Comments on: Can VoIP survive Congress?

Washington this week will try to figure out what rules should govern VoIP, a process that CNET News.com's Declan McCullagh predicts is fraught with problems.

VoIP Regulation - A Losing Proposition

It will be counter productive for Congress or state PUCs to try to regulate VoIP. This is because VoIP servers are computer servers that can be located anywhere on the Internet; including outside the physical borders of the United States.

The only thing that regulators have going for them is the ability to hand out phone numbers. However, services that reject regulation will gladly use things like IP addresses and SIP IDs instead of phone numbers.

By attempting to enforce Universal Service fees on behalf of rural and poor people, regulators will unintentionally create the effect of putting these types of users in low tech (TDM telephone service) ghettos. Just like "Great Society" public housing was the worst kind of housing, Universal Service fee based services will be the worst kind of telephone service.

Regulators of all kinds should focus on creating the tax advantages that would drive low marginal cost broadband deployment. This will insure true universal service for everyone with very highly featured VoIP services.

VoIP State Taxes?

I am a little interested by this concept, given that in peer-2-peer communications it is simply 2 end-points without a central call-server coming into play, so the notion of the "Telephone Exchange" doesn't exist. The best analogy I can come up with here is trying to tax 2 kids for using 2 cans a piece of string.

If we look at the call-server model, then again this is problematic, as a call-server operator does not necessarily have any idea of where or to where a call is being made, at least from a location perspective. There is also no requirement that I am aware of, for the call-server to reside in the same country as either the caller, or the receining party. All of this is to say, that VoIP breaks the tie between access providers and service providers. In Good old phone networks these were geographically dependent, in VoIP they are not. Surely this will make it hard for States that seek impose taxes, if the service provided is outside of the juristiction of the State. If I were a service provider, I would simply setup shop in States or countries where such taxes were not inforced and let the subscribers move to me.

Some Federal legislation is critical

Not to be the fly in the ointment, but...


Some federal legislation of VoIP is absolutely essential. Without it, 911 emergency services is going to end up working differently depending on what type of phone service you choose. That's a disaster in the making and absolutely WILL get people killed.

Fortunately, current regulation regarding cell phones and emergency services would cover the bases for VoIP as well. Providers wouldn't have to meet some new, arcane standard or invest in new base equipment. Just chip the phone exactly the same as a cell phone for purposes of location and move on.

I agree that porting taxes and fees from traditional harline phones to VoIP is beyond silly.

[mtbdude666]

tax voice chat too?

the proposed regulations would not exempt voice chat

[John Kuzak]

phone service

http://www.analogstereo.com/rover_45_owners_manual.htm

[LANjackal]

Keep VoIP Free of Regulations

Let me tell you a little story about a certain landline customer (me) who signed up for the Verizon Freedom package last year. Under the plan, I would have been able to call anywhere under the US flag for $55/mth. Thanks to regulation, however, I ended up paying $79/mth. That's right. Fully $24 - almost a third - of my bill was due to ludicrous state and regulatory access charges.

Fast forward to the present, when I am now an AT&T CallVantage subscriber, and have ditched my regular landline. Now (in Texas) while the service costs $20/mth, I pay $30 already (even with "less" regulation of VoIP than regular landlines).

Regulatory fees only stand to strangle this new, revolutionary technology. They must be stopped.

Stearns/Boucher bill deregulates the physical layer

The Stearns/Boucher bill would deregulate the physical layer; it would preclude open access to transmission networks if they support an ILEC's or cable company's IP offering. It would reverse the Brand X decision on cable and would close off ILEC UNEs, special (and maybe even switched) access and perhaps even the requirement to allow resale. See section 3(a)(3) where it specifically mentions transmission networks, facilities and equipment. Beware this bill!!!