Voice over Internet Protocol

Course project Voice over Internet Protocol TM 584

Di Zheng (DSI: 01273771) Maimaitiweili Maimaiti DSI: 03310820 Zhe Zhao (DSI: 03336177)

Professor: Manny Kang

DeVry University

Voice over Internet Protocol

Introduction (Problem Statement)

Voice over Internet Protocol (Voice over IP, VoIP) is one of a family of internet technologies, communication protocols, and transmission technologies for delivery of voice communications and multimedia sessions over Internet Protocol (IP) networks, such as the Internet. Other terms frequently encountered and often used synonymously with VoIP are IP telephony, Internet telephony, voice over broadband (VoBB), broadband telephony, and broadband phone. VoIP utilizes the internet infrastructure to make phone calls as opposed to the traditional public switched telephone network that has been in place for more than a century. VoIP is a dazzling development that challenges current regulatory frameworks and rules. In the United States, as in most parts of the world, telecommunications is highly regulated industry, but recently, the internet remains largely unregulated. The key issue facing legislatures and government officials is whether VoIP should be regulated. The voice element suggests regulation under traditional telecommunication laws, while the internet protocol element suggests that, like the internet, it should go unregulated. VoIP illustrates the impact of emerging technologies that evolve ahead of laws and regulations intended to address them. Although many in the technology industry believe the internet will thrive only in the absence of regulation. Regulators face the difficult task of balancing the public interest and the continued promotion of the advancement of emerging technologies. In United States, VoIP boom is just over the horizon. Major telecommunications, cable service providers, and computer hardware companies expect to offer VoIP services in the very near future. As more and more non-traditional telecommunications companies enter the traditionally regulated telecommunications industry, the Federal Communication Commission will eventually have to set some rules to govern the United States VoIP market. The FCC will need to decide whether to define VoIP either as an information service or as a Telecommunication service. The telecommunication Act of 1996 sets forth the differences in definition and regulation of these services. If the FCC chooses to define VoIP under title one of the Telecommunication Act, it would make VoIP especially regulation-free, much like other Internet content. But if the FCC chooses the latter and defines VoIP under Title Two, the government will regulate VoIP under the myriad of regulations that has been developed for the telephone industry over the past 100 years.

Voice over Internet Protocol

In many respects, the Internet has been the last frontier of freedom. In a world where governments increasingly control more and more aspects of our lives, cyberspace was the one "place" where one could come and go without being subject to much regulation. Of course, just as the Wild West gave way to" civilization," it was only a matter of time before the long arm of the law reached into the online world. And it isn't sparing VoIP users. Some countries ban VoIP completelyeither by outright prohibition or by making licensing requirements so difficult to meet and licensing fees so expensive that providers are unable to offer service there. Some countries allow only one or a few providers to operate. On the other hand, some countriesincluding Japan, Ireland, and Singaporehave no specific laws pertaining to VoIP. Most countries, however, including the United States, have some laws and restrictions pertaining to VoIP. And it's likely that more are on the way. The first major federal regulation aimed at VoIP came in2005 when the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) issued an order requiring VoIP customers to have access to enhanced 911 (E911) services. The order applied to "interconnected" VoIP service providerswhose users could place and receive calls to and from traditional phone lines. The legislation directed that such providers must deliver 911 calls to the user's local emergency operator as a standard feature of the service.

The first challenge

The E911 requirement created a bit of a challenge for providers. One of the characteristics that make VoIP attractive to many users is the ability to take your equipment with you and plug it in anywhere there's a broadband Internet connection. The FCC made the requirement more palatable by dictating that customers are responsible for providing and updating location information; the VoIP provider is only required to provide the customers with a way to keep the information up to date. The order also stated an intention to eventually adopt an advanced E911 solution that could determine customer location without requiring the customer to provide and update the information. As part of the 911 regulations, the FCC also required that VoIP providers get acknowledgements from subscribers that they had read and understood an advisory outlining the limitations of their E911 service. This is how the legislation first affected many VoIP customers, who received notices from VoIP providers that they must complete the required forms (usually through the provider's Web site) to keep the providers compliant or the company would cut off their service.

CALEA comes to VoIP

Voice over Internet Protocol

Now another law that affects VoIP is about to go into effecteven though most VoIP customers won't be aware of it. In September 2005, the FCC issued an order requiring VoIP providers to comply with the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement (CALEA) Act of 1994, which previously applied to traditional phone companies but not VoIP. The compliance deadline is May 14, 2007. CALEA requires that law enforcement agencies be able, with the proper warrants, to tap into and record voice conversations and to trace the source and destination of calls. The Department of Justice (DOJ), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) petitioned the FCC to extend CALEA to IP-based communications. Privacy and civil liberties groups, including the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), opposed the expansion of CALEA to cover VoIP services. The practical effect of CALEA is that VoIP hardware vendors must build wiretapping capability into their equipment, which obviously adds to the cost. In addition, many worry that hackers will be able to exploit this capability to eavesdrop on VoIP calls.

VoIP and record retention

Various state and federal laws require the retention of electronic records in some circumstancesfor example, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) pertains to publicly traded companies. Many of these laws require the retention of electronic data such as e-mail messages, but not telephone calls. The issue then arises: Do we treat VoIP communications like traditional phone calls or traditional IP communications? In particular, computers store VoIP voice mail on the hard drivejust like e-mail messages. With the advent of the unified communications model, network users may even receive voice mail and e-mail messages in the same inbox.

Should companies archive VoIP voice mail messages along with e-mail? This could prove costly since audio messages create relatively large files. SOX dont address this issue, and neither do most of the laws pertaining to electronic record retentionyet.

The future of VoIP regulation

Given the nature of the legislative process, it's probably safe to say that just as the Internet itself is gradually becoming more regulated, so will VoIP. Currently one of the big cost advantages of VoIP is that it's not subject to all the taxes and fees that we pay for a traditional PSTN line. For example, in comparing a simple residential phone line and a Lingo VoIP line at the same home, I found that the total cost of the Lingo VoIP line was $25.10 per month,

Voice over Internet Protocol

whereas the total cost of the AT&TPSTN line for the same month was $42.12. However, the cost difference was less when you looked at the cost of service itself: $29.00 for AT&T vs. $21.95for Lingo. The taxes and fees for the AT&T line added up to $13.12, but the taxes and fees on the VoIP line were only $3.15. As VoIP becomes more popular, you can be sure government swill not only exert more control over its providers and users, but they will also impose more taxes to pay for the enforcement of those regulations. Twenty years from now, we may look back fondly at the days when VoIP was relatively unregulated and untaxed.

Summary
Since Voice over Internet Protocol is an emerging technology, facing this new technology, a lot of countries started to look for ways to regulate this new fast growing technology. European countries and United States must determine what regulatory framework should apply to the regulation and administration of VoIP.

References

Voice over Internet Protocol