Please note: This site's design is only visible in a graphical browser that supports Web standards, but its content is accessible to any browser or Internet device. To see this site as it was designed please upgrade to a Web standards compliant browser.

VoIP: Why is it not your parents' Plain Old Telephone Service (POTS)?

Overview | Video | Panelist Biographies | OnePagers

The Internet Caucus Advisory Committee hosted its first panel event of 2004 on March 16 to debate Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP). The ICAC's VoIP working group developed the event on "VoIP: Why is it not your parentsŐ Plain Old Telephone Service (POTS)?"

The moderator, Blair Levin (Legg Mason), introduced the esteemed panel of speakers and delivered a brief history of the telecommunications network and current regulations as well as an overview of the different models of VoIP. According to Mr. Levin the goals of telecom network regulation are three-part:

  1. Universal Service
    • Affordability
    • Interconnection
    • Ability to build out
  2. Monopoly regulation/competition
  3. Social policy (ex: disability access, e911, law enforcement access)
These three goals are the focus of this discussion and the debate over VoIP policy.

Mr. Levin also noted the three main models of VoIP. These classifications are important for the further discussion.

  1. Computer-to-Computer
    • Does not touch the phone network
    • VoIP end-to-end
    • FCC decided it should not be regulated in Pulver.com
  2. Phone-to-Phone
    • Works on the traditional phone network
    • Only VoIP in the middle of the connection
    • FCC is contemplating how to treat this service
  3. Computer-to-Phone
    • This system is one of continued debate. No decision has been made at the FCC.

Tom Evslin, Chairman and CEO of ITXC Corporation and Policy Chairman of VON Corporation, opened with the statistic that 10% of all international calls are done over VoIP. ITXC Corporation is currently a leader in this market. Mr. Evslin noted that VoIP should be regulated lightly. Mr. Evslin analyzed the goals for regulation that Mr. Levin set forward and explained how all of these goals will not only be met, but will be better met with VoIP technology.

  1. Universial Service -- VoIP makes calling cheaper so less money would be need to make sure that everyone gets coverage and access.
  2. Monopoly regulation -- Mr. Evslin stated that VoIP made demonopolization easier because the little guys could finally join in.
  3. Social policy -- For issues like 911 access and CALEA, Mr. Evslin felt that VoIP technology, because it works over the Internet, made both of these things easier than ever before.

Anne Boyle, Commissioner from the Nebraska Public Service Commission, stated that she represents people paying the bills. Ms. Boyle encouraged the government not to hurry making decisions about what to or not to do. She reiterated that no ominous bill will be able to address all the problems. Ms. Boyle suggested considering regulating the function of the technology more than the technology itself, since there is now way to know in which direction exactly this technology may move. Ms. Boyle's largest concern, due in part to the fact that she is from a very rural area of the country, is the Universal Service Fund. She reminded the audience that for the time being most services still end up touching the traditional telecom network lines. She said, "There must be some compensation," so hard-to-reach rural customers can continue to receive affordable service.

Rick Cimerman, Senior Director of State Telecommunications Policy for the National Cable and Telecommunications Association, explained how the cable VoIP service differs from other services. Mr. Cimerman noted that cable VoIP services do not travel over public lines. Mr. Cimmerman stated the need to distinguish between different providers so there is less confusion about regulation.

Link Hoewing, Assistant Vice President for Verizon, agreed with a "hands off" approach to VoIP regulation, comparing VoIP innovation to the cellular telephone. He stated that the cell phone developed so quickly because the service was not regulated. Mr. Hoewing stated that he felt reasonable compensation for calls over the traditional network was important to keep the public switch network viable.

The above views are those of the panelists -- not the Internet Caucus or the Advisory Committee. The Internet Caucus Advisory Committee holds these balanced panels as educational debates to better educate Congressional Members and staff about the current Internet debates in the 108th Congress.

For more detail regarding the event please view the complete Video.