In the Matter of

            Before the
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
      Washington, D.C. 20554

>
>

Implementation of Sections 255 and 25 l(a)(2) of  )
the Communications Act of 1934, as Enacted by  )
the Telecommunications Act of 1996        1        WT Docket No. 96-198

Access to Telecommunications Services,      1
Telecommunications Equipment and Customer   )
Premises Equipment by Persons with Disabilities  )

REPLY COMMENTS OF AT&T CORP.

Pursuant to the Commission's Further Notice of Inquiry, AT&T Corp. ("AT&T") hereby

submits its reply comments in the above-captioned proceeding." AT&T has long been at the

forefront of ensuring that its new technologies and services are accessible to people with

disabilities. Nevertheless, any attempt by the Commission to crafi regulations prescribing such

access for Internet Protocol ("IP") telephony in this proceeding would be premature.

As numerous commenters point out, determination of the regulatory status of IP

telephony is a complex issue that should not be addressed tangentially in a proceeding on Section

255 compliance. *' Such a determination would have ramifications far beyond the scope of

"  Implementation of Sections 255 and 25 1 (a)(2) of the Communications Act of 1934. as Enacted by the
Telecommunications Act of 1996; Access to Telecommunications Service, Telecommunications
Equipment and Customer Premises Equipment bv Persons with Disabilities, WT Docket No. 96-198,
Report and Order and Further Notice of Inquiry, FCC 99- 181 (released September 29, 1999) ("NOI").

2' See e.g., Commercial Internet exchange Association (CIX) Comments; GTE Comments at 2; iBasis,
Inc. Comments at 4 (the Commission "should continue to follow the practice of not classifying VOIP
services as telecommunications services"); GTE Comments at 2,4 (in the past the Commission has been
properly cautious in considering the legal status of IP telephony); Level 3 Comments at 4-5 (the
Commission should not use this proceeding to diverge from its policy of not regulating IP-based
services); Voice on the Net ("VON") Coalition Comments at 2; see also AT&T Comments at 2 (citing
Universal Service Report to Congress in which the Commission noted it would be inappropriate to make
pronouncements without a more complete record).

. --


Section 255 .3' For instance, any decision that Section 255 covers this service could potentially

lead to the imposition of access charge obligations on IP telephony providers and Internet

Service Providers. 4' Similarly, the VON Coalition cautions that the Commission should be

careful about regulating the Internet and related applications because "the vibrant growth . . . is
attributable, in part, to the regulatory freedom enjoyed by" such services.5'

   Even within this limited proceeding, there are a wide variety of opinions as to whether IP
telephony can legally be deemed a telecommunications service.6' Most commenters
acknowledge that the issues here are difficult as technologies converge." Several commenters
set forth complex tests and procedures for defining communications-related systems,*' and one

3'

See, e.g., GTE Comments at 3 (the Commission needs to consider the larger regulatory treatment of
evolving services before considering the application of Section 255); iBasis Comments at 5 (if the
Commission regulates the Internet this way, governments in other countries will follow suit); Level 3
Comments at 7 ("a decision in this proceeding that section 255 encompasses the provision of VOIP
services could be viewed as a determination that [such] services now may be regulated as a
telecommunications service").

"

See Level 3 Comments at 7.

Q

See VON Coalition Comments at 13.

6!

See, e.g..,, Inclusive Technologies Comments at 11 (IP Telephony is a telecommunications service, not
an information service); VON Coalition Comments at 12.

"

See, e.g., Inclusive Technologies Comments at 11 (noting the blurring of distinctions through
Internet-based services and the confusing nature of the material); MCI WorldCorn Inc. Comments at 4
(multiple industry standards and services are not yet interoperable); National Association of the Deaf at
14 (complications arise from the incompatibility of TTY technology relying on Baudot, when computers
use ASCII); Trace Center and Gallaudet Comments at 5 (there are many variations on what could be
considered IP Telephony), and 19 (artificially separating telecommunications products and services into
covered and not covered areas based on underlying technology would lead to much confusion);
Telecommunications for the Deaf, Inc., and Consumer Action Network Comments at 9 (discussing
compatibility problems between current telephony and new Internet standards); see also, VON Coalition
Comments (with more than 50 pages attached to explain the technology).

*'  Inclusive Technologies Comments at 12 (the Commission should distinguish technologies by
proclaiming that any service involving "immediate, intentional real-time exchange of information
between two or more parties, without either alteration of that information in form or content or access to
stored information, cannot be an information service"); Microsoft Comments at 9 (differentiating between
those non-telecommunications services or products "integral to and essential for" accessibility of
telecommunications equipment and services), Trace Center and Gallaudet University's Technology
Assessment Program Comments at 11 (proposing the use of the definition developed by a committee of
the International Telecommunications Union).

2


suggests that the Commission should establish an annual process to review technology in order

to categorize it.9' This disparity in opinions underscores the difficulty and inappropriateness of

making any determination here.

Not only would it be premature for the Commission to take on complex regulatory

classification decisions in this limited proceeding, such action is likely unnecessary. The record

demonstrates that the industry already is voluntarily exploring the development of access

measures as IP telephony develops. AT&T agrees with other commenters that unless and until it

is shown that these voluntary efforts will not ensure access by people with disabilities, the
Commission should avoid regulatory intervention."'

CONCLUSION

   For the foregoing reasons, AT&T urges the Commission to defer consideration of the

applicability of Section 255 to IP telephony services. A determination at this time could have

far-reaching and unintended consequences for many other matters subject to the Commission's

jurisdiction. Moreover, government regulation of this technology is not needed because

manufacturers and carriers are already acting to ensure accessibility by persons with disabilities

to newly developed telecommunications services.

                      Respectfully submitted,

                             AT&T CORP.

Howard J. Symons
Sara F. Seidman

Stephen C. Garavito

9'

Microsoft Comments at 1 l-12.

lo'

See iBasis Comments at 3; CIX Comments (the Commission should let the needs of the market guide
the development of technology, rather than imposing regulatory burdens "more suitable for traditional
telephone services"); Microsoft Comments at 2 (market forces should be the primary driver of innovation
in technology).

3







.--_ ^  ____.. -- -._. -.-- ----_


Ruth Yodaiken*
Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky
and Popeo, P.C.
70 1 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W.
Suite 900

Washington, D.C. 20004
(202) 434-7300

Of Counsel

February 14,200O

Room 1131Ml
295 N. Maple Avenue
Basking Ridge, NJ 07920
(908) 221-8100

* Not admitted in the District of Columbia.

       4







._-      __._-. ---._ ,,".. ..- ..-____ --..- _-.~-._-.


CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Cathy M. Quarles, hereby certify that on this 14th day of February 2000, I caused

copies of the attached "REPLY COMMENTS OF AT&T CORP." to be served by U.S. mail, or

by hand delivery (*) on the following:

Magalie Roman Salas, Secretary*
Federal Communications Commission
The Portals - TW-A325
445 12th Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20554

Elizabeth Lyle*
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau
Federal Communications Commission
The Portals, Room 3-C227
445 12th Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20554

John Spencer*
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau
Federal Communications Commission
The Portals, Room 3-A103
445 12th Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20554

The Von Coalition:
Bruce D. Jacobs
Susan M. Hafeli
Fisher Wayland Cooper

Leader & Zaragoza LLP
200 1 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W.
Suite 400

Washington, D.C. 20006-l 85 1

Gail L. Polivy
GTE Service Corporation
1850 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036

International Transcription Service, Inc.*
123 1 20* Street, N. W.
The Portals - Room CY-B402
Washington, D.C. 20037

Pam Gregory*
Office of Plans & Policy
Federal Communications Commission
The Portals, Room 7-B432
445 12th Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20554

Meryl Icove*
Cable Services Bureau
Federal Communications Commission
The Portals, Room 3-C478
445 12th Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20554

GTE:
John F. Raposa
GTE Service Corporation
600 Hidden Ridge, HQE03J27
P.O. Box 152092
Irving, Texas 750 15-2092

BASIS, Inc. :

Andrew D. Lipman
Paul 0. Gagnier
Kevin D. Minsky
Swidler Berlin Shereff Friedman, LLP
3000 K Street, N.W., Suite 300
Washington, D.C. 20007


Jim Tobias
President
Inclusive Technologies
334 Main Street
Suite 141
Matawan, NJ 07747

Patricia Paoletta
William P. Hunt, III
Level 3 Communications, LLC
1025 Eldorado Blvd.
Broomfield, CO 80021

Jeneba Jalloh Ghatt
Angela Campbell
Citizens Communications Center
Georgetown University Law Center
600 New Jersey Avenue, N. W., Suite 3 12
Washington, DC 2000 1

Judith E. Harkins, Ph.D.
Gallaudet University
Technology Assessment Program
800 Florida Avenue, NE
Washington, DC 20002

Marc Berej ka
Federal Regulatory Affairs Manager
Microsoft Corporation
21 DuPont Circle
Suite 510
Washington, DC 20036

Level 3:

Russell M. Blau
Marc B. Rothschild
Swidler Berlin Shereff Friedman, LLP
3000 K Street, N.W., Suite 300
Washington, DC 20007

MCI WorldCorn, Inc.:
Lawrence Fenster
180 1 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W.
Washington, D.C. 20006

Gregg C. Vanderheiden Ph.D.
Trace R&D Center
University of Wisconsin Madison
5901 Research Park Blvd.
Madison, WI 53719

Telecommunications for the DeaJ[ Inc. The
Consumer Action Network:
Lee G. Petro
Gardner, Carton & Douglas
1301 K Street, N.W.
Suite 900, East Tower
Washington, DC 20005-33 17

William M. Wiltshire
Harris, Wiltshire & Grannis, LLP
1200 Eighteenth Street, N. W.
Washington, DC 20036

David A. Bolnick, Ph. D.
Accessibility & Disabilities Group
Microsoft Corporation
One Microsoft Way
Redmond, WA 98052

                  .
Cathy M. @u-les     J

2

,.__.-    ----_-- .-__ --