Voice Over Internet Protocol Regulatory Relief Act

VOICE OVER INTERNET PROTOCOL REGULATORY RELIEF ACT

Mr. SUNUNU. Madam President, I rise to speak today on legislation I introduced this week called the VOIP Regulatory Freedom Act of 2004. This is legislation that deals with the issue of voice communications sent using Internet protocol that many Members of this body may not be familiar with or may not have heard a great deal about; but it is a new technology that takes advantage of the growing broadband networks that are in place in this country to send voice messages, much the same as one might send an e-mail or an instant message. It is a growing area of technology and innovation, but it is one where there is not a very clear path regarding regulatory and taxing jurisdiction, and there are not a lot of laws on the books that clearly address this new technology.

In order to encourage continued investment in and continued use of this application and this system for sending voice traffic and in order to make sure consumers continue to have the benefits of lower costs, new features, and better service that is the potential of this technology, I have introduced legislation this week.

First and foremost, S. 2281 declares this is a technology that uses national and global broadband data networks, the Internet, that we have all read and heard so much about by this point in time. It recognizes these are international networks, global networks, and therefore we should have Federal jurisdiction in this area.

Second, it takes the step of preempting States from regulating in this area, the area related to voice-over-Internet-protocol applications, because what we do not need is a patchwork of 50 different sets of regulations that would stifle the innovation, the investment, and the productivity we all hope will come from this technology.

Even worse, the regulations some States have already begun to try to apply are not regulations developed for the Internet, broadband, or a voice-over-Internet-protocol application. They are really designed for a copper wire circuit switch telephone network that was invented 100 years ago and for which most of these State regulations were developed in the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s. It is an outdated system and we should not be trying to force old regulatory structures on this new technology.

Third, the VOIP Regulatory Freedom Act of 2004 that I have introduced will clarify the definition for information services, for VOIP applications, in a way that can be easily understood given new and emerging technologies.

I was not in Congress at the time, but Congress wrote the 1996 Telecommunications Act that talked about information services and telecommunications. Quite frankly, it did not envision these kinds of voice applications being offered over the public Internet or over private networks. So as a result, we have had lawsuits, not surprisingly. In America, if one is unsure of what is happening, if one does not like the law, get a lawyer and sue, but we have had lawsuits because of the lack of clarity in some of these definitions. My bill would clarify the definition of voice-over-Internet-protocol. It states clearly what it is and what it is not from a regulatory perspective, and then treats it much like we would any other information service that uses Internet protocol, whether it is an e-mail, an instant message, or sending other data over the Internet.

This bill does address a lot of key concerns regarding telecommunications and the old telephone circuit switch telephone network. The bill makes sure that voice-over-Internet-protocol providers participate in existing Federal universal service programs. In other areas, such as E-911 emergency calling, and disability access, the bill calls for an industry group to work out the implementation of these important features for the new technology. S. 2281 will make sure we do not apply the old access charges to this new technology. We put forward a requirement for the FCC to work out a new system for intercarrier compensation and, of course, we recognize law enforcement will need access to these new voice-over-Internet-protocol applications and state it has to be the same or better access but no less than the access available for information services that currently exist today.

Finally, the bill protects consumers by ensuring that this new service won't be taxed at the State level. Everyone knows the more you tax something the less you get. If you want to discourage investment, innovation, and capital from moving into important new services like this, then raise the taxes and discourage that investment. From my perspective, this would be the wrong direction.

I think this bill provides for enormous opportunity for consumers, including robust features and functions, more options, and lower prices.

It is important to note that we have narrowly tailored this bill to deal with the voice-over-Internet-protocol applications. It should be clear that is not an effort to rewrite the 1996 Telecommunications Act.

I urge my colleagues to take a look at the legislation and step forward. Let me know your views and thoughts. We are likely to have hearings on this bill in the Commerce Committee in the coming months. I look forward to a vigorous and substantive debate.