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."

Comments

Why

[Emperor Cezar]

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.

Re:Why

[isdnip]

The FCC has no intention, I am quite sure, of regulating private VoIP, or any computer-to-computer applications. They're really, really, not interested in going there. (I do this stuff for a living. I'm not a lawyer, but I do regulatory work, and often write formal Comments on FCC proceedings. So I stay on top of this sort of thing.) Theoretically, they do have a lot of authority that they do not exercise. But for the past 25 years or so, their direction has been to exercise authority to prevent monopolies from impeding progress. The Internet itself only exists, for instance, because the FCC ordered AT&T, in the 1970s, to remove a restriction on "sharing and resale" of leased line circuits.

The FCC is however interested in a number of very sticky questions that relate to VoIP. The telephone network itself is subject to fairly strict regulation, particularly the amount of money that each carrier is allowed to charge the other carriers on a given call. So when somebody in Virginia calls somebody in California over Qwest's network, how much does VZ in VA get from Q, how much does SBC in CA get from Q? Those are covered by detailed tariffs.

A local leg of an interstate call is not treated the same as a local call. The current regulatory system is based on a system of classification, and that system is obsolete. VoIP increases the pressure on it.

VoIP threatens that because it's so easy to sneak around the usual processes. The current FCC not-quite-rule (an April 1999 "Report to Congress", which is an unofficial policy statement) says that "phone to phone" VoIP calls are just plain calls, subject to the same payments as other calls. PC-to-phone calls, however, are undefined. And there are all sorts of variations. The big phone companies know it, and want to use their influence to make things go their own way. Small, rural local phone companies actually have the most to lose, because they get a much bigger share of their revenue from long distance settlements. Rural state regulators and legislators are very protective of these companies.

Re:Why

[dant]

But for the past 25 years or so, their direction has been to exercise authority to prevent monopolies from impeding progress.

May have been true once upon a time, but two words put the lie to this belief: broadcast flag.

Don't regulate them

[cosmosis]

I find it interesting that they have already decided to regulate VoIP before they have had any public hearings. Why the hasty decision? And if since they have already decided to regulate, why the public hearings then? Sounds to me as is typical of the FCC these days, that public opinion is an afterthought.

Planet P Blog

Re:VoIP

[Gherald]

Basically yes, only you pay instead of ads.

Now that the technology is gaining popularity and starting to be profitable, Uncle Sam wants to turn the beaurocrats loose.

If they rule for some kind of control over VoIP...

[LamerX]

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.

Regulation not a universal evil

[KD7JZ]

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??

Re:Regulation not a universal evil

[BoogleBoo]

A small amount of regulation can definitely be a good thing. If we didn't have car crash regulations, rest assure the big 3 would make cars even shittier than they do today. Same applies to any industry. You can't rely on a corporate entity to do anything in the buyer's interests.

Problem with regulations is the standards tend to lack in quality and never seem to be upgraded/reviewed. Back to the car example... bumpers once had a 5 mph impact standard. It's often 2.5 mph today. With today's knowledge of metals and plastics along with detailed crash data, we should be able to make cars low weight that have 50 mph impact standards. Will companies do this out of the kindness of their heart? Hell no. Don't expect the regulators to improve the standard in the next 10 years either.

Re:Regulation not a universal evil

[sploxx]

And, further thought, regulation is not the same thing as standardisation. Standardisation processes and organisations should sometimes be regulated, but standards itself should not.

(The word "regulation" here is meant as a government regulation)

Re:Regulation not a universal evil

[JInterest]

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??

Well, in a free market, VoiP companies that didn't settle on a standard that permitted people to call whom they needed to call would soon lose out to companies that did, or the technology itself would lose out to another, more open, technology.

Regulation isn't needed to promote standards. Standards tend to arise from market forces. If the FCC is getting into this, it is about control and tax revenue, not promoting uniform standards. Governments suck at uniform standards.

can they regulate?

[larry bagina]

I question whether they can regulate. Not the timeframe (don't you just love the sound of deadlines as they go whooshing by?), but constitutionally. Particularly recently since the Senate refused to block states from imposing net-access fees, and the Supreme Court has lately scoffed at "interstate commerce" as a justification for laws.

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.

Nobody learns

[The Blue Meanie]

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.

Re:VoIP

[Davak]

The same thing is keeping me from switching to VoIP that keeps me switching to cell phone only... 911 access.

When I can pick up my VoIP phone and the cops know where I am, that'll be when I switch.

I just feel better knowing my family can pick up the phone and get immediate help...

Davak

Re:Spammers and VoIP

[herrvinny]

No, it's time. Each email spam takes like what, a millisecond to send? But with VoIP, you have to deal with bandwidth (takes a lot more to send voice than text) and the time it takes to go through any obstacles. The caller has to navigate any menu system, listen to any "please leave a message at the tone" messages, etc.

VoIP regulation should not be allowed

[eyefish]

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.

Not directly related to FCC, but ...

[skaya]

(this is not directly related to the FCC matter ; but this is a long overview of the Telephone situation in France...)

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 ... 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 :-)

Do you really think the FCC will cede power?

[stox]

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.

Re:VoIP

[bastion_xx]

Kudo's on your family's safety. You might want to contact your local telco to verify the information in E911 is correct. Screw up on their end could impact response time.

I use Vonage. Although sometimes the quality is sub-par, they were able to request my # from BellSouth and have it transferred to them. Also, they, as I'm sure others do, have the ability to link your address to 911.

Personally I'd roll my own asterisk server and utlize someone like VoicePulse for incoming 800# and local access, but in the event my net connection is down, so is incoming voicemail. Vonage handles that for me and the email notification.

Anyone know of a way to use an IAX or IAX2 provider and have them handle the PSTN termination and voicemail while allowing me to connect my Asterisk server to them?

Re:Does...

[BitGeek]

The first ammendment applies to states as well.

So, since we have free speech, regulating speech over VOIP is a violation of the constitution for either states or the FCC.

Its flat out illegal / unconstitutional.

Not that anyone cares about the constitution anymore... if you aren't trying to violate the first, you're trying to violate the second, these days.

Re:VoIP

[ewieling]

There are a couple of projects that do VoIP and PSTN/VoIP types of services. The one I use is Asterisk www.asteriskpbx.org There are others Bayone comes to mind. Both are GPL'd. There are a couple of companies that do "PSTN replacement" type of services. Packet8 and Vonage come to mind. Both provide a small device that you plug into your local network and plug a phone into and you make calls just like a regular phone. There are a couple of other companies out there that do PSTN/VoIP services that are a little more technical to set up. VoicePulse has both a business class service and a consumer class of service. There's also NuFone and StealthTelecom. The URLs for most of these companies are fairly obvious. There are also companies that offer only VoIP/VoIP service, FWD (fwd.pulver.com), and IAXTel both do this.