Thread Subject: Background on what is covered by Sec. 255 Rules

Return to this mailing list's archives

From: Judy Brewer
Date: Mon, Dec 10 2007 10:00 PM
Subject: Background on what is covered by Sec. 255 Rules

Dear All,

During our teleconference last Thursday, there
was a request that we send around a list of what
is currently covered by Sec. 255, so that we
would all have access to that background. Thanks
to Ellen for preparing the following information.

PLEASE READ this background, and if you have any
questions, comments, or suggestions, please
discuss on the mailing list. The more discussion
we can get through on the mailing list, the more
quickly we should be able to move through our task force teleconferences.

Thank you,

- Judy


Background on things covered by Section 255 Rules


I. Entities Covered by Section 255

1. Any provider of telecommunications Services (47 CFR 6.1)

- Definition of Telecommunications Service
is from the 1996 Telecom Act ­ essentially it is
?offering telecommunications for a fee to the public?

2. Any manufacturer of telecommunications
equipment or customer premises equipment ( 47 CFR 6.1)

- Definition of Telecommunications
equipment­ telecommunications equip is equipment
used by a carrier to provide telecommunication service
- CPE ­ equipment employed on the premises
of a person other than a carrier to originate,
route or terminate telecommunications.

3. Any telecommunications carrier (47 CFR 6.1)

4. Any provider of interconnected VOIP service (47 CFR 6.1)

5. Any manufacturer of equipment or CPE
specifically designed to provide VOIP (47 CFR 6.1)

6. Any provider of voicemail or interactive menu service (part 7.1)

7. Any manufacturer of telecommunications
equipment or CPE which performs a voicemail or
interactive menu function (part 7.1)


II. Covered Functions

1. Part 6.11 and 7.11 Information, documentation and training

- ?Manufacturers and service providers shall
ensure access to information and documentation it
provides to its customers, if readily
achievable. Such information and documentation
included user guides, bills, installation guides
for end-user installable devices, and product
support communications, regarding both the
product in general and the accessibility features???

2. ?An entity that provides both
telecommunications services and
non-telecommunications services, however, is
subject to section 255 only to the extent that it
provides a telecommunications
service? (September 1999 255 Order, paragraph 80.)

3. ?In connection with multipurpose
equipment, we adopt our tentative conclusion that
CPE is covered by section 255 only to the extent
that it provides a telecommunications
function.? (September 1999 255 Order, paragraph 87)

###

From: Aapdjenifer@aol.com
Date: Tue, Dec 11 2007 10:25 AM
Subject: Re: Background on what is covered by Sec. 255 Rules

In regard to the last item in the list below:

3. �In connection with multipurpose equipment, we adopt our tentative
conclusion that
CPE is covered by section 255 only to the extent that it provides a
telecommunications
function.� (September 1999 255 Order, paragraph 87)."

I think it is important to note that in this Order it says
"telecommunications" function and not "telecommunications service" function here.

Telecommunications in the Act is defined as "..the transmission between or
among points specified by the user, of information of the user's choosing,
without change in the form or content of the information as sent and received."
Sec. 3 (43)

So the issue would be what is a "telecommunications function".

Note that in the same Order the FCC defined "usability" as "access to the
full functionality
of ... the product or service." See Paras 12 and 23 and regs at 47 CFR
6.3(k) and 7.3(m).

Jenifer
AAPD

In a message dated 12/10/2007 11:58:06 PM Eastern Standard Time,
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = writes:

Dear All,

During our teleconference last Thursday, there
was a request that we send around a list of what
is currently covered by Sec. 255, so that we
would all have access to that background. Thanks
to Ellen for preparing the following information.

PLEASE READ this background, and if you have any
questions, comments, or suggestions, please
discuss on the mailing list. The more discussion
we can get through on the mailing list, the more
quickly we should be able to move through our task force teleconferences.

Thank you,

- Judy


Background on things covered by Section 255 Rules


I. Entities Covered by Section 255

1. Any provider of telecommunications Services (47 CFR 6.1)

- Definition of Telecommunications Service
is from the 1996 Telecom Act ­ essentially it is
�offering telecommunications for a fee to the public�

2. Any manufacturer of telecommunications
equipment or customer premises equipment ( 47 CFR 6.1)

- Definition of Telecommunications
equipment­ telecommunications equip is equipment
used by a carrier to provide telecommunication service
- CPE ­ equipment employed on the premises
of a person other than a carrier to originate,
route or terminate telecommunications.

3. Any telecommunications carrier (47 CFR 6.1)

4. Any provider of interconnected VOIP service (47 CFR 6.1)

5. Any manufacturer of equipment or CPE
specifically designed to provide VOIP (47 CFR 6.1)

6. Any provider of voicemail or interactive menu service (part 7.1)

7. Any manufacturer of telecommunications
equipment or CPE which performs a voicemail or
interactive menu function (part 7.1)


II. Covered Functions

1. Part 6.11 and 7.11 Information, documentation and training

- �Manufacturers and service providers shall
ensure access to information and documentation it
provides to its customers, if readily
achievable. Such information and documentation
included user guides, bills, installation guides
for end-user installable devices, and product
support communications, regarding both the
product in general and the accessibility features���

2. �An entity that provides both
telecommunications services and
non-telecommunications services, however, is
subject to section 255 only to the extent that it
provides a telecommunications
service� (September 1999 255 Order, paragraph 80.)

3. �In connection with multipurpose
equipment, we adopt our tentative conclusion that
CPE is covered by section 255 only to the extent
that it provides a telecommunications
function.� (September 1999 255 Order, paragraph 87)

###

From: Peter Korn
Date: Wed, Dec 12 2007 9:05 PM
Subject: Re: Background on what is covered by Sec. 255 Rules

Hi Judy,

Thank you for sending this out. It raises some questions for me.
> ...
>
>
> Background on things covered by Section 255 Rules
>
>
> I. Entities Covered by Section 255
>
> 1. Any provider of telecommunications Services (47 CFR 6.1)
>
> - Definition of Telecommunications Service
> is from the 1996 Telecom Act ­ essentially it is
> �offering telecommunications for a fee to the public�
>

This suggests that a computer-to-computer free service like Skype
wouldn't be considered a "Telecommunications Service" by the 1996
Telecom Act, although the Skype-Out service (which they charge for)
would be considered a "Telecommunications Service".

> 2. Any manufacturer of telecommunications
> equipment or customer premises equipment ( 47 CFR 6.1)
>
> - Definition of Telecommunications
> equipment­ telecommunications equip is equipment
> used by a carrier to provide telecommunication service
> - CPE ­ equipment employed on the premises
> of a person other than a carrier to originate,
> route or terminate telecommunications.
>

I don't see a definition of "carrier" (unless it is someone who provides
a "Telecommunications Service", so it isn't clear to me whether I should
consider software like Skype "telecommunications equipment"/"CPE" or
not. Also, said software can be used (as I noted) for free calls as well
as for paid calls (SkypeOut), with the only change being whether the use
has become a customer or not, and of course server configuration.

Thoughts on this anyone?

> 3. Any telecommunications carrier (47 CFR 6.1)
>
> 4. Any provider of interconnected VOIP service (47 CFR 6.1)
>
> 5. Any manufacturer of equipment or CPE
> specifically designed to provide VOIP (47 CFR 6.1)
>

Again, does it matter here whether said VOIP is interconnected or not?
If I design VOIP software that does not interconnect with POTS, then am
I still a "manufacturer" under this?

> 6. Any provider of voicemail or interactive menu service (part 7.1)
>
> 7. Any manufacturer of telecommunications
> equipment or CPE which performs a voicemail or
> interactive menu function (part 7.1)
>

Again for #6 and #7, does it matter if this is interconnected to POTS or
not?

>
> II. Covered Functions
>
> 1. Part 6.11 and 7.11 Information, documentation and training
>
> - �Manufacturers and service providers shall
> ensure access to information and documentation it
> provides to its customers, if readily
> achievable. Such information and documentation
> included user guides, bills, installation guides
> for end-user installable devices, and product
> support communications, regarding both the
> product in general and the accessibility features���
>
> 2. �An entity that provides both
> telecommunications services and
> non-telecommunications services, however, is
> subject to section 255 only to the extent that it
> provides a telecommunications
> service� (September 1999 255 Order, paragraph 80.)
>
> 3. �In connection with multipurpose
> equipment, we adopt our tentative conclusion that
> CPE is covered by section 255 only to the extent
> that it provides a telecommunications
> function.� (September 1999 255 Order, paragraph 87)
>

OK, this seems to help in the Skype canonical case (assuming that
"telecommunications function" mirrors "telecommunications service" and
only kicks in when a fee to the public is involved) - suggesting that
255 only applies only at that point to CPE.

I'm using Skype as the well-known example, but there are plenty of other
software voice products/offerings (e.g. GoogleTalk, Windows Messenger,
Apple's video conferencing, Ekiga) - all of which are computer to
computer and generally free.


Regards,


Peter Korn
Accessibility Architect,
Sun Microsystems, Inc.

From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Wed, Dec 12 2007 11:05 PM
Subject: Re: Background on what is covered by Sec. 255 Rules

Hi Peter

Here is my crack at it. Karen may have a more authoritative knowledge on
this but here is my understanding.


Gregg
-- ------------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Peter Korn

>
> This suggests that a computer-to-computer free service like
> Skype wouldn't be considered a "Telecommunications Service"
> by the 1996 Telecom Act, although the Skype-Out service
> (which they charge for) would be considered a
> "Telecommunications Service".
>

Actually, the FCC declared anything over Internet as info service and not
telecom (even though the Internet - the whole Internet - would otherwise
meet the definition of telecom).

So Skype and all other internet based systems are not telecom

However, the FCC has now ruled that VoIP systems that are interconnected
with the PSTN are to follow telecom access rules.

So it is complicated. The VoIP systems aren't telecom but they are
covered by telecom regs.


PS don't use Skype as an example because for some reason I don't think they
are covered (yet) even thought they connect to PSTN through Skype out.




> > 2. Any manufacturer of telecommunications equipment or customer
> > premises equipment ( 47 CFR 6.1)
> >
> > - Definition of Telecommunications equipment-
> telecommunications
> > equip is equipment used by a carrier to provide telecommunication
> > service
> > - CPE - equipment employed on the premises of a person
> other than
> > a carrier to originate, route or terminate telecommunications.
> >
>
> I don't see a definition of "carrier" (unless it is someone
> who provides a "Telecommunications Service", so it isn't
> clear to me whether I should consider software like Skype
> "telecommunications equipment"/"CPE" or not. Also, said
> software can be used (as I noted) for free calls as well as
> for paid calls (SkypeOut), with the only change being whether
> the use has become a customer or not, and of course server
> configuration.
>
> Thoughts on this anyone?


See above. Use a different provider than Skype. It is confusing right
now.


>
> > 3. Any telecommunications carrier (47 CFR 6.1)
> >
> > 4. Any provider of interconnected VOIP service (47 CFR 6.1)
> >
> > 5. Any manufacturer of equipment or CPE specifically
> designed to
> > provide VOIP (47 CFR 6.1)
> >
>
> Again, does it matter here whether said VOIP is
> interconnected or not?
> If I design VOIP software that does not interconnect with
> POTS, then am I still a "manufacturer" under this?


You would not be "interconnected VoIP". But you couldn't make any phone
calls to PSTN phones either.

Also - when PSTN goes away they will have to redefine all this again.



>
> > 6. Any provider of voicemail or interactive menu service (part
> > 7.1)
> >
> > 7. Any manufacturer of telecommunications equipment or
> CPE which
> > performs a voicemail or interactive menu function (part 7.1)
> >
>
> Again for #6 and #7, does it matter if this is interconnected
> to POTS or not?


No - these are definitions of telecom. So VoIP that is interconnected is
not telecom but is covered.

And if it isn't interconnected it would not be covered by the current FCC
ruling. But may be under future rulings as things change.

And of course these are all covered under 508 and maybe even under ADA for
some situations.


>
> >
> > II. Covered Functions
> >
> > 1. Part 6.11 and 7.11 Information, documentation and training
> >
> > - "Manufacturers and service providers shall ensure access to
> > information and documentation it provides to its customers,
> if readily
> > achievable. Such information and documentation included
> user guides,
> > bills, installation guides for end-user installable devices, and
> > product support communications, regarding both the product
> in general
> > and the accessibility features.."
> >
> > 2. "An entity that provides both
> > telecommunications services and
> > non-telecommunications services, however, is subject to section 255
> > only to the extent that it provides a telecommunications service"
> > (September 1999 255 Order, paragraph 80.)
> >
> > 3. "In connection with multipurpose equipment, we adopt our
> > tentative conclusion that CPE is covered by section 255 only to the
> > extent that it provides a telecommunications function." (September
> > 1999 255 Order, paragraph 87)
> >
>
> OK, this seems to help in the Skype canonical case (assuming
> that "telecommunications function" mirrors
> "telecommunications service" and only kicks in when a fee to
> the public is involved) - suggesting that
> 255 only applies only at that point to CPE.
>
> I'm using Skype as the well-known example, but there are
> plenty of other software voice products/offerings (e.g.
> GoogleTalk, Windows Messenger, Apple's video conferencing,
> Ekiga) - all of which are computer to computer and generally free.
>
>


I don't think it is the FREE part that triggers it. It is the
'interconnected to PSTN' part.






> Regards,
>
>
> Peter Korn
> Accessibility Architect,
> Sun Microsystems, Inc.
>

From: Peter Korn
Date: Wed, Dec 12 2007 11:25 PM
Subject: Re: Background on what is covered by Sec. 255 Rules

Hi Gregg,

> Here is my crack at it. Karen may have a more authoritative knowledge on
> this but here is my understanding.
>
>
> ...
>
>>> II. Covered Functions
>>>
>>> 1. Part 6.11 and 7.11 Information, documentation and training
>>>
>>> - "Manufacturers and service providers shall ensure access to
>>> information and documentation it provides to its customers,
>>>
>> if readily
>>
>>> achievable. Such information and documentation included
>>>
>> user guides,
>>
>>> bills, installation guides for end-user installable devices, and
>>> product support communications, regarding both the product
>>>
>> in general
>>
>>> and the accessibility features.."
>>>
>>> 2. "An entity that provides both
>>> telecommunications services and
>>> non-telecommunications services, however, is subject to section 255
>>> only to the extent that it provides a telecommunications service"
>>> (September 1999 255 Order, paragraph 80.)
>>>
>>> 3. "In connection with multipurpose equipment, we adopt our
>>> tentative conclusion that CPE is covered by section 255 only to the
>>> extent that it provides a telecommunications function." (September
>>> 1999 255 Order, paragraph 87)
>>>
>>>
>> OK, this seems to help in the Skype canonical case (assuming
>> that "telecommunications function" mirrors
>> "telecommunications service" and only kicks in when a fee to
>> the public is involved) - suggesting that
>> 255 only applies only at that point to CPE.
>>
>> I'm using Skype as the well-known example, but there are
>> plenty of other software voice products/offerings (e.g.
>> GoogleTalk, Windows Messenger, Apple's video conferencing,
>> Ekiga) - all of which are computer to computer and generally free.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> I don't think it is the FREE part that triggers it. It is the
> 'interconnected to PSTN' part.

I appreciate that this must be viewed in terms of 'interconnected to
PSTN', and I also appreciate your point that interconnected VoIP is not
covered by the original law but rather by more recent FCC ruling.

The "free" bit comes from the first bit of text from Judy, which you
didn't include in your quote of my missive:

> I. Entities Covered by Section 255
>
> 1. Any provider of telecommunications Services (47 CFR 6.1)
>
> - Definition of Telecommunications Service
> is from the 1996 Telecom Act ­ essentially it is
> �offering telecommunications for a fee to the public�

Thus if I am offering telecommunications NOT for a fee (i.e. free) to
the public, then what I am offering is not a "telecommunications
service". That would suggest that the FCC only regulates things relating
to commerce, which makes sense from a jurisdictional viewpoint of what
the Federal government can and cannot do from the point of view of the
commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Of course, that path can get us into an argument over
advertising-supported "free" services vs. those that can be obtained
with zero strings, fees, costs, etc. (e.g. a Linux CD containing the
Ekiga point-to-point video-chat software, working over a free [to the
user] Internet connection). And again, I recognize that something like
Ekiga is VoIP and thus not covered by this language anyway. But it is
the easiest example I can come up with of something that is as "free" as
one can get.

Maybe if I could come up with some theoretical new wire-based technology
that modulated audio over power lines - including going through
transformers, etc., such that they would carry over state lines - and
then offered it for free, I could come closer to non-VOIP
telecommunications that, if offered for free, would thereby walk the
particular path I had been thinking things like Ekiga might be walking.


Regards,

Peter Korn
Accessibility Architect,
Sun Microsystems, Inc.

From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Wed, Dec 12 2007 11:35 PM
Subject: Re: Background on what is covered by Sec. 255 Rules

I see what you are looking at.


(and yes - the advertising angle is a difficult one -- as is the 'we'll give
it to you free in exchange for tracking all your traffic and selling that
information (anonymized or not) to others" and also bundling free with pay.
"Pay" is a funny word these days.

But I think those are definitions of Telecom and telecom services. So
those definitions aren't the ones to look at for IP.

Does the "Interconnected VoIP" definition use the word 'for a fee' or does
it just say VoIP connected to PSTN? Don't remember. Karen?




Gregg
-- ------------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Peter Korn
> Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 12:20 AM
> To: TEITAC Task Force
> Subject: Re: [teitac-tf] Background on what is covered by
> Sec. 255 Rules
>
> Hi Gregg,
>
> > Here is my crack at it. Karen may have a more
> authoritative knowledge on
> > this but here is my understanding.
> >
> >
> > ...
> >
> >>> II. Covered Functions
> >>>
> >>> 1. Part 6.11 and 7.11 Information, documentation and training
> >>>
> >>> - "Manufacturers and service providers shall ensure access to
> >>> information and documentation it provides to its customers,
> >>>
> >> if readily
> >>
> >>> achievable. Such information and documentation included
> >>>
> >> user guides,
> >>
> >>> bills, installation guides for end-user installable devices, and
> >>> product support communications, regarding both the product
> >>>
> >> in general
> >>
> >>> and the accessibility features.."
> >>>
> >>> 2. "An entity that provides both telecommunications
> services and
> >>> non-telecommunications services, however, is subject to
> section 255
> >>> only to the extent that it provides a telecommunications service"
> >>> (September 1999 255 Order, paragraph 80.)
> >>>
> >>> 3. "In connection with multipurpose equipment, we adopt our
> >>> tentative conclusion that CPE is covered by section 255
> only to the
> >>> extent that it provides a telecommunications function."
> (September
> >>> 1999 255 Order, paragraph 87)
> >>>
> >>>
> >> OK, this seems to help in the Skype canonical case (assuming that
> >> "telecommunications function" mirrors "telecommunications service"
> >> and only kicks in when a fee to the public is involved) -
> suggesting
> >> that
> >> 255 only applies only at that point to CPE.
> >>
> >> I'm using Skype as the well-known example, but there are plenty of
> >> other software voice products/offerings (e.g.
> >> GoogleTalk, Windows Messenger, Apple's video conferencing,
> >> Ekiga) - all of which are computer to computer and generally free.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > I don't think it is the FREE part that triggers it. It is the
> > 'interconnected to PSTN' part.
>
> I appreciate that this must be viewed in terms of
> 'interconnected to PSTN', and I also appreciate your point
> that interconnected VoIP is not covered by the original law
> but rather by more recent FCC ruling.
>
> The "free" bit comes from the first bit of text from Judy,
> which you didn't include in your quote of my missive:
>
> > I. Entities Covered by Section 255
> >
> > 1. Any provider of telecommunications Services (47 CFR 6.1)
> >
> > - Definition of Telecommunications Service is from the 1996
> > Telecom Act - essentially it is "offering
> telecommunications for a fee
> > to the public"
>
> Thus if I am offering telecommunications NOT for a fee (i.e.
> free) to the public, then what I am offering is not a
> "telecommunications service". That would suggest that the FCC
> only regulates things relating to commerce, which makes sense
> from a jurisdictional viewpoint of what the Federal
> government can and cannot do from the point of view of the
> commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution.
>
> Of course, that path can get us into an argument over
> advertising-supported "free" services vs. those that can be
> obtained with zero strings, fees, costs, etc. (e.g. a Linux
> CD containing the Ekiga point-to-point video-chat software,
> working over a free [to the user] Internet connection). And
> again, I recognize that something like Ekiga is VoIP and thus
> not covered by this language anyway. But it is the easiest
> example I can come up with of something that is as "free" as
> one can get.
>
> Maybe if I could come up with some theoretical new wire-based
> technology that modulated audio over power lines - including
> going through transformers, etc., such that they would carry
> over state lines - and then offered it for free, I could come
> closer to non-VOIP telecommunications that, if offered for
> free, would thereby walk the particular path I had been
> thinking things like Ekiga might be walking.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Peter Korn
> Accessibility Architect,
> Sun Microsystems, Inc.
>

From: Karen Peltz Strauss
Date: Thu, Dec 13 2007 7:15 AM
Subject: Re: Background on what is covered by Sec. 255 Rules

In response to Gregg and Peter's exchange of e-mails, here is some more
information:

Under the FCC's new order, Section 255's requirements are extended to
"providers of interconnected voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) services as
defined by the Commission and to manufacturers of specially designed
equipment used to provide those services." The definition of
interconnected VoIP services is found at 47 CFR Sec 9.3:

An interconnected Voice over Internet protocol (VoIP) service is a service
that:
(1) Enables real-time, two-way voice communications;
(2) Requires a broadband connection from the user's location;
(3) Requires Internet protocol-compatible customer premises
equipment (CPE); and
(4) Permits users generally to receive calls that originate on the
public switched telephone network and to terminate calls to the public
switched telephone network.

You can see that Gregg is correct that these services must be
interconnected. However this definition is not tied to whether or not there
is a fee for the service. Nor does the extension of 255's requirements to
providers of voicemail and interactive menu services, as well as the
manufacturers of equipment that perform those functions, appear to be
contingent on a fee. As you note, this is different than the definition of
"telecommunications service" which is "the offering of telecommunications
for a fee directly to the public, or to such classes of users as to be
effectively available directly to the public, regardless of the facilities
used."

Gregg is also correct that notwithstanding Skype-in and Skype-out's
connection to the PSTN, Skype does not appear to be covered by the 255 VoIP
Order. Like Gregg, I am not sure why this is the case, but this is
consistent with my conversations with people at the FCC and on the Hill. I
believe it has to do with the public's expectations. When people use VoIP
phones, they are truly substituting those phones for PSTN-based service.
Skype and Skype-like services have not yet achieved that level - i.e., it
has been explained to me that when people use these Internet services, they
do not have the same level of expectations that current federal laws
covering social obligations for the PSTN, whether these require emergency
access, universal service and I suppose, disability access, as they do for
VoIP phones. However, Gregg is right as well that as the popularity of
these Internet-based communication systems increase, those expectations will
rise, and eventually, they will likely be covered by accessibility
obligations. So . . . understanding that they are not covered for the
purposes of our current conversation, companies that are developing these
services should have the foresight to begin building in accessibility now,
rather than incur greater costs by having to retrofit later.

Karen


----- Original Message -----
From: "Gregg Vanderheiden" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: "'TEITAC Task Force'" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 1:34 AM
Subject: Re: [teitac-tf] Background on what is covered by Sec. 255 Rules


>I see what you are looking at.
>
>
> (and yes - the advertising angle is a difficult one -- as is the 'we'll
> give
> it to you free in exchange for tracking all your traffic and selling that
> information (anonymized or not) to others" and also bundling free with
> pay.
> "Pay" is a funny word these days.
>
> But I think those are definitions of Telecom and telecom services. So
> those definitions aren't the ones to look at for IP.
>
> Does the "Interconnected VoIP" definition use the word 'for a fee' or does
> it just say VoIP connected to PSTN? Don't remember. Karen?
>
>
>
>
> Gregg
> -- ------------------------------
> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Peter Korn
>> Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 12:20 AM
>> To: TEITAC Task Force
>> Subject: Re: [teitac-tf] Background on what is covered by
>> Sec. 255 Rules
>>
>> Hi Gregg,
>>
>> > Here is my crack at it. Karen may have a more
>> authoritative knowledge on
>> > this but here is my understanding.
>> >
>> >
>> > ...
>> >
>> >>> II. Covered Functions
>> >>>
>> >>> 1. Part 6.11 and 7.11 Information, documentation and training
>> >>>
>> >>> - "Manufacturers and service providers shall ensure access to
>> >>> information and documentation it provides to its customers,
>> >>>
>> >> if readily
>> >>
>> >>> achievable. Such information and documentation included
>> >>>
>> >> user guides,
>> >>
>> >>> bills, installation guides for end-user installable devices, and
>> >>> product support communications, regarding both the product
>> >>>
>> >> in general
>> >>
>> >>> and the accessibility features.."
>> >>>
>> >>> 2. "An entity that provides both telecommunications
>> services and
>> >>> non-telecommunications services, however, is subject to
>> section 255
>> >>> only to the extent that it provides a telecommunications service"
>> >>> (September 1999 255 Order, paragraph 80.)
>> >>>
>> >>> 3. "In connection with multipurpose equipment, we adopt our
>> >>> tentative conclusion that CPE is covered by section 255
>> only to the
>> >>> extent that it provides a telecommunications function."
>> (September
>> >>> 1999 255 Order, paragraph 87)
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >> OK, this seems to help in the Skype canonical case (assuming that
>> >> "telecommunications function" mirrors "telecommunications service"
>> >> and only kicks in when a fee to the public is involved) -
>> suggesting
>> >> that
>> >> 255 only applies only at that point to CPE.
>> >>
>> >> I'm using Skype as the well-known example, but there are plenty of
>> >> other software voice products/offerings (e.g.
>> >> GoogleTalk, Windows Messenger, Apple's video conferencing,
>> >> Ekiga) - all of which are computer to computer and generally free.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > I don't think it is the FREE part that triggers it. It is the
>> > 'interconnected to PSTN' part.
>>
>> I appreciate that this must be viewed in terms of
>> 'interconnected to PSTN', and I also appreciate your point
>> that interconnected VoIP is not covered by the original law
>> but rather by more recent FCC ruling.
>>
>> The "free" bit comes from the first bit of text from Judy,
>> which you didn't include in your quote of my missive:
>>
>> > I. Entities Covered by Section 255
>> >
>> > 1. Any provider of telecommunications Services (47 CFR 6.1)
>> >
>> > - Definition of Telecommunications Service is from the 1996
>> > Telecom Act - essentially it is "offering
>> telecommunications for a fee
>> > to the public"
>>
>> Thus if I am offering telecommunications NOT for a fee (i.e.
>> free) to the public, then what I am offering is not a
>> "telecommunications service". That would suggest that the FCC
>> only regulates things relating to commerce, which makes sense
>> from a jurisdictional viewpoint of what the Federal
>> government can and cannot do from the point of view of the
>> commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution.
>>
>> Of course, that path can get us into an argument over
>> advertising-supported "free" services vs. those that can be
>> obtained with zero strings, fees, costs, etc. (e.g. a Linux
>> CD containing the Ekiga point-to-point video-chat software,
>> working over a free [to the user] Internet connection). And
>> again, I recognize that something like Ekiga is VoIP and thus
>> not covered by this language anyway. But it is the easiest
>> example I can come up with of something that is as "free" as
>> one can get.
>>
>> Maybe if I could come up with some theoretical new wire-based
>> technology that modulated audio over power lines - including
>> going through transformers, etc., such that they would carry
>> over state lines - and then offered it for free, I could come
>> closer to non-VOIP telecommunications that, if offered for
>> free, would thereby walk the particular path I had been
>> thinking things like Ekiga might be walking.
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Peter Korn
>> Accessibility Architect,
>> Sun Microsystems, Inc.
>>

From: BLACKLER, ELLEN (ATTSI)
Date: Thu, Dec 13 2007 10:10 AM
Subject: Re: Background on what is covered by Sec. 255 Rules

I would like to amplify some key points in Karen's explanation, and
clarify an issue raised in the chain.

1. The FCC has not actually ruled on whether any VOIP , interconnected
or not, is a "telecommunications service" or an "information service".

2. For 255 there are 4 broad categories of services covered -
1)telecommunications services, 2) voice mail 3) interactive menus 4)
interconnected VOIP. (For SKYPE, because the definition refers to
originate AND terminate calls, neither SKYPE, SKYPE In or SKYPE OUT meet
the definition. )

3. The way I think of our task is to answer the question which of the
technical standards that we have been discussing should be included in
the 255 related guidelines. So then the question becomes are there
services we know fall in those buckets for which the technical standard
in question would have meaning? I have no problem with discussion of
some examples so everyone is comfortable with the broad outlines of the
analysis, but I caution against protracted discussions about what might
fall in and outside of the bucket. They are ultimately legal
determinations the FCC will be faced with, and in the meantime companies
have to make their own calls and proceed accordingly. If we know there
is stuff in the bucket that the standard would apply to, I would say
that is enough for us to make our decision on for the guidelines.


-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Karen Peltz
Strauss
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 9:10 AM
To: TEITAC Task Force
Subject: Re: [teitac-tf] Background on what is covered by Sec. 255 Rules

In response to Gregg and Peter's exchange of e-mails, here is some more
information:

Under the FCC's new order, Section 255's requirements are extended to
"providers of interconnected voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP)
services as
defined by the Commission and to manufacturers of specially designed
equipment used to provide those services." The definition of
interconnected VoIP services is found at 47 CFR Sec 9.3:

An interconnected Voice over Internet protocol (VoIP) service is a
service
that:
(1) Enables real-time, two-way voice communications;
(2) Requires a broadband connection from the user's location;
(3) Requires Internet protocol-compatible customer premises
equipment (CPE); and
(4) Permits users generally to receive calls that originate on the
public switched telephone network and to terminate calls to the public
switched telephone network.

You can see that Gregg is correct that these services must be
interconnected. However this definition is not tied to whether or not
there
is a fee for the service. Nor does the extension of 255's requirements
to
providers of voicemail and interactive menu services, as well as the
manufacturers of equipment that perform those functions, appear to be
contingent on a fee. As you note, this is different than the definition
of
"telecommunications service" which is "the offering of
telecommunications
for a fee directly to the public, or to such classes of users as to be
effectively available directly to the public, regardless of the
facilities
used."

Gregg is also correct that notwithstanding Skype-in and Skype-out's
connection to the PSTN, Skype does not appear to be covered by the 255
VoIP
Order. Like Gregg, I am not sure why this is the case, but this is
consistent with my conversations with people at the FCC and on the Hill.
I
believe it has to do with the public's expectations. When people use
VoIP
phones, they are truly substituting those phones for PSTN-based service.

Skype and Skype-like services have not yet achieved that level - i.e.,
it
has been explained to me that when people use these Internet services,
they
do not have the same level of expectations that current federal laws
covering social obligations for the PSTN, whether these require
emergency
access, universal service and I suppose, disability access, as they do
for
VoIP phones. However, Gregg is right as well that as the popularity of

these Internet-based communication systems increase, those expectations
will
rise, and eventually, they will likely be covered by accessibility
obligations. So . . . understanding that they are not covered for the
purposes of our current conversation, companies that are developing
these
services should have the foresight to begin building in accessibility
now,
rather than incur greater costs by having to retrofit later.

Karen


----- Original Message -----
From: "Gregg Vanderheiden" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: "'TEITAC Task Force'" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 1:34 AM
Subject: Re: [teitac-tf] Background on what is covered by Sec. 255 Rules


>I see what you are looking at.
>
>
> (and yes - the advertising angle is a difficult one -- as is the
'we'll
> give
> it to you free in exchange for tracking all your traffic and selling
that
> information (anonymized or not) to others" and also bundling free
with
> pay.
> "Pay" is a funny word these days.
>
> But I think those are definitions of Telecom and telecom services.
So
> those definitions aren't the ones to look at for IP.
>
> Does the "Interconnected VoIP" definition use the word 'for a fee' or
does
> it just say VoIP connected to PSTN? Don't remember. Karen?
>
>
>
>
> Gregg
> -- ------------------------------
> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Peter Korn
>> Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 12:20 AM
>> To: TEITAC Task Force
>> Subject: Re: [teitac-tf] Background on what is covered by
>> Sec. 255 Rules
>>
>> Hi Gregg,
>>
>> > Here is my crack at it. Karen may have a more
>> authoritative knowledge on
>> > this but here is my understanding.
>> >
>> >
>> > ...
>> >
>> >>> II. Covered Functions
>> >>>
>> >>> 1. Part 6.11 and 7.11 Information, documentation and
training
>> >>>
>> >>> - "Manufacturers and service providers shall ensure access to
>> >>> information and documentation it provides to its customers,
>> >>>
>> >> if readily
>> >>
>> >>> achievable. Such information and documentation included
>> >>>
>> >> user guides,
>> >>
>> >>> bills, installation guides for end-user installable devices, and
>> >>> product support communications, regarding both the product
>> >>>
>> >> in general
>> >>
>> >>> and the accessibility features.."
>> >>>
>> >>> 2. "An entity that provides both telecommunications
>> services and
>> >>> non-telecommunications services, however, is subject to
>> section 255
>> >>> only to the extent that it provides a telecommunications service"
>> >>> (September 1999 255 Order, paragraph 80.)
>> >>>
>> >>> 3. "In connection with multipurpose equipment, we adopt our
>> >>> tentative conclusion that CPE is covered by section 255
>> only to the
>> >>> extent that it provides a telecommunications function."
>> (September
>> >>> 1999 255 Order, paragraph 87)
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >> OK, this seems to help in the Skype canonical case (assuming that
>> >> "telecommunications function" mirrors "telecommunications service"
>> >> and only kicks in when a fee to the public is involved) -
>> suggesting
>> >> that
>> >> 255 only applies only at that point to CPE.
>> >>
>> >> I'm using Skype as the well-known example, but there are plenty of
>> >> other software voice products/offerings (e.g.
>> >> GoogleTalk, Windows Messenger, Apple's video conferencing,
>> >> Ekiga) - all of which are computer to computer and generally free.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > I don't think it is the FREE part that triggers it. It is the
>> > 'interconnected to PSTN' part.
>>
>> I appreciate that this must be viewed in terms of
>> 'interconnected to PSTN', and I also appreciate your point
>> that interconnected VoIP is not covered by the original law
>> but rather by more recent FCC ruling.
>>
>> The "free" bit comes from the first bit of text from Judy,
>> which you didn't include in your quote of my missive:
>>
>> > I. Entities Covered by Section 255
>> >
>> > 1. Any provider of telecommunications Services (47 CFR 6.1)
>> >
>> > - Definition of Telecommunications Service is from the 1996
>> > Telecom Act - essentially it is "offering
>> telecommunications for a fee
>> > to the public"
>>
>> Thus if I am offering telecommunications NOT for a fee (i.e.
>> free) to the public, then what I am offering is not a
>> "telecommunications service". That would suggest that the FCC
>> only regulates things relating to commerce, which makes sense
>> from a jurisdictional viewpoint of what the Federal
>> government can and cannot do from the point of view of the
>> commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution.
>>
>> Of course, that path can get us into an argument over
>> advertising-supported "free" services vs. those that can be
>> obtained with zero strings, fees, costs, etc. (e.g. a Linux
>> CD containing the Ekiga point-to-point video-chat software,
>> working over a free [to the user] Internet connection). And
>> again, I recognize that something like Ekiga is VoIP and thus
>> not covered by this language anyway. But it is the easiest
>> example I can come up with of something that is as "free" as
>> one can get.
>>
>> Maybe if I could come up with some theoretical new wire-based
>> technology that modulated audio over power lines - including
>> going through transformers, etc., such that they would carry
>> over state lines - and then offered it for free, I could come
>> closer to non-VOIP telecommunications that, if offered for
>> free, would thereby walk the particular path I had been
>> thinking things like Ekiga might be walking.
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Peter Korn
>> Accessibility Architect,
>> Sun Microsystems, Inc.
>>

From: Jim Tobias
Date: Thu, Dec 13 2007 10:25 AM
Subject: Re: Background on what is covered by Sec. 255 Rules

<snip>
> 2. For 255 there are 4 broad categories of services covered
> - 1)telecommunications services, 2) voice mail 3) interactive menus 4)
> interconnected VOIP. (For SKYPE, because the definition refers to
> originate AND terminate calls, neither SKYPE, SKYPE In or
> SKYPE OUT meet the definition. )

I don't understand this. My Skype account could have both SkypeIn and
SkypeOut. I could receive a call from any PSTN phone line, and place a call
to any PSTN phone line.

From: Karen Peltz Strauss
Date: Thu, Dec 13 2007 11:00 AM
Subject: Re: Background on what is covered by Sec. 255 Rules

I agree with Ellen. I would hate to see us get bogged down in legal
refinements over which we have no control.

Karen
----- Original Message -----
From: "BLACKLER, ELLEN (ATTSI)" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: "TEITAC Task Force" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 12:08 PM
Subject: Re: [teitac-tf] Background on what is covered by Sec. 255 Rules


>
> I would like to amplify some key points in Karen's explanation, and
> clarify an issue raised in the chain.
>
> 1. The FCC has not actually ruled on whether any VOIP , interconnected
> or not, is a "telecommunications service" or an "information service".
>
> 2. For 255 there are 4 broad categories of services covered -
> 1)telecommunications services, 2) voice mail 3) interactive menus 4)
> interconnected VOIP. (For SKYPE, because the definition refers to
> originate AND terminate calls, neither SKYPE, SKYPE In or SKYPE OUT meet
> the definition. )
>
> 3. The way I think of our task is to answer the question which of the
> technical standards that we have been discussing should be included in
> the 255 related guidelines. So then the question becomes are there
> services we know fall in those buckets for which the technical standard
> in question would have meaning? I have no problem with discussion of
> some examples so everyone is comfortable with the broad outlines of the
> analysis, but I caution against protracted discussions about what might
> fall in and outside of the bucket. They are ultimately legal
> determinations the FCC will be faced with, and in the meantime companies
> have to make their own calls and proceed accordingly. If we know there
> is stuff in the bucket that the standard would apply to, I would say
> that is enough for us to make our decision on for the guidelines.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Karen Peltz
> Strauss
> Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 9:10 AM
> To: TEITAC Task Force
> Subject: Re: [teitac-tf] Background on what is covered by Sec. 255 Rules
>
> In response to Gregg and Peter's exchange of e-mails, here is some more
> information:
>
> Under the FCC's new order, Section 255's requirements are extended to
> "providers of interconnected voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP)
> services as
> defined by the Commission and to manufacturers of specially designed
> equipment used to provide those services." The definition of
> interconnected VoIP services is found at 47 CFR Sec 9.3:
>
> An interconnected Voice over Internet protocol (VoIP) service is a
> service
> that:
> (1) Enables real-time, two-way voice communications;
> (2) Requires a broadband connection from the user's location;
> (3) Requires Internet protocol-compatible customer premises
> equipment (CPE); and
> (4) Permits users generally to receive calls that originate on the
> public switched telephone network and to terminate calls to the public
> switched telephone network.
>
> You can see that Gregg is correct that these services must be
> interconnected. However this definition is not tied to whether or not
> there
> is a fee for the service. Nor does the extension of 255's requirements
> to
> providers of voicemail and interactive menu services, as well as the
> manufacturers of equipment that perform those functions, appear to be
> contingent on a fee. As you note, this is different than the definition
> of
> "telecommunications service" which is "the offering of
> telecommunications
> for a fee directly to the public, or to such classes of users as to be
> effectively available directly to the public, regardless of the
> facilities
> used."
>
> Gregg is also correct that notwithstanding Skype-in and Skype-out's
> connection to the PSTN, Skype does not appear to be covered by the 255
> VoIP
> Order. Like Gregg, I am not sure why this is the case, but this is
> consistent with my conversations with people at the FCC and on the Hill.
> I
> believe it has to do with the public's expectations. When people use
> VoIP
> phones, they are truly substituting those phones for PSTN-based service.
>
> Skype and Skype-like services have not yet achieved that level - i.e.,
> it
> has been explained to me that when people use these Internet services,
> they
> do not have the same level of expectations that current federal laws
> covering social obligations for the PSTN, whether these require
> emergency
> access, universal service and I suppose, disability access, as they do
> for
> VoIP phones. However, Gregg is right as well that as the popularity of
>
> these Internet-based communication systems increase, those expectations
> will
> rise, and eventually, they will likely be covered by accessibility
> obligations. So . . . understanding that they are not covered for the
> purposes of our current conversation, companies that are developing
> these
> services should have the foresight to begin building in accessibility
> now,
> rather than incur greater costs by having to retrofit later.
>
> Karen
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gregg Vanderheiden" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> To: "'TEITAC Task Force'" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 1:34 AM
> Subject: Re: [teitac-tf] Background on what is covered by Sec. 255 Rules
>
>
>>I see what you are looking at.
>>
>>
>> (and yes - the advertising angle is a difficult one -- as is the
> 'we'll
>> give
>> it to you free in exchange for tracking all your traffic and selling
> that
>> information (anonymized or not) to others" and also bundling free
> with
>> pay.
>> "Pay" is a funny word these days.
>>
>> But I think those are definitions of Telecom and telecom services.
> So
>> those definitions aren't the ones to look at for IP.
>>
>> Does the "Interconnected VoIP" definition use the word 'for a fee' or
> does
>> it just say VoIP connected to PSTN? Don't remember. Karen?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Gregg
>> -- ------------------------------
>> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>>
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Peter Korn
>>> Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 12:20 AM
>>> To: TEITAC Task Force
>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-tf] Background on what is covered by
>>> Sec. 255 Rules
>>>
>>> Hi Gregg,
>>>
>>> > Here is my crack at it. Karen may have a more
>>> authoritative knowledge on
>>> > this but here is my understanding.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > ...
>>> >
>>> >>> II. Covered Functions
>>> >>>
>>> >>> 1. Part 6.11 and 7.11 Information, documentation and
> training
>>> >>>
>>> >>> - "Manufacturers and service providers shall ensure access to
>>> >>> information and documentation it provides to its customers,
>>> >>>
>>> >> if readily
>>> >>
>>> >>> achievable. Such information and documentation included
>>> >>>
>>> >> user guides,
>>> >>
>>> >>> bills, installation guides for end-user installable devices, and
>>> >>> product support communications, regarding both the product
>>> >>>
>>> >> in general
>>> >>
>>> >>> and the accessibility features.."
>>> >>>
>>> >>> 2. "An entity that provides both telecommunications
>>> services and
>>> >>> non-telecommunications services, however, is subject to
>>> section 255
>>> >>> only to the extent that it provides a telecommunications service"
>>> >>> (September 1999 255 Order, paragraph 80.)
>>> >>>
>>> >>> 3. "In connection with multipurpose equipment, we adopt our
>>> >>> tentative conclusion that CPE is covered by section 255
>>> only to the
>>> >>> extent that it provides a telecommunications function."
>>> (September
>>> >>> 1999 255 Order, paragraph 87)
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >> OK, this seems to help in the Skype canonical case (assuming that
>>> >> "telecommunications function" mirrors "telecommunications service"
>>> >> and only kicks in when a fee to the public is involved) -
>>> suggesting
>>> >> that
>>> >> 255 only applies only at that point to CPE.
>>> >>
>>> >> I'm using Skype as the well-known example, but there are plenty of
>>> >> other software voice products/offerings (e.g.
>>> >> GoogleTalk, Windows Messenger, Apple's video conferencing,
>>> >> Ekiga) - all of which are computer to computer and generally free.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > I don't think it is the FREE part that triggers it. It is the
>>> > 'interconnected to PSTN' part.
>>>
>>> I appreciate that this must be viewed in terms of
>>> 'interconnected to PSTN', and I also appreciate your point
>>> that interconnected VoIP is not covered by the original law
>>> but rather by more recent FCC ruling.
>>>
>>> The "free" bit comes from the first bit of text from Judy,
>>> which you didn't include in your quote of my missive:
>>>
>>> > I. Entities Covered by Section 255
>>> >
>>> > 1. Any provider of telecommunications Services (47 CFR 6.1)
>>> >
>>> > - Definition of Telecommunications Service is from the 1996
>>> > Telecom Act - essentially it is "offering
>>> telecommunications for a fee
>>> > to the public"
>>>
>>> Thus if I am offering telecommunications NOT for a fee (i.e.
>>> free) to the public, then what I am offering is not a
>>> "telecommunications service". That would suggest that the FCC
>>> only regulates things relating to commerce, which makes sense
>>> from a jurisdictional viewpoint of what the Federal
>>> government can and cannot do from the point of view of the
>>> commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution.
>>>
>>> Of course, that path can get us into an argument over
>>> advertising-supported "free" services vs. those that can be
>>> obtained with zero strings, fees, costs, etc. (e.g. a Linux
>>> CD containing the Ekiga point-to-point video-chat software,
>>> working over a free [to the user] Internet connection). And
>>> again, I recognize that something like Ekiga is VoIP and thus
>>> not covered by this language anyway. But it is the easiest
>>> example I can come up with of something that is as "free" as
>>> one can get.
>>>
>>> Maybe if I could come up with some theoretical new wire-based
>>> technology that modulated audio over power lines - including
>>> going through transformers, etc., such that they would carry
>>> over state lines - and then offered it for free, I could come
>>> closer to non-VOIP telecommunications that, if offered for
>>> free, would thereby walk the particular path I had been
>>> thinking things like Ekiga might be walking.
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Peter Korn
>>> Accessibility Architect,
>>> Sun Microsystems, Inc.
>>>

From: BLACKLER, ELLEN (ATTSI)
Date: Thu, Dec 13 2007 11:05 AM
Subject: Re: Background on what is covered by Sec. 255 Rules

I know. But because they are separate that is how it is being
interpreted. The FCC specifically addressed it in an order saying they
did not consider it interconnected VOIP "at this time". I can hunt down
the cite.

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Jim Tobias
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 12:22 PM
To: 'TEITAC Task Force'
Subject: Re: [teitac-tf] Background on what is covered by Sec. 255 Rules

<snip>
> 2. For 255 there are 4 broad categories of services covered
> - 1)telecommunications services, 2) voice mail 3) interactive menus 4)
> interconnected VOIP. (For SKYPE, because the definition refers to
> originate AND terminate calls, neither SKYPE, SKYPE In or
> SKYPE OUT meet the definition. )

I don't understand this. My Skype account could have both SkypeIn and
SkypeOut. I could receive a call from any PSTN phone line, and place a
call
to any PSTN phone line.