« Virtual Market Ponzi Schemes | Main | Social Networking Without a Safety Net »

Can You Regulate VoIP?

Candlestick telephone

House Bill 119 (First Substitute) would tax VoIP service for E911 service:

3 (a) Except as provided in Subsection (3)(b) and subject to the other provisions of this Subsection (3) a county, city, or town within which 911 emergency telephone service is provided may levy monthly an emergency services telephone charge on:

(iii) any other service, including voice over Internet protocol, provided to a user within the boundaries of the county, city, or town that allows the user to make calls to and receive calls from the public switched telephone network, including commercial mobile radio service networks.

Of course, the state already taxes landline and cell phones for these same services. There are some problems here:

  • How do you find all the VoIP providers to even notify them of this requirement?
  • Once you find them, what jurisdiction do you have to regulate them? Some VoIP providers do have some facility within the state. I think Vonage, for example, has some gear located in Utah in order to deliver service within the 801 area code, but that isn’t required. Many do not. Skype isn’t even a US company.
  • Why are you regulating voice traffic and not data traffic? If this works, then why not a tariff on Google searches to pay for anti-child pornography measures?

In the old days, geography mattered and so state-regulation of telephones worked. Whether it was right or not is a subject of a different blog. Now, geography matters less and less. That makes state arguments of jurisdiction harder to justify.

I’m sympathetic to the compelling interest the state has in making E911 service universal. I’m also a fan of service fees over general fund tax increases. Still, this one seems like a non-starter. I don’t think it’s possible and I don’t think the courts will allow it.

At the same time, it’s unfair for traditional phone companies to be regulated in this manner and VoIP companies to escape simply because of a technology difference. My general rule of thumb is that regulation shouldn’t happen on the basis of technology because it will quickly be superseded by something new.

In general, the Internet has changed the technology and delivery of phone service radically and that has huge ramifications for regulators at the state and national levels.

I think the only solution in this case is to repeal the service fee for all phone customers and fund E911 service from the general fund. That more fair than any other alternative I can think of.

Posted by windley on January 30, 2007 3:24 PM

See related posts:

2 Comments

Even a blanket "all numbers with 801 and 435 area codes get taxed" provision won't do it. With the portability of VOIP and cellular numbers, area code joins annex as another part of the phone number that's useless for geolocation. (Remember when everyone in 572-xxxx was from a specific area of town?) Our horse-and-buggy tax laws are in need of a serious update by people who understand technology and embrace it properly.

Sadly, the less savvy among our elected officials are probably thinking of a way to link it to billing address or require some kind of primary location attached to each number, providing a hotbed of potential privacy issues. While user fees like this are important for making sure the users of a service are the ones paying for it, the cost to collect is going to quickly become prohibitive.

I see the problem as being hard to quantify VoIP customers over all. Depending on the company as they use differing technologies, some are completely free, and it seems VoIP companies like Vonage being a public would be one of the few VoIP companies that would get stuck paying certain fees while others that exist only in cyberspace wouldn't be responsible for any fees or taxes.

Leave a comment

I encourage you to leave a comment below. Your email address will not be displayed on Technometria, but allows me to communicate with you directly. Your email address won't be displayed, but will be used to compute a MicroID for your comment.