Q & A: CPUC's Susan Kennedy On VoIP: Page 4 of 6

It is my hope that the VoIP proceeding initiated by the California Commission will open up a dialogue about what that future should look like.

Networking Pipeline: VoIP vendors are complaining that if states regulate the service, they will have to spend money complying with a host of different rules, instead of just one national set of guidelines. Why does California need (or not need) its own regulations regarding VoIP?

Kennedy: The goal of the Commission's VoIP investigation is to answer that very question. I do believe strongly that regulatory consistency is important -- not only is consistency necessary for both consumers and market players to be treated fairly, but it also provides the environment necessary for investment to occur. Consistency in a regulatory approach is important not just within a state, but among various states, if a company is to make investments in its national infrastructure.

Networking Pipeline: Can corporations be secure in implementing VoIP, or should they hold off (or expect to pay more in the future)?

Kennedy: I firmly believe that VoIP is going to change everything about the way we communicate with one another. However, there are always both risks and advantages to being an early adopter of new technology, and each company is going to make its own decision about what to do.