The FCC position has evolved since the early days of VoIP, essentially using the position that “if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it is a duck.” In other words, even when using a digital platform instead of analog, if the purpose and function of the service is what we commonly refer to as “telephone service,” that is what VoIP is.
As there are--for every public purpose--corresponding private interests, it comes as no particular surprise that some interests want less or more regulation of VoIP; that there is disagreement about whether to allow digital versions of analog products to be regulated the same way as the legacy products.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation says the bill would lead to the CPUC abandoning oversight over local voice services.
How to regulate voice over internet protocol long has been contentious. There have been disputes over the proper balance of local and national jurisdiction, which agencies should have purview, as well as disputes over which rules to apply, to what sorts of services and entities.
Apparently some opponents argue against the bill on grounds that it somehow undermines internet access competition, which is not my reading of the bill’s intent and impact, which appears narrowly drawn to apply to interconnected VoIP services only--which traditionally have been regulated differently from data apps and services--and not internet access, which by federal law already is viewed as an internet or data service.
No comments:
Post a Comment