Slashdot Mirror
Customer-owned Networks: ZapMail & Telecoms
sasha writes "Here's a good article that describes how we, the consumers, can play the role of competitors to the vendors of products and services we buy. The author draws a parallel between FedEx's ZapMail failure and current situation with VoIP and WiFi in regard to the phone companies."
The problem with communications technologies is that there is a monopoly in the industry. Well perhaps not a monoply, but certainly an oligopy. How many phone companies can you name off the top of your head? 5? How about ISPs? Communications aren't advancing at the pace of technology because none of these capitalists want to give up their precious money.
Perhaps that's why we don't have wireless internet access everywhere in the U.S. or why cars still run on non-renewable resources even though there are safe, clean, easy-to-produce alternatives. Companies which fill our cars with gas, provide us with barely stable internet access, and manufacture paper take advantage of public ignorance so much that "we are literally wiping our ass with our own future," as a great man once said.
You're right, I wouldn't steal a car. But if it were possible, I sure as hell would download one!
Damn, that doesn't rhyme at all...
I see biggest stumbling block to be the complete lack of 911 service when using a VoIP service like Vontage. Sure, these systems are a pretty nice replacement for your long distance provider if you spend a lot on long distance, but don't fool yourself into thinking that this is a decent replacement for a local land-line just yet. You are better off using your wireless phone instead.
I would hope that someday soon, VoIP systems like this and 911 would play nicely together, but I don't see that happening unless some three-letter governement agency steps in and mandates it.
"Tomorrow's forecast: a few sprinkles of genius with a chance of doom!" - Stewie Griffin
A. VOIP isn't that simple. Not yet. I can't buy anything at Wal-Mart and plug it into the wall. Until it's that easy, people won't do it.
B. You need broadband. Broadband is far from ubiquitous, and will probably remain so for a good while until customers (such as myself) see a real need for it.
C. My options now are to pay $50/month for broadband plus some amount for software and hardware, or pay $25/month for phone service plus $5 for a phone.
D. VOIP is moot as cell phones are becoming increasingly better and cheaper. I can call anyone in the country from anywhere in the country as part of the minutes I buy every month. Why would I want to step backwards to be tied down to a land line (ie: Net connection)? I don't.
"The creation of the fax network was the first time this happened, but it won't be the last. WiFi hubs and VoIP adapters allow the users to build out the edges of the network without needing to ask the phone companies for either help or permission. Thanks to the move from analog to digital networks, the telephone companies' most significant competition is now their customers, because if the customer can buy a simple device that makes wireless connectivity or IP phone calls possible, then anything the phone companies offer by way of competition is nothing more than the latest version of ZapMail. "
The entire article makes a lot of assumptions most of which make no sense. But this paragraph being the most ridiculous IMO. There is a reason why products like Lindows is doin well. Mainly the majority of users on the internet don't know how/care to know how or want to do most of these things them selves to get online. This in no way compaers to zapmail. The alterantive was a very easy soloution and it was hardware only. Many people don't want to have to setup hardware and software to get a service. They want it commeing from the OEMs ready to go. The fax machine was a simple matter of pluging it into the wall. WiFi is all that simple (maybe to some). A horrible comparison and overall FUD aimed at Telcos that won't work.
Zapmail failed because the users were able to sidestep the service provider (FedEx) by connecting directly to the network, for the cost of the fax machine. In essence, FedEx put themselves in as a middleman with zero added value.
The author then states that wireless ISP's are making the same mistake, except that wireless ISP's aren't targeting the home users who can already get cable: They are targetting users where deploying a traditional wireless connect would be impossible, like rural areas, or rest areas where the users don't own the property where they want to use wireless internet.
Also, he makes a similiar mistake with the traditional arguments about the value of VoIP.... except that the telephone monopolies most certainly offer a couple must-have value-added features, such as a centralized telephone number database and the handling of the last-mile wiring + service in one contract.
ZipMail failed because they offered no value as a middleman. This argument doesn't apply to most wireless ISP's or telephone monopolies.
that's just not true. The $$$ they get from you using voip are much less than the fees and $$$ you pay for a land line.
Your "idiots in a smoke filled room" fits well -- they are trying to figure out how to screw the other large phone and telecom companies and get all the available money for themselves, while making it illegal for anyone else to play.
in short -- it moves your service from Column A to Column B MINUS the amount that VoIP corp X gets and MINUS the voicemail, wiring plan fee, etc. that they get to charge now.
I think the big players would much rather keep things as they have been instead of jumping into the voip world.
There are a number of countries (I can only think of South Africa as an example right now) that have banned VoIP and are forcing the ISPs to comply.
This has been done purely to protect the phone companies. With enough lobbying that can happen anywhere.
Depends on how you look at it.
I don't know for sure, but I bet if you add up the total bandwidth and figure the percent run over fiber, the amount of fiber is use is huge.
I know we have fiber coming into the worksite. Three of them...
But then again, some statistics are meaningless...
The problem here is how the companies have their service plans written. In most cases (except Speakeasy I believe), it's expressly forbidden to share your connection with anyone!...Call this an "anti-terrorism" move or just simple protection of their markets. Either way, they have legislated their own protection.
If you have broadband, please examine your "acceptable use policy" for this type of language. With the pending handout to the phone companies (so that they can keep up with the Jones' over in the cable camp), I expect even further clamping of total bandwidth, types of bandwidth (i.e. peer-2-peer) and how you may use what's left.
That's where FedEx didn't have control...If they could have gone to Washington with the idea that "FAX owners are possible terrorists," they could have blocked the individual ownership of FAX machines through legislation...and ZapMail might be all we know now! FedEx also didn't have control of what the public can attach to their phone circuits....the phone company does have some level of control over that.
Simply put, the phone companies are in a much stronger position to protect their markets with anti-competitive language and policies. I don't expect them to "go easily into that good night." I expect that there will be quite a struggle coming up....expect all the legal manuvers, engineered incompatabilities and FUD that we've seen from the RIAA/MPAA and more.....They didn't get to be monopolies by being nice, they'll do whatever it takes to maintain that position.
For now, someone (telco, cable company, etc.) owns the 'last mile' of the circuit. My ISP tells me that about 2/3 of my monthly DSL bill goes direct to the ILEC (telco). They get 1/3 to fill the line with Internet. That means that they get 17 bucks a month out of the 50 and the telco gets 34 just for providing the last mile. To add insult to injury, to get ADSL I must also have an analog telephone line, (at 20 bucks a month) which means that the telco actually gets paid TWICE for the last mile.
It seems to me that the telco's are committing highway robbery. They're getting over 50 bucks a month for providing a single copper pair about five blocks. Cable's pricing is no better, and all the cable companies are capping upload limits which limits your ability to use VOIP (the reason is clear here too; cable wants to charge you for THEIR OWN VOIP).
Seems to me that a community could make a small fortune by running fiber and charging even half what the telco's and cable companies charge for that last mile.
Finally, I have Vonage VOIP service. Had it for over a year now and I love it. I use it with DSL.
My wife talks to her mother over 10 hours a week. I call all my friends and my kids constantly. The bill is always the same: 39.99 plus tax. Also, their international calls sound better then AT&T and you can't beat calling most of Europe for 5 cents a minute. Plus it's great having a 617 (downtown Boston) incoming phone number that is a local call for all my friends there, yet rings at my condo in Los Angeles.
It looks like the Vonage boxes have the direct dial number tied to the box. It's like a mobile phone in that respect, except the boxes hook onto a public infrastructure (TCP/IP), which means you can pay $40 to Vonage to have a phone number in the 310 area code (Los Angeles), even though you might physically be in some place like China (assuming you have broadband there.)
You could put together a DIY call center on the cheap - get a business number, have it set to forward to a set of 310 numbers, get a dozen Vonage boxes, put them in some place where labor and broadband are cheap (someplace in midwest Canada?), and there ya go! Local customer calls 310 number, local teleco forwards to the Vonage number, Vonage rings the box, which is NOT in LA, and there ya go!
Hmmm, even cooler. Take the box with you on vacation - as long as you can get TCP/IP, you won't have to mess with phone or message forwarding. Damn, this is one way to have a portable number, even if the local telco won't let you have one (even though by state law they're supposed to!!!)
I keep seeing people saying this as being a stumbling block to voip. I don't really understand though, is not having 911 that big of a deal? The town I grew up in didn't have it till the mid 90s and we managed to survive OK. Also, unless I am mistaken, 911 is typically linked to a regular local number. So you can just program that number into a speed dial function of your phone. While the 911 operator won't be able to pull up an address, the same is true of cell phones and I know plenty of people that have replaced their land lines with cells.
Why can't VoIP service operator give it's info to 911 same as the bell does?
And BTW, the new cell phones are now getting the "E911" service, that will triangulate your signal if you dial 911.
-Em
RelevantElephants: A Somatic WebComic...
The true worries are that:
:P ) then pay someone like Vonage (who serves relatively small pockets of the US thus far (at least if you want your number to be local...) another $40 smackers!
a.) the user of a "phone" can't be located (this is being solved using triangulation or GPS with cellular, but doing a network audit to find the ethernet port someone is plugged into doesn't make sense in the wireline world)
and b.) The phone won't necessarily have power in an emergency situation. Today's phones (aside from cordless) are powered from the CO and hence a power outage in the customer premise doesn't cut off the customer calling for help.
As well, Tell me how it makes sense for any more than say 5-10% of the population (really... what's broadband penetration at?)to go out and plunk down $40-50 US (us Canucks don't pay as much...
Right.. if I'm grandma, uncle Ted, or mom&dad I'll stick with my $30 Baby Bell line...
Over-exposed schoolgirl victim of high-tech bullying See what trouble camera cell-phones can be?
This article seems to not appreciate one minor issue. Most people get their Internet from either the cable company or the phone company. Whether you attach a wifi access point at the end and use VoIP to call people, you still have to pay them to get your Internet service.
Now, let's think about this...
Your local phone company charges you say $30/month for phone service. It then charges you $50/month for internet service. You get some VoIP setup and you end up paying them only $50/month instead of the $80 you would have been paying if you also had to get your phone through them. Or perhaps you get your service through a CLEC and you pay your CLEC $50, and now your phone company is only making even less on you (possibly less than they were on the original phone service).
Ultimately this suggests that the phone companies are going to end up charging higher fees for their Internet service in order to make up for the shortfall in local phone service.
Now, let's look at your cable company because they face similar problems. Why would I pay them $50/month for TV, and $50/month for internet, when I can just buy the Internet and get TV programming off the Internet? So they end up paying for a bunch of infrastructure and risk making the same amount they've been making. AT&T has tried to bundle VoIP phone service into their cable systems, but why would you buy it from them as opposed to anybody else?
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
Disclaimer: I work for a telephone company. You can say that they're not idiots sitting in a smoke-filled conference room with no vision, but that's largely because they haven't allowed smoking in conference rooms for over a decade....
The existing telcos control accesss and they are being DEREGULATED. This would be fine if there were real competition, but there is not. "Servers" are already forbiden over cable networks - and the cable company is set to sell you phone service. Guess what, Voice over IP without paying the cable company will be obtaining service from a cable without permision and a federal offense. DSL? forget it, the local Bells have crused their competitors and also forbid "servers." The laws are against you - AOL/Time/McDonald/M$/USPO doesnt think they can get $250/month from every house in the country because the local public service commision is going to give it to them. They think they are going to get it because they have made it illegal for you to use the wires that enter your house as you please. Vontage will be screwed by all of this.
802.11 meshes may offer a solution, but I fear the rainbow efforts of IBM and others. It won't take big companies long to convince the FCC to regulate the new wireless networks. The result will be most unAmerican - an artificailly limited electronic press which runs through shared property and the air itself.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Briefly put:
1) The price of a emergent fax machines was too steep for small businesses. The prices dropped amazingly in the next four years. (In retrospect, you young'un's would say it was too slow.)
2) Faxes in 1984 were crappy as hell and most all used thermal paper with a very short lifespan. Uncle Fred was bringing 415 dpi (not 300) to the world on crisp heavy bond paper. Hot damn!
3) There actually was a discussion in 1983 about faxes being unacceptable to most trial judges in legal proceedings. (i.e. they would only allow 'real' original documents to be used in court.) Uncle Fred hoped that FedEx would be able to convince the legal community that ZapMail was absolutely, positively as good as the original and tamper proof. I don't know what specific game plan Uncle Fred had in mind, but he was a visionary when it came to ARM (Analog Rights Management). Of course, once any Tom, Dick, or Harry could get their hands on a fax machine, the stigma of duplicated documents instantly disappeared.
After 1988 I was fortunate enough to get a few lasers and a handful of DRAM from a friendly FedEx engineer, which I subsequently lost... I've been feeling bad about that for a while now.
However, because of this article I have discovered that you can buy ZapMail print engines online! Damn, I love the internet!
Zapmail was more than a fax, Zapmail was acceptable for legal purposes.
In 1984, I successfullly used Zapmail to send a check that needed to be in hand in NOW.
In 2003, next time you're at a commercial operation, ask them if they will accept a faxed check.
Zapmail was more than a fax, Zapmail was a dream come true which nothing has replaced.