Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Voice-on-the-net (VON), VoIP, Internet (IP) Telephony -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brad W. who wrote (543)	5/15/1998 7:18:00 AM
From: Frank A. Coluccio	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3178

Brad, when I read this news item yesterday I noticed several things that were unclear, certainly still unresolved, leading me to ask a number of questions: Which taxes they are referring to? Does freedom from regulation and taxes mean, necessarily, immunity from "standard access charges" when an ITSP uses the SS7 hooks of the public network? I don't think so. Try this one on for size: An established local exchange carrier (LEC) uses its own SS7 capabilities, and combines it with the media efficiencies of a Qwest's VoIP offerings. Then who is the burden on? Do two geographically separated RBOCs (say, USWest and Ameritech who have both come to terms with Qwest, apparently) pay access fees to themselves on in-region calls, or to each other on inter-region calls, thereby creating the possibilities of a cancelling effect whereby we now have "one-hand-washes-the other" settlement arrangements? Do the First Tier ISPs get a piece of the division-of-revenue action? Maybe not now, but how about when they begin introducing QoS enhancements particularly suited for VoIP carriage, and set their routers to "permissions of use" on the basis of premium carrier-grade subscriptions, only? A question of prime importance then becomes: For whom is this moratorium on taxes and regulation intended? Is it to be applied to all players, or just the startups pioneering this space? The wrong answer could backfire, i.e., if it is to be universally applied to all players under the "rules-of-fair-play" logic, since, once again, and I've stated this before, the biggest threat to startups in this zone would occur if the dominant carriers take the new technology and turn it against them, by integrating VoIP service capabilities in their standard package of offerings. AT&T is already doing "it." I hear rumblings on both coasts that certain factions in the LECs are eager, once their internal, younger mavericks are able to turn the seniors around (what few of them remain). Worldcom is only a packet or two away through UUNet's Internet fax offerings before they enter the voice sector in a branded way. But who is kidding whom? WCOM is doing it already through proxy and secondary participation, only they are not exposing themselves in the fray right now. They have too many other concerns and issues pending before the FCC, some unions, and the Europeans at this time, to want to get embroiled in yet another highly contentious matter. US West and Ameritech are half way there (at least), with their proposed "marketing" arrangements with Qwest. Who's next, Bell South or Bell Atlantic, to utilize this loophole? Comments? Regards, Frank Coluccio

To: Brad W. who wrote (543)	5/15/1998 7:46:00 AM
From: Frank A. Coluccio	Respond to of 3178

Another view of this story highlights the fact that it is still only a bill pending in congress. Granted, it is a step in the right direction for VoIP/VON (although it is never explicitly named as such), nonetheless. E-commerce of a more traditional slice is the central theme, instead. ========== Internet Tax Freedom Act Clears House Committee May 15, 1998 WASHINGTON, May 14 /PRNewswire/ via NewsEdge Corporation -- Hailed as a potential boon to taxpayers and the development of electronic commerce by its supporters, the Internet Tax Freedom Act has cleared an important legislative hurdle. The bill sponsored by Representative Chris Cox (R-CA) and Rick White (R-WA) was accepted by the House Commerce Committee by a unanimous vote Thursday morning. Representative Tom Bliley (R-VA), who chairs the panel, says the legislation is consistent with his agenda to help promote the expansion of electronic commerce. Chairman Bliley believes the best thing the federal government can do for the burgeoning electronic marketplace is to avoid excessive regulation and taxation. He says the Cox-White bill should help accomplish that goal. "As the result of the federal government largely staying out of the way, we have seen the development and growth of new markets for Internet access and online services," Bliley said. "The last thing we need right now is for federal or state governments to interfere with the development of these markets. H.R. 3849 makes a preemptive strike against such government interference. "As the Commerce Committee explores ways to promote electronic commerce, it must also identify the potential burdens," he said. "The Internet Tax Freedom Act addresses two of them: excessive regulation and excessive taxation." Bliley said another potentially burdensome situation for electronic commerce is state and local taxation. Twelve states have taken measures to tax Internet-related activities in "an inconsistent manner." While he acknowledges the Cox-White bill may require some changes as it works its way through the legislative process, the Chairman said it "represents a balanced approach on how to address regulation and taxation of Internet access, on-line services, and electronic commerce." It prohibits the FCC and states from regulating prices of Internet access and on-line services. It also calls for a "timeout" on taxing the Internet, asking for a group of experts to study long-term solutions to the taxation issue. It is not yet known how soon the measure will be considered on the House floor. Commerce Committee News Releases and related documents are available on the Committe's Web Page: www.house.gov/commerce SOURCE U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Commerce /CONTACT: David Fish of the House Commerce Committee, 202-225-5735/ /Web site: house.gov [Copyright 1998, PR Newswire]