Slashdot Mirror
Why VoIP Makes Telecom Regulations Irrelevant
An anonymous reader writes "BusinessWeek Online analyzes why state and federal regulators' attempts to label VoIP (Voice over Internet Protocol) a "telecommunications service" is wrong - and threatens to undermine the technology. It quotes Vint Cerf as saying: 'To single out VoIP as a telephone service is a terrible misunderstanding of the Internet industry. I would submit that, someday, the phrase Internet telephony will sound as archaic as 'horseless carriage' sounds today.'" We've also recently discussed Vonage's attempts to fight telecom regulation in Minnesota.
This argument is crap.
I have reliably telephone service, even during power failures: my cellphone uses a battery. It also has 911 service, and it goes way beyond crappy POTS E-911: it has GPS and tells them where I'm located, whether I'm at home or in the middle of the desert.
Why would I need "guaranteed availability" of service, when competition between cell service providers is providing me with service and far better than the "reasonable" rates of POTS? (i.e. why should I pay $25/month for an old-fashioned landline, not including long distance charges, when I pay only $45/month for a celphone plus unlimited long distance calling?)
And lastly, I really don't care about people on farms and in slums. People in slums are well within range of cell towers, and if they can afford $25 for a landline, they can also afford $45 for a cellphone (or less; there's cheaper plans available). As for people in rural areas, too fscking bad. People have been moving to urban areas for hundreds of years because it's more efficient than trying to do it all yourself out in the boonies. It's supposed to cost more to live in a rural area. Those of us smart enough to move to cities have no responsibility to subsidize the idiots still living in rural areas. And aside from that, many rural areas have cell coverage anyway.
Face it, POTS telephone service is a dinosaur, and needs to die.