FCC To Hold First VoIP Hearings; Rules in 2004

securitas writes "The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will hold its first hearings on Internet telephony and VoIP regulation on Dec. 1 and plans to regulate VoIP by late 2004. A public comment period will follow the Dec. 1 meeting. Some say that it is overly ambitious to regulate VoIP by 2004, especially since FCC Commissioner Michael Powell does not have a strong reputation for clarifying complex issues - instead he has a reputation for confounding them. More at Internet.com and InternetWeek . FCC press release (PDF1|DOC1) and attached letter (PDF2|DOC2) to VoIP proponent Senator Ron Wyden, who sits on the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee."

Comments

Don't regulate them

[cosmosis]

I find it interesting that they have already decided to regulate VoIP before they have had any public hearings. Why the hasty decision? And if since they have already decided to regulate, why the public hearings then? Sounds to me as is typical of the FCC these days, that public opinion is an afterthought.

Planet P Blog

Re:VoIP

[Gherald]

Basically yes, only you pay instead of ads.

Now that the technology is gaining popularity and starting to be profitable, Uncle Sam wants to turn the beaurocrats loose.

If they rule for some kind of control over VoIP...

[LamerX]

If they rule for some kind of control over VoIP, then it's going to keep VoIP completely supressed, or high-priced. The local phone companies NEED some competition to make sure thier services don't get shittier and shittier, and the consumers need this to keep local phone prices low, and keep the internet free and open.

Regulation not a universal evil

[KD7JZ]

While I am generally in favor of free enterprise, I also do not mind a certain level of regulation. Regulation in the telephone industry is what allows you to pick up any phone, dial 10 digits and reach any other phone in the US. How would it be if you wanted to IM or VOIP your doctor and you are a Yahoo user and the doc is a AIM user??

Re:Regulation not a universal evil

[BoogleBoo]

A small amount of regulation can definitely be a good thing. If we didn't have car crash regulations, rest assure the big 3 would make cars even shittier than they do today. Same applies to any industry. You can't rely on a corporate entity to do anything in the buyer's interests.

Problem with regulations is the standards tend to lack in quality and never seem to be upgraded/reviewed. Back to the car example... bumpers once had a 5 mph impact standard. It's often 2.5 mph today. With today's knowledge of metals and plastics along with detailed crash data, we should be able to make cars low weight that have 50 mph impact standards. Will companies do this out of the kindness of their heart? Hell no. Don't expect the regulators to improve the standard in the next 10 years either.

Re:Regulation not a universal evil

[sploxx]

And, further thought, regulation is not the same thing as standardisation. Standardisation processes and organisations should sometimes be regulated, but standards itself should not.

(The word "regulation" here is meant as a government regulation)

Re:Regulation not a universal evil

[JInterest]

How would it be if you wanted to IM or VOIP your doctor and you are a Yahoo user and the doc is a AIM user??

Well, in a free market, VoiP companies that didn't settle on a standard that permitted people to call whom they needed to call would soon lose out to companies that did, or the technology itself would lose out to another, more open, technology.

Regulation isn't needed to promote standards. Standards tend to arise from market forces. If the FCC is getting into this, it is about control and tax revenue, not promoting uniform standards. Governments suck at uniform standards.

can they regulate?

[larry bagina]

I question whether they can regulate. Not the timeframe (don't you just love the sound of deadlines as they go whooshing by?), but constitutionally. Particularly recently since the Senate refused to block states from imposing net-access fees, and the Supreme Court has lately scoffed at "interstate commerce" as a justification for laws.

Everyone here would laugh if the US Gov't tried to regulate ftp, http, tcp, udp, ip, etc. They have no authority over VoIP either.

Nobody learns

[The Blue Meanie]

The simple fact is that if the FCC and the US Govt gets heavy-handed with regulating VoIP, it will go underground, just like file and music swapping did when they clamped down on it. VoIP is going to happen one way or another. Whether it's done rogue P2P-style, or above-board remains to be seen.

Re:VoIP

[Davak]

The same thing is keeping me from switching to VoIP that keeps me switching to cell phone only... 911 access.

When I can pick up my VoIP phone and the cops know where I am, that'll be when I switch.

I just feel better knowing my family can pick up the phone and get immediate help...

Davak

Re:Why

[dant]

But for the past 25 years or so, their direction has been to exercise authority to prevent monopolies from impeding progress.

May have been true once upon a time, but two words put the lie to this belief: broadcast flag.

Re:Does...

[BitGeek]

The first ammendment applies to states as well.

So, since we have free speech, regulating speech over VOIP is a violation of the constitution for either states or the FCC.

Its flat out illegal / unconstitutional.

Not that anyone cares about the constitution anymore... if you aren't trying to violate the first, you're trying to violate the second, these days.