Vonage Fights Minnesota's Attempts To Regulate VoIP 200
rmccoy writes "Vonage said Thursday it intends to fight the first-ever decision by a U.S. state to regulate companies that provide Internet-based phone services. Minnesota's Public Utilities Commission unanimously decided two weeks ago that the New Jersey-based voice over IP (VoIP) provider is subject to the rules and regulations that cover traditional phone companies."
I hope they win. (Score:5, Interesting)
If the government starts getting their fingers in this business that is doing just fine competitively, you can bet that I'll start to see loads of fees and taxes being added onto my bill, turning my $27.00 monthly bill into something more like $40.00. And for what benefits? None.
Go Vonage.
Shameless refer-a-friend link to Vonage [vonage.com]
Double Dipping taxes (Score:5, Interesting)
No, not fair enough (Score:4, Interesting)
It is rediculous to assume that because the service VoIP companies provide to consumers is similar to the service phone companies provide to consumers, the same regulations will work to govern them. In fact, why should VoIP be subject to regulation at all? The only reason I can think of is: if it is not regulated, it has the potential to destroy the market for traditional switched land-line service. But the question we should be asking is, is that a bad thing? Shouldn't we be moving toward a model where phone companies transform into bandwidth providers and voice communication service is provided over the same connection as everything else?
Re:No, not fair enough (Score:2, Interesting)
That is what John Dvorak thinks should happen.. I would think it would relieve the phone companies of a lot of headaches...see this PCMag article [pcmag.com] for his take on this matter...
Re:Fair enough, no? (Score:4, Interesting)
Just the opposite. It's about data, and it's none of the state's business what my data is or what protocol I wrap it in. If they can regulate VoIP data then they could also regulate you capturing a wave file of your voice and sending it by FTP or as e-mail to a friend. And if they can do that then they might as well stick their fingers into everything you send or even everything you do with your computer.
That's John Ashcroft and Homeland Security and Echelon's job, to snoop into every single corner of your life, not the state government's.
Re:911 (Score:2, Interesting)
Vonage also makes the issue very complex. For $ (N*5) I can get a telephone number that is local to N cities where they offer service. Should those telephone numbers be subject to such 911 fees in each locality, or should you only pay once per telephone number? What if you add a vonage fax line, it's never used for voice, are you required to pay for 911 fees on that as well?
I don't see that the PUCs are out to squash VoIP as a threat, just something that will require some rules to be made regarding 911 service availability, and perhaps some far more interesting things to happen, including giving locations of specific IP addresses to emergency responders. If I know that MIT has 18.0.0.0/8, and each subnet is a /16 (for example) and they have the addresses of these buildings
available, why not have a registry (oh wait, there is, whois/rwhois.. but) of these available, so vonage can say "here's where that ip is". Obviously a very thorny privacy issue as well, because if everyones favorite 4 leter ?IAA org had access as well, you'd keep your file trading down quite a bit i'm sure :).
Back on topic:
No easy solution here, the PUC's don't care how the telephone service works behind the scenes, be it via POTS, VoIP, just that it works and that the required things are done (eg: 911 service in Minnesota). Vonage can always lobby there that they should be exempt and that whomever they're using (Probally focal, as you can see here: npa nxx lookup [nether.net]) to get their blocks of DIDs from should or is already paying such fees. Hopefully they're paying them to focal, the issue is should it be one fee per DS1 (DID) service, or one fee per number assigned to that T1 trunk.
Re:Vonage doesn't allow dirty jokes (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, they're just setting up a contractual obligation not to use their service for obscene phone calls or planning crimes. That's so they are covered against suits if their customers misbehave.
Why did they do this? Because they believe they AREN'T a phone company (common carrier), and that they thus wouldn't be protected by the laws that keep a phone company from being sued for what its customers send over its wires.
Re:I hope they win. (Score:2, Interesting)
Corporate Communism??? (Score:3, Interesting)
I prefer to think of the the economic policies of the American Government (which Americans in our not so great wisdom have elected) as Corporate Communism, for lack of a better terminology. I don't think when government does so much to protect Big Business at the expense of all other of societies economic entiites, that capitalism really applies to the American Economic System.
Re:I hope they win. (Score:2, Interesting)
And where do you thing the giant ag processing companies get the actual crops from? Dispite the dramatic increase in farm size, and the decline in the number of farmers (as more technology is used to farm larger acerages with fewer farmers) Most farms even most of the "corporate farms" are family owned small businesses. Many states have "anti-corporate" farm laws that prohibit large companies from owning the farms themselves. So although the large Ag companies have significant pricing power over the farmer, farming is still one of the closest industries we have to pure competition.