Voice-Over-Internet-Protocol telephone service holds tremendous promise to bring greater competition, lower prices, and exciting new applications to the telecommunications marketplace. We do not yet know who the winners and losers will be in that marketplace, but we do know that America's consumers stand to benefit tremendously from this new technology.

For this reason, it is incumbent upon Congress, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and the states to move cautiously in regulating. We do not want to overregulate at the risk of stifling or unduly slowing down the emergence of VOIP offerings. We also do not wish to pick winners and losers. Those choices are better left to consumers.

The FCC is presently embarked on several proceedings to determine how VOIP, which over the next several years is likely to become the dominant method of voice communications, will be regulated. I have reviewed some of the Chairman's pronouncements in this field. Some I agree with, including the notion that it is not necessary to subject VOIP to all the common carrier regulations which presently exist in the Communications Act. Other pronouncements, however, particularly the notion that VOIP may be deemed an unregulated "information service," I find quite troubling.

I would like to take this opportunity to remind the FCC that it is a creature of the Congress, and the Congress has never intended that voice services be deregulated at the whim of the FCC. There is nothing in either the 1996 Act nor its legislative history which suggests that Congress ever intended the dominant voice service to be classified as an information service and, thus, essentially deregulated under Title I. Rather, it is to be regulated as a telecommunications service under Title II, subject to Section 10 forbearance where less regulation is appropriate.

Of course I agree with those who argue that it would be foolish to impose Title II regulation, in its entirety, upon VOIP service offerings. Congress anticipated that advances in technology might render existing regulations either unnecessary or even harmful. The law provides the FCC with Section 10 forbearance authority so that it can refrain from wholesale regulation in such instances.

While VOIP providers need not be subject to legacy economic regulations such as tariff requirements, other core regulations remain critical - including those which pertain to universal service, access, emergency services, law enforcement, and individuals with disabilities. It is also critical that neither the Congress nor the FCC take any action which would disrupt the ability of states to perform the core consumer protection functions which protect consumers from the rascal acts of certain less scrupulous companies.

I will be watching the FCC closely as it moves forward. I hope it remains within the bounds of the statute and Congressional intent. I would note that the FCC recently lost an important appellate decision, largely because it ignored statutory directive and Congressional intent. Likewise, with respect to VOIP, an end run around the Communications Act in order to achieve quicker deregulation is NOT what Congress intended. It is less likely to be upheld in court and is a disservice to consumers as it will only slow VOIP roll-out by prolonging the uncertainty which presently exists in the marketplace.

Finally, we in Congress must recognize that with the rapid emergence of VOIP, it is our responsibility to ensure that the law keeps pace and provides appropriate boundaries and guidance.