Earlier this month, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in WC Docket Nos. 25-304, 25-208, and 17-97, titled “Advancing IP Interconnection.” This proceeding could mark the most consequential step in the evolution of voice service regulation since the Telecommunications Act of 1996—potentially accelerating the nation’s transition to all-IP networks and forcing long-deferred questions about the legal status of interconnected VoIP services back onto the table.
The NPRM seeks comment on eliminating incumbent LEC-specific interconnection obligations under Section 251(c)(2) of the Communications Act by December 31, 2028 and replacing the current TDM-based regulatory framework with a new structure for IP-to-IP interconnection.
But buried within the FCC’s proposal is a critical issue:
Whether, and how, the Commission can assert authority over IP interconnection absent a clear statutory classification of VoIP as either a telecommunications service or an information service.
That classification question is the linchpin of the entire transition — a decision the FCC has artfully sidestepped for two decades, but can no longer avoid. How the agency resolves it will not only define the regulatory boundaries of the IP era; it will determine who controls the economic and technological foundation of the nation’s next-generation communications network.
Background
The FCC’s current interconnection regime—rooted in the 1996 Act—was designed for a world of circuit-switched voice traffic.
Under Section 251(c), incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs) are obligated to provide interconnection to “telecommunications carriers” for the exchange of “telephone exchange service and exchange access.”
However, the FCC has never squarely classified interconnected VoIP under either the “telecommunications” or “information service” categories.
For nearly two decades, the Commission has sidestepped the issue, relying instead on case-specific findings and hybrid approaches to apply certain obligations (e.g., numbering, 911, USF contributions) while avoiding a definitive service classification.
This ambiguity has allowed the industry to evolve under a patchwork of regulatory interpretations—an approach that may no longer be sustainable if the Commission dismantles the traditional 251(c)(2) framework.
Key Issues in the NPRM
- Sunset of TDM-Based Interconnection Requirements
The FCC proposes to forbear from incumbent LEC interconnection and collocation obligations under Sections 251(c)(2) and (6) and the related rules (47 CFR §§ 51.305, 51.321, 51.323) by the end of 2028.
It seeks comment on whether this sunset would remove outdated burdens that force carriers to maintain parallel legacy infrastructure and hinder full IP modernization .
- Creation of a New IP-to-IP Interconnection Framework
The NPRM acknowledges that voice traffic has largely migrated to IP networks but that no formal regulatory framework currently governs IP interconnection for voice services.
The FCC requests comment on what structure—if any—should replace the 251(c)(2) regime and what the scope of its authority should be under the Communications Act to regulate IP interconnection.
- Revisiting the Commission’s Statutory Authority
The NPRM devotes specific attention to whether the FCC’s existing authority under Sections 201(a) and 251(a) (which apply to “telecommunications carriers”) extends to IP networks and VoIP providers.
This is where the proceeding could trigger a long-awaited showdown over classification:
- If the FCC concludes that IP interconnection falls under Title II (as a form of telecommunications), it may need to revisit VoIP’s status to ensure regulatory consistency.
- If the FCC concludes that IP interconnection lies outside its Title II authority, the Commission may have to rely on ancillary jurisdiction—a legally fragile foundation that courts have previously questioned.
In short, the proceeding may compel the FCC to decide whether interconnected VoIP services are “telecommunications services” subject to Title II regulation or “information services” beyond its common-carrier authority.
- Public Safety and Consumer Protection
The FCC also seeks comment on preserving oversight in areas like Next-Generation 911 (NG911), robocall mitigation, and network reliability, noting that continued dependence on TDM interconnection complicates these efforts.
Why the Classification Question Matters
The Commission’s ability to regulate IP interconnection—and by extension, the exchange of VoIP traffic—hinges on how VoIP is defined:
Regulatory Consequences of VoIP Classification
|
Issue |
If VoIP is Telecommunications |
If VoIP is Information Service |
|
Regulatory Authority |
FCC could apply Title II duties, including requirements for just, reasonable, and non-discriminatory interconnection, tariffing, and related obligations. |
FCC may lack authority to compel interconnection or regulate terms, relying instead on voluntary arrangements or limited ancillary powers. |
|
Scope of Obligations |
Could subject VoIP providers to expanded regulatory obligations, such as Universal Service Fund contributions, CALEA, and disability access compliance. |
Could preserve the current light-touch regulatory regime, but would weaken the FCC’s leverage in resolving interconnection or service-quality disputes. |
|
Interconnection Framework |
Would align IP interconnection under the Section 251(a)/(c) statutory structure governing telecommunications carriers. |
Would require development of a new framework outside Title II, likely relying on voluntary “good-faith” negotiations among providers. |
For the first time in years, the FCC appears poised to confront this definitional fault line directly.
Next Steps:
- Comments are due 30 days after Federal Register publication, and reply comments 60 days thereafter.
- The docket numbers are WC 25-304, WC 25-208, and WC 17-97.
- The Commission anticipates adopting final rules by late 2028, aligning with the proposed TDM sunset date.
Implications for Industry
If adopted, this proceeding could:
- Reshape carrier interconnection rights and obligations;
- Influence cost structures and network planning for both incumbent and competitive providers;
- Determine the regulatory identity of VoIP once and for all.
Stakeholders—particularly VoIP and broadband voice providers—should consider filing comments addressing:
- The appropriate scope of FCC authority over IP interconnection;
- The potential consequences of any reclassification of interconnected VoIP; and
- Transitional issues tied to public safety, reliability, and rural connectivity.
Our Take
The FCC’s effort to modernize interconnection rules is both overdue and fraught with risk.
By tying IP interconnection to statutory authority that applies only to “telecommunications carriers,” the Commission may have little choice but to revisit the regulatory status of interconnected VoIP—an issue it has carefully avoided for nearly two decades.
Whether the FCC seizes that moment or sidesteps it again will determine not just how networks connect, but how voice itself is defined in the broadband era.
For further guidance or assistance preparing comments and advocating in the proceeding, please contact Jonathan Marashlian at jsm@commlawgroup.com.