Federal Internet Law & Policy
An Educational Project


Dont be a FOOL; The Law is Not DIY
Page Sections
- Cybercrime
- Muni BB
- - MuniBB Notes
- VoIP

State Links
- Alabama
- Alaska
- Arizona
- Arkansas
- California
- Colorado
- Connecticut
- Delaware
- District of Columbia
- Florida
- Georgia
- Hawaii
- Idaho
- Illinois
- Indiana
- Iowa
- Kansas
- Kentucky
- Louisiana
- Maine
- Maryland
- Massachusetts
- Michigan
- Minnesota
- Mississippi
- Missouri
- Montana
- Nebraska
- Nevada
- New Hampshire
- New Jersey
- New Mexico
- New York
- North Carolina
- North Dakota
- Ohio
- Oklahoma
- Oregon
- Pennsylvania
- Rhode Island
- South Carolina
- South Dakota
- Tennessee
- Texas
- Utah
- Vermont
- Virginia
- Washington
- West Virginia
- Wisconsin
- Wyoming

Municipal Broadband



  • Application for certification filed November 5, 2003  Case 03-581-TP-ACE  Docket
  • PUCO Clarifies Entry Regarding VoIP Services Feb 11, 2004
  • Final Tariffs filed by TWCIS Dec. 24, 2003
  • PUCO Authorizes Time Warner to Provide VoIP Services Ohio PUC Dec 17, 2003
  • In authorizing Time Warner to provide VoIP services, the Commission notes that VoIP is a new technology. The question of whether VoIP services are subject to state and/or federal regulation remains unanswered. The Commission is currently reviewing the jurisdictional and regulatory issues pertaining to VoIP services in Case Number 03-950-TP-COI. Other state commissions, various courts, and the Federal Communications Commission are also exploring these issues.

  •      In its application, Time Warner did not concede that the Commission has jurisdiction and reserved the right to argue that the VoIP services are not subject to federal or state regulation. Time Warner did indicate that, if authorized to provide VoIP services, the company would comply with both the Commission's competitive retail service rules and the minimum telephone service standards.
         The Commission authorized Time Warner to provide VoIP services pending resolution of the Commission's VoIP jurisdictional issue. The Commission stated in its order that until the jurisdictional issues are decided, it would be unfair to penalize Time Warner for notifying the Commission of its intent to offer VoIP services to the public and to substantially comply with the Commission's rules.
  • Minutes of Commission Meeting Dec. 17, 2003
  • "03-2229-TP-ACE Time Warner Cable Information Services (Ohio) LLC (Proposed finding and order) Discussed.  Approval moved and seconded, vote 5-0."
  • December 17, 2003 Entry (OCR)
  • (5) As noted above, the threshold issue in our 03^-950 generic investigation is the Commission's jurisdiction over Vo^lP providers, the resolution of which may be impacted by proceedings in the court system and at the federal level.  Until that threshold jurisdictional issue is decided, it would be unfair to penalize TWCIS for taking affirmative action to notify the Conu^nission of the manner in which it proposes to offer Voll? services to the public and for its good faith effort to substantially comply with our competitive retail service rules and the MTS^S.  Therefore, pending resolution of the threshold jurisdictional issue, we authorize TWCIS to provide IP^-based voice services in the manner set forth in the company's application.  This case shall remain open pending the outcome of the 03^-950 docket.  The decisions that the Commission makes in the 03^-950 docket shall apply to TWCIS.

  • .....
    It is, therefore,
    ORDERED, That TWCIS is authorized to operate in accordance with finding 5. It is, further,
    ORDERED, That the authority to operate afforded TWCIS herein is contingent upon the outcome of the 03^-950 docket and, to that end, this case shall remain open until final resolution of the 03^-950 docket.  The decisions that the Conu^nission makes in the 03^-950 docket shall apply to ^TWCIS.
  • Cablecos Set Sights on VoIP, Xchange February 1, 2004
  • Time Warner Cable reaches VoIP deals CNET Dec 8, 2003
  • News

  • Gahanna, Ohio gets citywide Wi-Fi service, Muni 5/25/2010
  • Ohio internet obscenity statute constitutional, internet cases 4/21/2010