Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Internet Your Rights Online

FCC To Hold First VoIP Hearings; Rules in 2004 146

Posted by timothy from the bloodsucking-leeches dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

FCC To Hold First VoIP Hearings; Rules in 2004 More

FCC To Hold First VoIP Hearings; Rules in 2004

Comments Filter:

  • VoIP (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Beg4Mercy ( 32808 )
    Is VoIP the same thing as these FREE (ad supported) PC-to-phone services which existed before the tech bubble burst?

    • Re:VoIP (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Gherald ( 682277 )
      Basically yes, only you pay instead of ads.

      Now that the technology is gaining popularity and starting to be profitable, Uncle Sam wants to turn the beaurocrats loose.

    • Re:VoIP (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Davak ( 526912 ) on Monday November 10, 2003 @11:14PM (#7440840) Homepage
      The same thing is keeping me from switching to VoIP that keeps me switching to cell phone only... 911 access.

      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)

        by bastion_xx ( 233612 ) on Monday November 10, 2003 @11:50PM (#7441057)
        Kudo's on your family's safety. You might want to contact your local telco to verify the information in E911 is correct. Screw up on their end could impact response time.

        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?

        • VoicePulse does this for their SIP service. There are a couple of other companies that are starting to ramp up that do not lock their customers in like Vonage does. Vonage LOCKS the VoIP device they sell you so it will only work with their service, even though it's a Cisco ATA-186. Packet8 also tries to lock you into using the DTA310 device that they sell you.
        • Hmm... How'd you get them to transfer your number? Was it a special request, or is this something they normally attempt?

      • 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.

      • I currently use Vonage as my VoIP Carrier and I have 911 access and the cops and(or) emergency teams do know where I am it was added about July time frame. I don't think all are providing this you just have to find a service that does offer this. Hope enlightens the everyone else as well.
    • >Is VoIP the same thing as these FREE (ad supported) PC-to-phone services which existed before the tech bubble burst?

      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
      • Free ones DID exist (at least on Windows) and I'm kind of in shock that many people don't remember them. And yes, there were long delays etc they sucked. :)

  • Does... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by jeffkjo1 ( 663413 ) on Monday November 10, 2003 @10:50PM (#7440672) Homepage
    Does this mean that states are not allowed to regulate VOIP until the FCC reaches a decision? Or does anything change at all?
    • I think it means State can still regulate VoIP UNTIL FCC reaches a decision that contradicts it. That's my view on it and it might be wrong. So could someone with more expertise clarify on this?

    • Re:Does... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by BitGeek ( 19506 ) on Tuesday November 11, 2003 @01:38AM (#7441625) Homepage
      The first ammendment applies to states as well.

      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.

      • Regulating technology isn't the same as regulating free speech.
      • By your logic, regulating the postal service is a violation of the 1st Ammendment.

        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.

    • Maybe. Right now, the PUC (Public Utilities Commission) in Minnesota is currently appealing a permanent injunction by the Minnesota District Court (federal) against implementing the proposed telecommunications regulations upon Vonage. The district court found Vonage's phone-to-computer and computer-to-phone systems to be an information service under the Telecommunications Act, and thus unregulatable by the states, rather than a telecommunications service, over which the states have regulatory authority (s

  • Why (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Emperor Cezar ( 106515 ) on Monday November 10, 2003 @10:51PM (#7440676) Journal
    Why is it the FCCs job to regulate a private internet. I can understand open airwaves that everyone controls, but the internet? I pay a private entity to connect to the internet, not the US government.

    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.
    • Libertarian Pary webpage is lp.org

    • 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)

        by BitGeek ( 19506 )

        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)

      by isdnip ( 49656 ) on Monday November 10, 2003 @11:22PM (#7440898)
      The FCC has no intention, I am quite sure, of regulating private VoIP, or any computer-to-computer applications. They're really, really, not interested in going there. (I do this stuff for a living. I'm not a lawyer, but I do regulatory work, and often write formal Comments on FCC proceedings. So I stay on top of this sort of thing.) Theoretically, they do have a lot of authority that they do not exercise. But for the past 25 years or so, their direction has been to exercise authority to prevent monopolies from impeding progress. The Internet itself only exists, for instance, because the FCC ordered AT&T, in the 1970s, to remove a restriction on "sharing and resale" of leased line circuits.

      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)

        by dant ( 25668 ) * on Tuesday November 11, 2003 @12:44AM (#7441357) Journal
        But for the past 25 years or so, their direction has been to exercise authority to prevent monopolies from impeding progress.

        May have been true once upon a time, but two words put the lie to this belief: broadcast flag.

      • Re:Why (Score:1, Flamebait)

        by BitGeek ( 19506 )

        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)

          by Pope ( 17780 )
          Ah, another freak who yearns for an America that never existed. At least you're not nostalgic for the 1950s, like most Republicans in the US government.
      • But for the past 25 years or so, their direction has been to exercise authority to prevent monopolies from impeding progress. The Internet itself only exists, for instance, because the FCC ordered AT&T, in the 1970s, to remove a restriction on "sharing and resale" of leased line circuits.

        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
      • So what's your take on the kind of VoIP that the FCC may be interested in regulating? Phone-to-phone VoIP, which looks to the parties just like ordinary POTS? Computer-to-phone VOIP, where the POTS network is used to deliver a call initiated on a computer? Computer-to-computer VOIP? Or all three?

        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.

        • The truth is, the FCC doesn't particularly want to regulate VoIP -- nor do they regulate much long distance. Those are not monopolies, and there's a competitive market for them already.

          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)

      by BitGeek ( 19506 )

      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
      • I'm with you up to a point. There is a function for the FCC that is actually good, and that is regulation of the airwaves. Back when radio communications were new and rapidly proliferating, it was not uncommon for two radio stations within close range of each other to broadcast on the same frequency. The result? Neither of them would be heard as their signals interferred. You could have some asshole pump up the wattage on his transmitter and saturate an entire AM band, shutting out every station across th
      • The reason why you cant get broadcast TV over the sattelite is basicly the simple rule that each network can have one and only one affiliate that broadcasts to a given area.

        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)

    • "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

      • There is a problem in America and the rest of the world today. That problem is that people think they should have the right to force other people to comply to them. It doesn't matter whether I'm using a gun to make you do it, or if I use the governments gun to do it, it is wrong.

        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
        • This argument just proves why libertarianism is good in theory but horrible in practice.

          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
          • It is your job to protect yourself. It is not my job, aka: my taxes, and my freedoms, to protect you.

            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
    • People, please vote Libertarian before we lose all of our freedoms.

      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

      • I'd suggest lobbying for instant-runoff (or similar) voting, as well, if I thought it would do any good, but with the current Republicratic power structure firmly entrenched in the government, that doesn't seem likely.

  • Don't regulate them (Score:4, Insightful)

    by cosmosis ( 221542 ) on Monday November 10, 2003 @10:51PM (#7440677) Homepage
    I find it interesting that they have already decided to regulate VoIP before they have had any public hearings. Why the hasty decision? And if since they have already decided to regulate, why the public hearings then? Sounds to me as is typical of the FCC these days, that public opinion is an afterthought.



    Planet P Blog [planetp.cc]

    • I agree with you that this was a hasty decision (and probably a bad one), but not listening to the public is probably a good thing.
      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?

      • 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.

    • Why? So they can tax it. Just look at how much of your telco bill is taxes.
    • I expect the FCC will come up with a tax on VoIP to help pay for access to the phone lines. However, I already pay for access charges for my land based phone and data charges for for my DSL connection. I'll bet that these charges do not decrease as the FCC requires additional taxes for VoIP. (I fully expect to see regulationa and taxes for VoIP.)

  • If they rule for some kind of control over VoIP... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by LamerX ( 164968 ) on Monday November 10, 2003 @10:52PM (#7440685) Journal
    If they rule for some kind of control over VoIP, then it's going to keep VoIP completely supressed, or high-priced. The local phone companies NEED some competition to make sure thier services don't get shittier and shittier, and the consumers need this to keep local phone prices low, and keep the internet free and open.

  • Regulation not a universal evil (Score:5, Insightful)

    by KD7JZ ( 161218 ) on Monday November 10, 2003 @10:53PM (#7440694)
    While I am generally in favor of free enterprise, I also do not mind a certain level of regulation. Regulation in the telephone industry is what allows you to pick up any phone, dial 10 digits and reach any other phone in the US. 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??

    • Re:Regulation not a universal evil (Score:5, Insightful)

      by BoogleBoo ( 687316 ) on Monday November 10, 2003 @11:01PM (#7440744)
      A small amount of regulation can definitely be a good thing. If we didn't have car crash regulations, rest assure the big 3 would make cars even shittier than they do today. Same applies to any industry. You can't rely on a corporate entity to do anything in the buyer's interests.

      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)

        by sploxx ( 622853 ) on Monday November 10, 2003 @11:18PM (#7440867)
        And, further thought, regulation is not the same thing as standardisation. Standardisation processes and organisations should sometimes be regulated, but standards itself should not.

        (The word "regulation" here is meant as a government regulation)
      • As of today, Honda is number 2, Ford is number three, and Diamler Chrysler is either #4 or 5. I did not hear the words used for Toyota except they still are making the #1 car in the USA. GM is #1 of course.
      • Car Company A produces shotty car. Car company A sells shotty car. Car from Company A kills family C. Family C relatives sue Car Company A. Car companies A sales go down as do their profits.

        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
        • it doesn't work that way. person gets injured, sues company, company buries person with payoff or 3ed party slander campain to defuse the outrage over the event. company continues making shitty product.

          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

      • 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.

        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?

        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 stan

      • If we didn't have car crash regulations, rest assure the big 3 would make cars even shittier than they do today.

        we'd have better drivers.
    • And isn't that the sort of "regulation" that allows the internet to work at all without the FCC being involved?

      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

    • 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

      • Why is it that people always quote these economic theories when they only hold true when certain other things are true. Such as having many companies offering very similar products and no buyer or seller has enough power to influence the market.... Oh and all buyers and sellers have good information on that they are dealing with and if they don't like it they have good substitutes.

        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)

      by twitter ( 104583 )
      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??

      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:

      1. IM would be possible.
      2. People would qui

  • can they regulate? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by larry bagina ( 561269 ) on Monday November 10, 2003 @10:55PM (#7440706) Journal
    I question whether they can regulate. Not the timeframe (don't you just love the sound of deadlines as they go whooshing by?), but constitutionally. Particularly recently since the Senate refused to block states from imposing net-access fees, and the Supreme Court has lately scoffed at "interstate commerce" as a justification for laws.

    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)

    by The Blue Meanie ( 223473 ) on Monday November 10, 2003 @10:56PM (#7440712)
    The simple fact is that if the FCC and the US Govt gets heavy-handed with regulating VoIP, it will go underground, just like file and music swapping did when they clamped down on it. VoIP is going to happen one way or another. Whether it's done rogue P2P-style, or above-board remains to be seen.
    • You are assuming that the ones in power (be that RIAA, the US government, the EU, a banana republic's dictator, whatever) just CAN'T regulate the internet, because they have not enough power.

      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.
    • The simple fact is that if the FCC and the US Govt gets heavy-handed with regulating VoIP, it will go underground, just like file and music swapping did when they clamped down on it.

      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)

    by Phattypants ( 469233 )
    Is it a coincidence that the FCC is now deciding to regulate VoIP in the face of IBM plans to migrate most of its phone systems [slashdot.org] by 2008?

  • The end user (Score:3, Interesting)

    by sploxx ( 622853 ) on Monday November 10, 2003 @11:04PM (#7440768)
    I wonder what that means for the end user.
    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. shtml ?tid=95 ).

    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".
  • VoIP seems like a great place for spammers. The cost of initiating a call will be neglible unless there is some kind of bandwidth pricing. And without a do-not-call-list for VoIP, it will be open season on VoIP users.

    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)

      by herrvinny ( 698679 ) on Monday November 10, 2003 @11:22PM (#7440901)
      No, it's time. Each email spam takes like what, a millisecond to send? But with VoIP, you have to deal with bandwidth (takes a lot more to send voice than text) and the time it takes to go through any obstacles. The caller has to navigate any menu system, listen to any "please leave a message at the tone" messages, etc.

  • VoIP regulation should not be allowed (Score:5, Interesting)

    by eyefish ( 324893 ) on Monday November 10, 2003 @11:24PM (#7440916)

    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)

    by Anonymous Coward
    This may be a stupid question, but how exactly can the FCC or anyone regulate VOIP calls? How can they detect if I'm using a VOIP application over my internet connection to communicate using voice, rather than via a text e-mail?

    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're interested in two main cases:
      • Phone-to-phone VoIP: the telco somewhere in the middle uses VoIP to transmit the data, avoiding the intermediary routes it'd normally have to take, but the end-user is just using a normal phone on both ends
      • PC-to-phone or phone-to-PC: one end is using a PC, sending to a telco, which is sending to a phone

      I don't think they're interested in PC-to-PC, because as you mentioned, that's simply impossible to regulate effectively.

    • PC-to-PC VOIP, such as you're describing, has been around for a long time, but it isn't very interesting or useful. You can't call to a regular POTS phone number, nor receive calls from POTS network users. As you say, its just a matter of paying for your ISP's bandwidth.

      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)

    by Agar ( 105254 ) on Monday November 10, 2003 @11:28PM (#7440940)
    Somehow I doubt that the FCC will "get it" and create a regulatory framework that makes any sense.

    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.
    • Yes, and I have an idea for that:

      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
    • The lack of 911 support isn't really as big of a problem as everyone is making it out to be. In a typical household, if you make the switch from copper to VoIP, you've still got a copper phone jack wired in your house.

      Now try this... plug a phone into your supposedly serviceless jack. Pick it up ... what do you hear? Thats right... you hear a dial tone. Keep in mind, you don't have telephone service on this line, so attempting to make a phone call will get you nowhere. So, "why is there a dial-tone",
      • That's a good point, but it begs the question: why is there still 911 access on "dead" copper? Because of FCC regulations.

        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
  • and that cost money, right? I've always wondered that about VoIP. It's usually (always?) cheaper than Pots, but whose paying for the network? What I wonder is, is VoIP cheaper because telephone companies are charging too much or their networks are inefficient, or because they're piggy backing on those networks without paying all the costs of maintaining them?
    • I was wondering when someone would ask the obvious question.

      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.

    • I believe that traditional POTS is so much more expensive due to several reasons: 1. Hardware that service providers use to support Pots lines are more expensive, take up more space, consume more power and generate more heat than their IP counterparts. 2. When you make a call on a Pots line you basically have a point to point circuit consuming a full DS0s worth of bandwidth, whether or not you are using all that bandwidth, where with VOIP depending on the codex being used (and other features like silenc
  • Two paragraphs from the boardwatch website that i found interesting." [boardwatch.com]

    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
    • ...and enable government agencies to tap VOIP calls ...

      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)

    by skaya ( 71294 ) on Monday November 10, 2003 @11:41PM (#7441014) Homepage
    (this is not directly related to the FCC matter ; but this is a long overview of the Telephone situation in France...)

    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 ... So I'm eager to see how things are evolving with the FCC, to compare with what will maybe happen here in a few months/years :-)
  • In the VoIP regulation debate, we must remember that telcos are legislated both because they have been monopolies (or near enough), and because they are essential services. Some regulations would still apply if either status changed. Likewise, new companies that also offer the same essential services (phone calls) would require that appropriate regulation, even if they were not monopolies. The regulations protect us, telephony consumers, from the telcos, which were known to reduce service quality below nece

  • Do you really think the FCC will cede power? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by stox ( 131684 ) on Monday November 10, 2003 @11:42PM (#7441021) Homepage
    Personally, I think everyone is mis-reading this. It has nothing to do with the ILEC's and everything to do with the FCC maintaining its power base.

    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)

    by Molina the Bofh ( 99621 ) on Tuesday November 11, 2003 @12:06AM (#7441154) Homepage
    Some years ago I tested VoIP and it simply sucked. It needed special hardware, headset, and was just plain annoying. But last week I tested Cisco's ATA 186 [cisco.com], that has allows a regular phone to be connected to the network. I was astonished with the voice clarity. I called from Brazil to a branch we have in the US, and the quality was outstanding. No noticeable delay, nor echo. Of course there must be a delay (at least 87 ms, as a ping test averages 175 ms), but it's too low to notice in a regular conversation, and far smaller than in a regular international phone call.

    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)

      by Anonymous Coward
      put an asterisk server in each office, and you're 80% done. calling into the asterisk pbx and out to the remote asterisk is easy to setup, and you could even do access by caller-id instead of pin-code. by default, all calls are cdr logged as csv but it's possible to do it in mysql instead.

      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)

      by ewieling ( 90662 )
      There are a couple of projects that do VoIP and PSTN/VoIP types of services. The one I use is Asterisk www.asteriskpbx.org There are others Bayone comes to mind. Both are GPL'd. There are a couple of companies that do "PSTN replacement" type of services. Packet8 and Vonage come to mind. Both provide a small device that you plug into your local network and plug a phone into and you make calls just like a regular phone. There are a couple of other companies out there that do PSTN/VoIP services that are
    • Warning: I'm very biased. I earn my living working with this stuff, and if none of it sells, I don't get to eat. Caveat emptor, et cetera. That said, I'm attempting to post as a technically-inclined, completely satisfied user. I prefer leaving the sales BS to the sales guys who specialize in BS.

      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
  • VoIP doesn't need federal regulation. Being TCP/IP based, it fits naturally into the loose management model that serves the Internet so well.

    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)

    by not_bio ( 713320 )
    What bothers me about this is that it could make the internet open to being much much more restricted. Would video games that have built in VOIP now have to be able to dial a net 911? "That Fsking haxor is using a bot!!! arrest that 1337ass biatch!!" Would open source VOIP projects be canceled because they would have to register and pay a fee (though in net terms, that generally means it gets packed up and distributed from another part of the world so has minimized effect)? Same with free for private use
  • I had one of those tandy arm robots once. It was cool....like me
  • Sorry, I just don't like the overall theme "we're all in favor in regulating it just a little bit". It seems that it's the same thing as being "a little" pregnant. You are either regulated or not.

    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

  • I already pay for broadband Internet access. On top of that, I may pay for a phone-to-IP-to-phone service like Vonage [vonage.com]. This does NOT equal paying for phone service. This alone is going to cost me in the neighborhood of $60/mo.

    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

  • Hohum, so if I operate a teamsound, teamspeak, ventrillo, etc server for gaming purposes does that mean I'v gotta deal with FCC regulations? VOIP is kinda really broad terminology.

    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.
  • When I have a channel that was mine only, for work in my company, they came down on us for swearing. Jeez people get a life. No one else could hear us unless the were snooping.

    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.
  • they'd support voip, why? because, at least then, you know exactly where the spammers are coming from on voip and you can block them from the service.
    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

Slashdot Top Deals

God help those who do not help themselves. -- Wilson Mizner

Close