Reply comments were recently filed in Docket 25-208, the FCC’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Notice) in which it proposes an industry-wide transition to ending incumbent Local Exchange Carrier (ILEC) interconnection obligations by the end of 2028. The FCC’s goal – eliminate all time division multiplexed (TDM interconnection for voice services and move the industry to an all-Internet protocol (IP) network. Specifically, the Commission is proposing the following:
To forbear from the interconnection and related obligations imposed on incumbent LECs under sections 251(c)(2) and (c)(6) of the Telecommunications Act, and the Commission’s rules implementing those provisions by a sunset date of December 31, 2028.
Section 251(c)(2) imposes on incumbent LECs the duty to provide, for the facilities and equipment of any requesting “telecommunications carrier,” direct interconnection with its network “for the transmission and routing of telephone exchange service and exchange access” at “any technically feasible point within the carrier’s network” that is at least equal in quality to that provided by the LEC to itself or its subsidiaries, on rates, terms, and conditions that are just, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory.
Section 251(c)(6) imposes on incumbent LECs the duty to provide for “physical collocation of equipment necessary for interconnection or access to unbundled network elements at the premises of the local exchange carrier,” on rates, terms, and conditions that are just, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory.
In their comments and reply comments the entire industry is in full agreement that we must move to an all-IP network. As usual, however, the devil is in the details. ILECs strongly support the Commission’s proposals. USTelecom – The Broadband Association notes that all three of the requirements for forbearance have been satisfied for interconnection.
As to the first prong, the Commission’s Section 251 rules need not remain in place to guarantee that carriers’ charges or practices are just and reasonable. The voice service marketplace is fundamentally different from when Congress enacted Section 251(c) in 1996; indeed, incumbent LECs in December 2024 had only about 2.7% of total voice connections, down from the 3.1% figure in June 2024 cited in the NPRM. This market shift undermines the rationale that existed in 1996 for imposing asymmetric interconnection burdens on incumbent LECs, as incumbent LECs today lack the kind of market share that could provide either the ability or the incentive to extract high prices or engage in discriminatory conduct against other providers — consumers today can freely migrate to countless other competitive voice providers.
As to the second forbearance prong, enforcement of Section 251(c) here is not necessary for consumer protection. Rather than safeguarding consumers, the current regulatory framework undermines that protection by requiring carriers to divert capital toward maintaining legacy facilities rather than investing in and innovating the advanced IP-based networks and services consumers prefer.
Finally, as to the third prong, the record supports that forbearance is consistent with the public interest. Beyond cost savings, end-to-end IP networks, which require IP interconnection, unlock capabilities that legacy networks cannot match — including NG911, encrypted communications, and more effective mechanisms to combat illegal robocalling. (Docket 25-208, USTelecom Reply Comments, filed February 19, 2026, at pp. 11-12.)
ILEC competitors see the interconnection world very differently. They note the power imbalance between ILECs and their competitors in TDM interconnection and worry that it will continue in the IP environment. Competitors provide a litany of ILEC interconnection abuses. For example, Bandwidth notes,
“Near-continuous” price increases across the country for DS1/3s needed for TDM interconnection with ILECs, including increases of 45% approximately every 90 days that have increased Bandwidth’s monthly costs with just one ILEC from $30,000 in January 2024 to $467,000 in November 2025. (Docket 25-208, Bandwidth Comments, filed January 20, 2026, at pp. 6-7).
INCOMPAS agrees,
AT&T tariffed charges for TDM interconnection related services of $508 for Mux services and $74 for a T-1 connection in January 2020 increasing to $34,166 and $13,513 respectively in December 2025 and Frontier price increases from $684 for Mux services and $255 for T-1 connections in January 2020 and $162,889 and $51,145 respectively in December 2025. (Docket 25-208, INCOMPAS Comments filed January 20, 2026, at footnote 11).
That is why commenters such as the Competitive Carriers Association (CCA) claim that forbearance is not warranted and ‘retention of Sections 251(c)(2) and (6) are necessary to ensure that ILEC practices are just and reasonable and are not unjustly or unreasonably discriminatory, to protect consumers, and to reflect and protect the public interest.” However, CCA states that.
any forbearance in this proceeding should be conditioned on the Commission taking action to ensure ongoing connectivity and to protect against discrimination in the new all-IP world. Such Commission action should be accompanied by additional multistakeholder collaboration, the establishment of a new light touch regime to govern IP interconnection, and adequate protections for emergency communications and for connectivity in rural areas. Any other course of action would run counter to the Telecommunications Act and undermine the benefits of universal connectivity that Americans rely upon and enjoy. (Docket 25-208, CCA Reply Comments, filed February 19, 2026, at p. 7).
The battle over interconnection is likely to continue to be very divisive, and wind up decided by the courts, especially if the Commission carries through with forbearance of the interconnection rules. Expect an Order to arrive later this year.