Vonage to Fight Regulation

A new species duckling should be regulated with a nurturing hand.

said by rshoch:

---

A new species duckling should be regulated with a nurturing hand.

---

"Nurturing regulation"? Sounds like a contradiction in terms, to me.

Yea, heavy-handed regulators are most likely the norm.
Yet effective parents, teachers, coaches, and managers do nurture.

This reminds me of the trials and tribulations dialPad went through a few years ago.

said by rshoch:

---

A new species duckling should be regulated with a nurturing hand.

---

... well, they are doing it with a neutering hand ...

There's nothing like Gov to kill an up and coming industy.
If MN PUC only problem is E-911 then Vonage can simpley not offer it there or just taken 911 off their feature list.

More than anything else though I see this as the state seeing green and going full bore to get some extra income.
Problem there is Vonage and in fact all VOIP compaines are nothing like your ILEC/CLEC setup.

More over the ILEC's are affaied that VOIP will take off and they will be stuck with outdate hardware. Which infact may happen but it will be sometime, 5 or so yours atleast until anything close to that happens.

Dear MN PUC please go fish somewhere else our pond is very
young.

ym
Spell check not included

It's just a matter of time before all governing state bodies get involved it this matter. The excuse used will be brought upon us by those enlightened(yeah sure) socialist consumers (i.e. consumers federation of america) who want to be protected from the evil capitalists, and the govt. claiming to protect the people from the shortcomings of the companies. while the govts. really only want to tax the new evil capitalists. they do it to all businesses, and they'll do it to vonage and any other innovator.

First, I am a big proponent of VoIP and have a vested interest through my career to insure its success. However, the VoIP industry does need to address some issues that have far reaching implications in our society if these roadblocks to growth are ever to be put to bed.

First we can't dismiss the concept of Universal Service. Universal Service has been upheld by numerous courts over the years and is certainly not going to go away for VoIP. This issue is that those in remote rural areas have the same right at the same cost to telephone service as those in highly dense urban environments. Also who supplies phone service to those below the poverty line that obviously can't afford broadband??

Further, local 911 services are financed through your phone bill. As someone has to pay for this a policy decision needs to be made of whether your state taxes will be increased to pay for the 911 centers or will it will be subsidized by the service be it VoIP or otherwise.

If VoIP is to ever take significant market share from traditional telecom, we must as an industry propose a solution to these problems to insure that VoIP doesn't go the way of Napster.

said by lestat99:

---

If VoIP is to ever take significant market share from traditional telecom, we must as an industry propose a solution to these problems to insure that VoIP doesn't go the way of Napster.

---

Solutions, thats exactly what VoIP can do.

911 I think can be solved to where the Government doesnt need us all to pay, either the Broadband phone company will pick it up, or it can be added to a line for a small charge. Caller ID name has been done like this by some VoIP companies.

LNP needs to be solved, and the IP providers can do this.

The problem of domestic Long distance has been solved, as has the static nature of the "area code".

These problems are really the PSTN, but I think the true adaptation of VoIP will happen much, much faster if they help solve what the billion dollar behemoths refuse to.

But I think the mistake that Vonage and others are making is taking the stance of "hey where not a phone" leave us alone. Entering into discussions to resolve these and other issues is the only way to insure the long term survival of VoIP. There is always a middle ground.

While none of us like "surcharges" on our VoIP bill I am also sure that none of us would like to have 911 service go away especially that one time you may need it.

Universal Access is also something that has to be provided for the good of the society as a whole. This is not a technical issue but a financial issue.

IMHO, Vonage should add these fees to the bill and move on.

I agree the is a middle point. People are more concerned with there being "no going back" once any State or Federal agency steps in on VoIP. Perhaps there are problems with the act of regulation itself independent to VoIP. (I'm guessing some agreements will follow that one).

I think today, if I had to I could get 911 solved without the center ever knowing you called from Vonage. Any VoIP provider including ones that dont touch the PSTN could use this. But if the Government forces these companies to offer 911 exactly like Bell does, they almost have to change the name and start a new company. Its that drastic of an action.

"First we can't dismiss the concept of Universal Service. Universal Service has been upheld by numerous courts over the years and is certainly not going to go away for VoIP. This issue is that those in remote rural areas have the same right at the same cost to telephone service as those in highly dense urban environments. Also who supplies phone service to those below the poverty line that obviously can't afford broadband??"

Well thats a good point there. Vonage and other VOIP providers can say simple oh wellllll. Thats what makes VOIP so differnt from a CLEC. Hell even the ILEC's ssy ohwell to the poverty, that live in east bubble *&*(. with broadband.

Plus we all know the USF has been a slush fund for the ILEC's for YEARS and it really needs to go. It will never happen but hell atleast I said it.

You know I was just looking through my Cell bill just to guess what would happen if say MN PUC wins its fight and reg's Vonage.

My cell bill has close to 40 dollars on it of nothing more than TAX!!!. Now lets take that and apply it to say vonages 40 dollars unlimited plan. Yup you did you math right its 80 bucks. At the price range Guess what. The ILEC's pricing is about 11.50 cheaper.

Really makes you wonder just how dirty the RBOC's are willing to play to kill the little guy, oh and at the same time begging for more relaxed reguation for themselves.

At some point this will all end up in court or god forbid congress and FCC. The two places that have the least forthsight on tech and for alot of them how to even turn on a computer much less have any clue what VOIP is. All they will here is that CHA CHING in their wasted minds and vote to reg VOIP. Its sad but if it gets that far I'm almost postive it will happen.

ym

I think that there is a middle ground here.

VoIP should be the impetus to point out the problems with the current system and how things are financed. Problem is that none of the VoIP providers are even recognizing these issues. The "we are not a phone" argument is doomed to loose. Have you read this:

»www.puc.state.mn.us/docs ··· 0096.pdf

Vonage's argument is very weak to say the least.

Personally, I wouldn't mind paying a reasonable fee for universal service and 911. I agree with you however that the current tax structure has a significant amount of waste built in and needs to be addressed.

I looked at the briefing page, and I'm SHOCKED.

First, the Staff uses an "imaginary" conversation with Vonage (their own description of it!) to justify the action here. Heck, if that constitutes "evidence", I'll imagine a conversation with the Staff in which Staff says "since we really like the Qwest lobbyists and they give us hams & whiskey at Christmas, we're going to do their bidding here and shut Vonage down." It wouldn't be evidence, but I guess it passes the Staff test for validity.

Second, MCI, to its credit (and perhaps recalling its own early days) says that the "jurisdiction" issue should be handled in a fair and open hearing. Instead, the Staff said, and the Commission agreed, that they would just decide the most important issue in the case without evidence, without a full hearing, and without careful consideration.

Why did they make that decision? One can only conclude that the Staff and the Commission realized that on a complete hearing record, with a fair chance, Vonage might prevail--and that COULD NOT happen if Qwest was to be kept happy!

The Minnesota Commission used to have a reputation for fairness and forward thinking--to bad they've lost it.

Calvoiper

said by youngmoore:

---

My cell bill has close to 40 dollars on it of nothing more than TAX!!!. Now lets take that and apply it to say vonages 40 dollars unlimited plan. Yup you did you math right its 80 bucks. At the price range Guess what. The ILEC's pricing is about 11.50 cheaper.

---

In other words, Vonage is NOT cheaper service than traditional telco offerings.

If adding the taxes to the Vonage phone bill makes it $11.50 more than the ILEC phone bill, then removing the taxes from the ILEC phone bill would make the ILEC bill $11.50 less than the Vonage Bill:

Vonage + TAX          = ILEC + $11.50
       - TAX                          - TAX
             - $11.50        - $11.50
-------------------------------------------
Vonage       - $11.50 = ILEC          - TAX

If the only economic advantage to Vonage is avoidance of telecom taxation, then its real economic advantage is not all that compelling.

think you might have miss understood me there.
I said I had about 40 in tax on my cell bill,

Where Vonage makes good is all the features that you get that are all bundled in for either 25.99 for local and 500 min LD or 40 for unlimited.

If you put all those features on a telco line plus LD it cost ALOT more money. Plus you have people that don't want to have anything to do with a ILEC, maybe from bad CS or over billing or pick one. Those people can simple "if they have cable HSI" add a phone line at a low cost.

ym

said by youngmoore:

---

think you might have miss understood me there.
I said I had about 40 in tax on my cell bill,

Where Vonage makes good is all the features that you get that are all bundled in for either 25.99 for local and 500 min LD or 40 for unlimited.

If you put all those features on a telco line plus LD it cost ALOT more money. Plus you have people that don't want to have anything to do with a ILEC, maybe from bad CS or over billing or pick one. Those people can simple "if they have cable HSI" add a phone line at a low cost.

ym

---

I understood you quite well.

My point is that a significant portion of the pricing advantage for Vonage over the typical ILEC are all the charges it does not have to include on the bill. That is an artificial phenomenon that is a consequence of the regulatory landscape and not due to any particular structural efficiency of VoIP.

This gives rise in my mind to several questions:

1. If Vonage is offering services competitive to regulated telco services, on what basis should it be exempt from the legal requirement to include the various charges attached by law to regulated telco services?
   
2. If VoIP vendors are exempted from these charges, on what basis do we not exempt traditional ILECs?
   
3. If Vonage does include these various charges, is it still a compelling alternative to traditional ILEC offerings?
   
4. If VoIP vendors are exempted from the burdens of supporting 911 and other mandated services, how do we as a society ensure the viability of these systems?
   
5. Given that viable telecommunications can literally be a matter of life or death at times, if Vonage and other VoIP vendors can only guarantee as much uptime as a particular ISP, will increased use of VoIP bring additional responsibility to ISPs to ensure 24x7x365 availability?
   

While ILECs have a great many sins to answer for, and while the idea of an upstart VoIP vendor such as Vonage delivering to the ILECs a much-needed comeuppance is tantalizing, we must not forget that, regardless of their misdeeds, ILECs provide a good deal more than simple dialtone. There is indeed much that is wrong about the way ILECs do business, but there is also much that is right about the infrastructure they maintain. If Vonage and other VoIP vendors are to succeed in the long run, they must either assume a portion of the burden of maintaining this infrastructure or provide viable alternatives.

Ok here goes

1. Now what exists is a classification of information service. Email is information service therefore un regulated. Because one or more call legs is IP the case of information service is made. correct ot not, I make no judgment.

2.Ilecs are common carriers, state certified utilities and own a "plant" with "loop". VoIP is none of above.

3.In my mind, yes and very much so.

4. Innovation happens daily because of markets with VoIP, not government. I assure you that 911 will not only work with VoIP, someone will make it all the better.

5.I point out that the Ilec makes no such claim, nor holds any liability to 911. Read the Ilec 9-1-1 tariff in your state.

You should see this thread »The Battle for VoIP in the US

This gives rise in my mind to several questions:

1)If Vonage is offering services competitive to regulated telco services, on what basis should it be exempt from the legal requirement to include the various charges attached by law to regulated telco services?
a)One factor is that the company and for that matter tech has only been "really" main stream for a year. Its been in the smaller Devlopmental stages until now. What would have happend if we did the same thing to ATT with no grants and slapped taxes on them and the taxpers? I can tell you that the ILEC's we see now wouldn't be around either at all or not as they are.

b)Vonage is a privetly held company

c)Since VOIP rides on data not copper thats another one.

2) If VoIP vendors are exempted from these charges, on what basis do we not exempt traditional ILECs?
a)Gov grants, right of ways, deployment grants USF slush funds FCC charge funds etc etc etc. All those go right back into the ILEC's pocket to use for whatever they wish. Humm bob think I will buy a new BMW today the I got last week just isn't doing it for me anymore <sarcasm>

3)If Vonage does include these various charges, is it still a compelling alternative to traditional ILEC offerings?
a)Only to those I would think that don't like the ILEC's, others can add there own reasons.

4)If VoIP vendors are exempted from the burdens of supporting 911 and other mandated services, how do we as a society ensure the viability of these systems?
a)The current pay they get via your cell and telo bill pays for it now.

Given that viable telecommunications can literally be a matter of life or death at times, if Vonage and other VoIP vendors can only guarantee as much uptime as a particular ISP, will increased use of VoIP bring additional responsibility to ISPs to ensure 24x7x365 availability?
a)One would hope but I don't see that happening anytime soon.
b) even a T1 or DS3 to a gov agency only has a SLA for 99.7% and your lucky if you see that.

c)Again VOIP is just now coming out to main stream. If the gov chooses to jump down their throats and tax them then I don't see any VOIP staying around long enough to really devlop and grow.
Think of it another way. What if you being the tax man walked up to the write bothers and said ok I'm going to tax you for every foot you fly and then I'm going to tax you for all the time you don't fly. Its kinda like that VOIP is a great "service" but its not anything close to what the ILEC's have.

d)Per the MN PUC they state that vonage has 40,000 lines active. Thats really not allot of lines if you think about it. Bellsouth alone in some tiny town here in Ga has that much.

e)Another example is VPN. When MS first started talking about it we were all like ya we need that etc etc
and then the ILEC's got well "upset" cause it would, to a point kill off their frame relay cash cow. The gov didn't reg VPN and now we have a great service that even the novice can setup and enjoy. We on the busniess side can cut costs by not having to just frame relay anymore etc. But what would have happend if the Gov did step per the ILEC's request and taxed it or tried to something in the way that hindered the devlopment of VPN at the time? We probley wouldn't have it.

I mean really this list can go on and on with different was of looking at it but at this point I think for MN PUC its all about the green they see with regualting VOIP in their state.

Ok so thats all i got can say I'm just to tired at this point. Other feel free to chim in with pro and cons

ym
Spell check SO not included

said by youngmoore:

---

Spell check SO not included

---

Your arrogance and refusal to take minimal steps to clean up your posts creates difficulty for others and gets in the way of your message.

Do you flatter yourself by thinking that we are all SO interested in what you have to say we will ignore your deliberate intention to make reading it difficult? If you do, you're wrong.

Calvoiper

no actaully I just suck at spelling.
have a nice day

ym

said by pkust:

---

I understood you quite well.

My point is that a significant portion of the pricing advantage for Vonage over the typical ILEC are all the charges it does not have to include on the bill. That is an artificial phenomenon that is a consequence of the regulatory landscape and not due to any particular structural efficiency of VoIP.

---

You may be able to make the case that what you say is true for residential. Business users, international users, and heavy longdistance users would still save money if Vonage kept its current price but added fees and taxes.

You also have the savings that happen as a direct result of out of area code numbers. Think about the fact that I can go to South Africa and you can call me for the cost of a local call. I dare say if implemented on a mass scale, the cost savings to consumers could be billions per year. If you think its extreme, look at what the cost of a call to Iraq is with Sprint and AT&T. It doesnt take to many calls to pay for Vonage even with fees.

said by youngmoore:

---

I said I had about 40 in tax on my cell bill

---

How did you end up with $40 in taxes?

Taxes
Federal Tax 3.92
Cobb County Sales Tax - Services & Usage 1.20
Georgia State Sales Tax - Services & Usage 4.90
Georgia State Sales Tax - Non-Telecom 0.58
Cobb County Sales Tax - Non-Telecom 0.14
Cobb County Wireless 911 Surcharge 3.00
Surcharges & Fees
Federal Universal Service Fund 2.91
Federal E911 1.20
Federal Wireless Number Pooling And Portability 3.30
Taxes, and Surcharges & Fees 2.58
13.71
Total 37.44

What's the $13.71? You've identified each charge but that.

Calvoiper

Was just another change under the Surcharges, I must have left that colum out or something.

ym

said by lestat99:

---

(snip)
First we can't dismiss the concept of Universal Service. Universal Service has been upheld by numerous courts over the years and is certainly not going to go away for VoIP. This issue is that those in remote rural areas have the same right at the same cost to telephone service as those in highly dense urban environments. Also who supplies phone service to those below the poverty line that obviously can't afford broadband??
(snip)

---

Anytime some service is declared by the government to be "Universal" or an "Entitlement", I believe that service should be nationalized as a not-for-profit government agency. The problem we run into now is that for things, like the telephone, we are taxed to pay for the underprivilege/underserved but there is no real accountability for those fees plus the provider still has shareholders and a profit motive. As Teletruth has reported, the current USF fee is free money to the telco's to basically do with as they please. They can jack up their service rates for greater profit and shareholder value and then require the taxpayers to pay a higher USF fee. As a government agency, it will certainly not be any better in terms of service but the service would have to be provided "at cost".

The real solution is to eliminate this whole concept of "Universal Service" and let the market forces come into play. If you live in a rural area, you are going to pay more for service but what you save in urban property taxes and lower home prices as well as the quality of life (ie. crime, pollution, density) is the trade-off.

said by n2jtx:

---

The real solution is to eliminate this whole concept of "Universal Service" and let the market forces come into play. If you live in a rural area, you are going to pay more for service but what you save in urban property taxes and lower home prices as well as the quality of life (ie. crime, pollution, density) is the trade-off.

---

I agree, we may have had a need for USF at one time but we are well past that now.

...and it doesn't much help the original concept now.

California, believe it or not, still has vast areas without any telephone service--areas where there is no local phone company. USF should be funding the provision of service to these areas--instead it's both a slush fund for the telcos and an overall cover for various "wealth redistribution" schemes--ones which hit not the rich, but instead hit everyone who has a phone, unless you fall into one of the various "identified need" groups where you get price breaks or free service. (We don't need to go further into the make up of these qualifications--let's just say that they are thought by some to have definite political goals.)

Calvoiper

said by n2jtx:

---

The real solution is to eliminate this whole concept of "Universal Service" and let the market forces come into play.

---

Explain that to the Senator from Alaska.

It will never happen.

Yeah, the state that is so rich it doesn't impose taxes, but rather gives all residents an annual "rebate", needs the rest of the US to support their phone service.

What arrogant hoo-hockey.

Calvoiper

(What's that? They have been so profligate with their spending that they might have to impose some slight taxes from now on? OK--change my comment "the state that gets over 80% of its revenue from oil, rather than taxes" and my argument is the same.)

"First we can't dismiss the concept of Universal Service. Universal Service has been upheld by numerous courts over the years and is certainly not going to go away for VoIP. This issue is that those in remote rural areas have the same right at the same cost to telephone service as those in highly dense urban environments. Also who supplies phone service to those below the poverty line that obviously can't afford broadband??"

All those ancient regulations should be eliminated, the sooner the better.

said by youngmoore:

---

There's nothing like Gov to kill an up and coming industy.
If MN PUC only problem is E-911 then Vonage can simpley not offer it there or just taken 911 off their feature list.

---

Without 911, Vonage is an inadequate replacement for a primary telephone line, which automatically relegates Vonage to a niche role in the telecom industry.

While I am excited about VoIP's potential to transform the telecommunications industry, I do not want that transformation to include a disruption of the 911 system, or a diminution of people's access to that system. 911 saves lives, and anything which might disrupt its functioning needs to be examined under a microscope.

said by youngmoore:

---

If MN PUC only problem is E-911 then Vonage can simpley not offer it there or just taken 911 off their feature list.

---

911 is not an optional service, it is a required service that must be provided without exception. Federal Law requires that all telephones must have access to 911 (Pub. L. 106-81, Sec. 2, Oct. 26, 1999, 113 Stat. 1286), this law is known as "Wireless Communications and Public Safety Act of 1999" (47 USC Sec. 615); which was implemented by the FCC by the adoption of order FCC 01-351 (»hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_ ··· 51A1.pdf) on November 29, 2001 which required the transition to use of 911 as the national emergency number by September 11, 2002.

The governing body for the 911 system standards is the National Emergency Number Association their guidance on the matter is: service parity is a basic objective; every potential 9-1-1 caller should have the same likelihood of a successful 9-1-1 call connection, regardless of the source of the call, whether from an ILEC, a CLEC, an ISP, or a wireless carrier ( »www.nena9-1-1.org/9-1-1T ··· plan.htm ) Please note that they very clearly included ISPs along with ILECs and CLECs.

The FCC in all its glorious bureaucracy has already ruled that transmissions over data lines are not telecommunications. Makes it hard to regulate the VOIP industry without changing that.

said by uniquecp:

---

The FCC in all its glorious bureaucracy has already ruled that transmissions over data lines are not telecommunications. Makes it hard to regulate the VOIP industry without changing that.

---

Unique, you have raised what I think to be a most compelling legal conundrum relative to this issue. I suspect the MN PUC will contend that the line is not the cause of communication but the phone and server connected to it however it would appear that your implication opens the proverbial Pandora's Box for cable IP Providers, the Government as well as Vonage. I suspect if the aforementioned choose to ignore the implications of this case clearly the RBOC's will not!

But again, in total fairness these calls arent all data.

Vonage is not local phone service. It is just an interface (a phone number) between your broadband and analog phones. For VoIP to VoIP connections, the phone number is superfluous.

Universal service will always be slightly controversial. Until telephones were invented, no one had a "right" to phone service. In rural areas manufactured goods are usually more expensive due to distance, sparse competition, and lack of scale.

To get DSL, you already are forced to buy local phone service from SBC (or your provider basically is), so Vonage is only good if you need more "lines".

Only people with small businesses, cable modems and no phone line really can make good use of Vonage. Any regulatory action of an industry with so much against it smells of anticompetive practices.

So why can't Vonage simply say "We don't offer 911", "Don't use our service without a regular phone line."? I put it in as a second and third line for fax, I still have a phone line from the local telco.

One item that may help Vonage's defense is if they remove their slogan "The Broadband Phone Company". It will be very difficult for them to argue in a court of law that they aren't a phone company and shouldn't be regulated as such when their own website labels them a Phone Company.

One also has to realize that while VoIP is niche today and doesn't have the reliability and uptime of the PSTN this is bound to change. The problem is that any legal precedent set today has to take into the account the larger implications as VoIP grows in market share.

[text was edited by author 2003-08-24 17:03:55]

[text was edited by author 2003-08-24 17:04:48]

Yes, the marketing pukes have decreed that Vonage has to pretend that it's a direct competitor to the RBOCs, and that means that Vonage is a little less-than-honest about 9-1-1, it seems....

Too bad. Over hyping hurts so many good ideas....

Calvoiper

The government needs to do more in the tech sector than what it is now? I mean all we here about is bad news regarding new stuff that comes out that pretty much limits its growth (read:DSL deployment).

I think the USA spends more money/resources on how to kill a person faster and cheaper than on the internet/ tech fields. What is freakin wrong with this picture?

You guys ever read Pop Science? You read about a new cool jet engine/robot/computer/etc then you see its being build by the Army or Navy. *rolls eyes*

/end rant

The method of transport is not what is in question in this case. The end product (service) is telephone service. There is no denying that. If you try to say otherwise, you are being silly. The only fair solution is to deregulate all services offered by Vonage for the ILECs and other providers as well. Then it will be a level playing field. Do this in every market served by Vonage.
As far as eliminating the universal service requirement- I think a lot of people out in the sticks might have something to say about that. But hey, they chose to live there right?

they wont be happy til they get voip with all the plethora of surcharges, taxes and BS fees that our telephones have now.

Let's assume Vonage is a phone company and should be regulated like a phone company.

What would Vonage be forced to do? I don't think it's all about taxes and fees. Aren't the phone companies required to provide everyone service? How can Vonage do this when only about half of America can get the HSI that Vonage requires?

In my opinion, even if Vonage is a phone company, they will never be able to comply with the regulations imposed on phone companies because too much of the equation is out of their control. Therefore, how can they be a phone company?

CLECs are not required to provide everyone service, they can pick and choose. They can serve just businesses if they want to.

Think of VoIP more like Cellular service, is everyone covered? Can you use it everywhere? Is it subject to lifeline requirements? What are the Service Level Agreements if any?

As those in the blackout found out, you can lose your cell service, want phone service that is required to keep on working or have specific intervals of restoration? Keep a landline.

In a big disaster the landlines get busied out anyway, someday the best of both worlds will come together, packet voice, no busy signal, cheap AND reliable.

Any truth to the rumor that the Minnesota PUC will soon be erecting a 5,000 pound stone tablet in its lobby that will contain the 10 rules of providing 9-1-1 in the RBOC model?

I haven't gotten all of the rules yet, but here are some:

1. I am the RBOC your voice provider, and you shall have no other voice provider than me.

2. Thou shalt not speak ill of the RBOC.

3. Remember that your copper pair is special, and use it for all your communications needs, no matter how inconvenient.

Calvoiper

I have tried a number of times to contact Vonage by telephone. The only thing I got was just like calling the cable company here: All of our sales reps are busy with other callers please email us by logging on to our website or by emailing: *******@company.whatever . With the normal phone companies you dont have to email them. just wait on hold and get right threw. That's an upside for the Bells. Also Vonage will only sell you service if you have a major credit card. Many people do not believe in using a credit card because of debit of they can not get approved for one. And for E-911 service I have had to use the service a number of times for emergencies. I like the idea of having 911 when I need it instead of calling the local police, fire or EMS station for help.

Personally, I'm tired of all the arguing about whether VoIP should follow the same rules as LECs.

1) If anyone can deny that the regulations in this country are often out-dated and sometimes plain rediculous, please step forward. Change is desperately needed. Don't kill innovation just because you want a piece of the pie and didn't find a way to get involved in the beginning. That's mostly what is wrong with regulation. It comes afterwards, after everything is working fine without it. They step in to collect on the work they didn't do. Greed, ciphoning, money-sucking leeches, and parasites are a few words that come to mind.

2) Let's also not forgot who is being paid for use of and charging taxes and other fees on the pipes that carry the voice over the data. Most, if not all of the physcial cabling that is actually taking up 'residence' in each state across the country is owned by either the telcos or the cable companies. These guys are already paying taxes and other regulatory fees, etc on these lines. They are then passing the bill to the ISPs, who lease out these lines. In return, the costs incurred by the ISP determines the price that ISP will charge for it's services.

So please explain to me, why you now want to tack on more taxes on the end user?

Leave the state and regulatory taxes on the cabling that exists physically in those states, etc. The charges will filter through the system, until each has taken on a portion of the burden. Then, based on the costs incurred and variable of Supply and Demand, the final costs to the customer (whether home or business) can be determined by the provider.

May the best price-to-service prevail!

NOW STOP DOUBLE TAXING EVERYTHING UNCLE SAM!!!!

Vote for smaller government!