--- From: Randy May <rmay@private> To: "'Declan McCullagh'" <declan@private> Subject: RE: [Politech] FCC's Michael Copps suggests levying taxes on Voic e over IP Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 14:00:28 -0500 Declan--For a different perspective than that of Michael Copps on the regulatory treatment of VoIP, see the recent postings on the PFF blog at http://www.pff.org/weblog/ It might be a good way to introduce some of your readers to our site, which contains a wealth of useful information on communications policy and Internet issues, as well as intellectual property matters. Randy Randolph J. May Senior Fellow and Director of Communications Policy Studies The Progress & Freedom Foundation 1401 H Street, NW Suite 1075 Washington, DC 20005 Tel 202-289-8928 Fax 202-289-6079 E-mail rmay@private Web www.pff.org --- Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 17:19:32 -0800 (PST) From: Karl Auerbach <karl@private> Reply-To: Karl Auerbach <karl@private> To: Declan McCullagh <declan@private> Subject: Re: [Politech] FCC's Michael Copps suggests levying taxes on Voice over IP On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, Declan McCullagh wrote: > http://news.com.com/2100-7352_3-5112424.html?tag=nefd_top > > FCC Commissioner Michael Copps, a former Democratic Senate aide, said that > the federal government should not ignore its "important statutory > obligations" to provide "universal service, ... In the early days of automobiles, a flagman had to be sent ahead to warn those with horses that a gasoline powered device was coming along. The need for that sort of thing eventually went away as technology improved. The same is true for VOIP - because VOIP phones are IP (Internet Protocol, not intellectual property) devices and are generally connected to the net as long as they have power, there is a whole world of improved alternatives to things like 911. For example, a VOIP phone could be designed to notice the 911 number and instead of building a VOIP call, it could instead, launch an instant message or other notification - such a notification could easily get through to the appropriate dispatcher much more quickly than the operator assisted systems of today. I find that between phone and fax spammers that my wired phones have little, if any, more actual availability for outgoing 911 than the VOIP phones in my home. The regulators have a point - but they should not let lack of imagination and mindless adherence to past practices lead them to impose old requirements onto new equipment when that new equipment could fill the same need in a new, and often better, way. --karl-- --- To: Declan McCullagh <declan@private> Cc: politech@private Subject: Re: [Politech] VoIP, Semiconductors, and cash cows References: <6.0.0.22.2.20031201212333.02fdb860@private> From: Chris Shenton <chris@private> Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2003 15:14:21 -0500 [for Politech, if you care] Two unrelated stories I read on Politic today echoed the same theme: someone's doing something better, let's get the government to stop them. The first was on telecom, the second on semiconductors: > FCC Commissioner Michael Copps, a former Democratic Senate aide, said > that the federal government should not ignore its "important statutory > obligations" to provide "universal service, homeland security, 911 > service, accessibility (for) people with disabilities." Imposing such > obligations on VoIP providers may be necessary to "bring equity and > effectiveness to rules and regulations that protect the public > interest," Copps said. > Micron claims that Hynix is competing unfairly by--I am not making > this up--selling its dynamic random access memory (DRAM) chips at a > lower price than U.S. companies do. Micron CEO Steve Appleton insists > that this is unlawful and that American consumers should be forced to > pay higher prices when shopping for computer gear. They both remind me of a joke that I was told was Russian in origin. Googling the punch-line found this: When given a single wish, the peasant tells the genie, "My neighbor Janov just got a new cow. It gives enough milk for his entire family, and he is finally prospering." "So you would like a cow like that? or a couple?" the genie asks. "No, I want you to kill his cow." Yes, let's definitely kill the (cash) cow. Why innovate when you can litigate? --- Subject: PRI ePolicy: VOIP in danger Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 18:04:46 -0800 From: "Sonia Arrison" <SArrison@private> To: declan@private ePolicy from Pacific Research Institute's Technology Studies Dept. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Fighting Regulators for Cheap Internet Phone Calls By Sonia Arrison New technology allows low-cost calls over the Internet, which is great news for those who dislike big phone bills. The bad news is that regulators are targeting this innovative service in a way that will harm its future and cheat consumers. Companies such as Vonage and Net2Phone offer Internet phone calls using a technology called "voice over Internet Protocol" (VOIP). It works by taking sound and converting it into packets of computer data that are sent across the Internet and reassembled into sound at the destination. And although the technology uses the Net to provide the service, adaptors allow it to be used with a regular phone, so consumers of VOIP don't need to be computer savvy. By using the Internet's infrastructure, VOIP makes calls much cheaper than traditional phone companies can provide. This is great news for consumers and bad news for traditional phone companies. But many regulators don't welcome it either. Public Utility Commissions (PUCs) in a number of states including California, Wisconsin, and Minnesota are working to strangle VOIP with mammoth regulations that were crafted for the outdated infrastructure of the old phone companies. In one of those states, Minnesota, the issue recently went before a federal court. Fortunately for consumers, Judge Michael Davis of the district of Minnesota ruled that VOIP cannot legally be regulated like the old telecom dinosaurs because VOIP is a data-based information service not a telephone service, and thus not subject to the same telecommunications rules. This ruling is a win for innovation, but unfortunately the battle is not over. For instance, California's PUC maintains that VOIP providers must submit to state regulation or face disciplinary action. That pioneers of this revolutionary technology are forced to defend themselves against public servants who are supposed to have the consumer's interest in mind is disturbing. This is one more reason why the entire convoluted telecommunications regulatory machine should be dismantled. The 1996 Telecommunications Act was enacted to create a "pro-competitive, deregulatory national policy framework," but instead the last seven years have been filled with regulatory wrangling and burdensome lawsuits. Through regulations stemming from the 1996 Act, government forces phone companies like the Bells to share their infrastructure with rivals at prices set by regulators. This scheme created a false "competition" that hampers and distorts investment. Now that disruptive technologies make old services obsolete, the recognition that old regulations are obsolete should follow. Frustratingly, not everyone sees it that way. Penn State University telecommunications professor Rob Frieden recently said that "at some point, fundamental fairness requires a level playing field." That's like saying there should be a fair playing field between the horse and buggy and the automobile. Not only would it be absurd to try to create "parity," but it would also be costly, directing resources away from innovation. What is going on in telecommunications is nothing short of revolutionary and regulators should be barred from trying to hold it back. There is no need to address the level of "fairness" between old and new technologies. Indeed, it would be unfair to consumers and future generations to attempt to slow down new technologies that bring cost savings and new efficiencies. And while regulators force VOIP firms to spend resources fighting battles of the past, newer technologies, such as one produced by the creators of the infamous file swapping software Kazza, threaten the business models of VOIP firms. Just as Kazza allows music and movie files to be swapped for free, Skype allows free Internet phone calls. Currently, Skype's service can only be used on the Internet (not with a standard phone), so Vonage and others may have time to figure out how to compete. But the point is that the telecommunications market has moved breathtakingly far away from the old, monopolistic, phone companies that current regulations were meant to address. Regulators should take their hands off new communications services. If they don't do it on their own, legislators should mandate a hands-off policy. Telecom has morphed into a hi-tech industry that plays by different rules, including extreme competition and innovation. For the sake of consumers, it should be allowed to flourish. Sonia Arrison is director of Technology Studies at the California-based Pacific Research Institute. _______________________________________________ Politech mailing list Archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ Moderated by Declan McCullagh (http://www.mccullagh.org/)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Dec 04 2003 - 13:35:35 PST