Should Voice-over-IP Be Regulated? 230
dj_due asks: "Here in the Philippines where technology is still catching up, the NTC (equivalent of FCC) will regulate the use of voive over IP, and currently it is not allowed. They proposed that ISP's who engage in internet telephony will be required to pay the telco's access charges. Should the telco's care if we make our phone calls over the Internet?" I can see reasons why telephone companies might want to control VoIP technologies but only as long as telephone lines remain the current way people connect to the internet. With broadband technologies coming of age, people will find other ways to connect to the internet, bypassing the telephone companies entirely. Do you think allowing telco's control of how VoIP is shaped may be setting a dangerous precident for later?
Viva tunnels! (Score:2)
~~~
Re:Yes, of course it should be regulated (Score:2)
Re:Capitalism and new technology (Score:1)
Capitalism is inherintly opposed to free markets. The goal of entities (companies, individuals) in a capitalist system is to maximise return on investment (capital); allowing a market in which competitors can show up and eat one's lunch is detrimental to those who are making money off the existing system.
Re:Also, A Tax On Pedestrians... (Score:2)
If I am lending u my roads(telephone lines) for some price then I expect u guys to use it in the way I want, not in the way u want. Fair-unfair, doesn't really matter for me, as long as I am the boss.
By that arguement, modems are not to be permitted except over privatly owned communications equipment. AT&T NEVER liked modems.
There is also a matter of semantics. Suppose I get a phone line. It is provided to me so that I can place and recieve voice phone calls to other people of my choosing. I am free to say whatever I like, and can even play them an mp3 file if I like. How would a VoIP company be violating that expected use? They pay for the lines, they accept and place calls. They just happen to play back and make digital recordings in real time, in accordance with the wishes of the calling and recieving parties.
Re:I believe you are wrong... :) (Score:2)
You left out the punchline! The ILECs lobbied heavily for the interconnection fees listed in item 1 believing that with a larger customer base, it would heavily favor them during the critical start-up time for the CLECs. That's what caused 2 to happen.
That's the danger of designer legislation :-)
Re:Actually it makes some kind of sense. (Score:2)
One of the problems with VOIP is that it needs to be higher priority traffic than normal traffic- it pretty much needs guaranteed bandwidth. The problem is that we probably can't have ALL the bandwidth on the internet being high priority.
Paying more for voice grade QOS does make sense (it costs more to provision), but that should go to the network provider, not the phone company, and then, only for packets tagged for the higher QOS (no matter what they are actually carrying). Voice packets that are not tagged should cost no more than any other UDP packet.
Re:Telcos have a point here (Score:2)
Wireless and Data-over-power-lines. Aren't quite up to snuff - probably wont ever be for broadband.
Re:HR 3234 - IT CAN'T BE! (good/bad regs) (Score:1)
(All The Worlds Problems) + Regulation = Peace & Happiness
...
What now they're going to double charge me? (Score:4)
Some thing sounds very wrong here.
UDP is used for many things, not just VOIP (Score:1)
oh ... great ... (Score:2)
... and then the Internet collapses, because UDP doesn't have any sort of congestion control facility. TCP congestion control is one of the only things that keeps the whole mess from deadlocking in one big mass of overwhelmed routers.
This reminds me of the time someone here was screaming when they found out about TCP congestion control in the Linux kernel. They insisted that it was stupid that anything should be preventing their packets from getting full priority, and it should be ripped out. A lot of people seemed to agree.
Man, can someone say "tragedy of the commons?"
Re:Yes, of course it should be regulated (Score:1)
Umm
Why should it matter if your traffic is voice, text, video, whatever?
This is horrible precedent. Luckily it's not local. Still, not a good sign.
Re:Yes, of course it should be regulated (Score:1)
In that case, traffic gets from client to ISP by cable or whatever other means so they shouldn't get revenue anyhow since it's not their network. After that, when it does cross their network it is through a link (OC3, T1, whatever) that is being paid for.
I fail to see how this is ripping them off. After all, they set the price for the T3.
If everyone uses their cable-tv connection for their phone type transmissions then the telco no longer needs to have connections to every building. Their main sources of revenue have become obsolete! Oh no! Did anyone levy taxes on computers to reimburse typewriter companies? Is it fair to ask producers of hydroelectric and nuclear power to subsidise coal mining? Should it be law that if you buy a toilet you must also purchase an outhouse so that they outhouse companies can still make a profit? I could make up more analogies but they probably wouldn't help.
Re:Actually it makes some kind of sense. (Score:1)
Therefore having a higher tarrif for higher priority traffic probably is the way to go. (Some scheme like a free number of packets per month might work too...)
I see your point but draw the opposite conclusion. If there is insufficient low latency bandwidth available for this purpose, does that not make it self-regulating? If your international call is getting too lagged and it's important to you, you would pick up a normal phone and pay the fee for a direct connection.
See?
What's wrong with that?
You might argue that it still reduces the use of the phone network. Yeah, it does. But it will cost less to maintain and they can charge more for it. I don't see any reason that won't balance.
No No No No No (Score:2)
Infrastructure was expensive, hard to build and required rights of way.
Investment horizons were in the 25-100 year range
It was the creation of a new public utility.
The flip side of guaranteed rates of return is regulation needed to insure that.
Do we need a guaranteed rates of return for netphones? Do we need to eliminate competition just because MegaTelco can't move out of its own way? Do we need to erect MORE barriers around the local CO? Do we want to ceed rights of way, or spectrum to more private companies? Regulation is a mixture of good and bad. Here's a brief list:
Almost universal phone coverage paid for by taxes so that anyone who really needs a phone can get at least some service.
Expensive residential service that subsidizes business service discounts.
Extremely slow pace of technology or service change.
Non existant customer service.
On the whole a very reliable system.
A complex Byzantine billing and tariff structure designed to make competition harder not easier.
Is this what you want for VoIP?
especially on college campuses... (Score:2)
Even though VoIP may not be for the non-techno savvy AIM is and it is useful.
Re:There is no such thing as a free lunch. (Score:1)
I pay my ISP to service the line I lease from my telco.
They're already charging me for use of their equipment. What's next? Charging me for using LICQ or GAIM instead of making a phone call?
I'm paying them for a high-bandwidth connection and how I use that connection, so long as it is legal, is none of their business. There is no defense for gouging consumers at every possible point and their complaints begging for regulation are rediculous.
---
seumas.com
Also, A Tax On Pedestrians... (Score:5)
Likewise, auto-makers should be levied an additional tax which would subsidize the horse-breeding and equestrian 'industry' for the loss in revenue that the new technology (automotives) have torn from the hands of the horse-trade, by using the same streets with an alternate vehical as a method of transportation of individuals from one location to another.
It is only fair that new technologies and services be responsible for continuing the financial well-being of the services and past technologies they are making obsolete.
---
seumas.com
Cable and Wireless (Score:2)
Re:Oh contraire (Score:1)
A Chinese buffet in my area actually does allow doggie bags (actually, they're styrofoam containers), but they charge a per-weight-unit fee for them. I see no other way to prevent abuse.
--
Anyone remember when (security lines) disappeared? (Score:1)
Then dsl came out, so people started to buy these copper lines for 60 bux a month, and transmit faster than t1 speeds.
Soon the Telco's learned about this, you cant buy a plain unloaded copper line anymore for 60 bux...
Thou, I dont see VOIP being a risk, MSN/AOL/ATT are giving it away for free. ;)
Re:Conversation Over Streaming MP3 Will Kill Telco (Score:1)
No offence, but the 15kbps audio stream I listen to once a week (it's football commentary) occasionally dies due to net congestion somewhere between the server and my PC. It also uses a 5-6 second buffer to attempt to prevent this occurring.
If such a low bandwidth stream can't even reliably be delivered even with 5-6 seconds of buffering, then 128kbps of streaming - both ways - with 0 seconds buffering (unless you want a really odd phone call) is pretty sodding unlikely.
I'm not saying it can't be done, just that the internet today isn't going to like it.
~Cederic
Capitalism and new technology (Score:2)
This is where capitalism almost always seems to fail "new" technology.
We see it with MP3s, vidoe streaming (known as "broadcasting" is Oz), alternative fuels for cars; and a whole range of other essentially good and sound technology having the wind screwed out of its sails (and sales) due to the threat it poses for an existing, secure, cash-cow market filled with very large companies with far reaching opinions, that were built on the back of past "new" technology.
Given the profit margins most telcos can generate - they've more than covered any initial infrastructure outlays and on-going maintenance costs...
Besides, the telcos shouldn't be looking to lock out and regulate the voice over IP technology, they SHOULD be pioneering it!
Problems with VoIP (Score:4)
VoIP restricted in Poland (Score:2)
In the fall of 1999 Era GSM [eragsm.pl], a private GSM company in Poland, began to allow customers to make international calls via VoIP. It was transparent to end users, as all VoIP should be.
This lasted two months? Maybe three? By law all calls leaving Poland have(had?) to go through Telekomunikacja Polska [www.tpsa.pl] (TPSA), the national telco. The courts found out about the service and of course ordered it stopped.
(One wouldn't want a Pole paying less than 15% of their monthly income for a one-hour call to the states now, would they?)
People commenting "how do you detect..." need to realize that governments don't need to detect anything. (Though it would be easy in Poland where the vast majority of Internet traffic goes through one TPSA link to the US via teleglobe.net... even traffic destined for Germany!) Just hearing about a business circumventing laws is enough to start the machine moving, and let me tell you that machine is frightening.
And since VoIP is recognized as just another way to make a telephone call, it is regulated as such. Why should it receive any special consideration?
Maybe the telco's should evolve. (Score:1)
Lobbying for all that costs money...lots of it...and if the law is challenged in the courts...that's a big hidden cost. Cost of the due diligence work of monitoring traffic for VoIP costs money too. And just how good a reputation will a telco get by prosecuting individuals or groups for finding a way to use equipment they own and bandwidth they pay for to excersize their rights to free speech (if in a country where free spech is protected)...probably not a good one. I'd switch long distance companies over that practice....in fact I'd organize a boycott if y'all would help me.
It makes more sense to to have a three-pronged billing scheme: One for packets only, one for switching only and one for both. DSL makes this entirely possible over the same hardware layer. This way, the company gets to charge appropriately for the use patterns of the user without having to restrict what they do. This also saves them added security costs of a restricted system because it won't be restricted. It's also cheaper to tell the diference between a phone conversation and packets than it is to look at all the packets and tell one protocol than the other...so the billing scheme's fraud detection scheme is cheaper to implement than for a restricted system.
Think about it. The capabilities exist, and the geeks are geeky enough to implement VoIP in such a way that it's extremely difficult and costly to tell if someone's using VoIP. It costs a lot to put restriction and the needed security to make it happen in place. Any corporation would be more prudent and practical in changing their billing scheme to best make use of market conditions rather than spend lots of money trying to dictate market conditions, and HOPING that it works.
Re:Viva tunnels! (Score:1)
Re:Pirstocity Fostesque (Score:1)
Re:Capitalism and new technology (Score:1)
Re:Pirstocity Fostesque (Score:1)
For electronic stuff, people seem to find a way regardless. No cable? Get satellite. These days, satellite could cover TV, phone, and internet all at once.
Maybe regulation really was necessary to make sure everybody got their phones in the 30s, or whenever it was. But today, the technology is so cheap, there's no need anymore. How much would it cost to wire your hypothetical town of 180? I'm thinking 802.11 cards with roof antennas. Run internet and phone over it at the same time. Share your link to the outside. If no company thinks it would be profitable enough, the townspeople can start their own. Enough of this helpless government-must-provide-everything stuff.
Re:Why you need regulation. (Score:1)
You're forcing the existing idea of a telephone network onto an IP-based situation. Don't. Throw it all away and build it up again from scratch. Phone numbers are an ancient holdover from the days of vacuum tubes or before, we can do so much better now.
Specific points answered:
1) Prices on internet service are extraordinarily low. Why would VoIP be different? It's just internet.
2) Any company that refuses to interconnect with the rest of the internet instantly commits suicide. AOL was one of the last bastions of this, and they broke down eventually. Now you get a full IP connection to the 'net by default when dialing into AOL. As I've said before, VoIP is just internet.
3) No phone numbers. Think more along the lines of e-mail addresses.
4) See above comments on prices.
5) Regulations don't guarantee QOS, prices and competition do. It's just like the internet now. My cable modem is great, mostly because it's cheap. I can live with the strangely-varying latencies, dropped packets, what-have-you, for the price. I think it would work fine for phone calls. If I didn't like it, I'd find something that worked better. It might cost more. That's life. If phones are classed as essential, and any significant downtime causes people to become pissed off, any company that has these things happen often will lose its customer base awfully quickly. VoIP opens up more competition and makes it even easier to have multiple companies servicing the same area.
6) This is a problem. I have no answer here. But it's optional to own a phone. As long as people see very, very clearly that this new setup they're getting might have complications when trying to reach police, I don't see it as a problem.
7) Oh yes, we certainly need the government to have a guaranteed ability to wire-tap and trace calls. While we're at it, let's pass some laws allowing them to read my e-mail. They certainly should have a key to my apartment on file in case they need to search it. If the police see me on the street and suspect me, we'd better make sure they can search me even without my permission. If they decide to arrest me, better make sure they can interrogate me effectively. If I don't answer, I'm hiding something, so better have some punishments for that. Having a lawyer there will encourage me to lie or hold back, so keep him away. DNA and blood samples will be useful in matching to the crime scene, so make sure they can get those, even if I don't agree. The police know what's going on, and the judge will be able to get the info from them, so none of these know-nothing juries around declaring guilty people innocent.
Where was I? Oh yeah. The rest of your points are good if IMO misguided. That last one is just, no offense, a dumbass point. I need guarantees of wiretapping and call tracing like I need to be interrogated via baseball bat or thrown out of a fiftieth-floor window.
Re:Why you need regulation. (Score:1)
1) With VoIP there should be no difference between local and long-distance, just like there's no difference between e-mailing Bob across the street and e-mailing Bob in Australia. The thing to own will not be the infrastructure but the software, and any company whose software doesn't interoperate will lose customers rapidly.
2) Comparison to the instant-messaging systems is very interesting, since it shares many of the same problems. People don't seem to have much problems working with the multiple IM systems out there, whether with clients that can connect to more than one system or simply by running more than one client at once.
3) Directory services would be similar to e-mail directory services today. They fairly suck, but I generally don't have trouble looking up people's e-mail addresses. If the system is like the IM systems, with a central server refereeing hookups, then the central server can handle searches among its client base. Search several services at once if you don't know which one the person you're looking for is on.
4) Do companies have to give up their domain names if they switch ISPs? Of course not. Any IP phone connections could be tied to the domain name. Instead of calling 1-800-555-3456, you call frontoffice@somecompany.com.
5) No, of course my cable modem isn't up all the time. As I said, I don't need it to be. If I did need it to be, I'll pay more money for something that works better. Different people have different needs, and if I can avoid subsidizing people who truly need 24x7 through power outages and whatever else, then great.
6) I think I understand your point of view here. I'm not really sure what I think. On the one hand, you make a lot of sense. On the other hand, there are two situations to consider. Situation A: no phone. Situation B: phone, but no 911. In both cases, emergency services cannot be called. Maybe it would become a point of competition, and companies that didn't offer it wouldn't get very far. Any company that didn't have 911 services and didn't make that very, very clear to its employees is opening the way for lawsuits just like a company that welds shut the fire escapes.
7) What about tracing obscene/harassing calls? I don't care how important it is to the investigative process. If beating me on the head with a sledgehammer were an important part of the investigative process, would it be necessary to guarantee that ability? Just because something is necessary to the investigation of a crime does not justify that something. Any amount of you thinking that it should be allowed won't make it true. Of course, your side will win....
Re:HR 3234 - IT CAN'T BE! (good/bad regs) (Score:2)
Ok, dumb question here, but.... why?
Re:Why you need regulation. (Score:2)
Re:Is it possible (Score:2)
Any enforcement mechanism is going to go after large scale providers, which essentially will mean standards-based VoIP, which means that a quickie protocol decode will be able to spot telecomms traffic based on the payload.
You and your buddy using some homebrew system may easily evade this, but two guys talking peer to peer isn't a telecommunications system any more than two kids talking over tin cans and a string is and the FCC ain't interested in regulating you and your pal, string or tin cans.
Interconnection charges & competition (Score:2)
Traditionally the phone companies have made loads of money doing this very thing -- letting MCI customers call Pacbell customers and so on. The FCC has long regulated this practice among people that call themselves "phone companies", but doesn't have the ability (yet) to regulate people who call themselves "internet providers".
The telcos are likely scared that not only will they be competing with a network far more modern than theirs, they're competing with someone who isn't burdended by regulation. It's kind of a legitimate concern.
Re:Problems with VoIP (Score:3)
TCP packets don't "notice" anything. At best an IP stack has some kind of congestion control which it uses with each specific TCP connection that's established. But that congestion control can't be manipulated other than by flooding the network(s) in use by a specific connection, aka denial of service. All the stack notices is that its not getting some of its packets ACKed.
Bandwidth prioritization is important with VoIP, but its not that easily exploited, at least not on a public network. It can involve secure negotiation with routers in order to achieve that prioritization. Some dork flooding a network with UDP packets isn't going to get bandwidth reserved for him.
It's actually more important to think of it as "latency prioritization", IIRC the minimum end-end latency for toll-quality voice is ~150ms RTT, which a challenge over the public internet without some kind of RSVP.
Heinlein summed up... (Score:5)
-Lunatic
Phillippines Telecom likes being a dinosaur (Score:1)
Wolf guarding sheap (Score:1)
It would.. in the long run.. be restricted to a glorifyed radio and not giving TV much advantage over radio.
I picture the same with Voice over IP...
Voice over IP can allready provide communications in the syle of phone (call a person), CB (open mike and talk to "the world") and you have voice over IP as part of some multiplayer games.
This isn't just telephony anymore...
Geeks In Space is a recorded MP3 file... voice over IP.. done vea a music file format...
RealPlayer talk shows also exist..
Ohh and let's not forget ftp://ftp.ibiblio.org/pub/talk-radio/ Internet Talk Radio...
The pionear in Internet talk radio.... predating MP3 and RealMedia and.. yes... using Sun Audio as it's primary format it seems this netcast happend during a time when the Internet saw Windows as "Those Dos machines" in much the same way we'd look at a PS2 today.. Neat toy for OTHER PEOPLE...
This dose seem to be the wolf guarding the sheap.
Eventually voice over IP will overtake the phone network.
I myself am using a radio modem... considerably cheapper than a cell phone....
Re:AutoAnswer: Should X be regulated? (Score:1)
However the DOJ isn't seeking to regulate Microsoft but to break it up after the fact.
AT&T and Union Steel were delt with the same hand..
IBM and Microsoft both got a kinder fate. IBM backed down and let others take over. Microsoft however did not learn from it's first run in with the DOJ.
In StarTrek terms.. Microsoft is the Borg.. the DoJ is Q.
I'd much rather not rely on Q to dismantal the Borg.. but having taken the task I'm not going to object...
It was up to Microsoft to defend itself. If Microsoft had argued that this is a dangerous road they might have gotten some support for Slashdot... It is a dangerous road.
Maybe that is what Microsoft ment by protecting innovation. However.. Microsoft itself placed itself as the example for innovation... This akin to a murderer placing himself as an example of humanitarianism. It dosn't fly.
But if Microsoft in making itself the example was trying to say this rulling could sereously injure innovative companys.. I'd agree..
The DoJ botched the job the first time and now it's the for the free market to take over.
Accually I contend had the DoJ left well enough alone Microsoft may not be the monopoly it is today. That consent decree did more harm that good.
From that point forward Windows and Dos were a single product.. the whole point of the consent decree with to prevent that from ever happening...
If Microsoft finds some way to survive a splitup and remain a monopolist power... The DoJ should LAY OFF and LET THE MARKET DO THE WORK.
The DoJ attacked when Microsoft was at it's weakest. When the market itself was allready prying Microsoft appart.
The DoJ created sympathy. Created political allies. The mayter...
In the mean time the DoJ (the Q) eye other busnesses that may need breaking up... hu ho....
Unfortunately for the Philipines (Score:1)
--
it isn't the processor power, it's the latency. (Score:1)
VoIP is a fantastic technology, and it's great to work with. within an office setting, or enterprise-wide, it's a great solution. However, it's not really suited for someone's dorm room, or for your home computer, etc. It helps to have fibre only a hop or two up your private network, or to have something like a cable network (ala MediaOne, RoadRunner, AT&T etc.) You really just have to have that low latency.
my 2 cents. You guys have motivated me to look more closely at my cisco VoIP books today at work
Re:Yes, of course it should be regulated (Score:1)
No. (Score:2)
There should definately be an unregulated class of service. I mean, it's simply using our networks to encode and send voice data.. very trivial. Who can regulate that? If they regulate 'VOIP' as a standard, we'll just use something else.
What do you mean? (Score:2)
So they *are* paying for it.
VoIP regulation in the European Union (Score:2)
There is a lot of regulation on voice telephony, but the question is whether voice over IP (VoIP) is to be regarded as voice telephony. The European Commission has stated [2] that voice-over-internet should be regulated as voice telephony if
(1) The communication is offered on a commercial base
(2) The communication is offered as a service to the public (e.g., not only internally in a company)
(3) The voice communication should be made between termination points of the switched public telephony network
(4) Use of direct transport, and delivery of speech in real time
(5) VoIP is offered as the main component of a service. This means that an ISP that offers VoIP "en passant" with Internet access, without extra charge, is not regulated as an voice telephony provider.
(6) There has to be some kind of "any-to-any" communication
(7) The VoIP service provider should guarantee that the voice quality is the same as the quality of the PSTN (public switched telephony network.
All of this means, that there is at the moment not a ground to regulate VoIP.
But also think what regulation of VoIP under the voice telephony regime would mean. The following list was made especially for The Netherlands, but most rules follow directly from EU guidelines, and should be applicable in all of the EU:
(1) VoIP operators should register with the local telecommunications regulator (UK: OFTEL, NL: OPTA,etc.)
(2) Numbering schemes: telephony numbers are usually organised according to a numbering scheme. Regulation of VoIP should result in incorporation of VoIP numbers, screen names or other handles in these schemes.
(3) Number portability: A consumer should be able to retain his telephony number/screen name/handle when moving from one VoIP operator to the other
(4) VoIP operators should interconnect with each other: this means that a consumer should be able to make a call to a friend who uses the VoIP service of another VoIP provider, and also to another friend that uses PSTN ("normal" telephony)
(5) The European emergy number "112" should be available at no costs to all VoIP consumers
(6) VoIP operators should cooperate with tapping voice communications
There are of course more details, but these are the most important results.
Jan-Pascal
[1] His report is public, if you need it I will ask him to e-mail it to you.
[2] Commission Notice concerning the status of voice on the Internet pursuant to Directive 90/338/EEC, OJ 6, January 10, 1998
--
Jan-Pascal van Best
Delft University of Technology
The Netherlands
http://www.ict.tbm.tudelft.nl
Re:Conversation Over Streaming MP3 Will Kill Telco (Score:1)
Even transmitting 64kbps (we do only need mono, right?) and using some form of "high-quality" VBR solution, we could probably save a lot more bandwidth and still have the conversations come out crystal clear. I don't think it "should" carry things like music etc as well as voice, because in that type of communications, all we're worried about is voice...
hmmmm..
But what about.... (Score:1)
Re:There is no such thing as a free lunch. (Score:2)
You pay for a phone line, and your ISP pays for their phone lines. The telco gets paid for their job of local data transfer. The ISP buys their backbone from someone else.
I don't see how the telco pays anyone in this, but they do get paid by the people on both ends of the telephone call.
The only way the telco pays someone to carry the data farther is with long distance. If they don't carry it long distance, then they don't have to pay anyone else.
Anyways, as everyone else said, if the telco contracts to provide flat-rate local service, then they should provide flat-rate local service, it's a contract they entered into fairly.
If they can't handle it, well tough, maybe they go out of business. Someone will jump in and offer bandwidth (for voice or data) at a price that they can sustain. This is the case where a free market economy works.
Re:Yes, of course it should be regulated (Score:2)
Nice, except my ISP isn't a dial-up, and they don't get their bandwidth from a telco. It's not just telcos handling the cables anymore.
Uhm, Correct me if I am wrong... (Score:4)
The FCC refused. And, I dont see it happening here any time soon. Simply put, the telco's are also the ones who are bringing us DSL, and other service, and, having been told already they arent getting their way with VoIP, I am sure they are looking at other avenues of control. If anything, they may have better stakes in being the only onramp. A good example of this is: my local ISP used to do all of the setup for a DSL, and now, the phone company makes you order the line seprately, and then choose your provider.
My $0.02
WTF is a Telco anyway? (Score:5)
In the old days, the organisation that ran the mail (usually government-owned) also distributed telegrams. (After G. Marconi pulled his engineering/marketing magic, this went international). Then these scary 'telephone' devices became available.
There is an apocryphal tale (references, anybody?) of a mayor of an American town saying 'The telephone is a wonderful invention. One day, every town in America will have one.'
However, the postal companies were the ones who delivered the telephony. To this day, the 'big' telecoms provider in any region is referred to as 'The PTT' (Post, Telegraph and Telephony). British Telecom, Deutsche Telekom, France Telecom are the obvious examples.
Unfortunately, these dinosaurs have failed to wake up. Small, agile little companies are desperately trying to eat their lunch.
Even more unfortunately, the PTTs are desperately clinging to their last monopoly - the local loop. The PTTs own the copper from the local exchange to the customer's wall socket, and they will do *anything* to cling to that.
Cable providers are working hard to get more delivery to the customer premises, and deliver bandwidth to the home that is scary ( I have seen cable modems achieving 10Mb), but that is irrelevant.
Here is my point: The PTTs are used to charging by the second, at 64Kb. That business model is dying. The smaller service providers know this. They are hanging in there until the dinosaurs die. Trust me, the dinosaurs *will* die.
Modern customers are happy to pay for bandwidth. Burst bandwidth, commited bandwidth, quality of service. These are the things a customer will pay for. Charge by the minute, charge by the megabyte and you are dead.
Message to the PTTs: Wake Up and Sell the Bandwidth. There are plenty of hungry people out here who are waiting to eat your lunch.
Or, put simply (and on-topic again) charging extra for VoIP is the death-rattle of a PTT. We shall feast on it's rotting flesh.
Is it possible (Score:5)
Why not... (Score:2)
IE - VOIP for both local and long-distance calls?
Heck, get rid of the "middle-man" so to speak (although I guess there will always be a middle-man, until we build our own wireless optical link network) - use a broadband service and "dial" the IP address of your neighbor - so to speak.
Corporations (not just telcos, but broadband providers, media corps - especially them - and others) are SCARED of this tech falling into the "masses" hands. They would be just as scared of email and such if everybody understood it, but they don't. Why? Because it makes it harder for them to segregate us from one another - from forming communities.
Community is a threat to the corps - they will do anything to stop it.
Worldcom [worldcom.com] - Generation Duh!
I believe you are wrong... :) (Score:2)
VoIP carriers in the US are not exempt from tariffs, and they will charge that back. Note that this won't tariff all VoIP calls, but then is VoIP usefull if you can't call for a pizza or the ambulance with it? In order for it to be usefull, it has to interconnect with the regular old PSTN, so it can be billed appropriately at that point.
Jason PollockSorry, but it isn't "unlimited" anything! (Score:2)
An American "unlimited" plan is actually a rate-averaged plan, wherein the price is supposed to cover the average local usage. Toll calls have always been charged for at a higher rate, again well above cost, in order to subsidize basic local service (the base monthly residential rate rarely covers cost; they make up for it via tolls, optional features, and much higher business-line local charges). That's done to promote "universal service".
If people use dial-up voice calls to access somebody who carries calls a long distance, then they're making long distance calls. It shouldn't matter whether the LD haul is coming via PCM fiber optic circuits, ancient analog microwave, the Internet, or modulated smoke signals. That's the LD carrier's business. Letting LD carriers use "the Internet" (which is NOT a clearly-defined term, and can be easily stretched to refer to semi-dedicated voice circuits) to carry voice, without paying the same as other LD carriers, is simply a way of subsidizing bad-quality carriers at the expense of good ones.
Note that if dial-up ISP calls become identified with LD, then it will be all the easier for the telco to demand toll charges for them. That's incredibly counterproductive.
In a country like the Phillipines, they haven't gotten as far as the USA has (not all that far!) in demonopolizing the phone business. So there is a real sensitivity to VoIP, which costs the local telco (PLDT) a lot of its international settlement revenue. And that will make it harder to provide basic service in what's basically a fairly low-income country, where most people can't even afford a phone.
Monopolies are generally bad and the old telcos made their own beds, but short-term disruption can hurt lots of people, even ISPs and their customers. In the long run this all shouldn't matter, but you have to be very sensitive to the economic interactions when an old monopoly faces competition in unexpected ways.
Re:Sorry, but it isn't "unlimited" anything! (Score:2)
This was originally done for both altruistic and commercial means: Universal telephone service made the phone that much more valuable to business customers, who always paid above cost. The old network effect -- the value of each connection to a network rises with the number of connections. So old Ma Bell was doing well by doing good.
Poorer countries like the Phillipines don't have the widespread networks yet, and obviously need a better means of getting there than the old "tax LD to hell" routine. But it can't be done overnight. This is a capital-intensive business.
Re:Sorry, but it isn't "unlimited" anything! (Score:2)
Yes, because there was no independent regulator. The PTT (Post, Telegraph and Telephone) was the ministry in charge, and they both ran the network and set the rules. They set their rates, terms and conditions. This is still the case in some countries, mostly smaller ones. And yes, some even regulate ISPs, or maintain monopolies over Internet service.
Ma Bell dealt with state commissions and the FCC. Most were docile, but at least gave a fig leaf for consumer protection. We gringos had it very, very good, phone-wise, compared to most of the world. Competition has caught on in a lot of countries (it's now basically mandatory in the E.U., for instance) and their service is catching up with ours. (And in the meantime, the entrenched RBOCs here are getting worse, as they fight competition by abusing their monopoly market power, not by improving.)
Re:oh ... great ... (Score:2)
Most people don't understand how fragile TCP/IP or the Internet is. VERY fragile! The TCP congestion control algorithm is all that stands between it and total collapse. VoIP and other (video, for instance) streaming over UDP doesn't participate, so it keeps streaming away while TCP slows down and thus loses its share of bandwidth.
That's one reason why voice shouldn't be allowed to be a major share of Internet traffic: You can run voice over an "old-fashioned" five-nines phone network, but you can't run the Internet over it.
Re:There is no such thing as a free lunch. (Score:2)
I already pay for my phone access to my ISP. And I already pay for my ISP for my access to the internet. Fact is, as soon as it seems to be reasonably priced, I'll ditch my phone company for an all in one phone/internet access provider (I don't watch television, so I don't care about cable access).
The telcos are the buggy whip manufacturers of the 21st century. This is cruel and efficient capitalism at work. I wouldn't want it any other way.
Re:Is it possible (Score:2)
treke
Re:Is it possible (Score:2)
treke
Re:What now they're going to double charge me? (Score:2)
That's why the whole VoIP thing doesn't much sense. Its just another way of using bandwidth, albeit slightly more bandwidth than is normal. If phone companies are smart, they'll start making up some of the lost revenue by increasing the flat fee rate and decreasing the long distance rate (or if they're greedy, keeping the long distance rate the same). This is probably what most phone companies do, but those who don't will be hurting if VoIP ever takes off.
Speak Freely Cant Be Blocked (Configurable Port) (Score:2)
In many respects it is the best VOIP package available, because source code is available (public domain, which doesn't fit the stricter definition of an open source license), it allows a choice of both transmission protocols and compression algorithms, so you can adjust each for your particular setup to get the best results, and it offers strong encryption (a non-encrypting download is available for places where that's illegal).
The main disadvantage is that because of all the options it is rather difficult to use. And because of some architectural features of Linux, it's hard to get working at all under Linux (but it can be done).
Usually what you need to do is learn how to use it, then get someone on the other end at a computer where they have both the telephone and internet available at the same time, and talk them through it. But I have worked with Speak Freely with novice users after giving them a little while of instruction.
It also has ICQ integration and if you have a full-time net connection you can use it in answering machine mode.
Michael D. Crawford
GoingWare Inc
It doesn't need to be higher priority (Score:2)
The bandwidth required for a voice quality phone call that has been compressed by a modern voice compression algorithm (such as one of those available in Speak Freely [speakfreely.org]) will be much less than someone using Napster, Gnutella or browsing an, uh, "image archive".
A good voice over IP product will work fine over a 28.8 modem. I know this because this is how I used to talk to my brother in law from California to Newfoundland.
You do occasionally suffer some dropouts or delays, but it's pretty tolerable, especially if you have a higher bandwidth connection, like at least dual-channel ISDN or 128 DSL. But still that's pretty modest as net connections go these days.
Probably your biggest concern is to make sure your ISP's connection to the internet is fat enough to support all their customers. Once it gets on the backbone its insignificant.
What I would like to see is voice over IP where the compression algorithm was streaming MP3, and we could have high-fidelity audio speech conversations at 16 bits and 44 khz. There's no reason we should have to deal with crappy 8-bit voice with 3 khz bandwidth in this day and age. But even this wouldn't require a terrible lot of bandwidth.
Michael D. Crawford
GoingWare Inc
I think not but here's a link (Score:2)
You'll find some discussion about interoperability here [speakfreely.org].
Also see Speak Freely's development plans. [speakfreely.org]
Michael D. Crawford
GoingWare Inc
I just asked the Ogg Vorbis folks about this (Score:2)
While the strictly correct file format would require 1-second blocks (I wasn't aware of that, thanks), the basic principles of psychoacoustic audio compression should still work fine if the blocks are made shorter. Perhaps it might not be as efficient.
I sent email a couple of hours ago to the Ogg Vorbis [vorbis.com] folks about this, suggesting they look into it. I'm curious what they say; I'd be astounded if no one has considered it before.
Ogg Vorbis is a patent-free open specification and open source audio compression format meant to replace MP3.
Michael D. Crawford
GoingWare Inc
Speak Freely works in India, thru VoIP Firewalls (Score:2)
And I recall that he placed this call from inside of India, I think to the U.S. (although I'm less sure of the destination).
This works because you can configure Speak Freely's UDP port, so it gets through VoIP-blocking firewall software.
Michael D. Crawford
GoingWare Inc
Conversation Over Streaming MP3 Will Kill Telco's (Score:4)
What you get is transmitted as 8 bits, although since it's mu-law encoded it's approximately as good as 13 bits. But it has only three kilohertz bandwidth.
The audio quality of the modern telephone was decided decades ago as basically what was required to make speech easily intelligible, but not what would make it enjoyable.
It is not really within the telco's power to change that because all of the equipment from one end to the other, as well as all of the communications protocols and software are pretty hardwired for that limitation.
Many VOIP products observe this limitation and in fact are often not as clear sounding as a real phone, either because they need to work over a 28.8 modem, or because you're using a commercial carrier (even though it's over the internet) who doesn't want to pay a lot for a lot of bandwidth for high-quality calls.
This was my experience when I got an "Internet Calling Card" which worked just like a regular calling card, but the voice was streamed over the net in the middle. The audio quality was terrible, much worse than a telephone, and my then-girlfriend (now my wife) asked me to stop using it as it disrupted the closeness of our conversations.
I was investigating all the options a couple years ago, as I was in California and the woman who is now my wife was in Nova Scotia. I eventually settled on AT&T One Rate International because her 486 wasn't powerful enough to run VOIP.
But these days we have powerful processors and fast net connections. I believe that it is within our grasp to have two-way voice conversations with 128 kbps streaming MP3 with real-time compression.
Just voice over IP isn't going to win that many people over if all they're saving is some money, because most people don't make that many phone calls that the expense is worth the extra trouble. But imagine if they could get CD quality sound during their conversations!
And there would be nothing the telcos could do about it because they would be hamstrung by their legacy technology.
Probably it would be better to implement this using Ogg Vorbis [vorbis.com] so there would be no patent issues.
And I'd like to suggest that it be built with the ZooLib [sourceforge.net] cross-platform application framework so clients could be built for Mac OS, Windows, Linux and other Unix variants and BeOS from the same codebase - note ZooLib includes networking.
Ah, but not UDP networking. Not yet...
Michael D. Crawford
GoingWare Inc
No way in Hell... (Score:2)
For those using voice over IP on telephone dial-ups, then perhaps the telco will have a legitimate claim. However, I do not make any use of the telco's infrastructure, and I would gladly take them to court for stealing fees from my ISP!
Just more people that don't understand making laws that they can't fully comprehend...
Telcos have a point here (Score:2)
If you are in the business of providing voice service, you are subject to a huge maze of rules, regulations, and taxes. People doing voice over IP are not forced to deal with this maze. It's unfair to the telcos.
Now, the solution the telcos are asking for is to force everyone else into the maze with them. This is entirely rational from their point of view. I, and other libertarians, would prefer a different approach: wipe out the maze and leave the telcos alone.
One poster suggested that a small farm town would be unable to get affordable phone service, but I find that very difficult to believe. Is that same small farm town unable to get affordable food? How about affordable computers? What is magic about telephone service that makes it impossible for a free market to deliver it cheaply?
Just maybe in the early days of telephony it was actually necessary that government set up monopoly telcos and regulate them, but it certainly isn't true now. If there is a problem with getting a phone, you can get a cell phone. If company A owns all the wires going into a town, company B can set up a microwave relay, route voice onto an Internet backbone, or maybe make a deal with the power company to put voice data on the power lines. (Don't laugh; I've heard that some places in Europe already do Internet service through power lines.)
If telcos have to pay the Al Gore tax, every voice user should have to pay it. But I say get rid of it instead of spreading it around even more.
steveha
No doggy bags allowed (Score:2)
You are right, of course, in saying that it's none of the providers business what you use the phone line for, and that they should change their pricing if they feel the costs they are incurring do not match the revenue they get from you.
This is precisely what the Dutch PTT did in the 1980's, when they realized they were building central office switches like there's no tomorrow for the sake of just a few users who spent all their days on BBS's. They scrapped the unlimited access. This was in the days when CO switches limited the number of open lines to seven per one hundred subscriber lines, so they had little option but to do *something*.
Of course, paid-for local access is an anachronism nowadays.
Another small observation about the way the decision was made then is that they made this change precisely to avoid having to raise monthly charges for the average user. Bad for nerds, good for grannies. Economy is about distribution of both wealth and costs, and politics is about what's the definition of "fair". It's funny to see the government owned juggernaut at the side of the consumer.
Sigh. These days, the Dutch government has all but took its hands off the telco's, which results in the weird situation that even though our montly charges are far less than in most other places in the world, it is now cheaper to call from my home to anywhere in the US than it is to call to Amsterdam, which is only 30 miles away, and that I *still* pay about US$.50 per hour for local Internet access.
Traffic prioritization shucks (Score:2)
Of course, this was in a friendly network setting, mostly TCP and no way for abusers to hide from the network managers.
And this was the easy case, prioritizing TCP. The problem with UDP is that it has no inherent flow control mechanism. Stuff like RealAudio has its own heuristics to avoid overloading a line, but as heuristics go, the time to respond to changing conditions is quite noticable, and because UDP doesn't back off by itself, in the mean time the link is loaded with packets that don't reach their final destination in the first place. On overloaded Frame Relay circuits, it is not unusual to see 50% of traffic consisting of TCP retransmits, and in those cases, tuning the rate down can actually improve performance. I don't want to know what happens to VoIP in those circumstances...
VoIP really hinges on the availability of fat pipes. They're cheap in the US and parts of Europe and Asia, but try getting a reliable circuit in South Africa...
Why aren't more people using SpeakFreely? (Score:2)
It is a marvelously solid and robust package, supports 4 types of compression [even one which allows robust [4 duplicates of every packet] communication over a standard POTS 33.6 modem (albeit at less then ideal fidelity)], as well as GSM compression [at a mere 1.5KB/sec], which I find delivers notably better fidelity then your normal telephone link! [Maybe this is just a matter of the higher quality analog-to-digitial converters in modern sound cards plus better mics then normal phones]
It is available, under a BSD style license, for download at this site [full source] [fourmilab.ch]
Best of all [or pehaps not, depending on your degree of elitism] it is also available for windoze [speakfreely.org]... which, although I hate to think of another example of the win32 world enjoying the fruits of hardcore unix ingenuity and altruism [they even slapped a bloody GUI on the thing for the win32 version...sigh...], nonetheless is cool because they interoperate.
This means that other less CSCI friends/aquantainences of mine can download it and talk to me for free. I doubt I could convince them that "well, you just need to install a copy of linux on your system to use this amazing product, come on, it's easy enough, I'll talk you through it!" heh [PS. not saying linux is hard to install at all, but it is for those people whose VCR's are still blinking 12:00]
An amazing program. Enjoy saving lots of money!
P.S. Did I mention that it also natively supports high-grade encryption for all conversations?
P.S. I am in no way affiliated with the fine group that has developed speakfreely. I just think that the program rocks.
---
man sig
Re:Now I'm probably missing something, but... (Score:2)
Higher priority traffic has to be marked as such and jumps the queue over non high priority traffic. Your payment for your IP service will include a certain amount of high priority traffic. You'll pay more for more high priority traffic.
Re:Is it possible (Score:2)
What's that? You want to use TCP instead? Sure go ahead. But then your connection breaks up much more often. You get what you pay for. Your call.
Re:Is it possible (Score:2)
If all packets are high priority or if enough of them are high priority then the system screws up.
Yours and everyone elses VOIP experience then sucks. The telco then get out the packet police and subtly adjust your feed with bolt cutters.
Of course if you actually follow the rules your telco will probably give you 24*7 VOIP for free anyway if they've got any sense.
The thumb screws come out if you try to run gigabyte ftp downloads with high priority traffic or something.
Re:Actually it makes some kind of sense. (Score:2)
Don't forget there's a lot of pent up bandwidth demand out there- web is the least of it- video on demand...
As for 'no' tarrif. Wrong. You've just got a flat rate tarrif now; that's all.
Re:It doesn't need to be higher priority (Score:2)
Re:Is it possible (Score:2)
You don't HAVE to do that of course, but you'd probably want to, you'd get consistently better links than you do at the moment.
Re:UDP is used for many things, not just VOIP (Score:2)
The thing they're trying to stop is you marking ALL your packets as gotta-get-there-right-now-or-the-world-ends. Unless there's a significant disincentive- right now there's little to stop it.
Actually it makes some kind of sense. (Score:3)
One of the problems with VOIP is that it needs to be higher priority traffic than normal traffic- it pretty much needs guaranteed bandwidth. The problem is that we probably can't have ALL the bandwidth on the internet being high priority.
Therefore having a higher tarrif for higher priority traffic probably is the way to go.
(Some scheme like a free number of packets per month might work too...)
Still, even in the short run the amount of bandwidth we get on the internet is going to be pretty high. More than 24 hours 7 days a week free voice bandwidth isn't an unreasonable demand for us to make.
Re:It is not possible. (Score:3)
Voice/Video maskerading as Data isn't the ultimate problem. They get worse service, but they pay less so who cares? If its ok with them, then who are you to complain?
Data maskerading as Voice/Video IS the problem... they get better service but everyone else suffers.
UDP packets can blithely ignore all the anticongestion techniques that TCP uses. Everyone else gets screwed but you get reasonably good service...
Telcos not the only ones building infrastructure (Score:2)
If I can bypass the telco network completely, no regulation should take place.
Oh, and don't feel too bad for the telcos - wiring up the US wasn't exacltly a sacrifice play for them. They raked in billions upon billions in profits after all the infrastructure costs had been met. I'm sorry that copper's obsolete, but hey, thats business. We don't owe them anything.
Pay per packet is coming for consumers. (Score:2)
Why? Because ultimately, providing bandwidth is a sucker's deal - look at the glut in dark fiber, look at the oncoming glut in submarine fiber.
The actual cost per bit is rapidly approaching zero - without a metering system, however artificial, none of these companies will be able to stay in business.
Re:There is no such thing as a free lunch. (Score:2)
VoIP would also open up the market for voice service, breaking the stranglehold that most local telcos have on the pricing. Remember, competition is a Good Thing(TM).
Finally, if the telcos want to keep their voice business, they damn well better adapt to changing market conditions introduced by VoIP. It's not the role of the government to provide welfare for the telco industry through illogical regulations such as this, and I hope it doesn't turn out like this in the U.S.
Re:Pirstocity Fostesque (Score:2)
rural charges of $120 a month for basic service
911 calls billed at $20
"This voice mail brought to you by Blockbuster, rent Die Hard 27 and get a free 500ml Pepsi..."
Like it or not, telephones are an essential service. The only way to ensure that they stay as such is via regulation.
In Alberta, our notoriously right wing government has initiated a program of mind-blowing foresight (foresight, btw, is a rare quality in the Klein regime) and will be subsidizing the installation of province-wide, rate-regulated broadband net access. They're taking the same model that gave us phone saturation and applying it to the internet.
Some thing is being forgotten. (Score:2)
The phone companies received major tax cuts and revenue from the federal government (in the US, at least) for the running of such telephone lines to not only major cities, but to rural areas, where the cost of running such lines far outweighed any amount they might pick up in the distant future.
Once a signal decides to go overseas, the majority of large fiber optic cables capable of carrying national sized traffic were run by the U.S. Navy, and, up to a few years ago, were only "leased" from the US government.
The telecommunications network is controlled by the federal government, in that it can be shut down at the drop of a hat due to national emergencies. The telephone companies also receive large subsidies for this.
All this comes to a certain, specific point. Since the US government hands out these subsidies, and lines to the companies, those lines are in the public trust. Taxes paid to support the running of the fiber optic cables, and subsidizing of telephone companies mean that any tax the phone company can think of, we have already paid.
krystal_blade
Re:Actually it makes some kind of sense. (Score:2)
While this is true, technology has been improving a lot. This is a technical problem you are speaking about, not a problem of laws. Perhaps improving the way TCP/IP works, or finding another protocol that would work better could work. Perhaps finding ways to increase bandwidth even more is also part of the solution.
Therefore having a higher tarrif for higher priority traffic probably is the way to go. (Some scheme like a free number of packets per month might work too...)
In the words of the Grinch. "Wrong-o."
Sorry, I had to say that. :oD Anyways, first of all there is no tarrif for any traffic right now. Second, we pay for a connection. If I get a 56k modem connection from my ISP, the fastest I can connect is 53k but lets just say 56. What it means is that while I am connected through them, I can use that bandwidth. They are already making money off of it, because noone (except a few /. readers) leave their modems connected every day of the month, and use up all of the bandwidth they possibly could all the time. Sure, with DSL and cable modems you are connected constantly, but you rarely are using all the bandwidth allotted to you. So, what you are paying for in the case of a modem is 1) phone access and 2) ISP. With DSL or cable you are still paying for the ISP, but with that rate also comes the network access in the place of the phone. However, in the DSL example, you are still, even if indirectly, paying the phone company.
The point is, the local phone companies are being paid. AT&T and MCI is not being paid for your long distance, but as they are also ISP's and also have some internet infrastructure already being paid for by ISP's, then I would say it is safe to say they are making a profit, even if you are not the one paying for it. There's no need for the government to intercede, at least in the U.S.
isn't a matter of should, but when (Score:4)
Without regulation, businesses always manage to stomp on the consumer -- but the laws going through congress are doing the consumer more harm than good. Voice over IP, even between private parties will fall under the same regulations a telephones, and then we see all sorts of problems with the government stepping in so we can't avoid paying AT&T or Sprint their nickel a minute.
It is already controlled (Score:2)
Re:WTF is a Telco anyway? (Score:2)
Very good, I agree with your general premise. I don't think Telco's deserve special protection from innovators...
But you say:
But charging by the minute and/or by the bytes is just a form of burst/commited bandwidth and quality-of-service...
The key point is "quality of service".
If you have an always-on, commited, full bandwidth, for a fixed (buy very high) fee, you're essentially charged by the minute AND by the megabyte, whether you use them or not. But that's the price you pay for the highest quality-of-service.
If, OTOH, you're "unlimited" access is aggregated with 100+ webhogs in your neighborhood, and has an uptime of only 92%, you'll probably pay a much lower fee for your "minute" or "bytes". In exchange, you're accepting a much lower quality-of-service.
From an information-transport perspective, a telephone line is fundamentally no different from a wireless network or a fiber-optic drop -- it offers a certain amount of bandwidth and quality-of-service -- in the absence of artificial barriers (monopolies), the price should rise/drop to reflect this.
Re:There is no such thing as a free lunch. (Score:5)
Wait just a sec. You contract with the telco for phone service for a unlimited use rate. It's a contract, with both sides agreeing.
Now that some users decide to take the telco's at their word and really use the lines in an unlimited manner, and the telco realizes, "Uh oh, when we said 'unlimited' we didn't really think they would actually use it that much" and decides to change their contracts, you defend them because they are "losing out unfairly"?
What's unfair? Unlimited means unlimited. If you go to a restaurant that advertises unlimited buffet dinner for a certain price, and you keep going back for seconds, and the manager finally kicks you out, do you defend the manager because they were "losing out unfairly"?
Sorry, they made a bet about consumer behavior and lost the bet. Nothing unfair about it, just short-sighted on the telco's part.
________________
The Real Reasons (Score:2)
I think most people here seem to be missing the real reasons that telecoms companies are keen to curb VOIP. It has nothing to do with interconnection, and while it does have everything to do with control and profit, you're getting the wrong end of the stick.
Almost all telecoms companies make profit exclusively on long distance communication. Local comms are expensive to maintain and low profit - in fact sometimes they are even free and therefore generate no revenue.
VOIP is an effective means of circumventing the long distance revenue stream - cut all long distance traffic down to data only by encapsulating voice and fax in IP, and you bring a telecomms company to its knees.
Now while I like the idea of telecomms companies in a compromising position, I have a serious problem with the idea of having my local phone call costs increased because the company cannot break even when its long distance lines aren't being used. Its either they (long distance) carry us, or we (local call to ISP) carry them. I prefer the formed. So do you.
As for the technical "it can/can't be done" argument - there is no way to prevent such technology (VOIP) from being used. By telecomms companies can limit it. The vast majority of 'people out there' are scared of words like "illegal", and a sufficient awareness campaign will have them cowering and running "VOIP insta-remove" programs on their computers without a second thought. The minority that 'abuse the system' and slip through the cracks aren't going to break the profit margins.
Re:Is it possible (Score:2)
Re:Yes, of course it should be regulated (Score:3)
Pirstocity Fostesque (Score:2)
The Market. Is. Supposed. To. Reward. Cheapness. and. Innovation.
This does not. Regulations like this hamper efficiency.
and these people call themselves liberals?
I Don't See... (Score:2)
V Over IP is the END of the Internet (Score:2)