FCC Needs VoIP AgendaRegulatory issues grow louder ( old news - 05:07PM Wednesday Oct 15 2003) tags: fcc · VoIP With the states pushing to regulate VoIP, the FCC begins dropping hints at how they'll handle the situtation. In a recent interview over at CNET, Powell was somewhat vague about how the FCC will handle the state push to have VoIP providers adhere to the same guidelines as telcos. As the industry looked on, Powell seemed less than sure of his own course of action. "We'll probably initiate something to look at it this fall," the FCC chief says. "But let me emphasize that we're going to look at it. That doesn't say what we're going to do about it. We only know that it's a growing issue." Over the past few weeks, other FCC insiders have been only hinting at a possible agenda. According to Light Reading, the FCC will host a forum next month to better explore the issue. Christopher Libertelli, Powell's senior legal advisor, recently noted that VoIP is delivered in three different ways (via private networks, over networks that touch the public switched telephone network (PSTN), and via peer-to-peer networks); the FCC considering different guidelines for each delivery method. Commissioner Kevin Martin shared concerns at the U.S. Telecom Associations conference (see this second Light Reading story) that VoIP providers to work over the PSTN should contribute to the Universal Service Fund. Competitors like Ztel have recently dubbed VoIP providers as "the ultimate free riders", claiming they don't contribute to the USF and should be heavily regulated. VoIP providers like Vonage argue they have always paid toward the USF, going so far to itemize the "regulatory fee" on recent customer bills to fend off critics. The states, eager to tap into a potential tax base and worried about the reliability of E-911 services, have likewise been pushing for regulation. Jeff Pulver (Founder of Free World Dial-up and co-founder of Vonage) indicates in our forums that Oregon is the latest state pushing for regulation of a VoIP provider. Debates almost continuously rage in our VoIP forum; the latest centering around one user who's trying to battle Vonage's recently added regulatory fee. Powell's awareness that this is a "growing issue" isn't good enough; participants on both sides are looking for action before the VoIP regulatory debate becomes a towering behemoth. Related:- Verizon Can't Use Number Ports To Win Back Landline Customers
- Tuesday Evening Links
- Wednesday Evening Links
- FCC May Shorten Landline Number Port Window
- FCC To Shorten Landline Port Window
- Google Voice Ban Is Clear Network Neutrality Violation
- What Network Neutrality Is REALLY About
- AT&T Finally Allows Skype Over 3G
|
 Fierytemplar
join:2003-07-11 Warminster, PA | Catchy title here VOIP should be regulated like any other telecommunications service, because that's what it is. | |
|  |  JJV Premium join:2001-04-25 Seattle, WA clubs: | Re: Catchy title here
I agree! The FCC hasnt screwed voip up yet. They should get started right away! | |
|  |  |   calvoiper
join:2003-03-31 Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| VoIP not a telecom service.... VoIP is not a telecom service. It's something that some people use instead of a telecom service, and it looks kinda like a telecom service, but so do two tin cans and a string.
In some circumstances, VoIP offerings can be at least partially a telecom service, as when they offer "universal termination" over the PSTN--there's definitely some telecom goin' on there. But a mere SIP connection between consenting adults? Not telecom.
Powell and the FCC are, frankly, too befuddled to pretend that they even understand what VoIP is or how it works. Be glad for small favors--otherwise, they'd already be screwing it up like PCS.
What are they really waiting for? Some good way to grab jurisdiction and control before VoIP kills their good friends and money sources, the telcos...
Calvoiper -- VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
|  |  vic102482 Premium join:2002-04-30 Upper Marlboro, MD
| said by Fierytemplar : VOIP should be regulated like any other telecommunications service, because that's what it is.
Yes it should, but NOT like PTSN. They are calling for the same taxes and regulations that companies like verizon has to pay, that is rediculous IMO. -- I tie a rope around my penis and jump from a tree, don't you wanna grow up to be just like me!!!! | |
|  |   oliphant5 Got Identity? Premium join:2003-05-24 Corona, CA | It's not a telecommunications service, it's a CONTENT service. | |
|  |  lesopp
join:2001-06-27 Land O Lakes, FL
| I disagree. VoIP is an evolution in communications that already has competition, unlike the current ILEC model, and forces the local and long distance providers into an "infrastructure provider only" role. Furthermore, it will force these same providers to compete and evolve, something regulation has failed to accomplish.
Where current VoIP providers "dump" calls into a LATA there are access circuits and the access circuit providers are passing along all fees and associated taxes. So to say the VoIP providers don't participate in these legalized fiduciary theft programs is patently false. Further, the industry selling VoIP providers access into a given LATA have no business complaining because they are not forced to sell to the VoIP providers.
Lumping VoIP into the current telecommunications model is no different than saying IM, email, or even walkie-talkies are telecommunications services. It should be placed into a new category called "content communications" and regulated only to ensure interoperability. Everything else is a function of infrastructure and should be regulated there.
Regulating VoIP in the current telecommunications model is the wrong approach and will only hurt the US consumer. | |
|  |   oliphant5 Got Identity? Premium join:2003-05-24 Corona, CA
| People, VoIP is a CONTENT SERVICE What's next, regulating web portals and streaming media? You can't regulate VoIP when they don't control the infrastructure. It's like regulating HBO and mandating reliability when they don't own the cable or satellite distributors. -- -- Munis Killed the Telco Star -- Powered by Barry McKockenner Racing in association with Jack Mikkokov Motorsports | |
|  |   tlg Premium join:2001-08-23 Melbourne, FL
| Re: People, VoIP is a CONTENT SERVICE said by oliphant5 : What's next, regulating web portals and streaming media? You can't regulate VoIP when they don't control the infrastructure. It's like regulating HBO and mandating reliability when they don't own the cable or satellite distributors.
I agree. But they would be regulating a protocol. It would be like only regulating NBC, but not any of the other content providers that you have available on your television.
The dialtone I receive comes from the equipment in my house, not by the VOIP provider. All the VOIP provider does is provide routing information, and IP centrex services.
I don't mind paying the USF charges, provided that the USF fund is used for 911 services. But in return the regional Telco's must provide 911 services to each and every home. In most cases you can get this now by just requesting it from the phone company. They will provide you with a phone line that can only dial 911.
So I can have VOIP services if I choose to as my main communication, and the VOIP provider would be exempt from providing 911 services as a requirement (one of the issues the states have). This would also leave me with an emergency phone for contacting 911 if need be.
I think that pretty much solves the issues that have been brought against the VOIP providers to date by various States. But I'm sure when you get it in front of a bunch of politicians they will manage to muck it up.
TG | |
|  nasadude
join:2001-10-05 Rockville, MD
·Comcast
| dammit, leave VOIP alone! first, let me ask a question: if VOIP providers have to pay into the USF, shouldn't they use that money to buy people computers and get them internet connections?
Why can't they let VOIP alone? What evidence is there that it needs regulation (other than the telcos wanting if regulated out of existence, if possible). Are people being ripped off? Has anybody died because they only had VOIP and couldn't get true 911? | |
|  |  rradina
join:2000-08-08 Chesterfield, MO
·Charter Pipeline
| Re: dammit, leave VOIP alone! I agree. If they start paying into the USF, some of that money better start going to the companies providing the broadband on which VOIP rides.
While that may be true if you have Telco-sponsored DSL, do the cable companies get to suckle from the USF mammary? | |
|   dvd536 as Mr. Pink as they come Premium join:2001-04-27 Phoenix, AZ
| Death blow this is the death blow to voip. why did people flock to voip other than to escape the plethora of fees that the telcos enjoy charging us. either way it is a 'gotcha' -- You can never be too rich, too thin or have too much Bandwidth | |
|  |  youngmoore
join:2001-03-16 Marietta, GA
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
| Re: Death blow I would disagree. I would say it would be more of a death blow to companies like Lucent and Nortel. If everything is more pushed to IP transport then the bells will start sending back their switch's "DMS 100's etc". and just pay the early lease termation. The only company that might be ok is Nortel since they already have a VOIP product.
ym | |
|  fkittred
join:2002-01-24 Biddeford, ME
| VoIP can't be regulated I don't think those who say it should be regulated are thinking very clearly. Let us take two different cases:
1) A voice "call" is from computer to computer over the Internet and does not touch the PSTN.
2) The voice call originates or terminates on the PSTN.
In the first case,
A) there is no existing legal justification for regulating it, new legislation has to be passed.
B) Even if legislation is passed, it is unenforcable. There is no way to detect or stop people from placing such calls. I remember a conversation I had in the fall of 1994 on this topic with a very senior telco executive attending a Internet conference at which I was speaking. He took exception to me saying that "telephone calls over the Internet" (we were unfamiliar with the term VoIP then, if it had been coined yet) would be untaxed and free. I told him "look at a stream of encrypted IP packets and tell me which one is a voice call, then you can tax it and charge for it."
The problems with music sharing over the Internet is nothing compared to detecting voice calls between consenting parties.
In the second case, if you only tax calls originating or terminating on the PSTN, you will hasten the final death of the PSTN. People would move more rapidly to use computer to computer calls.
Things don't look good for RBOCs. They dawdled with deploying DSL and they may now be too far behind to catch up.
regards, fletcher | |
|  lgfausak
join:2002-11-17 Carrollton, TX
| Big Monopolies The local dialtone is obviously a huge monopoly. If anyone wants to call anyone else, they have to buy a phone from the monopoly, the only source.
Now imagine a good chunk of the population has datapipes large enough to carry a phone call *without* the monopoly's permission.
Finally, imagine all communications shifting to the internet, lowering the price for communications because VoIP service providers compete for your business.
This is what is happening. Communications will shift to the internet over the next 5-10 years. Telcos will be in the datapipe business. Communication will take it's place as just another application on the internet.
I've added a shameless plug at the end here. Go ahead and try our service. Get your friends to try it. You can all call each oher for free, they're your bytes, use em! If you can successfully make calls call me at 233200 and I'll enable you for 1 hour of US/Canada PC to phone service! (limited to first 100 requests).
---greg Greg Fausak www.addaline.com | |
|  Art Vandelay1
join:2003-10-14
| VoIP Trojan Horse I'm curious as to why no one brings up Mr Gates when discussing VoIP. He almost slept through offering an ISP service but now MSN is almost as ubiquitous as AOL. He's not going to sleep through this Huge revenue stream. XBOX online with its VoIP capabilites is the biggest Trojan Horse of our time. This will become more evident when Microsoft puts its influence in on these regulatory issues. | |
|   Agent 86
| If it moves, tax it "The governments view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it." - Ronald Reagan | |
|  chuckpint
join:2001-07-06 Evanston, IL
| Triple Taxed
I currently have a DSL line. I have to pay the phone company an USF tax (and I don't care what they call it, if the government collects it, it's a tax). Then I have to pay my ISP an USF tax. So the states (and I bet the Feds) will say that if I use VoIP, I have to pay USF again? So one phone line is taxed three times. Does that sound as wrong to anyone else as it does to me? | |
|  | |  |
|
|