- within Technology topic(s)
Advance Innovative Solutions, Inc. ("AIS"), represented by Marashlian & Donahue, PLLC (The CommLaw Group), has filed a Petition with the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") requesting a waiver of the FCC's "one-year deadline" applicable to downward revisions to FCC Form 499-A.
AIS seeks relief in order to correct the regulatory consequences of historical Form 499-A filings that were submitted under circumstances that AIS contends were both unusual and fundamentally inequitable—specifically, where AIS was effectively compelled to enter the Form 499 system to satisfy STIR/SHAKEN-related prerequisites even though AIS does not provide telecommunications or interconnected VoIP services and does not have assessable revenues.
The Petition asks the FCC to waive the "One-Year Downward Revision Rule" and direct USAC to permit AIS to rescind and withdraw its previously submitted Forms 499-A for calendar years 2016 through 2023, treat those worksheets as null and without effect for contribution and surcharge purposes, and update USAC's records accordingly.
Background: What is the "One-Year Downward Revision" deadline?
Under FCC and USAC procedures, filers that submit Form 499-A (the annual Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet used to assess Universal Service Fund and related regulatory obligations) are subject to restrictions on how long they have to submit revisions that would reduce contributions or fees.
AIS's Petition challenges USAC's application of that one-year rule in a specific context: where a company is required to submit multiple historical worksheets for the first time years after the original deadlines, and then is treated as having had only a single, irrevocable chance to get each filing "exactly right," even where the filings were made under classification constraints and without counsel.
Why AIS says waiver is warranted
1. AIS argues it was pulled into a "regulatory paradox" driven by STIR/SHAKEN requirements
AIS describes itself as a software company that provides healthcare workflow automation products—Rx-Call and Dial-a-Script—used by pharmacies and other healthcare providers. AIS explains that any voice or fax pathway in its platforms is used only as a delivery mechanism for software-generated informational outputs and automated workflows, and that AIS's services are properly classified as information services under federal law.
Despite having no assessable telecommunications revenues and no USF contribution obligation, AIS explains it became entangled in STIR/SHAKEN compliance expectations communicated by an upstream supplier, creating pressure to obtain the credentials needed to avoid call blocking or degradation.
2. AIS explains iconectiv / STI-GA prerequisites effectively forced USAC registration
AIS states that, to satisfy STIR/SHAKEN-related requirements, it was advised it needed to obtain an SPC Token through iconectiv. During that process, AIS learned that issuance of the necessary certificate/token was conditioned on proof of USAC registration—specifically, obtaining a Form 499 Filer ID and filing Form 499-A—even where the applicant has no assessable telecom revenues.
AIS argues this creates a "square peg/round hole" problem: entities outside the contribution regime are pushed into Form 499 filing due to external administrative gatekeeping tied to call authentication compliance.
3. AIS attributes its original Form 499-A filing error to E-File classification constraints
AIS states that, without counsel, it proceeded to file Form 499-A to satisfy the iconectiv/STI-GA prerequisites. In doing so, AIS encountered a structural constraint: the E-File system required selection of a telecommunications activity classification (Line 105), even though AIS contends it does not provide telecommunications or VoIP and the available options did not provide an accurate category for AIS's posture.
AIS states it mistakenly selected "Interconnected VoIP," and that this selection reflected both lack of familiarity with FCC classifications and the absence of a clear fit for an information service provider with an integrated voice element.
4. AIS describes a "misclassification cascade," including penalties, interest, and surcharges
AIS explains that the erroneous selection led to downstream consequences, including USAC treatment of AIS as a contributor for prior years and resulting assessments. AIS reports it incurred approximately $57,000 in penalties and interest for late-filed Forms 499-A, along with liability for TRS, LNP, and NANP surcharges (while USF contributions were not imposed due to de minimis status).
AIS states that once it received invoices revealing the consequences, it acted promptly to investigate and correct the record and obtained legal guidance confirming its services are information services rather than VoIP or telecommunications offerings.
Key legal arguments raised in the Petition
A. The one-year rule was intended for revisions to already-filed worksheets—not first-time historical filings
AIS argues that the FCC's one-year deadline was adopted to address revisions to worksheets that had already been filed, and to balance error correction against administrative finality. AIS contends USAC's approach improperly collapses two different situations into one by treating late first-time historical filings as though they were discretionary "true ups" of already-filed worksheets.
AIS also argues applying the rule to first-time historical filings produces an "absurd and unintended outcome," effectively creating a strict "one strike" regime for late filers that the FCC did not intend.
B. Strict application of the rule would impose substantial hardship
AIS argues waiver is also warranted due to hardship and equity considerations, citing FCC precedent evaluating the nature of the error, steps taken to correct it, and the hardship that would result from strict enforcement.
AIS emphasizes it paid the invoices pursuant to the FCC's pay-and-dispute policy before filing the Petition and has made repeated efforts to correct the record.
C. Enforcing the rule would lock in regulatory obligations tied to non-assessable revenues
AIS argues that because it does not and has never offered interconnected VoIP or telecommunications services, applying the rule rigidly would perpetuate contribution and surcharge treatment based on non-assessable revenues—an outcome AIS argues is inconsistent with the contribution framework the Form 499 process is intended to administer.
What happens next?
The Petition has been filed with the FCC, and stakeholders should monitor for the FCC's issuance of a Public Notice placing the Petition on public notice and opening a pleading cycle for comment.
At that stage, interested parties may have an opportunity to file comments in support of the waiver request, particularly providers that have experienced similar difficulties caused by STIR/SHAKEN-related administrative prerequisites that effectively require Form 499 registration even where no contribution obligation exists.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
