« VoIP Bloggers Roundtable @ Fall 2005 VON: | Main | When will we be: "Back in the High Life Again?:" »
August 05, 2005
When will we stop saying "Thank you sir may I have another?" to the FCC?
When will we stop saying "Thank you sir may I have another?" to the FCC?
Enough is enough. We are not pledging a fraternity. We, the Internet users, innovators, entrepreneurs and enthusiasts now have virtually nothing left to lose if we take the FCC to task for its treatment of the Internet. If we don’t question the path of the FCC now, we might not be around to challenge the Commission's disregard for the Internet and its users going forward. For this reason I am confused by the current lack of critical thinking and questioning of current FCC policy imposing regulation on the Internet while removing regulation of the Internet access bottlenecks.
So what do I think happened at the FCC today? The FCC first voted the Wireline Broadband Services item, which now designates wireline broadband Internet access services as “information services” with a “telecommunications component” but without a separate “telecommunications service.” This essentially means that the incumbent phone companies are no longer required to separate out wireline broadband transmission as a separately offered Title II service. In the process, the FCC has relieved wireline carriers of all their existing Computer II obligations. There is also an NPRM attached to the item seeking comment on how the FCC might now rely on Title I, having just relinquished its Title II hook, to protect consumers from such evils as slamming and cramming.
The Order and NPRM, citing the Supreme Court decision in Brand X, apparently indicates that the FCC has ancillary jurisdiction via Title I to impose regulations on both broadband Internet access providers and on Interconnect VoIP providers. This is how the FCC managed to impose Title II like E911 obligations on Interconnected VoIP Service Providers. This is probably the means by which the FCC managed to impose CALEA obligations on Interconnected VoIP Service Providers. Oh yeah, did I neglect to mention the item that the FCC voted on circulation earlier this morning? The FCC also voted a companion piece that will impose CALEA obligations on “Interconnected VoIP Service providers.” We don’t know what the timeline is on CALEA compliance (nor what the legal justification is, given that CALEA arguably only applies to Title II telecom carriers, which neither Interconnect VoIP Providers nor broadband access providers are anymore).
On the bright side, the FCC also adopted earlier today a “Policy Statement” on something akin to "Net Freedom." This Policy Statement apparently only saw the light of day because of the tireless efforts of Comm’r Copps. So, thank you Commissioner Copps for trying to protect Internet users.
I wish the FCC could have gone further than the Policy Statement and adopted explicit, bona fide, enforceable rules for user empowerment. For now, we, as the drivers of IP-based communications Internet innovation, will have to be ever-vigilant to monitor potential abuses of user empowerment. If the FCC revisits the issue a year from now (as Comm’r Copps has called upon the Commission to do), we should be prepared to present the FCC with a sufficient evidentiary record to convince the FCC to enforce user empowerment and to impose any rules that have been proven to be necessary. In any event, Policy Statement aside, nothing is settled and, if Internet users want control over the Internet experience, then Congress probably has to act to protect the Internet and its users.
Only time will tell whether the Policy Statement will prove to be a useful vehicle (perhaps our only vehicle) to ensure that no one can thwart a user's control of her own Internet experience.
By the way, let’s not forget that this is not only an American issue. All eyes are watching the actions of the FCC and what happens here has ramifications worldwide. I trust that some other governments might see the downside of regulating the Internet, while simultaneously deregulating those that control the user’s access to the Internet.
We are moving rapidly into a world in which Internet-based voice application providers have virtually all of the responsibilities of traditional telecom carriers and none of the rights. The FCC is officially now burning the Internet user's candle at both ends. The FCC is simultaneously relieving those who control access to users of any obligations to ensure that users may obtain the content and applications of their choice while imposing telecom-like regulations on the Internet. We have to wake up and follow the immortal words of Network’s Howard Beal: "We're mad as hell and we're not going to take it anymore!"
Share this post:
Digg |
del.icio.us |
Reddit |
Newsvine |
Google Bookmark |
Yahoo MyWeb |
StumbleUpon
Posted by jeff on August 5, 2005 02:01 PM | Permalink
Additional resources: Watch PrimeTime TV Shows | Watch the Jeff Pulver Show | Jeff's Qik Videos
Comments
It seems to me they're setting themselves up to be far too easily challenged on these latest rulings. The idea that anything above 64Kbps is a broadband 'information service' and not a phone service, but somehow the VoIP providers on these now higher-priced lines must meet phone service regulations seems like an absolute direct contradiction. You can have one or the other, but not both without a good deal of push back.
Of course, the only reason the latest FCC ruling concerning information services came about was because THIS effort had the backing of cable companies as well as the RBOCs. The previous efforts failed to bring in the cable companies and suffered because of that. But with THESE rulings, the only people who truly lose are the consumers.
Posted by: Eneref at August 9, 2005 11:02 AM
I don't know what planet you are from, but who owns the lines that the telcos put up? Who paid for all those lines? The regulation was forcing a company to sell its own assets at a lower cost to its competitors. If a company thinks it can do better they can lay their own cable, setup their own networks or even setup wireless networks.
The reason we are behind in broadband deploy is two fold. 1. Land 2. Government/Private relationships.
Countries like South Korea, Japan, and most of the countries of Western Europe have no land areas that can compare to the United States or Canada. This is the biggest hurdle, as the number of users per square mile increases; the recouping of costs is more likely.
I mentioned Korea & Japan first on purpose; their respective governments provided huge incentives to the quasi-state owned/run utilities to push broadband to their people. If you think the ilecs are a monopoly here, how about Japan where there really is only one wireline phone company.
The paranoia that the end user is going to be limited to only content sanctioned by the isp is insane. I admit there are choke points for voip that the telcos control & that needs to be regulated. However, why do you think the telcos care what you do on the internet? They have enough trouble just keeping it working.
Posted by: Craig at August 8, 2005 01:18 AM
Title I/Title II is irrelevant; the CALEA statute gave the Commission the authority to determine, based on section 102 (8)(B)(ii), just who is and is not a telecommunications carrier for the purposes of CALEA. The FCC used that clause, which includes "replacement for a substantial portion of the local telephone exchange service" and "in the public interest to deem such a person or entity to be a telecommunications carrier for purposes of this title", to define interconnected VoIP carriers as "telecommunications carriers".
Posted by: DG Lewis at August 6, 2005 11:24 PM
Even more interesting in light of this:
http://www.telegeography.com/cu/article.php?article_id=8451&email=html
Deutsche Telekom is lowering its wholesale local loop rates by 10%. Germany may soon overtake the US in broadband penetration. Not surprising as it is the country who's subscribers had 128kb ISDN service while the USA lumbered along with 28k modems (yes, that long ago) thanks to the fear by phone companies that ISDN would displace its fixed data line business. Let's see, which did US telcos offer: $35 per month 128k ISDN, or $1000/month fractional T-1???
Posted by: Kingsley at August 6, 2005 08:40 AM
This has all the earmarks of powerful incumbent combatants setting up the market for themselves to florish and locking out upstarts (oh, and who cares about consumers). Afterall who better to serve the people than those paternal old companies who brought you 100 years of tip and ring, three (count 'em three) mobile technologies conveniently different from the rest of the world, and the eleventh (sorry, now 16th) biggest broadband network despite our being the (supposedly) most technologically advanced country on the planet? Good News though, we have widened our lead in dial-up penetration! Whoopee.
Jeff, we need you in Washington (and Ottawa, and Berlin, and London, and....) You thought the fight to stop ACTA was rough...now the other side smells blood (or is it money?) and ACTA was just the opening act...we're talking the big boys now. You are a long way toward bringing the industry together so we have a common voice...but we are still no match for the telcos. We need to be.
Posted by: Kingsley at August 5, 2005 09:15 PM
Well, Jeff, you're seeing the fulfillment of what I've been saying for a while now: the VoIP/PSTN bridge services don't seem to have a very bright future. With all of this regulation and taxation, the price advantage is threatened, which so far is its only advantage.
Meanwhile, the pure IP modes go blithely on, untouchable by regulators (unless/until they manage to forbid encryption), and with the increasing ubiquity of broadband Internet access, will soon be cheaper than local landline service, whose installed base is the only reason anyone needs "interconnected" VoIP anyway...
The bottom line, as I see it, is that interconnected VoIP is, effectively, a non-starter: Too little value; too technically complicated; too many tar-baby legacy telecomm rules; trying to compete with a scheme that is orders of magnitude simpler and more flexible, nearly cost-free and beyond the reach of regulation or taxation. It's already dead; nothing but inertia keeps it from falling over.
Posted by: Brian Thomas at August 5, 2005 03:53 PM