Subject: [NEXTEL-1] FCC Moves to Begin Clarifying Regulatory Treatment of VoIP

From: Marcelrf <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2004 19:03:21 -0500

FCC Moves to Begin Clarifying Regulatory Treatment of VoIP
http://pulse.tiaonline.org/article.cfm?id=1941

At its monthly opening meeting on February 12, the FCC voted to adopt
two important items that set the stage for beginning a comprehensive
examination of the regulatory implications of Internet protocol
(IP)-enabled applications and services.
The FCC adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that will seek
comments on voice over Internet protocol (VoIP) and other IP-enabled
applications. It also approved a declaratory order that determines that
Pulver.com’s Free World Dial Up (“FWD’) Internet voice application will
remain only minimally regulated.

Pulver.com submitted its petition for declaratory ruling in 2003
requesting a finding that FWD was neither a “telecommunications service”
nor “telecommunications” and was thus not subject to Communications Act
Title II regulation. In agreeing, the commission said that FWD is, in
fact, an interstate “information service” for purposes of the
Communications Act, meaning it is subject only to federal jurisdiction.
The commission stated that its ruling was intended to create regulatory
stability in the communications marketplace and it “emphasizes the FCC’s
long-standing policy of keeping these consumer Internet services free
from burdensome economic regulation at both the federal and state
levels.”

In a separate action, the FCC initiated a sweeping NPRM “to examine
opportunities that allow consumers greater choices created by voice
services provided over the Internet.” The NPRM emphasizes a framework of
minimal regulation, but states that social policy considerations, such
as public safety needs, Enhanced 911 (E911), access by the disabled and
lawfully authorized electronic surveillance, will have to be addressed.
On this last issue and in connection with the NPRM the FCC announced it
would also initiate a proceeding to address technical issues associated
with the ongoing implementation of the Communications Assistance for Law
Enforcement Act (CALEA). Such a proceeding will address the “scope of
covered services, assign responsibility for compliance and identify the
wiretap capabilities required.”

Despite the prospective nature of the new NPRM, Chairman Michael K.
Powell, in a separate statement, reminded existing telecommunications
providers of their duty to “pay fair compensation” for calls using the
public switched telephone network. Powell stated that this ruling “does
not – and cannot –change the existing obligations of providers to comply
with our rules.” Powell also addressed universal service, stating that
IP communications ride atop a physical layer that is still “expensive to
build and maintain” in many areas.  Powell stressed that to ensure
universal access to communications services, the NPRM considers
distinguishing between service providers, those who interconnect with
the public switched telephone network and those who do not.

To address the “social” concerns that will have to be addressed as VoIP
gains in the marketplace continue, the FCC will host a series of
“Solutions Summits” to facilitate inviting members of the law
enforcement, first responder and disability communities to articulate
their specific concerns. The first of these summits will be held on
March 18 and will address E911.
TIA expressed its support for the FCC actions. The association, in fact,
recently adopted a policy statement on the regulation of VoIP that was
submitted to the FCC.

TIA President Matthew J. Flanigan commented, “We are very encouraged
that the commission is moving ahead to bring some clarity to the
regulatory uncertainty surrounding VoIP and IP applications in general.
The NPRM will be an important step in defining what we believe should be
a light-handed regulatory framework for IP applications such as voice,
one that recognizes that you cannot simply impose the legacy rules for
circuit-switch telephony on the IP world. Moreover, the FCC's action on
the Pulver.com petition brings a sense of confidence that neither the
federal nor state government is going to be in the business of
regulating the dynamic Internet application space. TIA remains committed
to working with the FCC to seek creative solutions for addressing the
important public interest issues that arise during the continued rollout
of VoIP, such as the needs of public safety, law enforcement and
universal service.”

“VoIP is one of the drivers and beneficiaries of the ubiquitous
deployment of broadband and IP networks,” continued Flanigan. “We view
VoIP policy decisions as part of the overall regulatory framework for
broadband deployment.  The FCC's actions today are parts of the equation
of encouraging the buildout of broadband connectivity by removing
regulatory impediments and uncertainty.”

At the time of publication, the text of both FCC actions had yet to be
released.
The news releases, however, can be found at www.fcc.gov.
For more information, contact Derek Khlopin, (703) 907-7739 or email
[email-masked].

--
    "NEXTEL-1 IT'S NOT JUST NEXTEL"
  Note The New address
Subscribe to Nextel-1: http://www.groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/NEXTEL-1

  "NEXTEL2 FOR iDEN SOFTWARE DEVELOPERS"
Subscribe to Nextel2: http://www.groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/NEXTEL2

  "WIRELESS FORUM HOMELAND SECURITY GROUP"
     The Complete Resource for Wireless Homeland Security.
Subscribe to WFHSG:  http://www.groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/WFHSG

-- 
    "NEXTEL-1 IT'S NOT JUST NEXTEL"
  Note The New address 
Subscribe to Nextel-1: http://www.groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/NEXTEL-1

  "NEXTEL2 FOR iDEN SOFTWARE DEVELOPERS"
Subscribe to Nextel2: http://www.groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/NEXTEL2

  "WIRELESS FORUM HOMELAND SECURITY GROUP"
     The Complete Resource for Wireless Homeland Security.
Subscribe to WFHSG:  http://www.groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/WFHSG

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEXTEL-1/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
     [email-masked]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
     http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

---

From: "Rik Rasmussen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 21:50:10 -0500

Consider this,

If you use your computer to make a VoIP call to the phone in my house, this
is a "phone" call. If I use use my phone to call you at your computer, this
is also a "phone" call. What makes both of these "phone" calls is that they
either originate or terminate on the PSTN. This will likely be taxed.

But, if I use my computer to call you on your computer (MSN Messebger call
for instance), no PSTN is involved, hence NO phone call. This should not be
taxed, even if the "line" you use is provided by a PSTN carrier, such as an
DSL line.

Likewise, cable ISP based calls should not be taxed as phone calls.

Now, just because something shouldn't be done, does not mean it will not be
done. There is always the case to be made as Powell states, that Universal
Service funds depend on these taxes.

Rik Rasmussen
Two Way Radio Directory
http://twowayradiodirectory.com

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, March 12, 2004 8:29 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [NEXTEL-1] FCC Moves to Begin Clarifying Regulatory
> Treatment of VoIP
>
>
> Messrs. Rik & Rick,
>
> Rik's latter remark (immediately below) is essentially what I am
> referring to.  Basically, it comes down to public versus private.
> Imagine a digital trunked two-way radio system in which voice traffic is
> switched and routed by IP.  This system is not connected to the Internet
> in any way.
>
> Is this what the FCC seeks to regulate?  Or are they instead concerned
> with Internet "phone" calls (some connecting at great distances) which
> circumvent the PSTN?  Or do they seek to regulate both??
>
> Also, Rick: Your premise stated below is a situation that could possibly
> come into play as well.  I wasn't even thinking along those lines.
> Excellent observation!
>
> -Alan
>
>
>
>
> --- In [email-masked], "Rik Rasmussen" <hrasmussen@n...> wrote:
> Apparently he was just trying to make the point that the FCC needs to
> consider public voIP and not mistakenly suck up private voIp along
> with it in the "tax 'em to hell" regulations.
>
> Rik Rasmussen
> Two Way Radio Directory
> http://twowayradiodirectory.com
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rick Parrish [mailto:rfmobile@s...]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 9:25 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [NEXTEL-1] FCC Moves to Begin Clarifying Regulatory
> Treatment of VoIP
>
>
> > > Rik Rasmussen wrote:
> > > How do you run voice on the internet
> > > without using Internet Protocol?
>
>
> Voice over IP refers to a particular protocol. You could invent
> your own protocol or choose another that also operates over
> either of the two main flavors of IP - TCP and UDP. I think
> that was Alan's point.
> -rick
>
> --
>

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark
Printer at MyInks.com.  Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US & Canada.
http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511
http://us.click.yahoo.com/mOAaAA/3exGAA/qnsNAA/61FxlB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

---

From: Alan Dixon <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2004 10:21:13 -0500

Messrs. Rik & Rick,

-Alan

Rik Rasmussen
Two Way Radio Directory

-----Original Message-----
From: Rick Parrish [mailto:rfmobile@s...]
Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 9:25 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [NEXTEL-1] FCC Moves to Begin Clarifying Regulatory
Treatment of VoIP

--

 
Yahoo! Groups Links