1 / 14

Implications of VoIP

TC 310 May 28, 2008. Implications of VoIP. Questions from Reviews. Duty to Interconnect Reciprocal compensation Line of business v statutory line of business UNE-P v UNE-L Which is best, ISP, Net Neutral, Physical Bell break up effective? Regulate Internet? Authority?. Why VoIP matters.

maree
Télécharger la présentation

Implications of VoIP

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. TC 310 May 28, 2008 Implications of VoIP

  2. Questions from Reviews • Duty to Interconnect • Reciprocal compensation • Line of business v statutory line of business • UNE-P v UNE-L • Which is best, ISP, Net Neutral, Physical • Bell break up effective? • Regulate Internet? Authority?

  3. Why VoIP matters • Broadband capacity makes viable • Undercuts PSTN access/toll charges • Voice dominated by cable? • “Triple Play” • Physical layer leverage • Bye bye Vonage • Asking to be regulated

  4. Why Regulate? • 1996 Act mandates competition • Internet untouchable • Why VoIP breaks this • Telecommunication Service • Information Service • Regulation helps build infrastructure

  5. IP-to-IP VoIP • Voice calls to other IP users only • Pulver's Free World Dialup • Basic Skype • FCC Preemption and Forbearance • Computer III Legacy • Geography concerns • Can't tell where even if wanted • Difficult to regulate

  6. PSTN-to-PSTN • VoIP for transmission only • Originates/terminates on PSTN • For LD, translated into packets • Prioritized over backbone • Customers do not know • AT&T asks for access charge exemption because using Internet • FCC rules is telecommunication service • No application change or new service

  7. IP-to-PSTN • Customer has own broadband connection • Can reach and be reached by anyone within PSTN network • Actual substitution for traditional service • Causes real regulatory concern • Information v Telecommunication service • Vonage files FCC petition to remain information service

  8. Basics of IP-to-PSTN • Conventional Phone to adapter • Adapter to Broadband • Call same service subscriber IP-to-IP • Call PSTN, terminates at PSTN • Associate with area code, can do so with multiple numbers • Only so many numbers! • Cross-subsidizations • Infrastructure

  9. Jurisdiction Concerns • IP-to-PSTN federal or shared? • IP-to-IP too difficult to tell • PSTN well established • Minnesota PUC • Demands Vonage file tariffs, etc. • FCC rules it is impossible to bifurcate, therefore preempts States – Vonage Order

  10. Classification • Information or Telecommunication? • Title II v. Title I • Vonage wants Title I • PSTN industry wants Title II • Vonage Order does not state, but implies, information • Easier when VoIP does more than voice • Translation, text conversion, replay

  11. Congressional Action • Seeking to help FCC with jurisdiction and classification • IP-Enabled Voice Communications and Public Safety Act of 2007 • Bill before both houses, different versions • FCC Jurisdiction • VoIP as information Service • Voice will need 911, USF, Compensation to PSTN

  12. FCC Action • Deregulation • Preemption and Forbearance again • IP-to-PSTN is Title I, but if told Title II can forbear • States want to regulate, FCC says no • Regulation • Title I ancillary authority back door power • 911 requirements- similar but different • Communications Assistance in Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) requirements

  13. Continuing Problems • Proposed legislation and actions of FCC are still “hindered” by legacy classifications • Title based on technology, not service • Not designed for convergence • Everyone wants to be Title I • Horizontal regulation potential to get beyond this, but we are far from that

  14. Importance • Reevaluate regulation of PSTN • Creative Destruction as reasonable? • Complications of Convergence • Getting social good out of competition • Title system in jeopardy • Emergence of Cable as dominant • Monopoly concerns

More Related