Statement of Congressman John D. Dingell, Ranking Member
Committee on Energy and Commerce

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TELECOMMUNICATIONS
AND THE INTERNET
HEARING ON “HOW INTERNET PROTOCOL-ENABLED SERVICES ARE CHANGING THE FACE OF COMMUNICATIONS: A LOOK AT THE
VOICE MARKETPLACE”

March 16, 2005

Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing.

Voice-over-Internet Protocol (VoIP) technology is profoundly changing the telecommunications marketplace. Many predict that VoIP services will soon replace conventional telephony as the dominant method of voice communications. If so, consumers stand to benefit from the greater competition, lower prices, and exciting new applications that VoIP promises.

As VoIP and other new breakthrough technologies take hold, policymakers must ensure that telecommunications laws keep pace and provide appropriate boundaries and guidance. Skepticism about overregulation is a good way to start. I agree that it would be foolish to impose Title II common carrier regulation, in its entirety, upon VoIP service offerings. Imposing legacy economic regulation runs the risk of stifling competition, innovation, and investment. Indeed, Congress anticipated that advances in technology might undermine the need for certain common carrier-type regulations when it granted forbearance authority to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).

Some, however, would prefer not to use those tools effectively. Instead, they would classify VoIP as an unregulated information service subject only to the unspoken whims of the FCC’s Title I authority. I am troubled by this rush to remove all regulations. The FCC may very well find that Title I, especially as interpreted by the courts, lacks the tools necessary to protect consumers. For example, when the FCC was recently called upon to stop a carrier from blocking another’s VoIP calls, the Commission instinctively turned to its familiar Title II authority.

As we consider modernizing the Communications Act, and the FCC continues studying the proper regulatory regime for IP-enabled services, several overriding public policy principles must not be compromised.

First, there have long been social obligations attached to our system of communications which will remain critical in an IP-environment. These include preserving universal service, emergency services, law enforcement, and disability access.

 Second, other requirements have been necessary to ensure fair competition and an efficient overall communications system. Baseline interconnection, intercarrier compensation, numbering, and access requirements may need to be applied in this new environment.

Third, as we move forward, we should not take any action which would disrupt the ability of states to perform core consumer protection functions.

These key policy principles are not dependent upon a circuit-switched architecture. So I commend those in the VoIP industry who are rising to their broader social responsibilities.

Unfortunately, some providers are shirking their duty and consumers are suffering the consequences. As we will hear today, dialing 911 through some VoIP services does not properly connect consumers to emergency services. It is critical that all industry players work together to find a VoIP E-911 solution. Consumers must not be put in a position of discovering a lack of 911 functionality too late.

I hope our witnesses will speak to the progress they are making to achieve these goals. As we reflect on the transformative nature of new communications technologies, we cannot simply wipe away the core foundations that sustain our communications system for the benefit of all our citizens.