Travers and Swale (2001, 19) outline the need for an international industry standard for VoIP. They state that there are many reasons for a standard: as a consequence of natural separation of transport and application; more importantly, is the need to unify “the establishment of any voice service, especially one that crosses the boundaries between the domains of different service or network providers or encounters differences in administrative policy.�
Given that VoIP providers are reliant on the usage of current telephone lines to connect to the internet to send and receive calls, there is further controversy over whether access fees should be paid. According to the United States Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, access fees must be paid by “telecommunications services� to the local PSTNs for use of their copper wire networks for initiating calls. However, VoIP providers such as AT&T, Vonage and Free World Dialup have all filed petitions over the past 18 months to circumvent paying access charges. The argument is that VoIP should be classified as an “information service� rather than a “telecommunications service� and thus should be exempt from paying access fees.
For the consumers, (see: VoIP - Disadvantages) this means uncertainty in the prices of VoIP in the near future, something that would be of a significant detriment to the advancement of VoIP. In addition, if it is decided that VoIP is merely an “information service�, it would also free the technology from FBI access under CALEA.
On February 12, 2004, the FCC issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking regarding VoIP, classifying VoIP as an “information service�. In October 2003, the federal district court in Minnesota declared VoIP service provider, Vonage, to be free of state regulation. Conversely in Brand X Internet Services v. FCC, the Ninth Circuit declared that to the extent a cable operator provides its subscribers Internet transmission over broadband, it is providing telecommunications services, and is subject to state and federal tariffs imposed on PSTN companies.
Although steps have been taken in the classification of VoIP, there is still much confusion, and until the decision is reached by Congress, it will be hard to classify VoIP and as such, make any sort of unification of standard, a longwinded process. Author, Laffont (2001, 287) states that it is unlikely that VoIP “will ever be regulated in the same way or to the same degree as interconnection agreements in the voice telephone network�.
Authors Trope and Royalty (2004, 10) believe that United States “courts and the FCC are ‘stuck’ with applying potentially outdated definitions, codified in the Communications Act, to rapidly changing technological paradigms.� For any kind of consistency within the field of VoIP, Congress may need to approach a complete overhaul of the aforementioned Telecommunications Act.
Companies like MetaSwitch, Cisco Systems, Inc. and Earthlink encourage the implementation of an industry standard, and are willing to comply with law enforcement agencies over the related issue of surveillance if it means the regulation of VoIP. If VoIP calls are not regulated, it would mean the widespread practice of Internet companies raising their rates charged for ISPs.
See also:
Siang Lu 17:02, 27 Oct 2004 (EST)
