--- title: Another VoIP-Related Access Charge Issue Makes its Way to the FCC date: 2011-08-09T08:30:39-04:00 author: Import Bot canonical_url: "https://www.kelleydrye.com/viewpoints/blogs/commlaw-monitor/another-voip-related-access-charge-issue-makes-its-way-to-the-fcc" section: Blog Posts --- # Another VoIP-Related Access Charge Issue Makes its Way to the FCC August 9, 2011 The Commission’s long-standing refusal to classify VoIP services continues to feed litigation between telecommunications carriers. Previously, [a coalition of carriers asked the courts to decide the issue](http://www.telecomlawmonitor.com/2010/05/articles/access-charges/strange-coalition-petitions-court-of-appeals-to-bypass-fcc-on-voip-access-charges/) and it appears likely [the FCC will address VoIP ](http://telecomlawmonitor.lexblogplatformthree.com/2011/02/fcc-jump-starts-usf-and-icc-reform-with-another-nprm/)at least prospectively, but in the meantime, cases like this will persist. In the latest case, CLEC Pac-West and IXC Verizon Business sparred in dueling Petitions for Declaratory Ruling stemming from a primary jurisdiction referral by a U.S. District Court in California. The petitioners offer vastly different approaches to resolving the dispute. As background, Verizon has refused to pay originating access charges billed by Pac-West for calls delivered to Verizon toll-free service customers (toll-free services are originated by dialing 800, 888, 877 or 866 prefixes, i.e., ​“8YY” calls). Pac-West receives these calls, which are originated in VoIP format, conducts a database lookup to determine that the carrier is Verizon, converts the call to TDM format to hand-off to Verizon and then delivers the call to Verizon. For this, Pac-West bills its tariffed interstate access charges to Verizon. [Pac-West’s petition ](http://www.telecomlawmonitor.com/uploads/file/Pac-West%20Petition.pdf)focuses on a narrow legal question concerning the origination of 8YY traffic. Pac-West seeks a declaratory ruling that Verizon may not refuse to pay these access charges on the grounds that the call originated in IP format. Specifically, Pac-West seeks a ruling that Verizon must pay applicable tariffed access charges regardless of whether the call originates in IP format or as a TDM call. Pac-West argues that the Commission need not classify VoIP services generally, but only needs to address the particular 8YY access services that Pac-West provides. Pac-West argues that, by its nature, 8YY traffic always is access traffic. IXCs such as Verizon sell a ​“called party pays” service to their subscribers and in turn ​“constructively and actually order” originating access services from carriers like Pac-West. It contends that VoIP traffic is ​“telecommunications” (regardless of whether it is a ​“telecommunications service” -- the pending question involving VoIP). Access service is defined to include origination or termination of ​“telecommunication”, which, Pac-West argues, renders irrelevant whether the call originated as VoIP or as TDM. Either way, Pac-West’s access charges apply to the traffic. [Verizon’s petition](http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7021691445), on the other hand, attacks the language of Pac-West’s tariff, regardless of the legal question at issue. Relying on recent cases involving [YMax](http://www.telecomlawmonitor.com/2011/04/articles/access-charges/fcc-rules-voip-provider-may-not-collect-access-charges/) and [Northern Valley Telephone Company](https://s3.amazonaws.com/cdn.kelleydrye.com/content/uploads/blogs/comm-law-monitor/2011/08/Qwest-v-Northern-Valley.pdf), Verizon argues that Pac-West’s tariff violates FCC tariffing rules and thus is void *ab initio.* Verizon contends that Pac-West’s tariff prior to June 9, 2010 failed to contain specific rates and unlawfully contained cross-references to other tariffs. It contends that the tariff after June 9, 2010 is unlawfullly vague in its explanation of the rates and still contains unlawful cross-references. Verizon invites the Commission to rule that Pac-West could not collect access charges under its tariff, and if it does so, Verizon contends, the decision would ​“effectively end the federal court litigation.” The FCC [sought comment on the two petitions](https://s3.amazonaws.com/cdn.kelleydrye.com/content/uploads/blogs/comm-law-monitor/2011/08/Public-Notice.pdf). Comments were due yesterday, but it will take a few days to be sure that all comments are posted to the docket. **Tags:** [Access Charges](https://www.kelleydrye.com/viewpoints/blogs/commlaw-monitor/tags/access-charges), [CLECs](https://www.kelleydrye.com/viewpoints/blogs/commlaw-monitor/tags/clecs), [litigation](https://www.kelleydrye.com/viewpoints/blogs/commlaw-monitor/tags/litigation), [Pac-West](https://www.kelleydrye.com/viewpoints/blogs/commlaw-monitor/tags/pac-west), [Primary jurisdiction](https://www.kelleydrye.com/viewpoints/blogs/commlaw-monitor/tags/primary-jurisdiction), [VoIP](https://www.kelleydrye.com/viewpoints/blogs/commlaw-monitor/tags/voip) - Share this entry - - - - - [ View entry pdf ](https://s3.amazonaws.com/cdn.kelleydrye.com/content/uploads/pdf-snapshots/another-voip-related-access-charge-issue-makes-its-way-to-the-fcc-20230914233654.pdf) ### Search Blog ### Subscribe ### Explore Topics - [Federal & State Regulatory](https://www.kelleydrye.com/viewpoints/blogs/commlaw-monitor/federal-state-regulatory) - [Litigation](https://www.kelleydrye.com/viewpoints/blogs/commlaw-monitor/litigation) ### Related Services - [Communications](https://www.kelleydrye.com/industries/communications)