FCC To Hold First VoIP Hearings; Rules in 2004 146
securitas writes "The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will hold its first hearings on Internet telephony and VoIP regulation on Dec. 1 and plans to regulate VoIP by late 2004. A public comment period will follow the Dec. 1 meeting. Some say that it is overly ambitious to regulate VoIP by 2004, especially since FCC Commissioner Michael Powell does not have a strong reputation for clarifying complex issues - instead he has a reputation for confounding them. More at Internet.com and InternetWeek . FCC press release (PDF1|DOC1) and attached letter (PDF2|DOC2) to VoIP proponent Senator Ron Wyden, who sits on the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee."
VoIP (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:VoIP (Score:3, Insightful)
Now that the technology is gaining popularity and starting to be profitable, Uncle Sam wants to turn the beaurocrats loose.
Re:VoIP (Score:1)
I'm glad someone understands.
Re:VoIP (Score:1, Flamebait)
Invoking godwins law is proof positive you're a racist... though I figure most people who do so don't realize they are racists.
Re:VoIP (Score:5, Insightful)
When I can pick up my VoIP phone and the cops know where I am, that'll be when I switch.
I just feel better knowing my family can pick up the phone and get immediate help...
Davak
Re:VoIP (Score:4, Informative)
I use Vonage [vonage.com]. Although sometimes the quality is sub-par, they were able to request my # from BellSouth and have it transferred to them. Also, they, as I'm sure others do, have the ability to link your address to 911.
Personally I'd roll my own asterisk [asterisk.org] server and utlize someone like VoicePulse for incoming 800# and local access, but in the event my net connection is down, so is incoming voicemail. Vonage handles that for me and the email notification.
Anyone know of a way to use an IAX or IAX2 provider and have them handle the PSTN termination and voicemail while allowing me to connect my Asterisk server to them?
Re:VoIP (Score:1)
Re:VoIP (Score:1)
Re:VoIP (Score:2)
That will be the day I stop using it.
I am always perplexed at people who want the gestapo to know where they are all the time.
Remember, the germans were not inhernetly fascist people. They just didn't relize what was going on.
And if you think the cops are going to prevent a crime, arriving 30 minutes after it happens, you're not thinking.
Re:VoIP (Score:1)
Re:VoIP (Score:2)
I never encountered ad supported PC-to phone services but recall absolutely dreadful pay services with echoes and long delays. Thankfully things have moved on a long way from there. VoIP is like talking on a cellphone in terms of quality and delay. With something like Free World Dialup [freeworldialup.com] you can talk, Geek to Geek, across the Internet for free, and there are underlying standards such a
Re:VoIP (Score:1)
Does... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Does... (Score:1)
Re:Does... (Score:4, Insightful)
So, since we have free speech, regulating speech over VOIP is a violation of the constitution for either states or the FCC.
Its flat out illegal / unconstitutional.
Not that anyone cares about the constitution anymore... if you aren't trying to violate the first, you're trying to violate the second, these days.
Re:Does... (Score:1)
Re:Does... (Score:1)
Your logic is flawed.
The content of the communication - the ideas, the opinions, the way the concepts are phrased in their expression... those are 1st ammendment properties.
Not the placement of the stamp, the packet, or how either are handled in transit and what you were charged for the service.
Re:Does... (Score:1)
Re:Does... (Score:2)
And you get better quality of service if its UNREGULATED.
I'm confused how you can have never heard of capitalism.
Why (Score:4, Interesting)
The reason for the FCC to regulate VoIP is that AT&T and friends have paid off some congressman so they won't lose thier market.
People, please vote Libertarian before we lose all of our freedoms.
Re:Why (Score:1)
Re:Why (Score:2)
You also pay a slew of private, corporate interests for the crap you see on those public airwaves.
By the way, a true libertarian would want the dissolution of the FCC outright. A Libertarian, on the other hand....
Re:Why (Score:1, Flamebait)
A Libertartian agress with libertarians-- the FCC needs to be dissolved, along with dozens of other illegal agencies.
As to private corporate interests being responsible for the crap on TV, that's absurd. IF there was a free market, TV competition would be more about quality in art, not about getting what attention you can with the FCC mandated victorian programming that is allowed.
Re:Why (Score:5, Interesting)
The FCC is however interested in a number of very sticky questions that relate to VoIP. The telephone network itself is subject to fairly strict regulation, particularly the amount of money that each carrier is allowed to charge the other carriers on a given call. So when somebody in Virginia calls somebody in California over Qwest's network, how much does VZ in VA get from Q, how much does SBC in CA get from Q? Those are covered by detailed tariffs.
A local leg of an interstate call is not treated the same as a local call. The current regulatory system is based on a system of classification, and that system is obsolete. VoIP increases the pressure on it.
VoIP threatens that because it's so easy to sneak around the usual processes. The current FCC not-quite-rule (an April 1999 "Report to Congress", which is an unofficial policy statement) says that "phone to phone" VoIP calls are just plain calls, subject to the same payments as other calls. PC-to-phone calls, however, are undefined. And there are all sorts of variations. The big phone companies know it, and want to use their influence to make things go their own way. Small, rural local phone companies actually have the most to lose, because they get a much bigger share of their revenue from long distance settlements. Rural state regulators and legislators are very protective of these companies.
Re:Why (Score:4, Insightful)
May have been true once upon a time, but two words put the lie to this belief: broadcast flag.
Re:Why (Score:1, Flamebait)
The FCC has NO AUTHORITY at all. ALL of the exercises of authority that they do are illegal as their existance violates the constitution.
The idea that the FCC doesn't want to regulate VOIP is ABSURD.
They will require backdoors and keys to encrypted VOIP communications to "protect us from terrorists".
By the way-- any rule that the FCC creates is ILLEGAL. The Congress cannot delegate its powers to the FCC, and thus their regulations (Along with their very existance) are unconstitutional.
The FCC is just
Re:Why (Score:2)
Re:Why (Score:2)
Firstly, if the clearchannelization of the airwaves and microsoftization of the computer market isn't robust proof of the FCC's wonderful failure at dealing with monopolies, then I don't know what is. Plus, they de
Re:Why (Score:2)
I can understand the FCC being interested in the first category, and maybe even the second. So long as the FCC looks only at VoIP that involves one or more regular telephone calls, I can't get too overly excited.
Re:Why (Score:2)
What the FCC regulates is the behavior of monopoly local phone companies (ILECs) towards ISPs, VoIP providers, and long distance companies. The incumbent LECs charge more to LD companies than by retail users. So they want VoIP and Internet for that matter to be classified as long distance, so they can be permitted to char
Re:Why (Score:2, Troll)
The FCC sees its job as controlling all communications between people. ALL of them.
IT will regulate anything it can get away with, given the current weakness of the constitution.
(If the constitution was strong, the FCC wouldn't exist, as they are a violation of the constitution by definition.)
The FCCs primary job is CENSORSHIP. This is why you can't get broadcast TV (a signal broadcast and owned by a local station) over satellite (Even though the local station and the satellite provider would like to g
Re:Why (Score:2)
Re:Why (Score:2)
If you had broadcast TV on sattelite, people from bostom may watch e.g. NBC new york instead of NBC boston (perhaps becase it has a better local news or something) and then NBC boston looses out (ads etc)
Re:Why (Score:1)
"Why is it the FCCs job to regulate a private internet[?]."
For the same reason it's the FCCs job to regulate a private telephone network. While its easy to claim that they are a government agency and hence evil, they also do things like regulate how telephone numbers are assigned, stop companies from changing your long-distance carrier without your authorization, and fight to de-tarrif interstate long distance.
Since many of the same issues can/will crop up as VoIP becomes more popular, maybe we shoul
Re:Why (Score:1)
If you wish to have consumer protection, boycott the companies that treat customers horribly; Read the contracts you agree to; make sure that you only agree to a contract that gives you the rights you want.
Your only thing governme
Re:Why (Score:1)
Your absolutely right that consumers shold protect themselves with boycotts and informed decision-making, but they don't! They don't because it requires a large amount of effort and organization, so much so that your average consumer would rather just suffer the abuse.
Also, if the company who is abusing you happens to be monopolizing a basic service, what good is a boycott? How do I boycott my electric company if the
Re:Why (Score:1)
You are telling me that without a government sanction, organizations like the EFF wouldn't exist.
If people are to LAZY to protect thier own interests, then they must pay the concequences.
At first people will be lazy, but then they will take an active roll, just like they try to do with thier Healthcare. These things wouldn't be an issue in a republic if the people weren't active enough to do something abou
Re:Why (Score:1)
did the election of 2000 teach you nothing?
vote for a democrat [deanforamerica.com], unless four more years of john ashcroft is your plan for keeping your freedoms intact.
-esme
Re:Why (Score:1)
Don't regulate them (Score:4, Insightful)
Planet P Blog [planetp.cc]
Re:Don't regulate them (Score:1)
We would be much better off if politicians did what they think is in the best interest of the country, instead of conforming to public opinion.
After all, most of the public is simply a part of the Stupid Masses. We don't want them controlling things, now do we?
Re:Don't regulate them (Score:2)
And since the stupid masses elect universally stupid polititians...
The only pro-human rights form of government is one where the politicians have as little power as possible.
Hell, democracy itself is a violation of human rights, and the constituion was an attempt to prevent it from becoming the dictatorship of the lowest common denominator.
But now that the constituion is universally ignored by both political parties... we are getting what we deserve.
Re:Don't regulate them (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Don't regulate them (Score:2)
If they rule for some kind of control over VoIP... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:If they rule for some kind of control over VoIP (Score:1)
Re:If they rule for some kind of control over VoIP (Score:1)
Regulation not a universal evil (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Regulation not a universal evil (Score:5, Insightful)
Problem with regulations is the standards tend to lack in quality and never seem to be upgraded/reviewed. Back to the car example... bumpers once had a 5 mph impact standard. It's often 2.5 mph today. With today's knowledge of metals and plastics along with detailed crash data, we should be able to make cars low weight that have 50 mph impact standards. Will companies do this out of the kindness of their heart? Hell no. Don't expect the regulators to improve the standard in the next 10 years either.
Re:Regulation not a universal evil (Score:4, Insightful)
(The word "regulation" here is meant as a government regulation)
it was a clear black night (Score:1)
Re:The Big Three Auto makers?? (Score:2)
Free Market Regulation (Score:2)
Evolution occurs
Car Company B decides to make a safe car, but ends up costing too much. They do however move the price-point up that some families are willing to spend, for safety (cough cough, VOLVO, cough cough) but still most people are using less safe (cheaper) cars of Company A. But they _know_ their cars are not
Re:Free Market Regulation (Score:1)
A.R. theories are ok if there exists open accuate info on products and a choice of companies. too often, faults are surpressed and companies collude to eliminate choice and you have nothing to say about it.
also A.R. ignored realties of market places esp where companies use their power to crush those tha
Re:Regulation not a universal evil (Score:1)
Errm, sorry, I don't live in the US - does this mean that the 5mph impact-resistant bumper legislation has been repealed, or are car manufacturers ignoring it?
Re:Regulation not a universal evil (Score:1)
we'd have better drivers.
Re:Regulation not a universal evil (Score:3, Insightful)
We already have standards bodies. Because of this I can email my doctor or interact with his web page without direct government control of the HTML standard.
It is true that things can get a bit chaotic when new ideas are implemented, but then those new ideas are only free to develop because anyone with an idea is free to do so. After a time things settle.
Like that number to use a landline. It wa
Re:Regulation not a universal evil (Score:3, Insightful)
How would it be if you wanted to IM or VOIP your doctor and you are a Yahoo user and the doc is a AIM user??
Well, in a free market, VoiP companies that didn't settle on a standard that permitted people to call whom they needed to call would soon lose out to companies that did, or the technology itself would lose out to another, more open, technology.
Regulation isn't needed to promote standards. Standards tend to arise from market forces. If the FCC is getting into this, it is about control and tax rev
Re:Regulation not a universal evil (Score:1)
Very large companies do not obey normal economic theory because they aren't in a ultra competitive market.
All those theories o
great example. (Score:3, Interesting)
Wow, that one is easy, People can't rely on IM because US ISPs suck and that is a direct result of recent US regulatory effort. Broadband penetration is low and run by monopoly service providers who offer high prices and idiotic restrictions such as "no servers". Most people still suffer dial up, which is even less practical for IM. If the US had better ISP:
can they regulate? (Score:5, Insightful)
Everyone here would laugh if the US Gov't tried to regulate ftp, http, tcp, udp, ip, etc. They have no authority over VoIP either.
Nobody learns (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Nobody learns (Score:2)
But look at the RIAA raids. Look at the echelon scanning of emails.
But they have the power. It is dangerous to assume that they have not. This lets you live in a condition of "ahh, well, they can't touch MY free internet" happiness. The internet with it's MUDs is NOT the world, it is just a tiny subset.
Re:Nobody learns (Score:2)
The terrifically vital point you are missing here is that the government never clamped down on P2P. A couple of companies got sued by a couple of other companies, and the victors have been threatening to sue still more companies. That's just civil litigation. The government, on the other hand, are the people who whisk folks a
Coincidence? (Score:1, Interesting)
The end user (Score:3, Interesting)
It seems clear to me that they want to regulate VoIP, because it's the same application, only the transmission medium changed.
BUT... what does that mean to the consumer(*)? Am I allowed to run my VoIP applications or are they willing to control that also (like in panama, see
http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/02/11/04/0252201
This can get just another privacy issue. Because the enforcement of thus regulations needs control of the traffic.
Are the traditional phone companies like AT&T losing? I don't think so. They are also providing internet services. They change become more an more
ISPs. They *are* ISPs. There has always been competition. Now the internet is stirring up the market a bit. So where is their problem?
Sometimes it seems that artificial problems are built up to get the public in favour of internet control (and the public is certainly there, now). Maybe not the population, but the ones that should decide for us. Maybe it's well-crafted lobbying.
(*) - Starting to hate that word. I am not only a "consumer".
Spammers and VoIP (Score:2)
On the other hand, a competent VoIP client should let me easily create my own phone-menu system from hell to repel simple voice-spams and trap telemarketing call-center flunkies ("Press 1 to hear the next confusing list of menu options").
Re:Spammers and VoIP (Score:4, Informative)
VoIP regulation should not be allowed (Score:5, Interesting)
VoIP is nothing more than an attempt by the Telcos to try to hold on to a market that is naturally sliping out of their hands.
When one thinks about it, regulating VoIP is as stupid as trying to regulate chat programs; both are simply sending packets across and both run on off-the-shelf open-standards hardware and software.
I only wish lawmakers (who are _supposed_ to represent the public) notice this and realize that consumers should not be scammed like this.
VOIP Question (Score:2, Interesting)
I don't doubt that if there was enough money and motivation it would be possible to detect and block VOIP packets on the public internet.
It just seems that doing so what would require sniffers at all ISPs or somewhere to analyze, detect and block VOIP information. It would seem
I think they mean when it involves phones (Score:2)
I don't think they're interested in PC-to-PC, because as you mentioned, that's simply impossible to regulate effectively.
Re:VOIP Question (Score:1)
What they want to regulate is PC-to-phone or phone-to-PC or phone-to-phone VOIP. In all of those cases, there is some gateway which sits between the Internet (or some private IP network) and the POTS system. Those gateways cost money to ru
Color me cynical (Score:3, Interesting)
However, there are a few good reasons for regulations. Phone service is considered a "lifeline" service. Without it, people can die ("help! I've fallen and I can't get up!"). That's why there are surcharges to support rural phone systems and keep the price down, as well as mandatory 9-1-1 regulations.
Needless to say, taxing VOIP to pay for rural phones doesn't make a lot of sense today, particularly since the rural infrastructure is already built out.
However, most VOIP services don't support 9-1-1 calling, which can be a huge problem in an emergency situation. Reliability is dependent on the underlying ISP, which can be an issue.
The problem is that any regulatory framework needs to balance the needs of the industry to *benefit* the consumer. Granted those benefits may involve a trade-off (pay an extra $10 on the VOIP hardware to support a build-out of 9-1-1 bridges), but the benefit (emergency access) is supposed to be greater than the cost.
Unfortunately, I think most in the government forget that they work for us, and are there to look out for our interests. When the balance is off (more cost than consumer benefit), you get an overly regulated, stifled industry that doesn't provide adequate (or value-added) service to the clients that are paying for the service. More often, the entrenched businesses simply get more entrenched.
I fear that this is the political environment into which the VOIP will descend. There will be more focus on the regulation and less on the value that the regulations will bring to the consumer.
Re:Color me cynical (Score:2)
Your phone already contains that much software, so it is not unlikely to fail in an emergency. Phone systems seen as a whole are also not failure-free. If you are using mobile phones, it gets even worse. I do NOT want to rely on a mobile for an emergency call (at least not at home, for other locations, it can be life-saving, of course).
The world is changing and you can't really support a phone system which is only there for emergency calls. You have to integrate the emerge
Re:Color me cynical (Score:2)
Now try this... plug a phone into your supposedly serviceless jack. Pick it up
Re:Color me cynical (Score:2)
From the phone co's perspective, that costs them money. So shouldn't the VoIP user pay a fee to offset the cost of the phone co providing 911?
If everyone switched to VoIP and relied on existing copper exclusively for 911, the phone companies would go bankrupt.
Oh, wait...
Seriously, I'm *not* in favor of any VoIP regulations. I think it could be warranted, but the risk of the go
Somebody has to maintain the networks (Score:2)
Re:Somebody has to maintain the networks (Score:2)
Seriously. If VoiP is just piggybacking on fiber without paying the cost of maintaining it, just the enourmous cost of a T-1 or better, because the telco's have to let them do so, but they start losing business to VoiP...
Something is going to obviously go kerboom.
Re:Somebody has to maintain the networks (Score:1)
interesting points that i see (Score:2, Informative)
The immediate issues at hand are whether or not VOIP telephony providers should be subject to the same rules and regulations as traditional phone companies. And, if not, what kind of rules are appropriate for these providers. Key areas of debate center around whether VOIP providers must offer an E911 service, pay into the universal service fund, and enable government agencies to tap VOIP calls (known as CALEA-compliance) for homeland sec
Re:interesting points that i see (Score:1)
This is not an issue because Cisco and others are complying with the FED on interception equipment. Nor is the issue E911. For example Vonage directs 911 calls to the appropriate call center and verifies the service with the end user. Besides that even if you turn off your land line ( POTS ) it is still required by law to have dial tone that can call 911 and work with E911.
The real issue is the public good and the FCC is showing interest aka the "d
Not directly related to FCC, but ... (Score:3, Informative)
In France, we always had a reliable, but expansive and blood-sucking telco : France Telecom. They are the only way to go for residential users who want a telephone line, and in most place, the only providers of DSL lines (there are some places where you can get Internet thru Cable TV, however).
The French ART (the Authority for Regulations of Telecommunications) however did enforce France Telecom to deploy a technical architecture to allow other ISP to join the DSL hype (to prevent monopolistic situation) ; so they did that - and people had to pay France Telecom to get DSL, and then an ISP to get Internet over their DSL line ! Two bills instead of one, great.
But there was a catch : it was France Telecom who was operating the data connection, so they could limit the bandwidth of the service, and also enforced some silly things (like a daily disconnection). So the ART pushed further, requiring France Telecom to allow other operators to put their equipments in wiring cabinets, and do whatever they want with the copper pair going to the residents, the famous local loop.
(Well, technically, they can't do whatever they want over the wire ; they only have access to the high frequencies. The voice frequencies are still operated by France Telecom, and there are filters (they call them splitters) at each end of the wire - like in regular DSL. But now, the operators can use whatever kind of DSL they like.)
So, one operator, Free (www.free.fr) decided to do funny stuff. For the price of regular DSL, they offered more bandwidth (roughly twice more) with a better ping (twice less), with a funny modem : the freebox. If you're starting to wonder what this has to do with the FCC and VoIP, here we are : the freebox, besides Ethernet connector, has RJ11 connector (for telephone), and a SCART connector (for TV). Those guys are planning to offer TV service real soon now, and they already offer telephone thru their network. Calling from a freebox user to another one is free ; and until end of 2003, calling from a freebox to anywhere in France is free, too. Calling a freebox user is low cost (local communication rate).
So, those guys are deploying an almost-free VoIP network. There must be a catch ; why are other operators not moving ? Well, not everyone can get the golden freebox. You have to be really close to the DSLAM (the telephone concentrator), and in a zone where Free did already install some hardware in the wiring closets. So, it's more like an experiment than a widely available product.
But I betcha some beers that when they go wide-scale, things are going to get messy. Because after wasting billions of euros into Orange (their GSM cellphone network), France Telecom really doesn't need someone to eat their main stream of revenue
Re:Not directly related to FCC, but ... (Score:2)
monopolies vs. essential services (Score:1)
Do you really think the FCC will cede power? (Score:4, Interesting)
Most of the big players in Telecom have announced intent to carry the majority of their traffic, in the near future, over IP. No way the FCC is going to let the single biggest piece of its influence walk away.
VoIP (Score:3, Interesting)
Considering the company I work for spends about $3000/mo in int'l phone calls alone, after I showed it was cheaper and better, I was authorized to research and install it between our offices.
It's easy to connect 2 offices, but I wanted to do a little more... To allow our roaming users, from a cellular or regular phone, to call the local office and be able to reach a dial-out on the remote office, so the only chargeable phone calls would be local area ones.
Problem is: I have no idea of what equipment I should buy for this task. It'd be nice if the caller would be asked a pin#, and we'd be able to print a report of the calls later. The number of lines will be small, about 3 or 4. The equipment must be available in the US. Any tips ?
it's all about asterisk!!! (Score:1, Informative)
you can either use something like ata-186 (or the newer 2-port spa-2000) to connect existing analog phones to the asterisk server (or go for budgetones).
Re:VoIP (Score:3, Informative)
Re:VoIP (Score:2)
Altigen [altigen.com] phone systems will do the tricks that you're after quite nicely. All of them. Automatically. And keep an account of all activity on a user-by-user basis.
Pick up the phone in the office, and just st
FCC wants to regulate everything (Score:2, Insightful)
If it ends up being so overregulated as telephone system, it will eventually raise the operational cost of VoIP so much that it eliminates the primary incentive of switching to VoIP -- cost.
Killing a promising technology at its infancy, smart move.
Not a good direction (Score:2, Interesting)
What about tandy? (Score:2)
second the libertarian guy (s) (Score:1)
As far as being able to dial 911 - Vonage does have this option (it is an option, not a requirement) without being regulated.
In general, I think the market should dictate what consumers need/want, not the government. Startup costs for VOIP are not that huge so nobody can use the "monopoly" argument (oh - if we
FCC, don't treat it like phone service.. it's not! (Score:2)
With VoIP, I accept the fact that I don't have a dedicated circuit, but instead share the "line." I accept that I have no gaurantees about Jitter or other sound problems due to congestion. I accept that it's very unlikely to be as reliable. (Even if Internet service is perfect
So they're going to regulate teamsound? (Score:2)
I'v actually setup a ventrillo chat for my grandma/aunt/mother to talk on the computer. Far less expensive than the long distance charges and they can talk for hours with the broadband setup.
I for one do NOT welcome the FCC overlords (Score:2)
Modems CAN go faster then they do but hello: the FCC keeps us from doing so.
Free TV? There are so many bands available but they wont let that happen....
They want to regulate the Internet? Isnt that a band that they have nothing to do with?
I want to see the FCC disbanded and gone. I dont see the point of thier existence. Bye Bye.
well, if the fcc is so against spammers (Score:1)
unlike emails, these people can be stopped here, and since voip is run by private companies, they have right to refuse service for internet telemarketing, since they're unregulated. however, if regulated, they might not have that option, if say, the govt decided to allow telemarketing on VOIP or rid of the DNC list.
this is a technology that shouldnt be touche
Nepotism: not otay!! (Score:2)
Re:U.S.A. 2.0 (Score:2)
Re:Priorities, people (Score:1)
either you're trying to be funny, or you're just fanatical.