Customer-owned Networks: ZapMail & Telecoms 233
sasha writes "Here's a good article that describes how we, the consumers, can play the role of competitors to the vendors of products and services we buy. The author draws a parallel between FedEx's ZapMail failure and current situation with VoIP and WiFi in regard to the phone companies."
What we need, is to get rid of the monopolies. (Score:5, Interesting)
Perhaps that's why we don't have wireless internet access everywhere in the U.S. or why cars still run on non-renewable resources even though there are safe, clean, easy-to-produce alternatives. Companies which fill our cars with gas, provide us with barely stable internet access, and manufacture paper take advantage of public ignorance so much that "we are literally wiping our ass with our own future," as a great man once said.
So get up get, get get down, 911 is a joke in VoIP (Score:5, Interesting)
I see biggest stumbling block to be the complete lack of 911 service when using a VoIP service like Vontage. Sure, these systems are a pretty nice replacement for your long distance provider if you spend a lot on long distance, but don't fool yourself into thinking that this is a decent replacement for a local land-line just yet. You are better off using your wireless phone instead.
I would hope that someday soon, VoIP systems like this and 911 would play nicely together, but I don't see that happening unless some three-letter governement agency steps in and mandates it.
Not quite the same thing... (Score:5, Interesting)
B. You need broadband. Broadband is far from ubiquitous, and will probably remain so for a good while until customers (such as myself) see a real need for it.
C. My options now are to pay $50/month for broadband plus some amount for software and hardware, or pay $25/month for phone service plus $5 for a phone.
D. VOIP is moot as cell phones are becoming increasingly better and cheaper. I can call anyone in the country from anywhere in the country as part of the minutes I buy every month. Why would I want to step backwards to be tied down to a land line (ie: Net connection)? I don't.
One Assumption too many. (Score:5, Interesting)
"The creation of the fax network was the first time this happened, but it won't be the last. WiFi hubs and VoIP adapters allow the users to build out the edges of the network without needing to ask the phone companies for either help or permission. Thanks to the move from analog to digital networks, the telephone companies' most significant competition is now their customers, because if the customer can buy a simple device that makes wireless connectivity or IP phone calls possible, then anything the phone companies offer by way of competition is nothing more than the latest version of ZapMail. "
The entire article makes a lot of assumptions most of which make no sense. But this paragraph being the most ridiculous IMO. There is a reason why products like Lindows is doin well. Mainly the majority of users on the internet don't know how/care to know how or want to do most of these things them selves to get online. This in no way compaers to zapmail. The alterantive was a very easy soloution and it was hardware only. Many people don't want to have to setup hardware and software to get a service. They want it commeing from the OEMs ready to go. The fax machine was a simple matter of pluging it into the wall. WiFi is all that simple (maybe to some). A horrible comparison and overall FUD aimed at Telcos that won't work.
Author is drawing a false analogy (Score:5, Interesting)
The author then states that wireless ISP's are making the same mistake, except that wireless ISP's aren't targeting the home users who can already get cable: They are targetting users where deploying a traditional wireless connect would be impossible, like rural areas, or rest areas where the users don't own the property where they want to use wireless internet.
Also, he makes a similiar mistake with the traditional arguments about the value of VoIP.... except that the telephone monopolies most certainly offer a couple must-have value-added features, such as a centralized telephone number database and the handling of the last-mile wiring + service in one contract.
ZipMail failed because they offered no value as a middleman. This argument doesn't apply to most wireless ISP's or telephone monopolies.
Re:Nice article (Score:1, Interesting)
Your "idiots in a smoke filled room" fits well -- they are trying to figure out how to screw the other large phone and telecom companies and get all the available money for themselves, while making it illegal for anyone else to play.
in short -- it moves your service from Column A to Column B MINUS the amount that VoIP corp X gets and MINUS the voicemail, wiring plan fee, etc. that they get to charge now.
I think the big players would much rather keep things as they have been instead of jumping into the voip world.
Countries ban VoIP (Score:5, Interesting)
This has been done purely to protect the phone companies. With enough lobbying that can happen anywhere.
Re:Fiber has replaced copper? (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't know for sure, but I bet if you add up the total bandwidth and figure the percent run over fiber, the amount of fiber is use is huge.
I know we have fiber coming into the worksite. Three of them...
But then again, some statistics are meaningless...
First things first..... (Score:3, Interesting)
The problem here is how the companies have their service plans written. In most cases (except Speakeasy I believe), it's expressly forbidden to share your connection with anyone!...Call this an "anti-terrorism" move or just simple protection of their markets. Either way, they have legislated their own protection.
If you have broadband, please examine your "acceptable use policy" for this type of language. With the pending handout to the phone companies (so that they can keep up with the Jones' over in the cable camp), I expect even further clamping of total bandwidth, types of bandwidth (i.e. peer-2-peer) and how you may use what's left.
That's where FedEx didn't have control...If they could have gone to Washington with the idea that "FAX owners are possible terrorists," they could have blocked the individual ownership of FAX machines through legislation...and ZapMail might be all we know now! FedEx also didn't have control of what the public can attach to their phone circuits....the phone company does have some level of control over that.
Simply put, the phone companies are in a much stronger position to protect their markets with anti-competitive language and policies. I don't expect them to "go easily into that good night." I expect that there will be quite a struggle coming up....expect all the legal manuvers, engineered incompatabilities and FUD that we've seen from the RIAA/MPAA and more.....They didn't get to be monopolies by being nice, they'll do whatever it takes to maintain that position.
Re:Not quite the same thing... (Score:4, Interesting)
I think this has potential as a feature in Wi-Fi routers: a broadband line + router + WiFi handset phone would at least not complicate the phone setup any more than broadband Internet setup.
B. You need broadband. Broadband is far from ubiquitous, and will probably remain so for a good while until customers (such as myself) see a real need for it.
Canada actually is implementing a universal broadband access plan.
C. My options now are to pay $50/month for broadband plus some amount for software and hardware, or pay $25/month for phone service plus $5 for a phone.
We actually pay around $50/month for metro phone service and another $40/month for broadband. Paying only one would be cheaper.
D. VOIP is moot as cell phones are becoming increasingly better and cheaper. I can call anyone in the country from anywhere in the country as part of the minutes I buy every month. Why would I want to step backwards to be tied down to a land line (ie: Net connection)? I don't.
As cell phones implement Internet features, VoIP will become a viable cell technology. Instead of running the cell Internet services over a small digital or analog pipe intended for voice, voice and data can share a large one.
Granted, VoIP needs some work (i.e. 911), but don't sell it short for its potential.
Re:What we need, is to get rid of the monopolies. (Score:4, Interesting)
The problems in the marketplace aren't "market failures" that the government needs to fix for you (at no small cost), but areas where the government has forced things to work a particular way.
Entrepreneurs like to make money. And as long as they aren't forbidden to entera sector of the market, and it's profitable, they will. And it's the customers that vote with their pocketbooks that allow it to happen. It's a beautiful thing.
Re:Not quite the same thing... (Score:2, Interesting)
A. VOIP isn't that simple. Not yet. I can't buy anything at Wal-Mart and plug it into the wall. Until it's that easy, people won't do it.
From my understanding at least Vonage uses analog telephones which you can buy in Wal-Mart (and probably already have) which plug into a little cisco box which plugs into your DSL/Cable/Broadband connection (which I believe you can also buy in Wal-Mart).
B. You need broadband. Broadband is far from ubiquitous, and will probably remain so for a good while until customers (such as myself) see a real need for it.
True, but Broadband is growing fast. Heck, everyone I know and their grandmothers (literaly) are getting it. The real catch is that this only applies to non-DSL broadband, since most Bells force you to get a phone line to install DSL onto. I do not believe you can get DSL w/o paying for a phone line.
C. My options now are to pay $50/month for broadband plus some amount for software and hardware, or pay $25/month for phone service plus $5 for a phone.
So it may not be for you, but many people are already paying both. So since they already pay $50/mos for broadband, paying $25 to Bell vs paying $26 to Vonage is not that different, excpet they get A LOT more from the Vonage service for their buck like 500 minutes of LD and a few pennies per minute after, Voice Mail, remote access and most importantly complete number portability (ever move 10 blocks down the street and be forced to change your phone number by the bell? I have, it sucks!)
D. VOIP is moot as cell phones are becoming increasingly better and cheaper. I can call anyone in the country from anywhere in the country as part of the minutes I buy every month. Why would I want to step backwards to be tied down to a land line (ie: Net connection)? I don't
Valid point, but while land line is less and less usefull, it is still needed. Cell phone technology in US...well to put it delicately, it sucks. Every phone service I have tested had some issues here or there, dropped calls, dead zones, etc. Not a single service (tried TDMA, CDMA, GSM phones, etc) works reliably in my office which is in downtown San Francisco - not exactly middle of nowhere. That verizon dude from their ad is asking if anyone hears him for a reason - because half the time noone can!!! Sometimes I sound just like him. Once you move out of major cities most digital cell services just go dead. Still, I am way off topic. My point is that the modern land line is not competing with the cell service -its augmenting it. I want a land line so that I can get my messages for less personal calls that I do not want to be bothered with. I want my land line so that I can call my family and not pay 35 cents a minute as most cell services charge for overage. I want a land line so that my tivo and directv devices work. I want a land line for my fax machine. There are many reasons people want a land line.
-Em
BTW, I do not work for Vonage, I was just researching them to switch from my local Bell, because once again they ticked me off. So far I think their service is pretty amaizing and everyone I encountered who got the service said it was great.
For now, telco owns the "last mile"..... (Score:5, Interesting)
It seems to me that the telco's are committing highway robbery. They're getting over 50 bucks a month for providing a single copper pair about five blocks. Cable's pricing is no better, and all the cable companies are capping upload limits which limits your ability to use VOIP (the reason is clear here too; cable wants to charge you for THEIR OWN VOIP).
Seems to me that a community could make a small fortune by running fiber and charging even half what the telco's and cable companies charge for that last mile.
Finally, I have Vonage VOIP service. Had it for over a year now and I love it. I use it with DSL.
My wife talks to her mother over 10 hours a week. I call all my friends and my kids constantly. The bill is always the same: 39.99 plus tax. Also, their international calls sound better then AT&T and you can't beat calling most of Europe for 5 cents a minute. Plus it's great having a 617 (downtown Boston) incoming phone number that is a local call for all my friends there, yet rings at my condo in Los Angeles.
Live in China, but have a 310 US area code (Score:5, Interesting)
You could put together a DIY call center on the cheap - get a business number, have it set to forward to a set of 310 numbers, get a dozen Vonage boxes, put them in some place where labor and broadband are cheap (someplace in midwest Canada?), and there ya go! Local customer calls 310 number, local teleco forwards to the Vonage number, Vonage rings the box, which is NOT in LA, and there ya go!
Hmmm, even cooler. Take the box with you on vacation - as long as you can get TCP/IP, you won't have to mess with phone or message forwarding. Damn, this is one way to have a portable number, even if the local telco won't let you have one (even though by state law they're supposed to!!!)
Re:So get up get, get get down, 911 is a joke in V (Score:2, Interesting)
I keep seeing people saying this as being a stumbling block to voip. I don't really understand though, is not having 911 that big of a deal? The town I grew up in didn't have it till the mid 90s and we managed to survive OK. Also, unless I am mistaken, 911 is typically linked to a regular local number. So you can just program that number into a speed dial function of your phone. While the 911 operator won't be able to pull up an address, the same is true of cell phones and I know plenty of people that have replaced their land lines with cells.
Why can't VoIP service operator give it's info to 911 same as the bell does?
And BTW, the new cell phones are now getting the "E911" service, that will triangulate your signal if you dial 911.
-Em
Re:Not quite the same thing... (Score:4, Interesting)
Anyhow, the only thing holding me back is my second TiVo upstairs, it wouldn't work over Vonage (though I read some people have gotten it to work) so I'm getting a wireless ethernet bridge to just send it via my 802.11b network. I should really wire the house with cat5e, but I'm lazy, and wireless is oh-so-easy.
But, I use Vonage now all the time, no one has ever griped about the quality, and they'd never know I was using Voice over IP. Things have come a long ways since using Netmeeting on your 486.
Re:So get up get, get get down, 911 is a joke in V (Score:2, Interesting)
a.) the user of a "phone" can't be located (this is being solved using triangulation or GPS with cellular, but doing a network audit to find the ethernet port someone is plugged into doesn't make sense in the wireline world)
and b.) The phone won't necessarily have power in an emergency situation. Today's phones (aside from cordless) are powered from the CO and hence a power outage in the customer premise doesn't cut off the customer calling for help.
As well, Tell me how it makes sense for any more than say 5-10% of the population (really... what's broadband penetration at?)to go out and plunk down $40-50 US (us Canucks don't pay as much...
Right.. if I'm grandma, uncle Ted, or mom&dad I'll stick with my $30 Baby Bell line...
The answer to spam lies in this idea...... (Score:3, Interesting)
Member-owned cooperative (Score:4, Interesting)
Over-exposed schoolgirl victim of high-tech bullying [xnewswire.com] See what trouble camera cell-phones can be?
And where are we getting the Internet from?? (Score:3, Interesting)
Now, let's think about this...
Your local phone company charges you say $30/month for phone service. It then charges you $50/month for internet service. You get some VoIP setup and you end up paying them only $50/month instead of the $80 you would have been paying if you also had to get your phone through them. Or perhaps you get your service through a CLEC and you pay your CLEC $50, and now your phone company is only making even less on you (possibly less than they were on the original phone service).
Ultimately this suggests that the phone companies are going to end up charging higher fees for their Internet service in order to make up for the shortfall in local phone service.
Now, let's look at your cable company because they face similar problems. Why would I pay them $50/month for TV, and $50/month for internet, when I can just buy the Internet and get TV programming off the Internet? So they end up paying for a bunch of infrastructure and risk making the same amount they've been making. AT&T has tried to bundle VoIP phone service into their cable systems, but why would you buy it from them as opposed to anybody else?
Also AT&T - Remember them? (Score:1, Interesting)
Disclaimer: I work for a telephone company. You can say that they're not idiots sitting in a smoke-filled conference room with no vision, but that's largely because they haven't allowed smoking in conference rooms for over a decade....
Re:What we need, is to get rid of the monopolies. (Score:5, Interesting)
What do we have? An excellent phone system at a reasonable price and the land based telcos seem to be doing rather well for themselves finantialy.
Regulation isn't the problem it's incompetant regulation. Had the US done what Canada did I'm sure it would have been much less of a burden on AT&T than what ended up happening. And you would probably have gotten better service out of it too.
It's worse than that, Shirky is blind. (Score:3, Interesting)
The existing telcos control accesss and they are being DEREGULATED. This would be fine if there were real competition, but there is not. "Servers" are already forbiden over cable networks - and the cable company is set to sell you phone service. Guess what, Voice over IP without paying the cable company will be obtaining service from a cable without permision and a federal offense. DSL? forget it, the local Bells have crused their competitors and also forbid "servers." The laws are against you - AOL/Time/McDonald/M$/USPO doesnt think they can get $250/month from every house in the country because the local public service commision is going to give it to them. They think they are going to get it because they have made it illegal for you to use the wires that enter your house as you please. Vontage will be screwed by all of this.
802.11 meshes may offer a solution, but I fear the rainbow efforts of IBM and others. It won't take big companies long to convince the FCC to regulate the new wireless networks. The result will be most unAmerican - an artificailly limited electronic press which runs through shared property and the air itself.
Re: A few FedEx details ... Let me knit kpick, too (Score:3, Interesting)
Briefly put:
1) The price of a emergent fax machines was too steep for small businesses. The prices dropped amazingly in the next four years. (In retrospect, you young'un's would say it was too slow.)
2) Faxes in 1984 were crappy as hell and most all used thermal paper with a very short lifespan. Uncle Fred was bringing 415 dpi (not 300) to the world on crisp heavy bond paper. Hot damn!
3) There actually was a discussion in 1983 about faxes being unacceptable to most trial judges in legal proceedings. (i.e. they would only allow 'real' original documents to be used in court.) Uncle Fred hoped that FedEx would be able to convince the legal community that ZapMail was absolutely, positively as good as the original and tamper proof. I don't know what specific game plan Uncle Fred had in mind, but he was a visionary when it came to ARM (Analog Rights Management). Of course, once any Tom, Dick, or Harry could get their hands on a fax machine, the stigma of duplicated documents instantly disappeared.
After 1988 I was fortunate enough to get a few lasers and a handful of DRAM from a friendly FedEx engineer, which I subsequently lost... I've been feeling bad about that for a while now.
However, because of this article I have discovered that you can buy ZapMail print engines online! [printerworks.com] Damn, I love the internet!
Zapmail was NOT a fax (Score:3, Interesting)
In 1984, I successfullly used Zapmail to send a check that needed to be in hand in NOW.
In 2003, next time you're at a commercial operation, ask them if they will accept a faxed check.
Zapmail was more than a fax, Zapmail was a dream come true which nothing has replaced.