FCC Chair to Seek Net Telephone Oversight

AP/Yahoo via Drudge ^ | October 19, 2004 | Mark Jewell/AP

[flashbunny]

"There are VoIP networks out there that the government has never heard of, and will never get its arms around. "

People said napster never could be stopped because of the nature of the network. Look what stopped it - lawyers.

[lainie]

Napster the company was changed. Filesharing of MP3's is rampant.

[lainie]

BOSTON -- The federal government must have regulatory authority over VoIP if the technology is to develop quickly and uniformly in the United States, Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Michael Powell said today.

"The first step is to establish federal jurisdiction," Powell said in his keynote at the VON 2004 trade show here, adding that he will present the question to other commissioners for a vote.

Translation: there is none.

I, for one, see no reason why it must develop quickly and/or uniformly; and certainly not at his direction or at SBC's or Verizon's.

http://www.internetnews.com/infra/article.php/3423761

[flashbunny]

"States can "try to regulate" the taste of lima beans, if they want. They can't possibly regulate companies not operating within their borders, that's silly. That's like the rest of the world crying and whining about the Internet starting (and much of its backbone being) in the USA. Boo freakin' hoo. "

No, but they CAN sue them. States have almost unlimited pockets. They can sue and sue until they get the desired result. They don't need a presence - they'll just say "your company is providing a service in our state and we can regulate you". They'll work with other states in cooperation to get it done. They'll sue and sue until the company either caves, goes out of business, or moves overseas to provide their service. Which is what powell is trying to prevent with this.

"In California, where the state has decided to apply wireless regulations to VoIP providers, these carriers would have to respond to every customer question--whether it is their customer's or someone else's--within three business days. This would create crippling overhead costs, says Susan Kennedy, a California public utilities commissioner. "It is so far beyond ridiculous that I'm sure it will be thrown out by a court," she says.

"There's 255 pages of telecom regulation in Colorado," says Greg Sopkin, chairman of the Colorado Public Utilities Commission. "Imagine if we imposed that on every new little provider that offered VoIP, and they had to meet regulations in every state."

New York has decided it has the authority to regulate startup VoIP provider Vonage because its service fits the legal definition of a service that the state regulates. Others are looking to regulate only those portions of VoIP that absolutely require it. "

http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,118193,00.asp

If you think states aren't going to do their damndest to regulate VOIP and are going to be stopped by the silly little arguments you threw out, then you are delusional. Nothing has stopped them before in any sort of power grab short of the federal government stepping in and stopping them.

[TechJunkYard]

You have Napster confused with Kazaa. Napster's own infrastructure is what brought its doom.

A VoIP network can be created by two or more computer users using open source software clients. Just octets over the packet-switched network with no money changing hands. Governments aren't interested in this.

But everybody is interested in the gateways which will interconnect all of this stuff with the circuit-switched land line network.

[flashbunny]

And that's the issue. The average joe user isn't going to set up an open source software package. To make VOIP bloom, the same thing has to happen as with the web -there has to be a business incentive. Allowing states to come in and regulate it 50 different ways will drive out the business, rapid innovation, and mass acceptance. It will become the usenet or IRC of this century - a backwater nowhere that is inhabited by an ever shrinking number of people.

So how is that good for the spread of VOIP???

[lainie]

The only reason these companies even CARE about VOIP is that it will cut into their current (monolopy) business, and they cannot control it. They went crying to the feds for help. Chairman Powell is only too happy to oblige, given that the feds want to crack this nut for their own purposes. Nothing like VOIP has ever happened before.

If you're convinced that "the states" are the root of evil in America, and that "the federal government" is the good sugar daddy, then we really aren't going to progress in our arguments. I'm neither delusional nor silly so you might as well stop trying to marginalize me. It just makes me not want to talk to you any more.

[LibertarianInExile]

VOIP isn't like downloading and yet, it is. Unlike downloading, it's transitory and uses no copyrighted files. Like downloading, it's nearly impossible to regulate if it's open-source and without a central clearinghouse. The problem I see with regulation is that going after ISPs to track this stuff would be more difficult than downloading. What would be the state's justification for asking for an ISP subscriber list?

Your comment that the federal government 'could do some good here' is unfortunately indicative of why it probably will intervene, and then proceed to do no good whatsoever. States would attempt to regulate this stuff, and fail miserably, and prompt popular outcry. Instead, the feds will slap a surcharge on ISPs, bury regulation that says they are allowed to tap every ISP line to monitor VOIP in any legislation, and the populace will meekly accept it.

The feds should leave it entirely alone.

[flashbunny]

"Your comment that the federal government 'could do some good here' is unfortunately indicative of why it probably will intervene"

Please show me where I said the feds 'could do some good here'. I didn't. What I did say is that:

1. They actually have a constitutional authority to enter the fray due to the ICC (WRT commercial VOIP transactions - which is all I'm talking about).

2. Having one set of federal rules preferable to having 50 sets of states rules that VOIP companies would have to comply with. And the same VOIP companies that are trying to make VOIP commercially feasible agree with that.

If somebody wants to use p2p VOIP with no third party interaction, who cares. It's just packets going back and forth. There's no federal role for that - and the article doesn't even mention powell talking about private party VOIP at all. It's a red herring used to bash Powell. The issue is VOIP companies providing a service and being unjustly targeted by the states, and the federal government trying to erect a barrier to state interference.

BTW, does anyone want to bitch about the feds putting a moratorium on internet taxes levied by states???

[bd476]

Oops, my mistake. It was Federal Communications Commission Commissioner Michael J. Copps whom I was thinking of from this story: FCC official blasts plan to air anti-Kerry film.

My apologies for confusing the two. :)

[lainie]

Agreed, and agreed some more. Not only is everybody interested in the gateways, the gateways remain the only legitimate governmental jurisdiction.

I said it before, I'll say it again: bits is bits. If they can control VOIP bits, they can control (tax, regulate* movement of, monitor) all the other bits. Like email. Radio broadcast streaming. Instant messages. Anonymous Yahoo group posts.

* fed fans: what is the exact definition of "regulate," if you don't mind my asking?

[Solar Wind]

"The first step is to establish federal jurisdiction," Powell said in his keynote at the VON 2004 trade show here, adding that he will present the question to other commissioners for a vote.

Translation: there is none.

Exactly. Though, I do not trust Powell. IMHO he is too much in the pockets of the Bells and ATT, not financially but in how he thinks. His concern, like you point out, is in saving the established telecoms from too much loss to IP Telephony.

There are advantages in preventing States from putting up regulatory barriers. Though as other posters have pointed out it isn't much of a problem now. Most regulators don't even know what is going on. It is too new and constantly changing.

My concern is the main goal of Powell is to get a regulatory leash on IP Telephony to benefit the Bells and ATT.

Mr Sol

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

VOIP is certainly getting better, but is not accurate to the five nines yet.

[Fiddlstix]

BTTT

[taxcontrol]

Allow me to let you in on a dirty little secret - the phone system is not 5 9's - that's right POTS is NOT 99.999% available. Further, most people don't even MEASURE the network as frequently as mathematically required to be able to truthfully claim 5 9's.

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Maybe, but POTS still comes up much better than VOIP currently does. Of course, that is changing, and VOIP quality is improving dramatically all of the time.