VoIP Regulation, SIP Insurrection 117
Chris Holland writes "As voice communications are evolving beyond traditional phone systems and making better use of the Internet, Aswath Rao is offering regulation-advocating counterpoints to Dr. Daniel Ryan's original analysis of various VoIP industry players' arguments for deregulation. Many of the above discussions revolve around closed, regulatory-scrutiny-fostering voice communications ecosystems reserved to a small, resourceful elite. Meanwhile, an open Internet protocol which provides support for all forms of real-time communications including Text, Voice and Video, with a few open-sourced server implementations and free client solutions is starting to gain serious ground: The Session Initiation Protocol enables just about anybody with little resources to become their own Real-Time Communications Giant."
It's the asterisk drinking game! (Score:4, Funny)
Every time someone mentions the word "Asterisk" in this page, you have to take a shot.
(Note that I'm building 2 of the 'A' Boxes right now. One for my home, and one at the office, a third will go at the ISP.)
Re:It's the asterisk drinking game! (Score:1)
Re:It's the asterisk drinking game! (Score:2)
Re:It's the asterisk drinking game! (Score:1)
how long you been playing already today? (Score:2)
hoisted a few already today have ya?
Re:Want to get started with free VoIP... (Score:1)
Have to agree (Score:2)
Skype just works
I can take my laptop to work and it just works and figures out appropriate proxy settings.
My cisco hardware seems a lot harder to get working and keep working.
Re:Have to agree (Score:3, Interesting)
SIP behind Nat (Score:5, Interesting)
The ability to circumvent NAT is why programs like Skype have such popularity and why Linux users looking for more control have been quick to investigate Asterisk and it's IAX2 protocol.
Open standards are all very well, but for the time being at least, SIP is going to be a good technology so we can connect our computers to big carrriers and interoperate with the POTS. Other technologies have the potential to completely circumnavigate POTS and the big carriers - you cna bet your life they'll do everything they can to make sure they're not adopted.
Re:SIP behind Nat (Score:2)
Re:SIP behind Nat (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, our quite Small( less than 250 employees) but international(18 countries) company is allready circumventing the POTS systems a lot. We actually have soft PBX in all our locations and thus allow us to talk within the organisation without charges. Also the callout rules use a combination of local calling from nearest office and VOIP terminations.
Recently we embarked on a trial project to connect directly to some of the people we do a lot of business with. We s
Re:SIP behind Nat (Score:4, Insightful)
I have been working on setting up my own IPv6 network. I am even investigating the possibility of getting true native IPv6 addressing along side IPv4 from my ISP.
The real problem for us is going to be all of the jokers out there that are so short-sighted that they ignore IPv6 claiming that "IPv4 and NAT are good enough for anything you want to do."
Well, those people are simply wrong. There are lots of reasons for IPv6. Cheap, or even free, global phone service is just one of them. Let's all work to re-establish the Internet as the peer-to-peer network that it was originally, and not the client-server network where the content is provided by big business and multi-national media conglomerates.
Re:SIP behind Nat (Score:2)
Re:SIP behind Nat (Score:2)
I have been working on setting up my own IPv6 network. I am even investigating the possibility of getting true native IPv6 addressing along side IPv4 from my ISP.
I too have been using IPv6 for a while, unfortunately Asterisk currently doesn't support it.
You don't actually need a native IPv6 connection from your ISP - you can get away with using 6-to-4 dynamic tunnelling, which is what I do. Infact a big problem with rolling out IPv6 na
Re:SIP behind Nat (Score:1)
If you receive real, globally routed IPv6 addresses and your ISP behaves as it should and gives you a /48 subnet or similar, you won't need a router of your own. Just connect all your machines to a switch and let them get their own addresses from your ISP's DHCP server. If you think you need a firewall, it should resi
Re:SIP behind Nat (Score:2)
I don't know about you, but my ISP doesn't give my a nice ethernet connection to plug into. I have a DSL router which talks to the ISP and routes traffic from my local subnet (which is a real-world subnet) to the isp over the DSL. I know this varies from country to country, but here in the UK our DSL is
Re:SIP behind Nat (Score:1)
In fact, my ISP does give me a n
Re:SIP behind Nat (Score:2)
Re:SIP behind Nat (Score:1)
Re:SIP behind Nat (Score:3, Informative)
Re:SIP behind Nat (Score:2)
Re:SIP behind Nat (Score:1)
Re:SIP behind Nat (Score:2)
http://www.xtunnels.org/
which you could always look into if you're trying to set up a genuinely universally accessible from absolutely anywhere at
Re:SIP behind Nat (Score:2)
I think IAX2 is definately the way forward because of it's external simplicity (one fixed UDP port carries everything).
I believe Skype uses a TCP session to carry the traffic, which makes it a fundamentally bad design (not to mention closed and propriatory). Unfortunately it's easy for complete eejuts to set up and they
Re:SIP behind Nat (Score:1)
It should be great... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It should be great... (Score:2)
Actually it's not important that those technologies are open source as long as they use open protocols (because you can use any kind of technology - both closed and open - to communicate using open standards). If the closed source technology is better (cheaper, etc.) it will win and there's nothing wrong with that.
This is one of those things where Sun's Schwartz is absolutely right.
> If the government steps in and starts regulating everything like
What's the big deal? (Score:2)
Honest question, what does SIP, an all in one protocal, offer you that traditional implementations don't?
Note: I'm not referring to home users, so please no replies about calling porn services in Rumania for free
Re:What's the big deal? (Score:2)
I guessing "proprietary systems..." If you think about it for more than 5 seconds or so, or haven't been hiding under a rock for the past couple years, the answers should be obvious. Flexability, open systems, and cost savings are the top three.
Re:What's the big deal? (Score:2)
Ok, I think IAX2 is a far better protocol than SIP because it's not as complex from the networking point of view, so this reply will be based on VoIP in general rather than specifically SIP.
There are 2 areas to consider, the first is an internal (e.g. office-wide) phone system and the second is a replacement for the PSTN:
Office phone system:
1. Less cabling infrastructure - instead of separate cables
Good question (Score:2)
SIP has opened up some options, but the implementation has revealed lots of little gotchas along the way.
And I was just (in the middle of this email) speaking to a SIP architect from another vendor. His comment:
"SIP is great in the network, but not so good to the desktop".
My own observation was that SIP puts a lot of brains often into the end device, and the effect of that is to distribute
Spam (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Spam (Score:3, Interesting)
As atleast all the "real" revices are programmabel, you just give a voice menu that a human can easily select past.
"You have called the residence of (insert name), the calls here are subject to licence agreemennt, Press 1 to accept the lisence, press 2 to listen to the lisence or hang up."
On 1 it connects.
on 2 it says something like "This is a legal agreement between you, the caller and (insert name), the called party. if you are trying
data of VOIP (Score:1)
Re:data of VOIP (Score:3, Informative)
I dial out over Vonage all the time, since the only access to most of the boxes I support is via dial-up. There are still plenty of computers that aren't on the 'net, especially where privacy/security is key.
Re:data of VOIP (Score:1)
Re:data of VOIP (Score:2)
Re:data of VOIP (Score:2)
If you can get your modem to work at all over VoIP,
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Re:No one cares... (Score:4, Interesting)
Hooray! (Score:4, Interesting)
So, I'm now experimenting with Asterisk...
Re:Hooray! (Score:2)
Okay, what hardware do I need to start using VoIP? (Score:1)
$50 Open Source Wifi SIP Server! (Score:1, Informative)
These guys [sveasoft.com] are upgrading a $50 Linksys router [linksys.com] with a full SIP server and SIP NAT. Add a wireless Wifi phone you have your own wireless PBX for the house including Wifi, QoS, a killer firewall, and tons more to boot.
And it's based on Linux and open source - whoopee!Re:$50 Open Source Wifi SIP Server! (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:$50 Open Source Wifi SIP Server! (Score:2)
OPENWRT.ORG + WRT + ASTERISK (Score:1)
Resources? (Score:2)
What if I have modest resources? Can I still become my own real-time communications giant?
Don't take this guy as the word of god.... (Score:1)
Re:Don't take this guy as the word of god.... (Score:1)
Re:Don't take this guy as the word of god.... (Score:1)
Magic Beans (Score:4, Interesting)
And anyone with a hoe and a little water can become a Real Farming Industry Giant! Or, If You Have A Few Bucks, You Can Buy This Bridge I Can Sell You.
The
Re:Magic Beans (Score:2)
Re:Magic Beans (Score:2)
For the first time in history... (Score:2)
Legislators are scared of this. Successes in ventures like this prove that we don't need legislators and regulators like they think we do. Legislators want to leave their legacy. They want to make themselves important, justify their own existence. They want to pat themselves on the back and say that they made
Re:Magic Beans (Score:2)
SIP over XML might be a magic bullet.
Re:Magic Beans (Score:1)
I'd go with Jabber and enhance it with some voice signalling specific tweaks/messages, probably, before trying to convince the SIP True Believers about doing an XML conversion.
No 9-1-1 (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:No 9-1-1 -wrong (Score:1)
Re:No 9-1-1 -wrong (Score:1)
Re:No 9-1-1 -not all 9-1-1 are the same (Score:1)
The only service from a major VoIP provider that I am aware of is the
Re:No 9-1-1 (Score:3, Informative)
I work for a telco/ISP/VoIP provider, and we've offer 911 services standard with all VoIP services. It's the same E911 [fcc.gov] service that cell carriers are providing.
And most major VoIP industry players offer it as a standard, or at least optional, feature.
Cell carriers are legally bound to provide E911 services (stage 1). VoIP carriers are not, but most serious providers do anyway, to have feature parity with the POTS market.
Re:No 9-1-1 (Score:2)
That used to be true. Vonage supplies your address to 911 [vonage.com]
Re:No 9-1-1 (Score:1, Informative)
I believe Vonage is doing a trial of E911 in Rhode Island. E911 means full POTS 911 features, including supplying your address to the 91
Re:No 9-1-1 (Score:1)
Re:No 9-1-1 (Score:3, Insightful)
VoIP companies can and do provide E911 addressing. Vonage for example has a web page that you can tell them your home address and that will be sent with any calls to 911.
The only place where VoIP does have a downfall in this area is for wireless VoIP phones. Since these phones have no idea where they are your company will be providing your home address as the 911 address even if you are in a hotel halfway around the world.
Hence we hear the cry "Put GPSs in all of them like newer cellphones". On
Re:No 9-1-1 (Score:1, Redundant)
I have Vonage, and we most certainly do have 911 service. In the case of Vonage, I can directly tell them the EXACT address that the phone is currently located at.
This is important to me, since I have a California area code and billing address, but the phone is in Washington right now.
Re:No 9-1-1 (Score:3, Informative)
This means that your address does not automatically appear on the Call Centers computers. Currently only Packet8 offers this feature. Although I heard that Vonage is beta testing in some marke
Re:No 9-1-1 (Score:2)
Phone number portability (Score:2)
Now this is something I'm really going to consider.
Re:Phone number portability (Score:2)
No accountability (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:No accountability (Score:2)
Re:No accountability (Score:1)
Re:No accountability (Score:2)
I use asterisk at home and at work... (Score:1)
VOIP is too centered around service providers (Score:2)
I still think VOIP directories should be available through services like ddns. I don't have to subcribe to any service to do a DNS lookup so I can visit someone's website. Just think how much simpler life would have been if instant messagin
Re:VOIP is too centered around service providers (Score:1)
Your ISP runs a DNS service to support other services that they sell you. They do it because they want your money.
DNS is not "a public service." Except for, arguably, the roots.
Re:VOIP is too centered around service providers (Score:2)
They can and they are, so long as you're not using a propriatory system. The ENUM system lets you do exactly this (have a look at e164.org). You register your phone number with the system along with details of what VoIP protocol you use and the address of the VoIP phone (or PABX). That address can quite happyilly be handled by a DDNS system somewhere, and people can look up your number on the ENUM DNS servers and then use tho
SIP needs to opened up (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the biggest thing that the VoIP providers can do to avoid regulation is open up their SIP networks. And the best thing people like AT&T can do to get upstart VoIP players regulated is to open up their SIP networks.
VoIP get's most of the emphasis, but SIP is the killer app that VoIP is riding on, IMHO. The most annoying thing is that the VoIP providers won't allow customers, other VoIP providers or CPE (Customer Premise Equipment) manufactures access to the really cool features of SIP.
What can you do with truly open SIP. For starters it help to understand that SIP is a signaling protocol (like SS7 in the POTS world), not a communication protocol, SIP doesn't bother with encoding, decoding, or routing of the actually bits being communicated. As the name implies Session Initiation Protocol initiates communication session between end-points, once initiated the communication occurs direct between the end-point devices using some other protocol negotiated by SIP when it initiated the connection. However, the word "initiation" is a bit misleading because the SIP server also maintains awareness of the connection once established and can be used to control the connection afterwards and that can include adding/subtracting end-points, add/subtracting layers of communication, re-connecting end-points, etc. Very powerful stuff.
So with open SIP, you could have your cell phone route calls to the ATA in your home when you're home, but directly to your cell phone when away (and visa versa) by having the SIP server of your home ATA tell the SIP server of your cell phone provider that the new end-point device for phone number xxx is here. Also, you could set up complex multi-media connection on the fly. You're chatting over IM with someone and decide you need to up the bandwidth to voice, click, both parties (2 or more actually) phones ring, need to add a data feed to that to send a file, click. Need to add video, click.
The possibilities of what can be done with SIP have just barely been explored because of the limitation imposed by the VoIP providers. If only they understood Metcalf's law: The power of the network increases proportionately with the square of the number of nodes on the network. So by artificially limiting the number of nodes on your VoIP network to only your customers you really do yourself a disservice.
So if AT&T opened up its SIP network first and allowed users to see the power of SIP then the public sentiment could very quickly tilt in favor of regulation on other VoIP providers to do the same. On the other hand, if Vonage opened up its SIP network first then it could maintain the regulatory high-ground that VoIP inherently creates a competitive marketplace without regulations.
Re:SIP needs to opened up (Score:2)
Simplest "free" SIP server for "personal" use? (Score:2)
Are there any simple (relatively speaking) SIP servers that can be pressed into service as a Voice-over-IP conferencing server, the way OpenH323's OpenMCU [openh323.org] can? I wouldn't really care that it was SIP, except that SIP seems to be the protocol with the greatest selection of open and/or free clients available at the moment.
I'm not thinking here of a full hook-your-telephone-to-the-internet system (which Asterisk seems to be ideal for), just a simple open-standards server for a few people to point their comput
SIP... or IPv6? (Score:2)
Re:SIP... or IPv6? (Score:2)
Re:SIP... or IPv6? (Score:2)
VoIP is still very much in its infancy (Score:3, Insightful)
2) When your Network connection flakes out (as it is known to do periodically), your VoIP phone goes silent.
3) When your ISP starts to block or throttle back VoIP calls which are not routed through their own VoIP service, your VoIP phone is almost useless. You can thank the lack of regulations for this.
The VoIP industry is very much in bubble mode right now. It will burst, and when it does, I think that VoIP will finally have the opportunity to mature into a product which is actually useable for joe average.
Re:VoIP is still very much in its infancy (Score:2)
Not if your networking equipment and your ATA is on an UPS. I know I had a short outage shortly after moving in, and I was still able to use my Vonage service.
True, but most of the time the VoIP provider knows because it cannot contact the ATA, so it reroutes calls. I have my account set to route calls
Re:VoIP is still very much in its infancy (Score:2)
i highly doubt we'll ever see VoIP replace traditional telephone. I think there'll always be a need for the traditional phone, as it was built from the ground-up to serve very reliable, mission-critical purposes, as a closed ecosystem, with checks and balances.
that doesn't make VoIP any less of a very nice complementary alternative, especially SIP whereby end-to-end SIP communications are 100% free.
Re:VoIP is still very much in its infancy (Score:2)
1) When your power goes out, the phone still works. Your computers (and VoIP phone) do not.
Ever hear of a UPS? My ATA is on the UPS with the DSL modem. If power goes out for too long I can always hook up an inverter to the car for emergencies, or just use the auto-forward.
2) When your Network connection flakes out (as it is known to do periodically), your VoIP phone goes silent.
Speak for your own network connection. I pay a little extra for a good ISP and get good reliability....but once again if i
Re:VoIP is still very much in its infancy (Score:1)
The main point I was making was the VoIP is a nice alternative for the technically minded, but it is not in any way shape or form a replacement for traditional telephony nor is it a product ready for the ignorant masses. There are too many things which must be implemented on the users side in order to make it almost as stable as a traditional phone line. It is nowhere near 'idiot proof'.
Re:VoIP is still very much in its infancy (Score:2)
What they, and you, also missed is that the average cordless phone also rolls over dead with no wallpower. Consumers are used to this. My parents, in their 60s, don't expect their phones to work when the power is out anymore.
The days of drawing *all* your current from the RBOC/LEC FXS jack are disappearing quickly into the sunset, so power is a nonstarter in the IP/POTS debate.
And, for SOHO-grade IPT, network stability is not nearly the factor you made
Re:VoIP is still very much in its infancy (Score:1)
2) Use a backup device -- say, a cellphone -- if you need high-availability. Also, look at the disaster-resistant ability of VoIP phones -- after September 11th, the phone networks in New York were utterly swamped with calls, including calls to emergency services, "routine" calls, and calls to/from concerned family members. Internet traffic, with the exception of the destroyed nodes in the WTC and surrounding buildings was largely unaffacted. VoIP phones would be able to work normally whi
VoIP Regulation Panel Discussion in LA (Score:1, Informative)
Microsoft Windows Messenger uses SIP (Score:2, Informative)
Note that this is *not* the same as the
More info here... http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/winxp pro/maintain/w [microsoft.com]
Not Through MS ISA server..... (Score:1)
Re:In related News... Michael Powell is... (Score:1)