This entry highlights the consequences of the FCC’s IP Transition orders for business customers and competitive carriers in terms of costs, changes in customer premises equipment (CPE), operational impacts and, for competitive carriers, interconnection agreements.
As noted in our 1st Entry in this two-part series, each ILEC sets its own plans and time lines for implementing its IP transition. There are no FCC mandated deadlines or due dates for initiating or completing the IP transition. Subject to the FCC’s rules and policies, the ILECs may implement their IP transitions locally, state-wide or throughout all of their service territories as they see fit. The same is true for copper loop retirements.
For business customers with locations having relatively modest voice and data requirements, such as many retail outlets, commercial and MDU property managers, and small government offices, the transition to IP voice services is the priority concern. For higher traffic locations, including major enterprise locations, call centers, hospitals, large government facilities and data centers, the transition to IP special access services may prove the most challenging.
Wireline Voice Services
1. The IP transition may disrupt (likely accelerate) enterprise planning for deploying IP-based CPE, including IP-PBXs, to implement VoIP and SIP trunking.
2. VoIP and SIP trunking customers must manage their CPE and business processes so that their end users can complete wireline 9 1 1 calls consistent with FCC rules and comply with state and, possibly, Federal versions of “Kari’s law” that require emergency calls be completed with three-digit “9 1 1” dialing and not “9 + 9 1 1” dialing. Compliance with local wireline “emergency phone service” regulations must also be addressed.
3. Wireline voice service rates should become more competitive for all business customers as VoIP services are not subject to federal or state legacy rate or tariff regulation and as the ILECs roll-out cloud-based VoIP service offerings.
a. Points of origination and termination for wireline voice pricing will be displaced by “all-distance” pricing comparable to mobile voice pricing, encompassing local, intrastate, interstate and, increasingly, international voice communications.
b. Thus, business customers should become familiar with the pricing for VoIP services and SIP trunking in order to compare the rates for these services to the familiar pricing for circuit-switched voice services and PBX trunks
Special Access Services
1. The vast majority of end users acquire special access services (DS-1, DS-3, OCn and Ethernet equivalents) bundled with interexchange voice or data services provided by wide-area network (WAN) service providers (a/k/a interexchange carriers.)
2. The “reasonably comparable” standard of rates, terms and conditions for replacement Ethernet services adopted in the 2015 IP Transition Report and Order provides a reasonable measure of price stability. And, based on the latest Special Access Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, this standard should remain in place throughout the IP transition.
3. Except for very low latency applications, Ethernet special access service should be a functional equivalent to TDM dedicated access circuits.
4. The mechanics of converting to Ethernet service could prove challenging. Copper loops may support lower speed Ethernet services, but fiber or hybrid fiber-coax may be required for higher capacity services.
a. One point of reference as to what users might expect is the transition from one WAN service provider to another. This is probably the best case scenario.
b. The IP transition will be different from WAN service provider transitions (from incumbent to successor WAN service providers) in which customers and services providers share the objective of converting customer locations to the successor provider’s network in a timely manner. In the IP transition, the process will be driven by individual ILECs each transitioning to Ethernet service per its plans and timetable.
c. In theory, customer locations served by an ILEC affiliate of the WAN service provider should have a smoother transition, assuming closer coordination between the two affiliates.
Competitive Service Providers
In many respects, the FCC’s IP Transition orders limit the ILECs’ discretion to do as they please. At this juncture, the rules governing the IP transition are set and the competitive service providers have limited opportunity to protest or delay the process—assuming the ILECs follow the rules. Competitive service providers must be prepared to act as the ILECs implement the transition to IP-based services.
Wireline Voice Services
1. CLECs relying on ILEC copper loops and TDM-based wholesale platform services face the challenge of migrating to different facilities and technologies to operate in all-IP environments. The ILECs may transfer/sell their abandoned copper loops to requesting CLECs, but are not required to do so.
2. The status of local service interconnection remains an open question. CLECs will benefit from the FCC’s resolution of whether IP VoIP interconnection arrangements between ILECs and CLECs are voluntary commercial agreements or interconnection agreements subject to the Section 251/252 framework.
Special Access Services
1. WAN service providers (aka “interexchange carriers”) have either implemented or currently operate IP voice and data networks. Customer transitions to these interexchange IP services are ongoing. The IP transition poses the challenge of coordinating deployments of IP special access services to customer locations based on the ILECs’ timetables and schedules.
2. WAN service providers will benefit from the FCC’s requirement that ILECs’ Ethernet special access services be made available under rates, terms and conditions that are “reasonably comparable” to the corresponding ILEC TDM services.
The “reasonably comparable standard” likely will be retained as the FCC adopts its decision in the special access proceeding.
3. Competitive Access Providers that have deployed facilities in metro areas may offer more compelling IP special access services as compared to those of the ILECs.
The ongoing challenge/question is whether competitive access providers do or will extend their networks to an end-user’s location.