This came out on lightreading.com. Seems there's one tiny step backward for
CALEA w.r.t Internet telephony. I guess it's obvious the FBI will eventually
get it's way, but it's be interesting to see how it goes about it from here
out.
-TD
At its open meeting today, the FCC took a couple of baby steps toward
providing regulatory clarity on Internet telephony.
The first big decision was a victory for VOIP proponents. The commission
ruled that Pulver.com's Free World Dialup VOIP service is an information
service, not a telecommunications service. The decision was based largely on
the analysis that it doesn¡¯t fit the 1996 Telecom Act¡¯s definition of a
telecommunications service.
¡°There is no question that this doesn¡¯t constitute a telecommunications
service,¡± said commissioner Kathleen Abernathy. ¡°It falls squarely outside
that statutory definition.¡±
That analysis was shared by commissioner Jonathan Adelstein: ¡°Pulver.com¡¯s
service is largely unregulated today and, in my view, should stay that
way.¡±
Commissioner Michael Copps dissented amid concerns that the FCC hadn¡¯t
fully considered the implications, particularly for law enforcement,
universal service, and public safety. ¡°I¡¯m afraid we¡¯re leaping before
we¡¯re looking,¡± he said. ¡°This rush to reclassify will lead us down a
road where we¡¯re compelled to engage in legal calisthenics and contortion
of both CALEA and the 1996 Telecom Act to meet our statutory obligations.
This is admittedly an important decision, but not so important that it
cannot wait a little while longer while we conduct an expeditious review.¡±
That review is coming. After the vote on Free World Dialup, the commission
initiated a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on Internet telephony (see
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-243868A1.doc).
Although the commission is starting from the premise that VOIP should be
subject to minimal regulation, it still has to clarify issues such as
wiretaps and whether Internet telephony is an intrastate or interstate
service.
However, there are two reasons to believe that the FCC won¡¯t issue an Order
on VOIP until late 2004 -- if then. First, the commission historically
doesn¡¯t undertake major policy initiatives in a Presidential election year.
Second, Internet telephony is such a complex issue with such far-reaching
implications that it¡¯s difficult to see how it could be resolved to
everyone¡¯s satisfaction, let alone in one fell swoop.
One thing is clear: The commission believes that federal regulators, not
states, should set VOIP regulations. The NPRM is an opportunity to avoid a
patchwork of rules across the country, Abernathy says. Nevertheless,
completely preempting state authority likely would send Internet telephony
to the courts, prolonging uncertainty.
¡ª Tim Kridel, Senior Editor, Heavy Reading
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_________________________________________________________________
Let the advanced features & services of MSN Internet Software maximize your
online time. http://click.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200363ave/direct/01/
