Slashdot Mirror
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?"
FCC News Release (PDF, 110K)
Michael Powell's Statements (PDF, 75.6K)
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.
"If you think you have things under control, you're not going fast enough." --Mario Andretti
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...
-Misao Little Weasel Girl
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.