FCC Rules States Can't Regulate VoIP 243
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?"
Only TERRORISTS would make free phone calls! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Wrong Moderation (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:3, Funny)
Actually Free is very Capitalistic (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:2)
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
Re:Wrong Moderation (Score:2)
Don't forget spell-checkers
Re:Wrong Moderation (Score:2)
(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.)
Direct From The Source! (Score:5, Informative)
Michael Powell's Statements [fcc.gov] (PDF, 75.6K)
Re:Direct From The Source! (Score:2)
Text of the news releast [fcc.gov].
Word file of the news releast [fcc.gov].
Text of Mr. Powell's statement [fcc.gov].
Word Document of Mr. Powell's statement [fcc.gov].
For future reference, the FCC maintains a daily digest of their releases here [fcc.gov].
ET? (Score:5, Funny)
A double-edged sword (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:A double-edged sword (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:A double-edged sword (Score:2)
Was thinking more on the lines of WWW-over-TCP-over-IP-over-BIG_TELCOS
Re:A double-edged sword (Score:2)
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 (Score:2, Insightful)
What I hate (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What I hate (Score:2, Informative)
Re:What I hate (Score:4, Interesting)
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 (Score:2)
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 exp
Re:What I hate (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Question (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Question (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Question (Score:2)
Re:Question (Score:2, Insightful)
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 (Score:2, Insightful)
Advocate for luxury taxes instead.
Re:Question (Score:2)
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 (Score:2)
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 p
Re:Question (Score:2)
Re:Question (Score:2)
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 th
Re:Question (Score:2)
Re:Question (Score:4, Informative)
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 (Score:2)
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 (Score:2)
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
Re:Question (Score:2)
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 (Score:3, Interesting)
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 f
Re:Question (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re:Question (Score:2)
Re:Question (Score:2)
Not that I like the idea of a national property tax or anything...
Re:Question (Score:2)
Re:Question (Score:2)
Re:What I hate (Score:3, Interesting)
You are ignoring the other purpose of taxation: to discourage behaviours t
Re:What I hate (Score:2)
Fuel is not a basic living expense.
3 cheers for sanity (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:3 cheers for sanity (Score:2)
Re:3 cheers for sanity (Score:2)
Hooray for VOIP! (Score:2)
Re:Hooray for VOIP! (Score:2)
Unless you are the owner, in which case I wish you good luck with your company.
Federal taxes instead of state taxes? (Score:2, Interesting)
Fair taxation? (Score:5, Interesting)
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? (Score:4, Insightful)
Which you probably already pay taxes on anyway.
Re:Fair taxation? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Fair taxation? (Score:4, Insightful)
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? (Score:2)
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 u
Re:Fair taxation? (Score:5, Insightful)
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? (Score:2)
Re:Fair taxation? (Score:2, Insightful)
actually, even *that* wouldn't work.
Re:Fair taxation? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Fair taxation? (Score:2)
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 assumptio
Business will benifit. (Score:4, Insightful)
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).
Re:Fair taxation? (Score:3, Insightful)
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 writi
Re:Fair taxation? (Score:2)
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 sti
Re:Fair taxation? (Score:5, Insightful)
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? (Score:2)
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
Re:Fair taxation? (Score:2, Informative)
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 fo
Re:Fair taxation? (Score:2)
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? (Score:2)
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 leas
Re:Fair taxation? (Score:2)
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? (Score:2)
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? (Score:2)
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 s
Re:Fair taxation? (Score:2)
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? (Score:2)
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? (Score:2)
Same when they ask for my address (Radio Shack, but not my bank).
what a positive (Score:3, Insightful)
hmm... (Score:2, Insightful)
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... (Score:2)
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.
Grab the tinfoil... (Score:2)
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 cal
I'd much rather have a single regulation entity (Score:2)
I'm sure the greedy, bloodsucking suits in the state legislatures will figure out a way around it, though.
Bad wording (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:2)
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
Re:Bad wording (Score:2)
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 sinc
We'll see (Score:3, Insightful)
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 (Score:2)
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 blo
IP networks SHOULD be taxed - JUST ONCE (Score:4, Interesting)
Jason
Re:IP networks SHOULD be taxed - JUST ONCE (Score:4, Insightful)
That's fine and dandy but do you know what IP stands for? It's Internet Protocol...
Are you on crack? (Score:2)
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? C
Re:FUCK THAT!!! (Score:2)
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 on
my experience (Score:5, Informative)
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 (Score:3, Informative)
Re:my experience (Score:2)
Grump
Note: Lamp is important so I can see when the power goes out.
Die telco die! (Score:2)
I have seen the future, and its name is Voip!
This isn't all good (Score:2, Interesting)
People sometimes suggest we start providing VoIP service (and we are), but this is also a problem in certain
FCC: evil or not? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:FCC: evil or not? (Score:2)
Makes Sense Not to Tax It (Score:2)
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
How long... (Score:2, Interesting)
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)
How big must the network be? (Score:3, Interesting)
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 [asterisk.org] PBX, onto my POTS line (which I'm about to do anyway), do I get to forgo the state taxes on those lines?
Commerce (Score:2, Interesting)
My Illinois bill shows: (Score:2)
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 fo
Re:Any such taxes in Europe or Canada? (Score:2, Informative)
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...