Cybertelecom Federal Internet Law & Policy An Educational Project

Vermont

Cybercrime

§ 4102. Unauthorized access

A person who knowingly and intentionally and without lawful authority, accesses any computer, computer system, computer network, computer software, computer program, or data contained in such computer, computer system, computer program, or computer network shall be imprisoned not more than six months or fined not more than $500.00, or both. (Added 1999, No. 35, § 1.)

Municipal Networks

• Vermont Struggles to Get Fully Wired - Fiber plans rejected in favor of wireless towers, dslreports 6/3/2008
• Island Pond, VT
• City Owned and Operated. Bar, p. 115 2006

VoIP

• Lyons, Daniel, Technology Convergence and Federalism: The Case of VoIP Regulation (April 19, 2012). University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform, 2012; Boston College Law School Legal Studies Research Paper No. 296. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2248036

• • Vermont Telecommunications Plan, Sept 2004
  • "part of "Regulatory Policy" the plan: ... Favors continued forbearance in state regulation of wireless and voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP), with certain specifi c limited exceptions; ... Calls for steps to prepare Vermont's E 9-1-1 system for VoIP and increased competition, and better educate Vermont's consumers who rely more heavily on wireless telephone E 9-1-1 service;" p. xx-xxi
  • "Competition for voice services from wireless providers and Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) is nascent." p. 2-4.
  • "Voice and data services are converging with the growth in Voice over IP (VoIP) services. Broadband services used for Internet access have not been subject to the charge, but now there are "broadband phone companies." The PSB has not formally addressed whether various cable, telephone, and wireless broadband services that combine Internet access with a communications facility should be subject to Vermont USF surcharges. To sustain the programs funded by the Vermont USF, state policy must provide for a stable base on which it can impose the charge. If consumers migrate their spending to services on which the charge is not imposed, then the goals of the program will suffer without some other funding source. At the same time, equitable treatment of similar services is desirable, and the fund should not be applied unnecessarily to new services." p. 5-9
  • "[New York City's Department of Information Technology and Telecommunications] also relied heavily on Internet telephony to provide voice communications. Internet telephony allowed users of specific phone lines to move from location to location as needed, without changing phone numbers. City Hall's phone service was provided through the Internet for weeks after the attacks; workers simply plugged their phones into any available Internet jack. "DoITT also used high-speed wireless transmitters to connect various other local government buildings to the City's network. At a cost of approximately $38,000 each, City Hall, the Municipal Building, and the City Council at 250 Broadway, were all reconnected to the Internet by wireless transmitters quickly plunked on top of their respective buildings."-Homeland Defense Journal July 2003, p.37. VoIP and Wireless Internet: New York's 9/11 Experience" p. 7-6.
  • VOICE OVER INTERNET PROTOCOL Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) presents an exciting opportunity to lower the price of voice service, offer new features, and bring new competition. It also presents challenges to legacy regulatory models. There are different types of VoIP. A more complete discussion about these types is found in Section 1, "Telecommunications Trends." The discussion here will deal primarily with two types of voice-over-IP that use telephone numbers and interact with the Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN). For convenience, these are referred to herein as "type 1" and "type 2" VoIP...." P. 8-18

  • Workshop held on July 22, 2004, Re: Draft Proposed Rules for Nondominant Telecommunications Carriers   MemoDraft Rule RevisionsDraft Rule 7.500Draft Rule 7.600
  • (S) "VOIP carrier" means a carrier that offers Vermont customers a service the provides both of the following:
  
  (1) the opportunity to originate communications, on facilities using the Internet Protocol or similar digital packet protocols, when those communications may be terminated on the public switched network; and
   (2) the opportunity to terminate calls that were originated on the public switched network, using a telephone number with an "802" area code or any other area code that may in the future be assigned to Vermont.
  • 7.505
  • (A)2. The following shall obtain certificates of public good:
  
  a. Local exchange carriers.
  b. Interexchange carriers.
  c. Two-way paging carriers.
  d. COCOT owners
  e. VOIP carriers.
  f. Other carriers as defined by Board order.
  • (B)The following are not required to obtain advance approval for abandonment of service, but must notify customers at least fifteen (15) days in advance:
  
  e. VOIP carriers.
  • (C) The following carriers, if not ETCs, are not subject to corporate organization and financial reviews:
  
  8. VOIP carriers.
  • (C) The following are not subject to rate reviews and tariffing, but must file uniform rate plan labels for service offerings, to the extent required by Board Rule 7.600, with the Board for informational purposes.  The uniform rate plan label will provide the Board with the information regarding a provider's service offerings previously provided by tariff and tariff revision filings.  The uniform rate plan label shall be filed with the Board at the same time or prior to the offering of service in Vermont:
  
  11. VOIP carriers.