Commissioners’ Remarks
Panel I
Panel II



Michael Powell:

bulletIP based communication is good for consumers and we should recognize that there are no geographical/political boundaries.
bulletI translate this to say that our regulations should not undermine the ability to transcend geographical/political boundaries.
bulletAs we consider regulatory policy, we should keep in mind that “first we should do no harm”; this translates to “every regulation must be imposed by first demonstrating its need”.
bulletCertain social policies like emergency service, legal intercept and universal service must be protected.
bulletThis became “motherhood” statement for everyone in the meeting. Of course enough seeds were planted to dilute the sentiment in the future.
bulletAnnounced the formation of Internet Task Force


Kathleen Abernathy:

bulletOld regulations were put in place to restraint “granted” monopolies as quid pro quo.
bulletAll of them? The three social policies identified by Powell have nothing to do with monopolies. Auto industry is under lots of regulation, even though it is a very competitive market.
bulletVoIP is fundamentally different from PSTN because of the blur between inter vs. intra state.


Michael Copps:

bulletIt is time to address the need and level of regulation.
bulletVoIP should succeed on its own and not due to regulatory arbitrage.


Kevin Martin:

bulletWe must maintain the ability to provide core social functions.


Jonathan Adelstein:

bulletVoIP is a new gold rush in telecom.
bulletWe shouldn’t create arbitrage opportunities, but at the same time shouldn’t kill new technologies.
bulletAt least two of the commissioners have cautioned against regulatory arbitrage. So access charges are on the way.
bulletSupport social policy functions.


Staff presentation on the definitions used by Computer Inquiry II, 1996 Telecom Act and Stevens Report; various petitions related to VoIP that have been submitted to the Commission.


Copyright © 2003 Moca Educational Products, Inc.