Michael Gallagher (Dept. of Commerce):

	We should keep three things in mind – Gravity (of the issue), Responsibility (in developing appropriate regulatory regime) and Speed (with which we develop it).
	Opex is 30% less and capex is 50% less for VoIP networks compared to PSTN.

Carl Wood (California PUC):

	Regulation is not “on” or “off”
	One can have gradation of regulation

Charles Davidson (Florida PUC):

	VoIP is borderless in nature
	Need to regulate only those services used by VoIP
	No “economic” regulation
	Same regulatory constraint for all the players
	Classification of three scenarios: End-to-end IP, Interconnect to PSTN and IP as transport for PSTN. Economic regulation depends on the scenario. One of the well stated points. Without this, it is conceivable that incumbents will use CESoIP and undermine the current regulatory regime.
	E911 service must be accessible by every one; cost shared by all.
	Universal Service Fund is necessary due to national policy. So as the nation moves towards alternate technologies, the new entrants must contribute to this fund. Segments contributing to this fund must be the beneficiary. Almost there. Every one agrees that there will be many modes of communication; all of them are based on IP and could be used to contact emergency agency. So why focus on just VoIP. E911 and USF should be applicable to IP access rather than one or more applications.

James Crowe (Level3):

VoIP service providers must facilitate public services like E911 and CALEA.

Tom Evslin (ITXC):

	There is no need for regulation because there is no monopoly.
	Cell phones have more features than landline phones because the former are unregulated. This is a great line, but it is not clear to me what these features are. Is he confusing between phone based features with those facilitated by the service providers?
	ITXC has supported all reasonable and legal intercept requests.

Jeffrey Citron (Vonage):

	CALEA: There are many other IP Communications that are outside the scope of CALEA
	E911: The industry is working on it.
	USF: Vonage pays on behalf of their subscribers. It is better if its contributions are used to deploy broadband access network.
	Access charges: The access charge regime needs major repair. So instead of applying broken rules to VoIP, we should revisit the basic issue.

Gregg Vanderheiden (U. of Wisconsin):

New technology often causes people with disabilities to lose access if left to voluntary participation

Follow-up Discussion:

	Powell asked about the inability to differentiate between interstate and intrastate calls. Wood felt that the situation is similar to wireless which has a component of intrastate regulation, but Citron disagreed saying there is no way to ascertain jurisdiction.
	Abernathy wanted to know if non-regulation will be equally applicable to everyone (including the incumbents). Both Evslin and Citron replied in the affirmative; Crowe interjected to say that interconnection must be regulated; Gallagher emphasized that carriers must not impede other service providers.
	Copps wanted to know how to address the power issue. Evslin remarked that recent events show that IP survives better. Powell tried to point out that the question is related to powering the end device. Crowe remarked that one network can not be the strongest. Interconnected networks is our strength.
	In response to a question from Martin regarding the timetable for regulation, many responded that clarity on regulation is needed as soon as possible. There was a talk about forbearance, some sort of legalese. Powel cautioned that it is not a simple matter; looks like forbearance is applied one regulation at a time and hence a time consuming matter.
	In response to Adelstein’s question, Davidson reiterated that economic regulation is not necessary, but regulations regarding CALEA and disability are necessary. Crowe remarked that voluntary regulation is not sufficient and noted that a data bit costs 1/30 to 1/25 of a voice bit.