Name:
 Neil Toepfer

E-mail:
 ntoepfer@flxi.net

Organization:
 Flexible Internet, LLC

Comments:
------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Commissioners,

My name is Neil Toepfer and I am the owner/operator of a small ISP in Columbus, Ohio.  My ISP specializes in providing connectivity, hosting, and security solutions for small and medium sized businesses.

I am writing to the commission to bring my point of view to the discussion on regulating VoIP.  You might be surprised, but I am actually going to argue for regulation of this service and others provided over the Internet.  In fact I am for regulating Internet access in general, although probably not in the same way that an ILEC or Cable Company would like to see regulation imposed.

VoIP is a robust, flexible communications technology that facilitates real-time voice communications over the Internet.  VoIP stands at a cross roads for wide-scale adoption.  Many companies are adopting VoIP in different forms and for different reasons, but clearly VoIP is not a "fad" technology.

I believe, as do many, that the Internet is the 21st century telecommunications medium.  The Internet is destined to replace the delivery method for many traditional telecommunications services like local telephony, long distance, television, etc.  The Internet is the largest most flexible communications network ever conceived and holds the promise for consumers and businesses to provide ever newer and less expensive services to be bought and sold.

As the FCC considers what is appropriate for regulating VoIP in general, I would like to urge to commission to consider this as an opportunity to correct everything that is wrong with the way traditional telephony is regulated.  This opportunity is afforded the FCC because unlike traditional telephone service, consumers are not tied to a piece of copper in the ground owned by a single company that can be used for limited purposes.  Broadband Internet access of some type is all that is required to make use of VoIP technology, and consumers have more choice in their selection of ISPs than they do in phone companies.

The commission, in considering what aspects of VoIP should and should not be regulated, has the opportunity to create a new regulatory framework that is simple in comparison to the existing sets of rules, and therefore less expensive to implement.  Your rules for VoIP should be straight forward and apply equally to virtually everyone.

As a potential VoIP provider myself, and a very small one at that, I believe the rules you lay down here will greatly affect how not only VoIP services are provided and their cost, but how Internet access in general is adopted by businesses and consumers alike.  VoIP is a powerful motivator for businesses and consumers to finally give up that "'ole dial-up service" and move to broadband connectivity.  VoIP also represents an opportunity for ISPs like LECs and Cable Companies to completely entrench their dominating and monopolistic positions in the consumer household.

As demonstrated by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, choice spurs innovation.  Today, many telecommunications services are less expensive than they were in 1996 and many new technologies have arisen out of the limited competition spurred by the Act.  Imagine what is possible on a completely level playing field?  The Act is controversial to be sure.  CLECs love it, ILECs hate it, businesses like it, and consumers barely notice it.  Have you ever asked yourselves why this is the case?  Why CLECs love it and ILECs hate it is obvious.  Why consumers don't notice it much is because the Act has failed to spur the promised choice for the consumer.  Very few consumers today have access to a competing telephony provider.  Why?  The answer is simple; no one will spend hundreds of billions of dollars to build a competing copper network to get a $25 phone line into a consumer household.  Because of this, consumers don't enjoy much choice in telephone service.

Only recently has this begun to change as wireless telephone service has become so mainstream and high enough quality that some individuals (me included over 4 years ago) simply give up their land lines for cell phones.  This is the only way I as a consumer have to get a phone number that I don't have to pay my ILEC (whom as you can guess I dislike thoroughly) for.

VoIP provides the opportunity to change this once and for all.  VoIP is the beginning of an opportunity to level the playing field in many areas over which the FCC exercises jurisdiction.  When considering how to regulate VoIP service, I urge to commission to consider the following:

VoIP Providers are not necessarily ISPs, LECs, or Cable Companies.  They don't have to be.
VoIP Providers should enjoy equal access to all US ISP's customers.  It is the ISPs responsibility to manage their customer's access to services to ensure things work well.  This is the nature of competition, if it doesn't work right, people will simply get service elsewhere.
VoIP Providers must provide e911 services.  This is a necessary public service that saves lives.
VoIP Providers must provide access for law enforcement.  This responsibility lies mainly with equipment manufacturers.

The FCC should strive to ensure the provision of basic services for everyone in a consistent manner.  E911 is a good example of a service we cannot do without and that everyone must share the cost for.  Services beyond basic ones should not be considered for regulation, period. Competition will drive providers to offer advanced features and competitive pricing.

Access to providers from any ISP is a must to ensure competition.  While the commission has demonstrated a desire to ensure competition, thus far this competition is mainly aimed at competing industries rather than companies.  For example, competition for Internet access services is fostered mainly to be between LECs, Cable Companies, and Wireless ISPs.  While this affords the consumer some choice, I would urge the commission to review the competitive landscape.  Do prices stay low with this method?  Competition should be maintained by providers and not based on how they provide access.  This is the only hope for consumer choice.

Sincerely,

Neil Toepfer
ntoepfer@flxi.net

------------------------------------------------------------