Two States, Two Very Different Approaches To VoIP Regulation

from the quacks-like-a-duck dept

For many years, states have been trying to tax VoIP providers as if they were telcos. From the states' perspective, they were using a "quacks like a duck" test, whereby any phone service that acted like a traditional phone service should get taxed like a traditional phone service. Since states rely on tax dollars so much, this feeling was reinforced as people started ditching landline phone service for VoIP providers. However, there are a few problems with this. The reason that telcos are taxed is because of the structure of the telephone system, and the fact that the government more or less handed over rights of way and control of the system to private companies. VoIP providers, however, have the calls travel over the internet, changing the nature of the equation, and meaning that most of the reasons for taxing telcos shouldn't apply. Shouldn't, except for politicians who can't see beyond the money. Yet, taxing VoIP is a doubly bad idea, because VoIP is still an emerging service that is rapidly changing -- offering new services and opportunities that weren't possible on landline offerings. Putting a tax on it could kill a lot of that innovation. Too many states don't see that.

Jeff Pulver is showing the contrast between two states in dealing with VoIP regulatory issues. New Jersey has passed a law saying that it will not regulate VoIP, noting "The proliferation of new technologies and applications and the growth in the number of providers developing and offering innovative services using Internet Protocol is due in large part to a light regulatory touch, including freedom from traditional telephone regulation that these new technologies and services and the companies that offer them have enjoyed in New Jersey.... These economic benefits, including consumer choice, new jobs, and significant capital investment, will be jeopardized and competition minimized by the imposition of traditional State entry and rate regulation on Voice over Internet Protocol service and Internet protocol-enabled service."

Unfortunately, Missouri isn't quite so enlightened. Despite various rulings saying that VoIP should not be taxed, Missouri is trying to bend the rules to make at least some VoIP offerings (mainly those provided by cable companies) classified as telco services that need to be taxed. As Jeff notes, if this works, then expect other states to follow suit and create loopholes for taxing VoIP providers... and then watch as all VoIP related innovation happens elsewhere.
Hide this

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: missouri, new jersey, regulation, voip


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • Taxing VoIP

    I guess Missouri must need the money pretty bad, maybe pursuing this position to make up for lost income from other sources.

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    David Frier, 7 Nov 2007 @ 9:38pm

    Oh BTW

    New Jersey *is* home to Vonage, who probably bought and paid for that result.

    link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Robert, 7 Nov 2007 @ 10:41pm

      Re: Oh BTW

      New Jersey *is* home to Vonage, who probably bought and paid for that result.

      You moron, do you really want more taxes ?

      link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Kevin, 8 Nov 2007 @ 4:05am

        Re: Re: Oh BTW

        You moron, do you really want more taxes ?

        I find it funny that in America, which has one of the lowest tax rates in the western world, people constantly cry about taxes liked they're being taxed into the poorhouse. Quick deprogramming session for you: Not all taxes are bad. Some taxes make sense. Without taxes we wouldn't have a freeway system. Without taxes we wouldn't have police and fire service. Without taxes we wouldn't have a standing army capable of invading countries at random and toppling their governments.

        link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Chris, 8 Nov 2007 @ 11:56am

          Re: Re: Re: Oh BTW

          Without taxes we wouldn't have universal health care. oh wait... that's why US taxes are so low, cause the gov't does less for us.

          link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    me.g33k, 8 Nov 2007 @ 4:29am

    Re: Re: Oh BTW by Kevin

    Ahem...

    Kevin you sound like someone just taking a civics class and not really in tune with how tax money is spent.

    Having seen the behind the scenes of county and state level financial operations, I can tell you that capital investment and service support spending is probably the LEAST prioritied in the allocation of dollars gathered. Even worse at the state level when spend can be pulled by various electorate districts and not really benefit the state as a whole.

    I don't mind taxes when they're appropriately administered but I have very little confidence in the majority of civic governments ability to execute that objective.

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Rob Blatt, 8 Nov 2007 @ 6:18am

    Skype

    Does this mean that there will be taxes in Missouri for people who use Skype In with a handset to receive their calls? Technically that also can pass for the "quacks like a duck" test.

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Alfred E. Neuman, 8 Nov 2007 @ 6:18am

    lowest tax rates

    Is it really one of the lowest after adding up all the nickel and dime taxation, FICA, etc? Just a rough estimate, the real rate is close to 50%.

    link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 9 Nov 2007 @ 4:30am

      Re: lowest tax rates

      Yes still lower - way lower.

      The phony tax issue in poltics is possible because we Americans know/care so little about the rest of the world. Combine that with politicians who play on our desire to keep our money, and you get get demagoguery.

      I need to keep as much of my money as I can also; but I want gov't services.

      Government is not the problem. Ignorance and crooks are. Now if we can just get rid of the crooked politicians . . . .

      link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    rbb, 8 Nov 2007 @ 6:19am

    Taxes are the reason I left Vonage...

    I find it amusing that Pulver is whining about taxes on VOIP. The reason I left Vonage was the bullsh*t fees they charged me on top of the basic rate, like $1.50 line portability fee for each of the two numbers I had and the federal excise tax. I moved to VoicePulse which does not charge the line portability fee, but now does charge the fed excise tax.

    link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 8 Nov 2007 @ 7:21am

      Re: Taxes are the reason I left Vonage...

      You ever see how much a PoTS provider would charge you for a new number. Would they allow you to use that number at just your home or anywhere in the world? $1.50 for additional services is less then you pay for that Big Mac.

      link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    BritJoe, 8 Nov 2007 @ 10:38am

    VoIP

    Taxing vonage makes no sense to me as it lost its status as a phone company (in my eyes) when my friend dialed 911 after being shot (he had a cellphone and was able to call 911 on that) and was asked to wait for "5-10 minutes"

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    TX CHL Instructor (profile), 8 Nov 2007 @ 10:59am

    Double taxation...

    I have FiOS as my main phone service, so my VOIP service goes over exactly the same lines as my regular phone service. I have both for business reasons -- and VOIP has many features that my regular phone service doesn't have (my favorite is that every time I get a phone call from a phone solicitor, I enter their number into my "always busy" list. It's fun to see how some of them will continue to call many dozens of times just to get a busy signal.)
    --
    The 2nd Amendment isn't about Duck Hunting

    link to this | view in chronology ]


Follow Techdirt
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Discord

The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...

Loading...
Recent Stories

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.