Why VoIP Makes Telecom Regulations Irrelevant

An anonymous reader writes "BusinessWeek Online analyzes why state and federal regulators' attempts to label VoIP (Voice over Internet Protocol) a "telecommunications service" is wrong - and threatens to undermine the technology. It quotes Vint Cerf as saying: 'To single out VoIP as a telephone service is a terrible misunderstanding of the Internet industry. I would submit that, someday, the phrase Internet telephony will sound as archaic as 'horseless carriage' sounds today.'" We've also recently discussed Vonage's attempts to fight telecom regulation in Minnesota.

Comments

Anyone else sick of

[Trigun]

businesses that try to enact legislation which protects not only their interests, but a business model that is no longer relevant due to advances in science?

Get with the times, or get out of the way.

10-10-$NUM

[grub]

As I understand it all those "10-10-$NUM" services you see advertised on the television all use VoIP. My 5 cent (CA$) long distance (to .CA and .US) I get on my cell is VoIP. It's just 'old skool' wanting to protect their virtual monopoly.

Different technology /= not a telephone

[gristlebud]

The article focuses on why WOIP should not be held to conventional telephone's regulations because the technology involved is vastly different. However, to the end user, they just (or least should be able to) pick up the phone and dial a number. If VOIP is providing a functionally equivalent service, then they should be held to the same standards as conventional phone services. (Note: This is why Paypal gets to screw their customers regularly, since they are not regulated as a bank)

If Vonage et. all. succeed, it should be on the basis of providing a better product for less money, not by finding and exploiting loopholes in the regulations that are desinged to protect consumers.

Re:Different technology /= not a telephone

[kfg]

". . . functionally equivalent service, then they should be held to the same standards as conventional phone services."

So in your opinion I actually do owe someone a stamp for every email I send?

Why? I've already payed for the bandwidth.

You see, the particular infrastructure for delivering "content" is very, very relevant to how it is payed for. It is the infrastructure that is taxed, not the "service."

Traditional telephony has an infrastructure tightly controled by the few. With the internet the infrastructure, and cost/ownership thereof, is distributed amongst the users themselves.

I actually just terminated my phone service because I got tired of paying more in taxes than I was for the actual service. You want to talk to me? Fine. Email me. IM me. Meet me in my private IRC channel. Roger Wilco me.

I don't use the phone system at all now. A packet is a packet and I already pay relevant taxes and fees for my cable internet use. It's nobody's business what my packets decode into.

Telephony is dead. It just won't stop breathing.

KFG

DSL / Combo packages

[CeladonBlue]

Actually Verizon is already trying to head off competition from VOIP services by offering a "Freedom" package (I don't know what the other Baby Bells are doing) which includes DSL, unlimited local and long distance for a set price (wireless as well.) I expect that this is to stop encroachment of VOIP into the lower end of the market (residential / small business.)

Vonage user in Minnesota...

[gothicpoet]

As a user of Vonage in Minnesota this concerns (and annoys!) me.

One of the reasons I got the VOIP service was the fact that I'm sick of being scr*w*d with by local phone companies. It's also cheaper, and the sound quality is better. (And hey - I'm a geek.)

I just recently moved. I had a cable modem installed in my new house before I cut off my broadband service at my old house. I unplugged the little Cisco box that my Vonage phone service runs out of and took it to my new house and plugged it in. I ran the phone cable that comes out of it into the nearest wall jack... et voila! My home phone service for my entire house just moved from one house to the next in 20 minutes with no hassles.

The last time I moved I was using Qwest. Instead of transferring my phone number from one home to the next in adjoining towns in the Minneapolis suburbs, they transferred my phone number to a town in Iowa and told me that there was no way that they could move it back in less than three days.

Anything that threatens to impede the growth of regular phone alternatives must be stopped. The traditional phone companies deserve to die a slow death if they can't get their heads around the idea of "customer service" instead of "self serving."

It's all about wiretapping

[Anonymous Coward]

The one reason that the government wants to treat VOIP as a telecom service is wiretapping.

CALEA requires access to telecom services, for just that purpose.

Re:because they're just data

[stratjakt]

Taxes are supposed to pay for government services though. Taxing my analog phone pays for 911, for instance. Taxing my property pays for police and roads and sewer, etc. Sin taxes on alcohol or gasoline pay for the governments steps to repair the damage those products do (supposedly). Food isnt taxable, because the government isnt feeding me. Taxing my internet usage pays for - what? When the government starts slapping down infrastructure and pushing broadband out to everyone, then they can tax it.

I know the principle of taxation has spread to the point that every time money changes hands, the government gets some of it, but it's wrong.