*Pages 1--6 from  Microsoft Word - 35055*
 6 
 While  I  believe  we  should  be  circumspect  about  regulating  VOIP  services,  I  have  no  doubt  that  some  regulatory  intervention  will  be  necessary.  Just  as  the  FCC  has 
 regulated  wireless  services  to  prevent  harmful  interference,  to  promote  E911  and  local  number  portability,  and  to  achieve  other  social  policy  objectives,  so  too  will  regulation  be 
 necessary  to  ensure  that  VOIP  providers  fulfill  such  obligations.  At  the  FCC’s  public  forum  in  December,  it  appeared  there  was  consensus  that  VOIP  providers  will  need  to 
 contribute  to  universal  service,  ensure  access  to  911  services,  enable  law  enforcement  agencies  to  intercept  communications,  and  ensure  that  persons  with  disabilities  are  not 
 denied  access.  I  do  not  know  at  this  point  what  specific  approaches  will  make  the  most  sense.  For  example,  I  do  not  know  whether  we  can  rely  on  industry  best  practices  in 
 some  instances,  or  whether  we  will  need  to  impose  prescriptive  regulations.  But  my  basic  approach  will  be  to  minimize  regulatory  intervention  where  possible,  while 
 ensuring  that  these  critical  policy  objectives  are  met.  While  I  do  not  believe  that  states  should  attempt  to  impose  economic  regulations  on  VOIP  services,  I  hope  and  expect  that 
 states  will  work  collaboratively  with  the  FCC  in  furthering  our  joint  social  policy  objectives. 


 Finally,  although  I  am  committed  to  a  hands-  off  approach  for  VOIP  services,  we  should  not  assume  that  any  use  of  IP  technology  necessarily  transforms  a  circuit-  switched 
 service  into  VOIP.  When  I  talk  about  creating  a  new  regulatory  framework  for  VOIP,  I  have  in  mind  services  that  use  Internet  protocol  over  the  last  mile,  at  least  on  one  end  of 
 the  call.  By  contrast,  a  call  that  starts  on  the  PSTN  and  ends  on  the  PSTN  does  not  necessarily  warrant  different  regulatory  treatment  from  other  circuit-  switched  calls 
 simply  because  a  long  distance  carrier  chooses  to  use  IP  technology  at  some  mid-  point  in  the  network.  Long  distance  carriers,  local  carriers,  and  enhanced  service  providers  all 
 have  raised  questions  about  the  applicability  of  our  intercarrier  compensation  rules  and  other  requirements  to  these  phone-  to-  phone  services,  and  I  believe  the  Commission 
 should  provide  clarity  as  soon  as  possible.  As  I  have  often  stated,  most  businesses  would  prefer  even  an  adverse  decision  to  no  decision  at  all.  The  present  uncertainty  may  be 
 distorting  competition  and  the  flow  of  capital,  as  some  providers  price  their  services  based  on  the  assumption  that  they  do  not  have  to  pay  access  charges,  while  other 
 competitors  price  services  on  the  assumption  that  they  do  have  to  pay.  I  therefore  hope  that  the  Commission  will  clarify  the  applicability  of  its  existing  rules,  in  addition  to 
 proposing  a  new  regulatory  framework  for  VOIP  services. 
 Not  surprisingly,  technology  is  moving  faster  than  government  regulators.  And  that  is  as  it  should  be,  because  regulatory  change  has  always  been  prefaced  by  the  advent 
 of  exciting  new  technologies.  Our  job  is  to  ensure  that  we  do  not  inadvertently  stifle  the  innovation  by  reflexively  applying  yesterday’s  regulatory  framework  to  new  products  and 
 services.  Instead,  we  should  give  new  technologies  the  breathing  room  to  revolutionize  how  we  communicate,  how  we  receive  health  care,  how  we  are  educated.  I  am 
 committed  to  this  path,  and  I  am  optimistic  that,  working  with  my  colleagues  at  the  federal  and  state  level,  we  will  be  able  to  accomplish  these  goals. 
6