June 21, 2006 11:52 AM PDT
FCC approves new Internet phone taxes
- Related Stories
Technologists assail federal Net-tapping rulesJune 12, 2006
Senators back new broadband taxesFebruary 28, 2006
FCC chief backs Net phone taxesDecember 14, 2005
Wiretap rules for VoIP, broadband coming in 2007September 26, 2005
New taxes could slam Net phone usersAugust 23, 2005
FAQ: FCC sets rules for VoIP 911June 15, 2005
FCC requires VoIP to clean up its 911 actMay 19, 2005
FCC to weigh in on VoIP regulationFebruary 10, 2004
The Federal Communications Commission voted unanimously at its monthly meeting here to require all voice over Internet Protocol services that connect to the public-switched telephone network--as opposed to using peer-to-peer technology, like Skype--to contribute to the Universal Service Fund.
The $7.3 billion fund, which has been a feature of U.S. policy for more than 70 years, subsidizes telephone service in rural and low-income areas. It also runs a controversy-plagued program called E-Rate that provides discounted Internet and phone service to schools and libraries.
Right now, only telecommunications services, including wireless, pay-phone, traditional telephone and DSL providers, are required to contribute a fixed percentage of their long-distance revenue to the multibillion-dollar fund. It had been unclear whether VoIP providers must also pay.
The same FCC order would also raise the share that cell phone providers must contribute to the pool, though it was not immediately clear how many consumers would see hikes or how much they would be. That's because the FCC raised the contribution rate for only one of three formulas that can be used by cell phone companies to determine how much they owe. If those companies choose to stick to the two unchanged formulas, their customers would likely see no additional fees.
"Certainly we're concerned whenever consumers are forced to pay higher government taxes or fees, but it depends on the carrier and what their approach is," said Joe Farren, a spokesman for CTIA-The Wireless Association, a trade group.
The new contribution scheme takes effect immediately, and any new fees would likely appear on customers' bills later this year, said Thomas Navin, chief of the FCC's Wireline Competition Bureau. He declined to speculate on the differences customers of each service may see on their bills, saying it would depend on a variety of factors and "there's not one typical scenario for me to paint for you."
Calculating what's fair
Pressured by consumer groups and the telecommunications industry, the FCC has long been contemplating changes to the USF contribution scheme. Critics of the current system say the means of calculating contributions needs sweeping changes. That's because the bulk of the money comes from actual or estimated long-distance revenues, which are steadily dwindling due to changing business models in the wireless and wireline worlds.
The FCC's decision Wednesday drew applause from the U.S. Telecom Association, which represents both large and small telephone companies.
"We applaud today's ruling for ensuring that all voice service providers are treated alike," Walter McCormick, the organization's CEO, said in a statement.
By one VoIP industry estimate, customers could owe as much as $2.12 extra on a $30 monthly bill because of the changes, said Jim Kohlenberger, executive director of the VON Coalition, which represents the Internet phone industry. Traditional wireline users would pay $1.38 on a comparable bill, while wireless users pay an average of $1.21, he said.
Those numbers are based on a "safe harbor" contribution rate, established by the FCC's order, that would require all VoIP providers to calculate what they owe based on the assumption that 64.9 percent of their total revenues represent long-distance calls. The safe harbor option for cell phone providers climbed to 37.1 percent from 28.5 percent under the FCC's order, but it remains far lower than the VoIP share.
The discrepancy has the industry scratching its head, Kohlenberger said. "The FCC's efforts on VoIP are like trying to solve traffic and energy problems by stifling the rollout of energy-efficient hybrid vehicles, while subsidizing SUVs," he said.
Cell phone and Internet phone providers would also have another option for calculating fees. They could do a complex analysis known as a "traffic study" to determine what percentage of their revenues are long distance. If the results prove to be lower than the safe harbor percentage, fees for consumers, in theory, wouldn't be as high.
23 commentsJoin the conversation! Add your comment