RSS
Twitter
California Decides To Regulate Vonage
from the backwards-move dept
And you thought that California was a technically advanced state, and only confused states in the middle of the country would mistake a VoIP service like Vonage for an actual phone company. Not quite. California has now announced that, because it passes the oh-so-scientific "smells like a duck, quacks like a duck" test, VoIP systems like Vonage must apply for telephone operator licenses in the state. This is, of course, backwards thinking - trying to fit today's technology into yesterday's laws just to help cover the state's massive budget deficit. Next thing you know, you won't be able to use things like iChat or Skype without first paying the state of California.
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
The alternative
Would it be better for taxpayer money to fund the infrastructure that supports VoIP in the first place, so that private businesses get a free ride?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: The alternative
I'm sorry, let me get this straight, you're claiming that current VoIP traffic is paid for by taxpayer money?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: The alternative
In most countries of the world, yes. It also still happens in the US through indirect means.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: The alternative
Funny, last I checked, California was in the US.
If you're going to post stupid trolls, you could at least try to make them interesting.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: The alternative
Yes, and phone subsidies are alive and strong in the USA, if you dig deeper. Try checking obscure lobbying groups in Washington DC.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: The alternative
Mike,
I'm fast losing in respect I had for you ...
Quit " fanning the flames " just because you don't see eye to eye with Dorpus ...
Who is the intelligent one and who is child ?
This is turning into slash/twat
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: The alternative
Yeah Mike, stop being an agressive toolbox and try rational argument for a change! Oh, wait, I forgot, since this article doesn't provide you with a platform to air your pro-MP3/filesharing/Kazaa/music stealing rants, you have to resort to name calling and pointless slander!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Consider this
Vonage allows calls to folks with regular phones, which means they need point-of-presence equipment in IXC's , or at least pay for their use. So yes - they use the existing telecom infrastructure in some form in addition to vonage to vonage calls strictly over net. So they must be considered a phone company.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Consider this
So its the Old Tax EVERY THING even if some of it does no go over the phone lines.
I see, your one of the morons who believes the music industry should get paid every time you buy a blank CD even if you are using if for data storage.
Isn't this one of the reasons we succeed from England. You do remember the Boston tea party dont you?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Consider this
Good to see you had something of value to add to the discussion.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Consider
Agreed (with Anon@12:45pm)
Why don't we just allow the Gommnit to tax everything. Here's one: lets tax all sales. Then if I decide to sell my care that I already paid sales tax on and I make more than $10,000 I have to give the g'mint 8.5% of that. And if the guy I sell my car to sells it again, he has to pay the g'mint again, and so on. Oh! In California we already do that. I guess we all just really work the for Government.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
resurrection
look at the article/comment dates. pulled from death...
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Just a nice factoid
Mike seems to believe Vonage/VOIP shouldn't be regulated like the phone companies....until it affects him:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090904/1449236112.shtm
oops.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Add Your Comment