FCC Rules On Pulver Free World Dialup 119
An anonymous reader writes " Light Reading is reporting that the verdict is in on Pulver's FWD. 'The first big decision was a victory for VoIP proponents. The commission ruled that Pulver.com's Free World Dialup VOIP service is an information service, not a telecommunications service. The decision was based largely on the analysis that it doesn't fit the 1996 Telecom Act's definition of a telecommunications service.' To me this was a no-brainer on the part of the FCC. Let's see if they get the rest right too."
If you want to join... (Score:5, Informative)
Don't forget about Skype!!! (Score:1)
Re:Don't forget about Skype!!! (Score:1)
Re:Don't forget about Skype!!! (Score:1)
Re:Don't forget about Skype!!! (Score:2)
Dupe (Score:2, Informative)
Actually (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Dupe (Score:5, Informative)
"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.'"
Notice the future tense. The FCC hadn't ruled yet. They were going to make a decision. This story is abut the decision they made. Whether the ruling was a foregone conclusion is debatable, but that doesn't make it a dupe. Get a clue.
Why VOIP is not a communication thing (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why VOIP is not a communication thing (Score:5, Interesting)
The main reason is that it simply makes no sense financially for another company to hang wires to the same houses.
VOIP doesn't have the same financial implications, and will introduce competition, particularly in the long distance markets.
Television (broadcast - cable and satellite are different animals), on the other hand, uses a finite resource - electromagnetic spectrum. Channel assignments are regulated, which makes sense. I've never been comfortable with content regulation, but that's a discussion for other threads.
Re:Why VOIP is not a communication thing (Score:5, Informative)
The incumbent landline company is still regulated even though they no longer have the advantage of being a monopoly.
Non-incumbent landline companies are much less regulated.
Mobile providers are taxed at a lower rate and are required to supply fewer emergency services (though this is changing).
VoIP is almost completely unregulated and untaxed. Provides almost no emergency services other than passing the user to the PSTN network.
VoIP suppliers, and to a lesser extent the non-incumbent landline providers & the mobile service providors, are riding on the coattails of the incumbent landline service providors. They get cheap facilities & services, are held to a lower requirements of service, and are taxed at a lower rate.
The incumbent is required to lease facilities to competitors at a rate based on the cost of those facilities. Then, when the incumbent needs additional facilities (because it was required to give them to its competitors) they must build new facilities at a higher cost. This puts them at a huge competitive disadvantage, eventhough there are charges applied to other providors that are funnelled to the incumbent (to offset the cost of providing service to everyone, emergency services, inexpensive/free service to schools, libraries & the poor, a higher quality of service. So there are huge financial implications and they are arificially skewed.
There is reason to favor the new technology, or at least there was. It makes it easier for new services & technologies to develop. However, in my opinion, it's time for VoIP to pay its own way. The technology is there, it has been around for quite some time now. It already makes tremendous sense in some areas e.g. a campus or company with excess data transmission capacity can make use of the spare bandwidth for voice. The hotel I'm in has integrated data & voice facilities, since many travellers to business hotels now require high speed network connections this scheme works well. It's even beginning to make sense to replace traditional switched circuit facilities -- I visit many Central Offices that belong to different telephone companies (wireline & wireless). Almost every CO I've been in recently has VoIP. They aren't tearing out their traditional switches but most have passed the trial stage and are using VoIP for growth now. Expect changes, VoIP will be expected to hold its own soon.
Re:Why VOIP is not a communication thing (Score:2)
Re:Why VOIP is not a communication thing (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Why VOIP is not a communication thing (Score:2)
What you say is historically true, I agree. But going forward I think it's time to make these new technologies self-sufficient. Not all at once, just gradually.
RBOCs haven't gone bankrupt, They have valuable infrastructure so they get bought before they can go under.
Re:Why VOIP is not a communication thing (Score:3, Interesting)
telemarketing implications? (Score:1)
Re:Why VOIP is not a communication thing (Score:2, Interesting)
The difference being it's a directory service, and doesn't handle VoIP
Some Clear Thinking (Score:2)
Consider "the telecommunications infrastructure" (ie legacy wires-in-the-ground telcos)
Re:Why VOIP is not a communication thing (Score:4, Insightful)
In that case, how is VoIP different from recording a message and ataching it in an email? The series of messages sent mack and forth constitute "two or more people talking to each other" so FCC should regulate email.with exactly the same fees and requirements as landlines (because *that's* actually what's at question here)
Oh and ditto for file-sharing networks because people could be sending back-and-forth MP3s of snippets of conversation. And also Instant Messaging.
Or even (gasp) The Internet! Every TCP session is a "communication" between two parties - so we need FCC fees and regulations aplying to every single TCP session we create. Obviously we need E911 services (one of the regs which would apply) available for every-single-IP address (ie we need to know EXACTLY where you are physically when you're on the internet at all times)
Now do you see how simple-minded your thinking is?
You made the classic mistake of boiling down the definition of "telecommunications" to its most basic brain-dead terms, and then applied that brain-dead definition to an advanced service. Of course you completely forgot that (mathematically speaking) to balance an equation you need to do the same operation to both sides - which would mean applying brain-dead regulations to VoIP (as you have so clearly suggested)
Re:Why VOIP is not a communication thing (Score:1)
Re:Why VOIP is not a communication thing (Score:3, Informative)
If you read the FCC decision you'll see this is how they approached the problem (although the 5 commissioners did not all agree as to the conclusion).
They decided that Pulver's service (which basically just helps two VOIP endpoints locate each other) is just an internet service, and is not a "telecommunications service." Th
Damned English! (Score:3, Funny)
For damn long while I pondered what the hell they mean in the message. World Dialup is Pulver Free, that is Without Pulver. And what does FCC rule on this Pulver Free Word Dialup? The rest wasn't much easier either, until "Pulver.com's"...
Re:Damned English! (Score:1, Insightful)
If they had meant it was lacking Pulver (whatever that is) then it would've been: "FCC Rules on Pulver-Free World Dialup". Since they didn't hyphenate it then that isn't the case. It also doesn't help that Slashdot capitalizes every word in a headline. It's probably "
Re:Damned English! (Score:1)
That's Pulver as in Jeff Pulver and Free as in beer.
Re:Damned English! (Score:1)
Pulver is Swedish for powder. Since it appears in Swedish I sort of assumed the same word could appear in English, but Merriam-Webster Online didn't recognize it, so I guess not.
Anyway, when I first read the headline, I wondered what the hell is a powder-free world dialup, or more importantly, what the hell is a dialup that has powder in it. Guess I'll never know.
Learn Damned English! (Score:1, Insightful)
HTH!
At glance I thought it wouldn't let you call China (Score:2)
Headline (Score:5, Funny)
This won't last. (Score:5, Insightful)
2) Tax revenues plummet.
3) Congress says "I don't think so."
4) Tax laws are amended.
5) Tax revenues go back up (Govt. version of Profit!)
No, no ??? line in this one. It's too obvious.
Re:This won't last. (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:This won't last. (Score:5, Insightful)
1) Cable COs see that VOIP competition is eating away at a new market they want to be a major player in.
2) Said Cable COs roll out DOCSIS 2.0 wih Quality of Service (QoS) provisions.
3) Cable COs give their VOIP packets highest priority, and everybody else low priority.
4) Customer calls to complain that their 3rd party VOIP is choppy. Customer service says "We can switch you over to our jitter-free service for only $5 more per month!"
5) VOIP competition dies.
Re:This won't last. (Score:2)
wow.
Re:Thas won't last. (Score:2)
Re:This won't last. (Score:2)
7) Tax revenues plummet.
Seriously, why does the FCC's opinion on this even matter? Forgive me if theres something about the VoIP system I'm not understanding here, but Free World Dialup is a service something like DNS, so the servers can easily be located outside the US. Taxing the actual peer-to-peer VoIP connections between individual computers is just impossible. Congress is better off letting VoIP providers continue to ru
Re:This won't last. (Score:2)
Never understimate the power of the United States Congress to figure out a way to levy yet another tax. If you want to see a tax revolution in this country, do two things -
1) Go back to the Pre-WWII payment method, that is do away with automatic withholding. Let everyone get all their money and then make them write a check to the US Govt.
2) Move election day to the first tuesday after April 15. Gee, T
Re:This won't last. (Score:1)
Anyway, back ontopic: Taxing VoIP connections would be like taxing Gnutella or KaZaA connections. If it could be done, the RIAA would have already gotten a law passed to do i
repeat? (Score:2, Informative)
Of course... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Of course... (Score:2)
Re:Of course... (Score:2, Funny)
Loss of profit blah blah blah. Campaign contribution... *brown paper envelope rustle*. Laws change.
SIPphone (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:SIPphone (Score:5, Informative)
Of course, you'll have to pay for the VoIP-to-PTSN connect, and that's the service the FCC will regulate, Pulver's number assignment process however is not something that the FCC is going to complain about.
Re:SIPphone (Score:2, Interesting)
The freebie software phone apps, while they do work reasonably well, require a sound card, speakers, mike, or a headset/mic....and some tuning. This seems to turn a lot of people off to the whole thing after fiddling with it for a while.
Or you can throw down as little as $65 for a real IP phone and just plug it in. That's not a lot of money, and well worth it IMHO, since you don't need to leave a PC running,
Re:SIPphone (Score:1)
As has been pointed out, there are pay services where you can connect to the POTS network and make calls. Obviously, these services include provision of a "POTS number" so anyone can dial you. The obvious one is Vonage [vonage.com].
Now, what a little digging into FWD [freeworldialup.com] will uncover are some free ways to link yourself into the POTS network. No, you
another perspective (Score:3, Informative)
A rare victory for small business in VoIP should not obscure the fact that DSL competition is fading across America.
by Dave Burstein
DSL Prime
[February 13, 2004]
"Deliver 100 meg to almost all Americans."
-- John Cioffi. Ivan Seidenberg of Verizon, Brian Roberts of Comcast, and Bob Blau of BellSouth all recently spoke of moving to 50 and 100 Megs.
They delayed the FCC meeting this morning, but as this issue is going out Jeff Pulver should be getting miraculous news at Thursday's FCC meeting. None of us believed his Free World Dialup petition had any chance, despite the logic of moving voice to the net. "Mr. Smith"--actually, Mr. Pulver, a small businessman--went to D.C. and convinced officials his cause was right. The phone companies realized they can still game the system and stay ahead, and even the FBI offered to compromise on ruling the internet.
Friday is also the day for bids on AT&T Wireless, a deal that will probably go down because $300 million in commissions and accelerated options are at stake. Amazing that bids are at $30 billion for an outfit whose profits are negligible and headed negative, and whose management wants to cash out. Buying AWE is essentially a bet spectrum will go up dramatically in price despite the return of the analog TV band, SDR, and the FCC's plan to make more available. It's time for John Wayne CEOs to ride into the sunset.
Meanwhile, our technology produces everyday miracles. Jef Raskin writes "just gave a talk in Graz, Austria, via iChat AV. Real time voice and video, both ways. We set up the session by discussing it (at no extra cost above my standard DSL line) via audio, video, and text (all simultaneous)." His California Pac Bell connection may soon go to 3 Mbps+ down, 600 Kbps up, making that even easier. Everyone who cares about the user experience should read Jef's The Humane Interface.
Last week, yet another CEO told me how important the interface is, then showed me something second rate. Imagine if the designer of the Macintosh defined your user experience. Companies like Verizon, (whose install is thankless) or gateway/set top vendors should get it right by bringing in Jef, a friend, or similar talent.
Martin on Competition "Time now to speak"
"I'm proud to have stood up for what I believe was right"
"I'm afraid we may be losing some of the battles" to preserve the competition that currently exists. "Policy-makers in Washington are not debating the benefits of the services you offer," he said. "They are too frequently debating how much of the rules should be eliminated, and how should the changes be made to be more fair to the incumbents."
"If you have a message to deliver, I think the time is now . . . . Speak now or forever hold your peace. You must now be your own champions." (From Telecommunications Reports)
Editor's opinion: The right choice is either strong competition or strong regulation. If we don't want direct regulation of telcos' rates and profits, then we need regulation that creates thriving alternatives. Incumbents' economies of scale and financial power allow them to crush others unless curbed. As far as I'm concerned, calls for policies that cripple competitors are also a call for strong government intervention to keep prices down. One day, I'll report a Tauke or a Whitacre call for limiting CLEC access using the headline "Verizon/SBC calls for return to strict rate of return regulation"--the alternative implied if they kill the opposition.
Telco Cowboys
Repairmen to John Wayne CEOs
Ed Whitacre wants to spend $30 billion on AT&T Wireless, building an empire deserving of Ozymandias. He's blind to the AT&T folk desperately looking for an exit, as profit heads towards zero and beneath. Decimated Ameritech has lost $30 billion or more in value, and would have required a career-ending write-off except for an accounting l
Sounds cool, just installed Kphone now what? (Score:2, Informative)
I ran Kphone, and it says it needs Full name, User Part of SIP URL: and Host Part of SIP URL:
I assume full name is the name I signed up with. But wtf are User/host part of SIP URL?
BTW, SIP is never explained. No where should someone use an acronym without first explaining it.
So someone beat with me a clue stick and tell me what to do next and I"ll give you a call
What now? I'll tell you what now. (Score:3, Informative)
On this page it told me what to do:
http://lists.trolltech.com/qt-interest/2003- 1 0/thr ead01300-0.html
If you are behind a NAT/Firewall, the configuration
should look as follows:
Full Name: 19489
User Part of SIP URL: 19489
Host Part of SIP URL: fwd.pulver.com
Outbound Proxy (Optional): fwdnat.pulver.com:5082
Authentication Name: 19489
If you access the Internet directly, donot use
outbound proxy.
Here, replace 19489 with your account. You can apply
for a FWD account from www.fwd.pulver.com.
Re:What now? I'll tell you what now. (Score:2)
make it sound better? Or maybe a different SIP host to smooth out things?>I've never tried but heard that skype one made by kazaa is amazing quality for windows only though.
AFAIK Skype does not use a standard protocol, but something based on Kazaa technology. If you have only one client and no need for interoperability, some problems just disappear...
This is what you need .... (Score:2)
The LIPZ4 is a SIP soft phone that runs on Linux. Very professionally done.
Re:What now? I'll tell you what now. (Score:1)
Re:Sounds cool, just installed Kphone now what? (Score:5, Informative)
2. The user part is your number, e.g. "17556" (my number). The host part is "fwd.pulver.com". The outbound proxy is "fwdnat.pulver.com:5082" and the authentication username is "17556". If you are on a NAT, you should go to 'SIP Preferences'/'Socket' and set 'Stun server' to yes.
3. SIP stands for Session Initiation Protocol.
The Day I became an Object Noun (Score:5, Interesting)
During the FCC February 2004 Meeting, while agenda item #4, the FWD Petition was being granted, I gave up counting how many times the name "Pulver" was mentioned in the proceeding.
After thinking about this, I believe we witnessed the transition where my name became an object noun which will be associated with the petition that I filed on behalf of Free World Dialup on February 5, 2003.
Ok, now I'm interested, but, (Score:2)
I went all through the site and can not find any mention of Linux. Anyone know what the work around is on this??
Re:Ok, now I'm interested, but, (Score:3, Informative)
there is a port for Kphone for Linux
Re:Ok, now I'm interested, but, (Score:2)
http://www.lipz4.com/lipz4.htm
The LIPZ4 is a SIP soft phone that runs on Linux. Very professionally done.
A little bit of background here (Score:4, Interesting)
Now consider Vonage [vonage.com] which sells phone service on top of broadband, yet is not registered as a telephone service provider. Or AT&T [att.com] who claims that its VoIP phone-to-phone services are not subject to the same regulation than other phone-to-phone services.
The key issue yet remaining to be assessed is the question of access charges. These are the cost billed by a local carrier to a long distance carrier, which is much higher than the cost of the very same local leg leased to, say, an individual or a business.
AT&T, preceded in this regard by many other smaller long-distance carriers are using local business lines to deliver regular phone-to-phone calls on the local market, in order to go around access charges. AT&T claims that because it uses the Internet to carry the calls, they are VoIP and should be free of access charge. Obviously local carriers don't really see it this way...
My guess is that the FCC wanted to look pro-Internet in this big VoIP debate, so it is ruling now on FWD before they have an opportunity to look at the Vonage ("PC/phone") and AT&T ("phone/phone") cases. These two are much trickier to regulate and their implications, whatever the outcome may be, will be far-reaching.
JUST SAY NO TO TAXES (Score:3, Insightful)
There is a negative side too (Score:4, Insightful)
- Free access and services for the disabled, e.g. speech to text translators for the deaf/mute and hearing/speech impaired as well as mute people. (You call a 1-800 number and a person types what you say into a TTY and tells you what the other person wrote and vice-versa)
- Cheaper rates for the poor
- 911 location service - e.g. you have a stroke at your home and call 911 and can't speak, they can still locate you
and there are quite a few more.
best regards,
Florian
Re:There is a negative side too (Score:3, Interesting)
Except for maybe the 911 locator, those are good things not to be forced to provide. It's just plain wrong for me to have to pay extra on my line so that someone meeting an arbitrary set of conditions gets either 1) cheaper service or 2) extra services. If you can't pay for a luxury service (and telephone is a luxury, regardles
Re:There is a negative side too (Reality Check!) (Score:3, Interesting)
Come on people. They're POOR, but you expect them to have
and NOW you want me so pay extra (ie extra AGAIN) so that they can use The Internet for phone calls instead of using the land-line I've already paid extra for them to have?
I can accept the argument that "the internet" is rapidly becoming such a pervasive part of modern western society that lack of accessibility
Re:There is a negative side too (Reality Check!) (Score:2)
They're the same thing! If you're not paying the surcharge for a phone line because you exclusively use voip, you're hampering the subsidy.
So, what you end up believing is that poor people should get a bit of help affording their phones, but rich metropolitan technotypes with broadband and voip should be able to dodge their share of the tax.
Sounds to me like you're the one that's thick as a brick..
Then telemarketing to VoIP phones is legal? (Score:2)
speaking of FWD (Score:1)
stuff that doesnt rely on kde or anything besides GTK?
Heh.... (Score:2, Funny)