BY LAURA GUEVIN
Editorial Director, Communications ASP

Readers Respond To "VoIP: The Great Legislative Afterthought"

My last column, "VoIP: The Great Legislative Afterthought," aimed to make sense of H.R. 1542, the Internet Freedom and Broadband Deployment Act and how it could affect Voice over IP. The bill, currently in House committee, is sponsored by Rep. John D. Dingell (D-Mich) and Billy Tauzin (R-La). The column struck a chord with many readers, some of whom questioned my interpretation of the bill. A selection of reader reactions appears here.

---

I read your column dated May 18, 2001 and have difficulty with one of your points: "In other words, if the Bell isn't allowed to offer circuit-switched long-distance services, then no one (ISPs, their customers, etc.) will be able to offer or use that Bell's high-speed data network for voice. This is a roundabout way of saying VoIP will be illegal -- until the Bell is allowed to offer long-distance services."

If this is in reference to Section 6, paragraph (k) of H.R.1542, I don't understand your interpretation. My reading is a very specific prohibition on a Bell operating company from offering InterLATA VoIP services ("market, bill, or collect"). This matches current circuit-switched restrictions on BOCs. I do not see any restrictions on third-party use of the underlying data service, including voice, as long as the BOC is not the party offering the voice service.

I would be interested in learning how you reached your interpretation.

Regards,
Robin U. Roberts
Staff Scientist
MeshNetworks, Inc.

---

My reasoning was that if a third-party provider is using the BOC's network to route any part of its high-speed data transmissions (or "Internet access services") as that paragraph states, isn't the BOC in theory collecting for an Internet access service? The bill is confusing, and that section may well pertain specifically to BOCs that are offering services directly to end users, but the point of my column was that such vagaries need to be clarified if Congress hopes to pass any useful legislation of VoIP.

---

While I haven't formed a full opinion on whether I'd be in favor or not in favor of H.R. 1542, I have been disturbed by the misinformation and misinterpretation of the legislation, including yours.

The legislation does not remove the Telecom Act's restriction on the RBOCs offering InterLATA voice long-distance (you later contradict yourself when you acknowledge the VoIP issue precludes that offering until the RBOCs have this permission).

If you read the legislation carefully and review the intent, the VoIP restriction pertains only to the RBOCs themselves, closing a potential loophole which would have allowed them to circumvent the restriction on offering InterLATA voice services until local competition is proven. The language does not restrict the RBOCs from offering data services to others, and then the others offering a variety of applications over the pipes -- including VoIP.

Look at the logic -- the RBOCs currently originate/terminate switched InterLATA voice traffic for any number of IXCs, and provide much of the billing for it on the LEC billing. They are not providing the long-distance service themselves, but they have a contractual arrangement for the billing of the long-distance calls. This is the same logic used in language of H.R. 1542.

Competition? I'm all for competition, and this is the part of the bill I'm most undecided about. I believe there should be a reasonably level playing field among the RBOCs and the CLECS... as long as the CLECs have a good business plan. So, if some restrictions need to be retained on the RBOCs to keep the field level, so be it. However, I have no desire to see some CLECs with poor business plans/strategies to be propped up by over-restricting the RBOCs. If these CLECs fail because they are poor businesspeople, tough! If you look at the number of CLECs failing, much of it is because of a number of issues, including the downturn in the economy, over-extending themselves, relying too much on reselling instead of a business plan that includes growing a facilities-based operation, etc. Look at McLeodUSA and others, who have a solid business strategy, and are successful... they will weather the current difficult economy.

That's my two cents worth!

Thanks,
Randy Hayes

---

Again, my reasoning was that if a third-party provider is using the BOC's network to route any part of its high-speed data transmissions, it seems the BOC, in theory, is collecting for an Internet access service.

As for a contradiction on removing the restrictions on BOCs, I feel that what I wrote clearly explains that the bill would classify Internet services as separate from long-distance, InterLATA voice services. That means that the competitive protection previously offered by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 for those data transmissions would no longer apply.

Hayes makes a very good point about unprepared CLECs trying to stay afloat in this competitive market, but it's my feeling that all the players should be given a fair shot at providing services, whether they ultimately succeed or not. If they are not given this opportunity, it will be the consumers -- particularly the economically disadvantaged or those in rural areas -- who will suffer.

This brings me to the last response I wanted to share:

---

In a national climate of promoting advanced broadband high-speed networks, a quick impulse and unplanned change to the Telecommunications Act of 1996 [could] dramatically affect the future of... reliable phone services, high-speed Internet access, and future technological capabilities. [This] will be especially damaging to remote and rural communities, farms, and small businesses where choices of communications and telecommunications providers are limited. Their technological futures rely on local leadership, state, and federal regulations and laws.

I certainly hope legislators give a great amount of thought, research and time when changing this law, taking into consideration [that] each community has different needs... but they all have one area in common: They all need high-speed Internet access and reliable and reasonable telephony prices...

Patty Anderson

---

As always, I welcome your comments at lguevin@tmcnet.com.