VoicePulse, a VoIP Service Provider, announced today the addition of a new “regulatory” fee for it’s customers. In an email sent to account holders, VoicePulse advised that effective on the next billing cycle (in one example this was effective in less than 48 hours), users will be charged an additional fee to offset compliance and regulation costs assessed to the provider. This is the second new fee announced by the carrier this week.

As  of this posting (3/10/2010), the provider has not posted these announcements on their website’s press releases, press, or newsletters page. And, although the email indicates the terms of service had been updated, the public version did not include the “regulatory fee” as of this posting.

The announcement follows:

As most of our customers are aware, Voice over IP technology has been the subject of scrutiny by federal, state and municipal bodies for the past several years. During this time, VoicePulse has remained fully compliant on all levels of regulation while providing our customers with high quality, low cost phone service.

Unfortunately, costs incurred by compliance on these inquiries and corresponding legal obligations continue to grow. Each instance of regulation requires more resources on the part of our telecommunications company resulting in increased legal and compliance related expenses.

CHANGES TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Beginning on your next monthly bill cycle (3/12/2010 12:00:00 AM), we will be including a Regulatory Compliance Fee of $2.95 on your VoicePulse for Business and Wholesale account. Our Terms of Service has been updated to reflect above mentioned changes and we advise all customers to review the updated Terms of Service available within your account center. The fee will appear on your invoice as follows:

ITEM/ACCOUNT/REGULATORYCOMPLIANCEFEE
Qty: 1 at $2.95/ea = $2.95

We appreciate your continued support and we look forward to serving you in the years to come. As always, our representatives are available by phone at +1-732-339-5100 M-F 9am-5pm ET and email at contact@voicepulse.com.

Recently, Andy Abramson posted an article discussing a proposed tax on SMS texting. Taxes always get my attention and this article really got me thinking.

First, allow me to quote the US Constitution:

Amendment 1 – Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Before I continue, can you imagine a law or amendment today that could be written in only 45 words? I digress…

First, I completely understand that the Federal Government, in this case, does not suggest taxing SMS (right now). In this case, we have the City of Vallejo, California placing a tax on SMS (texting), private phone networks, pagers, and VoIP services. Yet, we do have many taxes from the Federal Government placed on our phone and communications bills (have you checked all those taxes on your cellphone bill?).

Second, I also understand that we have an amendment making the amendments of the US constitution applicable to the states. But, this really isn’t about civics; although we do know that I love to get into long civics discussions for some unknown geek reason.

This post deals with a new proposed tax on texting, private phone systems, and VoIP. Clearly, both Patrick and I do not support this tax. We do not support any communications tax; excepting a minimal tax to ensure availability to 911.

Right now, contrary to what people may or may not think, VoIP systems are subjected to the USF. In fact, VoIP service receives the highest tax rate of any service. The USF, short for the Universal Service Fund, arrived courtesy of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 in order to:

• promote the availability of quality services at just, reasonable, and affordable rates
• increase access to advanced telecommunications services throughout the Nation
• advance the availability of such services to all consumers, including those in low income, rural, insular, and high cost areas at rates that are reasonably comparable to those charged in urban areas
• increase access to telecommunications and advanced services in schools, libraries and rural health care facilities
• provide equitable and non-discriminatory contributions from all providers of telecommunications services to the fund supporting universal service programs

Regulation of this fund and what it does can make you pull your hair out. The USF can help Ma and Pa get a landline on the ol’ farm. It can also be abused and allow free international calls from rural Iowa. And, it can even lead to the hotly publicized Google/AT&T smackdown.

But this isn’t so much about the USF. Although based on my rambling approach here, you’d never guess.

This is about the taxing communication.

I personally understand the desire to provide universal service. I do not understand how a tax subjected against a private phone network constitutes anything other than a tax on free speech.

For that matter, I believe any communications tax to be a tax on free speech. Anytime a new service comes along it’s taxed. My cell phone bill had communications taxes from the city, state, and federal governments. I pay a city, state, and Federal tax on my cable bill. On top of that, I pay a USF fee on the VoIP lines that I use from the Internet I’m already taxed on.

Are you going to increase my taxes on the SMS messages I send? Really? Aren’t I already taxed on my cell and VoIP bills? Are you going to increase the tax based on the number of times I exercise my freedom of speech?

Taxing the communication is one thing. I disagree, but it is what it is. I try to vote for people who are against those taxes; sadly they are hard to find. But taxing me on the speech itself, that just seems incredibly unconstitutional. And taxing me on a private network? It’s private. We don’t tax people for the amount of books they have in their personal library either.

To me this tax seems as absurd as taxing someone for the amount of books they read.