Policy Considerations

There exist both social and economic issues related to VoIP services.  Economically, rates and quality of service are both essential topics.  There is a move towards protecting incumbent providers by raising the rates for VoIP providers, but for social implications, issues of universal service, need to be addressed. 

On a policy level, the goals should be to create a high-quality product for the public, while still applying social issues.  Positives of VoIP include: access to rural areas, access to the poor, improving communication abilities for people with disabilities, and improving emergency and law enforcement services.  If done appropriately, it seems as though VoIP can affect various policy issues as well as provide individuals with a less expensive alternative to fixed land line phones.

Universal Service

Universal service was created to give all Americans access to phone service whether for those in rural areas or for the urban poor.  Many cannot afford telephone service and this provides a method for all to have access to a common and necessary service.  Universal service requires all telephone users to pay a fee that goes into a fund providing for rural and urban use. 

While telecom providers must contribute specific percentages of income for this fund, VoIP providers are not held to the same standards.  Many express concern that if more individuals switch to VoIP services, the funds for universal service funds will suffer, and the goals for access for the rural and urban areas will be defeated. 

However, many view the development of VoIP as a positive for universal service, since it lowers the fees for users.  This allows for the very areas universal service strives to protect to access services at a lower cost, thus improving a service that can be available to more individuals.  More importantly, providing urban and especially rural areas with access to VoIP can provide teachers with more learning tools or provide doctors with an additional informational resource.  The communication speed available to those in urban areas only increases the benefit.  Overall, VoIP can be viewed as improving a service, while ultimately lowering the cost.      

Access to the Disabled

Plain Old Telephone Service (POTS) is required by legislation to provide accessible service to individuals with disabilities.  On the other hand, VoIP services are not, but they do have the capacity to improve upon their services with alternative, even better, methods for assisting individuals with disabilities.  Videophones can be used; although it can be argued that individuals have to be able to afford the necessary equipment, as does the person with whom they are communicating.  A less expensive alternative would be voice transmissions that are translated into an email type form and then read by the individual instead of listened to, if they are hearing impaired.  There are various means by which VoIP can improve the access of disabled individuals to communicate.

911 Emergency Services

There are two main problems with VoIP and 911 emergency access: (1) VoIP users may not be able to place a 911 call during a power outage, and (2) 911 operators may not be able to access the location of the call in the way they would with a plain old telephone system (POTS).  However, measures are being taken to alleviate these problems.  Some states provide a backup power source for users, and some data systems like VoIP can be helpful in emergencies because use of the Internet can bypass damaged or overloaded switches.  Therefore, in situations such as September 11th when POTS and cell phones were completely overloaded, data systems were still operable because the capacity was used more efficiently. 

As for locating VoIP callers in the case of an emergency, although many are required to register their service from an address, the caller may not be calling from the registered location and therefore potentially impossible to trace.  Due to this inefficiency in VoIP services, may providers disclaim 911 services to escape liability, however, this overreaching clause seems as though it will ultimately fail.  For example, Vonage now requires its users to register their location before they dial 911, though this is still not a perfect solution as the caller’s location at the time of the call can differ from the registered location. 

In Rhode Island, however, Vonage tested a method that allows emergency services to discover a caller’s location and determine a callback number by specifying a server that treats 911 calls in a different manner than it does regular calls.  This method, though, requires the cooperation of state and local authorities in addition to the assistance of the federal government to function properly. 

Further developments include phones that have cellular and VoIP abilities in which the phone can be switched to the cellular service when a 911 call is necessary so that the caller can be located.  Moreover, VoIP could provide users with video technology that would allow 911 operators the ability to view the crime scene or the situation of the injured individual or individuals.  Technology developments in VoIP and other internet based services could greatly benefit individuals in emergency situations. 

Access to Law Enforcement and CALEA

Another question regarding VoIP regulation is if the service must meet the standards of the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA).  CALEA was passed in 1994 by Congress to make POTS more accessible to law enforcement engaging in court-ordered wiretapping.  While it is a clear necessity for safety to be at the forefront of new technological developments, VoIP is currently not required to follow the same CALEA standards as POTS. 

Former FCC Chairman Michael Powell feels that VoIP services that affect the publicly switched telephone networks should be subject to CALEA, while those that do not, such as peer to peer, should not be subject to the same policy.  Nonetheless, law enforcement has had the ability to wiretap and patrol the Internet for over ten years, but CALEA would make the process easier, less expensive, and more efficient.  Wiretapping VoIP services is a technologically difficult endeavor, but some VoIP services are already subject to CALEA provisions.  At this point, though, no VoIP services meet all the standards of CALEA.  Perhaps as the issue of terrorism and protection gain even more important status, the wiretapping regulations will be revisited.

Arguments for Non-Regulation of Internet Telephony

 VoIP is a means for individuals to benefit privately without damaging the public.  It is often described as a “self-help” method.  The FCC’s mission seems to be not to implement regulation until there is a market threat, and in this case it could be argued that there is one.  Unless the threat is so severe that it would cause a total breakdown of the landline market, there is no need to interfere.

Although there are always developing technologies, there will always be individuals, those who are not technologically savvy or those who are simply old fashion, who will not use the new developing technologies.  Foreigners, elderly individuals, and less educated people may not want to invest in the process of learning how to use VoIP, and some will not feel satisfied relying on an internet based telephone service, especially if they are not familiar with the internet. 

Also, many individuals who have cell phones still have landlines, just in case the service is not working or they have a bad connection.  There will always be those who are reluctant to try new technology, and if there are endless regulations and rules on when and how they can use it, fewer people will invest the time to research and reap the benefits of a special developing technology.  Furthermore, and most importantly, consumers get to make a choice and, in doing so, can receive services at a reduced price and easy method in an open market.