Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


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

Free World Dialup Under The Gun Again 153

Posted by timothy from the dealing-with-bureaucrats dept.
PetiePooo writes "The FCC will be holding an Open Commission Meeting [PDF] Thursday. Number one on the agenda is a 'Petition for Declaratory Ruling that Pulver.com's Free World Dialup is neither Telecommunications nor a Telecommunications Service.' By passing this, the FCC will, in Jeff's words, 'send a strong signal to consumers and capital markets that the FCC is not interested in subjecting end-to-end IP Communications services to traditional voice telecom regulation under the Communications Act.' For those unfamiliar with it, FWD is sort of like DNS for VoIP. You give it a FWD phone number, it gives you the IP address of the associated SIP phone. Slashdot touched on FWD three years ago, and again last year."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Free World Dialup Under The Gun Again More

Free World Dialup Under The Gun Again

Comments Filter:

  • Why is this significant? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by The One KEA ( 707661 ) on Wednesday February 11, 2004 @05:59PM (#8254112) Journal
    Would this service be almost impossible to provide if the FCC regulated it as a telecom?

    • Re:Why is this significant? (Score:5, Informative)

      by LostCluster ( 625375 ) * on Wednesday February 11, 2004 @06:02PM (#8254139)
      Yes, and that's most likely why current telecom providers want this to be considered a regulated service, so that only they can provide it. Right now, its a service the Ma Bells have the abilities to provide, but they don't because they wouldn't be able to charge for it while FWD is still in existance.

      FWD is an enabler that helps the VoIP to phone linkers, but is not a VoIP to phone linker themselves.
      • This reminds me of when the Food and Drug Administration decided to "look into" VeriChip [adsx.com]. Not a food, and not drug... So why do some of these regulations come into effect when there are no ties to the products and the investigator...? Who knows, but common knowledge shows (and you can research the facts) that heavy hitters (money powerhouses) prevail in almost (*note word almost*) all cases.

        Kiss your privacy goodbye thanks to... You [politrix.org]

        • Re:Don't you love regulations? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by LostCluster ( 625375 ) * on Wednesday February 11, 2004 @06:28PM (#8254346)
          Because although the VeriChip doesn't fall into the "food" or "drug" category, it's dangerously close to the line and the investigation was into if they have crossed it.

          The VeriChip makers suggest that it could be used future to provide information about an unconcious person to medical personel. Such a use would be a medical use, but since they're only implanting the thing in a few people without providing the readers to any of those people's medical providers... uhm, the medical application hasn't been developed yet.

          Also, they're going into a rather new territory that maybe should be regulated. Afterall, body piercings are regulated by the states, but who's regulating ID chips implanted into humans? There's serious health risks associated with implanting things into humans that don't belong there, so some safety protocol needs to be followed to make sure they're doing things right. If the FDA doesn't have the power to regulate, then somebody should be...
      • Right now, its a service the Ma Bells have the abilities to provide, but they don't
        [...]

        Not exactly true [mci.com]. MCI has a nice VOIP infrastructure in place, but it appears it is only available to businesses at the moment.

      • Not entirely true... Don't forget that FWD only provides Internet calling. If you want a gateway to the rest of the world (i.e. ,the PSTN) then you have to pay.

        If FWD were to provide PSTN gateway and PSTN reachable numbers then it would be just like Vonage.

        Not sure the FCC would see FWD the same way in that case...

      • Re:Why is this significant? (Score:5, Informative)

        by PetiePooo ( 606423 ) on Thursday February 12, 2004 @12:41AM (#8255705)
        Yes, and that's most likely why current telecom providers want this to be considered a regulated service...

        Interestingly, Jeff has several friends [pulver.com] in the telecom and datacom industries, among them AT&T, Qwest, Worldcom, Global Crossing and Cisco. Outside of that, the venerable EFF [eff.org] is also in favor of his petition. (Donate now!) [eff.org]

        I didn't include it in the story in order to avoid trampling his site too much, but he still has the original petition [PDF] [pulver.com] available online.
    • Everyone can then setup their very own Asterisk [asterisk.org] box.
    • Governments may be happy to promote this alternative to your old phone line.

      The more move to VoIP (or to Cellular/Mobile phones) the less encumberances the governments have to deal with when they want to tap someones phone line.

      Ever wondered what the eye on the pyramid means?

  • New Regulations? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by TechnologyX ( 743745 ) on Wednesday February 11, 2004 @06:00PM (#8254117) Journal
    Would this mean that the FCC will instead write up new regulations and restrictions for VoIP? Instead of lumping it under Telecommunications?

    • Re:New Regulations? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by LostCluster ( 625375 ) * on Wednesday February 11, 2004 @06:07PM (#8254186)
      No. The threat is that the FCC will lump VoIP into Telecommunications, which therefore subjects them to regulation. Right now, the FCC barely has its hands on the VoIP industry, as the line is kept very close to the traditional telephone systems.

      If you're doing VoIP within the PTSN, or as a last mile connect to the PTSN, you're somewhat regulated as a phone company, all other uses of VoIP are in the clear. Clearly, the phone companies would like that line moved out further, but the tech industry does not.

  • Three years ago? And one year ago? (Score:5, Funny)

    by revolvement ( 742502 ) on Wednesday February 11, 2004 @06:01PM (#8254133)
    Then this is obviously a dupe news post.

  • VoIP and tech jobs (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ObviousGuy ( 578567 ) <ObviousGuy@hotmail.com> on Wednesday February 11, 2004 @06:03PM (#8254150) Homepage Journal
    We are always decrying the dearth of technology jobs, but then we laud things like this which make such jobs obsolete. VoIP is a really cool technology which makes telcos (and subsequently jobs at those telcos) obsolete.

    I'm trying hard not to become a Luddite here, but how can we save jobs if technology's main goal is to eliminate those jobs? There is always the argument that by eliminating these jobs we can create a new class of higher-level jobs, but as we see demonstrated by VoIP and other things like OSS, mostly we are destroying corporations which are the primary provider of jobs in this country. It's like we've got all these great ideas, but no morality that forces us to step back and evaluate the negative impact that those ideas have.

    • Re:VoIP and tech jobs (Score:3, Insightful)

      by spune ( 715782 )
      When automated processes control the world, we won't need jobs. It's a step forward.

      • Re:VoIP and tech jobs (Score:5, Funny)

        by revolvement ( 742502 ) on Wednesday February 11, 2004 @06:11PM (#8254224)
        When automated processes control the world, we won't need jobs. It's a step forward. Can I take the blue pill now?

      • Re:VoIP and tech jobs (Score:4, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 11, 2004 @06:13PM (#8254243)
        When automated processes control the world, we won't need jobs. It's a step forward.

        Kind of like when Skynet goes online?

        oh wait..

      • Re:VoIP and tech jobs (Score:2, Interesting)

        by kfg ( 145172 )
        This is pretty nearly correct, and we've really been pretty close to it for a long while. A good many jobs these days, if examined closely, are make work sorts of deals.

        Why do we need to make work?

        Because of the ties between "jobs" and income. Our entire culture is based a labor/recompense model that really no longer reflects the way things actually work.

        The issue isn't protecting jobs. It's providing income.

        KFG
      • Better stock your pantry well now, if you think it's coming soon. You're postulating a phase change in the global economy, and things are apt to be messy for a while until we haul away the wreckage of the old system and build a new one on its foundation.

    • Re:VoIP and tech jobs (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Absurd Being ( 632190 ) on Wednesday February 11, 2004 @06:13PM (#8254241) Journal
      Technology's main goal has always been to eliminate jobs. This is why 99% of us aren't toiling in fields at the moment. Sure, it puts a lot of people out of work, and we need free bread and circuses to keep 'em out of trouble, but do you really want a job doing what is in essence pointless busywork? Eventually a new problem will spring up that needs a lot of work thrown at it. At the very least, a morass of paperwork has started to mount, and there is never any end to red tape. Ever. So look for a job processing stupid bureaucratic garbage, no machine can ever figure out how to process it!
      • So look for a job processing stupid bureaucratic garbage, no machine can ever figure out how to process it!


        Sure there is. Forward all incoming bureaucratic info to /dev/null

      • Re:VoIP and tech jobs (Score:3, Insightful)

        by iabervon ( 1971 )
        Technology also creates jobs doing things that wouldn't be possible without it, because tasks that wouldn't be possible before become possible, and people are then needed to perform those tasks. For any particular task, technology (ideally) makes it so you don't need so many people to do it, but that is outweighed by the "next step" tasks that become possible.

        So technology generally creates jobs at about the same rate, overall, than it eliminates them. Which is why American cities aren't more overrun with
    • Who says you need a job?

      If you need food, you can either hunt, gather or farm.

      You do know how to build your own house, right?

    • Re:VoIP and tech jobs (Score:5, Insightful)

      by computersareevil ( 244846 ) on Wednesday February 11, 2004 @06:19PM (#8254279)
      I'm trying hard not to become a Luddite here, but how can we save jobs if technology's main goal is to eliminate those jobs?

      If that was true, the United States, arguably the leader in technological advances over the last 100 years, would be at the bottom of the pile, rather than the top. In truth, technology may eliminate some jobs, but it always creates MORE jobs. It merely moves them from one business to another.

      When the automakers replaced humans with robots, the smart humans went to work for the companies that make the robots. Those companies and their suppliers employed more workers than were replaced by the robots. The serpent can not swallow it's own tail.

      • We are like gods (Score:5, Insightful)

        by 0x0d0a ( 568518 ) on Wednesday February 11, 2004 @07:07PM (#8254605) Journal
        In truth, technology may eliminate some jobs, but it always creates MORE jobs. It merely moves them from one business to another.

        I disagree. Technology just plain eliminates jobs.

        Society, however, creates new ones to fill the gap.

        I agree with you that we are not going to be in a situation where we cannot get any jobs for people. The folks proposing things like this are ridiculous. Luxury items have *always* filled up the gaps -- the wealth always pay a premium for some new status symbol or slight standard-of-living increase.

        In India, it is quite financially feasible for a moderately wealthy person to have a number of servants. In the United States, *very* few people have a number of servants, because human labor is so expensive relative to most people's income -- we have a very strong middle class. There are lots of people who would be interested in getting a maid, a gardener, etc if they could afford to do so.

        The fact that many people that would like to have servants do not have them is simply because of the fact that we have a vast number of jobs to fill, and people have gone for more desireable ones.

        That was just a single example. Are machine-made items generally more uniform, higher quality, more efficient to produce, and cheaper? Sure. However, they don't have the character that hand-made items do. They aren't *unique*. In the US, human labor is expensive (again, lots of jobs relative to the number of people.), so hand-made items are rare, but still purchased by the wealthy. If technology eliminates more jobs, hand-made goods will become more affordable. Yes, you could cheaply get a photograph of a painting on your wall, but it's just not the *same* as having the original painting on your wall.

        Our productivity always increases. If we wanted to retain an 1800s standard-of-living, then we would have had most of the population out of work a long time ago. Demands on standard-of-living always cause increases. Heck, today I can walk into my living room (I live in a house with numerous rooms -- far more than the two rooms that the poor would have had a few hundred years ago.) I can turn on the television. A few hundred years ago, the wealthiest king could have had perhaps multiple sets of performers playing at a major event -- a feast, a wedding, etc. I have something like *forty* different stages of performers constantly performing (channels), any of which I can watch. I can even repeat bits I like. The movies and shows contain content that simply could not have been produced in mideval times.

        I can go down to the store and choose just about any food I want in the world, and I can afford it. I can eat oranges in the dead of winter, if I want to do so (and I just did this morning). I can eat *ice cream*, which used to be something that was pricy even for royalty.

        I wear clothes that have a finer knit, are more durable, and probably more brightly colored than even kings could enjoy.

        Each night, I can relax as heated water -- as much as I'd like -- is continuously poured over me. The temperature can be increased exactly to taste with a flick of my fingers.

        I can speak with my friends at any time, no matter where in the world they are, and much more quickly than by sending out a horse and rider.

        I cannot smell the people that I live with, and they don't need to cover up their own stench with perfume, as would have happened a few hundred years ago. Our clothes are washed with almost no effort.

        Our water is drawn and heated for us. Our bread is toasted to taste for us. We can get many varieties of hot food within a few minutes (thanks to the microwave) of the moment we think of it. We can obtain exotic spices of almost any sort. Our dishes are washed for us. Our rugs are beaten for us (thank you, vacuum cleaner). Cold foods are kept easily available to hand. If I want hot chocolate, instead of pumping water, lighting a fire, putting the water over the fire, waiting half an hour,

    • Re:VoIP and tech jobs (Score:5, Insightful)

      by rjelks ( 635588 ) on Wednesday February 11, 2004 @06:19PM (#8254280) Homepage
      By that same logic, your post should have been sent via the postal system. It's not a perfect analogy, but I think the argument is similar to the one about email vs. the postal service. I don't think we need to outlaw innovation to protect jobs. /rant off

      -
      • By that same logic, your post should have been sent via the postal system. It's not a perfect analogy, but I think the argument is similar to the one about email vs. the postal service. I don't think we need to outlaw innovation to protect jobs. /rant off


        If you REALLY want to get into specifics, shouldn't your message say "Your last post should have been sent via Pony Express"?

    • Idiot (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Julian Morrison ( 5575 )
      How can we possibly keep people in work if cars make all those horse salesmen, stablers, saddlers, buggy makers, blacksmiths etc obsolete! It will be a job holocaust! Nobody will be working except the car drivers!

      Fool, learn the lesson of history, what's being destroyed is inefficient jobs. Not only will the new tech create replacement jobs directly, but indirectly through efficiency gains (money not wasted on one thing can be additionally spent upon another) and through enabling whole new types of job.

      Al

      • The difference (Score:1, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        In the past, technology has been used to eliminate inefficient jobs, that is true. However, it replaced those jobs with other money-making jobs. Or, if you will, it replaced those obsolete products with new revenue-generating products.

        If you take a look at VoIP, it promises to eliminate revenue altogether. Linux does the same. This is not an issue if this push towards making things free were just a tiny bubble in the tech world, but it is a growing movement. If things keep up at the rate that it is cu
        • The mousepushers will pay your salary. As they always did. They are to stupid to remember "don't press this .exe-file in MS Outlook" and that won't go away soon.

          And by the time they have learned to avoid .exe-files, YOU will have learned the next big thing in computer science to still be ahead of them.

          And if you don't advance, if you don't gain knowledge and just sit on your job doing things someone could (and will) learn, it's a shame you lose that job, but unavoidable then. You always have to learn
        • When everything is free, why do I need a salary?

        • No Difference (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Julian Morrison ( 5575 ) on Wednesday February 11, 2004 @07:16PM (#8254682)
          "If you take a look at VoIP, it promises to eliminate revenue altogether"

          No, it promises to eliminate waste.

          Consider these five questions:

          - What else could people and businesses spend the money on, that they used to waste on phone bills?

          - What totally new things could people and businesses do with infinite free phone time, that they could not have done when phones cost money?

          - What new businesses could start, because the lowered cost margins suddenly make their plans profit-viable?

          - What new businesses could start, because the tech is functionally better, and opens up opporunities that were impossible before?

          - What new innovation could now happen in the arena of phones and phone-like technologies, that was previously impossible, because the technology was expensive to own and inaccessible to learn?

          That new innovation will improve efficiency yet again, and the cycle goes around.

    • Re:VoIP and tech jobs (Score:4, Insightful)

      by LostCluster ( 625375 ) * on Wednesday February 11, 2004 @06:34PM (#8254397)
      The fear isn't as much in protecting the jobs of Ma Bell employees, but making sure that anybody who wants to come forward as the replacement to Ma Bell provide a full replacement to Ma Bell, not just one that satisfies the market.

      People would not voluntarily pay for 911 service if it was optional, but as a society, the community as a whole is better off to have it. Therefore 911 comes free with any POTS or cellular service you get, whether you like it or not. The question that the VoIP suppliers having trouble answering is how they intend to duplicate the 911 system in a world where they rule the marketplace and the POTS system is shut down as obsolite.

      Some people have decided they don't need POTS because their cell phone is a total replacement. If people are going to start ditching POTS because VoIP is all they need, we better make sure it lives up to the same reliabilty and service levels.
      • Big TelCo's donate a lot more money than the little guys. The big guys going away would remove that money.

      • Re:VoIP and tech jobs (Score:5, Insightful)

        by JayBlalock ( 635935 ) on Wednesday February 11, 2004 @07:11PM (#8254636)
        The question that the VoIP suppliers having trouble answering is how they intend to duplicate the 911 system in a world where they rule the marketplace and the POTS system is shut down as obsolite.

        That's a rather fatuous argument, don't you think? Of course they're having trouble answering questions regarding what they'll be doing in a hypothetical situation which, if it comes about at all, lies decades down the line. It's not like the TelCom industry is going to commit seppuku rather than attempt to remain competitive.

        911 compatability wouldn't be hard. If things ever DID reach that point, the government (which centralizes 911 anyway, remember) and the industry work out some new protocol for handling VoIP 911 calls. And that's the other half of the equation - the VoIP industry has to be strong enough that the government sees a need to make it easy for them to get into 911. Once they hit that point, it'll happen quickly. (just as, originally, cell phones didn't have 911 on them, no?)

        • Your points are good. And besides... 9-1-1 works with my cellphone, though my provider is not necessarily a government agency.

          My cellphone company tacks on a little $1.00 or so 9-1-1 charge. I probably brings in more cash than it loses in connectivity fees, but it's worth it (broke my ankle recently with nobody around, certainly appreciated being able to call an ambulance then).

    • Re:VoIP and tech jobs (Score:3, Interesting)

      by gl4ss ( 559668 )
      enhancing efficiency is supposed to make life 'easier' in the long run for everybody. there's people who don't believe into that though and they're not adapting technologies, and in doing so in my opinion wasting resources.

      besides, you think that voip will run over magic or what? the data must still flow somehow, like, over a telcom owned copper.
    • Why can't we have an infinite amount of jobs: digging holes and then filling them in again, counting the grains of sand on the beach, or just whistling Dixie all day long? We could outlaw innovation and competition so no job is ever threatened. Maybe we could even ban and destroy technologies that reduce labor: say good riddance to bulldozers, dishwashers, and computers.

      I find reading biographies of business leaders to be an inspiring way to avoid the doldrums. For example, read the bio [amazon.com]of Howard Shultz [myprimetime.com] (o
    • We are always decrying the dearth of technology jobs, but then we laud things like this which make such jobs obsolete.

      Look at the political pressure to keep the loggers in business. Their claim is "we've been doing this for years" and try to work around the laws that stop them from cutting down the depleted forests. They might as well get federal backing preventing pneumatic tires, because it cuts into their wagon-wheel business.

      If something is deprecated, you're not a luddite to hang onto it... rather

    • Does not make telcos obsolete. (Score:4, Informative)

      by pavon ( 30274 ) on Wednesday February 11, 2004 @07:58PM (#8255053)
      How does this make telcos obsolete? The telcos are the ones that operate the entire backbone of the internet, as well as most of the last mile connections. They won't loose any jobs. They may loose money as people switch to VoIP, but that will simply mean that the price of data lines will go up to compensate for the dual role that they are playing.

      On the point of OSS, it has created jobs, as well as replacing them. Furthermore, I hate to say this but we what we consider "normal" for the shrink-wrapped software industry, was really a boom, and it's getting ready to bust. By and large, the only reason people buy new versions of software is because they need to stay compatible with everyone else. The rest of the industry has dropped in prices in time, while software if anything has risen. Shrinkwrapped software is an industry waiting to be obsoleted. Lastly, the vast majority of software jobs are custom in-house or consulting work, and those jobs don't have anything to loose from OSS - in fact they are the very types of jobs which OSS is creating.

      Technology is simply change. Throughout history, people have always been afraid of fact that technology will not provide the jobs it replaces, and they have always been proven wrong. There is nothing about these two particular advances which suggests that it will be any different.
    • how can we save jobs if technology's main goal is to eliminate those jobs?
      Why would you want to save jobs?

      People decry the loss of tech jobs, for immediate tactical reasons -- they don't know what to do tomorrow, to make a buck to pay their bills. But in the long strategic view, it's nothing to decry at all. It's the road to paradise, where there are no longer any bills to pay.

      I, for one, welcome our new robot butlers.

  • Mirror! (Score:5, Informative)

    by FiberOpPraise ( 607416 ) on Wednesday February 11, 2004 @06:04PM (#8254160) Homepage
    Since the site is getting real slow with only 3 posts, here is a mirror:
    Mirror [fibersnet.net]

  • Powell was on screensavers the other day.. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by BrookHarty ( 9119 ) on Wednesday February 11, 2004 @06:05PM (#8254175) Journal
    Michael Powell was on the tv show Screensavers over at techtv. He stated he didnt want to regulate, and wanted to open services. He made some interesting comments, like how when the FCC didnt regulate what goes on the Internet, all the services, companies and inventions that came out of it. He then started on the free unregulated spectrum they are allowing people to use for Wifi ISPs.

    He sounds like hes on the ball for most stuff, was rather impressed he wants the market to grow, and to now cripple it with regulations.

    I still don't trust the FCC, but at least it shows he understands the regulation powers of the FCC, and avoiding it. Or maybe he's just not bought by special interests yet.

    • Re:Powell was on screensavers the other day.. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by The One KEA ( 707661 ) on Wednesday February 11, 2004 @06:09PM (#8254209) Journal
      Hopefully he can build up enough inertia that any of his successors who do get bought out won't be able to turn the tide back with aforementioned crippling regulations. They way you describe him is very reassuring.

    • Re:Powell was on screensavers the other day.. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by LostCluster ( 625375 ) * on Wednesday February 11, 2004 @06:14PM (#8254250)
      Powell's attitude towards the Janet Jackson situation is also being misunderstood in some circles.

      He doesn't want the FCC to have to crack down on broadcast and cable content, he'd rather the media companies control themselves. However, the recent events showed that they aren't self-regulating very well, so he is threatening a serious crackdown because unless they get their act toghether, the FCC has to do so.

      Powell wants the FCC to be hands-off whenever possible, but he also knows when that just isn't possible and he has to take an action.

      I'm very hopeful he rules for "hands-off" in this FWD situation.
      • So, basically, the FCC won't touch you unless you do something that they don't like? That is not hands off. Either he's going to control what can and cannot be broadcast, or he isn't. You can't have it both ways.
      • So when its violence on TV he wants to be "hands off" but when its boobs he wants to be "hands on"?

        Im sorry I'll go away now

        • Powell doesn't dictate American culture. He can have his own opinions and wiggle around a bit, but ultimately, he's a servant of the people.

          People in the United States are generally comfortable with murders, guns, and violence on television. They are generally uncomfortable with bare breasts or people making love on television. (Contrast this with Japan or the UK.) This is almost certainly not a "Powell decision" -- the rules were laid down a long time ago, and I doubt he was at the FCC back then.

          • Re:Powell was on screensavers the other day.. (Score:5, Informative)

            by LostCluster ( 625375 ) * on Wednesday February 11, 2004 @06:41PM (#8254453)
            Yes, but Powell belives that the pre-existing rules are part of the problem, that the highest penality he can assess right now is $27,500 per station that broadcast a rule-breaking program. His proposal is that the fines be adjusted to make a dent in the now big-pocket companies that would pay them... $275,000 per station that broadcasts a rule breaking incident, with the ability to define more than one incident per program and also lower the bar it takes to revoke the licenses of stations that repeatedly offend.

            Powell is also threatening to make a play for the ability to regulate cable content, which so far has been out of reach the FCC, but is within the domain of Canada's broadcast regulators. He's not quite making the proposal for this yet, but is warning cable operators that they better show an improved effort to self-police if they don't want the government coming.

            Of course, the FCC cannot increase its own power. The FCC can only execute laws on the books. So, any such proposal needs congressional approval. Still, Powell's a big voice on Capitol Hill, and these seem like reasonable requests given the current state of things, so Congress just might give him the power he's requesting.
    • His stance on this issue is motivated by the ideology that big bidness is the best entity to provide for the needs of the nation. This was the basis in his desire to give spectrum to the broadcasters, and allow media to conglomerate into a few megacorporations that effectively controls the nations information.

      Unless the congress or supreme court, which are still more centrist than the administrations and it's appointments, get involved it is highly unlikely that VOIP will be regulated.

      And in this case

    • . . of course in Today's news, Powell's practically foaming at the mouth about wanting to regulate TV, both public AND pay.

      I guess the little on/off button and channel selector that lets people watch something else if they don't like one program, was failed technology.
    • He is too busy working on the Boob problem to do anything else. Hell, he wanted to yank CBS's license over it. For a boob. But people being chopped to death on CBS's CSI or Jag or NCIS is OK.

      SO boobs = bad and death/murder = good.
      • Sometimes you have to hit someone with a two-by-four to get their attention. The FCC didn't have this problem in the old days. If you broke the rules, they would pull your station off the air while they investigated the incident. If it was serious, they would revoke the station's license. They didn't take shit from station owners or networks. They put the fear of God in station owners and their staff.

  • it's about reliability (Score:5, Insightful)

    by fermion ( 181285 ) on Wednesday February 11, 2004 @06:11PM (#8254222) Homepage Journal
    Right now the land line is the most reliable utility, at least in the United States. Given that people lives often depend on the service, the regulation and cost is justified. This reliability costs money, and what we pay the phone company reflects the guarantee that service will be available. Compare this reliability to a consumer grade ISP, cable television, or even electricity.

    My concern is if VOIP is not regulated properly, it may become widespread enough that it will affect the revenue the companies that maintain the land lines, and reliability will suffer. Clearly VOIP cannot be as reliable as POTS, as it requires a much more complex consumer hardware and software. Cell phones could be nearly as reliable as POTS except that the wireless companies seem to be more focused on bells and whistles rather than insuring basic service.

    It may be that we can no longer afford reliable telephone service. If so, I would like to see that decision made intentionally.

    • Clearly VOIP cannot be as reliable as POTS, as it requires a much more complex consumer hardware and software.

      I agree with your conclusion, but not your reasoning.

      VoIP is not as reliable as POTS, but not because of complexity. VoIP is not a superset of POTS -- it has a larger set of components that must work right, but the reliability of those components are not tied to POTS reliability.

      VoIP is not as reliable because the system was not designed for absolute reliability. Standard old IP is designed fo

    • Re:it's about reliability (Score:5, Insightful)

      by JayBlalock ( 635935 ) on Wednesday February 11, 2004 @06:30PM (#8254362)
      I disagree. I think it's absolutely ludicrous that I can send an e-mail to Siberia, chat in ICQ simultaneously with folks from the whole of the Middle East, hook up my webcam to send video through MSN to a friend in Japan and do it all for "free"...

      ...yet if I want to actually TALK to a human being outside of my own country, suddenly I'm paying huge amounts of money per minute.

      The TelCom industry is quickly becoming a dinosaur. The only reason people pay for their voice services is that there is no real alternative. And they're doing everything they can to make sure it stays that way.

      Saying the land lines will suffer is almost more like a threat than an argument. "Don't want to pay us? Fine. We'll make sure you don't have any connection!" I know that's not quite what you said, but I suspect it's in the back of a lot of their minds. But the fact is, we are moving more and more towards an Internet world, and I find it hard to believe that huge companies like AT&T or SW Bell couldn't find ways of switching their business model over to strictly providing Internet-related services.

      They've lost all credibility in terms of public interest anyway. How about all those millions (billions?) in government handouts they've taken under the promise of laying optical cable, only to pocket it and walk away? Or all those places in the city where you can't get DSL simply because your local TelCo can't be bothered to upgrade the lines?

      Take AWAY their industry-monopoly on voice communications, and they'll basically be forced to upgrade or die. Who knows, they might even spend some money upgrading our pathetic cell network while they're at it.

      And the nice part is, you don't have to ACTUALLY take anything away. You just DON'T force the competition \ alternatives to suffer under regulations which shouldn't apply to them. And that's best aspect of all of this. If VoIP takes off, suddenly communications get far more open and free than they've ever been. No more worries again over TelCos gaining too much power or abusing a "monopoly" position. The very idea of a monopoly of any sort on voice transmissions gets rendered moot. It might be rocky at the first, of course, but the trend is towards more Wired people in more countries, and that's deeply unlikely to change.

      And then there's one more problem solved.

      • Re:it's about reliability (Score:5, Informative)

        by molo ( 94384 ) on Wednesday February 11, 2004 @07:15PM (#8254666) Journal
        Huge amounts of money per minute for international calls?

        I don't know what you're talking about.. since we get calls to the entire industrialized world for under $0.25 USD per minute. I can call Japan for $0.10 per minute and can call the UK for $0.08 per minute. Thats almost as cheap as the $0.07 per minute I'm paying for domestic long distance.

        I remember paying $0.25 per minute for calls within the same state! Before deregulation, it was even worse. Even today, most in-state calls are more expensive than international calls. Hell, even calls to Russia are $0.20 per minute!

        Here, see what I'm talking about:
        http://www.consumer.att.com/global/english/ [att.com]

        These rates are damn cheap.. and I'm glad to have them.

        BTW, AT&T will be providing VoIP. They don't say how cheap it will be yet, but they are saying it will be cheaper than POTS. See here:
        http://www.consumer.att.com/voip/ [att.com]

        -molo
        • BTW, AT&T will be providing VoIP. They don't say how cheap it will be yet, but they are saying it will be cheaper than POTS. See here: http://www.consumer.att.com/voip/ Wonderful! THAT is the sort of competition that we need more of. Not "deregulating" established industries which are already hopelessly tilted in favor of the established powers, but in totally new applications and areas of development where quality and innovation really CAN be the driving force.

          As for the rest, my roommate got hit

          • Re:it's about reliability (Score:3, Interesting)

            by molo ( 94384 )
            Yes, I agree, competition is a good thing. But I do have to argue that it CAN be possible to introduce competition into older established businesses. Look at the AT&T and MCI case. Since then, prices have continued to drop from the increased competition.

            The $500 bill is quite a bit. I would bet he wasn't on an international calling plan. In that case, he would be paying full-rate for those calls, which is just rediculously expensive. We call Japan for hours at a time every month (family there).
            • I would argue that the competition which caused phone prices to go down was cell phones, not each other. But that's really a matter of interpretation.

              Otherwise... I (unfortunately) work for a Texas Power Company. Don't even get me started on how screwed-up and backward "deregulation" can be.

    • Re:it's about reliability (Score:3, Insightful)

      by FsG ( 648587 )
      My concern is if VOIP is not regulated properly, it may become widespread enough that it will affect the revenue the companies that maintain the land lines

      This is how competition works; there is always a trade-off between reliability, price, and a hundred other factors. If the FCC rules in favor of freedom, the consumers will get to choose whether they want reliability, cheap prices, or some combination of the two. If enough people want the reliability of land-line phones, they will stick around. If people

  • Why? (Score:3, Informative)

    by signalgod ( 233854 ) on Wednesday February 11, 2004 @06:12PM (#8254235)
    What's the use of this technology? It says on the website at http://www.fwd.pulver.com/index.php?section_id=71
    that you can't call traditional POTS or cell phones, only other FWD members or other partner VOIP providers.

    I don't have Vonage or the like, but I'm sure I will eventually, but didn't Netmeeting do the same thing back in the Windoze 98 days?

  • FCC and tapping VoIP (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 11, 2004 @06:13PM (#8254240)
    Here's a link to an article [com.com] about the Feds wanting more time before the FCC rules on VoIP so they can figure out how to tap into VoIP calls.

  • FWD rocks (Score:5, Interesting)

    by andersen ( 10283 ) on Wednesday February 11, 2004 @06:14PM (#8254245) Homepage
    I have a Sipura SPA-2000 [sipura.com] (which is very very cool) connected to 2 phone lines in my 4 line phone (one line is empty, the forth line connects to my local land line and lets us conference in other people who don't use VOIP yet). I use it to call my business partners for free over the net. That saves us a ton of money over using traditional land lines and paying long distance. Call quality is excellent, and the FWD service works perfectly. We each pay our local ISP for broadband net access (which we were doing anyway before we switched to using VOIP).

    FWD works great and I highly recommend it. They even provide voice mail. Pulver has done a great thing, and the FCC has absolutely no business screwing it up! I don't need to call 911 over IP, and I don't want regulatory access fees and taxes to pay for 911...

  • Asterisk is the answer... (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 11, 2004 @06:22PM (#8254309)
    Use Asterisk [asteriskpbx.org]. If everyone starts to use asterisk then how are they going to keep track.

    • Use Skype [skype.com], until they ask everyone to pay. Better sound quality than telephone. Works with only Port 80 open. Free.

      • 3. Permission to Utilize. In order to receive the benefits provided by the Skype Software, you hereby grant permission for the Skype Software to utilize the processor and bandwidth of your computer for the limited purpose of facilitating the communication between other Skype Software users. You understand that the Skype Software will protect the privacy and integrity of your computer resources and communication and ensure the unobtrusive utilization of your computer resources to the greatest extent possi

  • nope (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 11, 2004 @06:36PM (#8254421)
    VOIP is no more "telecommunications service" than instant messaging is. One goes over powerlines that are routed through trunks at your telephone company and involve charges across state lines and intercompany transmission fees/credits and government regulation, state utilities, utility commissions, government employees, oversight, etc.

    The other is sending bits of data from one computer, over the internet, to another computer. Some bits may be recombined to produce "talking" or another bunch of bits may recombine to produce images of a videogame or an email. In this case, it's voices.

    The only thing at issue here is whether or not the old phone companies can be given welfare and sort of a "mafia" type protection so that VOIP can't compete with them and THEY can control it. It's like Don Corlione moving into another drug product and forcing everyone who was selling it out of their territory.

    • Re:nope (Score:5, Insightful)

      by JayBlalock ( 635935 ) on Wednesday February 11, 2004 @06:45PM (#8254474)
      Exactly. Another thing that worries me is if they DO start regulating VoIP, who's to say they won't suddenly start looking at chat, or e-mail? God help us if the Feds suddenly decide that chat networks have to be reconfigured so that they can 'tap' ICQ. Or e-mail? Follow the same line of thought and PGP becomes illegal.

      Incidentally, switching into film geek mode, Don Corleone was against getting into drug trade and got killed for it. ;-)

      • Another thing that worries me is if they DO start regulating VoIP, who's to say they won't suddenly start looking at chat, or e-mail?

        They might. Or they might bring the same reliability and featureset (911, etc) to VOIP as exists in landline comms now.

        God help us if the Feds suddenly decide that chat networks have to be reconfigured so that they can 'tap' ICQ. Or e-mail? Follow the same line of thought and PGP becomes illegal.

        And they'll find that the 'stupid' nature of the 'Net and smart endpoints p
      • He got into drugs and yes an attempt was made on his life and he nearly died, but did not die at this point.

        Don Corleone died later in the movie when playing with his grandson in a small vineyard years later. I believe he had a heart attack.

        Getting into the drug trade caused huge problems for his family but it didn't directly kill him.

  • infrastructure funding (Score:3, Interesting)

    by bran6don ( 693931 ) on Wednesday February 11, 2004 @06:50PM (#8254507)
    Go ahead and mod me a troll, I've got karma to burn ;)
    However, I think this is a point people often overlook:
    Assuming VoIP takes over the current Telco system...
    Who is going to pay for the infrastructure? This all takes money to keep in order. If phone companies aren't around, you will be making up the payments to your internet connection provider.
    • Who is going to pay for the infrastructure? This all takes money to keep in order.

      Perhaps the governemt should fill this role.

      Like they maintain the highway infrastructure.

      • yeah, and watch every bit of free speech and anonymity you ever had vanish into thin air.

      • Government infrastructure probably costs more (Score:4, Insightful)

        by AHumbleOpinion ( 546848 ) on Wednesday February 11, 2004 @07:50PM (#8254990) Homepage
        Perhaps the governemt should fill this role. Like they maintain the highway infrastructure.

        Not a good example. You don't have the right to drive a car on the highway. It is a privelage. You must agree to stop and identify yourself when directed to by law enforcment. You must agree to pay special fees between two points when directed to do so.

        A government controlled infrastructure that displaces the telco industry would probably make things simpler for the FBI, no more problems with untappable technology. For those thinking I will encrypt look again at the physical highways where you are required to identify yourself. Also what is there to stop the government from dropping encrypted connections? Free speech, privacy, no, again look at the highway system, a privelage not a right.

        Personally I'm not worried about the above but I'm sure many around here who were jumping on the highway analogy were not thinking about it very much. My personal concern is that I doubt that whatever infrastructure the government comes up with will cost less than what the telcos would have cost. If the day comes where I no longer have to give AT&T money I expect that I will be giving an even larger amount to my ISP and/or government internet utility.
    • People still have to pay for the Internet connections upon which VoIP depends. It would just mean the TelCos would have to transition to a new business model wherein their focus is on providing the network and access to it, rather than seeing the Internet as a bastard stepchild of their voice profits.

      Hypothetically, it would *inspire* them to finally lay down that optical cable they've been promising us for years. They'll no longer be riding on the profits of their copper-based services and ignoring eve

    • If phone companies aren't around, you will be making up the payments to your internet connection provider.

      I doubt the phone companies are subsidizing my cable modem provider. If they go away, so what?

      • So what: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by porkchop_d_clown ( 39923 )
        So, your ISP bill will go up when they force you to pay the universal access charges that currently get tacked onto your phone bill.

  • Wow! I actually agree with Powell (Score:3, Interesting)

    by l0ungeb0y ( 442022 ) on Wednesday February 11, 2004 @07:13PM (#8254651) Homepage Journal
    What with the last go around with Powell and his support of a very one sided royalty system for internet radio, I was seriously thinking the guy was like darth Vader or something.

    but this, this thing, this VOIP SIP phone not needing regulation and therefore added expense and licensing and anal probing and government placating and and well..
    It's just wonderful!

    Now for all those who say "But where will the telcos pay for the landlines" I say, they should roll in the SIP themselves and offer it as part of their DSL/Broadband package. Charge and extra $30 a month for it and overcharge 500% on the eqpt as usual with a mandatory fee of $250.00 for sending over a dude dressed like a gas station attendent who will plug it in and turn it on, plus cram in 120 or so extra fees and excise taxes. And that my friend is where SBC and the like will compensate for long distance.

  • It's the phone call that's most contentious (Score:5, Interesting)

    by isdnip ( 49656 ) on Wednesday February 11, 2004 @07:23PM (#8254743)
    I've posted this before, when the topic came up on another occasion, but it's worth repeating.

    The FCC is NOT going to regulate computer-to-computer "phone" calls. If you run voice over your Internet connection, as an application, it's your business, and that's that. Even the guy who drafted the infamous ACTA petition in 1996 now thinks VoIP is cool stuff.

    The problem is the phone call between the consumer with a plain old phone line and the VoIP network. "Phone to phone" and "phone to computer" calls have a telco leg that's just a plain old voice call. Under current law, a phone call can be either "telephone exchange service" or "exchange access service". The former is basically taken to mean a local call, though the legal definition is a bit more expansive. The latter is taken to be the local phone company's leg of a toll call (what AT&T or MCI buys). Guess which one costs more.

    Now if all VoIP calls were treated as local ("telephone exchange service"), then the local telephone companies (think: Bells) would lose money that they now make from exchange access service ("switched access"). And the rural phone companies, who charge the long distance companies MUCH more than the Bells for that service, in order to compensate for higher costs (that is, to subsidize local service to the sticks), are very protective of switched access revenues. And the flyover states each have two senators.

    So the main issue will come up around the far end of a Vonage call, for instance -- if Vonage is a long-distance company, they will have to pay access when they deliver a long distance call. Just like other long distance companies. Skype's on-net calls, and FWD, won't be touched as long as they are on net. Count on it.

    Ideally, the whole access thing would go away, and the distinction between access and local would be moot. That's the way it works in msot of Europe, I think -- it's an American tradition to classify things to death, and let the lawyers litigate like crazy over the classification. How many billable lawyer hours do you think this case will be worth in Washington?

  • Not "Under The Gun" - FWD brought themselves (Score:4, Informative)

    by billstewart ( 78916 ) on Wednesday February 11, 2004 @08:28PM (#8255217) Journal
    Saying they're "under the gun" implies that they were dragged their by a hostile FCC. This is largely Pulver trying to get the territory nailed down in a relatively friendly centralized manner, largely to block the kinds of problems that are happening in some states where the Public Utilities Commission has discovered that someone is doing something useful and profitable without their regulatory "help".
    • I agree.. but it got your attention, didn't it?

      Maintaining the metaphor, I suppose its more like FWD stepping in front of the gun to see if the FCC pulls the trigger, rather than the FCC swinging the gun so that it points at FWD.

      The best defense is a good offense -- Vince Lombardi

  • questions (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Parsec ( 1702 ) on Thursday February 12, 2004 @01:24AM (#8255912) Homepage Journal
    1. Why do we want to use a number to contact a specific phone instead of alphanumerics to contact a person like an email address? When we use a phone, are we trying to contact another phone, or a person? Unless it's a business line, isn't it usually a specific person we're trying to reach?

    2. How long until we start getting VoIP spam?
    • Why do we want to use a number to contact a specific phone instead of alphanumerics to contact a person like an email address?

      Because existing phones are designed to dial numbers. Making everyone with an old POTS phone upgrade to a QWERTY keyboard with Display type phone is stupid when there's really nothing wrong with the "old way".

      When we use a phone, are we trying to contact another phone, or a person? Unless it's a business line, isn't it usually a specific person we're trying to reach?

      We're usual

      • Because existing phones are designed to dial numbers. Making everyone with an old POTS phone upgrade to a QWERTY keyboard with Display type phone is stupid when there's really nothing wrong with the "old way".

        The two systems don't talk to each other anyway, so why build to old technology? Besides, my contacts are all arranged by alphabetical name in my cell phone book anyway.

        We're usually trying to reach a person, but in reality we're dialing in the address of a particular phone instrument and hoping

  • It sounds like this particular service's closest analogy in the traditional telecom sphere would be Directory Assistance. It's not carriage at all; it's a *client* of a carrier. I have no problem with FCC determining that something which is not a carrier should not be regulated as if it were.

    But what does this have to do with regulation of VoIP itself? W.r.t. speech connections, a VoIP provider arguably *is* a carrier, and if so then it should be regulated as a carrier so that we'll be able to rely on i

Slashdot Top Deals

As you will see, I told them, in no uncertain terms, to see Figure one. -- Dave "First Strike" Pare

Close