What’s the Hang Up? The Future of VoIP Regulation and Taxation in New Hampshire

Alice in Austria wishes to call her friend Bob in Boston, using a Boston area code to avoid charges for an international call. Using VoIP, Alice may initiate her call from any location in Austria where she may find Internet access. Once Alice connects to the Internet, she can transmit her call with the aid of a VoIP service provider, such as Skype. In order to hear and communicate with Bob, Alice can rely on a microphone and a headset that she can plug into her computer. Through VoIP, not only may Alice carry on a telephone conversation, but most service providers also allow her to record conversations and manage other information, such as voice mail. The rise of Voice over Internet Protocol (“VoIP”) services “means nothing less than the death of the traditional telephone business,” as the ability to make free calls over a high-speed Internet connection in the future “undermines the existing pricing model for telephony.” This disruptive, convergent technology is blurring the boundary between Internet services and telephone services because VoIP functions like the traditional telephone system, but travels as ones and zeros through a broadband Internet connection. As a result, the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) has questioned whether to classify VoIP as an information service, generally free from FCC regulation under the Telecommunications Act of 1996, or as a telecommunication service, subject to a comprehensive regulatory regime and common carrier obligations. This note discusses why most VoIP services, with the exception of phone-to-phone Internet Protocol (“IP”) telephony, should be classified as information services and, as such, should remain free from state taxation – focusing specifically on the taxation in New Hampshire. Part II focuses on the technology of VoIP and how it differs from traditional telephony. Part III discusses the distinction between information and telecommunication services in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, whether VoIP may qualify as Internet access in light of the Internet Tax Freedom Act (“ITFA”) of 1998, and the federal regulation of VoIP. Finally, Part IV addresses the debate over taxation of VoIP in New Hampshire and discusses why VoIP services should not yet be taxed by the New Hampshire Department of Revenue Administration in light of federal law and the best interests of local businesses and consumers

The telecommunications sector in the Pacific: a regulatory policy survey

The paper makes three main contributions to the study of telecommunications policy in small island states. First, it provides a much-needed update of regulation of the telecommunications sector in the Pacific. Second, it explores a wide range of regulatory policy variables with potentially significant impacts on the performance of the telecommunications sector. Finally, the survey outlines the early expansion of the Irish-owned mobile operator Digicel Pacific Limited, which has been largely responsible for recent investment

Regulatory quality and performance in EU network industries: Evidence on telecommunications, gas and electricity

This article provides empirical evidence on ex ante and ex post indicators of regulatory quality and the relationship between those indicators and market performance in liberalised EU-15 network industries. It finds a low level of regulatory independence and competence, a high level of cross-country variations in regulatory quality, and widespread absence of correlation between ex ante regulatory quality and ex post performance indicators. On the basis of these findings, it suggests that the design of national regulatory agencies (NRAs) in Europe is not optimal and may be conducive to regulatory ineffectiveness or outright regulatory failure. Nevertheless, the existence and strengthening of EU-level regulators could enable EU member states to reduce the risk of regulatory failure by encouraging coordination and adoption of best practice

From AT&T to Brand X Declining Checks and Balances in an Increasingly Complex Marketplace

When President Clinton signed the Telecommunications Act of 1996, he used the same pen that President Eisenhower used to sign legislation for the Interstate Highway system into law. It was a fitting analogy. In the same way that the interstate road system was expected to open up interstate commerce, the Internet system was expected to open up electronic commerce. In signing the 1996 legislation into law, President Clinton and Congress were updating the regulatory and legislative framework to adapt it to the new realities and opportunities provided by the Internet. The legislation noted that broadband access to the Internet was critical to the continued economic vitality of the United States. In contrast to the success of the Interstate Highway system, however, broadband adoption in the United States has lagged behind that of other developed nations. Against this backdrop, in National Cable & Telecommunications Ass’n v. Brand X Internet Services, the Supreme Court held that, under the Telecommunications Act, cable modem providers are not required to provide access to other Internet Service Providers (ISPs), despite the fact that local telephone providers had been required to provide access to third party Digital Subscriber Line (DSL) providers. As a result, the goal of increased broadband adoption now falls squarely on the unfettered administrative choices made by the FCC. […] This note examines the administrative law implications of the Brand X decision. First, this note reviews the history and legal context framing the decision. Then, this note examines the decision itself from a textual, historical, and policy perspective. It is concluded that, while agencies offer welcome expertise for resolving complex questions, deference to agency expertise should not trump Congressional guidance to the contrary.

The Silence After the Beep: Envisioning an Emergency Information System to Serve the Visually Impaired

Due to a series of legal and regulatory setbacks, media accessibility regulations for consumers who are blind and visually impaired have lagged significantly behind those for deaf individuals. Until April 2014, when the Federal Communications Commission’s Emergency Information Order took effect, blind consumers were left “in the dark” when their safety mattered most—during weather emergencies—because visual emergency information displayed in the on-screen crawl during television programming was not accessible in an aural format. The Commission now mandates that this information be provided in an aural form through the secondary audio stream for linear programming viewed on televisions and mobile devices and other “second screens” used inside the home over the MVPD’s network, but this requirement leaves many issues unresolved. This Issue Brief examines and analyzes the arguments made by industry and consumer groups for and against expanded regulation, and makes several recommendations that efficiently fill gaps in the current regulatory requirements for accessible emergency information. These recommendations are technically feasible, not unduly burdensome, and necessary to effectuate the purpose of the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010. Specifically, the Commission can extend emergency information regulations to the entities it failed to reach with its Emergency Information Order and Second Report and Order by adopting the Linear Programming Definition of an MVPD that it puts forth in its MVPD Definition NPRM. The Commission should adopt this definition, thereby expanding the scope of entities required to comply with the Emergency Information Order, but it should curtail the Order’s rigidity by not passing prioritization guidelines and by removing the requirement to include school closures and changes in the bus schedule in the secondary audio stream

Net neutrality discourses: comparing advocacy and regulatory arguments in the United States and the United Kingdom

Telecommunications policy issues rarely make news, much less mobilize thousands of people. Yet this has been occurring in the United States around efforts to introduce "Net neutrality" regulation. A similar grassroots mobilization has not developed in the United Kingdom or elsewhere in Europe. We develop a comparative analysis of U.S. and UK Net neutrality debates with an eye toward identifying the arguments for and against regulation, how those arguments differ between the countries, and what the implications of those differences are for the Internet. Drawing on mass media, advocacy, and regulatory discourses, we find that local regulatory precedents as well as cultural factors contribute to both agenda setting and framing of Net neutrality. The differences between national discourses provide a way to understand both the structural differences between regulatory cultures and the substantive differences between policy interpretations, both of which must be reconciled for the Internet to continue to thrive as a global medium