FCC Helping Charter Dodge State Consumer Protections The FCC is running to the defense of Charter Communications, as the company tries to tapdance around consumer protections governing its VOIP services. Whether VoIP is an information service or a telecommunications service has never adequately been settled. In Minnesota, the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (MPUC) has been trying to force Charter to collect fees from customers to help fund state programs that help the poor and hearing-impaired gain access to voice services. But the MPUC also wants customers to appeal to MPUC in the event of any disputes with Charter.

Obviously Charter doesn't want that, and has dodged Minnesota state oversight since around 2013 or so, when it transferred technical ownership of its VoIP customers to a subsidiary in the state. As Ars Technica notes, the FCC has rushed to Charter's defense in its ongoing legal fight with the state of Minnesota, claiming that protecting consumers from giant duopolies would harm voice communications. Charter defeated the MPUC at the US district court level, but Minnesota since appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit. "The Minnesota PUC's sweeping demand that Charter comply with the state's full panoply of legacy telephone regulations, even though the FCC has not classified VoIP as a telecommunications service, threatens to disrupt the national voice services market," the FCC said in an October amicus brief (pdf) in support of Charter. But consumer advocates say that the goal, as it clearly is on the federal level, is to eliminate consumer protections entirely. And that's a problem for one of the least-liked, least-competitive sectors in America. "Virtually all meaningful consumer protection would be eliminated," argued Mid-Minnesota Legal Aid, a non-profit law firm for poor people, seniors, and people with disabilities. "Undue price, geographical, and other discrimination would become unrestricted, threatening the availability and maintenance of these indisputably essential services." As ISPs convince federal lawmakers to kill consumer protections governing net neutrality and privacy, ISPs like As ISPs convince federal lawmakers to kill consumer protections governing net neutrality and privacy, ISPs like Verizon and Comcast have ramped up their lobbying efforts aimed at keeping states from stepping in and protecting consumers in the wake of federal apathy.







News Jump California Defends Its Net Neutrality Law; AT&T's Traffic Up 20% Despite Data Traffic Actually Being Down; + more news Are The Comcast-Charter X1 Talks Dead In The Water?; AT&T May Offer Phone Plans With Ads For Discounts; + more news Europe's Top Court: Net Neutrality Rules Bar Zero Rating; ViacomCBS To Rebrand CBS All Access As Paramount+; + more news Verizon To Buy Reseller TracFone For $7B; 5G Not The Competitive Threat To Cable Many Thought It Would Be; + more news MS.Wants Records From AT&T On $300M Project; Google Fiber Outages In Austin, Houston, Other Texan Cities; + more news States With The Biggest Decreases In Speed; AT&T Hopes You'll Forget Its Fight Against Accurate Maps; + more news AT&T's CEO Has A Familiar $olution To US Broadband Woes; EarthLink Files Suit Against Charter; + more news 5G Doesn't Live Up To Hype, AT&T's 5G Slower Than Its 4G; Cord-Cutting Now In 37% of Broadband Households; + more news FCC Cited False Broadband Data Despite Warnings; ZTE, Huawei Replacement Cost Is $1.87B, But Only $1B Allocated; + more Cogeco Rejects Altice USA's Atlantic Broadband Bid; AT&T Is Astroturfing The FCC In Support Of Trump Attack; + more news ---------------------- this week last week most discussed

Most recommended from 25 comments



GOD666

join:2017-03-10 17 recommendations GOD666 Member Poor and disabled hate about our government. -- They will defend against anyone and everything that benefits America's poor and disabled. Our government will give multi-billion dollar tax breaks to send jobs to China, but should the poor or disabled need a hand, even The FCC will come running to step on backs!



Charter Communication should be ashamed of themselves that they are unwilling to accommodate something that would benefit those in need. -- Cable companies have no problem adding fees all the time, but the moment those fees could actually be beneficial, they seem to have a problem. I love America but this is what Iabout our government. -- They will defend against anyone and everything that benefits America's poor and disabled. Our government will give multi-billion dollar tax breaks to send jobs to China, but should the poor or disabled need a hand, even The FCC will come running to step on backs!Charter Communication should be ashamed of themselves that they are unwilling to accommodate something that would benefit those in need. -- Cable companies have no problem adding fees all the time, but the moment those fees could actually be beneficial, they seem to have a problem. existenz

join:2014-02-12 9 recommendations existenz Member You know what to do Charter: Here's a pile money, you know what to do.

Ajit: Yes master, it will be done.



--Ars comment MOC

join:2015-10-18

NC ·AT&T DSL

Netgear CM600

Ubiquiti EdgeRouter PoE

ARRIS BGW210-700

1 edit 5 recommendations MOC Member Precedent says FCC can't overrule state laws...

»arstechnica.com/tech-pol ··· te-laws/

»www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov ··· p-06.pdf Well the FCC can't have it both ways. They were told they cannot preempt state laws that hurt consumers by banning municipal broadband. They also should not be able to preempt state laws protecting consumers from ISPs. I hope the state lawyers are looking hard at this. It seems very applicable. kherr

Premium Member

join:2000-09-04

Collinsville, IL 5 recommendations kherr Premium Member VOIP is Telephone Service Voip has one purpose, and one purpose only ..... to connect to TP infrastructure and use it to make a call ..... it's Telephone Service and advertised as such ...... Tchaika

join:2017-03-20

New Orleans, LA 3 recommendations Tchaika Member Never Should've Been Allowed in the First Place MSOs sold their shitty unreliable voice product, without meeting any of the reliability metrics or consumer protections that POTS was held to, while the telcos brave enough to try to get into the video business were compelled to follow all the legacy regulations applied to that sector.



It was a double standard, a way to disadvantage the ILECs and empower the MSOs. Wouldn’t have bothered me, if Verizon and AT&T had been allowed to sell video with a hands free regulatory regime, but they weren’t, and now whole swathes of the country only have one provider.



Public policy fail.



tshirt

Premium Member

join:2004-07-11

Snohomish, WA 3 recommendations tshirt Premium Member A strange arguement ...the state wanting to force regulation on "an unfair service", by forcing them to provide it to the group that finds it unfair.

It seems like a state money grab, to fund the service they don't want to exist? and by doing so MAY drive the price it out of the range of serving those same customers.