VoIP Receives Warm Reception From UK Regulators
"In stark contrast to the U.S., where VoIP providers may be stifled by wiretap costs, the UK telecoms regulators seem to be welcoming the technology. The BBC is reporting that a block of phone numbers have been assigned to VoIP users -- and that Ofcom, the regulators, have said 'Our first task as regulator is to keep out of the way.'
"Our first task as regulator is to keep out of the way."
Lets hope they don't stay out of the way for too long, like they did with BT, especially given how quickly businesses get a foothold in these kinds of markets.
I think you're confused, because this is a story about VOIP in the United Kingdom, not the US. There is no "Congress". There are no convoluted tax laws that only apply to telecoms. VOIP users will pay VAT on their service just like any other telecoms user. Total impact on tax revenues would be expected to increase slightly, not decrease.
The story for us Brits here is not the rather waffly statement that ofcom "seem to be welcoming" VoIP, it's the hard fact that they are having a consultation period on it.
They want to know our views on issues such as mandatory provision of free 999 calls (our emergency number, equivalent to 911 in the USA).
The consultation ends on the 15th November. Here is how to respond. If we want a sensible VoIP policy in Britain, now would be a good time to ask the regulatory body for it.
A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
OFTEL don't need to push the interception stance, because RIPA already covers it.
The US survelliance laws are _totally_ different to those of the UK.
You don't start squeezing the industry until it's reached a critical mass. Otherwise, you kill the golden goose before it's laid its first egg. By waiting and pretending you'll regulate lightly, you encourage investment. Once there's a lot of money sunk in, you can tax and tighten all you want, so long as there's an economic profit for the investors.
One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.