1. "In this Memorandum Opinion and Order (Order), we preempt an order of the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (Minnesota Commission) applying its traditional “telephone company” regulations to Vonage’s DigitalVoice service, which provides voice over Internet protocol (VoIP) service and other communications capabilities. We conclude that DigitalVoice cannot be separated into interstate and intrastate communications for compliance with Minnesota’s requirements without negating valid federal policies and rules. In so doing, we add to the regulatory certainty we began building with other orders adopted this year regarding VoIP – the Pulver Declaratory Ruling and the AT&T Declaratory Ruling –by making clear that this Commission, not the state commissions, has the responsibility and obligation to decide whether certain regulations apply to DigitalVoice and other IP-enabled services having the same capabilities. For such services, comparable regulations of other states must likewise yield to important federal objectives. Similarly, to the extent that other VoIP services are not the same as Vonage’s but share similar basic characteristics, we believe it highly unlikely that the Commission would fail to preempt state regulation of those services to the same extent. We express no opinion here on the applicability to Vonage of Minnesota’s general laws governing entities conducting business within the state, such as laws concerning taxation; fraud; general commercial dealings; and marketing, advertising, and other business practices. We expect, however, that as we move forward in establishing policy and rules for DigitalVoice and other IP-enabled services, states will continue to play their vital role in protecting consumers from fraud, enforcing fair business practices, for example, in advertising and billing, and generally responding to consumer inquiries and complaints.

     2. Our decision today will permit the industry participants and our colleagues at the state commissions to direct their resources toward helping us answer the questions that remain after today’s Order – questions regarding the regulatory obligations of providers of IP-enabled services. We plan to address these questions in our IP-Enabled Services Proceeding in a manner that fulfills Congress’s directions “to promote the continued development of the Internet” and to “encourage the deployment” of advanced telecommunications capabilities. Meanwhile, this Order clears the way for increased investment and innovation in services like Vonage’s to the benefit of American consumers. "

• PR: FCC Finds that VONAGE Not Subject to Patchwork of State Regulations Governing Telephone Companies., FCC 11/9/2004
• Statement of Assistant Secretary Michael D. Gallagher on FCC action on Vonage Petition., NTIA 11/9/2004
• VONAGE HOLDINGS CORPORATION PETITION FOR DECLARATORY RULING CONCERNING AN ORDER OF THE MINNESOTA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION. FCC preempted Order of Minnesota Commission concerning Vonage's DigitalVoice VoIP Service (WC Docket No. 03-211). (Dkt No. 03-21, FCC 11/16/2004
• Minnesota PUC Proceeding Info
• NY PUC Vonage Proceeding 
• POC Julie Veach, Competition Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, (202) 418-1580, or via e-mail julie.veach@fcc.gov
• Released: 09/26/2003. PLEADING CYCLE ESTABLISHED FOR COMMENTS ON VONAGE PETITION FOR DECLARATORY RULING. (DA No. 03-2952). (Dkt No 03-211). Comments Due: 10/27/2003. Reply Comments Due: 11/24/2003. WCB. Contact: Julie Veach at (202) 418-1580, email: julie.veach@fcc.gov DA-03-2952A1.doc DA-03-2952A1.pdf DA-03-2952A1.
• Pleading Cycle Established for Comments on Vonage Petition for Declaratory Ruling , WC Docket No. 03-211, Public Notice, 18 FCC Rcd 19325 (2003)

  " On September 22, 2003, Vonage Holdings Corporation (Vonage) filed a petition requesting that the Commission preempt an order of the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (Minnesota Commission) requiring Vonage to comply with state laws governing providers of telephone service, even though Vonage avers that it is a provider of information services (and not a telecommunications carrier or common carrier subject to Title II of the Communications Act of 1934).   Specifically, Vonage asks that the Commission find that certain specific E911 requirements imposed by the Minnesota Commission are in conflict with federal policies.   Further, Vonage states that preemption is necessary because of the impossibility of separating the Internet, or any service offered over it, into intrastate and interstate components.

Litigation

Minnesota PUC v. FCC, Case No 05-1069 (8th Cir Mar. 2007) Affirming FCC Order in Part, Finding Other Parts of Appeal Not Ripe for Review

Petition for review of FCC order which determined that Voice over Internet Protocol technology was impossible or impractical to separate intrastate components from interstate components and thus preempted state regulation was not arbitrary or capricious. It was not arbitrary or capricious for FCC to fail to classify VoIP as either information service or telecommunications service. FCC properly considered economic burden of identifying geographic endpoints. Any inconsistencies with 911 Order did not render FCC order arbitrary. FCC did not arbitrarily determine state regulation of information service conflicted with federal policy of nonregulation or preempt 911 requirements. NYPSC appeal challenging fixed nomadic VoIP was premature.

• Federal Court Denies Minnesota's Bid to Regulate VOIP, eWeek 3/23/2007
• Court backs FCC in VoIP case, USA Today 3/23/2007

• 1.12.06 Oral Argument MP3
• 12.1.5 FCC Brief Filed
• The FCC's Vonage decision has been appealed as follows

• CA 9th Circuit California v. FCC, No. 05-70007 (9th Cir. filed Jan. 3, 2005)
  • PUC Gives Up Fight Over VOIP, LA Times 4/15/2005
• MN & NASCUCA 8th Circuit Minnesota Pub. Util. Comm’n v. FCC, No. 05-1069 (8th Cir. filed Jan. 6, 2005)
  • Nat’l Ass’n of State Util. Consumer Advocates v. FCC, No. 05-1122 (8th Cir. filed Jan. 11, 2005)
• NY 2nd Circuit (reportedly narrow 911 grounds) New York. v. FCC, No. 05-1060 (2d Cir. filed Jan. 7, 2005)
• OH 6th Circuit Pub. Util. Comm’n of Ohio v. FCC, No. 05-3056 (6th Cir. filed Jan. 7, 2005)

Other Litigation

• Vonage v Nebraska PSC, No. 08-1764 (8th Cir. May 1, 2009) (ruling state may not impose universal service fee on Vonage)

News & Blogs

• California Abandons VoIP Fight, Newsfactor 4/19/2005
• Powell Questions States' VoIP Appeals, Topix 1/14/2005
• NY, Ohio Join States Appealing FCC's Vonage Ruling, Topix 1/14/2005
• Minnesota to appeal FCC Vonage ruling, topix 1/7/2005
• Minnesota to appeal FCC Vonage ruling, Infoworld 1/7/2005
• MN Press Release appealing FCC order, MNPUC 1/7/2005
• PUC Filing with the Eighth Circuit Regarding FCC Order on VoIP, MNPUC 1/7/2005
• FCC Rules on VoIP Regulation, Newsfactor 11/9/2004
• FCC to Decide VoIP Fate Next Week, InternetNews 11/5/2004
• Feds claim control over VoIP, leave tax issue open, CNET 11/16/2004
• FCC Rules VoIP an Interstate Service, InternetNews 11/9/2004
• FCC further deregulates Net calls, CNET 11/9/2004
• Hands off VoIP, Feds tell states, Register 11/9/2004
• SBC seeks new Net phone fees, CNET 11/19/2004
• FCC Bars State Regulation of VoIP Providers, Ecommerce 11/9/2004
• Pickering Letter to FCC on VoIP, House 10/8/2004
• FCC Rules VOIP Not Subject to State Rules, eweek 11/9/2004
• Cities try last-minute grab for Net phone taxes, CNET 11/9/2004
• Vonage's Citron Asks For Regulatory Clarity In VoIP, Com Daily 2/10/2004
• Vonage's Citron: We're Not A Phone Company, Broadband Daily 2/10/2004

Select Comments

• Reply Comments of the NY Attorney General
• In re The Commission's December 1, 2003, Voice Over  IP Forum, WC Docket Nos. 03-211, 02-361, and 03-35, Joint Comments Of The United States Department Of Justice, The United States Drug Enforcement Administration, And The Federal Bureau Of Investigation (Dec. 15, 2003)
• In Re Vonage Holding Company Petition for a Declaratory Ruling Concerning the Order of the Minnesota PUC, WC Docket No. 03-211, Comments of the NY AG (Nov. 21, 2003)
• Comments of CISCO
• New York State Department of Public Service