Capital leases included in office equipment were $182,000 at September 30, 2007. Total accumulated depreciation was $46,000 at September 30, 2007. Amortization expense for assets recorded under capital leases is included in depreciation expense.

In July 2006, the Company entered into a contract with one of its third party network service providers containing a minimum monthly commitment of $400,000 effective June 1, 2006 for 24 months. At September 30, 2007, the total remaining obligation under the contract was $3.2 million. In March 2007, the Company entered into an additional agreement with this provider to purchase a minimum of $1.0 million in international usage between March 1, 2007 and May 31, 2008. As of September 30 2007, the Company had completed its obligation to purchase a minimum of $1.0 million in international usage.

From time to time, the Company may be involved in various legal claims and litigation that arise in the normal course of its operations. While the results of such claims and litigation cannot be predicted with certainty, the Company currently believes that it is not a party to any litigation the final outcome of which is likely to have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial position, results of operations or cash flows. However, should the Company not prevail in any such litigation; it could have a materially adverse impact on the Company's operating results, cash flows or financial position.

In general, the Company does not collect or remit state or municipal taxes (such as sales and use, excise, utility user, and ad valorem taxes), fees or surcharges ("Taxes") on the charges to the Company's customers for its services. The Company does collect and remit California sales and use tax, however. In September 2006, the Company's largest third party network service provider began passing through state and local E911 taxes to the Company. Beginning October 1, 2006, the Company began collecting certain state and local E911 charges from its customers that are paid to and remitted through the third party network service provider. Beginning October 1, 2007, the Company began collecting sales and use tax in one state other than California. The Company has received inquiries, demands or audit requests from several states and municipal taxing and 911 agencies, and is currently under audit by one state, seeking payment of Taxes that are applied to or collected from the customers of providers of traditional public switched telephone network services. The Company has consistently maintained that these Taxes do not apply to its service for a variety of reasons depending on the statute or rule that establishes such obligations. The Company had recorded an expense of $488,000 and $416,000 for the six months ended September 30, 2007 and 2006, respectively as its best estimate of the maximum reasonable tax exposure for such assessments. The cumulative estimate for maximum assessments is $2,058,000 as of

- 15 -

September 30, 2007, which is recorded in the other accrued liabilities line item in the condensed consolidated balance sheets.

Aside from Taxes, certain other fees and charges may be applicable to the Company's offering. Three states contend that providers of interconnected VoIP services, like us, must contribute to its USF fund. The Company does not agree that such state surcharges are applicable to its service. Should the Company become subject to state USF fees or other telecommunications-related surcharges, the Company will likely pass such charges through to its customers. 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.

Several state regulatory authorities have contacted the Company regarding its Packet8 service. These inquiries have ranged from notification that the Packet8 service should be subject to local regulation, certification and fees to broad inquiries into the nature of the Packet8 services provided. The Company responds to the various state authorities as inquiries are received. Based on advice of counsel, the Company disputes the assertion, among others, that the Packet8 service should be subject to state regulation. While the Company does not believe exposure to fees or penalties exists, if 8x8 is subject to an enforcement action, the Company may become subject to liabilities and may incur expenses that adversely affect its financial position, results of operations and cash flows.

Although several regulatory proceedings are underway or are being contemplated by federal and state authorities, including the Federal Communications Commission, or FCC, and state regulatory agencies, VoIP communication services have remained largely unregulated in the United States when compared to traditional telephony services. To date, VoIP service providers have been mainly treated as information service providers although the FCC has thus far avoided specifically ruling on this classification. Information service providers are largely exempt from most federal and state regulations governing traditional common carriers. The FCC is currently examining the status of VoIP service providers and the services they provide. The FCC initiated a notice of proposed rule- making (NPRM) in early 2004 to gather public comment on the appropriate regulatory environment for IP telephony. In November 2004, the FCC ruled that the VoIP service of a competitor and "similar" services are jurisdictionally interstate and not subject to state certification, tariffing and most other state telecommunications regulations. The FCC ruling was appealed by several states and on March 21, 2007, the United States Court of Appeals for the 8^th Circuit affirmed the FCC ruling.

Interconnected VoIP providers, like us, are required by the FCC to offer 911 emergency calling capabilities similar to those available to subscribers of traditional switched phone lines. Moreover, interconnected VoIP providers were required to distribute stickers and labels warning customers of the limitations associated with accessing emergency services through an interconnected VoIP service, as well as notify and to obtain affirmative acknowledgement from our customers that customers were aware of the differences between the emergency calling capabilities offered by interconnected VoIP providers as compared to traditional, wireline providers of telephone service. The FCC's Enforcement Bureau released an order stating that the Enforcement Bureau will not pursue enforcement against interconnected VoIP providers that have received affirmative acknowledgement from at least 90% of their subscribers. We have received affirmative acknowledgement from substantially all of our customers and have substantially satisfied this requirement of the rule.

Like many interconnected VoIP providers, we currently cannot offer VoIP E911 services that route emergency calls in a manner consistent with the FCC rules for all of our customers. We are addressing this issue with our VoIP E911 Solution providers. On November 28, 2005, we began routing certain 911 calls to a national emergency call center. The emergency dispatchers in this national call center utilize the location information provided to route the call to the correct PSAP or first responder. The FCC may determine that our VoIP E911 solution for these customers does not satisfy the requirements of the VoIP E911 order because, in some instances, we will not be able to connect our subscribers directly to a PSAP. As of October 30, 2007, we provided emergency calling services to 100% of our subscribers located in the United States and approximately 95% of these subscribers are supported with either an E911 solution that is in compliance with the VoIP E911 order or were customers prior to November 28, 2005. We may be subject to enforcement actions including, but not limited to, fines, cease and desist orders, or other penalties for those customers that we are unable to provide E911 service in a manner consistent with the VoIP E911 order.

- 16 -

On August 5, 2005, the FCC unanimously adopted an order requiring interconnected VoIP providers to comply with the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, or CALEA. CALEA requires covered providers to assist law enforcement agencies in conducting lawfully authorized electronic surveillance. Under the FCC order, interconnected VoIP providers were required to comply with CALEA obligations by May 14, 2007 and make certain filings prior to that date. Consistent with the relevant rules, we continue to work with a third-party solution provider to devise a CALEA-compliant solution. As of May 14, 2007, we had installed this solution in our network operations and data centers, but had not yet completed testing of all required intercept capabilities of this equipment. We are diligently working to complete the testing of this equipment in order to achieve full compliance with the FCC's order. We may be subject to enforcement actions including, but not limited to, fines, cease and desist orders, or other penalties if we are not able to comply with a CALEA request.

On June 21, 2006, the FCC expanded the base of Universal Service Fund, or USF, contributions to interconnected VoIP providers. The FCC established a safe harbor percentage of 64.9% of total VoIP service revenue to which federal USF contributions apply. We were allowed to calculate our contribution based on the safe harbor or by submitting a traffic study that would subsequently be approved by the FCC. For a period of at least two quarters beginning October 1, 2006, we were required to contribute to the USF for our subscribers' retail revenues as well as through our underlying carriers' wholesale charges. Beginning October 1, 2006, we began charging our subscribers a USF surcharge fee equal to the USF contribution amounts we were required to contribute. The FCC order applying USF contributions to interconnected VoIP providers was appealed and on June 1, 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that the FCC was within its authority when it required interconnected VoIP service providers to contribute to the Universal Service Fund, though it struck down the provision of the order which required pre-approval of traffic studies by the FCC and the provision that required double contributions to the fund for two quarters from our underlying carriers' wholesale charges. As a result of the ruling, we retroactively applied our traffic study contribution rate to the historical subscriber retail revenues which resulted in the recognition of revenue of $573,000 due to the reduction of the related accrued liability in the first fiscal quarter of 2008. As of July 1, 2007, we are using the results of our traffic study to calculate the required contribution to the USF. Meantime, the FCC continues to evaluate alternative methods for assessing USF charges, including imposing an assessment on telephone numbers. The outcome of these proceedings cannot be determined at this time nor can we determine the potential financial impact as the details of an alternative method of USF contribution have not been determined at this time. There is also a risk that state USF funds may attempt to impose state USF contribution obligations and other state and local charges. At this time, at least one state contends that providers of interconnected VoIP services, like us, should contribute to its USF fund.

On April 2, 2007, the FCC released an order extending the application of customer proprietary network information, or CPNI, rules to interconnected VoIP providers. CPNI includes information such as the phone numbers called by a consumer; the frequency, duration, and timing of such calls; and any services/features purchased by the consumer, such as call waiting, call forwarding, and caller ID, in addition to other information that may appear on a consumer's bill. Under the FCC's existing rules, carriers may not use CPNI without customer approval except in narrow circumstances and must comply with detailed customer approval processes when using CPNI outside of these narrow circumstances. The new CPNI requirements are aimed at establishing more stringent security measures for access to a customer's CPNI data in the form of enhanced passwords for on-line access and call-in access to account information as well as customer notification of account or password changes. At the present time we do not utilize our customer's CPNI in a manner which would require us to obtain consent from our customers, but in the event that we do in the future, we will be required to adhere to specific CPNI rules aimed at marketing such services. Effective December 8, 2007, we will be required to implement internal processes in order to be compliant with all of the FCC's CPNI rules. This may impose additional compliance costs on the Company and reduce our profitability or cause us to increase the retail price for our services.

On June 1, 2007, the FCC released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Proceeding to consider whether it should impose additional VoIP E911 obligations on interconnected VoIP providers including consideration of a requirement that interconnected VoIP providers automatically determine the physical location of their customer rather than allowing customers to manually register their location. The Notice includes a tentative conclusion that all interconnected VoIP service providers that allow customers to use their service in more than one location (nomadic VoIP service providers such as us) must utilize automatic location technology that meets the same accuracy standards applicable to providers of commercial mobile radio services (mobile phone service providers). We cannot predict the outcome of this proceeding nor its impact on the Company at this time.

- 17 -

On June 8, 2007, the FCC released an order implementing various recommendations from its Independent Panel Reviewing the Impact of Hurricane Katrina on Communications Networks Panel, including a requirement that certain interconnected VoIP providers submit reports regarding the reliability and resiliency of their 911 systems. At this time, we are not subject to these reporting requirements but may become subject in future years.

On June 15, 2007, the FCC extended the disability access requirements of Sections 225 and 255 of the Communications Act, which applied to traditional phone services, to providers of interconnected VoIP services and to manufacturers of specially designed equipment used to provide those services. Section 255 of the Communications Act requires service providers to ensure that its equipment and service is accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities, if readily achievable, including requiring service providers to ensure that information and documentation provided in connection with equipment or services be accessible to people with disabilities, where readily achievable and that employee training account for accessibility requirements. In addition, the FCC said that interconnected VoIP providers were subject to the requirements of Section 225, including contributing to the Telecommunications Relay Services, or TRS, fund and that they must offer 711 abbreviated dialing for access to relay services. At this time, we cannot predict the impact of these rules on our business or our ability to comply with these disability access obligations. We may be subject to enforcement actions including, but not limited to, fines, cease and desist orders, or other penalties if we are not able to comply with these new disability obligations. The rules established in the Disability Access Order were scheduled to become effective on October 5, 2007, and as of this date, we are planning to remit TRS fund contributions and had implemented 711 abbreviated dialing which connects all of our customers to California relay service operators. On October 10, 2007, the FCC granted a limited waiver of the 711 call handling requirement. While still mandating that interconnected VoIP providers like us are required to transmit 711 calls to a relay center, the FCC waived the requirement, for a period of six months, insofar as it requires such providers to transmit the 711 call to an "appropriate relay center," meaning the relay center(s) serving the state in which the caller is geographically located or the relay center(s) corresponding to the caller's last registered address. We are working on implementing a call routing solution which will route 711 calls to the appropriate relay center as defined in the FCC's order but cannot predict whether we will be in compliance at the end of the waiver period.

On August 6, 2007, the FCC released a Report and Order concerning the collection of regulatory fees for Fiscal Year 2007 ("Regulatory Fees Order"), which, for the first time, mandates the collection of such fees from interconnected VoIP service providers like us. The Regulatory Fees Order requires that interconnected VoIP providers pay regulatory fees based on reported interstate and international revenues. The Regulatory Fee Order is not yet effective and will not be effective for at least 90 days. Regulatory fees for Fiscal Year 2007 will be due in 2008 during a separate filing window yet to be determined. Fiscal Year 2008 fees will also be paid in 2008 during the normal regulatory fee payment window. The assessment of regulatory fees to our service will increase our costs and reduce our profitability or cause us to increase the price of our retail service offerings.

On October 5, 2007, the FCC granted Visit, Inc., a California corporation that is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, an international telecommunications certificate with authority to provide global resale service in accordance with section 63.18(e)(2) of the Commission's rules.

The effect of any future laws, regulations and the orders on our operations, including, but not limited to, the Packet8 service, cannot be determined. But as a general matter, increased regulation and the imposition of additional funding obligations increases our costs of providing service that may or may not be recoverable from our customers which could result in making our services less competitive with traditional telecommunications services if we increase our retail prices or decrease our profit margins if we attempt to absorb such costs.

FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

This Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act and Section 21E of the Exchange Act. Any statements contained herein that are not statements of historical fact may be deemed to be forward-looking statements. For example, words such as "may," "will," "should," "estimates," "predicts," "potential," "continue," "strategy," "believes," "anticipates," "plans," "expects," "intends," and similar expressions are intended to identify forward-looking statements. You should not place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements. Actual results and trends may differ materially from historical results or those projected in any such forward-looking statements depending on a

- 18 -

variety of factors. These factors include, but are not limited to, customer acceptance and demand for our VoIP products and services, the reliability of our services, the prices for our services, customer renewal rates, customer acquisition costs, actions by our competitors, including price reductions for their telephone services, potential federal and state regulatory actions, compliance costs, potential warranty claims and product defects, our needs for and the availability of adequate working capital, our ability to innovate technologically, the timely supply of products by our contract manufacturers, potential future intellectual property infringement claims that could adversely affect our business and operating results, and our ability to retain our listing on the NASDAQ Capital Market. The forward-looking statements may also be impacted by the additional risks faced by us as described in this Report, including those set forth under the section entitled "Factors that May Affect Future Results." All forward-looking statements included in this Report are based on information available to us on the date hereof, and we assume no obligation to update any such forward-looking statements. In addition to those factors discussed elsewhere in this Form 10-Q, see the Risk Factors discussion in Item 1A of our 2007 Form 10-K and Part II, Item 1A of this Form 10-Q. The forward-looking statements included in this Form 10-Q are made only as of the date of this report, and we undertake no obligation to update the forward-looking statements to reflect subsequent events or circumstances.

Our fiscal year ends on March 31 of each calendar year. Each reference to a fiscal year in this report refers to the fiscal year ending March 31 of the calendar year indicated (for example, fiscal 2007 refers to the fiscal year ending March 31, 2008).

The increase for the first six months of fiscal 2008 compared to the same period in the prior fiscal year resulted primarily from a $6.1 million increase in revenues attributable to the growth in the Virtual Office subscriber base for Packet8 service and the price increase on March 1, 2007, as well as a $0.6 million one time increase in revenue due to a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in June 2007 that interconnected VoIP providers are not required to obtain pre-approval of traffic studies in determining the portion of revenues subject to federal universal service contributions. As a result of the ruling, we retroactively applied our traffic study contribution rate to the historical subscriber retail revenues which resulted in the recognition of revenue of $573,000 due to the reduction of the related accrued liability in the first fiscal quarter of 2008. The increase in service revenues during the first six months of fiscal 2008 was offset by a net reduction of $0.8 million attributable to residential and videophone services and $0.3 million attributable to our wholesale service and royalty revenue. We also benefited from a $0.1 million increase in the first quarter of fiscal 2007 due to a change in our revenue recognition policy.