PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.By Senator McCain from Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation filed written report. Report No. 108-425.
Congressional Research Service
Version 01 · Reported to Senate with amendment(s) · Nov 19, 2004
VOIP Regulatory Freedom Act of 2004 - Reserves solely to the Federal Government the authority to regulate the offering or provision of a voice-over-Internet-protocol (VOIP) application (an application that uses the Internet or any successor protocol to offer two-way or multidirectional voice communications). Prohibits State regulation of such authority.
States that nothing in this Act: (1) limits State jurisdiction over 911 and enhanced-911 telephone services; (2) exempts providers of a VOIP application from State universal service preservation and interprovider compensation requirements; or (3) affects the authority of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) or any State to regulate the facilities used to transmit a voice communication of a VOIP application.
Requires the FCC to: (1) conclude a proceeding establishing a transition period in which providers of a VOIP application are required to provide 911 and enhanced-911 services comparable to those provided by other telecommunications carriers; and (2) report to specified congressional committees on the progress of enhanced-911 implementation for connected VOIP applications.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Preserves the obligation of a VOIP application provider to furnish authorized law enforcement authorities all information, facilities, and technical assistance necessary to accomplish an interception (of a phone call) or the installation of a pen register or trap and trace device. Requires a report from the: (1) Comptroller General to specified congressional committees addressing technical problems encountered by law enforcement authorities when intercepting and analyzing communications over the Internet or using the Internet protocol; and (2) FCC to such committees assessing the first ten years of implementation of the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act.
Terminates this Act three years after its enactment.
People & committees
Sen. Sununu, John E. [R-NH] · R–NH
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
By Senator McCain from Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation filed written report. Report No. 108-425.
By Senator McCain from Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation filed written report. Report No. 108-425.
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 812.
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Reported by Senator McCain with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. Without written report.
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Reported by Senator McCain with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. Without written report.
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Hearings held.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Sep 8, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze S.2281 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine S.2281 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine S.2281 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine S.2281 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.