Slashdot Mirror
FCC To Hold First VoIP Hearings; Rules in 2004
securitas writes "The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will hold its first hearings on Internet telephony and VoIP regulation on Dec. 1 and plans to regulate VoIP by late 2004. A public comment period will follow the Dec. 1 meeting. Some say that it is overly ambitious to regulate VoIP by 2004, especially since FCC Commissioner Michael Powell does not have a strong reputation for clarifying complex issues - instead he has a reputation for confounding them. More at Internet.com and InternetWeek . FCC press release (PDF1|DOC1) and attached letter (PDF2|DOC2) to VoIP proponent Senator Ron Wyden, who sits on the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee."
Is VoIP the same thing as these FREE (ad supported) PC-to-phone services which existed before the tech bubble burst?
Does this mean that states are not allowed to regulate VOIP until the FCC reaches a decision? Or does anything change at all?
Why is it the FCCs job to regulate a private internet. I can understand open airwaves that everyone controls, but the internet? I pay a private entity to connect to the internet, not the US government.
The reason for the FCC to regulate VoIP is that AT&T and friends have paid off some congressman so they won't lose thier market.
People, please vote Libertarian before we lose all of our freedoms.
Planet P Blog
www.enthea.org
If they rule for some kind of control over VoIP, then it's going to keep VoIP completely supressed, or high-priced. The local phone companies NEED some competition to make sure thier services don't get shittier and shittier, and the consumers need this to keep local phone prices low, and keep the internet free and open.
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will hold its first hearings on World Domination & Regulation on Dec. 1 and plans to regulate everything by late 2004. A public comment period will not be necessary. Some say that it is overly ambitious to regulate everything, especially since FCC Commissioner Michael Powell does not have a strong reputation for acting intelligent. More at FoxNews, the Official Channel of the US Government. FCC press release (PDF1|DOC1) and attached letter (PDF2|DOC2) to VoIP proponent Senator Ron Wyden, who shits on the Commerce, Science, Transportation, Watermelon, Bubble and Train Committee."
While I am generally in favor of free enterprise, I also do not mind a certain level of regulation. Regulation in the telephone industry is what allows you to pick up any phone, dial 10 digits and reach any other phone in the US. How would it be if you wanted to IM or VOIP your doctor and you are a Yahoo user and the doc is a AIM user??
Everyone here would laugh if the US Gov't tried to regulate ftp, http, tcp, udp, ip, etc. They have no authority over VoIP either.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
The simple fact is that if the FCC and the US Govt gets heavy-handed with regulating VoIP, it will go underground, just like file and music swapping did when they clamped down on it. VoIP is going to happen one way or another. Whether it's done rogue P2P-style, or above-board remains to be seen.
"I feel that if a person can't communicate, the very least he can do is to shut up." -- Tom Lehrer
Is it a coincidence that the FCC is now deciding to regulate VoIP in the face of IBM plans to migrate most of its phone systems by 2008?
I wonder what that means for the end user.
. shtml ?tid=95 ).
It seems clear to me that they want to regulate VoIP, because it's the same application, only the transmission medium changed.
BUT... what does that mean to the consumer(*)? Am I allowed to run my VoIP applications or are they willing to control that also (like in panama, see
http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/02/11/04/0252201
This can get just another privacy issue. Because the enforcement of thus regulations needs control of the traffic.
Are the traditional phone companies like AT&T losing? I don't think so. They are also providing internet services. They change become more an more
ISPs. They *are* ISPs. There has always been competition. Now the internet is stirring up the market a bit. So where is their problem?
Sometimes it seems that artificial problems are built up to get the public in favour of internet control (and the public is certainly there, now). Maybe not the population, but the ones that should decide for us. Maybe it's well-crafted lobbying.
(*) - Starting to hate that word. I am not only a "consumer".
VoIP seems like a great place for spammers. The cost of initiating a call will be neglible unless there is some kind of bandwidth pricing. And without a do-not-call-list for VoIP, it will be open season on VoIP users.
On the other hand, a competent VoIP client should let me easily create my own phone-menu system from hell to repel simple voice-spams and trap telemarketing call-center flunkies ("Press 1 to hear the next confusing list of menu options").
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
Call it U.S.A. 0.0.31pre3. This is slashdot.
VoIP is nothing more than an attempt by the Telcos to try to hold on to a market that is naturally sliping out of their hands.
When one thinks about it, regulating VoIP is as stupid as trying to regulate chat programs; both are simply sending packets across and both run on off-the-shelf open-standards hardware and software.
I only wish lawmakers (who are _supposed_ to represent the public) notice this and realize that consumers should not be scammed like this.
I don't doubt that if there was enough money and motivation it would be possible to detect and block VOIP packets on the public internet.
It just seems that doing so what would require sniffers at all ISPs or somewhere to analyze, detect and block VOIP information. It would seem that this kind of effort would ruin the internet.
Then again, there's lot I don't know and I might be missing something obvious ...
So does that mean that you're all for removing the regulations on the non-VoIP telcos? After all, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Somehow I doubt that the FCC will "get it" and create a regulatory framework that makes any sense.
However, there are a few good reasons for regulations. Phone service is considered a "lifeline" service. Without it, people can die ("help! I've fallen and I can't get up!"). That's why there are surcharges to support rural phone systems and keep the price down, as well as mandatory 9-1-1 regulations.
Needless to say, taxing VOIP to pay for rural phones doesn't make a lot of sense today, particularly since the rural infrastructure is already built out.
However, most VOIP services don't support 9-1-1 calling, which can be a huge problem in an emergency situation. Reliability is dependent on the underlying ISP, which can be an issue.
The problem is that any regulatory framework needs to balance the needs of the industry to *benefit* the consumer. Granted those benefits may involve a trade-off (pay an extra $10 on the VOIP hardware to support a build-out of 9-1-1 bridges), but the benefit (emergency access) is supposed to be greater than the cost.
Unfortunately, I think most in the government forget that they work for us, and are there to look out for our interests. When the balance is off (more cost than consumer benefit), you get an overly regulated, stifled industry that doesn't provide adequate (or value-added) service to the clients that are paying for the service. More often, the entrenched businesses simply get more entrenched.
I fear that this is the political environment into which the VOIP will descend. There will be more focus on the regulation and less on the value that the regulations will bring to the consumer.
and that cost money, right? I've always wondered that about VoIP. It's usually (always?) cheaper than Pots, but whose paying for the network? What I wonder is, is VoIP cheaper because telephone companies are charging too much or their networks are inefficient, or because they're piggy backing on those networks without paying all the costs of maintaining them?
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Oreo
Two paragraphs from the boardwatch website that i found interesting."
The immediate issues at hand are whether or not VOIP telephony providers should be subject to the same rules and regulations as traditional phone companies. And, if not, what kind of rules are appropriate for these providers. Key areas of debate center around whether VOIP providers must offer an E911 service, pay into the universal service fund, and enable government agencies to tap VOIP calls (known as CALEA-compliance) for homeland security purposes
Complicating the picture even further are the incumbent telecom providers that see VOIP as a giant threat to their installed business and are in no rush to see these services heralded into the mainstream. "The price of these new services is drastically cheaper, and the quality is almost as good," says Kelley Drye's Price. "It's a massive threat to the incumbents."
err, more like a brain fart with no facts, citations, or even ideas...
(this is not directly related to the FCC matter ; but this is a long overview of the Telephone situation in France...)
... So I'm eager to see how things are evolving with the FCC, to compare with what will maybe happen here in a few months/years :-)
In France, we always had a reliable, but expansive and blood-sucking telco : France Telecom. They are the only way to go for residential users who want a telephone line, and in most place, the only providers of DSL lines (there are some places where you can get Internet thru Cable TV, however).
The French ART (the Authority for Regulations of Telecommunications) however did enforce France Telecom to deploy a technical architecture to allow other ISP to join the DSL hype (to prevent monopolistic situation) ; so they did that - and people had to pay France Telecom to get DSL, and then an ISP to get Internet over their DSL line ! Two bills instead of one, great.
But there was a catch : it was France Telecom who was operating the data connection, so they could limit the bandwidth of the service, and also enforced some silly things (like a daily disconnection). So the ART pushed further, requiring France Telecom to allow other operators to put their equipments in wiring cabinets, and do whatever they want with the copper pair going to the residents, the famous local loop.
(Well, technically, they can't do whatever they want over the wire ; they only have access to the high frequencies. The voice frequencies are still operated by France Telecom, and there are filters (they call them splitters) at each end of the wire - like in regular DSL. But now, the operators can use whatever kind of DSL they like.)
So, one operator, Free (www.free.fr) decided to do funny stuff. For the price of regular DSL, they offered more bandwidth (roughly twice more) with a better ping (twice less), with a funny modem : the freebox. If you're starting to wonder what this has to do with the FCC and VoIP, here we are : the freebox, besides Ethernet connector, has RJ11 connector (for telephone), and a SCART connector (for TV). Those guys are planning to offer TV service real soon now, and they already offer telephone thru their network. Calling from a freebox user to another one is free ; and until end of 2003, calling from a freebox to anywhere in France is free, too. Calling a freebox user is low cost (local communication rate).
So, those guys are deploying an almost-free VoIP network. There must be a catch ; why are other operators not moving ? Well, not everyone can get the golden freebox. You have to be really close to the DSLAM (the telephone concentrator), and in a zone where Free did already install some hardware in the wiring closets. So, it's more like an experiment than a widely available product.
But I betcha some beers that when they go wide-scale, things are going to get messy. Because after wasting billions of euros into Orange (their GSM cellphone network), France Telecom really doesn't need someone to eat their main stream of revenue
In the VoIP regulation debate, we must remember that telcos are legislated both because they have been monopolies (or near enough), and because they are essential services. Some regulations would still apply if either status changed. Likewise, new companies that also offer the same essential services (phone calls) would require that appropriate regulation, even if they were not monopolies. The regulations protect us, telephony consumers, from the telcos, which were known to reduce service quality below necessary thresholds under market pressure. As we grow more dependent on the services, and the providers become more fleeting than ol' Ma Bell, that protection will become more important. New competition might change the market to a less monopolistic environment, obsoleting those other regulations. Let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater: telephone service is more essential and less competitive than email (for the nation, if not for us geeks ;). The service is regulated for our protection, not the fibers it runs on.
--
make install -not war
Personally, I think everyone is mis-reading this. It has nothing to do with the ILEC's and everything to do with the FCC maintaining its power base.
Most of the big players in Telecom have announced intent to carry the majority of their traffic, in the near future, over IP. No way the FCC is going to let the single biggest piece of its influence walk away.
"To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
THis is what I picture slashdorks to be like...pathetic, nerdy, and never been laid.
Not that I'm against deregulating telcos, but the difference here is that with telcos you have one choice, the one who's lines go through your land. With VoIP you can choose any VoIP provider regardless of where you live.
"We have got to make Stan understand the importance of voting, because he'll definitely vote for our guy." - South Park
Some years ago I tested VoIP and it simply sucked. It needed special hardware, headset, and was just plain annoying. But last week I tested Cisco's ATA 186, that has allows a regular phone to be connected to the network. I was astonished with the voice clarity. I called from Brazil to a branch we have in the US, and the quality was outstanding. No noticeable delay, nor echo. Of course there must be a delay (at least 87 ms, as a ping test averages 175 ms), but it's too low to notice in a regular conversation, and far smaller than in a regular international phone call.
Considering the company I work for spends about $3000/mo in int'l phone calls alone, after I showed it was cheaper and better, I was authorized to research and install it between our offices.
It's easy to connect 2 offices, but I wanted to do a little more... To allow our roaming users, from a cellular or regular phone, to call the local office and be able to reach a dial-out on the remote office, so the only chargeable phone calls would be local area ones.
Problem is: I have no idea of what equipment I should buy for this task. It'd be nice if the caller would be asked a pin#, and we'd be able to print a report of the calls later. The number of lines will be small, about 3 or 4. The equipment must be available in the US. Any tips ?
-
Roses are #FF0000, Violets are #0000FF, find / -name '*base*' |xargs chown -R us && mv zig greatjustice
VoIP doesn't need federal regulation. Being TCP/IP based, it fits naturally into the loose management model that serves the Internet so well.
If it ends up being so overregulated as telephone system, it will eventually raise the operational cost of VoIP so much that it eliminates the primary incentive of switching to VoIP -- cost.
Killing a promising technology at its infancy, smart move.
Jesus mother of fuck, Pvt. First Class Jessica Lynch took it up the ass for our freedom, and all you can do is go on and on about VoIP hearings?? Folks, there are terrorists lurking at the ivory gates of the USA with smelly dishrags on their heads and box cutters in hand, and it doesn't help matters to lock yourselves away from your duty to defend this great land of freedom. Fuck!
The FCC doesn't care if you use pc-to-pc VOIP. All it cares about regulating is what goes through the POTS, Public Operated Telephone System (I think). This system is operated and regulated by the FCC in order to insure compatability between all the systems and quality in phone calling. I think it's pretty reasonable that they should be allowed to set regulations and quality standards for technologies that access this system. Among other things it prevents are the systems becoming hopelessly flooded and unreliable.
What bothers me about this is that it could make the internet open to being much much more restricted. Would video games that have built in VOIP now have to be able to dial a net 911? "That Fsking haxor is using a bot!!! arrest that 1337ass biatch!!" Would open source VOIP projects be canceled because they would have to register and pay a fee (though in net terms, that generally means it gets packed up and distributed from another part of the world so has minimized effect)? Same with free for private use ones like ventrilo. Having non-technically minded partisan people attempt to dictate technology is at best commical, and at worst scary. Of course the arguments about terrorism, drug dealing, and protecting children are going to be pushed. VOIP is way too general of a term to be considered as one technology. I doubt it will come to the point where someone who runs an encrypted voice server to talk to others across the world will have their doors knocked in by the fbi, but it could be forseable that they will get a huge bill from the FCC in their mail. Powell has so far been on of the most unconsumer friendly FCC leaders ever. His views on media consolodation and hdtv broadcasts were at a minimum shortsighted for the former and premature for the latter issue. The threat of consumers talking on the phone for way less than he thinks they should be paying is great. On the other hand, big businesses stand a ton to gain by unrestricted VOIP too. I do think there are some issues that should be addressed such as standards and spam calls. I do not think the FCC is the right body to be dealing with these issues. Probably the biggst threat to widespread adaptation of VOIP as a viable land line replacement is going to be the spam. It costs a lot of money to call someone on the phone say in the UK or USA from Nigeria and tell them to buy viagra or vicodin, not so the case with email and thus VOIP. Even if there was a fee for service model adopted, unlike land lines where if one wants to hack them they have to usually climb up a poll or do something involving wire cutters, with VOIP, the infrastructure is parked right on your computer. Hacking and spoofing will be issues too.
I had one of those tandy arm robots once. It was cool....like me
As far as being able to dial 911 - Vonage does have this option (it is an option, not a requirement) without being regulated.
In general, I think the market should dictate what consumers need/want, not the government. Startup costs for VOIP are not that huge so nobody can use the "monopoly" argument (oh - if we don't regulate this one company is going to be the only game in town).
Interest from the government in this case is understandable, only I doubt it has anything to do with making it better for us (consumers) - they simply need to ensure that other agencies are able to intercept VOIP conversations with the same ease as "regular" phone conversation and yes, they're always on the lookout for more ways to collect taxes where there shouldn't be any....Hardly a reason to cheer
As of today, Honda is number 2, Ford is number three, and Diamler Chrysler is either #4 or 5. I did not hear the words used for Toyota except they still are making the #1 car in the USA. GM is #1 of course.
put an asterisk server in each office, and you're 80% done. calling into the asterisk pbx and out to the remote asterisk is easy to setup, and you could even do access by caller-id instead of pin-code. by default, all calls are cdr logged as csv but it's possible to do it in mysql instead.
you can either use something like ata-186 (or the newer 2-port spa-2000) to connect existing analog phones to the asterisk server (or go for budgetones).
Wow, that one is easy, People can't rely on IM because US ISPs suck and that is a direct result of recent US regulatory effort. Broadband penetration is low and run by monopoly service providers who offer high prices and idiotic restrictions such as "no servers". Most people still suffer dial up, which is even less practical for IM. If the US had better ISP:
My non regulated GNU/Linux system does a great job of talking to any BSD, Mac, Unix or Windoze system without the first governemnt regulation. What was it that government regs gave you? Oh yeah, a 10 digit number you have to remember. Sure, like that never happens outside regulation - TCP/IP - caugh.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Car Company A produces shotty car. Car company A sells shotty car. Car from Company A kills family C. Family C relatives sue Car Company A. Car companies A sales go down as do their profits.
Evolution occurs
Car Company B decides to make a safe car, but ends up costing too much. They do however move the price-point up that some families are willing to spend, for safety (cough cough, VOLVO, cough cough) but still most people are using less safe (cheaper) cars of Company A. But they _know_ their cars are not as safe. They become market pressure to refine the engineering process and have Company _C_ make a safer car at a price point between Company A (cheap) and Company B (safe but expensive).
The industry Evolves.
This cycle works. It's been proven to work. The only time it doesn't work is when this BIG ASS HAND OF GOD... er government.. gets into the mix and gives companies 'protection', or tries to 'regulate' things.
There are exceptions, like when you're dealing with a natural resource (in that case it could be argued the nation owns the resource, and the business model can play from there).
It's not that complicated, read some Ayn Rand to see where we fucked it all up in the 60's and 70s.
And yes, for this model to work, some people will have to initially die. That is, bounds will be reached before the market pulls in the ends closer to our mark. The same happens todays. The government generally waits until mistakes are made to come up with recommedations (look at the gas pipeline industry).
It worked for nature, it can work for us. Let companies evolve, keep them in check with law-suits and your bottom dollar.
-Malakai
A Dragon Lives in my Garage
With VoIP, I accept the fact that I don't have a dedicated circuit, but instead share the "line." I accept that I have no gaurantees about Jitter or other sound problems due to congestion. I accept that it's very unlikely to be as reliable. (Even if Internet service is perfect a power outage in my house a failed switch, router or firewall... and there goes the phone!)
In the end I give up a lot of gaurantees and don't really save a ton of $. BUT, I'd have the broadband anyhow. And it works most of the time (nearly all of the time actually.) But, if you rely much on VoIP over the Internet, you know it isn't the same as a phone line and regular phone service.
And how are they going to define and catch VoIP use? If H323 protocol is regulated, how long before VoIP services start using XML via HTTP? Once it is encoded it's just data. What I do with data over a data network like the Internet is really my own business, especially when I'm paying access fees for this network already.
I don't think they're interested in PC-to-PC, because as you mentioned, that's simply impossible to regulate effectively.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Hohum, so if I operate a teamsound, teamspeak, ventrillo, etc server for gaming purposes does that mean I'v gotta deal with FCC regulations? VOIP is kinda really broad terminology.
I'v actually setup a ventrillo chat for my grandma/aunt/mother to talk on the computer. Far less expensive than the long distance charges and they can talk for hours with the broadband setup.
Candy-Coated Knowledge
man, all this talk about regulators makes me wanna bust out my old Warren G mp3's
making THESE decisions?
/. its probably average for the readership... do YOU know people whos' agenda it is??)! Wake up, this countrys' leaders have been overtaken by a VERY well funded super rich who have the profits of CORPORATIONS to get their views codified in regulations.
You can think what you like about G.W. Bush... the fact is he was in 2000 and is in 2003/2004 supported and more importantly FUNDED by the super rich and the corporations they control.
I dont know about you, but I would be hard pressed find the extra money to buy just one 200 dollar ticket to one of his 'fund raisers' let alone the 10 x 200 dollar tickets it would really take to attend one of his fundraisers - since they are usually $2000/plate. I dont mean to sound disrespectfull, but just how does someone this stupid (Admit it... he is no ones' idea of qualified) raise the kind of raw CASH it takes to buy an election (I dont really know what the Supreme Court costs but its more than I make, I can assure you.) Every time he speaks people throw millions of dollars at him... and I've heard him on TV, he just isnt that choc full of wisdom.
So who IS he (and his policies) worth millions of dollars too? AT&T, SBC, Microsoft, Haliburton?? You bet your ass! you think they spent millions to get him "elected" for NOTHING?? You think its a COINCIDENCE that Microsoft was 'excused' from penalty AFTER being found to be a monopoly??? You think its a coincidence the NSA scaled back any secure Linux efforts?? You think its a coincidence Michael Powell is the son of the Secretary of State??
These people have an agenda. I earn more than twice the national average FAMILY income, and I still dont know the kind of people who's agenda it IS (being
I say again... Do you want the regulation of these technologies decided by the servants of international conglomerates. If not you must investigate who does not have a financial interest in the outcome (or even better, who shares YOUR financial interest ) and decide for yourself. And I will say one thing - IT AINT THE DEMOCRATS!
When I have a channel that was mine only, for work in my company, they came down on us for swearing. Jeez people get a life. No one else could hear us unless the were snooping.
Modems CAN go faster then they do but hello: the FCC keeps us from doing so.
Free TV? There are so many bands available but they wont let that happen....
They want to regulate the Internet? Isnt that a band that they have nothing to do with?
I want to see the FCC disbanded and gone. I dont see the point of thier existence. Bye Bye.
No. Call it "North Korea." This is slashdot.
they'd support voip, why? because, at least then, you know exactly where the spammers are coming from on voip and you can block them from the service.
unlike emails, these people can be stopped here, and since voip is run by private companies, they have right to refuse service for internet telemarketing, since they're unregulated. however, if regulated, they might not have that option, if say, the govt decided to allow telemarketing on VOIP or rid of the DNC list.
this is a technology that shouldnt be touched
now, the companies who over the pc to phone connections should be charged the fee for using the telephone lines, since that's all they're doing... they're using their resources to let you call numbers through them, so only the company should be charged for telecom rates.
and if the telecoms want to preserve their industry, you know what? collaborate, get involved with voip, embrace it, use it to your gain.
that's why these companies get threatened by change, they're either not ready for it, or they're too pussy to change to it. microsoft needs to get off their high horse and start embracing the use of linux, whilst honoring the gpl (well, bad example there) telecoms need to embrace voip.. electric and oil companies need to embrace and help advacne the fuel cell, because they could make a killing off of manufacturing, distributing, or using them.
1 fuel cell can power a house.
so, really, the problem is a deep seeded human fear.. change. people fear change. but they have the power to embrace it and use it as well, something most companies wish not to do.
let's pray that someone will wake up one of these days and embrace it.
n/t
"I think all foreigners should stop interfering in the internal affairs of Iraq"
-- Paul Wolfowitz, 7/21/2003