FCC Rules States Can't Regulate VoIP

NardofDoom writes "Ars Technica is reporting that the FCC has 'placed a regulatory shield around VoIP,' declaring it immune to state regulation, even if calls terminate on publicly switched networks (POTS). A previous ruling declared that Internet-Internet calls (i.e. Skype) can't be regulated, but the ruling opens the door for Verizon, AT&T and other local carriers to offer VoIP to customers without paying state taxes. One step closer to free phone calls, or one step closer to state regulation or taxation of IP networks?"

Comments

Only TERRORISTS would make free phone calls!

[Anonymous Coward]

If you don't pay for your phone call then you _MUST_ be an anti-capitalist American-hating commie terrorist!

Re:Only TERRORISTS would make free phone calls!

[Anonymous Coward]

Silly AC... if The Company wants to give tax-free phone services, it's unpatriotic(no taxes? T3h horrors!, but very pro-capitalist(company trying to give customers what they want...) ...and from what it seems, the service still costs money, but it's tax free...

Re:Only TERRORISTS would make free phone calls!

[Anonymous Coward]

Free phone calls? Doubtful. There are far too many politicians that want to leave a legacy.

They have social pograms that need your hard-earned money. Have you looked at your phone bill? Landline, cell phone, doesn't matter. Taxes are about 20%. If Ted Kennedy, Fritz Hollings, or Diane Feinstein saw that money start to dwindle, they'd be up in arms. There's no other way to solve a problem except to "tax the rich!"

Re:Only TERRORISTS would make free phone calls!

[elhaf]

20%? I wish. Closer to half. My all-inclusive plan is 25 bucks a month, but the bill I receive each month, with no long distance calls, is 48ish.

Well thank goodness

[LegoEvan]

We wouldn't want the freedom of speech to be compromised.

Direct From The Source!

[1_interest_1]

FCC News Release (PDF, 110K)

Michael Powell's Statements (PDF, 75.6K)

Re:Direct From The Source!

[calibanDNS]

Also available in other formats from the FCC's Dail Digest

Text of the news releast.
Word file of the news releast.

Text of Mr. Powell's statement.
Word Document of Mr. Powell's statement.

For future reference, the FCC maintains a daily digest of their releases here.

Re:Direct From The Source!

[1_interest_1]

Learn how to spell, lose the free iPod signature.

ET?

[bluewee]

ET Phone Home: 127.0.0.1 (just in case you forgot the number) and if you prefer :::1 if you are on IP6 there et buddy...

Re:ET?

[Anonymous Coward]

you are correct.

A double-edged sword

[CMcQueeny]

Whilst this will allow VoIP to continue its growth, etc., it also establishes precedent for federal control of the networks. Although it is true that some industries that are now relatively free began as heavily regulated monopolies, this strikes me as a step in the wrong direction.

Re:A double-edged sword

[Fizzl]

federal control of the networks
Don't worry. If someone is regulating you router, get a friend from another continent and set up a new route. That's the way Internet was desingned.

FFA!

Re:A double-edged sword

[CMcQueeny]

Whether or not it is possible to circumvent is irrelevant... one should not be forced to break the law in order to exercise liberties.

Re:A double-edged sword

[Anonymous Coward]

>> federal control of the networks
>> Don't worry. If someone is regulating you router, get a friend from another continent and set up a new route. That's the way Internet was desingned.

> Whether or not it is possible to circumvent is irrelevant... one should not be forced to break the law in order to exercise liberties.

wtf? Since when did setting up a router become illegal?...

Re:A double-edged sword

[pyite]

Why don't you go back and read how routing works. Your statement is completely inane.

Re:A double-edged sword

[Fizzl]

Ah, yes sorry. Didnt even come to think the whole idea of information transfer over could be regulated.
Was thinking more on the lines of WWW-over-TCP-over-IP-over-BIG_TELCOS

Re:A double-edged sword

[Anonymous Coward]

it also establishes precedent for federal control of the networks

Umm, I just don't see it. How does promoting deregulation establish a precedent?

So far the federal government has been pretty aggressive in defending an internet free from regulations and taxes. I'll take my chances with the feds on this one.

Re:A double-edged sword

[Fizzl]

What is inane about it? Only thing you need is the transfer medium.
What kind of sheep are you if you think it is impossible for few people to set up route from US to Europa, Australia or wherever? You know, there are other countries on the continent of America. Also, radio and satellites still work even if you can't lay down new fiber.

Re:A double-edged sword

[CMcQueeny]

It is not explicitly illegal, but one would be circumventing the clear implications of the ruling, viz., that the federal government has authority to regulate VoIP. A roughly analogous situation would be smuggling in order to avoid an unconstitutional tariff. You shouldn't have to smuggle, because the tariff should not be in place.

Re:A double-edged sword

[CMcQueeny]

Simple: from whence does the FCC derive this authority to decide what states can and cannot to to VoIP? Obviously to regulate something at all, one must have some degree of authority over it.

Re:A double-edged sword

[Anonymous Coward]

The states and the feds took a bite out of my wallet for phone service before I got VOIP. At least now the states are out of the taxation equation. As precedents go, that's OK with me.

Re:A double-edged sword

[Charcharodon]

There isn't a single example were heavily regualted monopolies have given us anything that can be truly considered positive beyond a narrow definition over the short term.

Over price over regulated phone service, electric, and heating fuel (NG, propane, etc) gas industries are perfect example. Just imagine where we would be today if the government had just butted out, with maybe the exception of safety standards.

What I hate

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate it that government departments like the FCC can decide whether or not to raise my taxes simply by fiat rather than having the tax go to a vote either in Congress or in a referendum. They are answerable to no one (save their big media financiers), and do not represent us, the drooling public.

Frankly, the FCC should have no say one way or the other whether the states can tax anything. It is none of their business. Their mandate is far too wide in the first place and it should be pared back, in my opinion.

In this situation they seem to have ruled in our favor, but so too did Mussolini get the trains to run on time. Assad was able to build up Lebanon. Even the despised Hitler was able to bring Germany out of the dust of WWI and build it into a strong industrial machine. Just because your government sometimes does the right thing does not mean that it needs to have as much power as we give it. The power of government should reside at the lowest levels, i.e. the community and city levels. It should be taken away from the highest levels lest they decide to misuse it, e.g. DMCA, Patriot Act.

Re:What I hate

[AuMatar]

And you think the lowest levels are better? I have news for you buddy- the corruption on my local city council rivals that of large cities. And I've never seen more useless beauracracy and petty bickering than in school council meetings.

Re:What I hate

[killua]

hate it that government departments like the FCC can decide whether or not to raise my taxes simply by fiat rather than having the tax go to a vote either in Congress or in a referendum. They are answerable to no one (save their big media financiers), and do not represent us, the drooling public.

Everybody is answerable to someone and the fcc is no different. Even if its only a senate oversight committee.

Frankly, the FCC should have no say one way or the other whether the states can tax anything. It is none of their business. Their mandate is far too wide in the first place and it should be pared back, in my opinion.

I do agree with this statement tho. Taxes is no where even close to being the mandate of the fcc, they should stay out of it and let states handle their on taxes.

Re:What I hate

[Twanfox]

Here is an excellent question, and a notion of my own taxation philosophy.

Taxation should be necessary, relevent, and funds garnered from it reused in related affairs. Take, for instance, gasoline tax. This is (should) used to build and maintain roads, an act directly related to the consumption of gasoline. It even makes sense. The more gasoline you buy, the more you are driving, and the more wear you put on the road. Similarly, the more you wear the road down, so too should you aid more in repairing same.

Now, the question about taxing phone service and VoIP. Is this a necessary taxation? Is there some reason why it may be necessary for the government to seek money out of this business? Under what general principle is this money to be used? Are they attempting to compare sales tax (property acquisition) to service sales, something that does not seem to be taxed? (ie: IIRC, my cable internet bill is not taxed, and I don't recall any other cases where 'service' with no product is taxed) Seems to be to be a rather vague and specious reason to tax VoIP "just because" phone service was taxed. VoIP is a completely different breed of service, and by itself does not even require a service provider to function (direct IP to IP calls).

Screw the government if it thinks it needs to tax things just out of principle. This is how taxes should be driven, out of a need by the government to fund a related community-at-large project. I honestly don't see phone taxes as doing anything of the sort. If they can't come up with a good reason why VoIP needs to be taxed, and what that money is going to be used for, then they do not need to tax it.

Re:What I hate

[Anonymous Coward]

Everybody is answerable to someone

Batman isnt'.

Re:What I hate

[Geccoman]

No taxation without representation.

Re:What I hate

[Anonymous Coward]

Despite the popularity of SUVs among the wealthy, the working class spends a greater percentage of its income on gasoline. This means, despite their good intentions, gasoline taxes are regressive taxes. There's nothing wrong with that, unless you believe that the amount someone is taxed should reflect their income minus their basic living expenses.

Re:What I hate

[CMcQueeny]

Corruption may be present in all levels of government, but it is much easier to influence the lower levels. Just try writing your Senator and some local official like a city counsellor: I'll bet that you'll get a template letter or no letter at all from the former, while you're likely to get an actual response from the latter.

Re:What I hate

[BedivereW]

I believe many of these taxes go directly to services like 911 emergency response. I work at a University and we are taxed base not only on the number of phone numbers but also on the number of drops. So if we use the same phone number in two location we get taxed twice. It makes some since because if there is ever a 911 call from that phone number and the caller is not able give his or her location the 911 operator will have to dispatch police to both locations.

I don't feel like we are overly burdened here when it comes to taxes in the US. But if it were up to me we would do away with all taxes save Federal Income, State Income, and local sales tax. All product / service tied taxes, sales, service, or property are regressive in nature. They have more effect on your purchasing power the lower your annual income. And just think some people in Washington want to institute a national Sales Tax.

Shutter, can you image the administrative bureaucracy with a national sales tax. Forget the IRS we are going to need a whole new brand of government, Executive, Judicial, Legislative, and Sales Tax. Yikes!

Re:What I hate

[umrgregg]

The reason regulatory taxes on telephony exist is really an enigma to me. I did a google search and came up with the following TechLawyer Blog discussing the FCC's future (well, now curent) decision. An excerpt from the entry:

"one reason for regulation and taxation of common carriers is to assure quality of service and prevent harm to consumers through government action. in the "old days", i was ambivalent about protecting internet information providers from state taxation and regulation because i thought doing so would allow them to be less responsible. i have the same slightly queasy feeling about v.o.i.p. one big reason: v.o.i.p. raises serious security issues not present in p.o.t.s. networks."

Interesting stuff to say the least.

Re:What I hate

[Anonymous Coward]

True, but consider that it's far easier to move to another city than to move to another country.

Re:What I hate

[whoever57]

Taxation should be necessary, relevent, and funds garnered from it reused in related affairs. Take, for instance, gasoline tax. This is (should) used to build and maintain roads, an act directly related to the consumption of gasoline. It even makes sense. The more gasoline you buy, the more you are driving, and the more wear you put on the road. Similarly, the more you wear the road down, so too should you aid more in repairing same.

You are ignoring the other purpose of taxation: to discourage behaviours that society feels are harmful or should be limited. For example, many countries have vastly higher gasolene taxes, to discourage the use of private motor vehicles (and indirectly encourage the use of mass transportation).

In this case, however, it is very hard to see how a tax on VoIP would accomplish either goal. It's hard to see why VoIP should be discouraged and it is hard to see why VoIP is related to any local services - after all, I can take my VoIP phone to another country and keep the same number -- am I using local services if I am abroad (and my billing address is a PO box)?

In my view, one should be taxed (if at all) on the local connection: be that fiber, copper, coax, wireless or whatever. The taxes on that local connection should be put towards the local services. One should then be free to put whatever type of protocol one wants onto that local connection without different taxation for different protocols.

Re:What I hate

[ratamacue]

The rationale for decentralized government is simple. The more power government has at its disposal, the higher the level of abuse, and the bigger the problems government will cause. Government can only cause so much trouble with limited power and revenue. For example, the US federal government caused relatively few problems around the world before the federal income tax (which, incidentally, was supposed to be temporary). Today, the US federal government has troops stationed in over 150 countries around the world, and has been at war with some country, somewhere in the world, for every single year over the past century. Why? Because they can. Power will be abused, and absolute power will be abused absolutely.

Naturally, a centralized government has many times more potential for abuse than decentralized government. That's not to say that local and state governments can't be abused, just that there is an upper limit on abuse.

Re:What I hate

[Anonymous Coward]

You are ignoring the other purpose of taxation: to discourage behaviours that society feels are harmful or should be limited.

Yes. For example, we as society, want people to be poor. Money is evil, and obtaining it is the wrong thing to do. Thus, we tax income, in order to discourage it.

Re:What I hate

[cranesan]

911 is exactly the issue. People will no longer have a phone line in their home, they will have VoIP. With some offerings such as roaming phones and the fact that the provider won't know for sure where the phone is at any given time; it will take new systems to manage everything. Systems that the phone companies will not bother to set up unless they have to. So I am worried.

Re:What I hate

[ckaminski]

It's not regressive. It's related directly to use. A person who cannot afford to waste money on gas won't be buying a Chevy Suburban or a Lincoln Navigator. They'll be buying a Camry or a Voyager. Though they will still be paying the same per unit tax, they will be paying less of it.

Fuel is not a basic living expense.

Re:What I hate

[CristalShandaLear]

Frankly, the FCC should have no say one way or the other whether the states can tax anything. It is none of their business. Their mandate is far too wide in the first place and it should be pared back, in my opinion.

Ashcroft may be gone but the idicoy of Michael Powell still reigns.

Re:What I hate

[bfields]

Naturally, a centralized government has many times more potential for abuse than decentralized government. That's not to say that local and state governments can't be abused, just that there is an upper limit on abuse.

Eh, I don't know. The central government is also subject to more oversight.... There are more congresspeople, journalists, and random concerned citicizens watching the FCC than there are watching the local school board.

It's the many eyeballs make all bugs shallow theory. And may also explain why you hear more about federal government corruption than you do about corruption in your city government. It's probably *not* because your city government is any better. And city governments (taken as a whole) *do* have a comparable ability to screw things up....

--Bruce Fields

Re:What I hate

[Charcharodon]

The FCC ruling is not about taxes, but regulation. It would require some action on the part of Congress before some sort of tax is levied.

As far as letting this issue reside at the lowest levels do you really want some local smuck city board making regulations and taxes on what is really a global utility. Those idiots can't even leave well enough alone about what color you can paint your house or where you can park your car on your own property much less figure out something like VOIP

Besides the FCC or any other government body really isn't going to be able to regulate VOIP since it's vapor, it'll just move around regulations as long as the internet exists. The only thing they have any real say in is how it can connect to the POTS system and how companies can use it to provide a for fee service to the public. For fee commincation services are not going to last much longer anyway unless you are talking about things like bandwidth or maybe remote access such as sat-phone service.

Re:What I hate

[Anonymous Coward]

Well you should be careful about the not getting taxed on your internet connection. Depending on whom you purchase service from, i.e. one of the larger providers for DSL, T1, or larger you will see a USF tax on your bill, cable providers at the moment seem to immune to this...

I've been fighting with my ISP, Savvis, on this issue who is conveniently passing along their USF Telco fees the government collects despite the fact that I ONLY have internet connectivity and NOT telco services thru them.

However, because, and this according to the FCC, Savvis is classified as a CLEC they have to pay into the USF and they are free to pass that bill back onto the end consumer. I have argued with the FCC and Savvis that if I ordered a T1 for Telco service the USF fees would apply. If I have the T1 provisioned to carry only data for Internet connectivity, it should not apply. I even argued the point that their ruling on VoIP is incongruous with tagging an Internet T1 connection with USF as it has nothing to do with voice or telephone services. Yet, I'm getting taxed.

It seems the FCC is going to get their pound of flesh one way or the other. They may not tax you for VoIP, but keep your eyes peeled on your Internet bills and see if you are getting "other" extraneous charges tacked onto your bill.

I suspect as VoIP becomes more prevalent we will begin seeing more USF fees showing up on our bills. The sad part is that USF has little to do with phone service. If I'm going to get taxed on my phone or Internet connection, I agree, it should go back into maintaining the infrastructure. Not paying for some **bleepin** farm or hospital project in the middle of BFE.

Re:What I hate

[AuMatar]

I'm not convinced this is true. Yes, there's the potential for abuse and corruption at federal levels. There's also efficiencies to be gained by not having 50 (or more) parallel organizations, and advantages in having things standard nation-wide. And the corruption possible at the federal level is probably no greater than the average corruption at state level*50. It may well be less.

There's some things that are best handled at a local level- speed limits on specific roads, police routes and frequencies, etc. I can't think of anything that really stands out as being more efficient at state level than city, and not being still more so at federal.

Re:What I hate

[ratamacue]

Your state governor does not have the power to change policies that affect the entire country at the same time. Federal politicians do have this power.

For example, it was reported on Slashdot that the FCC has forbidden states from interfering with VOIP. While this may seem like a victory on the surface, you can bet that the FCC has planned all sorts of regulations and possibly taxes of their own. Here's the obvious question: What if the FCC is wrong? The policy will be applied to the entire nation. With centralized government, there is only one solution, and that solution will be forced upon the entire country. The underlying paradigm of centralized government is that people are "cattle" waiting to be herded by one absolute set of rules. Difference cannot be tolerated under centralized government.

Now, what if the states were left to decide their own policies? Some would do the right thing, and some would do the wrong thing. But the ones that do the wrong thing can't force their solution on the entire nation -- therefore they can't cause nearly as much trouble as a centralized government agency.

Re:What I hate

[ratamacue]

Here's another way to look at it. Your country commissioner does not have, and will never have, the power to run the country into an economic depression. The federal government most certainly does (and in fact, they have).

Here's the obvious question. Should anyone hold such an incredible amount of power?

Re:What I hate

[Twanfox]

Ironically, there is a seperate 911 fee placed on your phone bill for exactally that service. However, you still have to pay state and local taxes. Why, if 911 is the reason, and being funded by some other fee?

3 cheers for sanity

[PitaBred]

I'm all for this. It'll be meaningful competition finally. Though regulations exist for the leasing of infrastructure to smaller companies at reasonable rates, those are still abused. Once voice is just packets, it's a totally level playing field.

Re:3 cheers for sanity

[Sanity]

Your adulation is much appreciated.

Re:3 cheers for sanity

[PitaBred]

Duly noted, categorized and archived.
:)

Hooray for VOIP!

[drewzhrodague]

Working for a small VOIP company (unpaid), I look forward to the lack of opportunity the government has in preventing us from doing business.

Re:Hooray for VOIP!

[lokedhs]

Why do you care, it's not like you are getting paid...

Unless you are the owner, in which case I wish you good luck with your company.

Re:State of Confusion

[JackHolloway]

I thought the case of US vs J. Davis, R.E. Lee, et al, 1865 settled this question. Quite starkly. Jack

Federal taxes instead of state taxes?

[Anonymous Coward]

Will federal taxes be levied instead of state taxes?

Re:Federal taxes instead of state taxes?

[CMcQueeny]

Exactly. If anyone has the power to regulate VoIP, it is the states, per the 10th Amendment. All this does is shift authority to a more distant body, and an unelected one at that.

Re:Federal taxes instead of state taxes?

[1_interest_1]

You can count on it.

Michael Powell will be gone by January, and will most likely end up working for Verizon or one of the other RBOC's.

This is just a temporary ruling. Let VoIP become nice and entrenched, then prepare to open your pockets.

Re:Federal taxes instead of state taxes?

[Beyond_GoodandEvil]

Um, no VOIP would probably be more like interstate commerce, and therefore be controlable by Congress. States are just going to have to look elsewhere for funds to cover their deficits.

yes, but what's to say ...

[Triumph The Insult C]

that my monthly phone bill's "Federal Excise Tax" doesn't start going up a few more $$/month?

afterall, someone has to pay for fcc chairman powell's first class flights to new orleans and las vegas

Fair taxation?

[bstarrfield]

I know that this will be unpopular with the ./ crowd, but this strikes me as a pretty unfair subsidy of the technologically savvy at the expense of the less technologically competent.

VOIP requires that you have a high speed line - either DSL or cable - an expense that many people can't afford. Additionally, many people live in locations that do not have access to high speed internet. If you can't afford, or can't receive high speed access, you're left with conventional phone or cellular phones - both of which can be regulated and taxed by the states.

Though I understand the FCC's motivation to promote development of the VOIP industry, why should those with high speed access find a loophole out of local telephony costs? The administration is all in favor of reduced taxation, but this ruling actually works out be a non-legislative regressive tax.

IMO, We need to try to equalize the costs and benefits of new technologies, and not allow technologies to be used to escape financial responsibilities.

Re:Fair taxation?

[rcw-work]

VOIP requires that you have a high speed line - either DSL or cable

Which you probably already pay taxes on anyway.

Re:Fair taxation?

[Anonymous Coward]

Eh, it's like mortgage deductions. They tend to benefit taxpayers who are at least middle class--but in doing so they help more people own their own homes, and so could be said to expand the middle class.

Re:Fair taxation?

[PitaBred]

So, rather than do Internet over the telephone for $27/line plus $20/mo, you can do telephone over the Internet for a grand total of $50/mo. Not to mention that this will increase broadband adoption, hopefully lowering prices. So this is perfectly reasonable for the less well-off, and better for everyone as a whole. The local POTS is a hegemony system anyway. It's called 'choice', and we now have it, where before you had the illusion of it.

Re:Fair taxation?

[bfields]

this strikes me as a pretty unfair subsidy of the technologically savvy at the expense of the less technologically competent.

Seems like the sensible thing to do would be to tax DSL and Cable in roughly the same way that telephone lines are taxed (is that feasible?), instead of regulating VOIP over DSL and Cable like telephone lines.

The current situation does seem a bit bizarre, though. Does this mean that all the phone company needs to do is send me a new phone and insure that, somehow or another, the phone uses IP to talk to the local station, and then suddenly a service that is (from my point of view) functionally identical is suddenly not regulated as phone service?

--Bruce Fields

Re:Fair taxation?

[ValuJet]

Here is why.

It unfairly taxes a specific kind of internet traffic. It is just data flowing over lines no differently than webbrowsing. Allowing states to set a precidence where they are allowed to tax a specific kind of internet traffic is not good for anyone. Also imagine being a VoIP company where you have to process all the rules for VoIP for cities/counties/states. It would be a logistical nightmare.

This is very good for VoIP and the internet in general imo.

Re:Fair taxation?

[1_interest_1]

So the fact that I charge half of my customer base, the "unbanked", 75% more for their phone access in advance is not an 'unfair' tax?

All the while, still claiming subsidies from the government for rural telephone access.

Re:Fair taxation?

[jmulvey]

Your post seems to assume that regulation or taxation of telephony is needed. Are monopolies forming in telephony? No! The barriers to entry to forming your own telco are practically nil.

The same IS NOT true of Internet service providers, and that seems to speak more toward your point (that some people can't afford it). But let's not use an outdated methodology like telephony taxes to fund ISP regulation.

That's like taxing the bejesus out of electric pencil sharpeners in order to avoid a monopoly in writing paper. It's a great way to decimate the electric pencil sharpener business, but doesn't accomplish the goal of regulating writing paper makers.

Let's abolish these stupid, outdated, state feeding troughs and (if we need to) put new troughs where they can do some good.

Re:Fair taxation?

[dgatwood]

You have this upside down. This is one step towards removing states' ability to tax things that they never should have had the authority to tax to begin with.

The states give the excuse that the tax is needed to pay for emergency services. The fact is that those emergency services would still be necessary even if no one had a telephone and all we had were a bunch of pay phones, and moreover, can be used completely gratis by people who have no phone service and only use pay phones. Thus, allowing the states and communities to tax even POTS was creating a tax on the technologically savvy to pay for service that was used by the less technologically competent. Preventing taxes on VoIP just means that the folks in the middle get screwed (which is pretty much the norm, sadly). It's not right, but it's a step in the right direction.

As far as I'm concerned, if I as a phone customer have to pay an E911 tax on my phone bill, then E911 service should only be available to people who pay that tax. Pay phones should not have E911 service, nor should any cell phones outside their home city. And no, I don't think that's a good idea. I think the current system is broken and needs to be rethought.

The -right- fix for the problem is to pay for this out of property tax and hotel tax revenues. This is a much more fair means of covering the costs of those services, as it applies regardless of whether someone has an out-of-state cell phone as his/her primary line, an in-state cell phone, a wired phone, a VoIP line, or no telephone at all. Those who own rental property pass the cost on to renters, and now everyone is roughly burdened equally, which makes sense, since everyone has about the same chances of needing the service (age and health issues notwithstanding).

Bottom line: if everyone needs the service, -everyone- should pay for it, not just those with a phone line, thus taxation for any reason other than upkeep of the telephone poles (and wires/switching if the community owns the hardware) is wrong.

Re:Fair taxation?

[jwdb]

...and not allow technologies to be used to escape financial responsibilities.

The question is, what justification is there for taxing the phone system? It is a private service, just like TV, internet, radio, etc...
POTS is either underregulated or overregulated, depending on how you view things. If it's a private enterprise, why all the controls, regulations, and taxes? If it's a government service, why all the competition?

Regulations on phones belong to a previous era. If we wish to continue to maintain that the phone system is a private enterprise, we must let the market regulate it. That does seem to have worked for most of the rest of the economy...

Where some regulation would be useful is the distribution system. Ideally, the government would own the physical hardware and would lease it to anybody who wanted to provide a service. This prevents people from building redundant networks while not leaving all the power in the hands of one corporation.

Jw

Re:Fair taxation?

[JoeStreet]

this strikes me as a pretty unfair subsidy of the technologically savvy at the expense of the less technologically competent.

You don't have to be technologically savy to use VOIP. I have Vonage and the installation, if you can call it that, was a no-brainer. Truly plug-and-play. I don't see this as unfair at all.

VOIP requires that you have a high speed line - either DSL or cable - an expense that many people can't afford.

Do the math. VOIP is sooo cheap compared to standard phone service it pays for your broadband. I went from a $100/mo phone bill to a $25/mo VOIP bill. I'm laughing all the way to the bank.

Additionally, many people live in locations that do not have access to high speed internet.

I don't see why I should subsidize service for these people. If you live in a remote location you should be prepared to pay the price. Ever seen the cost of living indexes for Alaska and Hawaii?

Re:Fair taxation?

[interiot]

I agree wholeheartedly. Either the FCC should leave internet traffic as a whole untaxed, or it should tax internet traffic as a whole. Taxing one specific kind of data is insane... Categorizations of internet traffic change on almost a month-to-month basis and are too fluid to be regulated.

Re:Fair taxation?

[stratjakt]

Whoever owns the payphone (usually your local telco) pays the E911 tax, they don't get a free ride.

And everyone can call 911 gratis, whether you have active phone service or not, you should be able to plug in and dial 911.

Re:Fair taxation?

[zoloto]

So should we be taxed for:

email
instant messengers
ftp

and any other protocol just because the government wants it that way?

We pay for our monthly broadband or dialup access as a SERVICE. leave it that way.

Re:Fair taxation?

[NardofDoom]

Additionally, how would anyone know what packets are what? By port? What stops someone from port mapping their VoIP box to port 80? Will the states or feds put boxes *inside* your firewall to determine what data you're sending?

actually, even *that* wouldn't work.

Re:Fair taxation?

[Pfhorrest]

I do not presently have a telephone. I have no interest in one. I use the internet for all of my non-personal, non-postal communications. (Not that I use postal communications much either). Everyone I know who I can't speak to in person, has internet access, so email or IM is a suitable way of contacting them.

Am *I*, in your opinion, participating in the levy of this "regressive tax"? I don't use the phone system. They still run a line to my house, though it's not active with a dial tone. Other people's tax dollars from their phone bills pay for that line to be there. I didn't ask for them to, I didn't ask for that line to be there, but it just is. VoIP is just another internet technology, and though it can connect to POTS phone systems, if there are people WITH POTS systems then they are paying for them.

If people stopped driving cars and thus stopped paying a gasoline tax, would you argue that they are putting a burden on those who do drive to pay for the upkeep of the roads? I might actually agree with such an assertion, but what is the problem with it? If enough people don't want the service provided (POTS phone lines, roads, what have you), to the point that there aren't enough taxes to pay for it's upkeep, then why not just kill the service when it reaches that point?

So let the burden of paying for POTS systems fall on those who still use them. It's only fair. We don't pay for the mass removal of horse manure from our streets anymore, either, because most people stopped driving horse-carts.

Re:Fair taxation?

[damiangerous]

VOIP requires that you have a high speed line - either DSL or cable - an expense that many people can't afford.

The broadband portion of my cable bill was less than my monthly phone bill (without even taking toll calls into account). Adding Lingo made the cost just $10 more for a higher service level (voice mail, caller ID, etc like before but now I can get voice mail forwarded via email anywhere plus a few other things) and there's no extra charge for calls anywhere in the US. Lingo is saving me at least $40 a month, and if I didn't already have broadband I'd be breaking even.

Switching to VoIP would be especially ideal for lower income families. They're already likely to be behind technologically and they'd be gaining high speed Internet access essentially for free.

You do have a point about "no access to broadband" though that's only a matter of time.

Re:Fair taxation?

[Chyeld]

Not only that, but what happens if they screw up the definition of VOIP when they try to tax it? All the sudden, you can't use voice chat in games without paying $0.50 a minute in taxes, (Yeah, I know, an exageration) because instead of defining VOIP closely, they just say "transmitting voice data over the internet" or some other idiot idea.

Re:Fair taxation?

[raehl]

"why should those with high speed access find a loophole out of local telephony costs?"

Because they are not using local telephony?

Next you'll be telling us that people who read the newspaper are finding a loophole out of cable television costs.

Re:Fair taxation?

[Atzanteol]

I was listening to the FCC chairman (or spokesman?) on CNBC this evening, and the reason given was that VOIP run on the *internet*, and therefore states having regulatory control seemes silly (given that the internet is *global*).

Many phone lines et al are still local, and that high-speed DSL or Cable you use to connect is up for regulation still...

This is definitely a step in the right direction, and an amazing realization by the FCC IMHO.

Re:Fair taxation?

[Wesley Felter]

Seems like the sensible thing to do would be to tax DSL and Cable in roughly the same way that telephone lines are taxed (is that feasible?), instead of regulating VOIP over DSL and Cable like telephone lines.

Yep; various people have proposed this as an alternative to the current regime. Another proposal is to tax phone numbers regardless of how they are connected to the customer.

Does this mean that all the phone company needs to do is send me a new phone and insure that, somehow or another, the phone uses IP to talk to the local station, and then suddenly a service that is (from my point of view) functionally identical is suddenly not regulated as phone service?

Correct! Regulatory arbitrage, here we come.

Re:Fair taxation?

[Deagol]

That's pretty cool!

How do you deal without having a phone, though? Banks, utilities, and other services tend to kinda freak when you refuse to give them a number (as I've tried unsucessfully to do, to avoid telemarketers).

Re:Fair taxation?

[Wesley Felter]

If you apply the tax at the VoIP/PSTN gateway, there's much less of a problem. VoIP taxes are not taxes on packets; they're taxes on the service of gatewaying those packets onto the PSTN.

Re:Fair taxation?

[amchugh]

I was about to say you don't get it, until I read the last paragraph. I've been saying the same for years, and it applies similarly to cable, power, water, and gas lines.

Re:Fair taxation?

[faedle]

Funny. It would appear that ILECs still, essentially, have a monopoly on the local loop.

The few companies that built their own local loops have all been gobbled up by either ILECs like Verizon, or long-distance carriers AT&T and MCI. In all but a few cases, their loops consisted of fiber SONET rings in urban cores, and their service was almost universally unavailable for anybody who was ordering anything less than a T-3's worth of service.

When I ordered service through a CLEC DSL provider, Qwest still was responsible for maintaining the local loop.

When I look in my back yard phone pole, I see exactly two sets of wires. One is owned by Qwest, the other by Comcast, and the second set would provide me phone service.. by VoIP...

Re:Fair taxation?

[timeOday]

It unfairly taxes a specific kind of internet traffic. It is just data flowing over lines no differently than webbrowsing.

Well, there's no physical basis for how the RF spectrum is divided into unlicensed vs. licensed (and auctioned) frequencies, either. Or for that matter, zoning laws (the dirt doesn't know any better). Or "owned" vs "free" information (the bits don't care).

You're media centric; the application doesn't matter. What's the argument against being application centric, with the assumption that the media doesn't matter?

Re:Fair taxation?

[HeadachesAbound]

We are already over-taxed. Adding another tax is quite frankly just a little much don't ya think?

I get taxed on the money that I make (income taxes).
I get taxed on the money that I spend (federal and state sales tax).
I get taxed for services (phone, internet, cable).

I pay out the backside for my general services (gas, electric, water) which are all monopolized.

I see no point in taxing a service (which is what VOIP is) just to pad the wallets of yet another government black hole.

On the other hand, if the finances of tax system where open to public scrutiny and I could actually see where the $20 that I pay for my local phone service actually goes then I might think it necessary.

Of course, the chance of the phone company actually admitting that they collect more fees than what is actually required for the USF charges each month isn't likely to happen in this lifetime.

Re:Fair taxation?

[ckaminski]

Speak slowly: I. Don't. Have. One.

Same when they ask for my address (Radio Shack, but not my bank).

Re:Fair taxation?

[IronChef]

Though I understand the FCC's motivation to promote development of the VOIP industry, why should those with high speed access find a loophole out of local telephony costs?

Because I don't have a telephone. Instead I buy a service where my ISP takes some bits from my home LAN, sends them somewhere else, and sends some new bits back to me.

My DSL comes over a line leased from Covad. I have no kind of account with the local telco.

It looks like a phone... it may work like a phone... but it's different.

(And so far I love it. $30 flat rate, no LD charges, not even to peace-loving Canada, and I get all the services like Caller ID that the telco wanted to nickel-and-dime me for.)

Re:Fair taxation?

[bstarrfield]

I know on /. you're not expected, or even supposed to, respond to your own posting. I think that I'd better make my point clear, using this response as the message.

Consider phone service - in some form - to be an absolute necessity. Using the pay phone down the block is not a comparable substitute to having your own land-line phone, a cell phone, or ta-da - VOIP. Those who don't have a phone face serious disadvantages in terms of their safety, ability to work, social contact, etc. Point: Everyone needs a phone.

The issue is, phone lines (cell and land), are easy targets for taxation. I understand that the E911 charge is actually a general tax, not a toll for a specific service. But sadly, masking a service charge when in fact something is a tax is how states and localities often get badly needed revenue. Economically efficient? No. Fair? Hardly ever. A convienient way of raising revenue without saying you're increasing taxes, yes. No matter what, though, being able a tax that the lower income classes must pay due to your access to technology is not at all better.

Consider that where I live, our county recently added a $4 per month per land-line charge. That sucks. Really. It was done to avoid increasing property taxes (in a booming, out-of-control real estate market, sigh). Suppose I want to avoid that $48 per annum tax, and I use VOIP. Am I being clever or am I being irresponsible? Essentially, is acting in a manner designed to minimize your tax exposure fair to others?

Tax policy in the US is a mess. This is another example of how those who are wealthier are able to avoid taxes that those who are poor cannot avoid. Note that I'm not commenting on the normative (efficiency) economics in question, but on the positive (morality) economics of taxation policy.

As an aside: consider E911 to be a public good. The system functions best when the highest number of people have access to it; you want the earliest possible report of a dangerous situation. We all benefit by having a broad coverage E911 system. Letting some individuals avoid funding an essential service who benefit from that service seems... troublesome.

Re:Fair taxation?

[AKnightCowboy]

Though I understand the FCC's motivation to promote development of the VOIP industry, why should those with high speed access find a loophole out of local telephony costs?

As someone else already said, I pay local, state and federal taxes on my DSL line IN ADDITION to my analog phone line the ADSL rides over. That's over $10/month just in that damn universal service fee alone.

Re:Fair taxation?

[mibus]

As far as I'm concerned, if I as a phone customer have to pay an E911 tax on my phone bill, then E911 service should only be available to people who pay that tax.

No.

If somebody hasn't ever paid tax (someone who has never been employed, an infant, whatever) then by that reasoning they shouldn't get anything that taxes pay for - medication, hospital use, etc.

Somebody without a car or a drivers license shouldn't be able to walk or ride their pushbike on the road.

Governments are there to help everybody, not just those who pay a given tax.

(I do agree, however, that taxes on specific items, like petrol, should be given back to something related - pollution control and roads, in that case).

Re:Fair taxation?

[Overzeetop]

RTFP. He thinks the quote you pulled from his post is wrong. Access should not be based on paying the tax, it should be universal. The tax, however, is mis-applied, and should be distributed based on demographics (residence tax) rather than phone distribution.

It is a semi-valid argument, though most residences will have one phone line, and most residences with lots of people will have more than one line. Hotels will have several phone lines. Businesses, which have a disproportionate number of lines for the emergency service calls they receive, are the most unfairly taxed, as are small families which have a disproportionate number of lines to occupants. I suppose a "room tax" would be appropriate, or an occupant tax, with hotels paying by either room or average occupant load, but that's getting pretty complex.

VOIP just throws a monkey wrench into a tax system that, while not representative, was relatively accurate.

Re:Fair taxation?

[drew]

Seems like the sensible thing to do would be to tax DSL and Cable in roughly the same way that telephone lines are taxed (is that feasible?)

i think this is true for cable already. and if you have dsl, you are by necessity paying the telephone line tax anyway. it would seem to me that the voip issue would mostly apply to cable anyway- if you have dsl, you pretty much by definition have a phone line already- in that case, i suppose a voip provider could be used to get a cheape second phone line, but in any case you are still paying the taxes to have the physical line run to your home

Re:Fair taxation?

[bfields]

i think this is true for cable already. and if you have dsl, you are by necessity paying the telephone line tax anyway.

I assume this only applies in the case of DSL that shares an existing phone line, right? I'm just going on my vague memory that when I had DSL going over a separate line, I don't think the usual phone taxes being were on the DSL bill. Could be they just didn't bother to break them out, but I doubt it.

--Bruce Fields

Re:Fair taxation?

[drew]

I suppose that may only be true about shared phone/DSL lines. I've never dealt with DSL on a dedicated line before. I was under the impression that you still had to pay for the dedicated line from the phone company, even if you don't have phone service on it, and that any relevant taxes would be on that bill, not your DSL bill. However, that is hearsay, and I don't know with any certainty how the billing on a dedicated line works.

Re:Fair taxation?

[Obliterous]

VOIP requires that you have a high speed line - either DSL or cable

Say what??
skype works pretty good over a 56k modem. there IS a bit of time-lag but the audio quality is excellent.

what a positive

[Yonkeltron]

i think this is wonderful news. it looks to me like uncle sam finally sees that VOIP needs to be left alone in order for it to prospoer. look at how POTS was regulated to death and you see how important it is to keep VOIP free and clear.

hmm...

[bretharder]

I'd rather have state regulation than fed.
If you disagree with a state's law(s) you can always move to another;
with fed's your just fucked.

So... IMO this is bad.

Re:hmm...

[SunPin]

I'd rather have state regulation than fed.
If you disagree with a state's law(s) you can always move to another;
with fed's your just fucked.

How old are you? Are you aware of the cost of moving to another state? You make it sound like a choice between various cheeses.

Re:hmm...

[bretharder]

I wasn't trying to imply that it's easy;
just that it's easier to move to another state than another country.

Re:hmm...

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey man, once I pick a cheese, I stick with a cheese. Fuck you.

Any such taxes in Europe or Canada?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are there any similar taxes in Europe or Canada? What about Australia? Will VoIP still evolve even if it's regulated in the United States?

Re:Any such taxes in Europe or Canada?

[Misao-Chan]

The CRTC (Canadian equiv. of the FCC) recently held public submissions on the topic of VoIP Regulation. They will release a decision in the next few months if they will regulate it or not.

During the submissions, there were a lot of petitions stating that VoIP should not be regulated. Most of the phone companies including Bell and TELUS (who I happen to work for), as well as the smaller VoIP providers, were against regulation.

Hopefully they will choose the non-regulated path...

Since when has....

[Anonymous Coward]

The FCC using its powers for good?
How on earth could this happen?

Re:Since when has....

[Anonymous Coward]

It's because they're Republicans, led by Mr. Michael Powell. They have nothing but the utmost concern for freedom!

Grab the tinfoil...

[PornMaster]

"or one step closer to state regulation or taxation of IP networks?"

Well, call me a moron, but isn't it one step away from state regulation of IP networks?

Or is the question whether or not the states will go "one layer down the stack" and try again? And if that's what you're saying, then how do you anticipate they'll do it? A wire, a fiber, or the air can carry any kind of data signals across it. I'm not saying that there won't be regulation regarding IP networks... the first time a woman can't call the police and is raped because the cable is out may cause things to be regulated, but I don't see how the FCC's decision really impacts that.

Re:Grab the tinfoil...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, call me a moron...

Sure, moron. ;-)

good...

[bobsalt]

that means they can kiss my ()*() asterisk

(sorry Mark, no pun intended!)

snoop all packets?

[Anonymous Coward]

There's no regulation/taxation on moving data packets over the internet so why should they unfairly penalize people who wish to send voice traffic? Is the government going to sniff all packets and tax you on the ones that contain VOIP bits?

If companies and individuals can lower costs by moving voice bits to IP networks, then more power to them. The companies with huge inefficient networks of POTS lines can either morph with the market or go out of business. Why should VOIP customers subsidize inefficient players in the telecom industry and or the government's slush fund?

I'd much rather have a single regulation entity

[DarthBart]

Rather than having to go through the hoops and hurdles of making sure that I comply with the rules and regulations of every state that I do business in, terminate traffic in, or originate traffic from.

I'm sure the greedy, bloodsucking suits in the state legislatures will figure out a way around it, though.

I'm in favor of the taxation

[Anonymous Coward]

I would like to see the phone lines to my house go away in favor of fiber and VOIP. However I would not particularly mind if my current telephone related taxes got shifted over to cover that new service instead. As long as they remained about the same cost and covered particular emergency service guarantees then that would be reasonable.

Michael

Re:I'm in favor of the taxation

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not that I (and perhaps most of us) object to taxation in general; it's just that we foresee deep problems with taxing certain kinds of data more than others, and the entire notion seems symptomatic of a government painfully out-of-touch with technology. Is it still VOIP if the packets are encrypted? What about mp3's? Isn't that audio-over-internet too?

If they want to tax data, then fine, but don't play these games.

Bad wording

[ad0gg]

"One step closer to free phone calls, or one step closer to state regulation or taxation of IP networks?" "

Voip calls aren't free, someone has to pay for the networks thats running the IP traffic. Then there's a cost for your internet connection.

Re:Bad wording

[chia_monkey]

Very good point. Just like the cell phone companies say "free long distance", you're still paying for that monthly service.

One thing people need to bear in mind is that VoIP has been around for a while. Yet people all equate VoIP now with calls over handsets using Vonage and such. VoIP is just that..."VOICE over IP", meaning when you've been using iChat (or any other IM with audio capabilities), you've been using VoIP.

Right now I still use Skype and iChat for my VoIP requirements. How could the gov't regulate my chatting? That means they'd have to regulate all IM clients. Soon I'll head to Vonage or set up my own network, but until then...

Re:Bad wording

[eclectro]

Voip calls aren't free, someone has to pay for the networks thats running the IP traffic. Then there's a cost for your internet connection.

Which both is paid by the buyer of the internet connection.

When the consumer subscribes to the internet connection, it allows the ISP and upstream providers finance the network.

I have often thought that most of the taxes and fees on a POTS were ridiculous. One tax was put on POTS to pay for the Spanish-American war (1898), and has been used to pay for every war since then. Then there is the nebulous Universal Service fund. Doesn't everyone have a phone by now? Add onto that POTS prices (at least in my area) has never gone DOWN, but has continually gone UP.

It's about time POTS gets some real competition. If they start taxing VOIP, I'll give it up. I wouldn't be surprised if an email tax eventully gets proposed -- after all we are in the era of trillion dollar deficit spending.

Re:Bad wording

[jjhall]

The universal service fund is one that upsets me every time. That tax assumes a telephone line is a necessity. Truth is, it is not.

The fact that people who are low income are getting their phone bills reduced or free completely cheeses me off. I know people who are just barely above the cutoff point for those programs. This means by the time they pay full price for their phones, they have less take home pay than the low income people do to spend on other things.

Don't get me wrong, having access to emergency services is a great thing. But if I am paying for their phone line out of my pocket, it should be restricted to calling 911, local doctors' offices, and other public service oriented numbers, along with maybe numbers for immediate family members. I shouldn't have to fund their phone calls to their buddy to plan their next night at the bar.

Want an incomming number? No problem, give those subsidized phone lines a special prefix that you must dial a 1 in front of in order to call, like the old "calling party pays" cell phone plans we used to have when cellular phones were just starting in the US. Again, public service oriented companies should be able to call those numbers without additional expense.

It wouldn't upset me so much if there weren't so many abusers in all of our "welfare" systems. But I am so tired of seing people walk into a grocery store, pay with food stamps, then notice their kids always have the latest portable video game, they have a cell phone, lots of jewelery, a brand new car, you get the idea. As they say a bad apple spoils the bunch, the abusers have given me a very jaded view of the whole system.

Jeremy

We'll see

[PincheGab]

I want to wait for the first instance of a VoIP call failure eventually leading to someone's death (ie, a 911 call did not go through because a router was down/etc...).

Not that I would buy into that, but I don't think people as a whole are bright enough to not blame VoIP in such a situation.

I predict the legislation will be called the "Let's keep our kids alive" law...

Re:We'll see

[stratjakt]

If you cant collect taxes on the VoIP, the purpose of which is to pay for 911 services, then I can see 911 services being cut off from VoIP.

Thus, VoIP never becomes a replacement for POTS. Not that it even should be, IMO. With no regulation there will be no guarantee of the quality or availability of the service.

Government regulation usually sucks, but it does have good side effects. The fact that my phone worked even when a hurricane knocked power out for 9 days is one of them.

Do you think Bell installed all that redundant equipment and all those generators because they wanted to offer me the best possible service?

Re:We'll see

[radish]

Government regulation usually sucks, but it does have good side effects. The fact that my phone worked even when a hurricane knocked power out for 9 days is one of them.

Well a hurricane is extremely unlikely where I live. Should there be some kind of problem, I have two seperate cell phones in my apartment, on different networks. I also have pay phones on the street outside, and several hundred neighbours in my building, many of whom I assume have a POTS line. If all else fails, there's a fire house a block away. I am confident that, in an emergency, I will be able to summon help or get information even if my VoIP line dies.

My point is that while POTS may be more reliable than the newer techs coming along (VoIP, cellular etc), provided that the consumer understands the issues/risks I don't see the problem.

Re:We'll see

[drew]

I hear a lot of people who say that you should still keep a landline because cell phones or voip services may not work in a power outage. You know what? most phones won't work in a power outage anymore either. I can count the number of people I know who still own a corded phone on my fingers, even while wearing mittens. Personally, I have been using my cell phone exclusively for ayear and a half, and if there were a large power outage, I put better odds on me being able to call someone on my cell phone than most people I know being able to use their land lines.

Fine then....

[lateralus_1024]

Howard Stern Show via VOIP. Careful what you ask for Powell.

IP networks SHOULD be taxed - JUST ONCE

[stagmeister]

Ideally, we shouldn't be paying per-month fees for our access to IP networks. (Let's not even call it the "internet" anymore, please. It's just a network for sending and receiving IP packets) We should be paying for bandwith. Just like we have an electric bill where we pay per kilowatt, and a water bill where we pay per gallon, we should pay per megabit sent and received over the IP networks. That way all this traffic - is already taxed. We could have one tax on IP traffic fees, and after that it's fair game to do whatever you want with that IP traffic. So VOIP calls wouldn't be "free", they would cost a certain amount depending on the bitrate you send and receive at. And they would be taxed based on how much bandwith you use for it.
Jason

Re:IP networks SHOULD be taxed - JUST ONCE

[xlv]

(Let's not even call it the "internet" anymore, please. It's just a network for sending and receiving IP packets)

That's fine and dandy but do you know what IP stands for? It's Internet Protocol...

Re:IP networks SHOULD be taxed - JUST ONCE

[tialaramex]

Paying for megabits sent makes no sense. The only reason they charge you per kilojoule for the electric bill is because it costs money to make electricity. Do you think packets cost money? Can your five year old bankrupt you by running too many packets through ::1 (127.0.0.1 to the old-schoolers) ?

Access charges are how you charge for networks. Sometimes idiots let other people charge them use charges for the network (eg. consumer POTS service long distance or international charges) but that's basically a license to print money for whoever does the charging.

[ Consider for a moment a five minute period in two parallel universes. In one you call Cape Town from New York over POTS for 5 minutes. In the other you just sit there meditating. Why did your POTS company get $2 or so of income in one universe but not in the other? What were their additional expenses incurred ? ]

What you get to charge for access depends on the quality of service, which means typical and guaranteed bitrate, availability, service limitations (e.g. no outbound SMTP packets) and so on. You contract with other access providers to exchange packets in order to increase the network value for everyone (routing policy).

my experience

[theMerovingian]

One step closer to free phone calls, or one step closer to state regulation or taxation of IP networks?

All I know is that I used to pay $65 a month for SBC service with unlimited long distance, caller ID, and voicemail. After I switched to Vonage (same deal for $24.99/mo), SBC started calling me three times a day to get me to switch back for $24.99.

I won't switch back, even though VoIP is a little annoying (doesn't work when the power is out, have to occasionally restart the cable modem, etc). Thank goodness that a cheaper alternative came along to break the back of the local phone monopoly.

Re:my experience

[calibanDNS]

You can get cable/VoIP modems with a battery backup. The modem I got from Time Warner cable (in central NC) came with a backup that is reported to last close to 8 hours in the event of a power outage. Now, not only do I not have to worry about not being able to call 911 in a power outage (and I have a cell phone anyway), but I can pass the time during an outage by browsing the web.

Re:my experience

[ForestGrump]

I have a UPS which I have the modem, router and laptop and a lamp plugged into. Luckily I haven't had anything long enough to drain the UPS battery...yet.

Grump

Note: Lamp is important so I can see when the power goes out.

Re:my experience

[Rangataua]

To get a wife you need to replace the lamp with a candle.

Re:my experience

[ForestGrump]

what if I buy those bulbs that flicker like candles? Do the ladies fall for those?

Re:my experience

[Rangataua]

No idea. My geeky looks and techno-speak conversations scares them off before I can find out.

Business will benifit.

[Brigadier]

Well as much as we all would love this, I think from a financial stand point businesses will fair better. If you've ever compared the cost of a POTS line for a business as opposed to a home user you will notice the large price difference. At my company we pay for a T-1 which is split between voice and data, with VOIP we can pay only for the data (cheaper) then go with a VOIP career and save houndreds in LD charges a month. To be honest on the home realm I see Cell phones driving down the cost of POTS lines to where theywill be much less regulated (hopefully).

Survival of the fittest (Verizon price gouging)

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm happy that the VOIP industry will be allowed to grow without unfair taxation. The RBOCs have it coming. I finally cancelled my last remaining POTS line. It had been serving as an inbound fax line for my small business and I was too lazy to call everyone and tell them to use my new VOIP number. But a few days ago I decided to actually look at my Verizon bill. For a line that made ZERO oubound calls, I was being charged about $35/month. I was being charged $12 just for federal and state taxes, $11 for some sort of unlimited local calling plan and $12 for the privilege of having a POTS line.

So I figured I'd call Verizon and cancel the calling plan and any other "frills" since this was an incoming line only. I was kept on hold for nearly 30 minutes only to be told that I'd be charged $42 to change my account to remove any services. That was the final straw. I told them to disconnect the line immediately. My cable provider offers VOIP service with unlimited local and long distance calls in the US & Canada for $34.95 and broadband internet service for $29.95, undercutting Verizon by far for both voice and data traffic.

Maybe when Verizon's customer base collectively tells them to take a hike, they'll re-examine their monopolist pricing strategy.

Wrong Moderation

[Anonymous Coward]

This comment isn't funny, it's damn insightful. There really isn't any legitimate reason why all phone calls should be free.

Re:Wrong Moderation

[FCAdcock]

Because they CAN be.

Maybe I'm subconsiously a commie, but shouldn't everything that CAN be free, be free?

Knoledge, parking, beer, and communication are all things that should be free.

Re:Wrong Moderation

[rjelks]

Why do you hate freedom?

Re:Wrong Moderation

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't worry, not approving of artificial scarcity imposed through government regulation/taxation is not communist.

Re:Wrong Moderation

[Anonymous Coward]

Knoledge, parking, beer, and communication are all things that should be free.

So who is going to pay the property tax where you park? Who pays for the asphalt and the yearly resurfacing? Who pays for the barley, rice and corn that goes into the beer? Who pays the salaries of those working the stills?

How CAN those things be free when they require resources and manpower to create?

Re:Wrong Moderation

[aussie_a]

Knoledge, parking, beer, and communication are all things that should be free.

Don't forget spell-checkers

Re:Wrong Moderation

[Geoffreyerffoeg]

Not beer. The other three, yes, because there's no marginal cost. Beer, however, requires harvesting and processing to form each drink.

(Besides, there are possibly legitimate government reasons to tax it, even if it were free - tax would drive the price higher, so demand might become less, and drunkenness hopefully becomes less common.)

Re:Wrong Moderation

[Anonymous Coward]

As we all know it's in the public interest to replace parks and commercial real-estate with parking lots for the fat-assed and their SUVs.

Re:Wrong Moderation

[evilviper]

shouldn't everything that CAN be free, be free?

Someone pays for these things somewhere along the way.

If beer and communication are free, you are just shifting the cost to the government, who gets that money out of your taxes. I think we've pretty well established that the government doesn't do the most effecient job.

Yes, you are a communist if you think the government should pay for everything, instead of individuals paying for it directly. I'd rather not have a tax that required me to pay to support other people's heavy beer drinking.

Die telco die!

[BortQ]

Weeehaw! I am all in favor of anything that puts another nail into the coffin of a telco. They are some of the worst fscking companies there are. Bad customer service, weird charges, slow to act, etc, etc, etc!

I have seen the future, and its name is Voip!

Re:Die telco die!

[Anonymous Coward]

That's VoIP, you insensitive clod!

Re:Die telco die!

[Anonymous Coward]

Umm, newsflash, many of the tier 1 providers are telcos, AT&T, Sprint, UUNet (owned by MCI/Worldcom), just to name a few.

You Misunderstood

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe when the they say "closer to state regulation" they mean by the state of government, not by each individual state.

Caller ID implications?

[bailster]

This election, I got a ton of automated recorded campaigning calls that my telco's caller ID identified as VOIP calls. So I just turned my answering machine's volume way down and let it deal with them all.

Problem is, my (tragically few) long distance friends who use VOIP also had to wonder why I had stopped picking up the phone.

I don't particularly trust any regulator (state, federal or telcos themselves) but it sure would be nice if the Caller ID info that gets passed on here could be more specific. I don't care HOW someone calls me, but I do like to know WHO is calling...

Re:Caller ID implications?

[Anonymous Coward]

George Bush's phone number is 111-111-1111. I know because he called me just before the election and that is what caller ID said it was.

First Anti AOL POST

[Anonymous Coward]

oh em gee exclamation exclamation ell oh ell exclamation exclamation you are the sucks

Question

[forand]

And in your system how do we pay for things like law enforcement, military, science, etc. i.e. things that we don't directly use but expect our government to provide?

Re:Question

[elmegil]

I think there's a difference between transactional taxes on things like phone service, gas tax, sales tax, etc. and the items you list. For transactional taxes, I agree that the tax should apply to the arena of the transaction taxed. For the others you mention, don't we already have an income tax? I don't recall the grandparent post saying to abolish that.... Such things are also municipally funded by property taxes....

Re:Question

[damiangerous]

For things at the Federal level like the military that's why there's an income tax. Though preferably it would be a national sales tax instead. For things at the local level, like emergency services, property taxes.

Re:Question

[Chyeld]

Generally, that's where income tax comes into play. Sort of the community chest, one size fits all bucket.

Re:Question

[NardofDoom]

If you want the tax to be relevant, let's look at it another way.

The military has been used to secure foreign resources. This benefits the wealthy the most, as the resources they secure belong to companies owned by or invested in by the wealthy.

So, until the American military is used *only* to defend the United States against aggressors, the rich should pay more than the poor for defense.

Re:Question

[Surt]

Yuck, before advocating more sales tax please realize it is one of the most regressive types of taxes possible.

Advocate for luxury taxes instead.

Re:Question

[White Roses]

How about a property tax? That way, everyone who lives in the area pays for the law enforcement of that area. Businesses included. Renters would pay it as a portion of their rent. A federal property tax could be levied for the military and other government programs. People with more property (acreage, ludicrously over-sized homes, etc.) pay more, less property, less. Probably some adjustment for population density would also be required to keep the relative numbers of police to citizens reasonable in larger cities. People with property in several states pay some in each state as well. Loopholes for non-profits maybe (though they are still getting the benefits of military and law enforcement, so maybe a reduction rather than an exemption).

Re:Question

[damiangerous]

Good. I hate so-called "progressive" taxation. There's nothing progressive about punishing success, it just smacks of jealousy and class warfare.

I don't believe in "luxury" taxes because everything beyond food, shelter and clothing (and nowadays personal transportation) are "luxuries" and would be exempted from a sales tax anyway. If you're not being taxed on the necessities of life, don't worry so damn much about other people.

Re:Question

[TheAtomicElec]

This used to be the way things worked before the sixteenth amendment. The problem was that property taxes were driving farmers out of business.

Re:Question

[timeOday]

Good. I hate so-called "progressive" taxation. There's nothing progressive about punishing success, it just smacks of jealousy and class warfare.

The wealthy should pay more because they benefit more. Directing wealth towards Bill Gates requires a worldwide army of lawmakers, police, and courts, diplomats, and armed forces. The government works for me and you as well, but not nearly so much. Put another way, reverting to anarchy would deflate his net worth a lot more than yours, and that's what taxes prevent.

Re:Question

[William Tanksley]

In his system he'd look for a source of tax revenue that would be related to the things being taxed. For law enforcement and military, you'd either tax property (since property is the primary thing being protected by the military and police) or place a levy on the states (who arguably share a responsibility for protecting their citizens; it's contitutionally arguable that there are no federal citizens), who should then follow some rational means to decide what to tax (perhaps they'd largely choose to tax property, or perhaps sales). Income would be another logical source, I should mention :-).

Science? You could fund that by taxing patents, or uses of patents, or licensing public patents, or something like that. I don't care for these ideas; I suspect it's because science isn't a good target for public funding (this is my prior belief), but perhaps the real reason I can't think of any sources I like is simply because I'm prejudiced. I'm quite willing to listen to some proposals for public income sources for science, together with rationales for why they're tied together.

Of course, just because a source is logically related to the final use of the money doesn't mean using the source is a good idea. In the case of income taxes, they were originally explicitly prohibited in the constitution, with very good reason. We ignored that reason when we amended the constitution.

-Billy

Re:Question

[walt-sjc]

Easy solution: the portion of the land used for agriculture would be exempt or taxed at a much lower rate.

Not that I like the idea of a national property tax or anything...

Re:Question

[damiangerous]

They do pay more. They spend a hell of a lot more. It's very disengenuous to say they "should pay more so they should be taxed at a higher rate." They're already paying a lot more in taces due to their higher rate of consumption. And if they're not consuming any more than the "average" person, then it's pretty unlikely they're benefiting more.

Re:Question

[Fulcrum of Evil]

It's very disengenuous to say they "should pay more so they should be taxed at a higher rate." They're already paying a lot more in taces due to their higher rate of consumption. And if they're not consuming any more than the "average" person, then it's pretty unlikely they're benefiting more.

At an annual income of $170k, the federal tax burden is about 18%. How is this a lot more? Also keep in mind that they do benefit more - they're rich. Who protectes them while they sleep? Who provides the society that supported them getting rich in the first place? Nobody gets rich alone.

Re:Question

[jumpingfred]

Your quote of a federal tax burden of 18% for 170K is wrong it is closer to about 28%.

Re:Question

[Ghostx13]

This is a really easy question. Government (at the federal level) doesn't need to provide ANYTHING aside for a military to defend us from Attack and secure our intrests abroad (no, I'm not talking about imperialism, but rather securing things we own and our citizens in other countries) and a federal police force to protect federal law. Instead Americans in general expect the government to provide all kinds of things we should be providing for ourselves, but don't because by and large we're lazy as shit. Take social security and medicare. I'm forced by the Fed to pay for some one else's retirement (don't make me laugh by saying I'm paying for MY retirement. SS will be long dead by then.) I'm also forced to pay for other people's health care, food, etc. Now I'm a pretty charitable person. But forcing me to pay for wellfare isn't charity. It's wealth re-distribution.

Military spending could easily be paid for with a small defense tax levied on the populace. Income tax IS unconstitutional, despite what the Supreme Court says. Remeber, the Supreme Court gets paid thanks to your taxes. Saying the income tax is unconstitutional is tantamount to giving themselves a paycut. Who's gonna do that?

Until Americans wake up and realize that all our problems stem from the fact that we let the government walk all over it's citizenship we'll continue to have big government, big spending, and a divided nation screaming that the other half is a bunch of idiots.

Re:Question

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Your quote of a federal tax burden of 18% for 170K is wrong it is closer to about 28%.

No it isn't. The marginal rate is 28%, but the effective rate (including SS) is 18%.

Re:Question

[damiangerous]

At an annual income of $170k, the federal tax burden is about 18%.

At an annual income of $170k the federal income tax rate is 33% (married filing jointly is 28%):
http://taxes.yahoo.com/rates.html

Also keep in mind that they do benefit more - they're rich.

Sure, if they're spending more they're benfiting more. If they're just socking money away for retirement or for their kids they're not benefiting yet. Once they spend the money they (or their kids) benefit from it, and at that point it's taxed.

Who protectes them while they sleep?

Do rich people cost more to protect? Only if they have larger and more valuable properties and homes...which they're being taxed for.

Who provides the society that supported them getting rich in the first place? Nobody gets rich alone.

I fail to see how that is relevant or what your point actually is.

Re:Question

[Surt]

You obviously haven't spent much of your life where food, shelter, and clothing represented a significant fraction of your expenditures.

I'd be more than happy to have a luxury tax defined as everything else, that would be fine for protecting the poor, thanks.

Re:Question

[damiangerous]

You obviously haven't spent much of your life where food, shelter, and clothing represented a significant fraction of your expenditures.

Let's see. I was laid off at the end of 2003 (from a 30k/yr job). My wife left her job (also about 30k) on disability in Jan 2004. My unemployment ran out in August. Our current household income is solely her disability (and what I can sell of my stuff on eBay), which is about what a high school kid could make at Wal-Mart. I've defaulted on every payment I had save for rent, car payment/insurance and broadband (though the latter two are behind and threatening). The broadband connection is our single "luxury" item and it's not really a luxury considering a phone line plus ISP (necessary for job searching and eBay) would cost about the same as broadband plus Lingo VoIP.

Once my car is repaired ($1200) I'll be able to take the first shitty retail job I can find simply to have money coming in.

You were saying?

Re:Question

[Fulcrum of Evil]

At an annual income of $170k the federal income tax rate is 33% (married filing jointly is 28%):

Tax burden, not rate.

Do rich people cost more to protect?

Yes. they have more assets, and receive preferential treatment.

I fail to see how that is relevant or what your point actually is.

The arguments against progressive taxation usually stem from the notion that the rich either deserve their money (Protestant ethic), or that they build their fortune by themselves. The simple truth is that they have benefitted, both by hard work, savvy, and luck, and by the support of the host society. If it weren't for the institutions the benefit from (fire, military, police protection, they would be spending a lot more money than average to protect themselves and their family. Why do you think people kidnap Americans so much in Brazil?

Re:Question

[Mantorp]

I'd be using my plot of land to grow grass, in the meantime I'll charge you to play golf on it. Or maybe I'll grow wildflowers and put up a few beehives and apple trees? Can I have my taxcut please.

Re:Question

[mrchaotica]

So what's so bad about a regressive sales tax? The key difference is that it is a tax on consumption. If somebody feels like their taxes are too high, there's an easy solution: BUY LESS STUFF!

Have you noticed how Americans have been getting farther and farther into debt in the last few decades? How more and more people are planning to rely on Social Security, when it'll probably be bankrupt by the time they retire? If so, then you should agree with me that our own spending habits are the worst problem we have.

Imagine the usual situation when you're trying to get a new car (or some other large purchase): Since the Man is taking a quarter of your paycheck, you feel like it will take forever to save up the money to get it. On the other hand, this shiny plastic card right here can get you the thing Right Now, and you can pay it off little by little with the pittance the Government allows you to keep.

With a sales tax instead, the alternative becomes this: You suddenly have a bunch more money since none of it is being taken any more, so now you can afford to put enough of it away to save enough for the car quickly. Besides, the more you save the more you keep and the less the Government gets. So why give it to them now? Why not let it work for you, and only give it up when you have to?

Sure, this is entirely a psychological effect, but I think it would be a useful one -- a National Placebo, if you will.

Then we start getting into the more standard regressive tax arguments: With the Income Tax, if you get a raise, not only does the amount you're taxed increase, the proportion of it increases too. In the past I have decided to work less specifically to keep myself out of the next higher tax bracket. I imagine that's a big consideration for others too: imagine the proverbial single parent, struglling to make ends meet. How much would it suck to realize "Oh, crap! My raise was just enough to raise my taxes, but not enough to compensate for it! Now I can't afford to pay the bills -- I'm worse off than before!"

I would much rather people be rewarded for seeking higher pay, instead of punished. I want people to think "yay, I got a raise -- now I can afford to save more money for my retirement|a house|college for my kids!" I want poor people to be offered a carrot on a stick, instead of just being thrown table scraps.

But I guess that just makes me a heartless bastard since it's not "Progressive," huh?

Re:Question

[mrchaotica]

If it weren't for the institutions the benefit from (fire, military, police protection, they would be spending a lot more money than average to protect themselves and their family. Why do you think people kidnap Americans so much in Brazil?

Okay, so you've successfully proven that rich people benefit more in America than they do in Brazil. But how exactly do they benefit more than other Americans here? Last I heard, the Fire Department doesn't check your tax return before they come put out the fire at your house!

Re:Question

[Surt]

Sounds to me like you're about 2 years away from having a sudden change of mind.

Re:Question

[damiangerous]

And why is that?

Re:Question

[dossen]

First a disclaimer: I'm danish and know little about the US tax system.
While I'm not going to dispute your argument about the "proverbial single parent", there is an easy way to do progressive taxation without that problem: Say you have three rates, X, Y, and Z, and two limits, A and B. If your income is I, your tax would be:

T = I*X + max(0,(I-A)*Y) + max(0,(I-B)*Z)

That way you are never worse off for earning more. If you earn say $21,000 and the limit (A) is $21,000, then you get

(1-X)*$21,000

Get a raise to $22,000, you get

(1-X)*$21,000 + (1-X-Y)*$1,000

which is more. You still get progressivly less each time your pay goes up, but silly stuff like having less money after a raise doesn't happen.
To the best of my knowledge this is how we do it (adding in stuff like deductables, interest, back-taxes, etc.).

Re:Question

[Infe]

Income tax already IS like that. Only the income above your current bracket gets taxed at the higher rate. That was pretty dumb of you to turn down extra money (if you really did).

Re:Question

[Surt]

The problem with sales tax rather than luxury tax is that it disproportionally burdens the lowest earners.

If you will exclude food, shelter, clothing from your sales tax I'm fine. Buying a car is a luxury that many of the poor do not afford, so it's fine with me to tax that.

Personally, I don't really want everyone to base their lives on getting the job that will pay them the most money, but even accepting that as a goal, people somehow manage to seek higher paying jobs in the current system. Generally, the income increases outweigh the tax increases. Obviously mathematically there is a narrow area at each step up where you do get penalized. However, by the time you reach that level, you have a college education, and hopefully can figure out that you need to get an increase of at least X to cover the tax increase. Don't accept a wage increase less than X.

The poor don't need a carrot. They (most) want better paying jobs. The jobs simply don't exist.

The huge debt problems in this country are among the middle class, not the poor (who can't get credit to get started on the problem) so they get much less pity from me since they generally have the tools to avoid the problem or recover from the problem. Many services exist to help them. They may have uncomfortable retirements. The poor don't get to retire.

Re:Question

[Surt]

Because you're about that far from getting a taste of what it is like to actually be poor.

Re:Question

[tenton]

Obviously mathematically there is a narrow area at each step up where you do get penalized. However, by the time you reach that level, you have a college education, and hopefully can figure out that you need to get an increase of at least X to cover the tax increase. Don't accept a wage increase less than X.

Actually, it's not obvious, because it doesn't work that way. Let's use $20,000 and $30,000 as our tax rate points (ie, make than than, get taxed differently). X will the be the tax rate for $20,000 and below, Y will be for above $20,000 but below $30,000. Z will be for above $30,000

Man A makes $19,000. He pays in tax ($19,000)*(X)
Man B makes $22,000. He pays in tax ($20,000)*(X) + ($2000)*(Y)
Man C makes $35,000. He pays ($20,000)*(X) + ($10,000)*(Y)+($5,000)*Z

Wikipedia on Progressive tax

Re:Question

[Surt]

Thanks for the support. I didn't actually know the tax code worked that way. Thankfully it helps my argument. :-)

Re:Question

[Surt]

However, the value you save by not having your house burn down is typically proportional to the value of your house, which is typically proportional to your wealth.

Re:Question

[evilviper]

There's nothing progressive about punishing success, it just smacks of jealousy and class warfare.

On the contrary. The more you make, the higher the margin you can afford to pay on it, without having difficulty, so it's only appropriate that those making far more than is needed to survive, are taxed a higher percentage of their income than those who are below the poverty level. Putting a higher burden on the poor would not help anyone.

Taxing sales, rather than income, would not work. The poorer you are, the higher a percentage of your earnings you spend, and so you'd be bearing a higher relative burden than the rich, who can afford to put away a large percentage of their income, thereby avoiding the tax.

Re:Question

[evilviper]

If they're just socking money away for retirement or for their kids they're not benefiting yet.

So Bill Gates shouldn't be taxed on his billions of dollars, because he hasn't spent it yet? Ridiculous.

People also benefit greatly just from having a large ammount of money in the bank, where it won't be taxed by a sales tax.

In addition, you can expect tons of work-arounds to avoid the sales tax. Buying foreign products might be one option... Spending your money on anything other than physical products is another.

I believe the government should massively cut down on spending (corruption), but I don't believe the poor should be forced to bear a higer percentage of the tax burder.

Hang on a second...

[jacksonj04]

Surely if people could regulate VoIP as a service, then it is possible to regulate any network traffic? Unless there is an extremely standardised VoIP protocol this is impossible anyway, but apart from that it cannot be regulated because it is just internet traffic.

If my UK Skype connection to a friend in Australia happens to hop through networks in Virginia, is it liable for taxation? I should bloody well hope not.

Now I'm scared.

[deemaunik]

I was fine until I read that last line. "or one step closer to state regulation or taxation of IP networks?" Though it seems like an impossibility, what if? This is a small victory in our favor, but what happens when more services are linked across broadband? Only a few more will pass until the States start freaking out at the FCC who will pass in their favor with enough pressure. It worked for the conservative religious groups when it came down to words, and showing more than a third of an ass. It's only a matter of time, and now I'm back in the conspiracy/big brother mindset. Damnit.

FUCK THAT!!!

[buddhaseviltwin]

You do that and you're going to kill people's incentive to use high-bandwidth applications, which will in-turn kill the incentive for network operators to build bigger and faster networks.

Taxing the Internet is like erecting tolls across the Interstate highway system. You're going to kill all the incentive the use it. If anything, the trend over the past 50 years has been to REMOVE tolls, not add new ones.

Income taxes and sales taxes are enough. Why do some people feel compelled to tax every new income stream?

Re:FUCK THAT!!!

[stagmeister]

You do that and you're going to kill people's incentive to use high-bandwidth applications, which will in-turn kill the incentive for network operators to build bigger and faster networks. Not necessarily. Make people pay per kilowatt for electricity, and then that will kill peoples' incentive to run factories in their living rooms... right? If the price is negiligible, like electricity amounts, then the IP network providers - the ISP - turns into a utility company. People will still do things the same as they do now, they might just download a little less music from kazaa. High bandwith will then just cost a little more and people will have to take that into account. Taxing the Internet is like erecting tolls across the Interstate highway system. You're going to kill all the incentive the use it. If anything, the trend over the past 50 years has been to REMOVE tolls, not add new ones. You mean paying for things? I say taht we should pay per amount of bandwith used, and then the government can tax THAT - not internet phone calls or emails sent.

Re:FUCK THAT!!!

[sexylicious]

If the price is negiligible, like electricity amounts...

I don't know about you, but the price of my electricity isn't negligible! I hardly run any electric appliances at home, and only use about 600-700 kWH per month. But I still pay more than 150 per month on electricity. That's about 25 cents a kWH!

I say taht we should pay per amount of bandwith used, and then the government can tax THAT - not internet phone calls or emails sent.

I say that the energy and infrastructure required to transmit one bit of information can vary from place to place, and the quality of service is inconsistent from place to place.

Ex: one bit over a copper line between two ten year-old computers is not as expensive as one bit over fiber between two state of the art computers.

To regulate by bandwidth, as a utility, you have to have standards in place that can provide your UTILITY to all of the citizens in the US. There can't be any difference in the quality of service, and there can't be any difference in the quality of the product offered. I expect my water/electricity/gas to be as usable as my parents' water/electricity/gas in a different state. Just like my phone service is the same quality (my phone works, I can call anyone anywhere) here in CA, as it was for me when I lived in WA state. It's even the same phone company!

Re:FUCK THAT!!!

[buddhaseviltwin]

Not necessarily. Make people pay per kilowatt for electricity, and then that will kill peoples' incentive to run factories in their living rooms... right?

If you think you can equate the economics behind metered electricity with metered bandwidth then you clearly haven't given this idea enough thought.

For one, the economics behind metering electricity is directly linked to the consumption of natural resources where the economics behind telecommunications network is directly linked to capital and operation costs of the network, NOT the available bandwidth.

If the price is negiligible, like electricity amounts, then the IP network providers - the ISP - turns into a utility company. People will still do things the same as they do now, they might just download a little less music from kazaa. High bandwith will then just cost a little more and people will have to take that into account.

BUT what's the benefit for legislating a metered business model of the telecommunications industry? More tax revenue? There are a million other ways to get more tax revenue. Secondly, why should we be taxing the Internet anyway?

I just can't imagine the benefits of imposing this idea on everybody.

Re:FUCK THAT!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do some people feel compelled to tax every new income stream?

Because they're Democrats. It's in their nature.

What do you think...

[fitten]

One step closer to free phone calls, or one step closer to state regulation or taxation of IP networks?

It's hard to get politicians to decrease taxes on anything, and when you do, there are some parties who want to increase them again.

You KNOW that if people start switching over from something taxed to something untaxed that there will be a new tax soon on the untaxed thing.

This isn't all good

[CallMeNipple]

I work for a small independant telephone company. Although I'm glad that VoIP isn't regulated, it puts my company in a very awkward position. Namely an inability to compete. If we have to charge our customers for 911, USF, federal and state taxes so should a VoIP provider if any their calls terminate on the POTS network. I would be equally okay with the deregulation of the POTS network instead.

People sometimes suggest we start providing VoIP service (and we are), but this is also a problem in certain areas. ILEC's can't really put this service in and charge less for it unless every customer can get it and the state PSC doesn't think its a waste of money (this is somewhat untrue, but the regulatory environment imposed on an ILEC is freakishly complicated). In our CLEC territory we are going to roll this out but can't offer it in our ILEC because we can't legally compete with ourselves. At this point we will have two different systems providing the same service. Not a problem until Farmer Joe calls the ILEC and demands to know why his friend 10 miles away gets his phone for 15 bucks less a month from (what appears to him) to be the same company. Suggesting he send his comments to the PSC to try and help change the situation just makes him more mad. People don't want to hear laywerish sounding crap about regulation. It really isn't our fault but thats why people hate the telephone company. I think 85% of the time there's some legal mumbo jumbo telling us we can't do something or making it prohibitivly expensive(I'll attribute the rest to human error and actual screw ups).

We like competition, it helps us serve our customers better and lets us know where we're messing up but only if everyone is on the same playing field. We like VoIP its going to save us quite a bit of money in the long haul. We don't like screwing half our customers because we legally can't implement VoIP for them.

In summery: Regulate VoIP for deregulat POTS.

FCC: evil or not?

[N8F8]

So , is the FCC the evil pawn of the Republican party today or not?

Re:FCC: evil or not?

[_Sharp'r_]

No, today they're the good pawn of the Republican Party. Don't worry, in a story tommorow they'll be the evil pawn again.

Makes Sense Not to Tax It

[Greyfox]

I'm paying the FCC fees to subsidize rural connections on my DSL connection anyway. Regulating voip would be kind of like taxing me twice for the same thing.

I would think that you could connect a lot of those outlying rural areas using long range wireless ethernet. It'd just take a lot of pringles cans. So here's an idea... hire those "Will work for food" people, give 'em a can of pringles and when they're done they could soldier the antenna leads onto the can and hang it up for you. Everybody wins!

Then all I'd want would be a cellphone that would attempt to connect to a wireless access point first and would use voip if successful. If it fails it could fall back to the cellular network. Oh, but I'd want strong encryption on it.

Are you on crack?

[Just Some Guy]

You want to tax me on network bandwidth?!? What the hell are you thinking?

What part of me having access to the Internet (sorry if that offends you - that's its name) gives the government the right or obligation to make me pay an extra percentage to them? I'm already paying taxes on the phone line that carries my DSL, so whose business is it what I pass over that circuit?

First, this would be a regulatory fiasco. Do I get credit for failed downloads? Is porn tax-deductable at the same rate as ISOs? Can I depreciate my webdav calendars, since their value decreases with time? If you're only talking about connections to the public Internet and not just intra-LAN traffic, then how do you tax caching proxy servers (did I just download one copy of SP2, or one for each of the 30 machines on our LAN)? Does sneakernet count? IP-over-avian?

Second, WHAT FREAKIN' BUSINESS IS IT OF THE GOVERNMENT if I decide to trade packets with a peer? If I set up a WLAN to play Half-Life with my neighbor, how the hell do you justify me paying extra to run it? Do I have to have a Federally approved meter on my AP to make sure I'm not under-reporting my bandwidth?

You want to pay extra money to the government without receiving anything whatsoever out of the deal? Fine - just mail them a $100 bill every time you start to feel guilty. But leave me and my network out of it, thank you very much.

I'm sorry, but that's a stupid idea all the way around. It should be taken out back and shot before it can reproduce.

That's not what they did.

[Anonymous Coward]

You need to study a little history.

Under the Articles of Confederation (what we had before the Constitution) the central (federal) government was too weak. It was anarchy, particularly in the realm of interstate commerce.

When the Constitution was drafted, it was decided that the central federal government should have dominion over interstate commerce in order to prevent the turf wars between the states.

So Congress (remember, Congress created the FCC and can un-create it or change anything the FCC does at its will) can either 1) allow states to regualte a field themselves and not have federal regs (example, most property insurance stuff) 2) can exclude all state regulation as incompatible with federal goals (called "occupying the field") or 3) set a "floor" of federal rules and allow states some leeway to add to them.

In this case, the FCC interprets the Communications Act (what Congress passed and has amended many times which created and gives direction to the FCC) as an intent by Congress to "occupy the field" of interstate communications with regard to the category of communications that VOIP is in.

Congress can, with a simple bill, reverse or modify this conclusion anytime it wants.

So states can't regulate VOIP. This is a good thing.

How Soon Will it Be?

[dazedagain]

Lately, the only reason the fed prevents the states from regulating something is so that the fed can do it. IMO, the only reason the FCC drew a regulatory shield around VOIP was to keep the regulatory and taxation powers (Not to mention the ability to monitor)for the fed. With the deficit running around half a trillion USD and the current administration's penchant for expensive cannon-fire diplomacy you can bet that taxing VOIP and possibly Internet use is a certainty. I'd bet a compliant Congress will "Get 'er done" in the interest of Fighting Global Terrorism before the Summer Recess.

Fucking taxes....

[ckaminski]

Simply taxing the same dollar multiple times. First when it arrives in your pocket. Second when you use the resource, Third when the purveyor of goods pays his taxes, Fourth when the government puts that dollar back in someones pocket ad finitum.

Ergo: We are all government employees. blah.

Such a simplistic view on such a depressing day. Catch me tomorrow for my manic version...

The Parent Post Is Wise Beyond Words.

[Anonymous Coward]

One of the great strengths of our Federal system is that citizens of one United State do not have to live under the same laws as citizens of another. Please mod it up.

How long...

[ebob9]

How long until this is reversed?

If this ruling applies to the large Telcos as well, You can bet this will not stay long.

If I was an AT&T, or a Verizon, I'd begin immediate plans to migrate my telephone network from Circuit switched/Frame Relay/ATM to IP. Whats to stop them from running a private IP network, and saving regulatory fees?

(I'm currently RTFA, but I'm slow and impatient)

Re:How long...

[Charcharodon]

Nothing is stopping them, they already do except maybe an unwillingness to give up their private networks, and the fear that one day the consumer might wise up and realize that other than bandwidth all a customer needs is a little hardware and some freeware to make it work. How are they then going to get people to pay every month for things that practically cost nothing for them to provide?

How big must the network be?

[bill_mcgonigle]

The FCC had ruled previously that "pure VoIP" was free from regulation because calls originated and terminated over the Internet, but regulation of VoIP calls that terminate on publicly switched networks had yet to be addressed. These calls and services will now be treated in the same way.

So does this just apply to the big corps or to everybody?

If I hook up my old-school phones in the house with VOIP TA's and terminate them at an Asterisk PBX, onto my POTS line (which I'm about to do anyway), do I get to forgo the state taxes on those lines?

Actually Free is very Capitalistic

[Charcharodon]

Most people are confused with what Capitalism and Communism are. Capitalism is not about making money, that just happens to be a by product of what it's real intent is, an "efficient" distribution of scarce resources. Communism on the other hand was supposed to be the "fair" distribution of scarce resources, which for all practial purposes is impossible. There is no such thing in life that is ever truly fair nor can it be, beyond age five when mom would measure out exactly the same ammount of ice cream to shut you and your whiny sibling up about who got more, which is why Communism failed.

The problem today is many things have become so easy to reproduce or to provide that they are essentially free, of course the companies involved don't like that and try to create artificial scarceness of resources in order to preserve old business models. Most electronic communications and digital media are perfect examples.

I find this to be funny since it is exactly this intentional lack of innovation that has landed every communist nation in the economic toilet.

Companies and individuals can still easily make money with commodities that are free or nearly so, it's all a question of coming up with a different business model to repackage it in a new way or to simply include it within another product and no longer use it as a primary product.

Of course we are talking about people here and true Capitalism is just as harsh as Natural Selection so you are going to see many in government and industry resist technological change for the disruption of lives, jobs, and income that it inevitably causes. They forget though it's not a zero sum game and in the end there will be more to go around for everyone.

Free is the ultimate expression of innovation and innovation in turn is central to what makes Capitalism so effective.

Re:Actually Free is very Capitalistic

[Euler]

I agree mostly with you that communism was bad.

But Capitalism is a zero-sum game at any one point in time. There are finite production possibilities. The economy can only grow at a certain rate based mostly on technological factors. Resources are still scarce and un-evenly distributed in Capitalistic society. There is better, but not perfect, incentive to push the boundaries of productivity and distribution.

Regulation is required even in a 'free' market because natural monopolies form automatically in certain industries. A natural monopoly is still bad though. Proponents of de-regulation who want to introduce competition are actually self defeating in cases where the industry would revert back to an un-regulated monopoly. In this case though, VoIP isn't the monopoly due to the non-exclusive nature of the technology and the relatively low capital requirements, it is the broadband carriers that are to be watched closely.

Re:Actually Free is very Capitalistic

[Charcharodon]

Communism isn't bad, it just doesn't work on a large scale. Your typical family unit or small village is very communistic in nature and works quite well.

Also in a communistic society resources are not evenly distributed either, they just exchange money with position which tends to be more exclusive keeps people locked into a social class.

Well techincally all resources are finite, even if you extend the boundaries beyond planet earth, but it's still not a question of how evenly resources are distributed, just the efficiency. Paying crack whores welfare money to keep them and their kids from starving is an example of an even-distribution of resources, but it's not very efficient unless of course there is a need for crack whores :)

As far as it being a zero-sum game, you can't measure it at an instant, since every system is zero sum in a single frame. Trends over time show it to be otherwise. Now with the whole deregulation we currently have legally sanctioned monopolies in the media and communcation industry. Copywrit in the case of media and FCC regulation in case of communication. You are right VOIP does a nice run around of the whole process by the use of clever technology and even though it seems that the broadband carriers are going to become the "new monopoly" they too are non-exclusive and will continue to become more so in the future.

Don't believe me, take my last place of residency as an example. Rapid City (Rapid Shitty) SD. Your only choices for ISP's were crap, crapy, or crappiest (AOL) and no broadand was in sight. The local power company looking to take advantage of their right-of-ways and to expand their business as began running fibre to everyone's home. The telco's responded by refusing to sell them anymore hard line access to retard their growth and prevent them from entering their market. The power company's solution was to find a communication company that would sell them the bandwidth they needed out side of the monopoly area they were in and expand their network into those areas so the rest could be connected. Because of this the telcos, the cable companies, and a host of smaller local broad band services are avialable in the area. They didn't want to be left out of the market. (The power company's deal is still one of the best.) Most monopolies today are created by artificial environments by the very regulation that is put in place to supposedly protect us. The current situation is a mess created by all the regulation created for the cable and phone industries.

Luckily technology evolves faster these days than the government can regulate it, so we should see plenty of new innovations that push even the hardware ever closer to the goal noble of "free".

Re:Actually Free is very Capitalistic

[dosboss]

Free is the ultimate expression of innovation and innovation in turn is central to what makes Capitalism so effective.

Tell that to the RIAA, MPAA, BSA, Bill Gates, etc. I'm sure they will approve of your point of view -- and then go right back to the witch-hunts.

(P.S. I completely agree with your narrative, it's just that I couldn't resist...)

Re:Actually Free is very Capitalistic

[Anonymous Coward]

Communism on the other hand was supposed to be the "fair" distribution of scarce resources, which for all practial purposes is impossible

I'm not sure what sort of communism you're describing, but Marxist Communism is little more than the belief that the workers should own the means of production. "Fairness" has very little to do with it, except for the assumption that private ownership, social castes and the whole caboodle, is inherantly unfair.

There is no such thing in life that is ever truly fair nor can it be, beyond age five when mom would measure out exactly the same ammount of ice cream to shut you and your whiny sibling up about who got more, which is why Communism failed.

Communism hasn't failed. The Soviet Union might have failed but it wasn't due to any limitations in communism. Moreover, communism isn't about the equal distribution of resources as you imply. The famous Marx quotation, "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs!" is a more accurate description. For example, one child gets all the ice-cream because the other child has a lactose intolerance. Under capitalism, the second child may well demand his share so that he can torment the cat with it; thereby benefitting nobody except for a brief flitter of selfish amusement.

Personally, I think both idealogical beliefs suck but your comment smacked of an American cold war straw-man. Not being a fan of propoganda, I'm forced to defend communism.

Re:Actually Free is very Capitalistic

[marikka]

Communism on the other hand was supposed to be the "fair" distribution of scarce resources, which for all practial purposes is impossible. There is no such thing in life that is ever truly fair nor can it be, beyond age five when mom would measure out exactly the same ammount of ice cream to shut you and your whiny sibling up about who got more, which is why Communism failed.

Actually real (ideal) Communism has never failed since it has never existed, nor ever will. The problem about the Communist societies we've seen so far is that mom ate all the ice cream.

Re:Actually Free is very Capitalistic

[Thomas Miconi]

They forget though it's not a zero sum game and in the end there will be more to go around for everyone.

Unless of course the dynamics of the society at hand lead to concentration of money, power and security, and divides the population between the have the have not, in which the latter have virtually no chance at all of a better life (unless they have Milton Friedman's brains or Billie Holiday's talent).

Once there was a time when labour division in capitalism was clear: the capitalist provided money, the worker provided labour. The worker didn't earn much, but the risk inherent in entrepreneurship was divided: the worker could lose his job, the capitalist could lose his money.

But in the modern American model of capitalism, every rule of the society concurs to shifting the weight of risks towards the worker. Public companies are required, by law, to do everything they can to give more money to their shareholders. Workforce has become an adjustment variable. The consequences of management errors fall first upon the worker (that is, on those whose responsibility is least involved, since they have no say in the conduct of the company !), then on management, and only if things really go wrong, on the shareholders.

Thus more and more workers find themselves into a thoroughly insecure environment. Having reasonable confidence that you'll still be able to pay the bills in six months is becoming a privilege. Only the very rich can enjoy security.

When you don't know what your future will be made of, when you're constantly under the risk of social downfall, it becomes difficult to plan anything over the long term, but such planning is necessary to improve your situation significantly. The segmentation of the population is self-reinforcing, not only by environmental effect (when you live in a destitute gettho opportunities are scarce) but also by the fundamental dynamics of the system.

Communism is sharing a small cake equally. Because of inefficiencies the cake doesn't grow and even shrinks to the point that everyone is poor (except of course members of the nomenklatura). Capitalism is making a bigger cake and it certainly works well (the power and wealth of the US is no illusion and does come from this system), but with the peculiar effect that the bigger your part is, the bigger it will become (and inversely).

That's why people in various European, South American and Asian countries tried to come up with a mixture of free economy and state intervention that allows for efficiency and fairness. As far as I can tell Scandinavia and Taiwan have fared pretty well. Germany and France used to work well too but are now crumbling under their own weight. The English are just putting a smiling, compassionate face on an increasingly American model.

Thomas-

Re:Actually Free is very Capitalistic

[Anonymous Coward]

There is actually less goverment intervention in the areas that matter for innovation in Norway than in the USA. We have no draconian copyright laws yet, allthough that is about to change. We have stricter guidelines and enforcement for patents, but that too is about to change. I guess we're doomed too...

Re:Actually Free is very Capitalistic

[Charcharodon]

Well if my comment smacked of an American cold war straw-man, yours then stinks of well, the general drivel I would expect from the typical anti-American mind set one would find in a college student or other academic that leaches of the very system they hate. :P

I don't recall once waving the flag once and saying God bless America, so why are you even bring it up? The whole point was a product that is free can exist quite nicely in a Capitalistic economic system and is the ultimate goal of said system.

You got your ice cream analogies backwards. Mom doesn't have to buy as much ice cream since one kid can't eat it which frees up resourches to purchase something else for the lactose intolerant child. That is Capitalism.

Under Communism the lactos intolerant child would still get the ice cream since that is what the state deemed the best for the majority of it's citizens and how dare he expect special treatment. Or in another case if there wasn't enough ice cream for both children to get their share then neither would get any and those higher up in government (aka Mom) would keep it for themselves (privilage of position).

Yes Marx said basically "employ him according to his abilities and pay him based on his needs" This never occurred in Communist Russia. Position, power, and social networking was where the real compensation occurred in Communist Russia, which of course reinforced social classes and made them nearly exclusive. The closest they came to the above quotation was various health, education, and public works such as the rail system were free for all to use. Of course there were still special versions of all the above that were reserved for higher ranking members of government and the Party

A funny point, I'll go ahead and make the leap and assume that you loath the US military as well, is that the US military is probably the only functioning Communistic entity in the world that mirrors most of Marx's ideals for a communist society. Housing, health care, child care, education, work schedules, pay allowances, and social services are very dependent on the needs of the individual. For example a married enlisted with children gets a house, child care, extra services on base, education for the children, and extra pay allowances, while a single enlisted get's to live in a dorm room about the size of the smallest bedrooms in the other enlisted 2-4 bedroom house and gets no extra compensation what so ever. On top of that the one with the family may work in the chow hall flipping burgers while the single enlisted works on 100 million dollar aircraft yet their pay is the same at the same rank. On top of that let's say the first enlisted's child or wife has a special needs health issue. They will go out of their way to put the family at a base that facilitates them getting that treatment even if that means putting them somewhere that doesn't have a need for that particular person's technical expertise. Speaking of rank everyone plays by the same rules in gaining said rank the exception being those rare occassions where people are step promoted by the commander.

Kind of ironic, don't you think?

Oh yeah I almost forgot

God Bless America, Woohoo, W're number one, Four more years! Everyone else blows goats!

:p

Re:Actually Free is very Capitalistic

[lew3004]

I agree with most of your post with exception to the military personnel statement. Yes, certain individuals or families get more than singles at the same rank, however, to maintain the military at its current state such benefits are given as incentives for personnel to stay...even with families with children who have disabilities. It's those kind of actions that prevent a draft, which was so highly (and wrongfully) communicated in the last election. As ex-military, I'd rather have a well secured military person re-enlist than lose the probably thousands who were not granted the privelage to be stationed near a hospital or better paying job because they thought their life would be better 'on the outside'. Kudo to them. Besides, as a man of experience, I can tell you that 9 times out of 10 the singles are more happy in their positions and generally move up the chain of command quicker, as well, with less obligations to hold them back from active duty....which is where the promotions are.

Re:Actually Free is very Capitalistic

[arodland]

never existed, nor ever will

Right. Its real failing is that it's so contrary to the laws of living on Earth that it never could exist for a moment. But that didn't stop a lot of people from trying.

Re:Actually Free is very Capitalistic

[Anonymous Coward]

Right, making money is a byproduct of the *intent* of capitalism.

Oh, yeah! Everyone I know in business aims for *efficiency*, not for maximization of profit.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

It's not really funny. And you're colossally delusional if you believe it.

Commerce

[Sai Babu]

States can't tax the interstate aspects of POTs calls. The loophole, if a state does want to tax, is at the POTs interface. But hey, they alread tax this for in state calls. Do we want them taxing twice? Now I can see an argument for taxing intrastate VOIP calls becausethey are effectively the same thing from the callers perspective. I don't see how they might discriminate inter/intra though. I can also see an argument against taxing VOIP. States don't tax two way radio calls. Perhaps if the states really want the tax revenue, they might be able to force the sales and use tax aspect of the business. Wy do they want to tax? What service would a state VOIP tax pay for? The state PSC doesn't have any regulatory expenses assocoated with VOIP.

Who else provides service?

[JumperCable]

Vonage is not available in my area. Who else provides VoIP to POTS service & puts for a decent product?

Re:Who else provides service?

[KenBot_314]

You can get vonage where you are, you just can't have a local number... but you could get a toll free number for only $5 more a month... that will allow ppl in your local area to call you free. And when they ask why u are giving out your toll free number, it gives you a great opportunity to help ppl understand that they have choices for thier phone service!

Re:Who else provides service?

[dacarr]

Speakeasy provides VoIP (granted, Level 3 VoIP rebranded) as an added service to their OneLink DSL.

My Illinois bill shows:

[krray]

VoIP Base Rate Component $20.00
This does include unlimited US/CANADA calls terminated to a PTSN converted phone number [tax] where if I dial 911 [tax] it will show as my home address -- regardless of location (for which I signed off that I would not use 911 anywhere but home).

VoIP Fed Excise Tax $0.38
VoIP State Excise Tax $1.63
VoIP State USF $0.04
VoIP Fed USF $0.70

Seems to me they are already getting involved. As all calls are "free" along with all the other services (call forwarding, three-way, CID, Voice-Mail, etc) ... there is nothing more to tax.

BOO

[Radeon1921]

FCC is bad

No! Because we demand it!

[Anonymous Coward]

"Why? Because they can"

No, because we demand it.

Janet Jackson showed her nipple on TV.

We (the public) demanded the FCC "do something". So they did. When something happens that we think is "bad", we demand the government "do something. So they do.

Each little step makes sense at the time. But when you look at it in hindsight, you smack yourself in the forehead and say "damn...where did we go wrong?"

Reminded of email

[Sase]

An interesting point that I can't help but think of...

This reminds me of when the government had a so-called plan to place regulation or taxation on email?

This gives me an overwhelming sense of the ability to go ahead and 'tax' such a service.

Imagine the amount of 'unregulated' businesses and personal consumers using this particular product. Would it be possible to regulate this effectively? Imagine the change in protocol for email taxation? This leads us to the realization of why SPAM has become such a problem. It's inherent in the design of email.

To tax something like VoIP is rediculously complicated, and I often wonder if the scope is beyond the capabilities of our government, more or less the world's government.

Also, in response to taxation on various different items depending on the strict uses of the funds accumulated as a result of such taxation (ie taxes on gasolines used for building/maintaining roads.): Everyone will agree that taxes are a bad thing, who wants to get money taken away that they've rightfully earned?

It's complicated, but lots of our taxes *are* put to good use (Don't get me wrong, a lot of money is spent on frivelous things, but its hard to control everything. We have to take the good with the bad.. It's the facts of life!) Many salaries are created with taxes, taxes fund research in healthcare and technology, defense, etc. etc. etc.

Can't we attribute (partially) the development of the internet (yeay slashdot,) to the government, or has everyone forgotton arpa?

FCC just made their intentions very clear

[defile]

I hope that Vonage and company are smart enough to take the hint and contribute heavily to the Republicans before they get regulated to hell and back.

The order doesn't mention taxes...

[slykens]

The release of the order itself, in PDF states that the order merely affects VoIP services' subjection to state PUC regulations.

In fact the release specifically states:

The Commission's order does not express an opinion about the applicability to Vonage of general laws in Minnesota governing taxation, fraud, commercial dealings, marketing, advertising and other business practices. But the Commission expects states to continue playing a vital role in protecting consumers from fraud, responding to complaints, and enforcing fair business practices.

So I'm not sure where people get the idea that the FCC preemption order affects state taxation, the news release about the order clearly states that it does not.

Re:Wong Moderation

[loid_void]

Knoledge, parking, beer, and communication are all things that should be free.

and free spell checkers good buddy.

Ditto. Local government is often the worst.

[bs_02_06_02]

The FCC is simply taking state governments out of the mix because different states will create different rules, and NO ONE will be happy. And we all know that California will do everything possible to screw EVERYONE up worse than anywhere else, because California politics is as crazy as it gets.

I look at it as a brief moment of sanity, because I fully expect the states to do SOME THING to tax the crap out of everything. They certainly don't want you doing anything for free. That wouldn't be right. We also need to be regulated in everything we do, for we can do nothing ourselves without getting into trouble, or offending someone else, and for GOD'S SAKE, we wouldn't want to offend anyone.

I know. I offended someone by using GOD in a sentence. It's something my parents said 39 times a day when I was a little kid. It's a TOUGH habit to break.

Free? To whom?!

[Blitzenn]

If the writter of this article did even a 15 second google search, they would find that AT&T, Verizon and Vonage are all already selling VoIP services. Secondly, this is not going to result in free phone service or anything close. You may se a very small reduction in your basic serve rate, but that's it. Most of the major carriers are trying to set the service up to work like cell service and charge you for minutes used, or overage minutes. Others make the rate per month high enouhg to make up for the lost long distance charges. Free, no. It will only end up lining the pockets of the executives in the companies as the profit margin increases for them. It certainly will not save you much money and will never end upp in the hands of the employess of the companies either, (with the exception of the executives).

Supreme Court and taxes

[lorcha]

I know you're the only person who's gonna read this, but I thought I'd help so you don't continue spout off bullshit.

Supreme Court justices are not doing this for the money. Salary for Chief Justice Rehnquist is $202,900 and the Associate Justices make $194,200. I'm not sure if you are familiar with how much lawyers make, but let's say that those are good salaries for a first-year associate at a top law firm. Any of those justices could work half as hard and pull in 7 figures in private practice. So your argument that they affirmed the constitutionality of the federal income tax for personal financial gain is on shaky ground.

Also, remember that SCOTUS predates the federal income tax. The Supreme Court was funded just fine before the federal income tax.

HTH. HAND.

what have you been doing the past 11 months?

[Anonymous Coward]

Boo hoo, cry me a river.

Maybe you should get your ass up and take a part time job; there are many options for getting to work. Find someone to carpool with. Take the bus. Ride your bike. Walk. If those options don't work it's because you're not trying hard enough.

Why are you bitching about progressive taxes and how "tough" your life is, instead of, oh say, LOOKING FOR A JOB?!

Best VIOP service...

[Anonymous Coward]

on4.com or on-instant.com

Reports it works on Dialup connections, uses far less throughput then Skype, and you can touch tone through to automated attendents. Skype can't do that.

I'm frustrated by the fact that Skype won't allow me to touch tome 1 for sales, 2 for support, etc. Sorta defeats the purpose.

Although their interface to PSTN is slightly higher, this feature more then outweighs what I would save.

PSTN not POTS

[Arkham79]

Pedantry, but just had to say:

PSTN = Public Switch Telephony Networks
POTS = Plain Old Telephony System

So, your call might get routed to you over the PSTN and if you have a standard phone line then you use a POTS line to recieve it. :)

Hurray

[LANjackal]

Thank God. Back when I had a landline phone, a full 35% of my bill was fees and taxes. I don't want the same to happen to VoIP. Good move, FCC.