Federal Court Throws Out Minnesota VoIP Regulation

An anonymous reader submits: "Voxilla reports that the FCC will announce Friday that 'a federal court has issued a permanent injunction against a recent ruling by the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission to regulate Voice over IP provider Vonage as a telephone company.' This is a significant move towards stopping recent movement by states to regulate VoIP -- most notably, California vs. VoicePulse and Wisconsin vs. Packet8."

Comments

What constitutes a telephone company?

[Max Romantschuk]

What is the fundamental difference between a traditional telephone company and purely VoIP-based companies? VoIP is slowly making it's way into traditional phone companies, does this make them less of a phone company?

I'd say the difference is quite minimal for the end user.

I'm just rambling, but I'd sure like to hear my fellow Slashdotters' thoughts.

Re:What constitutes a telephone company?

[I8TheWorm]

I have to agree a little. The only difference I can see is one is a service you explicitly pay for, and the other is built on a service that you already explicitly pay for.

What's the reason for regulation of regular telephony companies anyway? Rate regulation is one of them, and that wouldn't really apply to VoIP, since the service it flies on is generally already regulated by the FCC (http://www.fcc.gov/broadband/).

I can't see any reason to regulate a service that runs on a regulated service... seems like it's from the Department of Redundancy Department.

Re:What constitutes a telephone company?

[Anonymous Coward]

The main differnce is the infrastructure.
Traditional phone companies, have to run towers, wires and connect the planet. Which usually means that they will completely own the infrastrucute, and thus what can and can't pass through it. Hence you get a monopoly like MaBell. This is why the FCC stepped in originally, to protect the consumer from unfair inflation hikes. How can you have capitislm when you have no option? (That isn't being patriotic, more or less, I like to save money)

VoIP on the other hand is simply more data, on the internet, and since there is a standards (i assume) my VoIP company can interface with your VoIP company, and both of us will be in direct competion. Thus the FCC shouldn't need to regulate based on consumer protection.
The other problem w/ the FCC stepping in is, what determines VoIP? Will my Roger Wilco voice chat's with people in game come under the FCC rulings? Will AOL IM then be under they're control, (that might be a good thing, still waiting for a universial IM system)? Then how long before forum posts like this are considred in the domain of the FCC? (ok that's streching it a little, but you get my point)

Re:What constitutes a telephone company?

[LorneReams]

I agree that the infrastructure is the main difference, but the problem was and will always be the money. Right now I pay 25% of my phone bill in fees and taxes. There is no way they are going to let go of this money. Look for a new classification, or new fees and taxes, soon.

Re:What constitutes a telephone company?

[deltagreen]

As long as I can use my 28.8 modem, I don't care whether it's via a regular phone line or over a VoIP line!

Re:What constitutes a telephone company?

[aldousd666]

It's like I said before

General Motors is not a Horse-Drawn Carriage manufacturer, nor is Vonage a phone company.

Just because they serve the same user space as phone companies, doesn't make them the same animal.

Re:What constitutes a telephone company?

[jafiwam]

Well.

What is a telephone? ('IS' in the reality AND philosophical sense)

Answer that, and the answer will be pretty obvious. Rather than all this dicussion about is VoIP phone service, someone should decide what a frickin telephone is first.

Otherwise, this whole issue is just the 'sound of one hand clapping'. Ok for normal references, but when there are laws about it, that's not good enough anymore.

Re:What constitutes a telephone company?

[SpaceLifeForm]

I'd say the difference is quite minimal for the end user.

No, with VOIP, the marketing will not be as heavy at dinnertime.

Re:What constitutes a telephone company?

[KingJoshi]

I can't see any reason to regulate a service that runs on a regulated service... seems like it's from the Department of Redundancy Department.

My understanding is that there are certain requirements and expectancies from phone companies that aren't expected from ISPs. Services like 911, efforts to maintain uptime and reliability, etc.

One can be rightfully cynical of regulations. But at the same time, one should also note that often without regulations or a lot of external pressure, the companies won't do what's best for the public or customers unless/until it affects their bottom line. But by then, it may be too late and people will complain about how the government didn't do anything to protect the people knowing that companies providing VoIP don't have to live up to the same standards.

Re:What constitutes a telephone company?

[Anonymous Coward]

Biggest difference?
A telephone company is a common carrier and voice traffic it carries is regulated by federal privacy laws making it more difficult for the government to listen in on your conversations without some fairly significant judicial oversight.

Congratulations VoIP you've managed to do away with some major consumer privacy protections with this "victory."

Re:What constitutes a telephone company?

[I8TheWorm]

As I was reading your comment, I kept thinking economics would play in, and any problems would resolve themselves. Then I read the following comment

by then, it may be too late and people will complain about how the government didn't do anything to protect the people knowing that companies providing VoIP don't have to live up to the same standards

and realized you're probably right. Although it would be nice to think "If the service isn't good, then people won't pay for it, and companies will have to own up or shut down." In reality, though, we (as US citizens) tend toward the whiny attitude of "someone should have done something about this." We want to not only have cake and eat it, but sell what's left as well.

Maybe pushing VoIP to the general public isn't a great idea... diving into a service that was already provided at a reasonable (due in part to regulation) price.

Re:What constitutes a telephone company?

[iabervon]

Purely VoIP-based companies are, in fact, completely different from traditional phone companies. In fact, a purely VoIP-based company would not have a service to sell you, because IP is already sufficient for routing information and there are plenty of protocols for naming another user who may be reached by IP. It's like snail mail versus email; with snail mail, some organization is necessary to actually move letters from place to place, but with email, there's no organization specifically for that purpose. A purely VoIP company is likely to be selling you software, not service.

On the other hand, Vonage isn't a purely VoIP company; they actually connect to the telephone network, and they offer telephone network numbers. They're like a traditional telephone company except for how your call gets to their switch; on the other side, they interact with the phone network like a traditional phone company.

Re:What constitutes a telephone company?

[kableh]

Uh, the PATRIOT Act did away with that oversight anyways, so what's the difference?

Re:What constitutes a telephone company?

[mike449]

Traditional telephone company uses public land for its infrastructure. Public demands something in return (in form of regulation).
VOIP company doesn't use public resources directly, so the public can not ask for anything.

Re:What constitutes a telephone company?

[mwood]

"My understanding is that there are certain requirements and expectancies from phone companies that aren't expected from ISPs. Services like 911, efforts to maintain uptime and reliability, etc."

Sounds good to me. Why don't we want those things? Why is it bad to regulate a telephone company as if it were a telephone company?

Re:What constitutes a telephone company?

[TomV]

I can think of one key way in which the economics could have very nasty consequences:

If unregulated VoIP proves significantly cheaper then regulated telephone service, then one can expect customers to migrate en-masse away from the regulated providers. At some point, it may then become uneconomic for those providers to continue in business, at which point nobody is required to provide 911 service - the new VoIP firms don't because they're not required to, and the old PST firms don't becasue they no longer operate in the telphone business. At which point it becomes necessary to regulate the VoIP providers, in which case it would have made much more sense to do so in the first place, before the problem manifested.

tomV

Re:What constitutes a telephone company?

[Dun Malg]

What's the reason for regulation of regular telephony companies anyway?

The entire justification for regulation is their monopoly status. Because there is only one set of wires carrying dialtone, and they own it, they are regulated. Wireless carriers aren't regulated-- there's a federal law prohibitting it-- because there's no monopoly of the medium. Regular phone companies are subject to regulation based solely on the fact that they own the copper pair, or are resellers of service on that copper pair. Because VoIP is not dependent on a particular delivery medium, nor tied to a particular physical location of delivery, there's absolutely not justification for state regulation.

Re:What constitutes a telephone company?

[StillNeedMoreCoffee]

It occurs to me that there are regulations in place about securing conversations and not letting anyone listen in on those conversations with the Telcoms. It used to be that the Law Enforcement agencies had to get a court order to listen in. I think that those rules have been relaxed in some cases such that it is easier to obtain the court orders, or they can write their own (I think this is true about Treasury getting at banking records).

So the body of law that would effect the regulated telecommunications would be very different that those governing VOIP. You may only catch someone for fraud or maybe a DMCA circumvention if someone were tapping into your conversations.

Does anyone know what type of user aggrement the VOIP has about security and privacy, or are they all just listening in and recording and waiting to collect on blackmail later.

Re:What constitutes a telephone company?

[StillNeedMoreCoffee]

I think there is also Taxes and a body of law governing that are big differences.

The tax issue is definitily why States are looking into it as it is a loss of revenue stream for them, just as they have gone after Internet shoppers to pay State taxes (some states). This means potentially that they would have to find another tax to impose to keep their er. budgets up. Which is politically unpopular. It is easier to justify have an existing tax chase a scofflaw around, who knows you could be a hero.

The law governing would have to do with wire taps or equivelent. I would imagine many Law Enformement agencies would love VoIP because they probably would not be probably have to go to a Judge to get permission, at least till legal precedence is set up equating the two. If somone other than Law Enforement is caught listening in they probably would only be able to be prosecuted for fraud or maybe DMCA circomvention if there is any security build in. If not then I am not sure what charges could be brought if there wasn't a law covering it or monetary loss somewhere.

The consumer should be wary because there may not be protection from legal snooping or worse yet from hacking the conversations. Does anyone know what the user agreements are in these cases. Do the providers of VoIP have any agreement on privacy and security of conversations?

Lawers will love this controversy because there is all sorts of things that could go before the Courts both criminal and civil.

Re:What constitutes a telephone company?

[DAldredge]

Well, VONAGE thinks they are a phone company. Why else would they call themselves "The Broadband PHONE COMPANY?"

Re:What constitutes a telephone company?

[eison]

Easy. Traditional company, you get a phone line and you pay taxes/regulatory fees on the phone line. VoIP company, you get a cable connection and you pay taxes/regulatory fees on the cable connection. The idea to tax VoIP separately is double-taxing and double-regulating; the cable connection on your end is already taxed and regulated; the POTS connection on their end is already taxed and regulated; the additional tax and regulation for VoIP is just extra burden that shouldn't be required, unless they're willing to remove the taxes and regulations for the cable connection I already have.

Taxing VoIP separately would be like charging extra for hooking a camera or scanner up to your PC - it's one more device that uses existing equipment and infrastructure that has already been paid for. You shouldn't have to pay extra depending on what services you use that equipment for.

Re:What constitutes a telephone company?

[aldousd666]

Good point, I don't know what they're thinking.

Re:What constitutes a telephone company?

[Dun Malg]

On the other hand, Vonage isn't a purely VoIP company; they actually connect to the telephone network, and they offer telephone network numbers. They're like a traditional telephone company except for how your call gets to their switch; on the other side, they interact with the phone network like a traditional phone company.

No they're not, and no they don't. They are like any other private company out there with an on-site telephone system using Direct-In-Dial. Let me explain how it works:
With DID, you reserve a block of, say, 250 phone numbers. Not 250 lines, just the numbers. These are purely for addressing. Each extension in your company is assigned one of these numbers. Incoming and outgoing calls are handled by, say, a couple T1's. This gives you a pool of 48 lines for incoming and outgoing calls. Many companies and universities do this, and they aren't phone companies. At UCLA they'll even charge you monthly for the DID line, like a phone company! Vonnage is doing exactly this: selling you the use of an extension on their phone system. The only difference is that the extension isn't in their office, it's delivered over the Internet. Delivering a service over the Internet isn't in itself regulable, nor is selling DID phone service managed by private equipment.

Basically, Vonnage isn't delivering service on monopoly infrastructure, they are simply connecting to it like any other business.

Re:What constitutes a telephone company?

[calidoscope]

My understanding is that there are certain requirements and expectancies from phone companies that aren't expected from ISPs. Services like 911, efforts to maintain uptime and reliability, etc.

Probably not too far off the mark. Just for fun, let's turn things around about an unregulated service.
For starters, 911 calls will be blocked
No listing in the ILEC directories
No listings on 411
No enforcement of harassing/obscene phone call laws, conversely what happens when a VoIP customer makes the calls?
No guarantee of service - phone service out for a month - you're on your own with the VoIP provider

This reminds me of Micro$quats hypocrisy when it comes to regulations - they say they don't want to be regulated, but they are very glad to have regulations in the form of copyright.

Re:What constitutes a telephone company?

[Trepalium]

Because regulation at this point seems more like the entrenched industry trying to kill the upstart, rather than regulation for the sake of public good. I'm sure someday, regulations will require a certain degree of ISP uptime and reliability. Until that happens, though, it would be impossible to force a VoIP company to provide those kind of assurances.

I'm all for regulating them, but only after the technology develops, and real needs for regulation are identified. Right now, can you say you know what aspects of their business needs to be regulated, and which don't? Slapping telephone regulations on VoIP would be like requiring postage stamps for e-mail.

Re:What constitutes a telephone company?

[N3WBI3]

huh? I did not think one used a modem over a viop line. VIOP services line Vonage come in over your BB connection and while I guess you could redial out ofver the VIOP connection that would be a little pointless for home users..

Re:What constitutes a telephone company?

[N3WBI3]

Best post yet on this thread..

Re:What constitutes a telephone company?

[terrymr]

Probably has something to do with the fact that your internet connection is already regulated. If states can regulate Voice over internet then what stops them from regulating http, ftp, etc...

Re:What constitutes a telephone company?

[Anonymous Coward]

> What is the fundamental difference between a traditional telephone company and purely VoIP-based companies?

What is the fundamental difference between the postal service and e-mail?

VoIP is just another packet format zipping around the Internet. It will eventually steal business from the TelCos the same way that P2P is stealing business away from music/software CD distributors.

Lawmakers (beholden to the TelCos) will try like crazy to regulate VoIP, but in the end, they will be about as successful as they have been in their attempts to regulate e-mail and P2P. Why? Because a packet is a packet is a packet. And packets always find a way to their destination, no matter how many lawyers try to stop them.

Re:What constitutes a telephone company?

[Anonymous Coward]

This reminds me of Micro$quats hypocrisy when it comes to regulations - they say they don't want to be regulated, but they are very glad to have regulations in the form of copyright.

What kind of bullshit reasoning is this?

Would you want to defend yourself in a multi-million dollar lawsuit? No? I guess you don't like lawsuits then. If you were somehow harmed, would you sue someone to recover your losses? Are you a hypocrite?

Re:What constitutes a telephone company?

[dmadole]

No they're not, and no they don't. They are like any other private company out there with an on-site telephone system using Direct-In-Dial. Let me explain how it works... (much more deleted)

That's not exactly how it works. If that is how it works, then Vonage would not have been able to transfer my existing phone number to their service that I'd had with the local monopoly for 16 years before that. Surely it is not magically in some block of numbers they have. Their trunks are clearly integrated in the routing infrastructure of phone numbers in the local office here, however that works, for one number to be able to re rerouted from the incumbent carrier to them.

They clearly are hooked into the infrastructure much more like a phone company than an PBX on DID lines. I don't know all the specifics, but it ain't just DID.

Re:What constitutes a telephone company?

[Dun Malg]

That's not exactly how it works. If that is how it works, then Vonage would not have been able to transfer my existing phone number to their service that I'd had with the local monopoly for 16 years before that. Surely it is not magically in some block of numbers they have. Their trunks are clearly integrated in the routing infrastructure of phone numbers in the local office here, however that works, for one number to be able to re rerouted from the incumbent carrier to them. They clearly are hooked into the infrastructure much more like a phone company than an PBX on DID lines. I don't know all the specifics, but it ain't just DID.

Jeezly crow, man, I didn't say they "just using DID". Of course there's more to it than that. But they most certainly are not any more integrated into the routing infrastructure than any other company with lines delivered via HDSL (T1). Number portability is simply a matter of the old local monopoly "forwarding" calls on that number to Vonnage's incoming line pool. The call goes to the old #, bounces to Vonnage, and their system is automatically given all the pertinent info, including what number the caller dialed. Anyone connecting to the PSTN via a T1 gets this info, not just "phone companies". I know. I'm a telecom technician. I install this crap for a living. I do know the specifics.

Re:What constitutes a telephone company?

[mwood]

It's not impossible or even unreasonable to require telephone service providers to conform to telephone service standards. It's unsafe to let them crawl out of support for the 911 system, for example. And remember, the Internet exists because DARPA was charged to create a communication network that would be *more* reliable than the existing telephone lines.

Some needs for regulation are already identified: features and guarantees that telephone subscribers have come to believe are basic standards.

We need to disentangle several issues here:

o Standards of service and support.

o Money.

o Fair play.

Once you see them separately, you can decide separately whether and how to regulate them. I'm willing to discuss the latter two, but I will not budge from the first.

Re:What constitutes a telephone company?

[Trepalium]

And remember, the Internet exists because DARPA was charged to create a communication network that would be *more* reliable than the existing telephone lines.

More reliable on the whole, not on an individual basis. A DDoS can knock down entire ISPs. Making sure their service is up and running is one thing, but how can they have the same standards of service as telephone companies when the critical bit of infrastructure required for those standards of service are not controlled by them? This would leave POTS carriers and cable providers as the only ones who could offer a service that obeys the standards.

Now, these VoIP providers should be providing (and help pay for) 911 service if they're advertising it as a replacement for regular telephone service. Unfortunately, power outages and internet service interruptions will both affect the availability of this kind of service, so not having a regular phone line should be discouraged.

Re:What constitutes a telephone company?

[mwood]

"A DDoS can knock down entire ISPs."

[Mama Mousekewitz voice] You have only *one* ISP?

A critical part of the reliability of a packet network is redundant routes. Anybody who provides an Internet service and has everything running through one pipe, or one upstream provider, needs to rethink his business plan.

Now, the *subscriber's* ISP is another story. The path from the subscriber to the VoIP provider is analogous to the cable between the subscriber's phone and the service entrance, where ownership passes from the subscriber to the telco. The telco is not responsible for interruption of service when my son snips the cable off the back of the phone; that's my problem (and his!) A VoIP provider should be responsible only from the point at which the traffic enters his facilities, but he *should* be responsible for maintaining generally accepted standards for common-carrier voice services from that point until it leaves his facilities, *not excluding* internal connectivity hired out to others. The provider needs to negotiate appropriate service guarantees with any third party that carries the traffic "within" the provider's operations.

That's gonna cost more, and that's likely why the providers don't want to do it. But you know what? An amazing notion will emerge: simulating circuit switching costs roughly as much as actually providing circuit switching, when you have to deliver the same level of service. *That*'s the real killer: when VoIP is built to meet the same standards as circuit switching, most of the cost saving will evaporate. The telcos are already running internally on technology roughly equivalent to IP but designed from the ground up for the peculiar needs of voice traffic. There is very little inefficiency left to squeeze out after 100 years of improvement.

California VOIP regulations?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Total Phonecall!"

"Your connection has been terminated!"

"I'll call you back"

"Hasta la vista, baby bell"

Isn't Echelon enough already?

[jkrise]

Why should there be any more regulation when the very data can be captured easily?

and, on a related note, will Microsoft be compelled to register as a bank? People use their technology to do online banking you see...

-

Re:Calling all the militia

[1lus10n]

give it a few more years. after the average US citizen starts being noticably effected by these (stupid) laws.

and give it a few more years with no more major terrorist attacks (or alot of attacks) and the american public (hopefully) wont be so happy-go-lucky about endorsing things labeled as "security" or "defense" or .... "patriot" "consumer" etc .....

the scary part is the stupid laws are starting to trickle over to the EU .... (see: software patents)

Hmm

[arvindn]

At first I thought its a nice thing that courts and lawmakers at least partially seem to understand that the internet is different from conventional channels, with some hope that in the future they would also understand that software is different from other arts. Then I realized that all this could be merely because there aren't any uber-corporations interested brib^W lobbying politicians to tax the internet the way they do for software patents, ridiculous copyright laws etc.

Shock Horror!

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean instead of suing the competition into oblivion they will have to provide customers with a reason to part with their hard earned dollars?!

This is America, it's our God given right to make money from nothing, you commies!

</SARCASM>

-A

My 73 yo father

[G3ckoG33k]

My 73 yo father switched to broadband (10 Mbit/sec), voip, etc some two years ago. He surfs, reads the news, etc. He also pays all his bills via the net and is fighting hard to get me do it too - "Come on, it's really easy", he says. Not only that, know he wants me to install Linux on his machine so "he can see what all the fuzz is about". No, he never had a technical diploma of any sort.

Now, he bugs me with his fancy new voip connection. But, I am sure he never lobbied in Minnesota for their decision.

Re:My 73 yo father

[Sabalon]

A few years ago, my great-uncle, who was around 80, was talking to my mom. There was some document she needed to send to them. He told her he could fax it or e-mail it. I think my mom almost dropped the phone at hearing that.

I wish my grandfather (great-uncle's brother) had lived longer - he would have loved all this stuff.

Anyway, it's always fun finding your older generation keeping up with this stuff, and in some cases surpassing the current generation.

Re:My 73 yo father

[aldousd666]

Give your father a candybar from me. If the country was full of people hungry for knowledge and technology like him, we'd all live in a happier place with FTTH and flying cars. Right now, the government doesn't care about making us all high tech because they think the people don't care enough to change their votes based on it. It would be great to see more people interested in getting the most in real life out of what's already doable in theory.

Re:My 73 yo father

[aldousd666]

...the government doesn't care about making us all high tech..

Amend that, make it say "the government doesn't care about allowing us to make ourselves high tech."

Re:My 73 yo father

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, where he get 10mbit/sec broadband? I assume he's not paying $5k a month for that connection...

Re:My 73 yo father

[G3ckoG33k]

No, its not in the US. And, he pays about $250 per month. BTW, I'll get my 26Mbit/sec VDSL any week now, $250/month; check out Bostream to see if you live anywhere near their services.

Spam/no-call?

[deltagreen]

Vonage had maintained that it does not provide telephone service. Instead, lawyers for Vonage contended, the company offers data services over the internet

Where does this put VoIP with regards to telemarketers? If it's a data service, the FTC no-call list can't be applied, can it? Does this mean a call from a telemarketer to a VoIP-phone could be classified as spam?

Re:Spam/no-call?

[Ibix]

On the other hand, they can't block caller ID (caller IP, I guess), so Spamhaus type outfits could be created for VoIP. Serious point, though...

Ibix

Re:Spam/no-call?

[FictionPimp]

Technically, they could simply do this for their customer's Because its theirvoIP network, nothing is stopping them from simply not allowing some phone #'s from dialing in.

Re:Spam/no-call?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure a VoIP call might evade teh no-call list, but you can make your VoIP receiver smarter than a phone handset - you can enforce a handshake that the telemarketing scum won't know.

Re:Spam/no-call?

[Dun Malg]

Where does this put VoIP with regards to telemarketers? If it's a data service, the FTC no-call list can't be applied, can it?

Think of the phone system as a network with each access point given its own 10-dibit address. The DNC list is strictly a list of addresses the telemarketers are not allowed to dial. Doesn't matter what sort of device is on the other end, nor how that device is communicated with (copper loop, wireless, TCP/IP network). They simply cannot call that number.

Re:Spam/no-call?

[Tokerat]

You can't put an IP on the DNCL. Since most end-user IPs are dynamic anyways, it'd be pointless.

Re:Calling all the militia

[houghi]

and give it a few more years with no more major terrorist attacks (or alot of attacks)

The media will hype even the slightest attack or incident towards something that will people will think they are in a full blown war. Wether this is good or bad, I will leave with the beholder and future historians to decide.

Great, now if VOIP would come here.

[Anonymous Coward]

I live in the a top 50 city for size and there is NO voip service here. Hundreds and hundreds of area codes, and they can't even bother with a top 50 city. WTF, assholes. Money magazine even named this the number one city to move to. Somebody needs to tell that to the telecomm companies.

Re:Calling all the militia

[Anonymous Coward]

We would, but there's all sorts of laws about arms...

this might be bad

[c4ffeine]

What I'm afraid of is politicians that don't understand voip. Knowing them, they'll probably apply a tax to help regular phone companies "remain competitive". They'll then limit this technology, perhaps when the lobbyists demand it, perhaps when they decide that it's a threat to homeland security. Or, the phone companies could sue for some reason- unfair competition? copyright infringement? and kill it that way. I hate to be cynical like this, but politicians are just that way.

Re:this might be bad

[Interruach]

Except you *want* a reliable 911 service, even if you switch to VOIP. All regulation isn't bad, you know.

Re:this might be bad

[fuzzybunny]

Mod parent up, excellent point.

The problem is that VoIP companies don't meet a lot of the service criteria that a POTS company does. Consider the example of making a VoIP call via your cable modem over your local provider's fiber backbone, over a microwave link, connecting to a satellite, to two tin cans tied together with a string somewhere in central Angola. Nowhere in there have you used anything that could be traditionally construed to be a "phone call". Welcome to the information age.

While you're absolutely corect, some regulation is good (especially when guaranteeing the service that you agreed to pay for, etc.) the problem with most regulation attempts of VoIP is that it's approached by PUCs or their equivalents around the world as an "all-or-nothing" issue.

There are loads of taxes and bills and whatnot, most only vaguely related to actual 'phone service', which many politicians would love to attach to your telco bill every month. Agreed, there's a more fundamental issue at stake here (i.e. why should you finance something completely unrelated through an everyday activity such as communication), but on the whole, I would rather not see any form of tax creep hit new technology development. I've had enough bad experiences with traditional telcos in Europe to be very wary of anything which might even vaguely artificially even the playing field for established service providers, even as a side effect of something like making the state's tax bottom line look better.

What I would really like to see is a middle ground, where communications companies can help fund something (a) vitally important, and (b) extremely relevant, such as 911 services. However, I guess I suppose it's naive to believe that this is possible without all kinds of rider charges being levied by your local PUC or board or council or whatever. It's well worth the effort, though, if it helps maintain the services that we all want and need, without weighing on the introduction of new technology.

Re:this might be bad

[Anonymous Coward]

911 should be pay-as-you-go. I've never used 911. I don't know anyone that ever has. It sucks that I have to pay service charges to regulate something I don't use or care about. I wouldn't mind paying when and if I need the service.

If you manage to hurt yourself in your own home when nobody is around to help you, you are a jackass. I only do stupid shit when there are friends around that can drive me to the hospital.

If you are old and fall down and break your hip, go ahead and die already, you are wasting my tax dollars, mortality is inevitable, accept it.

Re:this might be bad

[Anonymous Coward]

"But what about the children?"

VoIP is the future

[canolecaptain]

As someone who works in this industry, I thought I'd share some of the future of telecomm for those who aren't 'in the know'. All communication lines going to any endpoint (home, business, sensors, etc) are quickly moving to an IP based data network. Unfortunately, there are two problems that governments and current telephone companies face:
1) Roughly 50% of their voice revenue stream comes from per minute connection charges, other carrier access charges, & regulation charges (govn't). These will evaporate when subscribers move to data driven VoIP (ie: you pay a flat fee for DSL or cable modem bandwidth now, and it can run all your voice calls to anywhere in the world). Eventually the PSTN connection part will no longer be necessary, so Vonage will disappear as we know it today, but it has finally woken up the telcos to what the future will bring.
2) Pretty much the other half of their revenue stream comes from the 'premium' voice feature services (call waiting, text messaging, etc), all of which are quickly moving from the class 5 switch into the phones themselves (aka: free).

What do you do when your primary revenue stream evaporates? Fight it in the courts or with govn't officials. Remember, govn'ts have been taking a nice chunk of that revenue for themselves as well.

We will have to move to a bandwidth & quality of service (QoS) based payment style. A minimum bandwidth is given for a flat rate (which will include -all- voice), and extra bandwidth will be provided on demand at an agreed QoS. The higher the bandwidth & QoS, the higher the fee.

Things to watch out for: VoIP everywhere, SIP phones/services, VoWLAN, current voice carriers moving their infrastructure to their IP networks, and govn't regulations dictating that comm lines (called data services & unregulated) become regulated for QoS.

The companies that move to this model last will not survive. They aren't going to like this. :-)

Re:VoIP is the future

[mwood]

I'm sorry to hear that. I like my consistent circuit-switched connection just fine. I don't need SSB-like fades and dropouts, thank you.

BTW you missed one thing you can do when your primary revenue stream evaporates: buy a big chunk of the guys who are evaporating it and live off *their* growing revenue stream.

I'm trying to imagine how the telcos will move their infrastructure to their IP networks, seeing as how their IP networks run on top of the current infrastructure. Voice is *already* data by the time it leaves the line card, and as far as that OC48 is concerned cells is cells.

Re:VoIP is the future

[Dun Malg]

I'm sorry to hear that. I like my consistent circuit-switched connection just fine.

Damn straight. The beauty of the current PSTN is that the technology at the customer end doesn't have to be any more complicated than it was 100 years ago, all centrally powered and battery backed. If everything went VoIP, I'd be OK, 'cause I've got a ridiculous UPS system keeping my router and such alive; but what about, say, my mother? Gimme that 48v loop for reliability.

Where do you draw the line?

[Michael Hunt]

OK, don't get me wrong, i'm not disagreeing with this ruling. Where do you draw the line, though?

Do you tax the providers who provide a circuit switched network, but not those who use a packet switched network? (as seems to be the case here, never mind that a lot of phone companies use ATM/AAL1 on the backhaul anyhow)

Do you tax a provider who provides you with a physical FXS connection, but not a provider who lets you make calls by some other method? (e.g. h.323 to a peering point which connects to a bunch of DS1s)

Do you only tax the incumbents, because their lines are running through public space and were paid for with public money? (this one almost makes sense)

Where do you draw the line?

Re:Where do you draw the line?

[(H)elix1]

Do you tax the...

This is Minnesota we are talking about. Of course the answer is yes.

Re:Where do you draw the line?

[N3WBI3]

Hey spunky I just moevd here (St Paul) from hel^H^H^HNew York state and you guys have no clue how good you have it in MN. I got my license the other day fo 18$ and in less that 30 minutes! In NY it took me two hours and a buck fifty to return my plates!

On top of that I am paying much less in income tax despite making 50% more here than I was in NY. I like Pawlenty who just up and cut spending when the state was facing a deficit not raised taxes or sold bonds as is common practice in most states. I pay less and get better service here than I ever did in NY

The whole vonage thing was the first time I got annoyed with MN over pretty much anything..

what constitues a regulatable service?

[KarmaOverDogma]

What you are talking about is very interesting, but I wonder what would happen if the the following four circumstances occur (and yes, I know it could be a long shot idea):

1) A few of the VoIPs get bought out or shareholder owned/staked-out by major cable companies.
2) VoIPs adopts a universal/national standard as a result of a consotium of these companies huddling together "looking for interoperability."
3) a major cable provider offers/advertises this standardized VoIP service "free with their broadband service."
4) other big name cable providers jump on the bandwagon.

If the above four occur, then (IMO) you will soon see VoIPs using a universal standard most of the time for Jane/Joe-User.

Now we all know cable and telcos are regulated. But most important to my analogy here, cel-phone companies are built to use a service you already explicitly pay for (traditional telco lines/services), and they are also regulated.

So, if VoIP adopts a standard protocol and it gets adopted by the major telco/cable companies, then I see the door wide open for states (and more importantly the feds) to regulate/tax individual VoIP companies in much the same way as cellular companies get taxed today.

But then again, I could be high on my drug-of-choice.

.

This would be GREAT

[SCHecklerX]

...if I didn't have to depend on my local phone company for a DSL line in the first place :(

Oh, they understand it all right.

[emil]

I've said a couple of times before that the federal tax that we pay for landline and cellphones was originally a temporary measure in 1898 to finance the Spanish-American War.

VOIP is an opportunity to get out from under all of this stupid infrastructure. Even without 911 service, I am all for it.

Good or Bad? Can't tell yet.

[mjh]

While I'm glad that the MPUC's decision was thrown out, I don't think we know whether or not this is really good or just a speed bump for the MPUC (and by extension all other PUCs).

The problem is that we don't have the actual court ruling. We know that the court issued a permanant injunction agains the MPUC's ruling, but we don't know why. We don't know if it's been thrown out for procedural problems. If so, then MPUC simply corrects that procedural problem, makes a slightly different ruling that has the same effect. But if the ruling agrees with the VoIP providers as to what they're offering and why it's fundamentally different than what the LECs offer, then it sets a strong precedent and it impacts every PUC in the US.

Unfortunately, we don't know yet. And we won't know until the ruling is released on Oct 10. So while I'm cautiously optimistic, that's just me being hopeful. It's not reflective of any evidence.

It still could be great. (fyi)

[LostboyTNT]

ah, but you don't need your local company to provide dsl (well, you might depending on your area) all you need is their wires.. but check with other ISP's in the area. For instance, in quite a bit of NY state, Logical Net provides DSL service, and they simply use verizon's (or your local bell's) wiring (for a meager fee) and boom, you have lovely DSL, without even talking to your all powerful bellco Then, there's Roadrunner, and other cable modems, as you all know, but if you can't get ANY other high speed, there's always sattelite. (and if you can't get that, you should probally move somewhere that has power.

<Soapbox>

Any way about it, I have vonage, and it's a Wonderful thing.. it's cheaper than any other phone company.. (oops, did I say that?) umm.. base station land line telecommunications service, (IP or otherwise) you can hook up regular phones, answering machines, fax machines, anything with a phone jack! (non-vonage sponsored faq, and cheap plug for referrals) Not to mention you can keep your regular phone number, equipment, etc.. (FYI, if you use a refferal, you get an extra month free, instead of going directly to vonage :) Where else can you get a true to life 800 number for a couple extra bux a month?

</Soapbox>

ok.. I'm done now..

(yeah, I know, you already knew most of that anwyays...)

Re:It still could be great. (fyi)

[SCHecklerX]

You are missing the point. I have to pay the phone company for phone service in order to get DSL service. Stupid to pay TWICE. Yes, I DO use a DSL provider that IS NOT my phone company. Planetcable.net. They USED to be a cable provider (hence the name), but were forced out of that business model by comcast when they took over the local cable company...so now they provide DSL, thanks to government regulation.

Re:Good or Bad? Can't tell yet.

[mjh]

CNET has an article that is much more detailed than the voxilla article. This latter article makes me even more hopeful that the court's ruling is going in the direction that I'm hoping it will go.

SO... When is the annoucment from the Bells?

[kabocox]

How long till the annoucement from the Baby Bells that they are all going voice over IP to avoid regulation?

1. Have regional monolopy with 2 token "competiors"
2. Change business model to become unregulated.
3. More Profits by reduced costs!

MCI commercial & VOIP

[dbowden]

Has anyone else noticed that the latest MCI commercials on TV have a closed caption script that's completely different than the voice & video portions of the commercial?

The cc portion is pushing a VOIP company (can't recall the name) which is probably owned by MCI, while the voice & video portions are pushing MCI's latest calling plan. I find it interesting that one commercial appears to be pushing two completely different services.

I've seen two different versions of it too, so it appears not to be an error.

One reason banks may be exempt

[LotsofYadda]

IANAL, but if non-profit organizations are exempt from this law, then that necessarily includes credit unions, which are non-profit financial institutions run solely for the benefit of their membership. If credit unions as part of the non-profit community, are exempt from this law, then banks can claim unfair competition. Of course the law could exempt all non-profit organizations except credit unions, however that seems to be an option legislators are unhappy with. So, banks get the exemption too.

This is taxing the internet

[silicon not in the v]

Remember the urban legend crap emails about "Congress is going to start taxing email!!!" Well for the same reason email can't be taxed, this can't be taxed. Let's suppose someone with a VOIP phone calls someone else with a VOIP phone. They are communicating entirely over the internet with no use of any telephone wires. That is almost exactly the same as a voice chat session over AIM, Yahoo IM, etc. except for different software. Congress has already passed a law that they will not tax any communication over the internet.(online purchase is something else entirely) Now they sure as Hell aren't going to tax IM services as phone companies, so they had better not tax VOIP, either.

With the capability of VOIP to connect to regular telephones, that is a capability that they are paying the phone companies for. When it gets onto telephone wires at the receiving end, that is already being paid for, taxed, regulated, etc. by the receiver of the call.

E911 is the why the PUC got involved.

[Anonymous Coward]

I am sure you will feel that way when you fall, or get hurt. 911 is required. and thats what the whole MN PUC issue started as, vontage does not offer E911 service as required by minnesota law on all tellephone lines that are in use in the state.

I am a card carying GOP and NRA member and I hate regs and tax's unlike most of the commies that post on /., but 911 is required. If VoIP to PSTN service is ever to go mainstream it has to worrk. Otherwise your 70 year old dad is going to buy it and when he is haveing a heart attack and tries to dial 911 and it will not work properly.

UNDERSTAND what the real issue is. it is E911, but that would require reading the origional arguments from the MN PUC.

Also i know /. is news for nerds, not news for telco people. But from reading the comments very few people here seam to even know what E911 compeared to 911, much less how it works.

All is fine and dandy on /. tell they think of regulating my favrote thing, like it is suposte to be.

quite odd..

[LostboyTNT]

Most places I've seen dsl, you don't need to have an active phone line/Phone service.. I had dsl before, even after my phone got disconnected, (oops, forgot about that bill) it mattered not..
the phone service was never turned back on, even after paying it off, I had a cell I primarily used and never an issue.. I can't say definatively they would have turned it on, without active phone service, but they never asked, any of the times, or companies I've had dsl with (which is many)