![United States United States](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/usa_64.png)
![The Internet The Internet](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/internet_64.png)
FCC Forum Divided on Future VoIP Regulation 232
ElCheapo writes "As the great philosopher Eminem once said, 'The FCC won't let [VoIP] be, or let [VoIP] be free.' In Washington today, the FCC held a public forum 'to gather information concerning advancements, innovations, and regulatory issues related to VoIP services.' Slashdot has seen numerous stories on VoIP regulation recently, but Tom Evslin, CEO of ITXC, brought up another point: If VoIP is over-regulated, it will not go away, it will just move to other countries and reach the point where regulation can no longer be enforced. With or without VoIP regulation, will a global P2P (PSTN-connected) voice network emerge? Will it start out as hobbyists setting up Asterisk Open Source PBX boxes connected to their home POTS line? Will some form of ENUM allow least cost routing to boxes sitting in basements and garages around the world? If an ITSP in Europe can setup an Asterisk box with PSTN access and start offering US phone numbers and vice-versa, will global number plans become obsolete? What effect will the ridiculously low barrier to entry for VoIP have on telecommunications?"
How quaint. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:How quaint. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:How quaint. (Score:2)
Re:How quaint. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:How quaint. (Score:5, Interesting)
In this case, I would have to disagree.
Any Joe Schmoe with the proper resources (either intellectual or financial) can whip up a VoIP application and communicate over the internet merely free of regulators. This won't change.
Now, all these telecom taxes exist because the PSTN (public switched telephone network) is a monopoly - you can't have multiple PSTN networks. It would become too bulky and there would be no economy of scale. The taxes exist so that this monopoly can be regulated.
Now, I can see a tax when a VoIP device interfaces with the PSTN. But this should only pressure the VoIP industry to move away from the PSTN. PSTN, as stated above, is bulky and not practical when we have efficient packet-switching networks that can easily replace it at 60 percent of the cost.
I vote for taxes on a per-PSTN call basis. This would be a good compromise - those that use packet-switching would not have to support the junk that is PSTN.
I would also like a module to interface with my home phone system. If I dial a "normal" PSTN phone number, it simply routes my call over my POTS phone line. If I dial a # or * prior to an IP address or URL, then it should route my call over my internet connection.
After a while, I wouldn't see the need for a PSTN, anymore.
Re:How quaint. (Score:3, Insightful)
> After a while, I wouldn't see the need for a PSTN, anymore.
Yes, but you still need cables to each home transporting that internet traffic.
And it's the cables that are the natural monopoly, not the fact that they used to be used for phonecalls.
So while PSTN might be dying, sooner or later broadband internet connections will end up regulated for the same reasons as PSTN was.
/greger
Re:How quaint. (Score:2)
Now, all these telecom taxes exist because the PSTN (public switched telephone network) is a monopoly - you can't have multiple PSTN networks.
How so? We do have multiple PSTN networks. Both for long distance, and for local (only one land-line based local, usually, but many mobile based lines). Are you saying that it's all part of one system? Isn't the internet the same?
PSTN, as stated above, is bulky and not practical when we have efficient packet-switching networks that can easily replace it at 60
Re:How quaint. Wireless (Score:2)
Re:How quaint. (Score:2)
Your phone bill includes, among other taxes and fees, a universal access change. This money goes towards funding internet access for sc
Re:How quaint. (Score:1, Funny)
Damn, it smells like they burnt my toast again...
Re:Quainter: +1, Being and Freeing (Score:1)
Re:How quaint. (Score:2)
Curious (Score:4, Interesting)
What I'm wondering is how far overseas they'll have to move. What are our Canadian neighbors doing?
Damon,
Re:Curious (Score:1)
Re:Curious (Score:2)
Perhaps if you were to disguise what you do as...um...non-profit?
Which brings up an interesting question. What if a non-profit organization were to provide services like this to "members", perhaps like a co-op?
Damon,
Re:Curious (Score:1)
Re:Curious (Score:3, Informative)
The Canadian equivalent of the FCC, the CRTC, decided [crtc.gc.ca] years ago not to regulate the Internet.
Re:Curious (Score:2)
Re:Curious (Score:1)
Of course they could have special import/export duties on VoIP services... anti free trade taxes seem to be the government's favorite at the moment (at least the steel tarriff is on the way out... cheaper machines for all!).
Re:Curious (Score:3, Interesting)
And our Mexican Neighbors? (Score:1)
Obvious problems might include language issues, and a funky regulatory climate, but that isn't any big deal.
I'd really like to know, if screw it up here in the U.S. what will Mexico do?
Re:Curious (Score:2)
Asterix - VoIP for me? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Asterix - VoIP for me? (Score:4, Informative)
As an uber bonus you get voicemail and can then to spiffy menus and skrew with people just like call centers like to you, complete with MP3 hold music. "I value your call, please hold." "I'm not answering right now, press one to leave a message, press 2 to page my cell phone with your caller ID info..." etc. Hell, you can even use CallerID to decide how to answer calls. Work=>strait to voicemail, girlfriend (Hey! It could happen) => play a special message and ring the phone with a distinctive ring. Ex-girlfriend=>"This number has been disconnected, or is not in service".
It's almost enough to make me want a land line
- RustyTaco
Is this an essay test? (Score:5, Funny)
Answer each question completely, citing examples whenever possible. Use the back of Slashdot for scratchwork if necessary.
Re:Is this an essay test? (Score:2)
C. Nothing can stop the network. Communications want to be free. Pirated voice communications will just go underground. They can't sue everybody. Besides, they deserve it, the convicted monopolists.
Will it start out as hobbyists setting up Asterisk Open Source PBX boxes connected to their home POTS line?
B. I already have an OS PBX box connected to my POTS line through a POS P2.
Will some form of ENUM allo
What will emerge (Score:5, Insightful)
The need for pots to internet gateways is what holds us up now.. think of how things owrk once most people are all using voip.. suddenly, it's all software.. adn hooking people together for voice stuff no longer needs ANY kind of centralizing....
it won't be regulated, as ultimately, it can't be.
it is emerging (Score:1)
Re:What will emerge (Score:2)
What you can guarantee is that given the money involved and the telcos' lobbying/bribery powers they won't just roll over and die.
Remember kids, be nice to AT&T, they invented Unix (then sold/gave) it to SCO.
Re:What will emerge (Score:2)
On the other hand, the same people may well still use traditional telephony to call traditional phone numbers, because it could be to
Re:What will emerge (Score:2)
suddenly, it's all software.. adn hooking people together for voice stuff no longer needs ANY kind of centralizing....
The centralizing is in the network itself. You're not going to run a phone line from your house to every single other house in the world. That would be silly. Instead you'll run a whole town full of houses to a CO, and then run a bunch of towns into a common area for a metropolitan area. For local calls perhaps you could use direct wireless connections, but this is the exception, not
It has already started (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It has already started (Score:1)
Re:It has already started (Score:2)
I think the next "killer app" will be a linux box that does this AND has the ability to sync up your entire house's phone system. Right now, with Vonage, I do not believe there is a way to do it...you can only have the phone coming out of the router. It would be really nifty if someone could hook up a router box with a "Modem"-like card that just plugs into your box and a phone jack. That phone jack would then feed the rest of the house.
Re:It has already started (Score:2)
I don't use phone service but I do want to use the phone wires for CAT 3 communication throughout the house. When I checked the lines, the wires which are supposed to be dead still carry voltage. I assume disconnecting them at the aforementioned box will eliminate the
Re:It has already started (Score:2, Interesting)
There is a basic assumption in the original post, local calls are not free here in the Netherlands. You pay for every minute on the phone, it's just a question of how much. And individual connection points doesn't scale well. VOIP and traditional telcos will merge only with the agreement and
Re:It has already started (Score:1)
PS: I highly recommend TeamSpeak (www.teamspeak.org) which is what I use at the moment.
Re:It has already started (Score:2)
Do you mean to say that you're using Asterisk in lieu of Call Manager, or that Call Manager is using Asterisk as a POTS gateway?
I'm curious about your environment. Can you provide any additional details?
And to open the floor to any other interested parties: Are there any Open Source "Cisco Call Manager" replacements?
I'd love to be using 802.11 based VoIP handsets, like the Spectralink sets, or the new Cisco handset at home (In addition to Cisco's Wi
The big question for me (Score:3, Insightful)
All it would take is one 10-10-whatever-like pay service where you call a node on the P2P network, then enter a real-life phone number, which they connect you to..
Re:The big question for me (Score:2)
I have Yahoo! BB service, and their setup is really sweet. It automatically detects if I'm calling another Yahoo customer, and the call is free. Calls back to the states are only 2 cents a minute just by dialing a three-number prefix before I dial the normal country code and number.
Just The Facts (Score:5, Informative)
FCC Chairman Powell Opposes Internet Phone Regulation. [washingtonpost.com]
Re:Just The Facts (Score:2, Insightful)
Sigh. I'm so sick of this it's not even funny.
Why the hell is it that people continually feel the need to run down the submiters, the editors and everybody else here who is working for you to provide you a free service that, by your being here, I assume you find both enjoyable and informative?
Don't like their writing? Submit your own stories. Stop coming. Whatever. Just quit bitching already. It's not funny, it's not insightful, it's not on topic and it is of no value.
Please... (Score:2)
This is a Commercial News Outlet
This isn't some hobby website on a shoestring budget, therefore it should be subjected to the same criticism that CNN, Fox News, or any other influential news outlet should be subject to...
If you don't like the criticism, don't read them. I personally VALUE comments like these as indicators of how people feel about Slashdot insofar as I'm concerned that Slashdot maintains an acceptable reputation for a serious forum of dis
Ever consider Ballooning? (Score:2)
1. Slashdot is not a niche site that only reports Kernal release. It's a VERY popular source of tech and science news with a readership capable of performing many inadvertant DOS attacks. That alone makes criticising Slashdot nessecary.
2. You then go on about how the comments makes Slashdot great hinting CNN and Fox could learn something from Slashdot. Well, how about that? WOULDN'T IT BE GREAT IF YOU COULD MAKE JOKES ABOUT FOX
I'm Sorry (Score:2)
Having said that, I'm going to take a s
Why should IP make telephone calls free? (Score:4, Insightful)
Sure, this could drive some VoIp offshore, but what they're likely controlling is the call itself. If the call originates or terminates in the USofA, then the call falls under FCC control and they will want their slice.
Re:Why should IP make telephone calls free? (Score:1)
But what makes a phone call different from an email, or from an instant message chat with someone around the world? The only difference is speed. So should the FCC put caps on speed to make sure VOIP is not allowed? Buy a cable modem and pay a monthly SPEE
Re:Why should IP make telephone calls free? (Score:5, Insightful)
Okay, charge for the medium in general then (IP, cable, DSL, etc...), not particular applications running on top of it (irc, email, voip). Applications are far too fluid, innovative, and morphable/hidable (especialy for geeks like us) for the government to define exactly what should be charged for and what shouldn't. (though you could say that about radio waves too, *grumble*). I don't want an intrusive infrastructure hard-wired into my computer or on the ISP's side that analyzes every packet and charges differently for each one.
Re:Why should IP make telephone calls free? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why should IP make telephone calls free? (Score:2)
We didn't complain when the government tacked on a public access fee to our phone bills to pay for internet access in schools and libraries because it was "for the children".
Now we are getting bit in the ass by those same taxes and the loss of revenue that would ensue from moving to an unregulated system.
The right solution would be to insist that the government stop taxing every econo
Re:Why should IP make telephone calls free? (Score:2)
The phone and the TV will both become software on the computer, just like the radio and stereo.
Sure we could keep it all separate and have a separate phone, cable and internet bill. But if you're going to buy a compu
Re:Why should IP make telephone calls free? (Score:2)
Re:Why should IP make telephone calls free? (Score:2, Insightful)
because i can afford for 30 bucks a month an adsl line that gives me IP to do voice over it, but i didnt have the same chance with fiber.
Massification is a function of price. This has to change the regulations or you face a monopoly like i do in my country, one that will be made innefective because they wont be able to stop the voip revolution even if they want to. It will ju
Re:Why should IP make telephone calls free? (Score:3, Informative)
To charge just to
Re:Why should IP make telephone calls free? (Score:3, Informative)
This is fundamentally different from an IP network, where routers along the path delay or drop packets as needed
Bigger question (Score:2)
Has the FCC outlived its role?
If you go trawl the www you'll probably find that the FCC was set up to ensure that telecommunications got rolled out effectively across the USA. I doubt the original intention was to control telecoms for the benefit of the telcos.
Maybe, in this age of more-or-less global and ubiquitous telecoms, the FCC has completed its role and is no longer relevant.
Interesting (Score:1)
With global networking technology, I think we'll be seeing a big change in telecommunication service in the coming years.
Already paid for (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Already paid for (Score:1)
Re:Already paid for (Score:2)
Moeny money money (Score:1, Insightful)
The telcos are scared that this will make them obsolete, so they HAVE to find a way to make a buck off this.
Let the market rule (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't know where most of the revenue stream for telcos comes from, but if it is from long distance phone calls - then they need a new business plan. Those days are over. If they are spending too much money to keep the internet working then they need to raise prices on access to the internet lines and the price will rise at our ISPs.
I think the real problem is the stupid white men are seeing their business replaced by better technology and they are crying to Sugar Daddy Bush to help them out. New technology almost always means business die.
RIP phone companies.
Missing the point (Score:1)
Re:Missing the point (Score:2)
Apart from anti-monopolistic regulation and technical standards regulations and the USO what regulation is there.
Our gov should not be taxing free speech. (Score:2)
But not speech. It's protected.
A bit is a bit is a bit (Score:3, Interesting)
Regulators irrelevant (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Regulators irrelevant (Score:3, Insightful)
Listen closely...you can hear the FBI, CIA, etc., shaking in their boots over this possibility. I can't imagine that they'll just let it happen without a fight.
M
Regulators not really irrelevant. (Score:2)
Unfortunately, to be a network you need to conform to a standard - in order to connect to all the OTHER users of the network. This exposes you to the regulators.
The techniques you describe would work fine for a small, closed community such as a criminal gang, terrorist cell, recreational club, or other small a
Fussing And Farting..Sheesh (Score:1)
Look, at the end of the day it's all the same anyway.. If you've got something they want, you can tell them what to do.
So don't be surprised they're making you and I fall in line. If you were smart, you'd be doing exactly the same.
POTS/PSTN Defined (Score:5, Informative)
POTS = Plain Old Telephone System
PSTN = Public Switched Telephone Network
Re:POTS/PSTN Defined (Score:2)
POTS - Plain Old Telephone Service: The 48v (lower when connected), 100 ohm pair, 135ish v 20 hz square-wave ringer, two-wire, telephone service, and/or variants of it. (loop/ground/etc. start, touch-tone vs pulse dial, minor variations in standards with different vendors, etc.). The phone line to which you can hook up ordinary phones.
PSTN - Public Switched Telephone Network: The worldwide, multi-vendor, network that leases POTS lines (and other li
Many good points BUT. (Score:2)
Pity you posted
One thing annoys me... (Score:2)
Eminem has shown that the FCC has a funky name (Score:2, Interesting)
The progression is inevitable (Score:2, Insightful)
Our government has, therefore, become adept at siphoning money from us all in a manner that is least likely to attract negative attention (think payroll taxes). We all know the real purpose of VoIP "regulation" is to protect an outdated telecom business model and the tax
Yeah I can see the dilemma... (Score:1)
Voip! Voip! (Score:5, Interesting)
VOIP won't drastically affect POTS (Score:4, Interesting)
Consider what you need to do in order to get an analogue voice line: you call the phone company, answer a few questions, wait a short period of time (usually a few hours), and plug in the phone. Bang, you have a phone number and can call your mom. Ludicrously simple, and you don't need a child of five to do this.
(Yes, that's right, the old WC Fields axiom has been reversed - the more complex stuff amongst people who can't figure it out are best left to five year old children.)
Now what do you need for a VoIP line? A broadband TCP/IP connection. On a DSL this is redundant, so the cable companies are left with that option - and unless you are just wanting to blow money (or you really need reliability or uber speed), you probably don't have a T1 or better in the home. More or less simple (a quick rewire of your cabling), turn it on, bang, you have a phone and, again, can call mom.
But wait a moment. What of the twelve-o'clock flashers? You know, the people whose VCRs and similar persistently flash 12:00 because they don't know how to set them, or the people who need the tech support guy to tell them how to turn the computer on. These are people who don't understand the concept of RTFM, so they can't be bothered with how to pull a plug out of one hole and put it in another hole for fear of doing irreversable damage. Yes, you need a child for these people, but these people trust their own children even less with technology. Dead end.
The point of this is that, unless the telephone companies make radical changes in their hardware, VoIP will probably only have a small niche market amongst people who can figure out how to wire their own stereo, which (and this is strictly theory) seems to be the vast minority on the 'net - and then again, many of these people are probably not even *on* the 'net to begin with, thus excluding them from VoIP entirely. But they'll probably ask anyway.
Re:VOIP won't drastically affect POTS (Score:2)
It plugs into your USB port, you insert the CD, plug in a handset (complete with dial) into the device, and away you go.
Like digital cameras have become....
(Hey, if this is new, then I claim patent rights....)
Re:VOIP won't drastically affect POTS (Score:3, Insightful)
I recently had to do this (Verizon in NYC). It went more like...
Call the phone company. Get list of required documentation. Fax copies of documentation to phone company. Wait until next day. Cal
Re:VOIP won't drastically affect POTS (Score:2)
Re:VOIP won't drastically affect POTS (Score:2)
I just gotta know. How long did it take to get that internet conection installed and running?
/greger
Re:VOIP won't drastically affect POTS (Score:2)
Call cable company, spend 10 minutes going through everything, yes I'd like the "super duper everything package please". Schedule an appointment with an engineer for the next day. Take the afternoon off work, make coffee for engineer, plug cat5 into cable modem & pc. Done.
Couldn't have been a more different experience from the phone company.
FWIW, TWNYC vs Verizon.
Re:VOIP won't drastically affect POTS (Score:2, Interesting)
I also do not buy your argument that radical changes would need to be made to the telco's hardware in order for p2p voip to be practical. Cisco and Nortel both ofer voip routers that plug into your cable modem. Then you simply plug your phone into the router. All that a comp
I Disagree (Score:4, Interesting)
Consider how regulation is good (Score:4, Insightful)
1. Emergency use:
VOIP will not have the level of reliability of POTS, especially during natural disasters and other emergencies. In theory an IP network can be made just as reliable, but the simple issue of powering the phones is a big issue... the phone system generally has been significantly more reliable than the power system. With a VOIP phone, you're dead if you lose power. Traditional phones keep going.
This may seem like a small issue, but an example cited during the hearing was a major weather-related power outage in California, where the utility determined after the fact that customers were less annoyed by the fact that the power was off than the fact that the phone system at the power company was not equipped to give them good repair status information. People count on the phone system, and it needs to be there, especially for 911 emergency use.
2. Funding and effectiveness of 911
The 911 system is funded by POTS and cellular surcharges. Even a 25% drop in POTS usage due to VOIP would be disasterous from a funding perspective. And remember that when you call 911 from a landline (and in more and more areas, cellular), they know where you are. VOIP is extremely far away from having any sort of location capability.
3. Funding of Universal Access
Everyone in the country has access to phone service, no matter how rural / remote they are. This has been a tremendously important program, but would have funding problems similar to 911 if a big chunk of POTS goes away.
Anyway, my point is that despite how "retro" POTS is technically, it has significant merits that VOIP currently does not provide. I'm not suggesting that any of the problems described above are unsolveable for VOIP, but I think it's awfully unlikely that "market forces" will magically provide the answers. There needs to be some regulation in order that the good in POTS is preserved going forward.
Re:Consider how regulation is good (Score:2)
Emergency use
This is an argument against VoIP, not an argument against regulating VoIP. We don't force people to have telephones, after all, so regulation is irrelevant.
Personally, I have no need for a land line, but it has nothing to do with VoIP. In an emergency, I can just use my cell phone. I do have a land line, but that's because my ADSL service requires that I have one. The only place I've ever given my land-line number to is my bank, who wouldn't accept my cell phone number as it was located i
Regulation != Bad (Score:4, Insightful)
First of all, what about the regulations which mandated performance expectatiuons. Phone service has traditionally been viewed as an essential service, some of these regulations stipulate uptimes for phone networks, etc. etc. The net effect of these has been that the consumer expects the phone to work, reliably, every time. VoIP providers (other than the big telecomms players) by and large will not be able to meet this expectation, or rather will be at the mercy of infrastructure they don't control, and organizations they have no binding agreements with.
Some of these regulations have also made it unlawful for private individuals to tap each others phones. (This being a right reserved to the government, who supposes they own the electrons involved anyways...) Without the private networks owned by the telcos, and the regulatory controls placed on those networks, wiretapping becomes a skill that the current generation of script kiddies can master in three hours. It's all data folks, it can be diverted, copied, folded, mutilated, spindled just like form data. Sure it can be encrypted, but there is some fairly significant overhead involved, without crypto hardware, I think you would notice degraded conversation quality.
Besides, do we really want to offer the marketing organizations a way to converge SPAM and telemarketing?
Here IPSec! Come here. Good boy... (Score:2)
Many people, myself included, object to "smart network" architectures. I dislike networks in which intermediate devices such as routers and switches provide a host of value added services like Quality of Service, tracking Napster users, or taxing VoIP traffic. I prefer network designs in which "smart" end nodes are linked together by "Big Dumb Pipes
Re:Great Philosopher Eminem. (Score:1)
Re:Great? (Score:1)
Pot Kettle (Score:2)
Skype (Score:2)
Haven't tried it out yet myself, but 3.3+ Megadownloads can't be wrong.
Re:Not as long as it is a 'linux only' product. (Score:2, Informative)
Vocal... bah... is only an ifrastructure, you'll need a lot of integration to make a decent VoIP server and only supports SIP...
Linphone... never been able to make it work correctly (even patching the code...) , perhaps too Vocal-centric ?
Bayonne... more platforms! ah ah! you meant more "dialogic cards only"...
btw, Asterisk supports sip,h323,mgcp
Re:Internet is erasing the middleman company (Score:2)
iTunes music store is a middleman.
So at best we have replaced one middleman with another.
Re:Granted... (Score:2)
I think you are underestimating the task.
Re:Death and taxes (Score:2)
And it still wouldn't get you the same service as 911.
One of the benefits of a landline is that the 911 operators have your address on the screen when they take the call - and many jurisdictions will send someone out if there is a hang-up.
In California, 911 calls from cell phones are handled by the CHP, which may not be as helpful as the normal 911 dispatch.
Re:Other quoes by your "great philosopher" (Score:2)
Re:Something does need to be regulated (Score:2)
Letting the market rule is a neat idea, but laws regulation exists to keep people from being raped, literally and figuratively.
The voip lunch ain't gonna be free as in beer.
-dB