As for VOIP: the concerning thing there is the FCC's taxing of a content service that runs on the internet. I don't think that's a precedent most supporters of net neutrality want to embrace, but that's exactly the path you're going down with Title II.
Any company that acts like a phone company (e.g. providing real phone numbers) is regulated and taxed like a phone company. The fact that some of them run part of the call over the Internet isn't why they're being regulated, but it doesn't magically exempt them from regulation either.
The same thinking applies to all companies. If you're doing something regulated, then doing it over the Internet will still be regulated. If you're doing something unregulated then doing it over the Internet will still be unregulated. Title II shouldn't make any difference.
So Google Voice and Skype should be taxed? Beyond that, isn't "real phone numbers" a totally arbitrary distinction when everything is running on the internet? Just a different sort of endpoint identifier. What you're really trying to tax is "real time voice communications." So shouldn't Facetime be taxed too?
Everything isn't running on the Internet. When you use Google Voice to call a number that isn't part of GV (which is probably the majority of calls), your call is going over the PSTN. And touching the PSTN is what gets you regulated.
Facetime is a good example of a system that isn't and shouldn't be regulated because AFAIK it doesn't touch the PSTN.
But touching the PSTN isn't where VOIP gets regulated under the FCC rules. If you have Vonage and only make VOIP to VOIP calls, you still pay the tax.
That's the whole point of bringing up USF: one can imagine ways to limit the USF fees to the PSTN network, but the FCC has used its regulatory authority to reach a broader set of service providers. Also: the PSTN angle is a red herring anyway. Now that USF is used to fund broadband, its arbitrary to limit USF taxes to something that touches the PSTN network.
> As for VOIP: the concerning thing there is the FCC's taxing of a content service that runs on the internet. I don't think that's a precedent most supporters of net neutrality want to embrace, but that's exactly the path you're going down with Title II.
I would just challenge the premise. The question from the article is:
> How do you distinguish [AT&T's] telephony from Skype or Google Voice?
But the answer is easy. You don't. The only sensible reading of a conflict is if both AT&T and Skype are offering over the top VoIP service. If AT&T is offering PSTN service and Skype is offering VoIP then distinguishing them is trivial, and if AT&T starts offering VoIP then distinguishing them is unnecessary. You just don't put any VoIP services (or any other over the top services) under Title II, because Title II is for the physical network.
That makes perfect sense because what all of that stuff (e.g. USF) is intended to do is only necessary for the physical network. There is no reason for Skype not to offer VoIP service to everyone with internet access. It would occur even in the absence of regulation, as long as those people have a local physical network over which to run such services, which is the clear dividing line between what belongs under Title II and what doesn't.
The FCC also decided that broadband is not a Title II service. One bad decision as a consequence of the other. If you put broadband under Title II where it belongs then you don't need VoIP to be there because anybody who can use VoIP (because they have broadband) is already paying into the USF.
The combination of net neutrality and PSTN sunset may lead to a "regulatory swap" where broadband is regulated and the phone network is not. The problem is always in the wires.
Fun fact: the airlines are still regulated as common carriers, even after much of the deregulation.
No one is arguing for the FCC to set pricing, and having a universal service fund for broadband makes sense. USF funding was always levied at communication providers, not folks like plumbers that used the communication system.
Your arguments against common sense, limited regulations of the most important communication infrastructure in the country are a whole bunch of FUD. There's no way the FCC is every going to start charging email providers or taxing What's App.
I can see some sort of argument against the VoiP tax if there's a USF for broadband, but honestly, it's not a precedent that's heading anywhere.
As for VOIP: the concerning thing there is the FCC's taxing of a content service that runs on the internet. I don't think that's a precedent most supporters of net neutrality want to embrace, but that's exactly the path you're going down with Title II.