The market price of the shares of our common stock has been and is likely to be highly volatile. It may be significantly affected by factors such as:

• actual or anticipated fluctuations in our operating results;
• announcements of technical innovations;
• future legislation or regulation of the Internet and/or voice over Internet protocol (VoIP);
• loss of key personnel;
• new entrants into the VOIP service marketplace, including cable and incumbent telephone companies and other well-capitalized competitors;
• new products or new contracts by us, our competitors or their customers; and
• developments with respect to patents or proprietary rights, general market conditions, changes in financial estimates by securities analysts, and other factors which could be unrelated to, or outside of, our control.

The stock market has from time to time experienced significant price and volume fluctuations that have particularly affected the market prices for the common stocks of technology companies and that have often been unrelated to the operating performance of particular companies. These broad market fluctuations may adversely affect the market price of our common stock. In the past, following periods of volatility in the market price of a company's securities, securities class action litigation has often been initiated against the issuing company. If our stock price is volatile, we may also be subject to such litigation. Such litigation could result in substantial costs and a diversion of management's attention and resources, which would disrupt business and could cause a decline in our operating results. Any settlement or adverse determination in such litigation would also subject us to significant liability.

We devote substantially all of our resources to the promotion, distribution and development of our Packet8 service. As such, our future growth and future profitability is dependent on revenue from our Packet8 service, as opposed to revenue from our semiconductor business, which has historically accounted for a substantial portion of the Company's consolidated revenues.

Semiconductor and related software revenues represented approximately 83% and 88%, respectively, of the Company's consolidated revenues for fiscal 2004 and 2003. However, these revenues were not sufficient to profitably operate our semiconductor business. Therefore, we significantly reduced the scope of these operations. During the quarter ended June 30, 2003, we completed the end-of-life of our legacy videoconferencing semiconductor products. In November 2003, we sold the VIP1 video semiconductor development effort to Leadtek Research, Inc. (Leadtek). Under the terms of the transaction, Leadtek acquired the VIP1 development activities, key engineers, software tools and equipment. Revenues attributable to this development effort, prior to the aforementioned transaction, were $0 and $1.1 million during the fiscal years ended March 31, 2004 and 2003, respectively, representing approximately 0% and 12% of revenues of our semiconductor business and 0% and 10.5% of 8x8's consolidated revenues for such periods. As a result of the transfer of this development effort to Leadtek, this development revenue ceased. In January 2004, we initiated an end-of-life program for our VoIP telephony semiconductor products, including the Audacity T2 and T2U products. The semiconductor business no longer generates significant revenues.

Revenues from the hosted iPBX solutions business represented approximately 3% and 8% of the Company's consolidated revenues for fiscal 2004 and 2003, respectively. In July 2003, we sold our European subsidiary, Centile Europe S.A., and licensed, on a non-exclusive basis, our iPBX technology to the purchaser. In March 2004, we announced the Packet8 Virtual Office service, which includes technologies previously offered as part of the hosted iPBX solutions business.

We have been selling our Packet8 service since November 2002. To date, we have not generated adequate revenue from the sale of our voice over IP, or VoIP, telephony products and services, including our Packet8 service, to achieve profitability. If we are not able to generate higher revenues selling into the VoIP telephony market, our business and operating results would be seriously harmed. If we are not able to retain a significant percentage of our current and future Packet8 customers on an ongoing basis, our business and operating results would be seriously harmed.

The success of our Packet8 voice and video communications service is dependent upon future demand for VoIP telephony systems and services. In order for the IP telephony market to continue to grow, several things need to occur. Telephone and cable service providers must continue to invest in the deployment of high speed broadband networks to residential and business customers. VoIP networks must improve quality of service for real-time communications, managing effects such as packet jitter, packet loss, and unreliable bandwidth, so that toll-quality service can be provided. VoIP telephony equipment and services must achieve a similar level of reliability that users of the public switched telephone network have come to expect from their telephone service. VoIP telephony service providers must offer cost and feature benefits to their customers that are sufficient to cause the customers to switch away from traditional telephony service providers. Furthermore, end users in markets serviced by recently deregulated telecommunications providers are not familiar with obtaining services from competitors of these providers and may be reluctant to use new providers, such as us. We will need to devote substantial resources to educate customers and end users about the benefits of VoIP telephony solutions in general and our services in particular. If any or all of these factors fail to occur, our business may decline.

Our historical operating results have fluctuated significantly and will likely continue to fluctuate in the future, and a decline in our operating results could cause our stock price to fall. On an annual and a quarterly basis, there are a number of factors that may affect our operating results, many of which are outside our control. These include, but are not limited to:

• changes in market demand;
• the timing of customer orders;
• customer cancellations;
• competitive market conditions;
• lengthy sales cycles and/or regulatory approval cycles;
• new product introductions by us or our competitors;
• market acceptance of new or existing products;
• the cost and availability of components;
• the mix of our customer base and sales channels;
• the mix of products sold;
• the management of inventory;
• continued compliance with industry standards and regulatory requirements; and
• general economic conditions.

Given the significant price competition in the markets for our products, we are at a significant disadvantage compared to our competitors, many of whom have substantially greater resources, and therefore may be better able to withstand an extended period of downward pricing pressure. The adverse impact of a shortfall in our revenues may be magnified by our inability to adjust spending to compensate for such shortfall. Announcements by our competitors or us of new products and technologies could cause customers to defer purchases of our existing products, which would also have a material adverse effect on our business and operating results.

Due to these and other factors, we believe that period-to-period comparisons of our results of operations are not meaningful and should not be relied upon as indicators of our future performance. It is possible that in some future periods our results of operations may be below the expectations of public market analysts and investors. If this were to occur, the price of our common stock would likely decline significantly.

VoIP telephony is an emerging market that is characterized by rapid changes in customer requirements, frequent introductions of new and enhanced products, and continuing and rapid technological advancement. To compete successfully in this emerging market, we must continue to design, develop, manufacture, and sell new and enhanced VoIP telephony software products and services that provide increasingly higher levels of performance and reliability at lower cost. These new and enhanced products must take advantage of technological advancements and changes, and respond to new customer requirements. Our success in designing, developing, manufacturing, and selling such products and services will depend on a variety of factors, including:

• the identification of market demand for new products;
• the scalability of our VoIP telephony software products;
• product and feature selection;
• timely implementation of product design and development;
• product performance;
• cost-effectiveness of current products and services and products under development;
• our ability to successfully implement service features mandated by federal and state law;
• effective manufacturing processes; and
• effectiveness of promotional efforts.

Additionally, we may also be required to collaborate with third parties to develop our products and may not be able to do so on a timely and cost-effective basis, if at all. We have in the past experienced delays in the development of new products and the enhancement of existing products, and such delays will likely occur in the future. If we are unable, due to resource constraints or technological or other reasons, to develop and introduce new or enhanced products in a timely manner, if such new or enhanced products do not achieve sufficient market acceptance, or if such new product introductions decrease demand for existing products, our operating results would decline and our business would not grow.

Decreasing telecommunications rates may diminish or eliminate the competitive pricing advantage of our services. International and domestic telecommunications rates have decreased significantly over the last few years in most of the markets in which we operate, and we anticipate that rates will continue to be reduced in all of the markets in which we do business or expect to do business. Users who select our services to take advantage of the current pricing differential between traditional telecommunications rates and our rates may switch to traditional telecommunications carriers as such pricing differentials diminish or disappear, and we will be unable to use such pricing differentials to attract new customers in the future. In addition, our ability to market our services to other service providers depends upon the existence of spreads between the rates offered by us and the rates offered by traditional telecommunications carriers, as well as a spread between the retail and wholesale rates charged by the carriers from which we obtain wholesale services. Continued rate decreases will require us to lower our rates to remain competitive and will reduce or possibly eliminate any gross profit from our services. If telecommunications rates continue to decline, we may lose subscribers for our services.

Most of our current and potential competitors have longer operating histories, significantly greater resources and name recognition and a larger base of customers than we have. As a result, these competitors may have greater credibility with our existing and potential customers. They also may be able to adopt more aggressive pricing policies and devote greater resources to the development, promotion and sale of their products than we can to ours. Our competitors may also offer bundled service arrangements offering a more complete product despite the technical merits or advantages of our products. These competitors include traditional telephone service providers, such as at&t and Verizon, cable television companies, such as Cablevision, Cox and Time Warner, and other VoIP service providers such as EBay/Skype and Vonage. Competition could decrease our prices, reduce our sales, lower our gross profits or decrease our market share.

We currently sell our products direct to consumers and through resellers, and are focusing efforts on diversifying and increasing our distribution channels. Our future revenue growth will depend in large part on sales of our products through reseller and other distribution relationships. We may not be successful in developing additional distribution relationships. Agreements with distribution partners generally provide for one-time and recurring commissions based on our list prices, and do not require minimum purchases or restrict development or distribution of competitive products. Therefore, entities that distribute our products may compete with us. In addition, distributors and resellers may not dedicate sufficient resources or give sufficient priority to selling our products. Our failure to develop new distribution channels, the loss of a distribution relationship or a decline in the efforts of a material reseller or distributor could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

The development and marketing of our VoIP products will continue to place a significant strain on our limited personnel, management, and other resources. Our future success depends upon the continued services of our executive officers and other key employees who have critical industry experience and relationships that we rely on to implement our business plan. None of our officers or key employees are bound by employment agreements for any specific term. The loss of the services of any of our officers or key employees could delay the development and introduction of, and negatively impact our ability to sell our products which could adversely affect our financial results and impair our growth. We currently do not maintain key person life insurance policies on any of our employees.

We do not have long-term purchase agreements with our contract manufacturers. There can be no assurance that our contract manufacturers will be able or willing to reliably manufacture our products, in volumes, on a cost-effective basis or in a timely manner. For our videophones, cordless handsets and terminal adaptors that are used with our Packet8 service, we rely on the availability of certain semiconductor products. These devices are also sourced solely from certain overseas contract manufacturers and partners, and are currently not available from any other manufacturer. Any of these factors could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

Our Packet8 service depends on the availability of third party network service providers that provide telephone numbers and public switched telephone network (PSTN) call termination and origination services for our customers. Many of these network service providers have been affected by the downturn in the telecommunications industry and may be forced to terminate the services that we depend on. The time to interface our technology to another network service provider, if available, and qualify this new service could have a material adverse effect on our business, operating results or financial condition.

While we believe that relations with our current service providers are good and we have contracts in place, there can be no assurance that these service providers will be able or willing to supply cost-effective services to us in the future or that we will be successful in signing up alternative or additional providers. While we believe that we could replace our current providers, if necessary, our ability to provide service to our subscribers would be impacted during this timeframe, and this could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations. The loss of access to, or requirement to change, the telephone numbers we provide to our customers could have a material adverse effect on our business.

Our products have lead times of up to several months, and are built to forecasts that are necessarily imprecise. Because of our practice of building our products to necessarily imprecise forecasts, it is likely that, from time to time, we will have either excess or insufficient product inventory. Excess inventory levels would subject us to the risk of inventory obsolescence, while insufficient levels of inventory may negatively affect relations with customers. For instance, our customers rely upon our ability to meet committed delivery dates, and any disruption in the supply of our products could result in legal action from our customers, loss of customers or harm to our ability to attract new customers. Any of these factors could have a material adverse effect on our business, operating results or financial condition.

Many of the potential customers for our Packet8 service have requested that our products and services be designed to interoperate with their existing networks, each of which may have different specifications and use multiple standards. Our customers' networks may contain multiple generations of products from different vendors that have been added over time as their networks have grown and evolved. Our products must interoperate with these products as well as with future products in order to meet our customers' requirements. In some cases, we may be required to modify our product designs to achieve a sale, which may result in a longer sales cycle, increased research and development expense, and reduced operating margins. If our products do not interoperate with existing equipment or software in our customers' networks, installations could be delayed, orders for our products could be canceled or our products could be returned. In addition, contractual obligations may require us to continue to provide services that interoperate whether cost effective or in our interests. Any of these factors could harm our business, financial condition or results of operations.

Our Packet8 service must successfully integrate with products from other vendors, such as gateways to traditional telephone systems. As a result, when problems occur in a network, it may be difficult to identify the source of the problem. The occurrence of hardware and software errors, whether caused by our Packet8 service or another vendor's products, may result in the delay or loss of market acceptance of our products and any necessary revisions may force us to incur significant expenses. The occurrence of some of these types of problems may seriously harm our business, financial condition or results of operations.

We expect our competitors to continue to improve the performance of their current products and introduce new products or new technologies. If our competitors successfully introduce new products or enhance their existing products, this could reduce the sales or market acceptance of our products and services, increase price competition or make our products obsolete. For instance, our competitors, such as local exchange carriers and cable television providers, may be able to bundle services and products that we do not offer together with long distance or VoIP telephony services. These services could include wireless communications, voice and data services, Internet access and cable television. This form of bundling would put us at a competitive disadvantage if these providers can combine a variety of services offerings at a single attractive price. To be competitive, we must continue to invest significant resources in research and development, sales and marketing, and customer support. We may not have sufficient resources to make these investments or to make the technological advances necessary to be competitive, which in turn will cause our business to suffer.

Many of our current and potential competitors have longer operating histories, are substantially larger, and have greater financial, manufacturing, marketing, technical, and other resources. Many also have greater name recognition and a larger installed base of customers than we have. Competition in our markets may result in significant price reductions. As a result of their greater resources, many current and potential competitors may be better able than us to initiate and withstand significant price competition or downturns in the economy. There can be no assurance that we will be able to continue to compete effectively, and any failure to do so would harm our business, operating results or financial condition.

We are entering into new market areas and our success is partly dependent on our ability to forge new marketing and engineering partnerships. VoIP telephony communication systems are extremely complex and few, if any, companies possess all the required technology components needed to build a complete end to end solution. We will likely need to enter into partnerships to augment our development programs and to assist us in marketing complete solutions to our targeted customers. We may not be able to develop such partnerships in the course of our product development. Even if we do establish the necessary partnerships, we may not be able to adequately capitalize on these partnerships to aid in the success of our business.

We rely in part on trademark, copyright, and trade secret law to protect our intellectual property in the United States and abroad. We seek to protect our software, documentation, and other written materials under trade secret and copyright law, which afford only limited protection. We also rely in part on patent law to protect our intellectual property in the United States and internationally. We hold sixty-one United States patents and have a number of United States and foreign patent applications pending. We cannot predict whether such pending patent applications will result in issued patents that effectively protect our intellectual property. We may not be able to protect our proprietary rights in the United States or internationally (where effective intellectual property protection may be unavailable or limited), and competitors may independently develop technologies that are similar or superior to our technology, duplicate our technology or design around any patent of ours. We have in the past licensed and in the future expect to continue licensing our technology to others; many of whom are located or may be located abroad. There are no assurances that such licensees will protect our technology from misappropriation. Moreover, litigation may be necessary in the future to enforce our intellectual property rights, to determine the validity and scope of the proprietary rights of others, or to defend against claims of infringement or invalidity. Such litigation could result in substantial costs and diversion of management time and resources and could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, and operating results. Any settlement or adverse determination in such litigation would also subject us to significant liability.

There has been substantial litigation in the communications, semiconductor, electronics, and related industries regarding intellectual property rights, and from time to time third parties may claim infringement by us of their intellectual property rights. Our broad range of technology, including IP telephony systems, digital and analog circuits, software, and semiconductors, increases the likelihood that third parties may claim infringement by us of their intellectual property rights. If we were found to be infringing on the intellectual property rights of any third party, we could be subject to liabilities for such infringement, which could be material. We could also be required to refrain from using, manufacturing or selling certain products or using certain processes, either of which could have a material adverse effect on our business and operating results. From time to time, we have received, and may continue to receive in the future, notices of claims of infringement, misappropriation or misuse of other parties' proprietary rights. There can be no assurance that we will prevail in these discussions and actions or that other actions alleging infringement by us of third party patents will not be asserted or prosecuted against us.

We rely upon certain technology, including hardware and software, licensed from third parties. There can be no assurance that the technology licensed by us will continue to provide competitive features and functionality or that licenses for technology currently utilized by us or other technology which we may seek to license in the future will be available to us on commercially reasonable terms or at all. The loss of, or inability to maintain, existing licenses could result in shipment delays or reductions until equivalent technology or suitable alternative products could be developed, identified, licensed and integrated, and could harm our business. These licenses are on standard commercial terms made generally available by the companies providing the licenses. The cost and terms of these licenses individually are not material to our business.

Circuit-switched telephony networks feature very high reliability, with a guaranteed quality of service. In addition, such networks have imperceptible delay and consistently satisfactory audio quality. Emerging broadband IP networks, such as LANs, WANs, and the Internet, or emerging last mile technologies such as cable, digital subscriber lines, and wireless local loop, may not be suitable for telephony unless such networks and technologies can provide reliability and quality consistent with these standards.

In addition to reliability and quality standards, the market acceptance of telephony over broadband IP networks is dependent upon the adoption of industry standards so that products from multiple manufacturers are able to communicate with each other. Our VoIP telephony products rely heavily on communication standards such as SIP, H.323, MGCP and Megaco and network standards such as TCP/IP and UDP to interoperate with other vendors' equipment. There is currently a lack of agreement among industry leaders about which standard should be used for a particular application, and about the definition of the standards themselves. These standards, as well as audio and video compression standards, continue to evolve. We also must comply with certain rules and regulations of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regarding electromagnetic radiation and safety standards established by Underwriters Laboratories, as well as similar regulations and standards applicable in other countries. Standards are continuously being modified and replaced. As standards evolve, we may be required to modify our existing products or develop and support new versions of our products. We must comply with certain federal, state and local requirements regarding how we interact with our customers, including marketing practices, consumer protection, privacy and billing issues, the provision of 911 emergency service and the quality of service we provide to our customers. The failure of our products and services to comply, or delays in compliance, with various existing and evolving standards could delay or interrupt volume production of our VoIP telephony products, subject us to fines or other imposed penalties, or harm the perception and adoption rates of our service, any of which would have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or operating results.

Regulatory treatment of VoIP telephony outside the United States varies from country to country. We currently distribute our products and services directly to consumers and through resellers that may be subject to telecommunications regulations in their home countries. The failure of these consumers and resellers to comply with these laws and regulations could reduce our revenue and profitability. Because of our relationship with the resellers, some countries may assert that we are required to register as a telecommunications carrier in that country. In such case, our failure to do so could subject us to fines or penalties. In addition, some countries are considering subjecting VoIP services to the regulations applied to traditional telephone companies. Regulatory developments such as these could have a material adverse effect on our international operation.

In many countries in which we operate or our services are sold, the status of the laws that may relate to our services is unclear. We cannot be certain that our customers, resellers, or other affiliates are currently in compliance with regulatory or other legal requirements in their respective countries, that they or we will be able to comply with existing or future requirements, and/or that they or we will continue to be in compliance with any such requirements. Our failure or the failure of those with whom we transact business to comply with these requirements could have a material adverse effect on our business, operating results or financial condition.

At present there are few laws, regulations or rulings that specifically address access to commerce and communications services on the Internet, including IP telephony. We are unable to predict the impact, if any, that future legislation, legal decisions or regulations concerning the Internet may have on our business, financial condition, and results of operations. Regulation may be targeted towards, among other things, assessing access or settlement charges, imposing taxes related to internet communications and imposing tariffs or regulations based on encryption concerns or the characteristics and quality of products and services, any of which could restrict our business or increase our cost of doing business. The increasing growth of the broadband IP telephony market and popularity of broadband IP telephony products and services heighten the risk that governments or other legislative bodies will seek to regulate broadband IP telephony and the Internet. In addition, large, established telecommunication companies may devote substantial lobbying efforts to influence the regulation of the broadband IP telephony market, which may be contrary to our interests.

Many regulatory actions are underway or are being contemplated by federal and state authorities, including the FCC and other state and local regulatory agencies. On February 12, 2004, the FCC initiated a notice of public rule-making to update FCC policy and consider the appropriate regulatory classification for VoIP and other IP enabled services. On November 9, 2004, the FCC ruled that Vonage DigitalVoice and similar services are jurisdictionally interstate and not subject to state certification, tariffing and other common carrier regulations, including 911. This ruling has been subsequently appealed by several states. On February 11, 2004, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) initiated an investigation into voice over IP providers, including us. As a tentative conclusion of law, the CPUC stated that they believe that VoIP providers are telecommunications providers and should be treated as such from a regulatory standpoint. There is risk that a regulatory agency requires us to conform to rules that are unsuitable for IP communications technologies or rules that cannot be complied with due to the nature and efficiencies of IP routing, or are unnecessary or unreasonable in light of the manner in which Packet8 offers service to its customers. It is not possible to separate the Internet, or any service offered over it, into intrastate and interstate components. While suitable alternatives may be developed in the future, the current IP network does not enable us to identify the geographic nature of the traffic traversing the Internet.

Several U.S. states and municipalities have recently shown an interest in regulating VoIP services, as they do for providers of traditional telephone service. If this trend continues, and if state regulation is not preempted by action by the U.S. federal government, we may become subject to a "patchwork quilt" of state regulations and taxes, which would increase our costs of doing business, and adversely affect our operating results and future prospects.

We have already been contacted by several state regulatory authorities regarding our Packet8 service. On September 11, 2003, we received a letter from the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin, or WPSC, notifying us that the WPSC believes that we, via our Packet8 voice and video communications service, are offering intrastate telecommunications services in the state of Wisconsin without certification of the WPSC. According to the WPSC's letter, it believes that we cannot legally provide Packet8-based resold intrastate services in Wisconsin without certification from the WPSC. In addition, the Commission believes that Packet8 bills for intrastate services to Wisconsin customers are void and not collectible. The letter also states that if we do not obtain certification to offer intrastate telecommunications services, the matter will be referred to the State of Wisconsin Attorney General for enforcement action. The letter also states that even if the Company were certified by the WPSC, the previous operation without certification may still subject the Company to referral to the State of Wisconsin Attorney General for enforcement action and possible forfeitures. We consulted with counsel and have responded to the WPSC and disputed their assertions. While we do not believe that the potential amounts of any forfeitures would be material to us, if we are subject to an enforcement action, we may become subject to liabilities and may incur expenses that adversely affect our results of operations.

On September 17, 2003, we were contacted by the Ohio Public Utilities Commission, or OPUC, and asked to respond to a questionnaire on Voice over IP technologies that the OPUC is conducting. The OPUC inquired as to the nature of our service, how it is provided, and to what Ohio residents the service is made available. The questionnaire did not contain any assertions regarding the legality of the Packet8 service under Ohio law or any statements as to whether the OPUC believes we are subject to regulation by the state of Ohio. We responded to this questionnaire on October 20, 2003.

On September 22, 2003, the California Public Utilities Commission, or CPUC, sent us a letter that alleged that we are offering intrastate telecommunications services for profit in California without having received formal certification from the CPUC to provide such service. The CPUC also requested that we file an application with the CPUC for authority to conduct business as a telecommunications utility no later than October 22, 2003. After consultation with regulatory counsel, we responded to the CPUC, disputed its assertions and did not file the requested application. In our October 22, 2003 response to the CPUC, we disagreed with the CPUC's classification of us as a telephone corporation under the California Public Utilities Code. We asserted that we are an information services provider and not a telecommunications provider. The letter from the CPUC did not indicate, and we cannot predict, what any potential penalties or consequences in failing to obtain certification might be. If we are subjected to penalties, or if we are required to comply with CPUC regulations affecting telecommunications service providers, our business may be adversely affected. On November 13, 2003, the CPUC held a hearing in San Francisco to hear testimony from CPUC staff and industry representatives regarding what course of action the CPUC should take with respect to Internet telephony. A representative from 8x8 testified at the hearing. On February 11, 2004, the CPUC stated that, as a tentative conclusion of law, they believe that VoIP providers are telecommunications providers and should be treated as such from a regulatory standpoint. The CPUC initiated an investigation into appropriate regulation of VoIP providers under state law, and acknowledged that it has not enforced the same regulatory regime over VoIP as applies to telecommunications services. The CPUC is considering a number of potential regulatory requirements, including contribution to state universal service programs, provisioning of 911 services, payment of access charges to interconnect with the PSTN and compliance with NANP protocols and basic consumer protection laws, including California's telecommunications "bill of rights." The CPUC is also considering whether exempting VoIP providers from requirements applicable to traditional providers of voice telephony creates unfair competitive advantages that should be proactively addressed, if the regulatory framework governing the provision of VoIP should vary based on the market served and whether VoIP providers should be subject to the current system of intercompany compensation arrangements. The CPUC has indicated that this process could last up to 18 months, but there is no way for us to predict the timetable or outcome of this process. On April 7, 2005, the CPUC instituted a rulemaking to assess and revise the regulation of all telecommunications utilities in California except for small incumbent local exchange carriers, or ILECs. The primary goal of this proceeding is to develop a uniform regulatory framework for all telecommunications utilities, except small ILECs, to the extent that it is feasible and in the public interest to do so. While not specifically directed at VoIP, it is unclear at this time what impact this new rulemaking will have on the CPUCs classification or treatment of VoIP services.

In May 2004, in response to a 2003 complaint case brought by Frontier Telephone of Rochester against Vonage, the New York State Public Service Commission, or NYPSC, concluded that Vonage is a telephone corporation as defined by New York law and must obtain a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity, which represents the authorization of the NYPSC to provide telephone service in New York. The NYPSC will allow a forty- five day period in which Vonage can identify and seek waivers of any rules that it believes should not apply. Vonage will be required to provide 911 service in some form, and will be required to file a schedule of its rates. Currently, this decision applies only to Vonage. In June 2004, a federal judge issued a preliminary injunction enjoining the NYPSC from regulating Vonage as a telecommunications carrier. Vonage has asked the federal district court to make this a permanent injunction, and this request is being considered. While this ruling applies only to Vonage and not to us, if we are subject to regulation by the NYPSC, we may become subject to liabilities and may incur expenses that adversely affect our results of operations.

In July 2004, we received a letter from the Arizona Corporation Commission, or ACC, stating that it was conducting a competitive analysis of the various telecommunications markets in Arizona. The letter requested that we provide answers to a listing of questions as well as certain data. On August 26, 2004, after executing the ACC's standard protective agreement governing the submission of commercially sensitive information, we sent to the ACC answers to some of the questions posed in the initial letter, together with information responsive to certain of the data requests. Inasmuch as the ACC proceeding is a generic docket opened for the purpose of gathering information regarding VoIP, additional information requests are possible, but none has been received to date.

In late 2004 and early 2005, we received notices from multiple municipalities in California that the Packet8 service is subject to utility user taxes, as defined in the respective municipal codes. The notices require that we begin collecting and remitting utility user taxes no later than January 1, 2005. We have responded to these municipalities and disputed their assertions.

In January 2005, we received a letter from an association representing multiple municipalities in South Carolina asserting that we are subject to a business license tax applied to telecommunications companies. We have responded to this association and disputed their assertion.

In May 2005, we received a notice from the City of Chicago that we were being investigated for non-compliance with Chicago tax laws as we are not collecting and remitting Chicago's Telecommunications Tax. We completed the questionnaire received and disputed the applicability of this tax to the Packet8 service.

In accordance with current industry practice, we do not collect state and federal telecommunications taxes or other telecommunications surcharges with respect to our Packet8 service. Based upon a new ruling published by the Internal Revenue Service, or IRS, we ceased collecting Federal Excise Tax, or FET, on June 1, 2006. We do not collect Value Added Tax, or VAT, for services that we provide to customers in European Union, or EU, member countries. Future expansion of our Packet8 service, along with other aspects of our evolving business, may result in additional sales and other tax obligations. One or more states or foreign countries may seek to impose sales or other tax collection obligations on out-of-jurisdiction companies that provide telephone service. A successful assertion by one or more states or foreign countries that we should collect sales or other taxes on the sale of merchandise or services could result in substantial tax liabilities for past sales, decrease our ability to compete with traditional telephone companies, and could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or operating results.

To date, the FCC has treated Internet service providers as information service providers, though the FCC has avoided specifically ruling on this categorization. Information service providers are currently exempt from federal and state regulations governing common carriers, including the obligation to pay access charges and contribute to the universal service fund. The FCC is currently examining the status of Internet service providers and the services they provide. If the FCC were to determine that Internet service providers, or the services they provide, are subject to FCC regulation, including the payment of access charges and contribution to the universal service funds, it could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and operating results.

In May 2005, the FCC unanimously adopted an Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, or NPRM, which requires VoIP providers that interconnect with the PSTN, or interconnected VoIP providers, to provide emergency 911, or E911, service. On June 3, 2005, the FCC released the text of the First Report and Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the VoIP E911 proceeding, or the VoIP E911 Order. As a result of the VoIP E911 Order, interconnected VoIP providers were required to implement the E911 emergency calling capabilities offered by traditional landline phone companies. All interconnected VoIP providers must deliver 911 calls to the appropriate local public safety answering point, or PSAP, through the PSTN's legacy wireline selective router, which is used to deliver E911 calls, along with call back number and location, where the PSAP is able to receive that information. E911 must be included in the basic service offering; it cannot be an optional or extra feature. The PSAP delivery obligation, along with call back number and location information must be provided regardless of whether the VoIP service is "fixed" or "nomadic." User registration of location is permissible initially, although the FCC is committed to an advanced form of E911 that will determine user location without user intervention, one of the topics of the further NPRM to be released eventually. The VoIP E911 Order mandates that existing and prospective customers must be notified of the capabilities and limitations of VoIP service with respect to emergency calling, and interconnected VoIP providers must obtain and maintain affirmative acknowledgement from each customer that the customer has read and understood the notice of limitations and distribute warning labels or stickers alerting consumers and other potential users of the limitations of VoIP E911 service to each new subscriber prior to the initiation of service. In addition, an interconnected VoIP provider must make it possible for customers to update their address (i.e., change their registered location) via at least one option that requires no equipment other than that needed to access the VoIP service. All interconnected VoIP providers must comply with the requirements of the VoIP E911 Order within one-hundred and twenty days of the publication of the VoIP E911 Order in the Federal Register, which was November 28, 2005, with the exception that the customer notification obligations must be complied with within thirty days of the publication.

Beginning in June 2004, we offered E911 service as an option to Packet8 subscribers who choose phone numbers in markets where E911 service is available (our E911 service was initially only available in a subset of the markets where we provided telephone numbers). Even with E911 provisioned, the IP dialtone service provided by Packet8 is only as reliable as a customer's underlying broadband data service and Internet service provider (neither service is provided by us), and may not be suitable for use in all emergency situations. For customers who chose not to or were unable to subscribe to our E911 service, we played a recorded message in response to customers who dialed 911 from these lines instructing them to hang up and either dial their local police/fire department directly from the phone on the Packet8 service, or to dial 911 from a phone connected to the traditional telephone network.

On July 26, 2005 the FCC issued guidance to all interconnected VoIP providers regarding the July 29, 2005 notification deadline. In this guidance, the FCC determined that it would not initiate enforcement action until August 30, 2005 against any provider of interconnected VoIP service regarding the requirement that it obtain affirmative acknowledgement by every existing subscriber, on the condition that the provider file a detailed report with the FCC by August 10, 2005 containing a variety of detailed descriptions. To date, we have filed the reports requested by the FCC, and we suspended service of an insignificant number of subscribers on August 30, 2005 who had not responded to our acknowledgement requests.

On November 7, 2005 the Enforcement Bureau of the FCC issued a notice to interconnected VoIP providers detailing the information required to be submitted to the FCC in E911 compliance letters due by November 28, 2005. In this notice, the Enforcement Bureau stated that, although it does not require providers that have not achieved full E911 compliance by November 28, 2005 to discontinue the provision of interconnected VoIP services to any existing customers, it does expect that such providers will discontinue marketing VoIP service, and accepting new customers for their service, in all areas where they are not transmitting 911 calls to the appropriate PSAP in full compliance with the Commission's rules. On November 28, 2005 we began offering nomadic E911 service to all of our customers with United States service addresses, and began charging those customers an additional $1.99 per month plus any applicable local 911 taxes and surcharges effective January 1, 2006. On November 28, 2005, we also modified the Packet8 account signup procedures to require service addresses to be entered and validated, at the time an order for service is placed, to ascertain whether Packet8's nomadic 911 service is available at that address. On November 28, 2005, we also filed our E911 compliance report which is available on the FCC's website under Wireline Competition Docket Number 05-196.

The FCC may determine that our nomadic E911 solution does not satisfy the requirements of the VoIP E911 order because, in some instances, our nomadic E911 solution requires that we route an E911 call to a national emergency call center instead of connecting Packet8 subscribers directly to a local PSAP. The FCC may issue further guidance on compliance requirements in the future that might require us to disconnect a significant number of subscribers. The effect of such disconnections or any enforcement action initiated by the FCC or other agency or task force against us could have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

The VoIP E911 Order has increased our cost of doing business and may adversely affect our ability to deliver the Packet8 service to new and existing customers in all geographic regions or to nomadic customers who move to a location where E911 services compliant with the FCC's mandates are unavailable. We cannot guarantee that E911 service will be available to all of our subscribers, especially those accessing our service from outside of the United States. The VoIP E911 Order or follow-on orders or clarifications or their impact on our customers due to service price increases or other factors could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial position and results of operations.

On August 5, 2005, the FCC unanimously adopted an order responsive to a joint petition filed by the Department of Justice, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Drug Enforcement Administration asking the FCC to declare that broadband Internet access services and VoIP services be covered by the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, or CALEA. The Order concludes that CALEA applies to facilities-based broadband Internet access providers and providers of interconnected VoIP service and requires these providers to be in full compliance within 18 months of September 23, 2005. The FCC also stated that, in the coming months, it will release another order that will address separate questions regarding the assistance capabilities required of the providers covered by the August 5, 2005 order. On May 3, 2006, the FCC adopted a second order, which clarifies that the FCC will not establish standards for VoIP providers to comply with CALEA. Instead, the FCC directs law enforcement agencies, experts and the industry to develop the standards. The FCC's order clarifies that VoIP providers may use third party vendors to comply with the requirements of CALEA. On July 6, 2006, the FCC established August 4, 2006 as the effective date for its order requiring interconnected VoIP providers to comply with CALEA. The FCC stated, however, that the effective date of those rules that established reporting requirements will be delayed until the FCC receives approval from the Office of Management and Budget to collect such paperwork. Our failure to achieve compliance with any future CALEA orders, rules, filings or standards, or any enforcement action initiated by the FCC or other agency, state or task force against us could have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

On June 21, 2006, the FCC expanded the base of Universal Service Fund (USF) contributions to interconnected VoIP providers. The FCC established a safe harbor percentage of interstate revenue of 64.9% of total VoIP service revenue. The Company may calculate its contribution based on the safe harbor or by submitting a traffic study that is subsequently approved by the FCC. The Company submitted a traffic study to the FCC on July 18, 2006. The FCC has not responded to the Company. The Company is required to begin contributions on October 1, 2006. For a period of at least two quarters beginning October 1, 2006, the Company will be required to contribute to the USF for its subscribers' retail revenues as well as through its underlying carriers' wholesale charges. The Company currently plans to charge its subscribers a USF fee equal to the USF contribution amounts it must contribute beginning October 1, 2006 based upon its subscribers' retail revenues. The impact of this price increase on our customers or the Company's inability to recoup its costs or liabilities in remitting USF contributions or other factors could have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial position, results of operations and cash flows.

We expect the volume of simultaneous calls to increase significantly as the Packet8 subscriber base grows. Our network hardware and software may not be able to accommodate this additional volume. If we fail to maintain an appropriate level of operating performance, or if our service is disrupted, our reputation could be hurt, we could lose customers and this could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

A fundamental requirement for operating an internet-based, worldwide voice and video communications service and electronically billing our Packet8 customers is the secure transmission of confidential information and media over public networks. Although we have developed systems and processes that are designed to protect consumer information and prevent fraudulent credit card transactions and other security breaches, failure to mitigate such fraud or breaches may adversely affect our operating results. The law relating to the liability of providers of online payment services is currently unsettled. We rely on third party providers to process and guarantee payments made by Packet8 subscribers up to certain limits, and we may be unable to prevent our customers from fraudulently receiving goods and services. Our liability risk will increase if a larger fraction of our Packet8 transactions involve fraudulent or disputed credit card transactions. Any costs we incur as a result of fraudulent or disputed transactions could harm our business. In addition, the functionality of our current billing system relies on certain third-party vendors delivering services. If these vendors are unable or unwilling to provide services, we will not be able to charge for our Packet8 services in a timely or scalable fashion, which could significantly decrease our revenue and have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and operating results.

Subscribers have obtained access to the Packet8 service without paying for monthly service and international toll calls by unlawfully using our authorization codes and submitting fraudulent credit card information. To date, such losses from unauthorized credit card transactions and theft of service have not been significant. We have implemented anti-fraud procedures in order to control losses relating to these practices, but these procedures may not be adequate to effectively limit all of our exposure in the future from fraud. If our procedures are not effective, consumer fraud and theft of service could significantly decrease our revenue and have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and operating results.

While we do not know of any technologies that are patented by others that we believe are necessary for us to provide our services, certain necessary technology may in fact be patented by other parties either now or in the future. If such technology were held under patent by another person, we would have to negotiate a license for the use of that certain technology. We may not be able to negotiate such a license at a price that is acceptable. The existence of such a patent, or our inability to negotiate a license for any such technology on acceptable terms, could force us to cease using such technology and offering products and services incorporating such technology.

Products as complex as those we offer frequently contain errors, defects, and functional limitations when first introduced or as new versions are released. We have in the past experienced such errors, defects or functional limitations. We sell products into markets that are extremely demanding of robust, reliable, fully functional products. Therefore, delivery of products with production defects or reliability, quality or compatibility problems could significantly delay or hinder market acceptance of such products, which could damage our credibility with our customers and adversely affect our ability to retain our existing customers and to attract new customers. Moreover, such errors, defects or functional limitations could cause problems, interruptions, delays or a cessation of sales to our customers. Alleviating such problems may require significant expenditures of capital and resources by us. Despite our testing, our suppliers or our customers may find errors, defects or functional limitations in new products after commencement of commercial production. This could result in additional development costs, loss of, or delays in, market acceptance, diversion of technical and other resources from our other development efforts, product repair or replacement costs, claims by our customers or others against us, or the loss of credibility with our current and prospective customers.

As of June 30, 2006, we had cash and cash equivalents and investments of approximately $17.8 million. Unless we achieve and maintain profitability, we will need to raise additional capital. We may not be able to obtain such additional financing as needed on acceptable terms, or at all, which may require us to reduce our operating costs and other expenditures, including reductions of personnel and capital expenditures. If we issue additional equity or convertible debt securities to raise funds, the ownership percentage of our existing stockholders would be reduced and they may experience significant dilution. New investors may demand rights, preferences or privileges senior to those of existing holders of our common stock. If we are not successful in these actions, we may be forced to cease operations.

Our common stock trades on the Nasdaq Capital Market, which has certain compliance requirements for continued listing of common stock.

If our minimum closing bid price per share falls below $1.00 for a period of 30 consecutive business days in the future, we may again be subject to delisting procedures. As of the close of business on July 31, 2006, our common stock had a closing bid price of approximately $0.71 per share and had closed below $1.00 for thirteen consecutive trading days. We must also meet additional continued listing requirements contained in Nasdaq Marketplace Rule 4310(c)(2)(b), which requires that we have a minimum of $2,500,000 in stockholders' equity or $35,000,000 market value of listed securities or $500,000 of net income from continuing operations for the most recently completed fiscal year (or two of the three most recently completed fiscal years). As of July 31, 2006, based on our closing price as of that day, the market value of our securities approximated $44 million and we were in compliance with Nasdaq Marketplace Rule 4310(c)(2)(b). There can be no assurance that we will continue to meet the continued listing requirements.

Delisting could reduce the ability of our shareholders to purchase or sell shares as quickly and as inexpensively as they have done historically. For instance, failure to obtain listing on another market or exchange may make it more difficult for traders to sell our securities. Broker-dealers may be less willing or able to sell or make a market in our common stock. Not maintaining our Nasdaq Capital Market listing may:

• result in a decrease in the trading price of our common stock;
• lessen interest by institutions and individuals in investing in our common stock;
• make it more difficult to obtain analyst coverage; and
• make it more difficult for us to raise capital in the future.

We have evaluated our internal controls systems in order to allow management to report on, and our independent auditors to attest to, the effectiveness of our internal controls over financial reporting, as required by this legislation. We are required to perform the system and process evaluation and testing (and any necessary remediation) required in an effort to allow our management to assess the effectiveness of our system of internal controls over financial reporting as of the end of each fiscal year. Our independent auditors must then attest to and report on that assessment by our management to comply with the management certification and auditor attestation requirements of Section 404 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act (Section 404). As a result, we have and expect to continue to incur significant additional expenses and diversion of management's time towards Section 404 compliance. In any fiscal year, we may fail to timely complete our evaluation, testing and remediation actions in order to allow for this assessment by our management or our independent auditors may not be able to timely attest to our management's assessment. If we are not able to comply with the requirements of Section 404 in a timely manner or with adequate compliance, we might be subject to sanctions or investigation by regulatory authorities, such as the Securities Exchange Commission or the Nasdaq Capital Market. Further, if our independent auditors are not satisfied with our internal control over financial reporting or with the level at which it is documented, designed, operated or reviewed, they may decline to attest to management's assessment or may issue a qualified report identifying a material weakness in our internal controls. Any such action could adversely affect our financial results and could cause our stock price to decline.

Our financial market risk consists primarily of risks associated with international operations and related foreign currencies. We derive a portion of our revenues from customers in Europe and Asia. In order to reduce the risk from fluctuation in foreign exchange rates, the vast majority of our sales are denominated in U.S. dollars. In addition, almost all of our arrangements with our contract manufacturers are denominated in U.S. dollars. We have a foreign subsidiary in France and are exposed to market risk from changes in exchange rates. We have not entered into any currency hedging activities. To date, our exposure to exchange rate volatility has not been significant; however, there can be no assurance that there will not be a material impact in the future.

We maintain an investment portfolio of various holdings, types and maturities. These marketable securities are generally classified as available for sale and, consequently, are recorded on the balance sheet at fair value with unrealized gains or losses reported as a separate component of accumulated other comprehensive loss. Part of this portfolio includes investments in bank issues, corporate bonds and commercial papers.

Changes in internal control over financial reporting. There was no change in our internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, our internal control over financial reporting.

Attached, as Exhibits 31 and 32, are two separate forms of certifications of the CEO and the CFO. The certifications attached as Exhibits 31.1 and 31.2 are required in accordance with Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (the "Section 302 Certifications"). The information contained in this Item 4 relates to the Controls Evaluation referred to in the Section 302 Certifications, and should be read with the Section 302 Certifications for a more complete understanding of the topics presented.

Our management, including the CEO and CFO, has a responsibility for establishing and maintaining adequate disclosure and internal controls over our financial reporting. Disclosure Controls are procedures that are designed with the objective of ensuring that information required to be disclosed in our reports filed under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, such as this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, is recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time periods specified in the SEC rules and forms. Disclosure Controls are also designed with the objective of ensuring that such information is accumulated and communicated to our management, including the CEO and CFO, as appropriate to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosure. Internal controls are procedures that are designed with the objective of providing reasonable assurance that our transactions are properly authorized, our assets are safeguarded against unauthorized or improper use, and our transactions are properly recorded and reported, all to permit the preparation of our financial statements in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles.

Our management, including the CEO and CFO, does not expect that our disclosure controls or our internal controls will prevent all errors and all fraud. A control system, no matter how well conceived and operated, can provide only reasonable, not absolute, assurance that the objectives of the control system are met. Further, the design of a control system must reflect the fact that there are resource constraints, and the benefits of controls must be considered relative to their costs. Because of the inherent limitations in all control systems, no evaluation of controls can provide absolute assurance that all control issues and instances of fraud, if any, within a company have been detected. These inherent limitations include the realities that judgments in decision-making can be faulty and that breakdowns can occur because of simple error or mistake. Additionally, controls can be circumvented by the individual acts of some persons, by collusion of two or more people, or by management override of the control. The design of any system of controls also is based in part upon certain assumptions about the likelihood of future events, and there can be no assurance that any design will succeed in achieving its stated goals under all potential future conditions. In addition, over time, controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate. Because of the inherent limitations in a cost-effective control system, misstatements due to error or fraud may occur and not be detected. Our disclosure controls and procedures are designed to provide a reasonable level of assurance of reaching our desired control objectives.

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned thereunto duly authorized.

Date: August 9, 2006