Subject: [NEXTEL-1] The Pulver Report - Special Edition - February 19, 2004]

From: Marcelrf <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 15:01:54 -0500

THE PULVER REPORT(TM)
Provided by: pulver.com, Inc.

The February 19, 2004 Issue:

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

  In this Issue:

  - Heard on the Net: Score One for the Good Guys!
  - On the Road to Petition
  - Carl's Corner: What's needed next

A week ago the FCC granted the pulver.com / Free World Dialup petition.
We've won the battle, and the war is looking pretty good, too.

I am extremely pleased to report that the "Pulver" Petition on behalf of
Free World Dialup (FWD) was granted by the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) on February 12, 2004!

The Commission is to be commended for providing key and necessary
clarification that the FWD computer-to-computer VoIP service is not a
telecommunications service. The FCC in doing this sends a strong signal
to
consumers and capital markets, boldly declaring its lack of interest in
subjecting end-to-end IP Communications services to traditional voice
telecom regulation under the Communications Act. It was indeed a great
day
for the Internet as well, specifically to those individuals and
companies
who are working hard to make possible the widespread use of packet
communications.

I read yesterday in TR Daily that "...The Pulver.com order...will
provide
a significant amount of guidance for other Internet protocol (IP)-based
phone services beyond Pulver's free-world dial up service...other
companies should consider the Pulver.com ruling as they consider
introducing new services."

I look forward to reading the actual order and continuing to contribute
to
the regulatory process as the IP Communications continues to happen
around
the world.

Bob Pepper's Town Hall Meeting at Spring 2004 VON which will be taking
place on Sunday night, March 28th will take on additional significance
given the recent Pulver order and the on-going VoIP NPRM process.

These town hall meetings have become a part of the overall "VON
Experience" over the past couple of years, and is one of the sessions
which I really look forward to attending.

VoIP promises to continue to be of interest to many people in Washington
DC and will be topic of the day next Tuesday, February 24th, when the
Senate Commerce Committee will be holding it's first hearing on VoIP.
The
attention is not limited to the United States as Ofcom, in the United
Kingdom, will be holding their own meeting looking at the regulatory
treatment and related social policy concerns of the advent of voice over
broadband in London on February 25th.

Given the worldwide attention the VoIP industry and technology is
getting
these days, I won't be surprised if VoIP becomes a platform issue for
some
people during this election year.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the Road to Petition

The long and winding road to getting the Free World Dialup / "Pulver"
Petition granted was first paved in January, 2003 when I first thought
to
file a petition on behalf of FWD. Free World Dialup as it is known today
launched on November 11, 2002, marking the end of the recent dark ages
for
the IP Communications Industry.

Looking back, I was inspired to file the petition shortly after reading
the PTT Pulse research report by Diawa Securities in London, dated
January
10, 2003  (See Issue 49 "VoIPulverized?" at
<http://pulver.com/fwd/daiwa.pdf>. I instantly realized that others
besides myself understood that FWD had the potential to become a
"multinational network", and that there were some in the communications
industry who would prefer to see the Free World Dialup network nipped in
the bud. I reached this conclusion after enduring a petition filed in
the
US by America's Carriers Telecommunications Association (ACTA) in 1996
which
requested (a) that the sale and use of Internet telephony software
should
be banned in the US, and (b) that the makers of such software should be
regulated in the same manner as the phone company.

While the ACTA petition never was acted upon (indeed, ACTA as a trade
association no longer exists), their petition was a perfect example of
what often happens when an industry group feels a threat to its
membership. Ironically, it was the advent of the ACTA petition that made
me jump into the regulatory advocacy space, leading me to found (with
the
help of Bruce Jacobs) the VON (Voice on the Net) Coalition in March,
1996
as a platform to fight the ACTA petition.

Naturally, I didn't want history to repeat itself in 2003 so I took the
lead and began exploring the idea of launching a preemptive strike
against
nay sayers by filing my own petition with the FCC. Such a petition would
provide definitional clarity on the issue once and for all, specifying
that end-to-end IP that doesn’t touch the Public Switched Telephone
Network (PSTN) is neither "telecommunications" nor a "telecommunications
service."

After speaking to Bruce Jacobs and Glenn Richards of the law firm
ShawPittman LLP, I decided to go forward and to draft the Free World
Dialup Petition with their help, describing FWD as a peer-to-peer
network
that facilitates end-to-end IP communications. Interestingly, the only
other recent VoIP petition filed with the FCC was that of AT&T, which
dealt with what others consider to be "regulatory arbitrage." It
certainly did not take into account the affect of the new era of
broadband
connection on communications, in which the endpoints have nothing to do
with the PSTN.

On February 5, 2003 pulver.com filed the petition with the FCC on behalf
of FWD, asking for a Declaratory Ruling stating that Broadband Internet
Telephony that does not touch the PSTN should not be considered either
"Telecommunications" or as a "Telecommunications Service" as defined by
the Telecom Act of 1996. On February 14, 2003 the FCC put the pulver.com
petition out for public comment, giving the public until March 14, 2003
to file their comments. We then had until April 2nd to file replies to
those comments. Reading the public comments made it clear that a
"digital
divide" existed across the broadband communications industry and that
there were some organizations that supported the innovation represented
by
FWD and others that would fight such innovation as long as it made
economic sense for them to do so.

A copy of the original petition is posted to:
<http://www.pulver.com/reports/FWDPetition.pdf>.

After the formal FCC reply comment period ended, in May, 2003 I began a
series of road trips to Washington DC to meet with key people with an
interest in the FWD Petition.  These people included members of
Congress,
the Department of Justice / Federal Bureau of Investigation (DOJ/FBI),
the
FCC, the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners
(NARUC),
the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA),
The
White House, and other "friends."

Towards the end of 2003 it became clear that the FCC would likely take
action on the FWD Petition in February 2004. The petition's fate was
looking good, in fact, until I learned on January 28, 2004 that the
DOJ/FBI had sent a letter to the FCC which stated the following: "this
letter confirms that the Department of Justice (DOJ), Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI) and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) will
jointly
file a petition before the FCC seeking comprehensive rules to implement
the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (CALEA).
The
petition, which we intend to file within the next several weeks, will
address a variety of issues including what broadband service providers
and
service providers should be subject to CALEA, as well as the procedures
needed to bring those services and providers into compliance with
CALEA."

Back in May of 2003 when the FWD team met with representatives of both
the
FBI and DOJ, we informed them that FWD would gladly work with the
FBI/DOJ
to provide access to pertinent information of interest to them. At no
time
did I ever consider the granting of the FWD Petition to imply that FWD
was
not subject to cooperating fully with Law Enforcement.

It was in college while earning my BBA in Accounting when I first
encountered the rules of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles
(GAAP),
learning that the rules for GAAP and Tax Accounting can differ. US
companies are expected to comply with both GAAP and Tax Accounting at
all
times and the treatment of an item is routinely different for GAAP
and/or
Tax purposes. Applying this accounting metaphor, the grant of the FWD
Petition should not be a sign, directly or indirectly, that others who
follow in the footsteps of FWD are not also subject to working with Law
Enforcement. The FWD Petition was addressed specifically to the
Communications Act and not to CALEA.

>From my perspective, I feel it would be great if our federal law
enforcement authorities recognize the need to be reasonable, working
productively towards a reconciliation of contending policy objectives.
In
the end, this is exactly what happened: during the week of February 2nd,
the DOJ/FBI and FCC worked out a compromise that gave the FCC the green
light to take positive action on the FWD Petition.

During the February 12, 2004 FCC Meeting, in which the Pulver Petition
was
addressed as Agenda Item Number 4, I stopped counting how many times the
name "Pulver" was mentioned in the proceeding. I had attained the status
of an "Object Noun", a word that sits at the end of a sentence and waits
to receive whatever action the Subject Noun (in this case, the FCC)
decides to perform.

I greatly appreciate the opportunity that the FCC gave the IP
Communications Industry in granting the FWD Petition, and I strongly
support and applaud Chairman Powell's vision of where IP Communication
is,
where it is going, and the effects it will have on the future of what
was
once known as the telecommunications industry.

As Voice becomes an application and more services are offered that are
separated from access, the scope of what is, was, and will be thought of
as communications will continue to change.

The FCC's bold action sends a very loud and strong signal not only to
the
US states, some of which have their own pending VoIP proceedings, but to
many of the US's overseas trading partners who are looking to the US for
help in determining the best approach to the various issues that will
arise as Voice over Broadband continues to gain acceptance worldwide.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Carl's Corner: What's needed next -
   by Carl Ford - <[email-masked]>

The granting of the FWD petition has been an important step in the move
to
IP Communications.

Being classified as an information service is in keeping with our goal
of
being treated equally to e-mail, Instant Messaging and other IP
communications applications.

But our goal now is to clarify the issues associated with public good.

First of all, the USF needs to be thought of a buggy whip offer. 

We need to think in terms of broadband.

Second. 911 needs to be revamped for wireline, wireless and VoIP.  It
can be
done piecemeal or in one stage, but we need to focus attention to it. 
We
also need to think about location and presence for the benefit of these
services.

Third.  Applications support of CALEA needs to be clarified.  We need to
show what the applications can provide and what the facility it rides
can
provide. This is not understood well, by regulators and we need to show
them the capabilities.

Finally, we need to talk about competition in a world where the Internet
is
the model. Wall gardens and multiple access methods for personal
communication need demarcations.  This is going to be the tender point.
This can also be described as the role of a service provider in the
future.
Tariffs describe services.  The Internet has no tariffs.  This issue is
so
thorny most of the Internet clan will run from it, while many carriers
will
welcome it as a way to "protect" the[ir] network.  Common Ground on this
issue will be the hardest to achieve.

The Telecom Act of 1996 is definitely going to be revisited, if not
rewritten.  Law firms and lobbyists are going to have a field day, and
if
you look at the Internet a notable concern is there is no longer a large
champion service provider that is pure.

Whether it is a blessing or a curse, we do live in interesting times...

------------------------------------------------------------------------
pulver.com 2004 Conference Calendar
<http://pulver.com/conference>

  "Events for the Communications Industry" (tm)

  March 28
  - April 1     - Spring 2004 VON Conference & Expo,
                  Santa Clara Convention Center, Santa Clara, CA
                   <http://pulver.com/von>

  March 29-31   - FastNet Futures 2004
                  Santa Clara Convention Center, Santa Clara, CA
                   <http://pulver.com/fastnet>

  April 27-30   - C|summit 2004: The Camera Phone Summit
                  Maui, Hawaii
                  <http://c-summit.com/>

  May 18-20     - VON Canada 2004, Toronto, Canada
                   <http://pulver.com/canada2004>

  June 22-23    - SIP Summit 2004, Chicago, IL
                   (co-located at SUPERCOMM 2004)
                   <http://pulver.com/sipsummit>

  June 24-25    - Supernova 2004, San Francisco, CA
                   <http://pulver.com/supernova>

  June 7-10     - VON Europe 2004,
                  Olympia Conference Centre, London, UK
                   <http://pulver.com/europe2004>

  July 20-22    - 2004 VON Developers Conference
                  Vancouver, Canada

  October
  11-14         - Fall 2004 VON Conference & Expo, Hynes Convention
Center,
                  Boston, MA

-- 
    "NEXTEL-1 IT'S NOT JUST NEXTEL"
  Note The New address 
Subscribe to Nextel-1: http://www.groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/NEXTEL-1

  "NEXTEL2 FOR iDEN SOFTWARE DEVELOPERS"
Subscribe to Nextel2: http://www.groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/NEXTEL2

  "WIRELESS FORUM HOMELAND SECURITY GROUP"
     The Complete Resource for Wireless Homeland Security.
Subscribe to WFHSG:  http://www.groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/WFHSG

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEXTEL-1/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
     [email-masked]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
     http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/