In the October 30, 2025 edition of the ICORE Blog, we reported on a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking adopted by the Commission at its October Open Meeting addressing the interconnection requirements imposed on ILECs under Section 251 of the Telecommunications Act of 1934, as amended. The NPRM is in keeping with the Commission’s efforts to accelerate the transition of communications networks to all-Internet Protocol by reviewing ILEC specific interconnection obligations under Section 251 (c). In the NPRM, the Commission proposes to forbear from the interconnection obligations on ILECs under Section 251 (c)(2) and 251 (c)(6) and the Commission’s related rules by a sunset date of December 31, 2028. Section 251 (c)(2) addresses interconnection with the ILEC network for the exchange of telephone exchange service traffic at any technically feasible point on the ILEC network and requires that the interconnection be at least at a level of quality equal to that provided by the ILEC to itself at rates, terms, and conditions that are in accordance with Section 252. Section 251 (C)(6) covers physical and virtual colocation. Further, comment was sought on what, if any, regulatory framework should replace the current rules under 251 (c) and the Commission’s authority to regulate IP interconnection under any such framework.
Comments have now been filed in this proceeding and numerous parties have responded. NTCA, in its comments, advocates for clear, but “light-touch” rules of the road that create an orderly transition in how voice service provider’s networks interconnect are essential in ensuring that important statutory and public policy objectives continue to be met. Further, any forbearance from existing interconnection rules must be accompanied by a new clearly defined framework that safeguards the continuing reliability and quality of voice communications service across the nation. NTCA states that clearly defined light touch rules of the road for IP interconnection are particularly important to rural customers and the smaller ILEC providers that serve them. The existing rules governing TDM interconnection ensure that interconnection costs are shared equitably which helps to ensure that voice service rates in rural areas remain at affordable levels. In regard to the sunset date of December 31, 2028 as proposed in the NPRM, NTCA suggests that this date should be a goal, not a mandate and the existing rules should not be eliminated until a well-defined regulatory framework for IP interconnection is in place.
NTCA also addressed the question of the Commission’s authority to regulate IP interconnection. As an important initial step in this process, NTCA suggests that the Commission should rule that Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) is an interstate “telecommunications service” and opines that the FCC has the authority under the Act to make this classification. This step would then be foundational to the establishment of a regulatory framework to govern IP interconnection. Further, NTCA proposes that once VoIP service is classified as an interstate telecommunications service, the Commission should forbear from rate regulation of VoIP service.
Regarding the physical interconnection of networks in IP, NTCA offers specific suggestions including a clear default interconnection architecture from which parties can depart from upon agreement. This architecture should operate as a default only option in the absence of an agreed to alternative between the parties and the existing “good faith” negotiating provisions in Section 251 should be preserved. Further, the Commission should establish a general presumption that all parties will offer the ability to interconnect physically in IP at a minimum of one default location in each state where it seeks to originate or terminate calls. In addition, to address special universal service considerations with respect to cost and affordability, the Commission should establish an additional “rural transport rule” applicable to carriers that have universal service obligations. In cases involving an Eligible Telecommunications Company (ETC) a default interconnection location can be established at a mutually agreeable location in the ETC’s designated service area. Providers not wishing to interconnect physically at the default location in a state or at a location in an ETC’s service area would be responsible for the costs of any additional transport to their preferred interconnection point.
WTA – Advocates for Rural Broadband, also filed comments in this proceeding. WTA supports the Commission’s goal of accelerating the transition to all IP networks but cautions that simply forbearing from certain provisions of Section 252 (c) without reinforcing the remaining guardrails could be counterproductive to the Commission’s goal. WTA offers that presently some of the larger ILECs demand that smaller rural providers, that have already upgraded to IP networks, interconnect via TDM which imposes unnecessary costs on rural providers and reduces the incentive for the larger ILECs to upgrade their networks to IP. To address this problem, WTA suggests that the Commission should strengthen the existing rules related to the good faith negotiations that all LECs are required to engage. WTA suggests that IP interconnection is but one element of a myriad of issues that the Commission needs to address and urges the Commission to take a more holistic and coordinated approach in the various rulemaking proceedings touching on IP implementation. Finally, WTA states that to the extent that the solutions developed for IP implementation impose additional costs on rural providers, the Commission must address the provision of financial assistance to small rural carriers for any such unfunded mandates.
Reply comments are due in this proceeding on February 19, 2026. We will continue to follow this important proceeding and will provide updates as more information becomes available.
