I am inclined to agree with you that the FCC will decide to regulate it simply to insure that the individual states do not. If VoIP is considered a telecommunications service, it is subject to regulation by the individual state public utility commissions (PUCs). If, instead, the FCC reaffirms that it should be considered an informational service, it will remain as something the FCC will not dabble in and that the PUCs are expressly forbidden from dabbling in.
This is one of those rare occasions where the decision by the FCC to get involved may actually be a good thing, because 50 sets of rules, with 50 sets of franchise fees, 50 PUCs providing oversight and 50 sets of state legislatures (or worse yet, individual municipalities like cable regulation) using the fees in place of tax increases would do *wonders* to innovation. Just look at the Minn. decision and the conniption they had about the number portability and the issue of customers from out of state having Minn. area codes. How long do you think number portability would last if each state tried to tax out-of-state users based upon in-state area codes?
An express preemption by the FCC is the best chance VoIP has of surviving and thriving outside the grip of the incumbent telecommunication giants...
Disclaimer: While I may be an attorney, this does not qualify as legal advice. I mean, what type of dope would you have to be to take legal advice off the Internet?
Maybe. Right now, the PUC (Public Utilities Commission) in Minnesota is currently appealing a permanent injunction by the Minnesota District Court (federal) against implementing the proposed telecommunications regulations upon Vonage. The district court found Vonage's phone-to-computer and computer-to-phone systems to be an information service under the Telecommunications Act, and thus unregulatable by the states, rather than a telecommunications service, over which the states have regulatory authority (see POTS). This opinion may or may not run afoul of the recent decision by the 9th Circuit in the Brand X case. Until this is settled, few state PUCs will be willing to jump into the regulatory mix.
Disclaimer: While I may be an attorney, this does not constitute legal advice. I mean, what kind of dope would you have to be to take legal advice from some random person off the internet...
Slashdot Mirror
I am inclined to agree with you that the FCC will decide to regulate it simply to insure that the individual states do not. If VoIP is considered a telecommunications service, it is subject to regulation by the individual state public utility commissions (PUCs). If, instead, the FCC reaffirms that it should be considered an informational service, it will remain as something the FCC will not dabble in and that the PUCs are expressly forbidden from dabbling in.
This is one of those rare occasions where the decision by the FCC to get involved may actually be a good thing, because 50 sets of rules, with 50 sets of franchise fees, 50 PUCs providing oversight and 50 sets of state legislatures (or worse yet, individual municipalities like cable regulation) using the fees in place of tax increases would do *wonders* to innovation. Just look at the Minn. decision and the conniption they had about the number portability and the issue of customers from out of state having Minn. area codes. How long do you think number portability would last if each state tried to tax out-of-state users based upon in-state area codes?
An express preemption by the FCC is the best chance VoIP has of surviving and thriving outside the grip of the incumbent telecommunication giants...
Disclaimer: While I may be an attorney, this does not qualify as legal advice. I mean, what type of dope would you have to be to take legal advice off the Internet?
Maybe. Right now, the PUC (Public Utilities Commission) in Minnesota is currently appealing a permanent injunction by the Minnesota District Court (federal) against implementing the proposed telecommunications regulations upon Vonage. The district court found Vonage's phone-to-computer and computer-to-phone systems to be an information service under the Telecommunications Act, and thus unregulatable by the states, rather than a telecommunications service, over which the states have regulatory authority (see POTS). This opinion may or may not run afoul of the recent decision by the 9th Circuit in the Brand X case. Until this is settled, few state PUCs will be willing to jump into the regulatory mix.
Disclaimer: While I may be an attorney, this does not constitute legal advice. I mean, what kind of dope would you have to be to take legal advice from some random person off the internet...