"Simply put, broadband voice is an interstate matter that must be dealt with through clear national standards"
About this Quote
Broadband voice collapses geography. Voice over Internet Protocol routes packets wherever the network is most efficient, ignoring state borders that once separated local from long-distance calling. That technical reality undercuts the old regulatory divide in which state commissions oversaw intrastate telephony while federal authorities handled interstate service. If a single call can hop among servers in multiple states or even countries, trying to assign it to one state regime becomes arbitrary and invites conflict.
John Sununu, a pro-technology senator, argued that federal preemption and a uniform rulebook would better match the architecture of the internet. He was part of a mid-2000s push to keep VoIP from being smothered by 50 different sets of requirements and fees. The Federal Communications Commission moved in that direction, preempting state attempts to regulate services like Vonage and imposing a handful of national obligations instead, such as enhanced 911, lawful intercept capabilities, number portability, and later contributions to universal service. The aim was clarity: give innovators predictable expectations while ensuring core public-safety and consumer protections.
Clear national standards promise several benefits. They reduce compliance costs and legal uncertainty, encouraging nationwide offerings that compete with incumbents and lower prices. They simplify emergency services by mandating consistent 911 location and routing rules. They also create a single forum to resolve interconnection, numbering, and disability-access issues that do not map neatly to state boundaries.
The counterargument is familiar federalism: states have traditionally protected telecom consumers, policed fraud, and ensured service quality, especially in rural areas. Stripping that authority risks regulatory gaps and weak accountability. The compromise Sununu favored leans toward a light-touch federal framework that sets nonnegotiable safety and transparency baselines while leaving states room for general consumer protection that does not conflict with interstate standards.
As internet-based communications subsumed legacy phone networks, the case for national, technology-neutral rules grew stronger. The line captures that shift from place-bound telephony to borderless IP services, and the legal realignment needed to oversee them.
John Sununu, a pro-technology senator, argued that federal preemption and a uniform rulebook would better match the architecture of the internet. He was part of a mid-2000s push to keep VoIP from being smothered by 50 different sets of requirements and fees. The Federal Communications Commission moved in that direction, preempting state attempts to regulate services like Vonage and imposing a handful of national obligations instead, such as enhanced 911, lawful intercept capabilities, number portability, and later contributions to universal service. The aim was clarity: give innovators predictable expectations while ensuring core public-safety and consumer protections.
Clear national standards promise several benefits. They reduce compliance costs and legal uncertainty, encouraging nationwide offerings that compete with incumbents and lower prices. They simplify emergency services by mandating consistent 911 location and routing rules. They also create a single forum to resolve interconnection, numbering, and disability-access issues that do not map neatly to state boundaries.
The counterargument is familiar federalism: states have traditionally protected telecom consumers, policed fraud, and ensured service quality, especially in rural areas. Stripping that authority risks regulatory gaps and weak accountability. The compromise Sununu favored leans toward a light-touch federal framework that sets nonnegotiable safety and transparency baselines while leaving states room for general consumer protection that does not conflict with interstate standards.
As internet-based communications subsumed legacy phone networks, the case for national, technology-neutral rules grew stronger. The line captures that shift from place-bound telephony to borderless IP services, and the legal realignment needed to oversee them.
Quote Details
| Topic | Internet |
|---|
More Quotes by John
Add to List
