Plastered absolutely everywhere today are mentions of the FCC finally making a public stance that VoIP is an interstate service. I won't even paste up a link, I'm surrounded by too much choice. Find one yourself.
Is today's announcement a good thing? Probably -- but not totally. This is for two reasons. The first is how the locus of regulation relates to geographic numbering. The second, and by far more important, is the regulation of connectivity (as opposed to service).
The regulation of PSTN-alike VoIP service is inextricably linked to the control of numbering resources. No number, no service. Numbering is generally controlled at a national level (with some exceptions), and then possibly delegated down to a local level. (The ITU really coordinates, rather than controls. They don't have troops and tanks to enforce their rules.)
National control of numbering makes supra-national regulation of VoIP service an unnatural misfit. (Hint to Brussels: to regulate VoIP you need to seize control of national numbering. You're not getting it any time soon.)
Local control of numbering doesn't really work too well, because numbers shouldn't inherit different semantics based on different local regulatory regimes. You need one set of rules on caller ID spoofing, nuisance calls, etc. Federal regulation of VoIP means federal control of numbering.
This spells death to the geographic numbering system. It's already dying, and you can get VoIP areas codes all over the place. With no local regulatory stake in area codes, there's no incentive to manage them for local benefit. Manhattanites can't keep 212 to themselves. Yet the system is losing something of some use and value -- in return for new number mobility features. It seems a good trade off, but is happening without much debate. Geographic numbering is treated merely as an anachronism of circuit switching and cellular home agents. We won't know how useful area codes were until they're gone.
Which social rituals will disappear? Will you be calling people at crazy times of day because you can't tell which coast they're on? When we don't have it, will be need to re-invent it? I suspect that the answer is yes. One day we'll again have namespaces that are forcibly tied to geography -- but they'll be a few among dozens or thousands of namespaces for personal communications. The death of distance doesn't mean the end of geography. Just try buying an ocean-facing house to discover the difference. Premium charges for certain geographies increase, while premium charges for crossing large distances are disappearing. People will want to express their geography as part of their identity. I don't know how, but they will.
The end of area codes is a minor issue. More importantly, I do fear that this regulatory announcement on service regulation will create an automatic and undesirable follow-on for connectivity regulation.
VoIP service is, indeed, inherently global. You can take your Vonage box anywhere in the world and make a call. The recipient will see a US caller ID, know that the call is being placed under some form of US jurisdiction, and can act accordingly. National regulation makes sense. But connectivity is essentially local. It's tied to a cell tower, cable terminator, fibre node or copper loop end. They're physical things in physical places. I strongly believe we're better off with local regulation of connectivity.
As an exception, you need federal resolution for areas national interest (e.g. military and emergency communications). It is also possible to argue that mobile services are inherently inter-state: the terminals move about everywhere, even if the towers don't. This would lead to central control over spectrum used for that purpose. That's only true for mobile devices that transmit, though. People can and will carry them around and create "illegal" signals outside their home jurisdiction. Receivers don't need federal regulation. Fixed transmitters likewise (save for cross-border interference).
The licensing or opening of TV spectrum should not be up to the FCC. The states should have that right. TV is read-only radio. Similarly, there's no reason why a Washington offical needs to oversee local radio in rural Nebraska. If Californians want Janet's Titty TV on 24×7 replay, that's up to them. Unbundling of local loops? A state issue. Very few loops cross a state boundary.
The big plus is a 50-fold increase in the cost of lobbying. Experiments can happen on a local scale, and the failures and successes noted on a national level. Yes, VoIP service providers shouldn't be burdened with 50 sets of regulations. But anyone planning on deploying a nationwide network in the US is already faced with 50 sets of statutes: planning, commerce and employment regulations. No change here.
If you want to give the moribund telecom industry a jolt, it has to be by tearing through the cocoon of regulation they've built for themselves. Service regulation doesn't matter much. Vonage can relocate to Canada, no problem. But connectivity if vital. That's the bit that needs reform most.
Posted by Martin Geddes at 12:34 AMTrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.telepocalypse.net/cgi-sys/cgiwrap/mgeddes/MT/mt-tb.cgi/336