Federal Communications Commission DA 11-1841
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
Universal Service Contribution Methodology WC Docket No. 06-122
Request for Review of a Decision of the
Universal Service Administrator by:
MeetingOne.com Corp.
ORDER
Adopted: November 3, 2011 Released: November 3, 2011
By the Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau:
I. INTRODUCTION
1. In this order, we deny a request filed by MeetingOne.com Corp. (MeetingOne).'
MeetingOne seeks review of a decision by the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC)
finding that the Internet Protocol (IF) audio bridging services offered by MeetingOne are subject to
federal universal service fund (USF or the Fund) reporting and contribution obligations.2 As discussed
more fully below, we find that the services that MeetingOne provides are substantially equivalent to the
audio bridging services described in the InterCall Order3 and MeetingOne' s use of IP technology in the
provision of that service does not alter our determination that MeetingOne's service is
telecommunications subject to direct USF reporting and contribution obligations. We also find that
prospective-only application of MeetingOne's direct USF contribution obligations in connection with its
provision of audio bridging services is not warranted because such services have been on notice since the
InterCall Order that they are, at minimum, providers of telecommunications for purposes of contributing
to the USF.
II. BACKGROUND
A. The Act and the Commission's Rules and Requirements
2. Section 254(d) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act), directs that
every telecommunications carrier that provides interstate telecommunications services shall contribute, on
an equitable and nondiscriminatory basis, to the specific, predictable, and sufficient mechanisms
established by the Commission to preserve and advance universal service.4 Section 254(d) further
provides that any other provider of interstate telecommunications may be required to contribute "to the
1 MeetingOne.com Corp. Request for Review of Universal Service Administrator Decision, WC Docket No. 06-122
(filed May 3, 2010) (Request for Review). We dismiss as moot MeetingOne's Petition for Stay. MeetingOne.com
Corp. Petition to Stay Decision Pending Commission Review, WC Docket No. 06-122 (filed Aug. 19, 2010)
(Petition to Stay).
2 for Review at 3.
See Request for Review by InterCall, Inc. of Decision of Universal Service Administrator, CC Docket No. 96-45,
Order, 23 FCC Rcd 10731 (2008) (InterCall Order).
47 U.S.C. § 254(d).
Federal Communications Commission DA 11-1841
preservation and advancement of universal service."5 To this end, the Commission has determined that
any entity that provides interstate telecommunications to the public for a fee must contribute to the Fund.6
The Commission further directed that contributions should be based on contributors' interstate and
international end-user telecommunications revenues.7
3. Although the Commission has declined to exempt from contribution any broad classes of
telecommunications providers, not all providers of interstate telecommunications contribute directly to the
Fund under the current end-user system.8 The Commission generally does not require wholesale carriers
to contribute directly to the Fund because these carriers do not earn revenues directly from end users.9
Instead, the reseller that provides the service to the end user, and thereby earns end-user revenues,
contributes directly to the USF!°
4. Tn the Universal Service Second Order on Reconsideration, the Commission set forth the
specific methodology for contributors to use to compute their USF contributions.11 In the instructions to
the Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet adopted in that order, the Commission provided additional
details to contributors to promote compliance with the USF contribution requirements.12 Over the years,
as the Commission has made changes and further clarified contribution obligations, the Form 499
instructions have been revised to reflect those decisions,13 as well as other administratively necessary
changes.'4 Consistent with these periodic updates, in 2002 the FCC Form 499-A and 499-Q instructions
Id. Pursuant to section 2 54(d) of the Act, the Commission has determined that the public interest requires certain
other providers of interstate telecommunications to contribute to the USF. 47 U.S.C. § 254(d); see, e.g., Universal
Service Contribution Methodology et al., WC Docket Nos. 06-122, 04-36, CC Docket Nos. 96-45, 98-171, 90-571,
92-237, 99-200, 95-116, 98-170, Report and Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 21 FCC Rcd 7518 (2006)
(2006 Contribution Methodology Order) (requiring interconnected voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) providers to
contribute to the universal service fund because they are providers of interstate telecommunications).
6 See Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, CC Docket No. 96-45, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 8776,
9179, para. 787 (1997) (Universal Service First Report and Order) (subsequent history omitted).
71d. at 9171, para. 772; 47 C.F.R. § 54.706.
8 Universal Service First Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 9179, para. 787.
91d. at 9207, para. 846.
'°Id.
See Changes to the Board of Directors of the National Exchange Carrier Association, Inc., Federal-State Joint
Board on Universal Service, CC Docket Nos. 97-2 1, 96-45, Report and Order and Second Order on
Reconsideration, 12 FCC Rcd 18400 (1997) (Universal Service Second Order on Reconsideration).
at 18498-5 13 (Appendix A, Universal Service Worksheet FCC Form 457). The FCC Form 457 was the
precursor to the FCC Form 499. See 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review--Streamlined Contributor Reporting
Requirements Associated with Administration of Telecommunications Relay Services, North American Numbering
Plan, Local Number Portability, and Universal Service Support Mechanisms, CC Docket No. 98-17 1, Report and
Order, 14 FCC Rcd 16602 (1999) (consolidating the requirements of the FCC Form 457 with other regulatory forms
and creating the Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet, FCC Form 499). Entities report their revenues for USF
contribution purposes using the Telecommunications Reporting Worksheets (FCC Form 499-A and Form 499-Q).
The FCC Form 499-A is filed annually, and the FCC Form 499-Q is filed quarterly.
For example, in 2002, the Commission revised the interim wireless safe harbor to increase the contribution
requirement from 15 to 28.5 percent of a wireless carrier's end-user telecommunications services revenues and
amended the instructions to reflect this increase. See Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, CC Docket
Nos. 96-45, 98-171, 90-571, 92-237, 99-200, 95-116, 98-170, Report and Order and Second Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, 17 FCC Rcd 24952, 24965, para. 21(2002); 2003 FCC Form 499-A Instructions at 18.
The Wireline Competition Bureau, formerly the Common Carrier Bureau (Bureau), has delegated authority to
revise the Forms 499 and accompanying instructions to ensure "sound and efficient administration of the universal
service programs." See Universal Service Second Order on Reconsideration, 12 FCC Rcd at 18442, para. 81
("Because it is difficult to determine in advance precisely the information that will be needed to administer the new
2
Federal Communications Commission DA 11-1841
were updated to, among other things, specifically include toll teleconferencing as one of the illustrative
examples of telecommunications that are subject to direct USF contributions.'5
5. InterCall Order. In June 2008, the Commission released the InterCall Order, which
clarified that audio bridging services are equivalent to toll teleconferencing services, and providers of
such services must contribute directly to the USF based on their end-user revenues from these services.'6
The Commission, however, found a lack of clarity regarding the direct USF contribution obligation of
stand-alone audio bridging service providers, and determined that any direct contribution requirement for
stand-alone audio bridging providers should apply prospectively only, beginning in the fourth quarter of
2008.' The Commission also directed USAC to conduct targeted outreach efforts to all providers of
audio bridging services (stand-alone and integrated) in order to assist such providers with coming into
compliance with USF reporting and contribution obligations.'8 Shortly after release of the InterCall
Order, the Wireline Competition Bureau also issued a public notice to raise public awareness that stand-
alone and integrated audio bridging service providers must directly report their revenues beginning with
the 2008 August FCC Form 499-Q.'9
B. Petition for Review
6. MeetingOne provides stand-alone audio conferencing services to its customers. A
MeetingOne customer initiates a conference call by dialing a toll free number that MeetingOne obtains
from a wholesale telecommunications carrier. The call is transmitted to the underlying carrier's IP
gateway, converted into IP format and sent to MeetingOne's facilities to complete the conference call and
permit the end user to access the conference bridge. Return communications from the conference bridge
are sent in IP format to the underlying carrier's IP gateway, which converts the packets to analog and
terminates the call to the customer.2°
7. In October 2009, MeetingOne sought confirmation from USAC that MeetingOne did not
have a direct USF contribution obligation and was thus not required to file FCC Forms 49921
MeetingOne argued, inter alia, that its IP audio bridging service is technologically different than the audio
bridging services provided by InterCall, and that MeetingOne is therefore not a similarly situated audio
bridging service provider subject to the InterCall Order.22 On March 3, 2010, USAC rejected
universal service programs, the [Common Canier] Bureau will have delegated authority to waive, reduce, or
eliminate contributor reporting requirements that may prove unnecessary. The Bureau also will have delegated
authority to require any additional contributor reporting requirements necessary to the sound and efficient
administration of the universal service programs."). Consistent with this authority, the Bureau revises the
Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet Instructions to provide guidance for complying with existing rules and
requirements.
' See 2002 FCC Form 499-A Instructions at 20.
'6InterCall Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 10731, para. 1.
'71d. at 10738, para. 24. As noted in the InterCall Order, integrated audio-bridging providers were already
contributing directly to the USF because "they are local exchange carriers, interexchange carriers, or interconnected
voice over Internet protocol providers, all of which have been found by the Commission to have direct USF
contribution obligations." Id. at para. 23, n62. Conversely, "stand alone" providers (prior to the InterCall Order)
viewed themselves and end uses of the transmission services they purchased from the underlying facilities-based
carriers. Id.
18 Id. at para. 26.
'9See Audio Bridging Service Providers to Begin Filing FCC Form 499-Q on Aug. 1, 2008, CC Docket No. 96-45,
Public Notice, 23 FCC Rcd 11043 (Wireline Comp. Bur. 2008) (Audio Bridging Service Public Notice).
20 Request for Review at 3-4, Attach. 2-3.
21 Id. at Attach. 1.
22Id
3
Federal Communications Commission DA 11-1841
MeetingOne's arguments and concluded that MeetingOne's audio bridging service was subject to direct
USF contribution requirements.23 USAC directed MeetingOne to file FCC Forms 499-A and 499-Q, and
to directly contribute to the USF retroactively beginning with fourth quarter 2008 revenues.24
8. MeetingOne requests that the Commission review USAC ' s decision, and declare that
MeetingOne's audio bridging service is not subject to direct USF contribution obligations.25
Alternatively, MeetingOne argues that there was significant uncertainty surrounding its service and
requests that any direct USF reporting and contribution obligations apply prospectively only.26
III. DISCUSSION
9. As discussed in detail below, we deny MeetingOne's request for review. In so doing, we
find the audio bridging services provided by MeetingOne are telecommunications subject to direct USF
contribution obligations as clarified in the InterCall Order. We also find that prospective-only
application of MeetingOne's direct USF reporting and contribution obligations in connection with its
provision of audio bridging services is not warranted.
10. The InterCall Order clarified that both stand-alone and integrated audio bridging service
providers have a direct USF contribution obligation.27 The Commission determined that a uniform
application of USF contribution obligations to all audio bridging service providers will promote the
public interest by establishing a level playing field and encouraging open competition among providers of
audio bridging services.28 Like InterCall, MeetingOne's service allows end users to transmit a call (using
telephone lines), to a point specified by the user (the conference bridge), without change in form or
content of the information as sent and received (voice transmission).29 Like the audio bridging services at
issue in the InterCall Order, MeetingOne's services enable end users to access the bridge by dialing a
toll-free number, allows the end user to interact with the conference bridge and to participate in a
conference call with other callers.3° As discussed below, we conclude that MeetingOne's IP audio
conference services are assessable telecommunications for USF contribution purposes.
11. MeetingOne attempts to distinguish its services from those in the InterCall Order
because it states that its services are provided exclusively over the Internet and do not directly touch or
use telephone lines or the public switched telephone network (PSTN).3' MeetingOne argues that because
its services use IP technology to transmit calls, its services are materially different than other audio
bridging services, and are in fact information services under the Act and Commission precedent.32 We
find that MeetingOne's audio conferencing services are telecommunications subject to direct USF
reporting and contribution obligations. First, MeetingOne's audio bridging service is functionally
identical to the service at issue in the InterCall Order. End users of both services access the provider's
platform by dialing a toll free number that allows the end user to participate in a conference call.
23
24
25 Request for Review at 9.
26 Id.
27JnterCall Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 10739, para. 25.
28
29InterCall Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 10733-35, para. 11.
30 Request for Review at 3.
311d. at2-5.
32 Id. at 9-11 (citing, 47 USC § 153(2); Regulation of Prepaid Calling Card Services, WC Docket No. 05-68,
Declaratory Ruling and Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd. 7290 (2006) (Prepaid Calling Card Order)).
4
Federal Communications Commission DA 11-1841
MeetingOne would have us distinguish its service from the assessable service in the InterCall Order
because MeetingOne employs IP technology to provide part of its service to the end user.
12. We conclude that MeetingOne's use of IP technology in the provision of the audio
conferencing services does not alter our determination that MeetingOne's service is telecommunications
subject to direct USF reporting and contribution obligations. The Commission seven years ago addressed
the issue of the use of TP technology for transmitting a voice call in the IP-in-the-Middle Order, fmding
that AT&T's phone-to-phone telephony services were properly classified as telecommunications services
even though AT&T employed IP technology in the middle of the call path.33 As described in the IF-in-
the-Middle Order, AT&T's services were initiated and terminated in the same manner as a traditional
interexchange call.34 Only the use of IP technology to transport the call over AT&T's Internet backbone
differentiated AT&T's technology from a traditional circuit-switched call.35 As a result, the Commission
found that AT&T's use of IP technology resulted in no net protocol conversion and provided no enhanced
functionality to the end user, and therefore the services were properly classified as telecommunications.36
Similarly, MeetingOne's callers place a call from a traditional phone to a toll-free number; the calls are
converted into IP format by MeetingOne's underlying carrier for interaction with MeetingOne's
conference bridges, and the calls are converted out of IP and delivered to the other participants on the
conference call over the PSTN.37 MeetingOne's offerings, just like AT&T's service, use IP technology
only in the middle of its service, and though routed using different technology than that of a traditional
telephone conferencing call, are functionally identical to the services at issue in the InterCall Order. We
therefore conclude that MeetingOne' s use of IP technology warrants the same result - the underlying
services constitute assessable telecommunications.38
13. MeetingOne also tries to distinguish its services from those at issue in the InterCall
Order by arguing that the PSTN is not a necessary component of its audio conferencing technology,
stating that its audio bridging services also have the capability of supporting direct session initiation
protocol-based (computer-to-computer) connections.39 MeetingOne, however, admits that it does not yet
offer this service.40 Because MeetingOne does not actually offer computer-to-computer audio
conferencing, we decline to address whether this service offering is subject to USF obligations.
14. Finally, MeetingOne argues that its audio bridging service is an information service -
and not a telecommunications service - because it provides customers the ability to record their
conference calls and retrieve them for review at a future time.4' As the Commission found in the
33Petitionfor Declaratory Ruling that AT&T'S Phone-to-Phone IP Telephony Services are Exempt from Access
Charges, WC Docket No. 02-361, 19 FCC Rcd 7457 (2004) (IP-in-the-Middle Order).
341d. at 7457, para. 1.
351d. at 7465, para. 12.
361d See also Implementation of the Non-Accounting Safeguards of Sections 271 and 272 of the Communications
Act of 1934, CC Docket No. 96-149, First Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 11 FCC
Rcd 21905, 21958, para. 106 (1997) ("no net" protocol conversion services constitute telecommunications services,
rather than information services); Prepaid Calling Card Order, 21 FCC Rcd. at 7297, para. 20 (the use of IP
transport in the provision of a prepaid calling card service does not convert that service from a telecommunications
service to an information service).
Request for Review at 3-4, Attach. 2-3.
38 IP-in-the-Middle Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 7465, para. 12. See Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service,
Appeal ofAdministrator 's Decision, Radiant Telecom, Inc., Order, 22 FCC Rcd 11811, 11813, para. 8 (Wireline
Comp. Bureau 2007).
Request for Review at 14.
40Id. at 15.
41 Id. at 10.
Federal Communications Commission BA 11-1841
InterCall Order, such additional features are not sufficient to convert the offering into an information
service.42 In summary, MeetingOne ' s service is functionally identical to the service at issue in the
InterCall Order and, consistent with Commission precedent, its use of 1P technology in the middle of its
offering does not alter our finding that MeetingOne must make direct contributions to the USF based on
revenues derived from this service.
15. If we find that the audio bridging services provided by the company are
telecommunications, MeetingOne asserts that it should not be subject to retroactive USF contributions
because "MeetingOne reasonably determined in good faith" that it was not providing a stand-alone audio
bridging service, as defined in the InterCall Order.43 We conclude that prospective-only application of
MeetingOne's direct USF reporting and contribution obligations in connection with its provision of audio
bridging services is not warranted in this case. Although adjudicatory decisions are generally applied
retroactively,44 prospective-only application may be appropriate if retroactive application would result in
manifest injustice.45 We conclude that nothing in the record supports a finding of manifest injustice in the
instant matter. The industry has been on notice since at least the IF-In-The-Middle Order that the use of
IP technology to transport a call does not transform the call into an information service. Similarly, the
industry has been on notice at least since the InterCall Order that audio bridging service providers have a
direct USF contribution obligation.46 Further, as noted previously, shortly afler the InterCall Order was
released, the Bureau issued a public notice to raise awareness in the industry that audio bridging carriers
were required to file directly with USAC as of August 1, 200 In the InterCall Order, due to perceived
lack of clarity by the industry, the Commission granted prospective application, beginning with fourth
quarter 2008 revenues, of the requirement for stand-alone audio bridging service providers to directly
contribute to USF, and declined to apply the requirement retroactively.48 Here, we find no such lack of
clarity. In fact, we find that MeetingOne's universal service obligations were clear under the precedent
set by the InterCall and IF-in-the-Middle Orders and, as such, MeetingOne is required to contribute to the
Fund beginning with its fourth quarter 2008 revenues. MeetingOne does not identify any unique
circumstances that would support a finding of manifest injustice in the absence of prospective-only
application of our fmdings in this case.
IV. CONCLUSION
16. For the reasons discussed above, we find that that the audio bridging services provided by
MeetingOne are telecommunications subject to direct USF contribution obligations. We also find that
prospective-only application of MeetingOne's direct USF reporting and contribution obligations in
connection with its provision of audio bridging services is not warranted. We therefore deny
MeetingOne's Request for Review.
42lnterCall Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 10735, paras. 12-13. See Prepaid Calling Card Order, 21 FCC Red at 7295,
para. 15.
' Request for Review at 18.
Verizon Telephone Cos. v. FCC, 269 F.3d 1098, 1109 (D.C. Cir. 2001)(Verizon). SeePSCofColo. v. FERC, 91
F.3d 1478, 1488 (D.C. Cir. 1996); Health Ins. Ass'n ofAmerica v. Shalala, 23 F.3d 412, 424 (D.C. Cir. 1994);
Williams Natural Gas Co. v. FERC, 3 F.3d 1544, 1554 (D.C. Cir. 1993).
' Verizon, 269 F.3d at 1109. See Clark-Cowlitz Joint OperatingAgency v. FERC, 826 F.2d 1074, 1081 (D.C. Cir.
1987) (en bane); Consolidated Freightways v. NLRB, 892 F.2d 1052, 1058 (D.C. Cir. 1989).
46jnterCall Order, 23 FCC Red at 10739, para. 26.
Bridging Service Public Notice.
48 InterCall Order, 23 FCC Red at 10738, para. 24
Federal Communications Commission DA 11-1841
V. ORDERING CLAUSES
17. ACCORDiNGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority contained in sections
1-4 and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 151-154 and 254, and
delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291 and 54.722 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 0.91, 0.291, and
54.722, the request for review filed by MeetingOne, Inc. IS DENIED.
18. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petition to stay filed by MeetingOne, Inc. IS
DISMISSED AS MOOT.
19. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to section 1.102(b)(1) of the Commission's
rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.102(b)(1), this order SHALL BE effective upon release.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Sharon E. Gillett
Chief
Wireline Competition Bureau
7