Slashdot Mirror
Domain: pulver.com
Stories and comments across the archive that link to pulver.com.
Stories · 8
-
Voice Over IP Goes Global, The DNS Way
awehttam writes "A couple of geeks have setup a non-profit public DNS root designed to map phone numbers to Internet protocols. These days we're hearing lots about Skype, and Voice over IP. Asterisk - the open source PBX - is nearing its version 1.00 release, Free World Dialup has applied to run the .tel top level domain, Good old Bell's are migrating to native IP, private sector layer 2 clearing houses are exchanging bits between companies the like of Packet8, China Telecom, MIT and Harvard and even the various regulatory agencies are pondering just what to do about things. In the mean time, consumer SIP phones are dropping in price, and free and open source software is helping to drive a new generation of provide the services networks." Read on for more."You just knew the other shoe had to drop. E164.org let's people register their existing phone numbers, and aim various services including VoIP towards a URL on the Internet. Now you can have your calls sent to your Free World Dialup account, or routed to your home Asterisk PBX instead, possibly where you have a $20 card attached to your phone line letting you make and receive calls through both your regular phone line and the Internet. E164.org isn't just about VoIP though, it can also map phone numbers to Email addresses, Instant Messager URL's, or any other protocol that fits in the "foo://bar" scheme of the 'net. :)"
-
FCC Rules On Pulver Free World Dialup
An anonymous reader writes " Light Reading is reporting that the verdict is in on Pulver's FWD. 'The first big decision was a victory for VoIP proponents. The commission ruled that Pulver.com's Free World Dialup VOIP service is an information service, not a telecommunications service. The decision was based largely on the analysis that it doesn't fit the 1996 Telecom Act's definition of a telecommunications service.' To me this was a no-brainer on the part of the FCC. Let's see if they get the rest right too." -
Speak Up On FCC VoIP Regulation
jeffpulver writes "Speak now or forever hold your peace. The FCC will decide whether or not to regulate Internet Telephony in the U.S. over the next several months. On February 5th I filed a petition with the FCC on behalf of Free World Dialup, asking for a Declaratory Ruling that states that Broadband Internet Telephony which doesn't touch the public switched telephone network (PSTN) should not be ruled as either "Telecommunications" or as a "Telecommunications Service" as defined by the Telecom Act of 1996. On February 14th the FCC put the pulver.com petition out for public comment. The public has until March 14th to respond." This is an important issue -- read on below for some more information on the background and significance of the present petition. A copy of the original petition is posted here. [1.5 MB pdf file]Back in March, 1996 the ACTA Petition was filed which in effect asked for the internet telephony software companies selling to consumers to be treated to the same regulations as phone companies. While the FCC never ruled on ACTA, the petition started to raise questions about the future regulation of Internet Telephony in the United States and around the world. Some countries were quick to ban internet telephony based on the out of control hype that existed back in the Spring of 1996 while many other countries took a "wait and see" approach.
The pulver.com Petition is in many ways the exact opposite of the ACTA petition insomuch what I was asking for is that end-to-end Internet Telephony over Broadband remain unregulated. After seven years of waiting, now that VoIP technologies have gone mainstream and now that consumers are once again using these technologies and now that these technologies work quite well, I wanted to remove the cloud of regulatory uncertainty when it came to VoIP and broadband Internet Telephony. My hope is that "we" as a community can encourage the FCC for fast action on the FWD petition as a way for the FCC to help encourage investment. Once the regulatory uncertainty is removed, I strongly believe investors will once again look at the VoIP industry as the hot space to invest in and encourage innovation in.
Please take advantage of the pulver.com Petition and share your comments with the FCC. Click here for details on how to reply to the petition.Please reply by March 14th."
-
Speak Up On FCC VoIP Regulation
jeffpulver writes "Speak now or forever hold your peace. The FCC will decide whether or not to regulate Internet Telephony in the U.S. over the next several months. On February 5th I filed a petition with the FCC on behalf of Free World Dialup, asking for a Declaratory Ruling that states that Broadband Internet Telephony which doesn't touch the public switched telephone network (PSTN) should not be ruled as either "Telecommunications" or as a "Telecommunications Service" as defined by the Telecom Act of 1996. On February 14th the FCC put the pulver.com petition out for public comment. The public has until March 14th to respond." This is an important issue -- read on below for some more information on the background and significance of the present petition. A copy of the original petition is posted here. [1.5 MB pdf file]Back in March, 1996 the ACTA Petition was filed which in effect asked for the internet telephony software companies selling to consumers to be treated to the same regulations as phone companies. While the FCC never ruled on ACTA, the petition started to raise questions about the future regulation of Internet Telephony in the United States and around the world. Some countries were quick to ban internet telephony based on the out of control hype that existed back in the Spring of 1996 while many other countries took a "wait and see" approach.
The pulver.com Petition is in many ways the exact opposite of the ACTA petition insomuch what I was asking for is that end-to-end Internet Telephony over Broadband remain unregulated. After seven years of waiting, now that VoIP technologies have gone mainstream and now that consumers are once again using these technologies and now that these technologies work quite well, I wanted to remove the cloud of regulatory uncertainty when it came to VoIP and broadband Internet Telephony. My hope is that "we" as a community can encourage the FCC for fast action on the FWD petition as a way for the FCC to help encourage investment. Once the regulatory uncertainty is removed, I strongly believe investors will once again look at the VoIP industry as the hot space to invest in and encourage innovation in.
Please take advantage of the pulver.com Petition and share your comments with the FCC. Click here for details on how to reply to the petition.Please reply by March 14th."
-
Speak Up On FCC VoIP Regulation
jeffpulver writes "Speak now or forever hold your peace. The FCC will decide whether or not to regulate Internet Telephony in the U.S. over the next several months. On February 5th I filed a petition with the FCC on behalf of Free World Dialup, asking for a Declaratory Ruling that states that Broadband Internet Telephony which doesn't touch the public switched telephone network (PSTN) should not be ruled as either "Telecommunications" or as a "Telecommunications Service" as defined by the Telecom Act of 1996. On February 14th the FCC put the pulver.com petition out for public comment. The public has until March 14th to respond." This is an important issue -- read on below for some more information on the background and significance of the present petition. A copy of the original petition is posted here. [1.5 MB pdf file]Back in March, 1996 the ACTA Petition was filed which in effect asked for the internet telephony software companies selling to consumers to be treated to the same regulations as phone companies. While the FCC never ruled on ACTA, the petition started to raise questions about the future regulation of Internet Telephony in the United States and around the world. Some countries were quick to ban internet telephony based on the out of control hype that existed back in the Spring of 1996 while many other countries took a "wait and see" approach.
The pulver.com Petition is in many ways the exact opposite of the ACTA petition insomuch what I was asking for is that end-to-end Internet Telephony over Broadband remain unregulated. After seven years of waiting, now that VoIP technologies have gone mainstream and now that consumers are once again using these technologies and now that these technologies work quite well, I wanted to remove the cloud of regulatory uncertainty when it came to VoIP and broadband Internet Telephony. My hope is that "we" as a community can encourage the FCC for fast action on the FWD petition as a way for the FCC to help encourage investment. Once the regulatory uncertainty is removed, I strongly believe investors will once again look at the VoIP industry as the hot space to invest in and encourage innovation in.
Please take advantage of the pulver.com Petition and share your comments with the FCC. Click here for details on how to reply to the petition.Please reply by March 14th."
-
Get Free World Dial-Up -- With a Few Catches
maken writes: "Remember the Free World Dialup project? From their page: "In the Fall of 1995 several of us had been throwing around the idea of "patching" Internet phone to regular telephone lines in order to allow true "patching" of international phone calls over the Internet - not just for people with computers but for anybody with access to a phone... and this is how the Free World Dialup project got started. As commercial VOIP gateways became available, Free World Dialup II in 1997 was the first free network to provide a free phone to phone service to over 15 countries using commercial hardware and software." Well, they're at it again and are looking for members." It costs about a hundred bucks to become part of it (for hardware), as well as broadband access. Rather reminds of me the ambitious Bayonne Project, (about which more later). -
Bill Hints At FCC Regulation Of Voice-Over-IP?
Anonymous Coward passed along an interesting bill in the U.S. House which he says will be voted on tomorrow (Tuesday). The original H.R. 1291 limited the FCC's powers. This amendment adds language that could be interpreted to expand the FCC's jurisdiction to include voice-over-IP transmissions. This page, at least, evinces great fear over that possibility. But I don't think that's what it means. Read more...What pulver.com says is that H.R. 1291 "caves in to the Bell Companies and opens the door for the FCC to regulate and impose access charges on IP voice services." But what does the bill really say?
The original bill prohibits the FCC from taxing service providers by the minute:
"...the Commission shall not impose on any interactive computer service ... or other information service provider any access charge for the support of universal service that is based on a measure of the time that telecommunications services are used in the provision of such interactive computer service or information service."
The amendment, which is what is being protested, changes "interactive computer service or other information service provider" to "Internet access service." But the change that's causing concern is the final paragraph which was added by Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI):
"Nothing in this subsection shall preclude the Commission from imposing access charges on the providers of Internet telephone services, irrespective of the type of customer premises equipment used in connection with such services."
OK, so it's saying that this bill will not prohibit the FCC from regulating voice over IP - but since when does it have that power to begin with?
Does the bill's language give the agency that power? Does it hint that maybe in future the feds will crack down on multiplayer games with voice messaging, or PGPvoice?
Or, is it just, as one slash coder commented, "like telling the FCC they are not prohibited from taxing waffle irons" -- a silly and unnecessary piece of CYA?
I don't think it's either. I spoke with Dave Farber at the FCC, and he indicates the agency is not interested in regulating the internet. It's historically been very hands-off and there's no reason to think that will change. This pending legislation seem to be just Congress's way of saying "we're not ruling anything out" -- it doesn't mean that such regulation is on the horizon. So there's no cause for panic.
Update: CNET's story is the paranoid version; ZDnet's is a little more reasonable.
-
Bill Hints At FCC Regulation Of Voice-Over-IP?
Anonymous Coward passed along an interesting bill in the U.S. House which he says will be voted on tomorrow (Tuesday). The original H.R. 1291 limited the FCC's powers. This amendment adds language that could be interpreted to expand the FCC's jurisdiction to include voice-over-IP transmissions. This page, at least, evinces great fear over that possibility. But I don't think that's what it means. Read more...What pulver.com says is that H.R. 1291 "caves in to the Bell Companies and opens the door for the FCC to regulate and impose access charges on IP voice services." But what does the bill really say?
The original bill prohibits the FCC from taxing service providers by the minute:
"...the Commission shall not impose on any interactive computer service ... or other information service provider any access charge for the support of universal service that is based on a measure of the time that telecommunications services are used in the provision of such interactive computer service or information service."
The amendment, which is what is being protested, changes "interactive computer service or other information service provider" to "Internet access service." But the change that's causing concern is the final paragraph which was added by Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI):
"Nothing in this subsection shall preclude the Commission from imposing access charges on the providers of Internet telephone services, irrespective of the type of customer premises equipment used in connection with such services."
OK, so it's saying that this bill will not prohibit the FCC from regulating voice over IP - but since when does it have that power to begin with?
Does the bill's language give the agency that power? Does it hint that maybe in future the feds will crack down on multiplayer games with voice messaging, or PGPvoice?
Or, is it just, as one slash coder commented, "like telling the FCC they are not prohibited from taxing waffle irons" -- a silly and unnecessary piece of CYA?
I don't think it's either. I spoke with Dave Farber at the FCC, and he indicates the agency is not interested in regulating the internet. It's historically been very hands-off and there's no reason to think that will change. This pending legislation seem to be just Congress's way of saying "we're not ruling anything out" -- it doesn't mean that such regulation is on the horizon. So there's no cause for panic.
Update: CNET's story is the paranoid version; ZDnet's is a little more reasonable.