Regulation NationJudge supports Vonage in MN legal fight ( old news - 06:12PM Thursday Oct 16 2003) tags: legal · VoIPTipped by Karl Bode  A US federal judge has criticized Minnesota's attempts to regulate VoIP provider Vonage, possibly setting a powerful precedent for similar attempts by other states. Minnesota is one of several states making an effort to force VoIP providers to adhere to telco guidelines (see previous BBR report), both as a way to tap into a potential tax revenue stream, and ensure the quality of future electronic 911 rollouts. Federal District Court Judge Michael Davis recently granted a permanent injunction against Minnesota's regulatory push. "State regulation would effectively decimate Congress's mandate that the Internet remain unfettered by regulation. The court therefore grants Vonage's request for injunctive relief," noted Davis in his decision, published this week (available here in pdf format). In a phone interview with media this week, Vonage founder Jeffery Citron hoped the ruling could set a broader precedent for the industry. "It is our belief that those federal rules should apply not only in Minnesota but also in other states," Citron said. Vonage has long argued that the company offers an information service, not a telecommunications service, and should remain exempt from regulation. Judge Davis agreed, noting in the report that "The purpose of Title II is to regulate telecommunications services, and Congress has clearly stated that it does not intend to regulate the internet and information services.....The court can find no statutory intent to regulate VoIP, and until Congress speaks more clearly on this issue, Minnesota may not regulate an information services provider such as Vonage as if it were a telecommunications provider."While the majority of the push to regulate VoIP can be attributed to cash hungry states and powerful bell lobbyists fearing lost revenue, legitimate concerns remain over how exactly the government will ensure the quality of E-911 services as VoIP becomes more mainstream. As we mentioned yesterday, it's growing increasingly more difficult for the FCC to remain silent on the issue. The FCC is feeling the pressure, and will begin digging deeper into possible new legal guidelines next month. Regulators in California, Wisconsin, Oregon, New York, Texas and Pennsylvania, are certainly eyeing the case carefully. Speaking to Reuters, Stewart Baker, head of Steptoe & Johnson in Washington, D.C., wasn't so sure the ruling would set a larger national precedent. Baker believes a higher court needs to chime in on the regulatory guidelines before there's regulatory certainty, adding that "Internet telephony is a hard problem for regulators. It really does have the potential to become a different way of ordinary people getting telephone service."As cable providers expedite their own VoIP deployments, their own lobbyists have surely joined the push in Washington to prevent them from having to adhere to telecommunications guidelines. As explored in our recent story, VoIP surrounded, providers are also facing pressure from the FBI, who, like the telcos, are hoping to cage VoIP providers under telco regulatory guidelines to make surveillance of the technology easier. If the FBI can get VoIP providers classified as a telecommunications service, they would have a better shot at forcing them to adhere to the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA), which forces a provider to make their system "wire-tap friendly". The FBI, incumbent and independent telcos, the cable industry, the VoIP industry, and the States are all converging on Washington D.C., many with cash in hand. They'll be doing their best song and dance routines, hoping to nudge the FCC into drafting guidelines that serve their respective best interests. The battle should get more interesting in the next several months, with Commissioner Micheal Powell sitting squarely in the middle of the looming three ring circus.
Related:- Verizon Can't Use Number Ports To Win Back Landline Customers
- Tuesday Evening Links
- Wednesday Evening Links
- Dallas FBI Raid About VoIP Scam, Not Wolverine
- Google Voice Ban Is Clear Network Neutrality Violation
- What Network Neutrality Is REALLY About
- AT&T: Google Is The Enemy Of Nuns
- Vonage Settles Over Annoying Cancellation Tactics
|
 
Sarick
It's Only Logical
Premium
join:2003-06-03
USA |  Not owned by the VoIp provider so Why Tax?
| |
|  | 
Goober
Premium
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL
 ·Comcast
·WOW Internet and C..
| Hopefully on to the US Supreme Court eventually. Yep, great news. Now, the wait begins for another district court to decide in an opposite manner. Only by going to the Supremes will we be able to get a definitive conclusion to this.
Should be VERY interesting.
[text was edited by author 2003-10-17 13:59:48] | |
| | |
Sarick
It's Only Logical
Premium
join:2003-06-03
USA
 ·FrontierNet Intern..
| Re: Hopefully on to the US Supreme Court eventually. Lets just hope they don't that is all we need. A way to augment service fees on devices we don't even own. If these telcos get their way they will own rights to the TCP/IP protocol and a tax will be placed on a protocol.
The government has already decided not to tax the internet, the next step is to tax the protocols or something along that terms.
Internet Infrastructure Tax Incentive!
--
Sarick's Dungeon Clipart Page
Trouble spelling? www.iespell.com | |
| | | | mjcrocket
Mjc
join:2000-12-02
Abingdon, MD
| Re: Hopefully on to the US Supreme Court eventually. Better read Vonage's own words on this topic from their Terms of Service document:
»www.vonage.com/features_terms_service.php
4.5 Taxes
Customer is responsible for, and shall pay any applicable federal, state, municipal, local or other governmental sales, use, excise, value-added, personal property, public utility or other taxes, fees or charges now in force or enacted in the future, that arise from or as a result of Customer’s subscription or use or payment for the Service or a Device. Such amounts are in addition to payment for the Service or Devices and will be billed to your account. If Customer is exempt from payment of such taxes, it will provide Vonage with an original government-issued certificate attesting to tax-exempt status. Tax exemption will only apply from and after the date Vonage receives the Tax Exempt Document.
[text was edited by author 2003-10-18 13:31:28] | |
| | | | | | 
Camelot One
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-21
Sarasota, FL
clubs: | Exactly what I was waiting for... This is exactly what I have been waiting for, now I can sign up.
Won't be with Vonage though, even at only $1.50, I refuse to pay a bogus "regulatory recovery" fee. | |
| moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| While this might be good news for Vonage..... ...this could be bad news for the rest of the arguments against cable providers.
If the judge is correct in the unregulation of the Internet, then how can open access be demanded on cable lines? How can we regulate cable so that they don't screw the customer?
Both good and bad in this ruling. | |
| | 
oliphant5
Got Identity?
Premium
join:2003-05-24
Corona, CA
| Re: While this might be good news for Vonage..... Cable lines are infrastructure, not internet. There is a distinct different between the infrastructure (eg cable and telco LINES) and the content (eg VoIP and email).
--
-- Munis Killed the Telco Star -- Powered by Barry McKockenner Racing in association with Jack Mikkokov Motorsports | |
| | | moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD | Re: While this might be good news for Vonage..... | |
| | | | Sprinter99
join:2003-10-10
Grants Pass, OR
| If you read the summary and compare it with the recent change of cable's regulatory status to "Telecom. provider" you will see that this ruling doesn't have the effect that you're implying. There is a distinct definition drawn by the FCC between "basic" and "enhanced" services (see page 9 of the decision) with basic services able to be regulated (ie ISPs) while enhanced services (VoIP, P2P, et al.) are to remain unregulated in the interest of further developing the internet. This really doesn't change anything regarding the cable co's fight to remain closed networks. | |
| 
devrandom
I got a pot, full of random stuff here
Premium
join:2003-06-28
| Good..but 911 still is a issue though I think Vonage would be jet set to replace all the telcos, if it were not for its spotty 911 service. Although this is a whole different issue from the injunction, it still brings to mind the disadvantages that Vonage still has compared to having a POTS line sometimes (not that Vonage was bad).
--
If it can be smoked, its prolly not going to be good for you. | |
| | | | 
dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
| said by devrandom :
I think Vonage would be jet set to replace all the telcos, if it were not for its spotty 911 service. Although this is a whole different issue from the injunction, it still brings to mind the disadvantages that Vonage still has compared to having a POTS line sometimes (not that Vonage was bad).
It only a matter of time before you get the chance to have an extra $5/mo '911 fee' added onto your voip. this regulatory fee thing just opened the can. the worms will find their way to your bill.
--
You can never be too rich, too thin or have too much Bandwidth | |
| kozam8
join:2001-03-14
Olney, MD
| A telephone is a telephone I disagree...and agree.
In what way is Vonage an "information" provider? What is the content that they provide?
Vonage has succeeded by using buzzwords like "packet data" and Internet to make their product seem different, but in reality, this is just a different technology to make a telephone call.
My cell phone sends out digitized data over a wireless network. In the end, however, it's really a telephone.
I AGREE that regulating VOIP is a bad idea. The only way I see to achieve a level playing field for all telephone providers, while not stifling technology, is to get government regulators out of the telecommunications - information - data business. | |
| |
oliphant5
Got Identity?
Premium
join:2003-05-24
Corona, CA
| Re: A telephone is a telephone The content is VoIP...if your cell phones digital data was sent via the internet then I would say it's not a "telephone". But since cellular runs over a closed network, it's not the same.
VoIP is merely content delivered via the internet...just because of the appliance it can be used with doesn't mean it can or should be regulated. Streaming media can be delivered ultimately to a television...therefore should streaming media be regulated like CATV, SAT and off air programmers are? Of course not.
The ONLY concern of these politicians is that they're losing a source of tax revenue and they are all whores of the telcos who line their pockets with campaign contributions. It has nothing to do with 911 or anything else having to do with the actual service...it have everything to do with telcos killing competition off and politicians looking for more of our money to waste.
--
-- Munis Killed the Telco Star -- Powered by Barry McKockenner Racing in association with Jack Mikkokov Motorsports | |
| | | Zorglub
join:2000-11-18
Fremont, CA
| Re: A telephone is a telephone To me, it should be substance over form. No matter how you slice it, Vonage is providing a phone service, and should be regulated as a regular phone provider. Just because your voice is going out as data packets, it does not change the fact that you're using their service to make phone calls. | |
| | | |
oliphant5
Got Identity?
Premium
join:2003-05-24
Corona, CA
| Re: A telephone is a telephone Yeah, like no matter how you slice and apple it's an orange? What, so walkie talkies are now cellular? VoIP is VoIP, not telco service. Both being fruit, doesn't make them the same.
Using VoIP to communicate doesn't subject the CONTENT provider to regulation no more than email being a substitute for U.S. Mail does or regulating HBO because off-air networks are regulated.
--
-- Munis Killed the Telco Star -- Powered by Barry McKockenner Racing in association with Jack Mikkokov Motorsports
[text was edited by author 2003-10-16 19:58:34] | |
| | | | moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| Hmmmm, would that be the same with programs like Netmeeting, CUSeeMe, etc?
Think about it, you "dial" an IP of another system, you use data, "voice" and even video to "talk" to the other person, and to end the "call", you "hang-up."
Better regulate those programs since they make take money away from the telcos now. | |
| | | | | | | 
boogie74
join:2001-06-19
Neenah, WI
clubs:
| quote:
The content is VoIP...if your cell phones digital data was sent via the internet then I would say it's not a "telephone". But since cellular runs over a closed network, it's not the same.
So does this mean that anyone online can have conference access to phone conversations that go through Vonage? All phone conversations are transmitted one way or another via data switching and analog/digital/analog conversions. Vonage doesn't use it's own digital switching systems and they don't run an outside infrastructure. Beyond that, their calls are routed through the Bell infrastructure the same as landline calls and cellular calls.
Beyond that, if you want to say that since the conversations are carried over the internet it isn't a phone service, that means that since internet data traffic is carried over a phone network, it isn't a telecom service- and hence the Bells shouldn't have to offer lineshare capabilities. Afterall, DSL isn't really a phone service then, it's a data service that CAN be transmitted over phone lines if you use the right equipment.
Can't have it both ways.
quote:
VoIP is merely content delivered via the internet...just because of the appliance it can be used with doesn't mean it can or should be regulated. Streaming media can be delivered ultimately to a television...therefore should streaming media be regulated like CATV, SAT and off air programmers are? Of course not.
It isn't an issue of the fact that Vonage can be used for phone calls... It's literally designed and marketed to do so. Vonage is advertised as "The Broadband Phone Company" NOT "The streaming internet content provider that could be used for really crappy phone-like conversations"
quote:
The ONLY concern of these politicians is that they're losing a source of tax revenue and they are all whores of the telcos who line their pockets with campaign contributions. It has nothing to do with 911 or anything else having to do with the actual service...it have everything to do with telcos killing competition off and politicians looking for more of our money to waste.
No, it's actually saying that companies can't walk, sound, look and act like a duck and suddenly claim to be a goose if it's during duck hunting season.
Boogie | |
| | | | Sprinter99
join:2003-10-10
Grants Pass, OR | Re: A telephone is a telephone once again, refer to the summary and I think you'll find all your arguments satisfactorily debunked. | |
| | | |
oliphant5
Got Identity?
Premium
join:2003-05-24
Corona, CA
| said by boogie74 :
quote:
The content is VoIP...if your cell phones digital data was sent via the internet then I would say it's not a "telephone". But since cellular runs over a closed network, it's not the same.
So does this mean that anyone online can have conference access to phone conversations that go through Vonage?
No, just like no one intercepts your email or online banking.
quote:
Beyond that, if you want to say that since the conversations are carried over the internet it isn't a phone service, that means that since internet data traffic is carried over a phone network, it isn't a telecom service- and hence the Bells shouldn't have to offer lineshare capabilities.
Again shill...you fail to bother reading the thread. It's the INFRASTRUCTURE that's regulated, not the CONTENT.
quote:
Can't have it both ways.
Only the telco shills would argue that infrastructure and content are the same thing.
quote:
It isn't an issue of the fact that Vonage can be used for phone calls... It's literally designed and marketed to do so. Vonage is advertised as "The Broadband Phone Company" NOT "The streaming internet content provider that could be used for really crappy phone-like conversations"
You can call satellite service the wireless cable company, doesn't make satellite service a cable company.
quote:
No, it's actually saying that companies can't walk, sound, look and act like a duck and suddenly claim to be a goose if it's during duck hunting season.
Boogie
No, it's telcos looking to protect their stranglehold on consumers, offering them crappy service at high prices. Not that there is a viable alternative technology offered via the internet, they scrable to line politicians pocket books so that politicians the telco shills will do their bidding and protect their monopoly on residential communications.
VoIP is internet content, just like HBO is cable content. I know it bursts the bubbles of you telco shills to see your precious brainwashers going down in favor of better options for consumers but you'll just have to get over it.
--
-- Munis Killed the Telco Star -- Powered by Barry McKockenner Racing in association with Jack Mikkokov Motorsports | |
| | | | |
boogie74
join:2001-06-19
Neenah, WI
clubs:
| Re: A telephone is a telephone quote:
No, it's telcos looking to protect their stranglehold on consumers, offering them crappy service at high prices. Not that there is a viable alternative technology offered via the internet, they scrable to line politicians pocket books so that politicians the telco shills will do their bidding and protect their monopoly on residential communications.
You've lost this argument already in 48 states AND Washington DC. There is undeniable and irreversable open competition for phone service. You may like to argue otherwise, but you've lost your fight to complain about the "stranglehold on consumers."
Find another reason to complain.
Boogie | |
| | | | | |
oliphant5
Got Identity?
Premium
join:2003-05-24
Corona, CA
| Re: A telephone is a telephone said by boogie74 :
You've lost this argument already in 48 states AND Washington DC. There is undeniable and irreversable open competition for phone service. You may like to argue otherwise, but you've lost your fight to complain about the "stranglehold on consumers."
Find another reason to complain.
Boogie
quote:
Federal District Court Judge Michael Davis recently granted a permanent injunction against Minnesota's regulatory push. "State regulation would effectively decimate Congress's mandate that the Internet remain unfettered by regulation. The court therefore grants Vonage's request for injunctive relief,"
Sure shill, sure. It's the telco INFRASTRUCTURE that's open and subject to regulation Boog, not the content that runs over it. Find another anti-consumer telco position to support, you've lost this one (along with the rest).
--
-- Munis Killed the Telco Star -- Powered by Barry McKockenner Racing in association with Jack Mikkokov Motorsports
[text was edited by author 2003-10-17 10:28:26] | |
| 
ViviTheMage
vivi
Premium
join:2002-10-28
Minneapolis, MN
clubs: | yay yay, im from minnesota  | |
| RayW
Premium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
clubs:
·XMission
| VoIP and regu;lar phone - similar?? Most telephone communications over any distance (or so I was taught in school) is now digitized, much like the internet signals most of us are playing with now.
So in one sense, if you regulate one, then the other should be?
However, phones even in the bad old days of corded and later cordless phones have been more mobile than the VoIP at the equivalent stage. And consider the other pros and cons that have beat into the dirt.
I do not have an opinion for either side, except that if someone wishes to have VoIP and avoid the taxes and "fees", they should be required to sign a waiver that they are responsible for any and all emergencies and possible lawsuits etc that arise from the lack of 911 and other 'normal' phone services. If they can prove 'normal' phone service present and working, that is another story, but some people are dropping that.
If VoIP ever goes mobile like wireless (cell) phones, then that is a different story.
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time. | |
| Sprinter99
join:2003-10-10
Grants Pass, OR
| Judge Michael J Davis for PRESIDENT!!! | |
| |
Goober
Premium
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL
| Re: Judge Michael J Davis for PRESIDENT!!! . . . or his clerk (who did all the research and wrote the decision).
[text was edited by author 2003-10-17 14:10:49] | |
| | | |
|
|
Re: Hopefully on to the US Supreme Court eventually.
