Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
United States Communications The Internet Your Rights Online

FCC Rules States Can't Regulate VoIP 243

Posted by michael from the can-you-hear-me-now? dept.
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?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

FCC Rules States Can't Regulate VoIP More

FCC Rules States Can't Regulate VoIP

Comments Filter:

  • Only TERRORISTS would make free phone calls! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 09, 2004 @06:08PM (#10770273)
    If you don't pay for your phone call then you _MUST_ be an anti-capitalist American-hating commie terrorist!

  • Direct From The Source! (Score:5, Informative)

    by 1_interest_1 ( 805383 ) on Tuesday November 09, 2004 @06:10PM (#10770301)
    FCC News Release [fcc.gov] (PDF, 110K)

    Michael Powell's Statements [fcc.gov] (PDF, 75.6K)

  • ET? (Score:5, Funny)

    by bluewee ( 677282 ) on Tuesday November 09, 2004 @06:12PM (#10770332)
    ET Phone Home: 127.0.0.1 (just in case you forgot the number) and if you prefer :::1 if you are on IP6 there et buddy...

  • A double-edged sword (Score:4, Insightful)

    by CMcQueeny ( 682013 ) on Tuesday November 09, 2004 @06:13PM (#10770343)
    Whilst this will allow VoIP to continue its growth, etc., it also establishes precedent for federal control of the networks. Although it is true that some industries that are now relatively free began as heavily regulated monopolies, this strikes me as a step in the wrong direction.

  • What I hate (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 09, 2004 @06:13PM (#10770350)
    I hate it that government departments like the FCC can decide whether or not to raise my taxes simply by fiat rather than having the tax go to a vote either in Congress or in a referendum. They are answerable to no one (save their big media financiers), and do not represent us, the drooling public.

    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)

      by AuMatar ( 183847 ) on Tuesday November 09, 2004 @06:21PM (#10770446)
      And you think the lowest levels are better? I have news for you buddy- the corruption on my local city council rivals that of large cities. And I've never seen more useless beauracracy and petty bickering than in school council meetings.

      • Re:What I hate (Score:2, Informative)

        by CMcQueeny ( 682013 )
        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.

      • Re:What I hate (Score:4, Interesting)

        by ratamacue ( 593855 ) on Tuesday November 09, 2004 @08:11PM (#10771738)
        The rationale for decentralized government is simple. The more power government has at its disposal, the higher the level of abuse, and the bigger the problems government will cause. Government can only cause so much trouble with limited power and revenue. For example, the US federal government caused relatively few problems around the world before the federal income tax (which, incidentally, was supposed to be temporary). Today, the US federal government has troops stationed in over 150 countries around the world, and has been at war with some country, somewhere in the world, for every single year over the past century. Why? Because they can. Power will be abused, and absolute power will be abused absolutely.

        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.

        • 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.

          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)

      by Twanfox ( 185252 ) on Tuesday November 09, 2004 @06:22PM (#10770468)
      Here is an excellent question, and a notion of my own taxation philosophy.

      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)

        by forand ( 530402 )
        And in your system how do we pay for things like law enforcement, military, science, etc. i.e. things that we don't directly use but expect our government to provide?

        • Re:Question (Score:3, Insightful)

          by elmegil ( 12001 )
          I think there's a difference between transactional taxes on things like phone service, gas tax, sales tax, etc. and the items you list. For transactional taxes, I agree that the tax should apply to the arena of the transaction taxed. For the others you mention, don't we already have an income tax? I don't recall the grandparent post saying to abolish that.... Such things are also municipally funded by property taxes....
        • For things at the Federal level like the military that's why there's an income tax. Though preferably it would be a national sales tax instead. For things at the local level, like emergency services, property taxes.

          • Re:Question (Score:2, Insightful)

            by NardofDoom ( 821951 )
            If you want the tax to be relevant, let's look at it another way.

            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)

            by Surt ( 22457 )
            Yuck, before advocating more sales tax please realize it is one of the most regressive types of taxes possible.

            Advocate for luxury taxes instead.
            • Good. I hate so-called "progressive" taxation. There's nothing progressive about punishing success, it just smacks of jealousy and class warfare.

              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.

              • Good. I hate so-called "progressive" taxation. There's nothing progressive about punishing success, it just smacks of jealousy and class warfare.

                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

                • They do pay more. They spend a hell of a lot more. 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.

                  • 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

                    • Your quote of a federal tax burden of 18% for 170K is wrong it is closer to about 28%.

                    • Re:Question (Score:4, Informative)

                      by damiangerous ( 218679 ) <1ndt7174ekq80001@sneakemail.com> on Tuesday November 09, 2004 @08:47PM (#10772141)
                      At an annual income of $170k, the federal tax burden is about 18%.

                      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.

                    • 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%.

                    • 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

              • You obviously haven't spent much of your life where food, shelter, and clothing represented a significant fraction of your expenditures.

                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)

                  by damiangerous ( 218679 )
                  You obviously haven't spent much of your life where food, shelter, and clothing represented a significant fraction of your expenditures.

                  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)

              by mrchaotica ( 681592 )
              So what's so bad about a regressive sales tax? The key difference is that it is a tax on consumption. If somebody feels like their taxes are too high, there's an easy solution: BUY LESS STUFF!

              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
        • How about a property tax? That way, everyone who lives in the area pays for the law enforcement of that area. Businesses included. Renters would pay it as a portion of their rent. A federal property tax could be levied for the military and other government programs. People with more property (acreage, ludicrously over-sized homes, etc.) pay more, less property, less. Probably some adjustment for population density would also be required to keep the relative numbers of police to citizens reasonable in
        • In his system he'd look for a source of tax revenue that would be related to the things being taxed. For law enforcement and military, you'd either tax property (since property is the primary thing being protected by the military and police) or place a levy on the states (who arguably share a responsibility for protecting their citizens; it's contitutionally arguable that there are no federal citizens), who should then follow some rational means to decide what to tax (perhaps they'd largely choose to tax pr

      • Re:What I hate (Score:3, Interesting)

        by whoever57 ( 658626 )

        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.

        You are ignoring the other purpose of taxation: to discourage behaviours t

  • 3 cheers for sanity (Score:5, Insightful)

    by PitaBred ( 632671 ) <slashdot&pitabred,dyndns,org> on Tuesday November 09, 2004 @06:13PM (#10770351) Homepage
    I'm all for this. It'll be meaningful competition finally. Though regulations exist for the leasing of infrastructure to smaller companies at reasonable rates, those are still abused. Once voice is just packets, it's a totally level playing field.
  • Working for a small VOIP company (unpaid), I look forward to the lack of opportunity the government has in preventing us from doing business.

  • Federal taxes instead of state taxes? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Will federal taxes be levied instead of state taxes?

  • Fair taxation? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by bstarrfield ( 761726 ) on Tuesday November 09, 2004 @06:14PM (#10770366)

    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)

      by rcw-work ( 30090 ) on Tuesday November 09, 2004 @06:19PM (#10770426)
      VOIP requires that you have a high speed line - either DSL or cable

      Which you probably already pay taxes on anyway.

    • Re:Fair taxation? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by PitaBred ( 632671 ) <slashdot&pitabred,dyndns,org> on Tuesday November 09, 2004 @06:22PM (#10770459) Homepage
      So, rather than do Internet over the telephone for $27/line plus $20/mo, you can do telephone over the Internet for a grand total of $50/mo. Not to mention that this will increase broadband adoption, hopefully lowering prices. So this is perfectly reasonable for the less well-off, and better for everyone as a whole. The local POTS is a hegemony system anyway. It's called 'choice', and we now have it, where before you had the illusion of it.

    • Re:Fair taxation? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by bfields ( 66644 ) on Tuesday November 09, 2004 @06:29PM (#10770545) Homepage
      this strikes me as a pretty unfair subsidy of the technologically savvy at the expense of the less technologically competent.

      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

      • 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.

        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)

      by ValuJet ( 587148 ) on Tuesday November 09, 2004 @06:29PM (#10770547)
      Here is why.

      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.

      • I agree wholeheartedly. Either the FCC should leave internet traffic as a whole untaxed, or it should tax internet traffic as a whole. Taxing one specific kind of data is insane... Categorizations of internet traffic change on almost a month-to-month basis and are too fluid to be regulated.

      • Re:Fair taxation? (Score:2, Insightful)

        by NardofDoom ( 821951 )
        Additionally, how would anyone know what packets are what? By port? What stops someone from port mapping their VoIP box to port 80? Will the states or feds put boxes *inside* your firewall to determine what data you're sending?

        actually, even *that* wouldn't work.

      • 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.

      • It unfairly taxes a specific kind of internet traffic. It is just data flowing over lines no differently than webbrowsing.

        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)

      by Brigadier ( 12956 ) on Tuesday November 09, 2004 @06:29PM (#10770554)

      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)

      by jmulvey ( 233344 )
      Your post seems to assume that regulation or taxation of telephony is needed. Are monopolies forming in telephony? No! The barriers to entry to forming your own telco are practically nil.

      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
      • Funny. It would appear that ILECs still, essentially, have a monopoly on the local loop.

        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)

      by dgatwood ( 11270 ) on Tuesday November 09, 2004 @06:34PM (#10770604) Homepage Journal
      You have this upside down. This is one step towards removing states' ability to tax things that they never should have had the authority to tax to begin with.

      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.

      • 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)

      by JoeStreet ( 113907 )
      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 fo
    • So should we be taxed for:

      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.
    • VOIP requires that you have a high speed line - either DSL or cable - an expense that many people can't afford.

      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

    • "why should those with high speed access find a loophole out of local telephony costs?"

      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.
    • I was listening to the FCC chairman (or spokesman?) on CNBC this evening, and the reason given was that VOIP run on the *internet*, and therefore states having regulatory control seemes silly (given that the internet is *global*).

      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.
    • 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?

      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
    • 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?

      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.

  • what a positive (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Yonkeltron ( 720465 ) on Tuesday November 09, 2004 @06:14PM (#10770368) Homepage
    i think this is wonderful news. it looks to me like uncle sam finally sees that VOIP needs to be left alone in order for it to prospoer. look at how POTS was regulated to death and you see how important it is to keep VOIP free and clear.

  • hmm... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by bretharder ( 771353 )
    I'd rather have state regulation than fed.
    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.
    • I'd rather have state regulation than fed.
      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.

  • "or one step closer to state regulation or taxation of IP networks?"

    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
  • Rather than having to go through the hoops and hurdles of making sure that I comply with the rules and regulations of every state that I do business in, terminate traffic in, or originate traffic from.

    I'm sure the greedy, bloodsucking suits in the state legislatures will figure out a way around it, though.

  • Bad wording (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ad0gg ( 594412 ) on Tuesday November 09, 2004 @06:21PM (#10770450)
    "One step closer to free phone calls, or one step closer to state regulation or taxation of IP networks?" "

    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.

    • Very good point. Just like the cell phone companies say "free long distance", you're still paying for that monthly service.

      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
    • 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.

      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)

    by PincheGab ( 640283 ) on Tuesday November 09, 2004 @06:21PM (#10770452)
    I want to wait for the first instance of a VoIP call failure eventually leading to someone's death (ie, a 911 call did not go through because a router was down/etc...).

    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...

  • IP networks SHOULD be taxed - JUST ONCE (Score:4, Interesting)

    by stagmeister ( 575321 ) <lustig@@@brandeis...edu> on Tuesday November 09, 2004 @06:23PM (#10770476) Homepage
    Ideally, we shouldn't be paying per-month fees for our access to IP networks. (Let's not even call it the "internet" anymore, please. It's just a network for sending and receiving IP packets) We should be paying for bandwith. Just like we have an electric bill where we pay per kilowatt, and a water bill where we pay per gallon, we should pay per megabit sent and received over the IP networks. That way all this traffic - is already taxed. We could have one tax on IP traffic fees, and after that it's fair game to do whatever you want with that IP traffic. So VOIP calls wouldn't be "free", they would cost a certain amount depending on the bitrate you send and receive at. And they would be taxed based on how much bandwith you use for it.
    Jason

    • Re:IP networks SHOULD be taxed - JUST ONCE (Score:4, Insightful)

      by xlv ( 125699 ) on Tuesday November 09, 2004 @06:55PM (#10770818)
      (Let's not even call it the "internet" anymore, please. It's just a network for sending and receiving IP packets)

      That's fine and dandy but do you know what IP stands for? It's Internet Protocol...

    • You want to tax me on network bandwidth?!? What the hell are you thinking?

      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

  • my experience (Score:5, Informative)

    by theMerovingian ( 722983 ) on Tuesday November 09, 2004 @06:23PM (#10770483) Journal
    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.

    • Re:my experience (Score:3, Informative)

      by calibanDNS ( 32250 )
      You can get cable/VoIP modems with a battery backup. The modem I got from Time Warner cable (in central NC) came with a backup that is reported to last close to 8 hours in the event of a power outage. Now, not only do I not have to worry about not being able to call 911 in a power outage (and I have a cell phone anyway), but I can pass the time during an outage by browsing the web.
      • I have a UPS which I have the modem, router and laptop and a lamp plugged into. Luckily I haven't had anything long enough to drain the UPS battery...yet.

        Grump

        Note: Lamp is important so I can see when the power goes out.
  • Weeehaw! I am all in favor of anything that puts another nail into the coffin of a telco. They are some of the worst fscking companies there are. Bad customer service, weird charges, slow to act, etc, etc, etc!

    I have seen the future, and its name is Voip!

  • I work for a small independant telephone company. Although I'm glad that VoIP isn't regulated, it puts my company in a very awkward position. Namely an inability to compete. If we have to charge our customers for 911, USF, federal and state taxes so should a VoIP provider if any their calls terminate on the POTS network. I would be equally okay with the deregulation of the POTS network instead.

    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)

    by N8F8 ( 4562 ) on Tuesday November 09, 2004 @07:10PM (#10771000)
    So , is the FCC the evil pawn of the Republican party today or not?
  • I'm paying the FCC fees to subsidize rural connections on my DSL connection anyway. Regulating voip would be kind of like taxing me twice for the same thing.

    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)

    by ebob9 ( 726509 ) *
    How long until this is reversed?

    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)

    by bill_mcgonigle ( 4333 ) * on Tuesday November 09, 2004 @08:30PM (#10771937) Homepage Journal
    The FCC had ruled previously that "pure VoIP" was free from regulation because calls originated and terminated over the Internet, but regulation of VoIP calls that terminate on publicly switched networks had yet to be addressed. These calls and services will now be treated in the same way.

    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)

    by Sai Babu ( 827212 )
    States can't tax the interstate aspects of POTs calls. The loophole, if a state does want to tax, is at the POTs interface. But hey, they alread tax this for in state calls. Do we want them taxing twice? Now I can see an argument for taxing intrastate VOIP calls becausethey are effectively the same thing from the callers perspective. I don't see how they might discriminate inter/intra though. I can also see an argument against taxing VOIP. States don't tax two way radio calls. Perhaps if the states really w
  • VoIP Base Rate Component $20.00
    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

Slashdot Top Deals

"Here's something to think about: How come you never see a headline like `Psychic Wins Lottery.'" -- Comedian Jay Leno

Close