WASHINGTON-The Federal Communications Commission this week is expected to consider the first step in whether to regulate voice over Internet protocol communications, notwithstanding widely publicized calls from law enforcement to delay the proceeding because of concerns regarding the implementation of the digital wiretap act.
The question is whether VoIP is an information service or a telecommunications service. If government decides it is an information service, obligations under the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act of 1994 may not apply to the service. Wireless carriers are particularly interested in how the FCC views VoIP because they believe that mobile-to-mobile calls, text messaging and wireless e-mail are analogous to VoIP since they also travel over digital packet networks and do not touch the public-switched telephone network for which telecom regulation was created.
Congress passed CALEA to enable law enforcement to wiretap wireless technology. While many of the switches used by mobile-phone carriers have been upgraded to comply with CALEA, there is ongoing disagreement about the use of packet-mode communications such as text messaging.
Some VoIP providers such as Jeff Pulver, chief executive officer of pulver.com and co-founder of Vonage, think law enforcement’s concerns are much ado about nothing.
“Never did we say, deem us a non-telecom service so we don’t have to comply with law enforcement,” Pulver told RCR Wireless News. “On May 29 we met with FBI and Department of Justice and told them that if they asked us for assistance, we would work with them as a team. There should be no misunderstanding that we will not work with them.”
But apparently law enforcement is concerned since the FBI, the Justice Department and the Drug Enforcement Administration are working on a petition to be filed within the next several weeks spelling out how they believe CALEA implementation needs to be updated.
Law enforcement hoped the FCC would delay any consideration of VoIP until it rules on its yet-to-be-filed petition, said Patrick Kelley, FBI deputy general counsel.
But VoIP has far greater impact than just whether or not law enforcement has access to the network. It also could impact one of the key revenue sources for traditional landline carriers if they decide that since VoIP is an information service, access charges-the money that carriers pay each other for carrying calls-no longer apply.
Rep. John D. Dingell (D-Mich.), ranking member of the House Commerce Committee, had some unsolicited advice for the FCC at last week’s hearing on telecommunications competition.
“It might be far wiser for the FCC to regulate this under Title II (telecommunications services) and then forebear when necessary,” said Dingell.
That strategy would allow the FCC to decide later whether carriers are required to charge and pay for access to the public switched telephone network through VoIP services, but would require carriers to offer law-enforcement access and come up with enhanced 911 solutions.
