*Pages 1--2 from  Microsoft Word - 33878*
 NEWS  Federal  Communications  Commission  445  12  th  Street,  S.  W.  Washington,  D.  C.  20554  This  is  an  unofficial  announcement  of  Commission  action.  Release  of  the  full  text  of  a  Commission  order  constitutes  official  action.  See  MCI  v.  FCC.  515  F  2d  385  (D.  C.  Circ  1974).  News  Media  Information  202  /  418-  0500  Internet:  http://  www.  fcc.  gov  TTY:  1-  888-  835-  5322  Statement  of  Commissioner  Jonathan  S.  Adelstein, 
 Voice  Over  IP  Forum  December  1,  2003 
 Good  Morning.  First  off,  I’d  like  to  thank  the  Chairman  for  his  leadership  in  putting  VoIP  front  and  center  on  our  agenda,  where  it  belongs.  He  and  our  staff  did  a  tremendous  job  organizing  today’s  event,  and  we  have  a  lot 
 to  learn  from  it. 
 VoIP  technology  offers  huge  promise  for  revolutionizing  our  nation’s  telecommunications  infrastructure.  We  need  to  move  quickly  to  understand  this  new  phenomenon  and  its  policy  implications.  The  Wall  Street  Journal 
 calls  VoIP  the  “new  gold  rush”  in  telecom.  You  might  say  we’re  in  a  transformation  –  Ma  Bell  will  soon  become  Ma  Virtual  Ringtone. 


 We  face  a  number  of  issues  in  dealing  with  this  phenomenon.  Our  goal  is  to  avoid  regulatory  arbitrage  that  artificially  promotes  one  technology  over  another,  while  avoiding  any  moves  that  will  choke  off  this  new  technology 
 in  its  crib.  We  need  to  encourage  new,  more  efficient  technologies,  and  VoIP  deserves  our  full  encouragement  for  all  the  benefits  it  can  offer  consumers. 


 First,  we  must  understand  the  concerns  raised  by  DOJ  and  FBI  that  classifying  Vonage’s  VoIP  as  an  information  service  severely  undercuts  CALEA.  They  say  that  call  content  and  caller  identification  could  evade 
 lawful  electronic  surveillance,  and  that  VoIP  jeopardizes  the  ability  of  federal,  state,  and  local  governments  to  protect  public  safety  and  national  security  against  domestic  and  foreign  threats.  Public  safety  is  not  negotiable.  I 
 look  forward  to  hearing  the  progress  being  made  on  this  front. 
 Similarly,  emergency  services  are  not  negotiable.  We  must  understand  how  VoIP  affects  the  provision  of  E-  911  and  other  emergency  services.  It  may  open  up  new  emergency  response  and  medical  monitoring  services  that 
 don’t  exist  today.  But  we  must  be  sure  it  doesn’t  undermine  the  important  work  the  industry  and  the  Commission  are  doing  to  enhance  emergency  services  for  the  benefit  of  consumers  and  our  national  security. 


 It’s  also  crucial  to  understand  how  VoIP  affects  the  Universal  Service  Fund.  We  must  protect  the  underpinnings  of  universal  service.  Congress  clearly  stated  that  all  Americans,  whether  urban  or  rural,  should  have 
 access  to  high  quality  services  at  reasonable  rates.  If  VoIP  providers  are  not  required  to  contribute,  it  creates  an  opportunity  for  regulatory  arbitrage  and  further  undermines  the  already  troubled  funding  mechanism.  So  if  VoIP  is 
 the  future,  then  the  steps  we  take  must  protect  universal  access  to  the  best  services  available. 
 We  also  need  to  determine  how  underlying  carriers  are  compensated  for  carrying  third  parties’  traffic.  Some  VoIP  providers  pay  no  access  fees  even  though  in  many  instances  they  are  using  local  phone  lines  to  route 
 their  traffic.  We  cannot  afford  to  let  the  rise  of  VoIP  to  undercut  the  very  networks  that  carry  it. 
 There  are  many  more  issues,  including  the  traditional  protection  against  discrimination  in  telephony  services,  as  well  as  full  access  by  persons  with  disabilities. 


 As  these  issues  show,  fundamental  public  interest  considerations  are  at  stake.  Navigating  these  issues  is  especially  challenging  because  we  hear  such  conflicting  opinions  about  how  to  move.  I  hear  the  arguments  that 
 allowing  this  technology  to  move  forward  free  of  any  regulatory  constraints  would  encourage  its  development,  availability  and  use.  On  the  other  hand,  such  “hands  off”  treatment  could  mean  we  are  undercutting  the  safety  of 
1
 consumers,  law  enforcement  and  national  security,  and  the  integrity  of  the  underlying  network  and  the  universal  service  funding  mechanism. 
 We  must  draw  a  careful  balance  in  assessing  the  public  interest.  We  need  to  look  at  the  entire  picture  of  various  VoIP  services  and  service  provision  and  act  accordingly.  Given  how  far  this  technology  has  developed 
 already,  and  recognizing  that  it’s  aimed  at  the  core  voice  telecommunications  service,  we  can’t  afford  to  just  sit  back  and  watch. 


 It’s  time  for  us  to  take  the  lead  in  getting  the  regulatory  structure  right  from  the  start.  We  should  provide  clarity  and  guidance  for  all  who  are  entering  or  thinking  to  enter  this  space,  as  well  as  for  consumers  interested  in 
 using  VoIP  services.  We  need  to  anticipate  where  the  technology  is  headed  and  make  sure  we  account  for  the  public  interest. 


 I  commend  the  Chairman  for  holding  this  forum  on  such  a  timely  basis.  It  will  provide  us  with  a  good  opportunity  to  look  at  this  issue  from  a  number  of  different  perspectives.  And  I  thank  our  excellent  panelists  for 
 taking  part. 
 As  an  eternal  optimist,  I  believe  we  can  –  and,  indeed  must  –  work  through  the  tough  questions  here.  I  look  forward  to  working  with  each  of  you  to  find  the  path  that  best  serves  the  public  interest.  I’m  confident  that  we’re  all 
 up  to  that  challenge. 
2