On TV.com: ALYSSA MILANO is headed to Castle
BNET Business Network:
BNET
TechRepublic
ZDNet
TalkBack 10 of 25:
Next »
« Previous
VoIP is not just phone service, IM type is the future
If it looks like a phone, works like a phone, then IT IS A PHONE and should have the same charges as any other phone company.

Its not that simple. First consider IM type services which will replace phones for many applications - should it be taxed even though it looks nothing like a phone? Embed the IM functionality into a spreadsheet, now does every document which could possibly use VoIP enabled IM also be taxed because it could be used (like the USL tax which is applied even if you make no calls)?

Now, look at why private networks as deployed by all the mid-big companies, it completely kills the USL taxation model on VoIP service.

If a company buys a PBX and installs a private network between its offices (say a major bank for example) it owns the phone service itself and does not pay per phone taxes. They pay per facility or per line taxes. This is already the way it works.

If a company buys the same lines and puts TCP/IP over the wires instead of a traditional telco protocol (converge voice onto data rather than data onto voice) they have already paid a tax when they bought the facilities used to tie the offices together.

If the same company buys a TCP/IP line rather than a Frame Relay or X.25 line the line is still taxed. If they upgrade their PBX to talk IP between the offices instead of TDM or Frame Relay it is still the same application (different transport protocol) and they should not have to pay a new tax.

If they buy an IP-PBX service from a service provider and put the traffic over an IP VPN it still looks like the old private line branch office network and there still should be no new tax.

This grab for taxation to stiffle competition may backfire because it will incite customers not to use outsourced VoIP services and simply go the private network route after buying dark fiber services from the untilities (or going wireless).

Taxing the monopoly service to fund USL is legacy ... let the old dog die with the old network.
Posted by: oldskool   Posted on: 04/03/04 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

Clearly Republican stance  Joe Blow_z | 04/02/04
don't agree  blahblahblah | 04/03/04
Not perfect . . .  WKSmith | 04/03/04
You are missing the fact that telcos use VoIP themselves  oldskool | 04/03/04
private and public networks  blahblahblah | 04/03/04
business driver for RBOC to move to VoIP  oldskool | 04/03/04
good point, but...  blahblahblah | 04/04/04
of course they do  V Sanders | 04/04/04
That's backwards...  techboy_z | 04/03/04
VoIP is not just phone service, IM type is the future  oldskool | 04/03/04
Clearly a republican stance ??????????????  Squawkbox | 04/03/04
Clearly a LIBERAL response  Saxonborg | 04/03/04
Clearly a Rational!!! response...  Bill F. | 04/05/04
VOIP bills  brianadkins | 04/02/04
Telco doesn't adveretise how far along VoIP really is  oldskool | 04/03/04
when voip is strong  V Sanders | 04/03/04
Packet8  WKSmith | 04/03/04
Telco provides "last resort" service cable doesn't  oldskool | 04/03/04
when has anyone went to jail  V Sanders | 04/04/04
proffesionlism  V Sanders | 04/03/04
what?  V Sanders | 04/03/04
what ever men  alphaomega | 04/03/04
yeah but  blahblahblah | 04/04/04
It's evolution.  Leidenfrost | 04/04/04
VOIP Costing American Jobs  eddzpc@... | 04/05/04

What do you think?

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

advertisement
advertisement