NJ Av., NW Suite 312 Washington, DC 20001 John Jaco SHHH 7910 Woodmont Av., Suite 1200 Bethesda, MD 20814 Ronald Vickery 404 Benton Dr Rome, GA 30165 Dana Mulvany 350 Budd Ave., Apt. A1 Campbell, CA 95008-4021 International Transcription Service* 2100 M Street, NW Suite 140 Washington, DC 20037 Barbara Nowlin ____________________________________ Barbara B. Nowlin *HAND DELIVERED* 1Implementation of Section 255 and 251(a)(2) of the Communications Act of 1934, as Enacted by the Telecommunications Act of 1996; Access to Telecommunications Services, Telecommunications Equipment and Customer Premises Equipment by Persons with Disabilities, ("255 NOI"), WT Docket No. 96-198, released September 19, 1999. 2255 NOI at ¶ 179. 3See comments of: MCI WorldCom at 4; VON Coalition at 7-12; Level 3 at 2; Ibasis at 3; AT&T at 3; Teleglobe at 3. 4See Comments of: Trace/Gallaudet at 12; TDI at 6; NAD at 17. SHHH at 4. 5SHHH at 4; TDI at 6. 6VON at 11. 7Implementation of Sections 255 and 251(a)(2) of the Communications Act of 1934, as Enacted by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Access to Telecommunications Equipment and Customer Premises Equipment by Persons with Disabilities, Disabilities Access Order, WT Docket No. 96-198, Report and Order and Further Notice of Inquiry, ("255 Order"), September 29, 1999. 8Section 251(a)(2). 9255 NOI at ¶ 179. 10TDI at 6; Microsoft at 11. 11VON Coalition at 13. 12Level 3 at 2; MCI WorldCom at 3. 13Microsoft at 11; Teleglobe at 7; VON Coalition at 13. 14Asserting Section 251(a)(2) would also require software providers and manufacturers of customer premise equipment to ensure their products are backward compatible with existing networks and devices. 15Level 3 at 7; IBasis at 5; AT&T at 2. See also FCC Universal Service Report to Congress, Released: April 10, 1998. MCI WorldCom, Inc. WT 96-198 Section 255 NOI February 14, 2000 MCI WorldCom, Inc. WT 96-198 3 Section 255 NOI February 14, 2000